Low Carb Action Network...Time to write Congress
Also mentioned in Nina Teicholz's essay today, The DGAC has excluded all but one LC study! https://forum.lowcarber.org/showthread.php?t=484057
It is time to write your senators and representative. The Low Carb Action Network has an easy way to do this on its website, plus add your own personalization, here: https://lowcarbaction.org/take-action Quote:
Their base letter reads as follows (Edited shorter with your personalization, but all the info is here to use): Quote:
|
How can they get away with this blatant discrimination?
I ask in my frustration that science can be treated so cavalierly But who am I |
"Science" is what was practiced, by both 'sides", during the studies. What you're seeing here so good old fashion, delicious, Politics - It's a game, and both sides want to win.
|
I've been independently investigating this very issue for myself lately, as the subject of a written assignment for my current studies.
What I've personally found is that there have definitely been differences between the DGAC's review processes for 2020 vs 2015. The end results for low carb in 2020 don't look to be much different than for 2015, but the reasons for their exclusion are definitely different this time around. For example, in 2015 the review committee carried out a number of searches across various databases of literature. The dietary patterns that they searched for in their review on body weight/obesity were primarily Mediterranean, DASH, vegan and vegetarian, with additional searches for "prudent", "Western" and "plant based" diets also appearing. So, little wonder that they couldn't find anything for low carb in 2015; they never even searched for low carb in the first place. This was actually the biggest shock to me in my own research, that as bad as the 2020 review is turning out to be, their internal process for 2015 was actually even worse. In 2020 meanwhile, the list of dietary patterns for which the committee searched for their review on body weight/obesity, got a lot longer: this time they searched for Mediterranean, DASH, "prudent", paleolithic, vegetarian, vegan, plant based, "Western", "healthy", low carbohydrate, high carbohydrate, ketogenic, low fat, high fat, high protein and low sodium. So at least this time they actually returned a bunch of low carb studies from their initial searches. But this time, practically all of those studies were excluded on the basis of some interesting eligibility criteria. For example, for studies of diets based on macronutrient distribution (such as low carb), one criteria is that all three macronutrients be defined in the study. Some of the individual studies I looked at specified the amount of carbs and fat for example, but not protein, so the study is excluded. Even though the protein could still be calculated by the reader as being a logical subtraction of the carbs + fat. I'm still putting the finishing touches on my own course assignment since it's not due for several more weeks, but from what I've put together to this point, LCAN is right on the button here. When it comes to low carb acceptance in the guidelines, the specific nature of the barriers this time around may have changed, but they're still there nonetheless. |
"Weight loss" was part of the exclusion criteria for all diets. How can this exclusion be possible when obesity is such an enormous problem in America, and one of the Guidelines' stated aims is to help people achieve a healthy weight?. Seriously??
Even at my advanced age, I still think writing to my representatives means something, though the only good result was having a guided tour of Congress with my family. :lol: All my previous letters about low carb, and nominations for the DGAC committee were for naught. Understanding today is Saturday, the letters to my current three reps are unanswered, but the one to Cal Cunningham, the challenger to a current senator, was obviously read and promises consideration. So you never know! |
Member(s) of USDA Committee Blow Whistle on Serious Flaws in Dietary Guidelines Process
Quote:
Nina's letter to the secretaries appears in the link at the end. They've put a lot of work into this, and I'm afraid it'll end up being for naught. |
I agree with Thud. It's politics, and political efforts try to hide behind science when it's convenient and supports the political agenda. Using some "science" and excluding some inconvenient science is the game being played with many of today's issues, and the "anointed," who believe they know better than most, justify these actions because only they know the many will benefit. The most devious actions in the DGA issue are based on inaccurate labels and definitions such as how low carb is defined. Many studies show how ineffective a low carb WOE is while using many more carbs in studies than anyone following a low carb approach would ever consume. No wonder we have many inconclusive results that can't separate a low carb WOE from the rest. Where would we be without these "experts?"
|
Much to my cynical surprise, the senator in a close race in our "battleground" state answered me today (well his staff did) They seemed to understand the issue and referred me to the government site that takes comments, the deadline on the Dietary Guidelines now extended to June 10th.
https://beta.regulations.gov/docume...-2019-0001-6698 Skimming a few of the 235 comments received in the past 3 days, there are multiple requests for a completely plant based diet and removing all dairy from the guidelines with an avalanche from the Lactose malabsorption group. |
Reading Nina Teicholz's twitter feed today is just depressing. The draft of the guidelines sounds like an absolute (shoot)show.
Quote:
(ETA: ) |
This makes me sick. New article from NYT. EDIT: below...
Scientific Panel on New Dietary Guidelines Draws Criticism from Health Advocates More than half the members of a panel considering changes to the nation’s blueprint for healthy eating have ties to the food industry. Quote:
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/17/...guidelines.html |
Added the NYT article above.
Nearly 240 doctors urge delay of Dietary Guidelines. https://www.nutritioncoalition.us/n...idelines-report Three posts on this topic, June 15, 16, 17 at Nutrition Coalition: https://www.nutritioncoalition.us/ |
Signed up and ready for action.
|
So the latest email and TwitterStorm campaign to delay the publication of The Dietary Guidlines did not work....
First article seen about guidelines...mostly about early feeding guidelines. Wouldn’t no added sugar in baby food have been a given? No added sugar for babies, US advisory panel recommends, as it launches early feeding advice https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/15/heal...ness/index.html In addition to early feeding advice... Quote:
|
I saw that article earlier. I actually wasn't surprised about the recommendation of no sugar for babies - You wouldn't believe the number of people who will feed their kids organic this and sugar free that, but will still give the baby a taste of whatever they're eating, no matter how processed or sugared it might be.
A few decades ago I let someone I didn't know very well hold my firstborn at the dinner table. She was eating ice-cream, dipped her finger in her ice cream to scoop up a small blob, and popped her finger right in my baby's mouth, without bothering to ask if it was ok to give her a taste of ice-cream. I was furious, not so much about the sugar, even though I knew it wasn't good for a baby to have sugary foods. My real issue with it was that my baby was up all night, miserable with a belly ache, because she had problems with dairy, and if this person had simply asked before feeding her the ice-cream, a night of pain could have been avoided. I never gave my kids baby food. They ate what we ate, but what we ate at the time wasn't laced with sugar and salt either, so it was the equivalent of no added ingredients baby food, but fresher. |
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:12. |
Copyright © 2000-2024 Active Low-Carber Forums @ forum.lowcarber.org
Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.