|
coreconcepts -> Re: New food pyramid (May 2, 2005 9:03:00 AM)
|
Here's my take on the new food pyramid:
But first...
JSPT - good catch! Sugar lobbyists have an influence on this one. I know that the Sugar Association threatened to lobby congress to remove their funding to the WHO if they held to their suggestion that states people "get no more than 10% of calories from sugar additives". This contribution is to the tune of $406 Million - a quarter of the WHO budget. I don't know how this all panned out, but those are the facts. The Sugar Association tried to squash the report claiming "insufficient evidence" that sugar helps contribute to obesity, diabetes, certain cancers and syndrome X. This is a ridiculous assertion to say the least, as evidence of the connection is overwhelming. Sugar is not the only factor - let's be clear about that. Too many calories are certainly a huge factor - especially those from refined grains, saturated fat, trans fats in addition to sugar. But to say sugar isn't at least a peice to that puzzle is asinine.
Now here's what I like about the pyramid.
- I'm glad they gave the straight goods on how much exercise people ACTUALLY need to lose body fat. These seemed to have been loosened every time I looked. Sorry Jorge Cruise - 8 minutes a day DOES NOT cut it.
- They've recommended a more realistic 6oz of grains (not the 5-12 like our canadian food guide).
- I like the variablity (ie. carb recommendations are as low as 45% and as high as 65% - depending on the population) - same for fat, with protein making up the remainder.
Here's what I don't like (understand)
- Doesn't provide enough detail as to "how" to make better choices within the grains/milk/meat categories.
- Should encourage people to consume almost ALL (if not most) of their grain choices from whole grains.
- Like the recommendation of getting fat consumption from fish and nuts, but again, they need to specify when it comes to which oils should be recommended (for example, it is well-documented that olive and canola oils are healthier than other vegetable oils)
- I have a problem with them not recommending an absolute EXCLUSION of trans fats. Intead, they lump them in with saturated fats and salts (which are okay in moderation, unlike their deadly counterpart)
- As eluded to before, and as mentioned by JSPT - they've tiptoed around the sugar issue by not expressly recommending a restriction. This should replace "trans fats" as "items to limit"
- There should be more of an emphasis on simply eating less. Suggestions such as eating early and eating often should be included somewhere on the pyramid.
- I don't know why they think that measuring cups vs. measuring servings is somehow more user-friendly (as many dieticians have suggested). How difficult is it to relate things to a light bulb, a deck of cards, a fist and a hockey puck (okay, the last one may be for us Canucks only!)
Overall, they could have done better. Many details are lost in trying to condense the imformation and they should have made a point to emphasize certain things.
Any thoughts?
|
|
|
|