RFK Jr.’s dietary guidelines: Beef tallow is in, but no booze for breakfast

gosand

Ars Tribunus Militum
1,723
Tell that to a hospital dietitian next time you're in post-operative care.
Ah yes, hospital food after you have had surgery - the best and most relevant source of information for everyone.

I should have known better than to look at that original diagram objectively in this sound-chamber.

"Overwhelming evidence accrued in recent decades shows that the types of fat and carbohydrate have major implications for chronic disease prevention, and that healthy dietary patterns may vary greatly in macronutrient proportion with attention to food quality. This principle is undermined to a significant degree by a renewed focus on restricting total dietary fat, especially for a worldwide population with highly prevalent insulin resistance and related cardiometabolic disorders."

Source: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0002916523661520

More articles say similar things. There is just no evidence that supports most of the claims people have. The internet has just made it worse, even though there is good information available, people won't read it.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2475299123154369
https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/physiology/articles/10.3389/fphys.2023.1144200/full
 
Upvote
-4 (2 / -6)
I should have known better than to look at that original diagram objectively in this sound-chamber.
If you're going to whine about people not agreeing with your super-duper superior opinions, at least get the terminology right. "Sound-chamber"?

ETA: none of those studies say what you claim they say. You're fooling absolutely nobody.
 
Upvote
9 (9 / 0)

shenzhe

Wise, Aged Ars Veteran
144
Subscriptor++
Less added sugar is good advice, there's a lot of food that gets lots of sugar added to it just as a matter of course. It can be a little hard to find 'no sugar added' alternatives to products, but worth it.

But that's also not really new information, and the rest of the advice is almost incomprehensible. What does highly processed even mean? What does their new food shape even represent? It doesn't seem to correlate to portion size or match the dietary guidelines of their own text, which makes it feel a little inscrutable


I mean maybe if the phrase has no consistent definition and only indirect connections to health outcomes we should stop using it as health guidance?

I don't know what the hell intent has to do with it either. Does high calorie, high sugar food become healthier if it has good intentions? Is a 200 calorie snack forged by soulless capitalism worse than a 400 calorie one made with love and good vibes?

What we actually want is people to have healthy macros, get good fiber, manage their caloric intake, and avoid excessive sugars, fats, and salts they don't need... so like, why not focus on that part instead of obscuring it behind weird and vague language.

As far as the not using the phrase as health guidance, that's what the old guidance and the initial advice* on this guidance did. They basically said, "we don't have a good definition for Ultra Processed Foods, and therefor we won't include them in our guidance."

From the linked article
Another difference is that the new recommendations specifically call out avoiding ultraprocessed foods. The previous guidelines did not explicitly name ultraprocessed foods but instead recommended consuming nutrient-dense foods, which means foods that have a lot of nutrients while also having relatively few calories. That is, in essence, less processed or whole foods.

Food scientists still lack a solid definition of ultraprocessed foods. Our committee actually spent a long time discussing this, and the Food and Drug Administration is currently working on creating a clear definition of the term that can guide research and policy.
 
Upvote
1 (1 / 0)

gosand

Ars Tribunus Militum
1,723
If you're going to whine about people not agreeing with your super-duper superior opinions, at least get the terminology right. "Sound-chamber"?

ETA: none of those studies say what you claim they say. You're fooling absolutely nobody.
be honest - you didn't even click on them, let alone read them.
 
Upvote
-7 (0 / -7)
Okay, let's get this out of the way first: RFKJr used some absolutely shit-tastic 1990s clipart to build that inverted pyramid.

Onward!
While the new guidelines say “no amount of added sugars or non-nutritive sweeteners is recommended,” it offers the suggestion that “one meal should contain no more than 10 grams of added sugars.” There are four calories in one gram of sugar, so the recommendation means no more than 40 calories from sugar per meal.
Nope.

It means no more than 40 calories of added sugar.

Eating an average banana is totally fine under the new guidelines. You would consume ~14 grams of sugars.
 
Upvote
5 (5 / 0)

bebu

Ars Scholae Palatinae
1,072
I'm a strong believer in cooking lean meat in Extra Virgin Olive oil , Italian food is where it's at.
I find unsalted butter with a teaspoon of extra·virgin doesn't spatter as much (the water + hot oil thing) as pure olive oil.

Shouldn't matter much as you don't normally consume the grease — unless you make fried bread à la British "cuisine." 🤮

A small quantity of omega-6 fatty acid in your diet is apparently desirable and I imagine a small amount of butter might provide that.
Less flesh in the diet generally, is probably a desirable target for most US consumers. Cost would limit that in most other parts of the globe.
 
Upvote
1 (1 / 0)

bebu

Ars Scholae Palatinae
1,072
And there was me thinking peeps were talking about brawn - something my mum used to make regularly..

