The Food Pyramid, Safefood and non-competition entries

Roger Marbles

I politely disagree with the unwillingness to disengage:

safefood: Aileen wrote: »

I'm not going to get into further debate on the pros and cons of the food Pyramid because this discussion could go on forever.

Seeing as the food pyramid was the primary reason the thread was split and the above quote, it's very easy and understandable to see how some forummers would come to that conclusion.

As for us frightening them as they aren't internet discussion literate...I find it insulting to think that our reasoned approach was intimidating to a governmental organisation whose primary job is to promote healthy eating, and that when provided with evidence to the contrary, we are somehow intimidating

It's not as if we made unverifiable outlandish claims or insulted people.

Darragh

Oh I get that, and I'm not "blaming" you - so I'm going to say now

(a) Give them time - we'll get there
(b) They'll discuss the food pyramid with you - I'll make sure of it. Just not on that thread.
(c) No offence is intended in my posts. I'm tired. It's been a long week of dealing with organisations, legal problems and trolls. I need a hug. And me dinner.

Hanley

Darragh wrote: »

And me dinner.

Post up what you're eating so we can slag you too there

Frogdog

Darragh, your third last post (the long one) struck home with me.

Boardsies, how about we start giving advice on this thread? As in suggest ideas for future SafeFood campaigns? Ones that we agree with and that we can provide plenty of sound research and personal experience for?

We'd be helping them out, and we wouldn't have anything to disagree with.

Darragh

Hanley wrote: »

Post up what you're eating so we can slag you too there

Don't I know it!!

Red Cortina

Frogdog wrote: »

Darragh, your third last post (the long one) struck home with me.

Boardsies, how about we start giving advice on this thread? As in suggest ideas for future SafeFood campaigns? Ones that we agree with and that we can provide plenty of sound research and personal experience for?

We'd be helping them out, and we wouldn't have anything to disagree with.

I agree, no point moaning about something unless you have some decent alternatives to put forward.

I saw that Nevan Maguire is on the board of advisors to Safe Food and I think that there is a real opportunity to be exploited there. I know from watching his cooking program that he visits lots of different places to show his viewers where food comes from. And I think that that is all great.

But I think that there could be more done from this point of view. Like why does Nevan use vegetable oil when he is cooking? Does he not know how bad that stuff is for you? And why doesn't he know that it is bad for him? It would be a great opportunity for him to use the likes of coconut oil on his program and suggest that it is a great fat to cook with as it is stable at higher temperatures, how many traditional societies have used it and are in great health and how loads of studies have been conducted showing that this is a good fat to have in your diet etc. People are not stupid and want information like this IMO.

Another point (but I'm nit-picking here) is that he visited a piggery as one of the tours he did. But I, for one, do not think that that environment is the one in which pigs were meant to be reared. So why didn't he visit a farm which is committed to traditional farming practices who rear pigs who are free to roam about?

I think that the real success stories with regard to promoting eating real food have been with the likes of Darina Allen, Richard Corrigan, Hugh Fernley-Whittingstall and the Slow Food movement. Darina Allen has a call out at the minute for traditional Irish recipes. Both Richard Allen and Hugh F-W have had quite the impact with making people aware of the quality of chicken we eat. And I think that the Hugh Fish Fight Campaign has been a great success too.

While I understand the predicament that the likes of SafeFood face with regard to educating the public, I think that ultimately credit has to be given to folks that they can take (and understand) the rationale behind eating real food, made in a traditional manner. Such as why some fats are to be avoided at all costs ie trans fats and why, at the same time, traditional, natural fats from non-industrial sources are an important part of a healthy diet. At the end of day most people just want to eat healthy I think..

Tigger

i was chatting to a lad at work yesterday he couldn't fathom why i was trying to get him to stop eating toast for breakfast sandwitches for lunch and loads of potatoes at dinner and he had come to me about his deteoration fitness and shape wise

this sort of misunderstanding is crazy and the fact that safefood simply say no we're right and you are wrong is very vey worrying

cc87

Darragh wrote: »

Oh I get that, and I'm not "blaming" you - so I'm going to say now

(a) Give them time - we'll get there
(b) They'll discuss the food pyramid with you - I'll make sure of it. Just not on that thread.
(c) No offence is intended in my posts. I'm tired. It's been a long week of dealing with organisations, legal problems and trolls. I need a hug. And me dinner.

I had a much longer reply to your previous post written out but decided that it was quite negative and wouldnt help anyone, so i wrote this one instead......

I am more than willing to give them time, but as pointed out it wasnt time they asked for it was to stop talking about the food pyramid. However with this new thread maybe things will change. I hope they do.

