THE BOSTON GLOBE

BETHESDA, Md. - Americans should ignore trendy low-carbohydrate diets and focus instead on cutting calories by avoiding supersize fast food in favor of lean meats, low-fat dairy products, and fruits and vegetables, according to draft government dietary guidelines.

The report, written by 13 independent scientists, is the template for sweeping changes under way in the nation's nutritional policy, which could bring about major shifts in how Americans buy and eat food. The guidelines are rewritten every five years, but the nation's obesity epidemic has given the task greater urgency this year.

The scientists, who are advising the federal agriculture and health departments, discussed their report in public for the first time during a meeting Wednesday. In a swipe at in-vogue diets that seek to eliminate single categories of food, the federal panel stated in the report: "The strategy for weight loss is not to focus on the proportions of fat and carbohydrate in the diet."

The Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee asserted instead that less food and more exercise are the essential components of a healthy, slimming diet. Recent studies have indicated that low-carb diets reduce weight over the short term, but their long-term staying power has not been proved.

The panel also defined a new set of basic food groups that people should eat from: fruits, vegetables, whole grains, low-fat milk products, and lean meats or meat alternatives.

Gone from the list were foods containing refined starches, such as white bread, long a pillar of the government's recommended diet, as well as fatty red meats and whole milk products. The report also condoned moderate alcohol consumption, which studies suggest can reduce the risk of heart disease and other ailments - but added that abstinence is fine, too.

The report contained no surprises, falling within current thinking in academic nutrition circles. The panel will make changes before releasing its recommendations next month. The Bush administration will review them and issue final guidelines at the end of the year.



http://www.omaha.com/index.php?u_np...2&u_sid=1107076

More twaddle.


"The strategy for weight loss is not to focus on the proportions of fat and carbohydrate in the diet."


But from the other side of their mouths they cluck about eliminating "fatty red meats and whole milk" and chiding people to eat LEAN meat and LOW-FAT dairy products.

But AT LEAST they took the damn white bread out of the recommendations. Hide-bound establishments change slowly.

I am sure that the '13 independent scientists' will be citing all the research that shows that their recommened 'less food and more exercise' will result in 'a healthy, slimming diet.' I am also sure that their research citations will show that their recommendations will show 'that their long-term staying power' has been proved.

Should I hold my breath waiting for the information to be announced?

The mark of insanity is repeating something over and over again thinking it will come out different.

When are they going to notice that their low-fat, high-carbohydrate recommendations are causing the obesity epidemic? Talk about long-term staying power. Follow these guidelines and your fat will be long term.

Oh, so Atkins dieters do lose weight. How nice. But the long-term effects have not been studied. So because they have not done the studies, we should just toss out this WOL and go back to being foggy-headed, carb craving, cranky maniacs ravening about for chocolate and cookies?

Makes sense. I'm on my way to Micky D's as we speak. After all, just because it works for me doesn't mean I should put myself in any danger that my nanny the government thinks might be there. </sarcasm>

Hmmmm what happened to fats ?

This isn't much of an improvement. There is no mention made of limiting sugar and processed carbs. Assuming anyone would follow these guidelines (been there, done that, got the T-Shirt), they would simply replace their cereals, muffins, bagels and orange juice by whole-grain cereals, muffins, bagels and well orange juice. So what exactly is the difference apart from getting a little more fiber in your diet. Do they think fiber is going to stem the obesity epidemic ??

What they need to do is have a STRONG statement warning people against eating sugar and processed carbs. Have them favor unprocessed food in reasonable quantities. Avoid starches and high glycemic food. Just that would have a huge impact. A lot of people, would loose weight if only they cut out the processed carbs.

However, since America is not ruled by an elected governement but by lobby groups, this is never going to happen. Can't afford stepping on the toes of the big corporpations and their cash cows.

When I was on low-fat, all my grains were whole grains. I had a cupboard full of whole grain cereal, whole grain pasta, whole grain bread, etc. It made no difference in my weight or cholesterol levels. I think the benefits of whole grains are way exagerated.