I believe that the rebellious colonists (I'm including Oz here too after the successful rebellion of the Ashes test series - mind you it was like adults playing a bunch of pre-teens..) call it "Head cheese".

Ingredients:

1 pigs head
1 large onion
1 large leek
1 large carrot
10 peppercorns
1 teaspoon of coriander seeds
6 bay leaves (retain 4 for decoration)
A bunch of fresh flat leaf parsley
½ bunch fresh thyme
4 pigs trotters
2 bulbs of garlic
1 lemon, juice only
2 pork bones

Obviously, my mum, being a traditional British sort, would never have used dodgy foreign stuff like coriander or garlic (not that coriander was available in the late 1970s in southern England - or at least, not in our local shops!) but the rest is similar to what I remember with little fondness. And the smell of the head boiling to remove all the meat is surpassed only by the smell of lungs ('lights') boiling up to be given to the dogs. She used to forage for berries to make jam with and then swap the resultant jam for offal from the village butcher. Truely a different time.

The pigs trotters are to provide extra mean and the jelly to hold the whole terrine together.
I think I have seen this recipe in a classic cookbook (probably not Elizabeth David) and have always regretted that I am unlikely to ever partake of the dish (in AU at least) and many other offal based dishes. Still love the lambs fry and grilled lambs' kidney from childhood.
 
Upvote
0 (0 / 0)

bebu

Ars Scholae Palatinae
1,072
I have this debate with my wife every time we buy cream cheese and she wants the 1/3 less fat version. It doesn't taste bad but I don't think it tastes as good.
A lot of reduced fat or fat free versions of traditional products are bulked out with even more unhealthy ingredients. Reduced fat yoghurts typically very heavy on the sugar.

My take is to enjoy your traditional cream cheese in moderation (and just about anything else.)

I read Mireille Guiliano's "Why French Women Don't Get Fat" years ago on a whim after picking up a copy from a street library and to my surprise found she dispensed great deal of common sense.
 
Upvote
4 (4 / 0)

Shavano

Ars Legatus Legionis
69,481
Subscriptor
Ah yes, hospital food after you have had surgery - the best and most relevant source of information for everyone.

I should have known better than to look at that original diagram objectively in this sound-chamber.

"Overwhelming evidence accrued in recent decades shows that the types of fat and carbohydrate have major implications for chronic disease prevention, and that healthy dietary patterns may vary greatly in macronutrient proportion with attention to food quality. This principle is undermined to a significant degree by a renewed focus on restricting total dietary fat, especially for a worldwide population with highly prevalent insulin resistance and related cardiometabolic disorders."

Source: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0002916523661520

More articles say similar things. There is just no evidence that supports most of the claims people have. The internet has just made it worse, even though there is good information available, people won't read it.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2475299123154369
https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/physiology/articles/10.3389/fphys.2023.1144200/full
But they'll be all over it if it has an attractive promoter with a well-crafted campaign on Instagram and Tiktok.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/15252019.2020.1769514
"The results of an online survey showed that followers’ perceived attractiveness of influencers, similarity to influencers, procedural fairness, and interpersonal fairness of their interactions with influencers are positively related to the strength of their parasocial relationship with influencers, which further mediates the effect of the aforementioned factors on followers’ interests in influencer-promoted products"

but the bad news is:
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11901546/
No statistical significance was associated between the level of accuracy or evidence and engagement metrics (p > 0.05).
 
Upvote
2 (2 / 0)
Heart disease and liver cancer for all! Coupled with the ongoing war against health care this is going to drive early deaths while simultaneously undermining real expertise (probably the driving reason RFK Jr has any power at all).

Just more of the eugenics adjacent bullshit these people keep advocating for.
His position is a reward for spoiling things for Harris.
 
Upvote
1 (1 / 0)
this is the area I expected RFK Jr. to do the least amount of damage
The entire program can be summarized Trump-style in a series of three images: left to right, the “Before” photo featuring a closeup of a young Brad Pitt; the graphic of the new inverted food pyramid; and finally, the “After” photo featuring a closeup of RFK Jr.
 
Upvote
0 (0 / 0)
A lot of reduced fat or fat free versions of traditional products are bulked out with even more unhealthy ingredients. Reduced fat yoghurts typically very heavy on the sugar.
...
There are some traditional or derived yogurts that don't have it. Like Icelandic Skyr and other strained types.

