7 ms·

The 2015 US Dietary Guidelines: Lifting the Ban on Total Dietary Fat

40 points by brown-dragon 11y ago

kazinator 11y ago
> In the new DGAC report, one widely noticed revision was the elimination of dietary cholesterol as a "nutrient of concern". This surprised the public [...] Not any public that hasn't had its head up its ass with no internet access therein for the past decade or two.
- stormbrew 11y ago
  Unfortunately, unless you define "head up your ass" as "listening to any other people, including probably your doctor," this is definitely not true. Most otherwise rational and well informed people still seem to be under the impression that all fat is bad.
  - avz 11y ago
    Never met any such rational and well informed people. How could all fat possibly be bad? Cellular and organellar membranes all over the human body (and any other organism on this planet) are built from fat [1]. These membranes conduct neural signals, release and respond to hormones, participate in immune response and facilitate all types of metabolism by enabling cell and organellum compartmentalization. Some of the fatty acids necessary for these functions are not even produced by the human body [2] and therefore must be ingested. I think the real question people ask is not about whether fat is bad or not, but about the benefits and risks of relative proportions of fat and other nutrients. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cell_membrane https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cell_membrane [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essential_fatty_acid https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essential_fatty_acid
    - kazinator 11y ago
      stormbrew did say "otherwise rational and well-informed". I.e. not rational or informed in this particular matter.
  - kazinator 11y ago
    Okay, s/ass/"collective ass"/. :)
personjerry 11y ago
So, supposedly these guidelines looked out for your health, but given that so many of their "findings" have been overturned, then they've basically been giving advice that actually hindered peoples' health, and so one might understand that they've actually been harmful! This might lead one to question the validity of other government suggestions. Or even policies. Maybe that's too far. Nonetheless, I think this raises serious questions as to how much faith we can put even into the government, even their "scientific" findings.
- tptacek 11y ago
  Stupid scientists with their stupid science that isn't alway right.
  - dpeck 11y ago
    I think the problem for is a lot of it wasn't science driven, was more economic/ag policy driving waves hands science.
    - tptacek 11y ago
      You seriously think ag policy created the food pyramid? It wasn't just the government promoting the idea that people needed to limit salt and fat.
      - pessimizer 11y ago
        >You seriously think ag policy created the food pyramid? Yes.
      - dpeck 11y ago
        I think things that government agencies do don't happen in a vacuum. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/diet/themes/pyramid.html http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/diet/themes/py...
- jakobegger 11y ago
tantalor 11y ago
What does "lifting the ban" mean? What is currently banned?
- Laforet 11y ago
  Currently the recommendation is that fat should not exceed 35% of total calorific intake. And the proposal seeks to do away with the cap. Edit: added some clarifications
  - tantalor 11y ago
    I don't see how that is a ban.
    - GordonS 11y ago
      OK, it might not be a 'ban' in strict grammatical terms, but the implication is clear. Because of these guidelines many people have treated any dietary fat as taboo. I certainly counted myself among them. Decades of advice and ad campaigns from the government will do that. I believe these guidelines and associated ad campaigns (and many like them in other countries such as the UK) have actually led to people 'learning' to find fat completely distasteful, so I think it will be some time before there is a significant change in eating habits.
shanev 11y ago
As someone who's been paleo for over 6 years, this makes me very happy. I believe the paleo community had a lot to do with raising awareness of beneficial fats, promoting pasture-raised meat, and coconut oil and butter over industrial seed oils like canola.
- DiabloD3 11y ago
  Thanks to Paleo, I went from 340 pounds to 214 in exactly one year, and I'm now down to 190. People who've been part of Paleo already know the FDA avoids science as long as possible as not to piss off large Congressional lobbying groups. I expect to get downvoted, and honestly, I don't care. Downvoting doesn't change the fact I lost all this weight by purposely ignoring the FDA's recommendations.
  - Laforet 11y ago
    Notwithstanding the "fat-free everything" fad, the best epidermiological data we have so far suggest that fat consumption is highly correlated with coronary heart disease and all sorts of late-life complications. This could be wrong or out-dated, but FDA is only acting on the mainsteam scientific opinion that fat should be limited in a typical diet. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/o/cochrane/clcentral/articles/216/CN-00133216/frame.html http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/o/cochrane/clcentral/articles... USDA, on the other hand, has been deeply troubled by the public's distaste of fat as they have an obligation is keep dairy farmers afloat. To this day they have been trying all sorts of things to promote fat consumption without much thought to the health consequences. South Park touched on the subject in the episode "Gluten Free Ebola", but I guess most people missed that point. New York Times have done a good article explaining the economic and politics between the FDA-USDA feud. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/07/us/07fat.html http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/07/us/07fat.html Finally, one must note that individual idiosyncracies play a major role in how we respond to external inputs such as diets, exercise and medication. I am glad that paleo diet worked out for you, however please bear in mind that it may and may not work for everyone when you push it.
    - deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]
tsigo 11y ago
Still no recommended daily allowance for sugar, huh?
- bobbles 11y ago
  Current WHO guidelines state 6 teaspoons a day total sugar intake for the highest level of health benefits. Really wish food regulatory organisations like this would start actually taking note of that
  - lucaspiller 11y ago
    That equates to 24g (1tsp of sugar is 4g) or around the same as in a can of Coke. That seems very low, is the sugar overuse that bad?
    - zzleeper 11y ago
      Note that a few papers (forgot the link) found that naturally occuring sugar is fine. (I ate a banana and two oranges today and that's already above 24g of sugar, so I got worried and went to do some research..)
      - roel_v 11y ago
        It's not that you can eat as much sugar as you want as long as it's not refined. For example, after your fruit consumption, you should have brushed your teeth (according to 'the guidelines'). The thing is that 50 grams of sugar is just really, really low...
    - abtinf 11y ago
      That may seem low by the amounts of sugar you are used to using. But its high in terms of human homeostasis. Consider this: Normal human blood sugar [1]: 70-100 milligrams per deciliter of blood. Blood volume of average human [2]: 5.5 liters Thus, total blood sugar in non-diabetic human: 3.85 to 5.5 grams Density of glucose: 1.54 grams per cubic centimeter Thus, total volume of sugar in average human: 2.5 to 3.6 milliliters In other words, your body does its best to cap the amount of sugar flowing through you at about one-half teaspoon. A 12 ounce can of coke has 39 grams of sugar, or 7-10 times what the human body considers normal. Its a tremendous shock to the system - the resulting insulin response sends your body on a roller coaster of hormone regulation. So the WHO recommendation is actually a lot more strict than it might seem at first glance. Not only should your total sugar intake be capped at a low level, it should also be spread throughout the day. [1] https://www.virginiamason.org/whatarenormalbloodglucoselevels https://www.virginiamason.org/whatarenormalbloodglucoselevel... [2] http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=21474 http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=21... Edit: This is the whole point about trying to eat low-glycemic index foods.
kazinator 11y ago
Yes, you have to limit total fat, because it contains calories. You can only have so many calories. Therefore, by inescapable reasoning, there must exist a limit on total dietary fat for everyone. (Moreover, that limit cannot be 100% of your caloric intake, because 100% caloric intake from fat constitutes malnutrition.)