I am *so* sick of the *lie* that one should cut out fat to lower calories.The MAJORITY of extra empty calories in our diets are from REFINED CARBOHYDRATE - simple sugars (HFCS sweetened drinks/juices), and starches (pasta, white bread, crackers, rice).

If the government wised up and started telling people the truth, that their servings of pasta, rice, bread, soda, juices, candy, and junk food in general are all *way* too big, then they actually might make some real improvements in the fight against obesity.

But no. Instead we are told to trim off the spate of fat off our meats (very little calories), and to use low fat dairy (again, very little calorie savings). As if people are all sitting around in front of their tvs with a steak and a hunk of cheese! Ha!

I don't understand the love affair our government has with starch & simple sugar. They'll blame anything and everything for for obesity, but god forbid someone suggests that eating a lot of bread pasta and fructose is not necessarily a really good idea. For some reason they refuse to reconcile with the fact that these foods are bloated with calories, devoid of nutrition, and hunger spiking. It probably comes down to money. The government does subsidize the corn/grain industry after all.

I don't know who are threy trying to convince? I am alive due to Atkins, otherwise I probably be over 400 lbs right now with the diabetes killing me. Right now, I have lost 70 lbs, no longer need insulin and have gotten off diabetes medications and my blood sugars are within normal range. Who do you think I am going to believe, the doctors that almost killed me or Atkins that offered me life.

They are so stupid in my eyes!

We need regime change, starting at home. Let's start with the Dept. of Agriculture, which is just sucking up to the Big Agriculture and the Consumer Package Goods companies.

Whole grains are way better than refined grains, because they have SOME nutritional benefits-- vitamins and fiber. I think a little bit of whole grains can be beneficial, the same way a little bit of orange juice can be, as long as the proportions are reasonable. A sprinkle of toasted wheat germ or oat bran is tasty mixed with ground flax cereal, providing some good fiber and minerals for a reasonable number of carbs.

Of course, that's way extra-crunchy compared to the "whole grain" breads and pastas, and probably not what you were eating before!

Why should the government be any different than their constituency?

How many people have you talked to who "can't live without bread" or "crave pasta every night"?

How strange did you think the Atkins diet was when you first contemplated it?

Sure, there are lobbies, and don't get be started on government subsidized Big Sugar. But at the same time they are mostly people like you meet every day. And how many of them can properly interpret conflicting scientific studies?

As for the scientists, if you have staked your academic reputation on low fat, it's not just closed mindedness that will make you not believe. It's serious denial.

I wonder if they meant to leave the fat out of this list? Surely, we'll all have osteoporosis if we eat like this longterm?

I agree with you Pam, however a lot of this comes down to education. If the governement keeps repeating that bread and pasta is an integral part of healthy eating, most people choose to believe them. Especially since the message is picked up and repeated ad nauseum by every health professional and so-called journalist. I'm sure that when people were first told to cut down on red meat they said... what ? are you nuts ? But now it's accepted. That's what the low-fat (mis)education campaign did.

So true, Angeline. I can remember my grandmother admonishing me. "Eat your meat, don't fill up on bread and potatoes." My grandfather told stories of the Depression about families who had nothing BUT potatoes and flour to eat, and would have given anything for meat or fish. . . or even fruit.

Back then if you had told people to throw away the fat on their pork, or throw away the cream from their milk bottles and just drink the skim, or eat walnuts instead of a pot roast, or leave the fatback OUT of their collard greens. . . they would have thought you mad. You would have been branded a kook espousing some DANGEROUS diet.

Sheesh.

I'm still waiting for the government to allow me to eat health beneficial monounsaturated oils and to admit that saturated fats are not as bad as we have been told. And when are we going to get Trans Fat on the labels??? That is the biggest threat to u.

Oh yeah - make sure to limit your eggs to 2 a week. It might kill you.