The U.S. Dietary Guidelines: A Scientific Fraud

[Bouncer]

By Edward Archer, PhD, MS.

Recently, my colleagues and I published research in Mayo Clinic Proceedings that examined dietary data from almost 50 years of nutrition studies. What we found was astounding; these data were physiologically implausible and incompatible with survival. In other words, the diets from these studies could not support human life if consumed on a daily basis. The reason for this is simple; the memory-based data collection methods (M-BMs) used by nutrition researchers are unscientific because they rely on both the truthfulness of the study participant and the accuracy of his or her memory. Stated more simply, these methods collect nothing more than uncorroborated anecdotal estimates of food and beverage consumption.

Importantly, vast amounts of taxpayer dollars are directed away from rigorous scientific investigations and squandered every year on the collection of uncorroborated anecdotes via M-BMs. Approximately 80% of the data in the USDA’s National Evidence Library consists of uncorroborated anecdotes as well as 100% of the dietary data from every major epidemiologic study over the past 50 years (e.g., Nurses’ Health Study, Health Professionals Follow-Up Study, REGARDS project, and EPIC study). In other words, most of what nutrition researchers call “scientific evidence” is in reality a vast collection of nearly baseless anecdotes. Nevertheless, despite a century of unequivocal evidence that human memory and recall are woefully inadequate for actual scientific data collection, the data from these methods are used to create public health policy.

To date, no researchers have published data that challenge or attempt to refute our findings and conclusions. The reason for this fact is simple: our science is strong and our findings irrefutable. Nevertheless, this has not stopped government-funded researchers and officials from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) from demonstrating an unscientific intolerance to criticism by using rhetoric and fallacious ad hominems in defense of their pseudoscientific methods. While these attacks do nothing to advance the science of nutrition, the fact that taxpayer-funded NIH officials and researchers are attacking and attempting to bully and censor legitimate scientists serving the public suggests that publicly-funded science is in grave jeopardy.

In September of 2015, prior to the publication of the 2015 Dietary Guidelines for Americans, I was invited by President Obama’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology to present our research on implausible dietary data. The presentation was short and simple: the dietary data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, “What We Eat In America” study (NHANES /WWEIA) are incompatible with the survival and therefore cannot be used to inform public policy. Nevertheless, the administration proved impervious to contrary evidence and presented the implausible NHANES/WWEIA data as scientific evidence of the “Current Eating Patterns in the United States” in the recently published 2015 Guidelines. This official presentation is patently false and fraudulent. It should be obvious that dietary data that cannot support human life are not an accurate description of the “Current Eating Patterns” of Americans.

In response to the misrepresentation of the NHANES/WWEIA data, we recently published evidence on the willful manipulation and doctoring of data by government-funded researchers to support current dietary dogma. Yet perhaps the most egregious example of scientific fraud and misconduct in the Guidelines is the use of these implausible dietary data to create fear and uncertainty in American citizens. In chapter 2, the section entitled, "Underconsumed Nutrients and Nutrients of Public Health Concern," states that vitamins A, C, D, E, and iron are under-consumed. This statement is directly contradicted and refuted by the Government’s own objective data (i.e., serum biomarkers). For example, at the time of the last CDC Biochemical analysis, less than 1% of Americans were at risk for deficiencies in vitamins A and E, and 80% of Americans were not at risk for deficiencies in any of the minerals and vitamins measured (including vitamins C, D, and iron). It should be obvious that Americans could not be under-consuming vitamins A, C, D, E, and iron while at the same time maintaining healthy serum levels of these same vitamins and minerals. As such, the Guidelines present alarmist, subjective, implausible dietary data as scientific fact while ignoring the objective, rigorous, and obvious data that Americans are exceptionally well fed.

The Executive Branch of our Federal government and the government-funded nutrition community have been aware of the empirical refutation and misrepresentation of dietary data for decades, yet this evidence is ignored. Stated more simply, government officials knew the dietary data used to create the Guidelines were patently false but published them as fact.

