Guest guest Posted September 12, 2004 Report Share Posted September 12, 2004 Comments on: http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040822/D84K0G6G0.html First, the article: Saving Room for Dessert May Help Dieters Email this Story Aug 21, 10:42 PM (ET) WASHINGTON (AP) - A federal dietary advisory panel is considering whether its revision of nutrition guidelines should let some people treat themselves to guilt-free desserts. Such treats would be bonuses for healthful living, under proposals being considered by the advisory panel that's drafting an update of the nutritional guidance. The experts are looking at what are called " discretionary calories. " Those could be allowed for people who get nutritious meals while staying below the calories they need to burn for energy. The panel is looking at ways to write discretionary calories into the recommendations that the government is to issue early next year, in tandem with an update of the food guide pyramid. Discretionary calories are what's left when the calories needed to meet all of a person's nutrient needs are subtracted from the greater number of calories needed to meet energy needs. To gain discretionary calories, people would eat a balanced diet of foods that are high in nutrients such as vitamins and minerals, but not high in calories. This could include vegetables and fruits, for instance, as well as protein from meat and carbohydrates from bread. But consumers would have to eat in moderation, so they get all their nutrients while staying below their energy ceiling. The payoff: They could pick up the extra calories for energy without having to worry about nutrition. And this allows a variety of high-calorie fun foods. Ice cream would be one possibility, said committee member Joanne Lupton, a nutrition professor at Texas A & M University. The number of discretionary calories would depend on how much people ate and how much energy they burned. There would be only a little wiggle room for people whose diets are close to their energy needs. Active people who are moderate eaters would have more discretionary options - perhaps an ice cream sandwich and a bag of potato chips, at about 150 calories each. But there's a catch: People can't look for treats if they are overweight, because they already have used up their discretionary calories. As a result, food industry groups find the idea of discretionary calories unsettling. Although the advisory committee has not come up with final wording, the industry groups don't want consumers told that foods they love could be off-limits. The Grocery Manufacturers of America urged the panel not to single out any particular type of food. It encouraged the committee instead to stick with its call for people to be more physically active. People should be encouraged to balance the calories they take in with the calories they burn, the trade group said. Lupton noted that people who burn more calories can eat more, and said people could " buy " discretionary calories by being more active. People also can create more discretionary calories by eating mostly high-nutrition, lower-calorie foods, she said. At the National Food Processors Association, a nutrition official supported that approach. " I can't underscore enough how people have to get more activity, in addition to thinking about the foods they consume, " said Robert Earl, senior director for nutrition policy. Another committee member said there was a flaw in the discretionary calorie argument. People who need more energy don't have to eat foods with few nutrients, said Dr. Benjamin Caballero, director of the Center for Human Nutrition at Johns Hopkins University's Bloomberg School of Public Health. They also can get their extra calories with nutrient-rich foods, he said. On a park bench by a snack shop on the National Mall here, 22-year-old Rodney Carpentier of the Albany, N.Y., suburb of Ravena found some wisdom in the discretionary calorie approach. Carpentier, who described himself as " overweight, " said people ought to eat healthfully " and after that, possibly, you can start talking about having snacks and stuff like that. " As he ate an ice cream sandwich, Carpentier said it could be hard to get people to plan their lives around discretionary calories. " I wouldn't stop to think about it, " he said. ================================================================================\ ========== LETTERS http://www.redflagsweekly.com/letters/letters1.htm What is wrong with our advisors? They could do something useful like tax the appalling foods on our shelves to a level that provides a significant fund for proper nutritional research to be done with absolutely no money going to the drug companies at all. They could come out and say what all the informed ones among us know already that sugar, soya, and junk as well as crap fats are the source of most of our weight and chronic disease problems. Why are they all so afraid of telling the truth? Dr Philip Bradfield Stowell MB BS FACNEM ------ I know the website said that you wanted to hear from readers who thought the guidelines made sense , but I figured the person who had to read those emails would be VERY lonely, so here's my opinion, for what it is worth. Wow, these ideas ought to turn the obesity " epidemic " around! Seriously, on PAPER it SOUNDS good, but in real life it is all hooey. I really