40 points by brown-dragon 11y ago

> In the new DGAC report, one widely noticed revision was the elimination of dietary cholesterol as a "nutrient of concern". This surprised the public [...] Not any public that hasn't had its head up its ass with no internet access therein for the past decade or two.

stormbrew 11y ago
Unfortunately, unless you define "head up your ass" as "listening to any other people, including probably your doctor," this is definitely not true. Most otherwise rational and well informed people still seem to be under the impression that all fat is bad.
- avz 11y ago
  Never met any such rational and well informed people. How could all fat possibly be bad? Cellular and organellar membranes all over the human body (and any other organism on this planet) are built from fat [1]. These membranes conduct neural signals, release and respond to hormones, participate in immune response and facilitate all types of metabolism by enabling cell and organellum compartmentalization. Some of the fatty acids necessary for these functions are not even produced by the human body [2] and therefore must be ingested. I think the real question people ask is not about whether fat is bad or not, but about the benefits and risks of relative proportions of fat and other nutrients. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cell_membrane https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cell_membrane [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essential_fatty_acid https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essential_fatty_acid
  - kazinator 11y ago
    stormbrew did say "otherwise rational and well-informed". I.e. not rational or informed in this particular matter.
- kazinator 11y ago
  Okay, s/ass/"collective ass"/. :)

personjerry 11y ago

So, supposedly these guidelines looked out for your health, but given that so many of their "findings" have been overturned, then they've basically been giving advice that actually hindered peoples' health, and so one might understand that they've actually been harmful! This might lead one to question the validity of other government suggestions. Or even policies. Maybe that's too far. Nonetheless, I think this raises serious questions as to how much faith we can put even into the government, even their "scientific" findings.

tptacek 11y ago
Stupid scientists with their stupid science that isn't alway right.
- dpeck 11y ago
  I think the problem for is a lot of it wasn't science driven, was more economic/ag policy driving waves hands science.
  - tptacek 11y ago
    You seriously think ag policy created the food pyramid? It wasn't just the government promoting the idea that people needed to limit salt and fat.
    - pessimizer 11y ago
      >You seriously think ag policy created the food pyramid? Yes.
    - dpeck 11y ago
      I think things that government agencies do don't happen in a vacuum. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/diet/themes/pyramid.html http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/diet/themes/py...
jakobegger 11y ago

tantalor 11y ago

What does "lifting the ban" mean? What is currently banned?

