Nutrition: Major government fail? – Must Read Alaska

Chris Edwards Cato Institute

Americans are getting used to failures by government experts. Government economists are gloomy expected record. Government actions and advice during the pandemic have often been misplaced.And dozens of former government intelligence experts listened to Hunter Biden’s laptop error.

A lesser-recognized but important blunder may be in nutrition. Federal experts have apparently been misadvising for decades. exploded From 15% in the 1970s to 42% today. Federal guidance on nutrition states: big influence About health practices in society as a whole.Some researchers believe that Americans generally responded Based on guidance, obesity is still on the rise.

A clue to the shortcomings of federal nutrition guidance comes from calorie data. New United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) study It shows that average daily caloric intake increased by 21% from 1977-78 to 2003-04 and has since declined. By 2017-18 calories were up 15% from his 1970s, study “The rise in obesity rates has outpaced the increase in caloric intake.”

and Articles for 2022Professor of Nutrition Dariush Mozaffarian said, “In the last 20 years [years] It’s not like we’re eating more calories or exercising less, but obesity is still on the rise. When average calories fall, obesity rates Rose It has decreased from 31% in 2001-2002 to 42% today.

how is that? Obesity is caused by what you eat, not just how much you eat. In general, governments advised focusing on carbohydrates and de-emphasizing proteins and fats. food pyramidBut some nutritionists now say it was the other way around.As a libertarian, I don’t want the government telling us what to eat.

Like government experts, private sector experts get things wrong. But governments use mandates and subsidies to impose their will, and their powerful positions often supersede other views.and Presentation at Katoauthor, science journalist Nina Teikolts We discussed the government’s flawed nutritional standards and the harm she believed they caused.

She observed that “the level of certainty needed for public policy for the entire population must be very high,” and federal directives on nutrition fell far short of that level.

This chart shows the average daily calorie intake for Americans based on new USDA data. Carbohydrates have increased him 22% since the late 1970s, fat has increased his 12%, and protein has remained unchanged. You seem to want to focus primarily on carbohydrates to explain the rise in obesity.

Below are excerpts from two studies that synchronize with Nina Teicholz’s observations on the record of incorrect government advice on protein, fat, and carbohydrates. I understand that other experts have conflicting views. Nutrition is a complex field and scientists haven’t figured it all out yet.

But the cost of bad diets to individuals, health systems, and society is enormous, so government intervention must be treated with great caution. This is especially true this year as it is an appointment. adversely affect American diet.

First, some excerpts 2015 survey Evan Cohen and colleagues nutrition. Note that the latest USDA data show some increase in fat calories since this study was published.

Americans generally follow nutritional advice published by the American Heart Association and the U.S. Department of Agriculture and Health and Human Services for over 40 years. [years]: Fat consumption decreased from 45% to 34% and carbohydrate consumption increased from 39% to 51% of total caloric intake. Additionally, from 1971 to 2011, average weight and body mass index increased dramatically, with the percentage of Americans overweight or obese rising from 42% in 1971 to 66% in 2011. Increased.

…Since 1971, changes in the ratio of macronutrients from fat to carbohydrates are primarily due to increases in absolute carbohydrate consumption, as opposed to changes in total fat consumption. General adherence to recommendations to reduce fat consumption is consistent with a significant increase in obesity.

…Since the late 1970s, following the American Heart Association (AHA) and much of the academic community, the United States government has, on the basis of theory, reduced the percentage of dietary fat and saturated fat, and the absolute level of dietary cholesterol. have consistently recommended. Associations between these food ingredients and increased risk of coronary heart disease. This government guidance suggests that a reduction in dietary fat is accompanied by a concomitant increase in the proportion of carbohydrates in the diet. It was also thought to be beneficial in the prevention of other chronic diseases.

… In 1961, spurred by new medical and epidemiological studies, the AHA issued dietary recommendations to “reduce intake of total fat, saturated fat, and cholesterol.” In 1977, the United States Senate Task Force on Nutrition and Human Needs published Dietary Goals for the United States. It recommends reducing fat consumption to 30% of energy intake and increasing carbohydrate consumption to account for 55% to 60% of energy intake. energy intake.

Following this report, dietary guidelines for Americans issued by the USDA and the U.S. Department of Health, Education and Human Services (now the Department of Health and Human Services; DHHS) in 1980 recommended reducing total macronutrient consumption. doing. Absolute cholesterol consumption is reduced due to fat and saturated fat. To compensate, guidelines recommend increasing carbohydrate intake as a percentage of total calories.