The Dietary Guidelines for Americans direct our attention and research resources towards unscientific and specious “nutrients of concern” and dietary dogma while distracting us away from the actual causes of obesity, diabetes and chronic non-communicable diseases. It is well-established that 80% of Americans are not at risk for any dietary deficiencies, yet more than 95% of Americans do not meet the minimum physical activity guidelines. Because of this simple fact, with each passing generation our children become better fed but less fit, less healthy, and fatter.

Until we replace the unscientific fiction of “we are what we eat” and the uneducated government-funded rhetoric that ‘food is our foe’ with rigorous scientific facts, many American children will live shorter, less fit and less healthy lives than their parents. Given this reality, it is our hope that in the meantime, the fatal conceit and lack of epistemic humility of the researcher-politicians in our Federal Government are constrained by the dictum “Primum non nocere” (First, do no harm). Retracting the fraudulent 2015 Guidelines will be a good start.

The U.S. Dietary Guidelines: A Scientific Fraud | RealClearScience

[Scrumhalf]

Not buying it. Edward Archer has his own agenda. I'll post more on this later but this is throwing the baby out with the bath water.

[Keiser]

I've been following Dr. Mark Hyman recently when it comes to this. They indeed got it wrong with the low fat Bullshit. They were "almost" right about fat but the fatal mistake they made was they grouped all fats together. There are healthy fats and then there are bad fats and Saturated fat isn't one of the bad ones. In January 2016 the govt changed their stance on both Saturated fat and Cholesterol.

Dr. Mark Hyman: Here’s How the Food Pyramid Should Look

https://ecowatch.com/2016/03/06/hyman-food-pyramid/3/

“Dr. Hyman, I grew up following the guidelines of the Food Pyramid,” writes this week’s house call. “Now the guidelines keep changing. What about these new MyPlate guidelines? And what about the new 2015 Dietary Guidelines? I am confused. What should I eat?”

Here’s the truth: The government recommendations released in 1980, promoted low-fat diets that have catapulted us into the worst epidemic of obesity and diabetes in history. To understand why the government told us to do something that actually turns out to be making us fat and sick, let’s first take a look at the back story.

During the 1970s, when it became evident obesity and heart disease were on the rise in the U.S., some well-meaning concerned politicians held hearings about how to best advise Americans about their diet, health and preventing heart disease.

In 1977, Mark Hegsted, a nutrition professor at Harvard, led a group of scientists in the study of the connections between food consumption and heart disease. The group issued the very first set of U.S. Dietary Guidelines, which the federal government updates roughly every five years.

Low-Fat Religion: How We Got It Wrong

From the beginning, the low-fat philosophy became cemented as our official diet.

Among its findings, Hegsted’s report urged Americans to increase their carbohydrate intake to 55 to 60 percent of their total daily calories. And told us to reduce fat intake to 30 to 35 percent of calories.

Americans also learned they could protect themselves against cardiovascular disease, diabetes and other chronic diseases by eating more fruits and vegetables. That was commendable, as were recommendations to include poultry and fish in your diet.

We were told to eat more sugars and carbs and cut way back on saturated fat from meats, eggs, butter and whole milk, which turned out to be a bad idea.

Rather than consume these so-called bad saturated fats, we were told to eat low-fat foods, like skim milk. We were told to replace saturated fats in animal products with polyunsaturated fats from inflammatory vegetable oils (like soybean oil).

These first flawed guidelines were replaced by even worse recommendations—the Food Guide Pyramid in 1992. At the base of the pyramid were carbohydrates, particularly refined carbohydrates like breads, pasta, rice and cereals, of which we were told to eat six to 11 servings a day.

These carbohydrates break down to sugar, which gets stored in your body as fat. In addition to the 152 pounds of sugar we eat every year, we’re getting 146 pounds of flour that also breaks down into sugar. Altogether, that’s nearly a pound of sugar and flour combined for every American, every day! That’s a pharmacologic dose of sugar.

Among the havoc those refined carbs creates are inflammation (which triggers most chronic diseases including diabetes and obesity or what I call diabesity), heart disease, cancer, dementia and depression.

