Debating Our Diets

As promised, wanted to give you an update on some of the discussions last week from the 2010 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee.  This panel is dg20101is charged with developing the revised guidelines that will be issued next year by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).  I appreciated all of the comments from my earlier post, and I understand some of the cynicism.  But I will remain optimistic.  The group has emphasized many times that they’re using an evidence-based system to draft the report, so the strongest science should win out.  Let’s hope.

But I agree with many of you that people are confused.  In fact, that’s being discussed at the meetings.  Patricia Crawford from the University of California, Berkeley, told the committee that the public understands the recommendations for fruits and vegetables, but that’s about it.  She said they can’t translate what they’re supposed to do with the information given.  What’s needed, she said, is a “national set of benchmarks and standards.”

Who knows what will be in the final report, but here are a few highlights from the discussions:

  • Eat whole foods.  Rather than focusing on individual nutrients, the committee talked about the need to emphasize whole foods.  After all, people eat foods, not nutrients.  Research suggests many Americans are confused by the Dietary Guidelines, which they find too complicated and too focused on nutrients, rather than specific foods. 
  • Positive nutrition.  Instead of focusing on what NOT to eat, a more pyramideffective approach may be to advise Americans on what to eat more of — such as fruits, vegetables, beans and whole grains.  So it’s about foods to encourage, rather than discourage.
  • Figuring out  fat.  The committee debated the merits of eliminating a limit on total fat and instead focusing on reducing just the unhealthy type — saturated fat, trans fat and cholesterol.
  • Cut the salt.  Sodium was heavily discussed and there’s some indication that it may be the next trans fat.  Most Americans have trouble keeping sodium under the current recommended daily limit of 2,300 mg and now there’s talk of potentially lowering it to 1,500 mg per day — or at least the “rationale” for doing so was presented. There was some discussion of the benefits of increasing potassium to offset our high-sodium diets.
  • New view of food groups.  We grew up  with the “Basic Four” and now MyPyramid identifies five food groups.  What’s the best way to categorize foods?  Besides the individual groups, there was a lot of talk about identifying the best or most nutrient-rich choices within each food category.
  • It’s the calories, stupid.  The committee talked about bringing the attention back to calories.  Popular weight loss plans all achieve about the same weight loss results — so it’s about eating less, not following a particular diet.  Cutting calories was the main ingredient for successful weight loss.
  • Economics of eating.  A huge part of the discussion involved eating well on a budget.  Adam Drewnowski suggested that we  look at obesity as an economic issue first — food costs affect diet quality and appear to significantly increase the risk of obesity and type 2 diabetes.   Andrea Carlson showed how it’s possible for a family of four to meet the Dietary Guidelines for $137 per week by using  USDA’s thrifty food plan.
  • Nutritional gatekeepers.  Brian Wansink encouraged the group to target the nutritional gatekeepers — women who make 72% of the food decisions for their families, whether they eat at home or at a restaurant.

I’ll report back after the 4th committee meeting in the fall.  In the meantime, I welcome your comments.

Enjoy this?

share it



  • I’d love for the committee to re-examine the evidence supporting limitation of saturated fat intake in order to reduce atherosclerosis, such as coronary heart disease. It would save me at least 40 hours of research if they would.

    A recent meta-analysis found insufficient evidence linking saturated fats to coronary heart disease. Details are at my healthy lifestyle blog:

    The overwhelming majority of dietitians and physicians still toe the party line regarding intake of saturated fats. What do you think, Janet?


    • Janet

      Thanks for your message, Dr. Parker.
      I think you’ve touched on a big issue and I’m sure there will be lots of discussion about dietary fat, including the merits of reducing saturated fat. Certainly there’s been a lot of intriguing research on specific saturated fatty acids, and some are not as bad for us as we thought. However, the issue becomes are they better than unsaturated. I don’t think so. That’s my beef with the current coconut oil craze. Yes, some of the saturated fatty acids in coconut oil do not raise blood cholesterol in the same way as other saturated fatty acids, but that doesn’t make coconut oil a better choice than olive oil or canola oil. I don’t see the dietary guidelines committee softening their stance on saturated fat. Although I do think it’s an important point to make that not all saturated fatty acids are created equal.
      Thanks for reading,

  • Pingback: Nutrition Unplugged | Changing the Way America Eats()

  • jamespucos

    i would like to say thank you for this great post it touche in a phenomenal topic

    im also an expert nutrition and i would love if you take a look on my blog and see what im writing about here:

Copyright 2019 Nutrition Unplugged
Design by cre8d