You did not, however, that is exactly what Americans have done. Simple arithmetic calculation of calorie intake by percentage will show that the change in percentages is not sufficiently explained by "Americans just ate more carbs." Americans have cut down on the amount of dietary fat they consume, and over the same time, increased carbohydrate/sugar intake, along with a moderate (200-400 kcal) increase in total calories. The FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization) provides a quite specific breakdown of food intake, showing that consumption of fatty foods - eggs, butter, fell by 38%; many red meats, fell by 13%; while grain consumption has increased by 39%. So carbs up, fats down. Oops, there goes half of your stupid argument.
Did you ACTUALLY read the damn NCHANE article I linked you to? Fat consumption remained the damn same. So, your most important argument, that it was a reduction in fat intake that led to an increase in carb intake is false, from the EXACT same set of data you linked to.
Additionally, even if Americans were eating the same amount of fat, rather than cutting fat (which they aren't, as above, but whatever, facts are bullshit, right?), how does this explain the massive increase in obesity and metabolic syndromes (e.g. diabetes, atherosclerosis), if those are linked to fat intake? Simply put, if fat/cholesterol/saturated fat are the primary dietary risk factors, then those ailments should not have increased if fat/cholesterol/saturated fat intake haven't increased (which even you have not posited).
odd, why the FUCK do I feel that its you who's doing that instead? We do know that consumption of butter fell from the 60s to 2000, but that was substitude with margarine and other stuff high in transfat. Hydrogenated oils etc.
Similarly, fat intake is not linked to obesity. Obesity is linked to metabolic syndromes. Obesity is adequately explained by increased caloric intake.
And I feel like reaching out to strangle you, because the argument is that its TRANSFAT and SATURATED fat that increase the risk of atherosclerosis. Which Americans are STILL eating too much of under IOM recommendations.
Do you even fucking read?
Finally, you appear very focused on considering this as a one-way, one-issue problem, without pausing to consider "why". WHY have Americans started eating much higher amounts of carbohydrates and sugars? Possibly because lower fat intake is linked to higher insulin resistance, higher appetite, more frequent hunger, and lower energy levels, all of which combine to favor eating carbohydrate- and sugar-filled "healthy snacks" like chips, fruits, etc.?
Actually, a higher sugar intake is also linked to higher appetite, more frequent hunger and lower energy levels.
And of course, a higher protein intake is also linked to satiety in appetite as well.
And of course, the increase in meal portions during this period in time.
The increase in sugary snacks and soda available for consumption.
Increase in consumption/wealth during this period, changing trends in American dietary patterns due to affluence and etc. For example, the increased intake of cookies and candies, the popularity of soda as a drink and reduced intake of water......
And you wonder why Broomstick called your approach reductionist?
I did not "insinuate" any such thing, I stated it baldly and with evidence on my side. The video
I linked on page 1 goes through exactly the sequence of events which lead to the creation of the food pyramid, the poor science/conclusions drawn, and what both studies of the time and current studies show about the relative health effects of various dietary strategies. However, I know that on this particular forum, ignoring the evidence one's debate opponents provides is par for the course, and asking you to actually watch an hour for in-depth scientific perspective is way too fucking hard.
Did you read this paragraph?
The ONLY problem was with regards to fats, because by not differentiating between trans, saturated and poly/mono-fat, many people made what is now known as bad dietary choices(margarine vs butter anyone?) But NONE of the errors STILL supports your argument that the FDA advocates replacing fat with carbs.
Of course, it lacked critical information we do nows, in particular eggs, blood cholesterol diets and its link to heart disease but to crucify it as poor science?
Note that none of this actually made what Broomstick said wrong, which was what you jumped in here to do.
Americans still eat too much saturated fat/trans fat that's higher than recommended for cardiac health. And please, do go on using the absurd argument that a decrease in fat consumption exists, even though the exact same data set you quoted earlier in the thread, and indeed, shown in that video you linked shows that fat consumption remained the same.
Ok, multiple separate points here. First, the recommendations of the FDA and USDA have changed significantly over time. In the early period I was first talking about, the original guidelines were very clear: eat very little fat, eat lots of rice, pasta, breads, and other grain-based foods. These recommendations are reflected and borne out by the dietary patterns of Americans in the past 50 years.
And as I pointed out to you, you KEEP ignoring the context of the FDA recommendations. The goal then wasn't to target obesity, it was to target the link between saturated fat and heart disease that the data available then showed.