And yes i agree with you that it is a fantastic thing for members of government organisations to be posting on boards.
Yet i also believe it is a bit remiss of them not to expect some form of negative response given that the"stop the spread" campaign has already received much negative feedback.
Particularly when the thread is posted on a forum where many people for both professional and personal reasons are quite knowledgeable in the area of Health & Fitness.

Your previous posts questioned how am i aware that they have colleagues more versed in nutritional matters, I am aware of this because it was mentioned in the other thread.

However, I wont post now until we get a response from safefood on this thread.

Hopefully this will be an open and honest response.

Darragh

Okay, can I ask a favour then please?

Can someone take charge and collect questions that we can put directly to safefood on this issue and put them in one post that they can reply to?

It would help an awful lot!

Darragh

Brian?

Darragh wrote: »

Okay, can I ask a favour then please?

Can someone take charge and collect questions that we can put directly to safefood on this issue and put them in one post that they can reply to?

It would help an awful lot!

Darragh

I'll take care of that, if everyone wants to add their questions to this thread today I'll do some editing this evening.

Brian?

Darragh wrote: »

I need a hug. And me dinner.

Awww, come here............:)

Roger Marbles

1) Why do they recommend lowering saturated fat intake when all evidence points to no risk of cardiovascular or cerebrovascular disease risk?

2) Why do they call grains "superfoods" and recommend more than 6 servings of bread etc per day considering that they are empty carbs devoid of any significant nutritional quality compared to vegetables, cause gut irritation and autoimmune disease in many and research up to 1 year from the NEJM shows that low GI diets perform better in terms of weight loss? Also considering insulin being one of the main hormones involved in body fat loss, does it not seem at odds with this?

3) Why do they only recommend modest amounts of protein when our ancestors ate much more, when it's scientifically unproven the link between high protein diets and either renal disease or colon cancer in healthy individuals?

Thanks.

Antisocialiser

Slight O/T but saw this on the msn homepage. Cue face to palm.

http://style.uk.msn.com/health/photos.aspx?cp-documentid=158304739

Tigger

good site

http://www.nymedicalnutrition.com/myths.php

nesf

Darragh wrote: »

Okay, here's where I get myself into trouble.

I'd like people to stop and think for a minute. And then, before they post, to think again.


It's Wednesday evening. That thread went up less than a week ago.

Do you not think in any way that it's great that safefood are here at all talking to us? That it's a big step forward to do this? That they also have their own jobs to do and are taking time out of their daily schedule to respond to the queries on Boards.ie?

I completely and absolutely 100% disagree and refute the notion that Dermot and Aileen are unwilling to engage. I know this because I talk to them daily. However, while it's very easy of the forum regulars who know, accept and participate in the discussions, culture and debate that goes on here, it's new, daunting and a challenge for them, because they're not able to post as themselves - they are representatives of an organisation that pays them to be on here. Maybe they can'[t communicate as frankly as they like, but that doesn't mean they're not willing to engage - they're just trying to do it in the appropriate and professional way they have to do this.



How do you know this? Genuinely, how do you know the requests have been ignored? Just because they haven't posted that they asked them? if you're basing it on that, that's a mighty assumption to make. You mention them being "well versed" in this - how do you know their colleagues are?

Did you - or any of you - stop to think that this threat these threads are being read by everyone in safefood and that you've probably frightened many of them who aren't that internet-discussion-literate off this even before they are invited to engage? Did you ever think that some of them would have to get sign off from their bosses before they post? Because, from the tone of some of the posts, I don't think people have stopped for that minute and thought about how a Government organisation should or could engage on a forum like Boards.ie and how it's not just as easy for them as it is for other people?



If we can prove this - if we can show safefood in a non-confrontational, logical and well communicated way, then I would consider this thread to be one of the best investments that Boards.ie or safefood have ever made.

So, I'm asking - stop the accusations that safefood don't care. They do. They just have to do this properly and I'm working with them on that. We have to take small steps. But at least we're taking them at all.

Your problem is this:

This is a debate forum, the Safefood representatives (because of their job not because of themselves or their own views) need to soapbox the safefoood message. This will get people's backs up and will piss people off. We ban people for this exact behaviour on this site you know.

e.g. I could show all the evidence in the world against the food pyramid and against the sat fat hypothesis and the safefood reps are required to say "no, that's wrong" in some way or another. Any idea how meaningless this makes the conversation?

Darragh

Actually nesf, my problem is people looking for an argument trying to prove how "right" they are and how "wrong" someone else is rather than treating it as a discussion. Why should it be a "debate"?

