Read on Twitter
Uh-huh. Seems like you're projecting just a teensy bit. I'm not angry. Amused, yes. Puzzled, perhaps. But not angry.
So much wrong with my responses. And yet, you didn't actually answer any of the questions that made up the bulk of my responses.
So I still want to know: https://twitter.com/whsource/status/1359520707688861696
So much wrong with my responses. And yet, you didn't actually answer any of the questions that made up the bulk of my responses.
So I still want to know: https://twitter.com/whsource/status/1359520707688861696
I'm not sure how you know what I think about how you are acting. (Again, project much?)
Here's what I do think: You've got a hammer of a theory and you're looking for some (elusive) nails of evidence.
Here's what I do think: You've got a hammer of a theory and you're looking for some (elusive) nails of evidence.
My theory: The DGA were both *caused by* social, cultural, economic, political & public health shifts & *a cause for* their amplification & expansion, the effects of which included, among many other things, a rapid rise in obesity rates.
Evidence: https://repository.lib.ncsu.edu/handle/1840.20/36530?show=full
Evidence: https://repository.lib.ncsu.edu/handle/1840.20/36530?show=full
Theories that I think don't hold up to close inspection:
The "Field of Dreams" theory: We built more fast food restaurants & made more high kcal snack food & people ate it because we made it?
The hyperpalatability theory: Food didn't taste as good in the 1970s? Says who?
The "Field of Dreams" theory: We built more fast food restaurants & made more high kcal snack food & people ate it because we made it?
The hyperpalatability theory: Food didn't taste as good in the 1970s? Says who?
The Michael Pollan theory: Food was cheaper so we ate more of it?
The "We ate less fat & got fat" theory: We ate less fat as intake of veg oils soared?
The "We ate less fat & got fat" theory: We ate less fat as intake of veg oils soared?
So @whsource, you asked: "What do you think our current food environment would be like if the DGA had never happened? Do you think it would be less fattening?"
I'm not sure about the second question because the *food* itself isn't the problem.
I'm not sure about the second question because the *food* itself isn't the problem.
We've had "fattening" food in our food environment for a long time, if you're referring to "pizza, chips, soda."
In fact, prior to around 1977, food was considered healthy if it was *nutrient dense.* Even if some of those nutrients included cholesterol, fat & saturated fat.
With the 77 Dietary Goals, our definition of "healthy" foods/diet changed dramatically & irrevocably.
With the 77 Dietary Goals, our definition of "healthy" foods/diet changed dramatically & irrevocably.
"Healthy" food/diets went from being what "nourishes our bodies" to what "prevents chronic disease."
In critical nutrition studies, this is referred to as "negative nutrition." Food became valued for what it didn't have (calories, fat, etc.) rather than what it did have.
In critical nutrition studies, this is referred to as "negative nutrition." Food became valued for what it didn't have (calories, fat, etc.) rather than what it did have.
So how would our food environment be different without the DGA?
Every layer of the socio-ecological model of health would be different.
Our whole *understanding* of food, nutrition, public health, nutrition science would be different.
Ah, where to start?
Every layer of the socio-ecological model of health would be different.
Our whole *understanding* of food, nutrition, public health, nutrition science would be different.
Ah, where to start?
Without the DGA:
1) We would not have food labels & food marketing that allows nutrient-poor food to be labelled in terms that position that food as "healthy."
2) We'd still think things like eggs & red meat were okay to eat.
1) We would not have food labels & food marketing that allows nutrient-poor food to be labelled in terms that position that food as "healthy."
2) We'd still think things like eggs & red meat were okay to eat.
Without the DGA:
3) There's no extra dairy fat around to make cheap cheese, ice cream, etc. because the fat stays with the milk/cheese,
4) There's many fewer Buffalo wing joints because wings stay with the chicken,
3) There's no extra dairy fat around to make cheap cheese, ice cream, etc. because the fat stays with the milk/cheese,
4) There's many fewer Buffalo wing joints because wings stay with the chicken,
Without the DGA:
5) We still rely on local knowledges about what is healthy because we haven't been told that we don't know how to feed ourselves a "healthy diet,"
5) We still rely on local knowledges about what is healthy because we haven't been told that we don't know how to feed ourselves a "healthy diet,"
Without the DGA:
6) We'd be less hungry over the course of the day because we're encouraged to eat "a hard-boiled egg, a chicken leg, cheese, or luncheon meat" for breakfast, instead of cereal & pop-tarts. (See current absence of protein in national school breakfast program.)
6) We'd be less hungry over the course of the day because we're encouraged to eat "a hard-boiled egg, a chicken leg, cheese, or luncheon meat" for breakfast, instead of cereal & pop-tarts. (See current absence of protein in national school breakfast program.)
Without the DGA:
7) We don't try to *treat* obesity & type 2 diabetes with a low-fat, high-carb diet because low-fat/high-carb is the VERY DEFINITION of what a "healthy" diet is & anyone who doesn't encourage a patient to avoid fat is a heretic.
7) We don't try to *treat* obesity & type 2 diabetes with a low-fat, high-carb diet because low-fat/high-carb is the VERY DEFINITION of what a "healthy" diet is & anyone who doesn't encourage a patient to avoid fat is a heretic.
Without the DGA:
8) We wouldn't be trying to replace a person's traditional diet from their culture, with a "healthy" American diet of granola bars & orange juice.
8) We wouldn't be trying to replace a person's traditional diet from their culture, with a "healthy" American diet of granola bars & orange juice.
Without the DGA:
9) We would not have ratified the acceptance of low-quality or inappropriate data for making public health recommendations, thus undermining the trust that people have in this guidance.
9) We would not have ratified the acceptance of low-quality or inappropriate data for making public health recommendations, thus undermining the trust that people have in this guidance.
Without the DGA:
10) There would not have been a specific agenda to be carried out in nutrition science to support the nutrition policy already in place.
10) There would not have been a specific agenda to be carried out in nutrition science to support the nutrition policy already in place.
Without the DGA:
11) We would not have misdirected public health resources away from structural issues that greatly impact population health & toward a campaign of personal responsibility.
11) We would not have misdirected public health resources away from structural issues that greatly impact population health & toward a campaign of personal responsibility.
Without the DGA:
12) We would not be demonizing specific food components.
12) We would not be demonizing specific food components.
Without the DGA:
13) We would be focused (still) on getting adequate essential nutrition & maintaining *current* metabolic health rather than trying to prevent chronic diseases whose etiologies are murky & complex.
13) We would be focused (still) on getting adequate essential nutrition & maintaining *current* metabolic health rather than trying to prevent chronic diseases whose etiologies are murky & complex.
There's probably more but I think it is safe to say that, combined, many of these effects would have an negative impact on the health of our population - some more so than others.