The food industry jumped right on board following the government’s lead and fueled the low-fat craze, creating everything from low-fat salad dressing to fat-free yogurt and low-fat desserts. As good citizens, we listened wholeheartedly, which might explain our current obesity problem.

What Actually Does Make Us Fat and Sick?

Eating sugar and other refined carbohydrates turns on a metabolic switch, spiking insulin (your fat storage hormone) and causing dangerous belly fat. Sugar and carbs are the true culprits behind type 2 diabetes, heart disease, many cancers and even dementia.

Regardless, carbs were firmly situated at the bottom of the Food Pyramid. Americans were advised to eat a lot of them because they had fewer calories than fat and were thought to help prevent heart disease …

Unfortunately, other foods like healthy fats, which provide a much more efficient fuel source, were placed at the tippy top; and we were warned to eat them sparingly. Suddenly pasta became a health food and fat got demonized.

Quite simply, this turned out to be the largest uncontrolled experiment ever done on human beings and it failed miserably.

In 2010, MyPlate—our government’s new, “improved” food icon—replaced the outdated Food Pyramid from 1992.

While a slight improvement at best, MyPlate still advised a low-fat diet. Our government just couldn’t let that one go, despite the flawed research and the scientific evidence proving that healthy fats are the way to go.

Sadly, science is for sale and many recommendations that scientists and the government make comes from studies funded by big food companies that pay big bucks.

Fortunately, a growing community of highly aware, investigative folks are fighting back. We’re spreading the truth about food and lifestyle as the Food Pyramid and even MyPlate slowly gets banished to their rightful place—in the trash bin of history.

Instead of following the outdated, clearly wrong advice from the old Food Pyramid, you want to eat a whole foods diet with mostly veggies, some fruits and plenty of healthy fats like eggs, coconut oil, nuts and seeds, avocados, extra-virgin olive oil and even grass-fed butter.

Food and Fat as Information—Not Just Calories

Before we can change our health, we must shift our way of thinking about food. Our relationship with fat, in particular, must change. As research proves, dietary fat does not make you fat.

Dietary fat deeply impacts health and wellbeing: Being deficient in healthy fat has an impact on our emotional and overall health. Fat deficiencies affect our hormones, immune system, digestive health, skin health, weight and ability to deal with stress.

In fact, fat deficiencies can adversely affect our mood, cognitive health, behavior and overall brain function, which makes perfect sense considering our bodies (including our brains) are made up of fat. Every cell membrane is partly made of fat. We must have healthy dietary fat for our body to function properly.

Historically, we ate mostly wild foods which are very rich in omega 3 fats (like wild fish and animals and wild plants) and very limited amounts of inflammatory omega 6 foods.

What went wrong? The government’s dietary advice created very real, unintended consequences, evident from the amount of chronic diseases plaguing this country.

One thing I do admire about the Food Pyramid is its simplicity. So I built my very own food pyramid, based on the principles of the “Pegan Diet,” which combines the best of a Paleo and vegan diet. This is the way that I’ve been eating for years and I’ve never felt better.

[Keiser]

cont.....

This is the diet he recommends for overall health and I pretty much agree with it and follow it.

The Pegan Diet Rules

1. Focus on the glycemic load of your diet. This can be done on a vegan or paleo diet, but is harder to do on a purely vegan diet. Focus on more protein and fats, such as nuts (but not peanuts), seeds (flax, chia, hemp, sesame, pumpkin), coconut, avocados, sardines, olive oil. And lots of non-starchy veggies. - Eat the right fats. Stay away from most vegetable oils such as canola, sunflower, corn and especially soybean oil which now comprise about 20 percent of our calories. Focus instead on omega 3 fats, nuts, coconut oil, avocados and yes, even saturated fat from grass-fed or sustainably raised animals. - Eat mostly plants—lot of low-glycemic vegetables and fruits. This should be 75 percent of your diet and your plate at each meal. I usually make two to three vegetable dishes per meal. - Focus on nuts and seeds. They are full of protein, minerals and good fats and they lower the risk of heart disease and diabetes.