think that the " Dietary Guidelines " should be called the " Dietary Code " ...it might carry more weight ... Do these committee members think they will be taken seriously? The writer of the article makes a huge error writing that, " If the person is overweight, they CAN'T have discretionary calories because they've used them up. " What will that do to the dieting psyche? It makes me think of the power plant pollution credit program...a dirty plant buys " clean credits " from a plant that doesn't need them. Yeah, that cleans up the air for everyone... I can see it now, a group of people - some are at a good weight and others aren't, buying and trading " discretionary calories. " Do I see the sugar industry lurking in the background? I could go on with this topic, but I am sure that you will all get my drift. Lynn K. ------- I own and operate a consulting business called Depke Wellness. I have a B.A. in Natural Health and I am a Certified Metabolic Typing Advisor. As I work with clients I try to get them to adhere to their particular eating plan 90% of the time, give or take, based on the goals they need to reach and their current level of health. Based on this I would have to say that I already teach " discretionary calories. " I would go a step further and say that I do stress the importance of " better choices " for those calories. It should not be an OK to ingest some of the chemical laden foods that will destroy good health with a cumulative effect. My other opinion is that our government should get out of the nutritional advice business. We have as a culture been going backwards since they started giving us recommendations back in the 70's. I particularly like the approach taken by the Weston A Price Foundation Glen A. Depke -------- Honestly, as someone who has been a bodybuilder on a very specific diet and been a trainer of others in the same situation...people need to be sated when they eat. They need to eat healthily and appropriately for their unique chemistry. When they do, the sensations of satiation and energy are amazing. The body’s willingness to release stored calories for energy is also profound, allowing for moderate divergence from the balanced and healthy diet. However, the choices of foods do affect this. Regularly eating foods that are sugar rich or simple carb rich is to change the balance of the chemistry toward fat sparing. The sugar crash experience comes in, the person is not sated and poor patterns often result. Then there is the sugar craving...even from consuming simple carbs! Alas, I do not agree with the discretionary idea. I think a healthy, balanced, personally appropriate eating regimen with moderation in other " Discretionary " foods, and appropriate exercise is the way to go. No blanket approach will do. It will always only serve about 1/7 of the population...always needing revision. Daniel Whittaker ----- The new so-called " food guide " is SENSELESS. It plays at big brother in deciding what is discretionary food and what is not. It will be confusing and I haven't met anyone yet who pays much attention to the old guide, and so why waste time and money on a new one? Well maybe nutrition students before getting their degree? Lena Sanchez ----- As a nutritionist myself, I cannot believe that my professional peers can even begin to speak such utter crap (excuse the term, but words sometimes fail me!). You can tell that these people sit in their ivory towers, totally isolated from the real world, and obviously working for the multinational food manufacturers. The sooner the world realises that we have to get back to eating REAL FOOD and not processed refined products, the better off we will all be. Jeanette Gray B. App.Sci. (Physio) Dip. Nutrition ------ Hogwash and trash. My opinion is that this very " logic and wisdom " is just what got us into this obesity and diabetic mess in the first place. Reading between the lines, this is yet another attempt by the food companies to better their bottom line by influencing the FDA, USDA, and anything else that " has their own price. " Kern Stafford , Pharmacist ------- It would appear that government, in its desire to control weight and at the same time appease food companies is thrashing around in a sea of misinformation. Calories per se, are, in my opinion, irrelevant. Their availability is not restricted to food stuffs. You can obtain ample calories from the cardboard that food comes packaged in. What is vital is the nutritional content of our food...the vitamins and minerals in fruit, meat, fish and vegetables, and this vitality is what is lost in current farming and food manufacturing methods. Since embarking on the Specific Carbohydrate Diet I have lost weight, eliminated many health problems and eat unrestricted amounts of whatever I wish without any weight gain. As long as I and my family avoid all grains and sucrose we remain fit and healthy. The curse of our modern diet is processed foods, not calories, and as long as doctors are not taught nutrition but called upon, as experts, to advise on dietary issues, the resulting confusion and misinformation will continue to play into the hands of vested interests. Baby food manufacturers hook our children into bad eating habits by the addition of unnecessary and addictive sugars and starches and their graduation to junk food becomes inevitable. As long as we do not eat a species