Panel wants food pyramid reshaped

http://www.cnn.com/2003/HEALTH/diet.....pyramid.reut/

It's about bloody time!!!!!

TC

Once upon a time, our fellow tcomeau rambled on about "Panel wants food pyramid reshaped." Our
champion De-Medicalizing in sci.med.nutrition retorts, thusly ...

>http://www.cnn.com/2003/HEALTH/diet.....pyramid.reut/

>It's about bloody time!!!!!

Huh?

Sorry, to inform you TC but this is very, very, very old news. That must be why all your comments
are so dated, stupid, and out of place?

Just my opinion. But, I am *right* as usual!

John 'the Man' <DeMan[104]@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<i8ulnvcogvsg5ng0s357r5ah54tednrbvq@4ax.com>...
> Once upon a time, our fellow tcomeau rambled on about "Panel wants food pyramid reshaped." Our
> champion De-Medicalizing in sci.med.nutrition retorts, thusly ...
>
> >http://www.cnn.com/2003/HEALTH/diet.....pyramid.reut/
>
> >It's about bloody time!!!!!
>
> Huh?
>
> Sorry, to inform you TC but this is very, very, very old news. That must be why all your comments
> are so dated, stupid, and out of place?
>
> Just my opinion. But, I am *right* as usual!

Do you not get tired of embarassing yourself repeatedly? Another example of just how stupid,
ignorant, illiterate, un-schooled, arrogant, blind, deaf and dumb you are.

The last call for revising the food pyramid prior to this one was a failed attempt to save face in
view of the success of diets other than low-fat/low-calorie diets. The idea was to revise, address
and emphasize portion size, portion control and overall calories eaten. You know, all the BS excuses
for rampant obesity that I've heard repeatedly from you and your ilk in this group.

The more recent call to revise the food pyramid, of which I brought your attention to, is based on
the fact that the food pyramid does not differentiate good carbs vs bad carbs and good fats vs bad
fats. According to the current food pyramid all fats are evil, including omega 3, 6 et al. and all
carbs, including refined and high gi-load carbs, are the best thing since sliced bread.

Maybe you should read what is being said or referenced before you stick both feet in your mouth yet
again. Just thought you might want to know. Banana boy.

TC

> http://www.cnn.com/2003/HEALTH/diet.....pyramid.reut/ It's about bloody time!!!!!

Two problems, the first as pointed out by the article:

"The USDA may have a conflict of interest by supporting grain and sugar producers while recommending
that Americans eat less carbohydrates. 'Putting the USDA in charge of dietary guidelines is like
putting the fox in charge of the hen house,' said Fitzgerald, the chair of the committee that heard
the hearing."

Second, how to agree upon the new pyramid, since we lack enough facts to decide conclusively. I
would lean toward Atkin/Paleo/Low-carb but this is based on personal experience over a relatively
short time.

Once upon a time, our fellow tcomeau rambled on about "Re: Panel wants food pyramid reshaped." Our
champion De-Medicalizing in sci.med.nutrition retorts, thusly ...

>Maybe you should read what is being said or referenced before you stick both feet in your mouth yet
>again. Just thought you might want to know. Banana boy.

No that is your job!

To repeat: That news story is very, very, very old.

Just my opinion. But, I am *right* as usual!

jaym1212@hotmail.com (jaym1212) wrote in message
news:<26285564.0310021618.20f3efe7@posting.google.com>...
> > http://www.cnn.com/2003/HEALTH/diet.....pyramid.reut/ It's about bloody time!!!!!
>
> Two problems, the first as pointed out by the article:
>
> "The USDA may have a conflict of interest by supporting grain and sugar producers while
> recommending that Americans eat less carbohydrates. 'Putting the USDA in charge of dietary
> guidelines is like putting the fox in charge of the hen house,' said Fitzgerald, the chair of the
> committee that heard the hearing."
>
> Second, how to agree upon the new pyramid, since we lack enough facts to decide conclusively. I
> would lean toward Atkin/Paleo/Low-carb but this is based on personal experience over a relatively
> short time.

Interestingly enough, the USDA's research over the years has provided us with very good and very
valuable data regarding food and nutrition, but it seems to have gotten completely shunted aside
when it comes to the food pyramid. Politics and industry money has overuled the science.

We have all the information and data we need to create a science based food pyramid. All we need to
do is set up a panel with scientists, researchers and other individuals who have no financial or
other ties to either political parties or the food and pharmaceutical industries. Unfortunately,
these industries now have their hooks into the majority of researchers in the US. Finding these
people would be probably the most difficult aspect of this exercise.

One thing is for sure, there is absolutely no need to include any refined and high-GI-load
carbohydrates in our food pyramid. They are completely superfluous and un-necessary to our diet. In
fact they are almost certainly the principal cause of obesity, syndrome x and diabetes as well as
all obesity related disease.

TC

> All we need to do is set up a panel with scientists, researchers and other individuals who have no
> financial or other ties to either political parties or the food and pharmaceutical industries.

Under ideal conditions, the government should provide this function. After all, doesn't society
setup government to perform such essential and global functions funded by us in the form of taxes.
Unfortunately the current system allows the government to have our money and in addition take
"contributions" from others (to skew things in their favor) without much risk of retribution. The
citizen are also partially at fault for failing to be realize the importance of their own health and
government.

tcomeau wrote:
> One thing is for sure, there is absolutely no need to include any refined and high-GI-load
> carbohydrates in our food pyramid.

You talk about bias and then run off about "high-GI-load carbohydrates" as if they are the evil
incarnate. If your including vegetables with a degree of GI then I think you have gone too far. The
pyramid is for the masses and many people have no reaction to such foods. Simple refined such as the
crap in candy, soda, yada, yada, I'll buy.

