Click above to ENLARGE–if this weren’t so serious it would be funny!
Well, well, well, it looks like the USDA Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee has decided to move their third of five meetings this year online today and tomorrow for a special two-day web seminar in an act of apparent openness about the process of determining the national nutritional recommendations for all United States citizens starting in 2010. Unfortunately for them, they are doing their best to continue avoiding that huge low-carb elephant in the room and, quite frankly, it is a purposeful act of defiance that I believe is utterly shameful, disgusting, and disgraceful in light of all that we know about the detrimental role excessive carbohydrates are having on the weight and health of the American people.
About a year ago, the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) put out a call for nominations to serve on their 2010 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee and quite a few highly-qualified physicians and nutritional researchers were submitted to them for consideration, including Eric C. Westman, M.D., M.H.S from Duke University, Mary C. Vernon, M.D. from The University of Kansas, Richard D. Feinman, Ph.D. from SUNY Downstate, Stephen Phinney, M.D. from The University of California-Davis, and Jeff S. Volek, Ph.D. from The University of Connecticut, just to name a few. I had no doubt in my mind that at least ONE of these experts on carbohydrate-restriction who have all published multiples studies on the effectiveness of limiting carbs and increasing fat consumption as a means for weight control and optimizing health would make it among the final 13 committee members. But when the list of experts was revealed in November 2008, not a single low-carb researcher, nutritionist, or medical professional appeared on the panel. Although it was not a huge surprise, it was VERY disappointing.
Then in January I shared a few suggestions like submitting your comments to the advisory panel telling them about your experience livin’ la vida low-carb, showing up in Washington, DC to give oral testimony before the committee, or even attempting to hold a rally for low-carbohydrate nutrition to run simultaneously–all ambitious and daring ideas to focus the attention on the incredible health benefits of carbohydrate restriction that we’ve seen for ourselves in our own lives and in the many friends, family members, and others who have been changed for the better because of this way of eating. But would doing any of these things make a real difference at the inevitable end result? It certainly couldn’t hurt.
The third meeting of the 13-member 2010 USDA Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee is happening this week and I’m listening to it online right now. You can sign up to listen to all the presentations on Wednesday, April 29, 2009 throughout the afternoon and all day on Thursday, April 30, 2009 by registering here. Keep in mind that the lectures are presented by people who are not necessarily friendly towards the low-carbohydrate nutritional approach–in fact, as I am typing this there is a lecture from Dr. Frank Sacks from Harvard who published this ignoramus study comparing various dietary approaches. He’s thumping his chest about how it doesn’t matter what diet you are on, they all work when you keep calories reduced. OH BROTHER! This is what we’re up against and it’s borderline criminal to keep suppressing the new revelations we know about low-carb diets now.
Since so much has happened over the past five years with carbohydrate-restricted nutritional approaches, then surely some of this research would be presented to the panel, right? Well, look at the agenda for yourself and you’ll see there’s nary a mention of the fabulous work of Westman, Volek, Feinman, Phinney anywhere. Why? What is the USDA Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee so afraid of? To call this a disappointment is a severe understatement.
While all these virtually meaningless research presentations are made during this afternoon’s session, it’s what will be happening during the Thursday discussion when specific topics are debated. Here’s the schedule for April 30, 2009 on EST:
9:40 a.m. Sodium, Potassium, and Water
Discussion Leader: Larry Appel
10:30 a.m. Nutrient Adequacy
Discussion Leader: Shelly Nickols-Richardson
11:05 a.m. Energy Balance and Weight Management
Discussion Leader: Xavier Pi-Sunyer
11:40 a.m. Carbohydrates and Protein
Discussion Leader: Joanne Slavin
1:45 a.m. Ethanol
Discussion Leader: Eric Rimm
2:20 a.m. Fatty Acids
Discussion Leader: Tom Pearson
3:10 a.m. Science Review, Cross-cutting Issues
Discussion Leader: Linda Van Horn
The session on “Carbohydrates and Protein” from 11:40 a.m.-12:15 p.m. should be of great interest to those of us who are livin’ la vida low-carb. A mere 35-minute presentation and discussion of these two macronutrients is woefully inept. Maybe we could make our voices heard if a bunch of us show up during this portion of the meeting. Here’s an interesting e-mail response one of my readers received from the discussion leader of this group this week when he inquired about the negative role of carbohydrates on health:
“We are working hard to change the guidelines to meet the most current research findings. Early progress is that our subcommittee is called ‘protein and carbohydrate’–supporting that these discussions cannot take place in isolation. As you know, food as eaten is very complicated–most grain products consumed in the US are high in trans or saturated fat and also sodium. So getting back to basics would be a great change. Wish we could make it a little more difficult to find all those calories – we are working hard to consider environmental factors to improve diet. I appreciate your comments–please keep me posted as our work progresses.”
It doesn’t appear that the carbohydrate-restriction research is going to get the attention it adequately deserves and this is disheartening. Former 2005 Dietary Guidelines panel member Janet King asked during a symposium lecture in 2008 whether it may be beneficial to separate the scientific review of the latest research from how that information should be communicated to the public in a set of nutritional recommendations. One committee would focus on gathering all the data that would serve as the basis for the Dietary Guidelines and a second committee that would be charged with the responsibility for translating that science into practical steps for Americans to follow. It’s kinda like Congress makes laws and the Supreme Court interprets the meaning of those laws based on the U.S. Constitution. It’s certainly not a bad idea and I’d LOVE to have one of the aforementioned low-carb researcher experts interpreting the data for the public to understand the ramifications of their dietary choices.