East Asia doesn't have much dairy, so Chinese, Japanese, and other east and southeast Asian Buddhists don't really consume dairy.
Not sure about Japan...
https://dairynews.today/milkypedia/country/jp/
 
Upvote
0 (0 / 0)

C.M. Allen

Ars Tribunus Angusticlavius
6,155
Do human health and nutrition standards differ greatly from country to country? Why?
Actually, yes. On account of different forms and extents of physical activity (the average American is not very physically active, and what activity they do have is low impact at that), but also the vastly more complicated gut microbiome (much of which is inherited from mothers). We're still trying to piece together all the ways the microbial life inside our digestive system works with (and often against) our overall physical, mental (yes, seriously), and digestive health.

But one thing that can be said with absolute certainty -- Americans consume way too much sugar. In fact, if you look at the extreme and negative impacts that level of sugar consumption has on a person's health, it's not unreasonable to say that Americans are actually consuming sugars in amounts that are essentially toxic.
 
Upvote
0 (1 / -1)
If we are being honest. Nobody follows these guidelines (just walk around and watch people) and when people want to lose weight they either go to the doctor or follow some version of WeightWatchers so it’s not like this is a huge problem for the average person. I understand the issues it generates for medicine professionals, but the attack on vaccines is where the focus should be. Unfortunately, we have to pick our fights.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_1848.jpeg
    IMG_1848.jpeg
    73.5 KB · Views: 16
Upvote
0 (0 / 0)

johnbramhall

Smack-Fu Master, in training
60
Subscriptor
If you want to be fair, mention too that those people also had a pretty different lifestyle than current ones; food being just one component of longer healthier life.
and it’s quite likely that people in America ate less food, in the past, just less (unless they worked hard physically), and that the northern Mediterranean portions are way smaller than in the US even now. I remember being astounded at US portion size when I moved here in the 70s from England - the land of suet. I thought people were playing a joke on me when they subbed me lunches at UCLA!
 
Upvote
0 (0 / 0)
Veganism isn't lifestyle or a diet. It's not even about us at all. Veganism is an ethical stance that acknowledges that animals are sentient and value their own lives and that we have no right to exploit them for our own selfish pleasures and/or convenience. Animals need a voice and vegans are that voice. If you don't like what we're saying that's on you not us.
I very much disagree. That some eats a vegan diet tells you nothing apart from their diet. Any beliefs you have about why you or others should be vegan should not be presumed to be held by everyone who is vegan, no matter who tells you that this is true.
 
Upvote
4 (4 / 0)
Lot to unpack here but interesting that AHA still insists on this low sodium thing which is being proven more and more wrong:

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9504547/
Your own link states in the introduction that there are many large proven health benefits to the population of restricting sodium intake significantly, but that restricting it "aggressively" gives no additional benefits.

Taking that papers numbers, given in the first part of the discussion, the current population intake is 9-12g/day and there is benefit to reducing down to 5g/day, but no benefit to reducing it further than that. Given those numbers, recommending a reduction in sodium intake to the general population is obviously worthwhile.
 
Upvote
1 (1 / 0)
Less added sugar is good advice, there's a lot of food that gets lots of sugar added to it just as a matter of course. It can be a little hard to find 'no sugar added' alternatives to products, but worth it.

But that's also not really new information, and the rest of the advice is almost incomprehensible. What does highly processed even mean? What does their new food shape even represent? It doesn't seem to correlate to portion size or match the dietary guidelines of their own text, which makes it feel a little inscrutable


I mean maybe if the phrase has no consistent definition and only indirect connections to health outcomes we should stop using it as health guidance?

I don't know what the hell intent has to do with it either. Does high calorie, high sugar food become healthier if it has good intentions? Is a 200 calorie snack forged by soulless capitalism worse than a 400 calorie one made with love and good vibes?

What we actually want is people to have healthy macros, get good fiber, manage their caloric intake, and avoid excessive sugars, fats, and salts they don't need... so like, why not focus on that part instead of obscuring it behind weird and vague language.

I agree. When I see outcry against highly-processed foods I tend to react skeptically.

Here's what i generally see happening;

Someone takes a list of all foods ordered from healthiest to least healthy.
They find a way of slicing that list that gives more foods in the unhealthy end than in the healthy end.
Diet's that include a high proportion of the slice are likely to be unhealthy.
They then claim that the whole slice is unhealthy and that people shouldn't eat them.
Buy my book/subscribe to my paleo diet etc

Noone can even agree on the definition of the slice - but it's fairly obvious to everyone that the most unhealthy foods on the planet lie in it. Chocolates, sweets, pastries, pizza, soda - those are highly processed. But they are more usefully grouped into foods that are high in sodium or with a ton of added sugar. The highly processed foods slice, instead, allows people pushing fad diets to associate industrial ingredients with poor health, without any actual research about the ingredients.
It's correlation not causation.
And like with most marketing, I smell profit motives behind the marketing push.
 
Upvote
0 (0 / 0)