If you think we can find a panel without biases I'll sell you a dry grave site in down town Baton
Rouge. The pyramid would have to be made of putty. We think we know a lot yet know so little.

--
Doug Freese dfreeseS@NOBShvc.rr.com

Once upon a time, our fellow Doug Freese rambled on about "Re: Panel wants food pyramid reshaped."
Our champion De-Medicalizing in sci.med.nutrition retorts, thusly ...

>We think we know a lot yet know so little.

Ha, ... Hah, Ha!

Actually, you are the one the with piss poor self-esteem.

Just thought that you might want to know.

Once upon a time, our fellow Doug Freese rambled on about "Re: Panel wants food pyramid reshaped."
Our champion De-Medicalizing in sci.med.nutrition retorts, thusly ...

>Simple refined such as the crap in candy, soda, yada, yada, I'll buy.

"... you have my sympathies" Science Officer Ash to Ripley, in the movie ALIEN.
--
John Gohde, Achieving good Health is an Art, NOT a Science! http://NaturalHealthPerspective.com/
The ONLY Frauds in Health are those who couldn't care less about prevention. Beware of anybody who
brags about eating a lousy diet, eating crispbread, non-dairy coffee creamer, being overweight, or
about smoking!

Once upon a time, our fellow tcomeau rambled on about "Re: Panel wants food pyramid reshaped." Our
champion De-Medicalizing in sci.med.nutrition retorts, thusly ...

>We have all the information and data we need to create a science based food pyramid.

Could be why I did it four years ago?
--
John Gohde, Achieving good Nutrition is an Art, NOT a Science!

The nutrition of eating a healthy diet is the foundation of the biomedical model of natural health.
Weighing in at 17 webpages, Nutrition (http://www.Food.NaturalHealthPerspective.com/) is now the
unofficial FAQ for sci.med.nutrition by default.

John 'the Man' wrote:

> Once upon a time, our fellow Doug Freese rambled on about "Re: Panel wants food pyramid reshaped."
> Our champion De-Medicalizing in sci.med.nutrition retorts, thusly ...
>
>
>>We think we know a lot yet know so little.
>
>
> Ha, ... Hah, Ha!
>
> Actually, you are the one the with piss poor self-esteem.

Not me, I have great self-esteem almost to a fault. Big into exercise with 45-50 miles of running
per week, body fat about 8%, weight 170 and height six foot, all my blood work is wonderful and
close to age 60. I eat variety and balance to include almost all vegetables to include a steak or
two from time to time. If the are any GI spikes they are in my colon during the defecation process
and lasts the lenght of time of the grunt.

It's good that Sear's and company brought GI to the forefront because it does explain "some" people
problems. It's when you generalize it to everyone that you show ignorance.
>
> Just thought that you might want to know.

Is assuming the role of an asshole just natural or forced to play the troll. Never mind, rhetorical.

--
Doug Freese dfreeseS@NOBShvc.rr.com

Once upon a time, our fellow Doug Freese rambled on about "Re: Panel wants food pyramid reshaped."
Our champion De-Medicalizing in sci.med.nutrition retorts, thusly ...

>Is assuming the role of a genius just natural or forced to play the troll. Never mind, rhetorical.

Well this troll developed his own food pyramid some four years ago.

What is your problem? Waiting for somebody to give you permission?

Just my opinion. But, I am *right* as usual!
--
John Gohde, Achieving good Nutrition is an Art, NOT a Science!

The nutrition of eating a healthy diet is the foundation of the biomedical model of natural health.
Weighing in at 17 webpages, Nutrition (http://www.Food.NaturalHealthPerspective.com/) is now the
unofficial FAQ for sci.med.nutrition by default.

Doug Freese <dfreese@NOBShvc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:<c0Efb.48630$lZ6.7844835@twister.nyc.rr.com>...
> tcomeau wrote:
> > One thing is for sure, there is absolutely no need to include any refined and high-GI-load
> > carbohydrates in our food pyramid.
>
> You talk about bias and then run off about "high-GI-load carbohydrates" as if they are the evil
> incarnate. If your including vegetables with a degree of GI then I think you have gone too far.

Not necessarily. The high-GI veggies tend to be somewhat lacking in other nutrients. I think we can
cut highly refined wheat and corn as well as potatoes out of our diets without causing any
nutritional deficiencies. They do not contribute any nutrients to our diet that we can't easily get
elsewhere.

> The pyramid is for the masses and many people have no reaction to such foods. Simple refined such
> as the crap in candy, soda, yada, yada, I'll buy.
>

Those who are obese and suffer with syndrome x or type two diabetes have displayed an obvious
reaction to such foods including simple sugars, refined high fructose corn syrup, refined wheat and
other grains etc etc. And the number of people with these conditions is increasing in numbers we
have never seen before.

> If you think we can find a panel without biases I'll sell you a dry grave site in down town Baton
> Rouge. The pyramid would have to be made of putty. We think we know a lot yet know so little.

Now you've said a mouthful. The scientific community, in the US especially, has sold its soul to
industry. You are certain that there is no such thing as a unbiased panel, and sadly, you may be
right. What does that say for the field of nutritional science? They sold out almost to the last
man/woman. The almighty dollar prevails against the basic concept of science for the sake of
learning the unbiased truth. Very, very sad.

TC

Couple of questions about the advance diet at Food.NaturalHealthPerspective.com

1. If the fat in most cell membranes in the human body are saturated, why should one eat mostly
mono-saturated fats?
2. Does unrefined coconut oil fit into the diet?
3. How did people meet their calcium requirements before the advent of supplements?