Laforet 11y ago
Currently the recommendation is that fat should not exceed 35% of total calorific intake. And the proposal seeks to do away with the cap. Edit: added some clarifications
- tantalor 11y ago
  I don't see how that is a ban.
  - GordonS 11y ago
    OK, it might not be a 'ban' in strict grammatical terms, but the implication is clear. Because of these guidelines many people have treated any dietary fat as taboo. I certainly counted myself among them. Decades of advice and ad campaigns from the government will do that. I believe these guidelines and associated ad campaigns (and many like them in other countries such as the UK) have actually led to people 'learning' to find fat completely distasteful, so I think it will be some time before there is a significant change in eating habits.

shanev 11y ago

As someone who's been paleo for over 6 years, this makes me very happy. I believe the paleo community had a lot to do with raising awareness of beneficial fats, promoting pasture-raised meat, and coconut oil and butter over industrial seed oils like canola.

DiabloD3 11y ago
Thanks to Paleo, I went from 340 pounds to 214 in exactly one year, and I'm now down to 190. People who've been part of Paleo already know the FDA avoids science as long as possible as not to piss off large Congressional lobbying groups. I expect to get downvoted, and honestly, I don't care. Downvoting doesn't change the fact I lost all this weight by purposely ignoring the FDA's recommendations.
- Laforet 11y ago
  Notwithstanding the "fat-free everything" fad, the best epidermiological data we have so far suggest that fat consumption is highly correlated with coronary heart disease and all sorts of late-life complications. This could be wrong or out-dated, but FDA is only acting on the mainsteam scientific opinion that fat should be limited in a typical diet. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/o/cochrane/clcentral/articles/216/CN-00133216/frame.html http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/o/cochrane/clcentral/articles... USDA, on the other hand, has been deeply troubled by the public's distaste of fat as they have an obligation is keep dairy farmers afloat. To this day they have been trying all sorts of things to promote fat consumption without much thought to the health consequences. South Park touched on the subject in the episode "Gluten Free Ebola", but I guess most people missed that point. New York Times have done a good article explaining the economic and politics between the FDA-USDA feud. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/07/us/07fat.html http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/07/us/07fat.html Finally, one must note that individual idiosyncracies play a major role in how we respond to external inputs such as diets, exercise and medication. I am glad that paleo diet worked out for you, however please bear in mind that it may and may not work for everyone when you push it.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]

tsigo 11y ago

Still no recommended daily allowance for sugar, huh?

bobbles 11y ago
Current WHO guidelines state 6 teaspoons a day total sugar intake for the highest level of health benefits. Really wish food regulatory organisations like this would start actually taking note of that
- lucaspiller 11y ago
  That equates to 24g (1tsp of sugar is 4g) or around the same as in a can of Coke. That seems very low, is the sugar overuse that bad?
  - zzleeper 11y ago
    Note that a few papers (forgot the link) found that naturally occuring sugar is fine. (I ate a banana and two oranges today and that's already above 24g of sugar, so I got worried and went to do some research..)
    - roel_v 11y ago
      It's not that you can eat as much sugar as you want as long as it's not refined. For example, after your fruit consumption, you should have brushed your teeth (according to 'the guidelines'). The thing is that 50 grams of sugar is just really, really low...
  - abtinf 11y ago
    That may seem low by the amounts of sugar you are used to using. But its high in terms of human homeostasis. Consider this: Normal human blood sugar [1]: 70-100 milligrams per deciliter of blood. Blood volume of average human [2]: 5.5 liters Thus, total blood sugar in non-diabetic human: 3.85 to 5.5 grams Density of glucose: 1.54 grams per cubic centimeter Thus, total volume of sugar in average human: 2.5 to 3.6 milliliters In other words, your body does its best to cap the amount of sugar flowing through you at about one-half teaspoon. A 12 ounce can of coke has 39 grams of sugar, or 7-10 times what the human body considers normal. Its a tremendous shock to the system - the resulting insulin response sends your body on a roller coaster of hormone regulation. So the WHO recommendation is actually a lot more strict than it might seem at first glance. Not only should your total sugar intake be capped at a low level, it should also be spread throughout the day. [1] https://www.virginiamason.org/whatarenormalbloodglucoselevels https://www.virginiamason.org/whatarenormalbloodglucoselevel... [2] http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=21474 http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=21... Edit: This is the whole point about trying to eat low-glycemic index foods.

kazinator 11y ago

Yes, you have to limit total fat, because it contains calories. You can only have so many calories. Therefore, by inescapable reasoning, there must exist a limit on total dietary fat for everyone. (Moreover, that limit cannot be 100% of your caloric intake, because 100% caloric intake from fat constitutes malnutrition.)