appropriate diet our health will continue to decline. This is a magnificent gift to the associated industries of food growing, processing, marketing and of course Big Pharma, which strive to provide a pill for every symptom of malnutrition, renaming each as a new disease. Along with the collusion of the medical profession which fails to acknowledge the gap in its education or to ask itself the question, “Why the increase in global ill health and obesity?” we appear to be doomed to an ever increasing spate of poor advice from all sectors of the media, which is fed by edicts from the food companies, governments, pharmaceutical companies, et al. Nutrition and Physical Degeneration by Weston A. Price is still a best seller today but sadly his valuable research still has to reach the eyes of those who profess to have an interest in diet and its impact on health. I guess that, if he was alive today, he’d agree that junk food creates junk people… not calories! Ann Legg ------- I read the article with great misgivings. First, there is nothing new about dieters treating themselves once in awhile. Second, it is an accepted fact that to live with a deprivation mentality is a sure way to fail on a highly restricted diet. Third, dieters are often encouraged to plan their excesses; ie, planning for a bit of a caloric splurge when going out to dinner. And lastly, I think the plan for formal nutritional splurges is horrible. The national standards are often way behind the nutritional information available and pander to big business interests, thereby selling the public out. Even in the posted article, there is emphasis on the concerns of large food purveyors to not single out any particular food. The issue is always about dietary conditioning that begins very early in life, and adequate public education. I have very strong feelings about the lack of information available on a mass scale to the public about the hazzards of mass produced food, and that includes agribusiness-raised meats, vegetables and fruits. The issue of GMO grains is never discussed in a way that penetrates the public consciousness and the medical profession is even further behind the times on this. So, in summary, I think the concept promoted in the article is a bogus one at its core - a sham! Tanya Marquette --\ ---------------------- August 10, 2004 DIETARY DELUSIONS? Hi Red Flags Another morning trawl through the news items found this piece on the " dietary delusions " of Dean Ornish, surely one of the most prominent of the low-fat, high-carb spokesmen. And here is another piece that might be of interest to Red Flags members. Best to all, Stefan R. Boshkov August 4, 2004 WEIGHT LOSS Just the other day I read this paper, which runs along similar lines as the article you linked to about hunter-gatherer's vs agriculture. I think this is another wonderful paper with some great diet related information... Perhaps you might think so also and share it with other RFD members? I'd like to also take this moment to say...I LOVE RFD, as part of my lifestyle change I had to take charge of my health, and I have used your site to help me do that. I can proudly say I have lost 140 pounds so far...thanks for sharing HEALTH information that might be missed thanks to mainstream media!!! Thanks again... Mrs Bobbi Wilson, Ontario Canada lilmissmufit August 5, 2004 ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF THE PROBABLE IMPACT OF NEOLITHIC FOODS Just to build on some recent articles and the first letter published in your new forum, here is yet another example of the probable impact of neolithic foods, this one theorizing (with some compelling data) that MS may in part be caused by an immune response to proteins in food such as wheat. We have just scratched the surface in our understanding of nutrition, health and diet. I can only hope that Dr. Embry is successful in acquiring funding to research this important area. -Joe THE REGIMEN THAT MAINTAINS US I am 73, my husband is 76. Low carb is not really a good description of what we consider to be the regimen that maintains us. But...we do restrict carbs, (we know Atkins was right along with Banting and others) and we are fit. We cycle or walk almost every day and take no medications. We resist our doctor's recommendations that we take statins. We are horrified by our doctor's insistence that we need drugs to lower our cholesterol or manage our blood pressure; we no longer trust them. We bring them information but they tell us they are too busy to read it. We are like children and they want to know where we went to medical school. We do what we can to avoid damaging foods, we avoid soy, aspartame, fluoride. We buy range- free chickens and cage-free eggs. We buy range/grass fed beef, pork and lamb. We buy raw milk and make our own cheese and yoghurt...really, it's not all that hard. But we admit it can be expensive. We grow our own veggies or buy organic. For us, the message is clear: Degenerative diseases did not exist before the civilized, western diet overtook us. The billions of dollars spent on trying to find the causes of the killers that stalk us are totally wasted, for a look at the diets of our ancestors tell the tale. By the numbers, I guess we are old...but no one ever guesses our real ages and we don't pay much attention either. -Lee and David Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.