Thu, Jul-16-20, 03:40
|
 |
|
|
Plan: P:E/DDF
Stats: 225/150/169
BF:45%/28%/25%
Progress: 134%
Location: NC
|
|
L-CAN Objects to Science Excluded from Report by the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee
Quote:
The Low-Carb Action Network (L-CAN) today voiced strong objections to the final report by the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee (DGAC), which excludes all low-carbohydrate studies, all trials on weight-loss, and failed to address numerous process and methodological concerns.
The DGAC report stated that there was “limited” evidence to show that a low-carb diet could help prevent heart disease and not enough evidence (“Grade Not Assignable”) to show that the diet could prevent obesity or type-2 diabetes. These grades mean that a low-carb diet will almost certainly not be included as an option in 2020-2025 Dietary Guidelines.
These conclusions stand in stark contrast to those by other expert groups. For example, the American Diabetes Association, Diabetes Canada, and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes have all reviewed the scientific literature on low-carb diets and concluded that they are a safe and highly effective option for the prevention and management of type 2 diabetes.
Moreover, there are some 100 systematic reviews of low-carb and ketogenic diets in the scientific literature
|
Continues at link with links to studies
https://lowcarbaction.org/science-e...TobgF1DZiCNC9x4
And from The Nutrition Coalition:
Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee report is out and once again, only addressing healthy Americans, despite fact that 60% of Americans now live with one or more diet-related, chronic disease. Our press release:
https://www.nutritioncoalition.us/n...on-weak-science
Quote excerpt:
Quote:
The Nutrition Coalition is concerned about numerous issues in the current process including:
The fact that the Dietary Guidelines addresses only healthy Americans, despite the fact that 60% of Americans now live with one or more diet-related, chronic disease, that Congress mandated the Guidelines to be for the “general public,” and that the Guidelines recommendations are administered, via school lunch programs, feeding programs for the elderly, etc., to the sick and well alike.
The exclusion, by the DGAC, of virtually all clinical trials on weight loss.
The exclusion of the last decade of science on saturated fats, which cumulatively shows that these fats do not have any effect on cardiovascular or total mortality.
The exclusion of all the science on low-carbohydrate diets (>65 clinical trials).
The continued use of a ‘black box’ methodology that is not transparent about how data is evaluated or graded and is therefore not reproducible—a hallmark of good science.
The fact that USDA-HHS have rejected the majority of recommendations made by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, in its report on the DGA process.
This 2017 report was the result of a Congressional mandate and cost taxpayers $1M. It was also the first-ever outside peer review of the DGA process.
The lack of transparency about major conflicts of interest on the DGAC, which include multiple ties to the food industry and the fact that more than half of the committee has ties to ILSI, a group dominated by multinational food and pharma interests.
|
Last edited by JEY100 : Thu, Jul-16-20 at 05:09.
|
Threaded Mode