These recommendations are not based on science. For one, any recommendation that you should cut cholesterol intake ought to be looked at with extreme skepticism, considering that 75% or so of your serum cholesterol is made by your own cells. They make less of it when you eat a lot of it, and they make more of it when you eat less. Your cells need cholesterol. It's an essential chemical. When we talk about "bad" cholesterol, that has absolutely nothing to do with the actual chemical cholesterol, but is instead an indicator of the amount of particles of a certain type of lipoprotein which can carry triglycerides and cholesterol in the bloodstream (low-density lipoprotein particulate, LDL-P). This measurement, LDL-P, is the only and best indicator of risk of CVD and atherosclerosis, and it is not in any way linked to cholesterol intake - it spikes when you eat carbohydrates, both complex (grains) and simple (sugars). Huh, looks like eating lots of carbohydrates (7-8 servings per day, per the food pyramid) is actually worse for your heart health. So there goes that.
Your cells need cholesterol. However, your cells don't need YOU to eat cholesterol to generate it. And of course, I note the dishonesty you made in ignoring that their recommendations was to reduce the amount of "bad" cholesterol you eat.
Also, ARGGHHH. Did you NOT FUCKING READ THE GOD DAMN advisory/recommendations that I actually fucking quoted from the damn guideline earlier in this post?
They did NOT recommend cutting down on fat intake. They recommended switching saturated fat intake to poly/mono unsaturated fat instead!
On to fats/saturated fats:
FAO/WHO Expert Consultation background paper, 2009 wrote:
The available evidence from cohort and randomized controlled trials is unsatisfactory and unreliable to make judgment about and substantiate the effects of dietary fat on risk of CHD.
A meta-analysis of prospective epidemiologic studies showed that there is no significant evidence for concluding that dietary saturated fat is associated with an increased risk of CHD or CVD
Let's see what the Cochrane review says.http://summaries.cochrane.org/CD002137/ ... rt-disease
Modifying fat in our food (replacing some saturated (animal) fats with plant oils and unsaturated spreads) may reduce risk of heart and vascular disease, but it is not clear whether monounsaturated or polyunsaturated fats are more beneficial. There are no clear health benefits of replacing saturated fats with starchy foods (reducing the total amount of fat we eat). Heart and vascular disease includes heart attacks, angina, strokes, sudden cardiovascular death and the need for heart surgery. Modifying the fat we eat seems to protect us better if we adhere in doing so for at least two years. It is not clear whether people who are currently healthy benefit as much as those at increased risk of cardiovascular disease (people with hypertension, raised serum lipids or diabetes for example) and people who already have heart disease, but the suggestion is that they would all benefit to some extent.
This updated review suggested that reducing saturated fat by reducing and/or modifying dietary fat reduced the risk of cardiovascular events by 14% (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.77 to 0.96, 24 comparisons, 65,508 participants of whom 7% had a cardiovascular event, I2 50%). Subgrouping suggested that this reduction in cardiovascular events was seen in studies of fat modification (not reduction - which related directly to the degree of effect on serum total and LDL cholesterol and triglycerides), of at least two years duration and in studies of men (not of women). There were no clear effects of dietary fat changes on total mortality (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.04, 71,790 participants) or cardiovascular mortality (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.04, 65,978 participants). This did not alter with sub-grouping or sensitivity analysis.
Few studies compared reduced with modified fat diets, so direct comparison was not possible.
But what about your own meta-review?
Most recently, however, an analysis conducted in a pooled cohort of studies showed a lower CHD risk when saturated fat was replaced with polyunsaturated fat and increased nonfatal myocardial infarction, but not fatal CHD, risk when saturated fat was replaced with carbohydrate (24).
Inverse associations of polyunsaturated fat and CVD risk have previously been reported (41, 42). Replacement of 5% of total energy from saturated fat with polyunsaturated fat has been estimated to reduce CHD risk by 42% (43). Notably, the amount of dietary polyunsaturated fat in relation to saturated fat (ie, the P:S ratio) has been reported to be more significantly associated with CVD than saturated fat alone, with a reduced CHD risk found with P:S ratios ≥ 0.49 (44). Only 1 of the 21 studies that met criteria for inclusion in this meta-analysis evaluated the relation of the P:S ratio with CHD (14). No effect was seen in this study, in which the average P:S ratio was ≈0.4, nor was there an association of P:S ratio with CVD in the Israeli Ischemic Heart Study (U Goldbourt, personal communication, 2008). However, these studies were relatively small.
So, the Dietary Guidelines for Americans 2010 which recommends switching(not CUTTING) saturated fat intake to poly/monounsaturated fat is backed by the EXACT same science you're using to critique it for not following good science?
I'm sorry. Just how many times are you going to use an article/dataset that shoots you in your own foot again?
The FDA recommends eating low-fat, high-carb.