2. Avoid dairy—milk is for growing calves into cows, not for humans. Try goat or sheep products and only as a treat. And always choose organic.

3. Avoid gluten—most flour is from FrankenWheat—look for heirloom wheat (Einkorn); and if you are not gluten sensitive, then consider gluten containing foods as an occasional treat.

4. Eat gluten-free whole grains sparingly—these grains still raise blood sugar and can trigger autoimmunity. I suggest about 1/2 cup a day max.

5. Eat beans sparingly—lentils are best. Stay away from big starchy beans. About 1/2 to 1 cup a day max.

6. Eat meat or animal products as a condiment. Choose animal products that are sustainably raised or grass-fed. Think of them as a side dish not the main dish.

7. Think of sugar as an occasional treat, to be used sparingly, in all its various forms (honey, agave, etc).

[Keiser]

Government revises Dietary Guidelines for Americans: Go ahead and have some eggs

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...ave-some-eggs/

The federal government on Thursday told Americans not to worry so much about cholesterol in their diets, that lots of coffee is fine and that skipping breakfast is no longer considered a health hazard.

The recommendations were part of a new "Dietary Guidelines for Americans," the influential nutrition advice book that, updated every five years, expresses official thinking about what constitutes a nutritious meal.

In what may be the most striking change, the new version drops the strict limit on dietary cholesterol, stepping back from one of most prominent public health messages since the ’60s.

But there were several other notable changes. Salt limits were eased, if only slightly, for many people. Coffee won official approval for the first time, with the book saying that as many as five eight-ounce cups a day is fine. And apparently, skipping breakfast is no longer considered a health hazard: While the old version of Dietary Guidelines informed readers that “not eating breakfast has been associated with excess body weight,” the new version is silent on the topic.

The Dietary Guidelines for Americans shape school lunches for millions of school children and serve as the basis of public health campaigns across the country aimed at reducing rates of heart disease, diabetes and cancer.

This update of the Dietary Guidelines was conducted amid unusual scrutiny because of questions about whether the recommendations, issued since 1977, have been based on sound science.

These questions led to a Congressional hearing in October and Congress later approved a measure that calls for the National Academy of Medicine to review how the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Health and Human Services generate the advice book.

One of the key criticisms of the government effort is that it has generated advice that later has proven unnecessary or exaggerated — with the decision to drop the dietary cholesterol warning offered as a prime example by lawmakers and other critics.

But in talking to reporters on Wednesday, Health and Human Services Secretary Sylvia Burwell and Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack asserted that the government’s advice, while changing with advances in science, has largely remained consistent over the years: consume more fruits, vegetables and whole grains; consume less saturated fat, sodium, and foods with added sugars, such as sweets and soft drinks.

“Americans will be familiar with the majority of our findings,” Burwell said.

“There’s been, obviously, a healthy debate about these guidelines,” Vilsack said. “I think that has been extraordinarily helpful.”

In what may be its most controversial move, the new version of the Dietary Guidelines continues the government’s longstanding warning about foods rich in saturated fats.

[Keiser]

Not buying it. Edward Archer has his own agenda. I'll post more on this later but this is throwing the baby out with the bath water.

It's OK to admit you were wrong once new science comes out on nutrition. No reason to have an agenda.

Same thing goes for calories in vs calories out. Anyone who thinks drinking 750 calories of Coca Cola and eating 750 calories of broccoli would have the same metabolic effect on two identical people, I just have to shake my head. Here, they actually did a study on this very thing:

Why Calories Don’t Matter

To illustrate how this works, let’s follow 750 calories of soda and 750 calories of broccoli once they enter your body. First, soda: 750 calories is the amount in a Double Gulp from 7-Eleven, which is 100 percent sugar and contains 186 grams, or 46 teaspoons, of sugar. Many people actually do consume this amount of soda. They are considered the “heavy users.”