If you can make it online to the meeting on Thursday, then CLICK HERE and we’ll see if they’ll allow for questions. I posted one question during today’s event and it posted on the screen for all the panelists to see. But there was no mention of it at all. Gee, why is that big fat elephant in the room (LOW-CARB!) continuing to be ignored? Incidentally, I’ll be interviewing Dr. Brian Wansink who served as executive director of the Center For Nutrition Policy and Promotion (CNPP) heading up the 2010 panel for my podcast show next month and the interview will air on August 13, 2009. He has not been pleased with the way things have transpired with the panel and will be on my show to talk about it. It should be interesting to say the least.
As long as the USDA is allowed to set dietary guidelines, there will NEVER be any focus on a reduction of carbohydrates. Their entire reason for existence is to promote carbs.
Tis true, tis true…
–Jimmy
There is another very large elephant in the room that will never be mentioned. While a large part of why LC attracted me was the beneficial effects of lowering my blood sugar to near normal levels (T2), an equally important part is trying my best to avoid GMO foods for as long as is humanly possible. Think about all of the disastrous effects mankind’s interference in our food and water supply has caused – fluoride, HFCS and transfats, just for starters – and how long dangerously long it took for anyone to even consider the deleterious effects on our health from those grievous mistakes and then consider how long it may take to find out what effects genetically modifying our food, along with killing the soil and water with deadly pesticides to make it grow, may have on generations to come. And unbelievably I just read that Monsanto is actually undertaking a law suit against Germany because the people are refusing to accept their GMO products!! And which foods (for the time being anyway) are not only the mad scientists but the health “officials” and governments pushing us to eat the most??? wheat, soy and corn. God/nature gave us perfectly nutritional, healthy foods that people have subsisted on for millenium – when will man’s overwhelming ego stop thinking he can do better????
Dubious, I could not agree more. We need to get back to eating NATURAL food and GMO products are NOT natural at all. Well stated.
–Jimmy
Calories? CALORIES??? That’s the best they can do??? Talking about whether we can “find” CALORIES??? I’m not a bomb calorimeter! Not everything I eat goes to fuel! I’m tired of hearing about stinkin’ calories!!!
*rage*
And saturated fat? Who cares?? The ONE drawback with finding saturated fats in grain-based foods is that you’ve got the perfect recipe for making triglycerides: the glucose or fructose source for making the glycerol core, and the lipids to attach around the glycerol core–voilà. Other than that? Some sources, such as Mary Enig (you need to read her if you haven’t), say that we ought to be getting as much as fifty percent of our fat intake as saturated! So I would WELCOME more sources of that fat. Some forms of saturated fat are even antimicrobial in nature, and they are extremely stable, so they’re far more useful in cooking and fewer people get sick from them going rancid.
I have a tub of LARD in my fridge now, mmkay? Bring that saturated fat ON. If you eat the tub of lard (over time, of course), you don’t *become* the tub of lard.
I agree with the commenter who said the USDA is all about preserving the grain and soy industries. On top of that, the FDA is all about protecting the GMO and drug industries. In the nineties I read all kinds of stuff in Mother Jones and the environmentalist media about the people President Clinton was appointing to the FDA. We’re talking former Monsanto execs. Not coincidentally, the FDA decided we didn’t really need to label GMO foods. Funny, I thought we were supposed to let the free market decide? How is the market “free” if the consumers are chained in ignorance? I have a right to know what is in my food. Period. End of story.
Getting back to grain, and speaking of Mary Enig, who is on the Weston A. Price Foundation–it’s interesting that the government pushes that on us as the ideal food, but then doesn’t tell us how to prepare it properly. Did you know there was a pellagra epidemic in Europe not long after maize was introduced? Central and South American natives knew how to prepare corn so that they got maximum nutritional benefit from it–they would soak it in lime (as in, the stuff you fertilize your garden with) and then go on to prepare tortillas and that kind of thing with it. The limewater broke the seed coats down chemically, releasing niacin. The Europeans who came to the New World didn’t see what was so important about that, so the peasantry in Europe was baking and cooking with raw, untreated corn. Being poor and not having many other food sources of B vitamins, they quickly succumbed. Pellagra is not a pleasant deficiency disease to have.
In the South in the late 1800s and early 1900s they ran into a similar problem. A lot of people were left destitute after the Civil War and what do poor people typically exist on? Grain. And we’re talking about a lot of people who had to cook their own food for the first time in a long time, and they didn’t know what to do with corn. They suffered a lot. Those who were fortunate enough to have a cow, or who came from folks who never owned a lot of slaves, did better because they knew how to prepare hominy or because the tryptophan in milk converts to niacin. But for those who weren’t so lucky, let’s put it this way, there’s a reason the South is the butt of jokes about inbreeding. It’s because a lot of the traits we associate with people of “poor breeding” actually come from malnutrition. And pellagra manifests as sallowness, weakness, and mental illness before it kills you. And anyone who’s survived malnutrition to have children is going to pass on nutritional deficiencies to their children too, so the kids grow up mentally deficient and physically diminished. It was ugly. I don’t think the South ever fully recovered.
B12 deficiency results in violent behavior as one of the early symptoms and they’re telling people to pig out on grain and cut their meat consumption.
Government standards are making this country disabled and insane. It makes me pretty nuts too.
Looks like it’s time we fired the lot of them and started over with the REAL experts in diets and nutrition!!
Do I hear the sound of revolutionary hoofbeats pounding the sod? Saddle up, friends! Let’s overthrow the reign of the idiots!
LOL! I love your attitude about it.
–Jimmy