IN WHICH FUCKING YEAR?
It recommended reducing fat, and COMPLEX carbs.
This diet is not supported by science, is contradicted by science (as shown above) and will lead to people eating more calories, having a higher insulin resistance (more calories turned into fat), higher heart disease (as shown by LDL-P tracking studies), and higher incidence of metabolic disorder and diabetes. Your argument is essentially that a diet which can be shown to produce the exact constellation of nutrition-related harmful effects that we see isn't actually responsible for them, but that people are ignoring those dietary recommendations (despite evidence to the contrary) and developing those exact set of effects because they're eating what all evidence shows they aren't eating. Does that sound more logical in your head, or something?
WILL YOU STOP FUCKING CONFLATING COMPLEX CARBS WITH REFINED SUGAR?
No, you have demolished no such thing. Of course people are gaining weight because they eat more calories. That's obvious. Thanks for restating the first law of thermodynamics for me, I was getting rusty.
That's odd, because you sure as hell didn't mention that in your OPENING POST.
The real question is why are they eating more calories? Could it be because of all the things I've already described? That proteins and fats sate hunger more effectively and for longer, and if you cut down on them (as the FDA recommends, whether you admit that or not), you'll be hungrier, sooner, and turn to FDA-recommended grains, rice, breads, etc., things which do not sate the appetite as well or as long, and hence you'll end up eating more calories. Oh my god, an answer that makes sense and is supported by evidence. Clearly you'll dispute this and come up with a conspiracy theory about apples being stuffed with EVIL SATURATED FAT JUST TO HURT AMERICANS.
Oh no! If it wasn't for the silly fat that fat consumption didn't decrease, the critical plank of your argument, I would be utterly wrong! And its only shown in the same dataset that you're using to rebut me that fat consumption has decreased!
Oh. By the way.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12833109
Complex carbs such as brown rice, wheat and etc has more stronger effect on satiety than refined carbs. Or you know, the FDA recommendation which cut refined sugar and increased complex carbs. Or the NHANE study which shows that Americans are eating more and more refined sugar.
Untrue, as shown by FAO data.
Show it then. Consumption of eggs in 1996 by the Statistical Abstract of the United States (1998 edition), 236.2 eggs per capita were consumed by Americans in 1996.
In 2011, that has increased to 246.3 eggs per capita. Actually, that's a decline. Since in 2006, it was 258.1 eggs per capita.
But then again, if you use the damn peak in the 1970s of 270 eggs per capita, everywhere is a god damn drop. Including the freaking sixties! Its the same if I use the low of 170 eggs per capita in 1995. http://www.crbtrader.com/fund/articles/eggs.asp
But then again, what's facts taken in context eh?
Emphasis mine.too much sugar or salt,can be and are linked directly to heart disease, cancer, obesity, and stroke.
Never recommended replacing fats with carbs, my ass.
Note that even research of the time indicated that this was a poor recommendation based on science which had either shown no link at all between fat intake and cardiovascular health or had shown a weak link with no explanation of variance.
The consumption of soft drinks has more than doubled since 1960-displacing milk as the second most consumed beverage. In 1975, we drank on the average of 295 12 oz. cans of soda. In the early 1900's almost 40 percent of our caloric intake came from fruit, vegetables and grain products. Today only a little more than 20 percent of calories comes from these sources.
The diet of the American people has become increasingly rich-rich in meat, other sources of saturated fat and cholesterol, and in sugar.
Why do I believe that based on these statements, you once again utterly distorted the truth about what their recommendations was.
Oh why you did.
[i]During this century, the composition of the average diet in the United States has changed radically. Complex carbohydrates-fruit, vegetables and grain products-which were the mainstay of the diet now play a minority role. At the same time, fat and sugar consumption have risen to the point where these two dietary elements alone now comprise at least 60 percent of total calorie intake.[/quote]
In other words, increase the portion of complex carbs to 55 to 60 percent of energy intake. Reduce sat fat consumption and balance it with poly/mono unsaturated fats. Reduce sugar consumption by about 40 percentage to account for about 15 percent of total energy intake.
Wait. There's more.
The Goals Suggest the Following Changes in Food Selection and Preparation.
1. Increase consumption of fruits and vegetables and whole grains.
2. Decrease consumption of meat and increase consumption of poultry and fish.
3. Decrease consumption of foods high in fat and partially substitue poly-unsaturated fat for saturated fat.
OMG. I was right. The FDA didn't advocate switch fat for simple carbohydrates like sugar. What did they advocate for? Do I see pastries in there? No, I don't. I see whole grain bread sure, but I see FRUITS AND VEGETABLES in there too.