Your gut quickly absorbs the fiber-free sugars in the soda, fructose, and glucose. The glucose spikes your blood sugar, starting a domino effect of high insulin and a cascade of hormonal responses that kicks bad biochemistry into gear. The high insulin increases storage of belly fat, increases inflammation, raises triglycerides and lowers HDL, raises blood pressure, lowers testosterone in men, and contributes to infertility in women.

Your appetite is increased because of insulin’s effect on your brain chemistry. The insulin blocks your appetite-control hormone leptin. You become more leptin resistant, so the brain never gets the “I’m full” signal. Instead, it thinks you are starving. Your pleasure-based reward center is triggered, driving you to consume more sugar and fueling your addiction.

The fructose makes things worse. It goes right to your liver, where it starts manufacturing fat, which triggers more insulin resistance and causes chronically elevated blood insulin levels, driving your body to store everything you eat as dangerous belly fat. You also get a fatty liver, which generates more inflammation. Chronic inflammation causes more weight gain and diabesity. Anything that causes inflammation will worsen insulin resistance. Another problem with fructose is that it doesn’t send informational feedback to the brain, signaling that a load of calories just hit the body. Nor does it reduce ghrelin, the appetite hormone that is usually reduced when you eat real food.

Now you can see just how easily 750 calories of soda can create biochemical chaos. In addition, the soda contains no fiber, vitamins, minerals, or phytonutrients to help you process the calories you are consuming. These are “empty” calories devoid of any nutritional value. But they are “full” of trouble. Your body doesn’t register soda as food, so you eat more all day long. Plus, your taste buds get hijacked, so anything that is not super-sweet doesn’t taste very good to you.

Think I’m exaggerating? Cut out all sugar for a week, then have a cup of blueberries. Super-sweet. But eat those same blueberries after bingeing on soda and they will taste like bland and boring.

Now let’s look at the 750 calories of broccoli. As with the soda, these calories are made up primarily (although not entirely) of carbohydrates—but let’s clarify just what that means, because the varying characteristics of carbs will factor significantly into the contrast I’m about to illustrate.

Carbohydrates are plant-based compounds comprised of carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen. They come in many varieties, but they are all technically sugars or starches, which convert to sugar in the body. The important difference is in how they affect your blood sugar. High-fiber, low-sugar carbohydrates such as broccoli are slowly digested and don’t lead to blood sugar and insulin spikes, while table sugar and bread are quickly digested carbs that spike your blood sugar. Therein lies the difference. Slow carbs like broccoli heal rather than harm.

Those 750 calories of broccoli make up 21 cups and contain 67 grams of fiber (the average American consumes 10 to 15 grams of fiber a day). Broccoli is 23 percent protein, 9 percent fat, and 68 percent carbohydrate, or 510 calories from carbs. The “sugar” in 21 cups of broccoli is the equivalent of only 1.5 teaspoons; the rest of the carbohydrates are the low-glycemic type found in all nonstarchy vegetables, which are very slowly absorbed.

Still, are the 750 calories in broccoli really the same as the 750 calories in soda? Kindergarten class response: “No way!” So why do we all think that’s true, and why has every major governmental and independent organization bought into this nonsense?

Let’s take a closer look at just how different these two sets of calories really are.

First, you wouldn’t be able to eat twenty-one cups of broccoli, because it wouldn’t fit in your stomach. But assuming you could, what would happen? They contain so much fiber that very few of the calories would actually get absorbed. Those that did would get absorbed very slowly. There’d be no blood sugar or insulin spike, no fatty liver, no hormonal chaos. Your stomach would distend (which it doesn’t with soda; bloat from carbonation doesn’t count!), sending signals to your brain that you were full. There would be no triggering of the addiction reward center in the brain. You’d also get many extra benefits that optimize metabolism, lower cholesterol, reduce inflammation, and boost detoxification. The phytonutrients in broccoli (glucosinolates) boost your liver’s ability to detoxify environmental chemicals, and the flavonoid kaempferol is a powerful anti-inflammatory. Broccoli also contains high levels of vitamin C and folate, which protect against cancer and heart disease. The glucosinolates and sulphorophanes in broccoli change the expression of your genes to help balance your sex hormones, reducing breast and other cancers.

