3 ms·

The current US government nutritional guidelines call for 6-10 servings of grains per day. It is only in the last 10 years that "whole grains" (white flour with

The current US government nutritional guidelines call for 6-10 servings of grains per day. It is only in the last 10 years that "whole grains" (white flour with a little bran added back) has been added, but the glycemic index of whole grain bread is almost identical to white bread. Grains are the "foundation" of the food pyramid. We've also been told for 50 years that sugar is metabolically inert, so you "just have to worry about the calories". Sugar is a fine substitute for anything, just look at Snackwells. The message has been driven home so well that stupid things happen like a mother getting fined for packing a nutritious lunch for her daughter, but not including the all-important "Ritz" food group[1]. 1. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/daycare-gives-kids-crackers-fines-mom-for-unhealthy-lunch-1.2432039 http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/daycare-gives-kids-cr...

venomsnake 12y ago
By coincidence USG guidelines are also not science, but something that is hammered together with the permission of the food lobies.
- jerf 12y ago
  The USG guidelines have been well-founded on scientific research. If you want to argue that the USG guidelines were founded on scientific research that they (or other government branches) paid for, that they've managed to distort the resulting science to the point of destroying it, and that the whole process has been beholden to large food interests and national interests by virtue of the control of the purse strings... be my guest! It is, however, what the "science" has been for the past 50 years. There has been no other "science". Attempts to pretend otherwise are simply and straight-up revisionist history, now that real science is finally poking through and the science of the past 50 years is not looking all that good. However, it is our moral duty to not pretend that "science" has been right the past 50 years, has been telling us the same things that we are just figuring out now, and it was, just, uh... umm... very very quiet or something?
  - venomsnake 12y ago
    Has there been simple experiment - take 10000 well sampled people, put them on the guidelines diet for two years and observe the outcomes compared to the general population.
adventured 12y ago
Are you really referencing the US Government's guidelines in the process of arguing how wise our ancestors were compared to today's food science? You might as well ask Coke and McDonald's about their idea of a food pyramid. Our ancestors knew exceptionally little about food nutrition. They ate what was naturally available to them, as they had absolutely no alternative. Doing something by default because it's the only option, does not make you wise. Our ancestors were in fact ignorant about nearly anything to do with the properties of food / health / nutrition et al. And they also did incredibly stupid things because of that ignorance, history books are filled with this fact.
- SoftwareMaven 12y ago
  Every entry in the food guidelines is backed up by reams of scientific references. If the guidelines are well referenced yet can still say whatever Coke and McDonalds want, how can we call that science?
  - dragonwriter 12y ago
    > Every entry in the food guidelines is backed up by reams of scientific references. Just because something references science doesn't mean its well grounded in it. > If the guidelines are well referenced yet can still say whatever Coke and McDonalds want, how can we call that science? We can't. That's the point -- evaluating the merits of science by looking to policy that references but does not reflect science is invalid on its face.
- MisterBastahrd 12y ago
  Yes, they ate what was available to them. For generations upon generations. Those who survived were usually the ones whose bodies could thrive on that diet. The mankind of today are descendants of those people, with their genetics. So while the idea of a "paleo" lifestyle might be a bit too simplistic, it's vastly better than the USG's current guidelines. If you could just remove refined sugars, starches, and fruit juices from the food pyramid, that'd be a fantastic start. Their negatives vastly outweigh their positives. Whole, unadulterated food products seem to be the way to go.
dragonwriter 12y ago
> The current US government nutritional guidelines call for 6-10 servings of grains per day. US government policy and science aren't exactly the same thing.

venomsnake 12y ago

By coincidence USG guidelines are also not science, but something that is hammered together with the permission of the food lobies.

jerf 12y ago
The USG guidelines have been well-founded on scientific research. If you want to argue that the USG guidelines were founded on scientific research that they (or other government branches) paid for, that they've managed to distort the resulting science to the point of destroying it, and that the whole process has been beholden to large food interests and national interests by virtue of the control of the purse strings... be my guest! It is, however, what the "science" has been for the past 50 years. There has been no other "science". Attempts to pretend otherwise are simply and straight-up revisionist history, now that real science is finally poking through and the science of the past 50 years is not looking all that good. However, it is our moral duty to not pretend that "science" has been right the past 50 years, has been telling us the same things that we are just figuring out now, and it was, just, uh... umm... very very quiet or something?
- venomsnake 12y ago
  Has there been simple experiment - take 10000 well sampled people, put them on the guidelines diet for two years and observe the outcomes compared to the general population.

adventured 12y ago

Are you really referencing the US Government's guidelines in the process of arguing how wise our ancestors were compared to today's food science? You might as well ask Coke and McDonald's about their idea of a food pyramid. Our ancestors knew exceptionally little about food nutrition. They ate what was naturally available to them, as they had absolutely no alternative. Doing something by default because it's the only option, does not make you wise. Our ancestors were in fact ignorant about nearly anything to do with the properties of food / health / nutrition et al. And they also did incredibly stupid things because of that ignorance, history books are filled with this fact.

SoftwareMaven 12y ago
Every entry in the food guidelines is backed up by reams of scientific references. If the guidelines are well referenced yet can still say whatever Coke and McDonalds want, how can we call that science?
- dragonwriter 12y ago
  > Every entry in the food guidelines is backed up by reams of scientific references. Just because something references science doesn't mean its well grounded in it. > If the guidelines are well referenced yet can still say whatever Coke and McDonalds want, how can we call that science? We can't. That's the point -- evaluating the merits of science by looking to policy that references but does not reflect science is invalid on its face.
MisterBastahrd 12y ago
Yes, they ate what was available to them. For generations upon generations. Those who survived were usually the ones whose bodies could thrive on that diet. The mankind of today are descendants of those people, with their genetics. So while the idea of a "paleo" lifestyle might be a bit too simplistic, it's vastly better than the USG's current guidelines. If you could just remove refined sugars, starches, and fruit juices from the food pyramid, that'd be a fantastic start. Their negatives vastly outweigh their positives. Whole, unadulterated food products seem to be the way to go.

dragonwriter 12y ago

> The current US government nutritional guidelines call for 6-10 servings of grains per day. US government policy and science aren't exactly the same thing.