If you’ve been living under a rock for
the past few weeks, or, unlike me, you have an actual life, which precludes you from reading as many nutrition articles,
blogs, and papers as I do, you might have missed the comments from the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics (AND) in response to the Scientific Report of the 2015 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee. (The AND was
formerly the ADA—the American Dietetic Association—the body that oversees the
registered dietitian credential [RD].)
This thing has been making the rounds in
the low-carb, Paleo, Primal and real food circles, mostly because it is a refreshing—and
we might even say downright shocking—reversal of course by this supremely
mainstream organization regarding some of the nutrients that have been public
outlaws for the past few decades. While the AND has certainly not come out and
directly endorsed higher-fat, low-carbohydrate diets, here a few general points
they made about the recommendations by the 2015 Dietary Guidelines Advisory
Committee (DGAC), some of which agree with the committee’s findings, and some
of which don’t:
- Very low sodium diets are not appropriate for everyone, and may, in fact, be harmful for some populations.
- There is no correlation between dietary cholesterol intake and serum cholesterol levels.
- Since the studies on saturated fat, cholesterol, and heart disease over the years have been so terribly conducted and interpreted, “the Academy suggests that HHS and USDA support a similar revision [for that of cholesterol] deemphasizing saturated fat as a nutrient of concern.”
- Carbohydrate intake is a much stronger predictor for cardiovascular disease risk than is saturated fat, and it might not be such a bad idea to replace some amount of dietary carbohydrate with fat.
As you can see, these points mark a huge
step forward for this organization, which in the past, has been tepid,
conventional, and by-the-book all the way.
It’s a gutsy move, and I’m thrilled to see it happen. I applaud the AND for
joining the rest of us in the 21st Century with regard to basic
science about food and human health. Since I have ragged pretty hard on the AND
in the past, I’m happy to be able to give credit where credit is due.
That being said, this wouldn’t be all
that interesting a post if all I did was sing the praises of this document.
Naturally, there are a few points of contention. So let’s look at things little
more closely, celebrate the good stuff, and bring to light the not-so-good
stuff. We’ll start with the not-so-good stuff and then move to the good stuff,
so that we end on a positive note.