What I’m trying to illustrate here (and this is probably the single most important idea in this book) is that all calories are NOT created equal. The same number of calories from different types of food can have very different biological effects.

If you still think a calorie is just a calorie, maybe this study will convince you otherwise. In a study of 154 countries that looked at the correlation of calories, sugar, and diabetes, scientists found that adding 150 calories a day to the diet barely raised the risk of diabetes in the population, but if those 150 calories came from soda, the risk of diabetes went up by 700 percent.

[Bouncer]

A calorie is definitely not a calorie. Agree 100%.

A 2000 calorie diet of chicken, oats, and peas will yield a far different result to that of a 2000 calorie diet of french fries and ice cream.

[Keiser]

A calorie is definitely not a calorie. Agree 100%.

A 2000 calorie diet of chicken, oats, and peas will yield a far different result to that of a 2000 calorie diet of french fries and ice cream.

Yeah, but sadly there are still people out there who subscribe to the calories in vs calories out math regarding fat gain/weight loss.

Hell even certain types of calories change your hormones. Many people don't realize this, but Cholesterol is the building block of Testosterone and many other hormones so eating high fat/proten will increase those hormones by default and those with more testosterone typically burn more fat in general.

[Bouncer]

Calorie is a calorie vs cals in/out are 2 different things.

If you take in 1500 calories per day and your body uses 2000 you will lose weight.

[Keiser]

Calorie is a calorie vs cals in/out are 2 different things.

If you take in 1500 calories per day and your body uses 2000 you will lose weight.

OK, so if you have two identical twins who both start out at 200lbs.

Twin 1: Eats 1500 calories of Coca Cola & Skittles and Burns 2000 calories on the treadmill per day.

Twin 2: Eats 1500 calories of Chicken & Oats and Burns 2000 calories on the treadmill per day.

At the end of 30 days, each weighs the same? Is the math really that simple?

7 Common Calorie Myths We Should All Stop Believing

[Bouncer]

The skittles and coke twin may actually weigh even less because he's not taking in protein to feed his muscles. Skittles and coke twin would be sick and very unhealthy but in terms of losing weight yes he would lose the same amount if not more.

So I guess I agree with your point, zero protein = muscle loss regardless of calories.

This is actually a very good point I admit. I find my self agreeing when I was ready to disagree. I was ready to agree that skittles and coke guy would look a whole lot less healthy but he would still have lost weight. Basically agreeing with the "calorie is a calorie" strictly when it comes to weight. But when I think about protein I find that I agree more with you. With zero protein, muscle loss would be accelerated and thus more weight would be shed.

Scrum your thoughts on this?

[AvidFisherman]

I wonder how much weight loss from the skittles guy would be from muscle mass and if fat mass could increase on such a calorie deficit? I'm thinking about the insulin response from the coke and skittles. If muscle and liver glycogen levels don't need to be replaced the insulin will be taking the glucose to fat cells. I'll have to see if there are any scholarly articles that talk about this.

[Bouncer]

I wonder how much weight loss from the skittles guy would be from muscle mass and if fat mass could increase on such a calorie deficit? I'm thinking about the insulin response from the coke and skittles. If muscle and liver glycogen levels don't need to be replaced the insulin will be taking the glucose to fat cells. I'll have to see if there are any scholarly articles that talk about this.

My thought is that with the absence of protein and the 500 cal deficit weight loss would be dramatic. The body would probably take on the "skinny fat" look. Body would hold onto fat reserves and eat away muscle.

To your point though, I'm not sure that the body would actually increase fat stores even with insulin being a factor. I can't prove that though obviously.

[AvidFisherman]

Add to that, a pound of fat is 3500 calories and a pound of muscle is 600 calories and you have someone that is going to be skinny-fat eating like that on a calorie restrictive diet.

[AvidFisherman]

You beat me to the skinny fat idea.