During the 1980s, the federal government continued to issue reports and recommendations encouraging Americans to limit their fat consumption. In 1982, the National Research Council’s Committee on Diet, Nutrition, and Cancer issued interim dietary guidelines recommending reducing fat intake to 40% to 30% of total calories in the diet, Officially endorsed the 1961 AHA recommendations and the Senate. The USDA and DHHS recommendations have changed little since 1980. In 1992, the Food Guide Pyramid was released, urging Americans to use fats, oils and sweets “moderately” and to consume 6-11 servings of bread for her. , cereals, rice, pasta.

… There is a strong relationship between an increased proportion of carbohydrates in total intake and obesity.

…This study shows that general adherence to government dietary recommendations to reduce the proportion of fat in total dietary intake leads to a rapid increase in obesity rates.

Second, an excerpt from Research in 2022 by Joyce Lee and colleagues The forefront of nutrition science:

[From 1800 to 2019] Processed and ultra-processed foods increased from less than 5% to over 60% of food. Significant increases were seen in sugar, white flour, whole grains, rice, poultry, eggs, vegetable oils, dairy products and raw vegetables. Saturated fats from animal sources decreased and polyunsaturated fats from vegetable oils increased. Non-communicable diseases (NCDs) increased in the 20th century in parallel with increased consumption of processed foods such as sugar, refined flour, rice and vegetable oils. Animal-derived saturated fat was inversely associated with the prevalence of NCDs.

…Ancel Keys’ Dietary Heart Hypothesis attributes the epidemic of heart disease in the mid-nineteenth century to a “altered American diet,” an increased consumption of fats, particularly saturated fatty acids (SFAs), and a decreased consumption of grains. I assumed.

…unprocessed elements of the 19th-century diet, such as animal fats, full-fat dairy products, fresh vegetables, and fresh fruit, were replaced by more processed foods, such as industrial seed oils, HFCS, and ready-to-eat snacks and meals. Gradually replaced by elements.. data does not support widely published [Ancel Keys’] “Changes in the American diet” with increased animal-derived SFAs in the first six decades of the 20th century.

Rather, polyunsaturated and partially hydrogenated fats from vegetable oils have replaced lard, butter, and other fats of animal origin. Throughout the 20th century, increased rates of obesity, diabetes, heart disease, and cancer were associated with stable SFA consumption. Refined carbohydrates and total calories are then more likely factors than SFAs in the pathogenesis of NCDs.

… The increased consumption of red meat and SFAs as a cause of the heart disease epidemic is one of the foundations of Keyes’ diet heart hypothesis, and McGovern’s Senate Select Committee on American Diet Goals (1977), Science in the Public Interest’s (1978) monograph The Changing American Diet, New York Times columnist Jane Brody’s (1985) Good Food Book, Surgeon General Koop’s Report on Nutrition and Health (1988), and World Health Organization’s Diet, Nutrition, and the Prevention of Chronic Disease (1990). However, neither the USDA nor other data support this theory.

… the increasing consumption of SFAs in the United States during the 20th century was thought to be responsible for the dramatic increase in noncommunicable diseases (NCDs)… [But] Our findings suggest that SFA is unlikely to promote obesity, diabetes, or other NCDs.

… U.S. and international organizations and medical associations strongly endorse a low-fat/low-SFA, high-carbohydrate diet for all ages 2 and older, and by 2008, sugar was considered healthy for diabetics and the general population. advocated.

… Evidence supports roles for both energy balance and refined carbohydrate-insulin mechanisms in obesity, and their relative roles are likely to change based on genetics and other factors.

…our findings suggest that increased consumption of sugar and refined carbohydrates in 20th-century America may have played a larger role than total calories and physical activity, although this It remains a guess without precise data on all variables.

A note about the data: This graph shows the average daily calories for all Americans 2 years of age and older. USDA data in grams were converted to calories using 4 grams per calorie for protein and carbohydrates and 9 grams per calorie for fat. USDA total, but underestimates the 2017-18 total of 2,093 calories.Learn more about nutrition and farm bills here and hereThe Nutrition Coalition is investigating these issues here.

This column first appeared on Cato.org.

– Advertising ​​-