Can we keep this on topic please? If you have problems with how I'm handling this, please take it to a new thread. We're now, thanks to briankeating in a position where questions can be asked and they will be answered. That's a far better one to be in than pointing out the "problems" and not offering any constructive or realistic solutions.

nesf

Darragh wrote: »

Actually nesf, my problem is people looking for an argument trying to prove how "right" they are and how "wrong" someone else is rather than treating it as a discussion. Why should it be a "debate"?

Short answer: In any forum there is a groupthink position which most of the users subscribe to. Add in someone who disagrees with this position and chaos ensues. This is a discussion forum, this is what happens on them. If safefood advocated a high protein, low carb diet then you'd have had very little debate here and more discussion.

The exact same thing would happen if you put a heavily pro-FF rep into Politics at the moment or a pro-slapping person into Parenting right now.


You really can't blame people for doing this on a discussion forum, it's the nature of the beast.

Darragh

I accept that, but I hope we can move to a point where safefood can actually do something about it...

Tigger

why do we need safe food on here preaching the wrong message ?

are they paying to be here?

columok

I would be incredibly surprised if decades of government nutritional advice was in any way influenced by Safefood's engagement with a bunch of internet randomers on boards.

The best explanation for the problem with nutritional science that I've heard(versus pretty much every other science out there) is that it lacks any central organising premise or idealogy and is therefore bound to flail directionlessly! Research will consist in micro studies (what does 10mg of substance A do to person A vs. the control) rather than looking at the big picture i.e. how post Keye's lipid hypothesis the switch to heavily processed high carb diets has been disastrous in terms of waistlines and general health.

Frogdog

A few questions for Safefood:

Do you believe us that the Food Pyramid is wrong? Do you believe us when we say that a diet primarily containing bread, pasta, rice, potatoes etc. with moderate to low servings of protein and fat is actually conducive to weight gain, and not weight loss?

If not, why not? We have provided the latest studies and research. We have provided plenty of evidence in favour of our argument and disspelling your argument. Many of us posting here are also speaking from our own experience.

If so, can anything be done to change the advice/guidelines that are on your website? On a bigger scale, can you change future advertising campaigns or inform the public of the new measures?

Darragh

Tigger wrote: »

are they paying to be here?

Yes.

nice_guy80

here's a question for ya.

Why are all the school science textbooks that deal with Nutrition full of misleading information?? We're setting kids up for a life of unhealthy eating by what we're telling them and teaching them

At primary level - food topic at each class level.
Secondary level - JC Science, LC Biology ad Home Economics.

My mother recently retired as a Home Ec teacher. She cannot believe how much misinformation was in her textbooks for years about nutrition. And how she continued to to teach it all the time.

It's only now she has had the time to go back and read up on so much stuff to do with meat, dairy, grains, food additives, fortified foods etc that has made her see the light.

safefood: Aileen

Frogdog wrote: »

A few questions for Safefood:

Do you believe us that the Food Pyramid is wrong? Do you believe us when we say that a diet primarily containing bread, pasta, rice, potatoes etc. with moderate to low servings of protein and fat is actually conducive to weight gain, and not weight loss?

If not, why not? We have provided the latest studies and research. We have provided plenty of evidence in favour of our argument and disspelling your argument. Many of us posting here are also speaking from our own experience.

If so, can anything be done to change the advice/guidelines that are on your website? On a bigger scale, can you change future advertising campaigns or inform the public of the new measures?

Hi folks,

There has been a huge amount of debate here on the food pyramid and many people have expressed concern about this policy. While Safefood is not responsible for food policy development, we did want to pull together some documents to try to explain the rationale for our national food based dietary guidelines and why we support them.

Let’s go back to the beginning on this one so people who haven’t been involved in the debate so far can be clear on what the Food Pyramid aims to do.

Food-based dietary guidelines (FBDG) are simple messages on healthy eating, aimed at the general public. They give an indication of what a person should be eating in terms of foods rather than nutrients, and provide a basic framework to use when planning what we eat. They vary from country to country and attempt to address the specific nutritional issues within that country. You can find out more about them here.

http://www.eufic.org/article/en/expid/food-based-dietary-guidelines-in-europe/

Maybe just to clarify here - they are not guidelines for weight loss specificallyand serve the whole population, including children.

Historically, the main nutritional issues that food based dietary guidelines tried to address were due to food poverty and centred around nutritional inadequacies. You’ll find an interesting historical overview of how they developed in America (as an example) here.
http://www.cnpp.usda.gov/Publications/MyPyramid/OriginalFoodGuidePyramids/FGP/FGPBackgroundAndDevelopment.pdf

As research developed and we started to understand the relationship between diet and disease, they moved towards addressing dietary factors involved in chronic diseases such as heart disease and cancer. Key nutrients include saturated fat and fibre and protective foods such as fruit and vegetables. You’ll find an overview from the WHO on the relationship between diet and disease here.

http://whqlibdoc.who.int/trs/who_trs_916.pdf

It’s true that some studies will refute these findings, as contributors to this thread have already pointed out, but the overwhelming bulk of the evidence supports the recommendation that we should try to balance our foods, in amounts that support a healthy body weight, as outlined in the guidelines that the Department of Health has issued. Similar guidelines have been adopted by governments worldwide.

In Ireland the biggest killers annually are heart disease and cancer http://www.cso.ie/statistics/principalcausesofdeath.htm. The Food Pyramid attempts to guide people so that they will consume enough essential nutrients for good health while protecting themselves from chronic diseases. In Ireland there is particular emphasis on both body weight and on folic acid supplementation due to our increased genetic risk for neural tube defects. You’ll find our Pyramid and that of many other EU countries at the end of this article.
http://www.eufic.org/article/en/expid/food-based-dietary-guidelines-in-europe/

Our guidelines are currently being reviewed and, given the rapid increase in obesity over the past 20 years (see www.iuna.net for the most recent figures), are likely to continue to emphasise body weight.


In adults data from Slan http://www.slan06.ie/slannutritionreportfinal.pdf show that only a small percentage of the population meet the guidelines, which may help explain some of the nutritional problems, including obesity, that Ireland is now facing (see page 69 of 130).


Meanwhile, it’s important to say that in our children in particular, nutrient inadequacies are still a problem. This table (which I'm having trouble formatting here, apologies) may help illustrate why moving towards higher fibre foods, more fruit and vegetables, adequate amounts of low fat dairy products and lean meats and a reduction in ‘treat foods’ are valid aims.


Percentage of Irish children with inadequate vitamin and mineral intakes.


Calcium Vitamin A Folate Iron Vitamin C Vitamin B2
Boys (5-12 years) 28 22 21 13 10 8

Girls (5-12 years) 37 26 36 34 10 13

Boys (13 -17 years) 23 25 5 19 6 6
Girls (13-17 years) 42 31 29 74 7 23


Data from www.IUNA.net


We know others have asked questions and we will try to get to those too.

Regards

Aileen

El_Dangeroso

safefood: Aileen wrote: »

It’s true that some studies will refute these findings, as contributors to this thread have already pointed out, but the overwhelming bulk of the evidence supports the recommendation that we should try to balance our foods, in amounts that support a healthy body weight, as outlined in the guidelines that the Department of Health has issued. Similar guidelines have been adopted by governments worldwide.

Aileen, I'm sorry but the balance of long term human studies on saturated fat show the opposite. This is not 'one study', this is most of the studies.

Again I ask the question, can I please have the references of prospective human trials that shows an reduction in heart disease from reducing saturated fat?

Please stop linking to guidelines. Pubmed or nothing.

Hanley

safefood: Aileen wrote: »

Maybe just to clarify here - they are not guidelines for weight loss specificallyand serve the whole population, including children.

As research developed and we started to understand the relationship between diet and disease, they moved towards addressing dietary factors involved in chronic diseases such as heart disease and cancer. Key nutrients include saturated fat and fibre and protective foods such as fruit and vegetables. You’ll find an overview from the WHO on the relationship between diet and disease here.

It’s true that some studies will refute these findings, as contributors to this thread have already pointed out, but the overwhelming bulk of the evidence supports the recommendation that we should try to balance our foods, in amounts that support a healthy body weight, as outlined in the guidelines that the Department of Health has issued. Similar guidelines have been adopted by governments worldwide.

In Ireland the biggest killers annually are heart disease and cancer

http://www.cso.ie/statistics/principalcausesofdeath.htm. The Food Pyramid attempts to guide people so that they will consume enough essential nutrients for good health while protecting themselves from chronic diseases.

Our guidelines are currently being reviewed and, given the rapid increase in obesity over the past 20 years (see www.iuna.net for the most recent figures), are likely to continue to emphasise body weight.


In adults data from Slan http://www.slan06.ie/slannutritionreportfinal.pdf show that only a small percentage of the population meet the guidelines, which may help explain some of the nutritional problems, including obesity, that Ireland is now facing (see page 69 of 130).


Meanwhile, it’s important to say that in our children in particular, nutrient inadequacies are still a problem. This table (which I'm having trouble formatting here, apologies) may help illustrate why moving towards higher fibre foods, more fruit and vegetables, adequate amounts of low fat dairy products and lean meats and a reduction in ‘treat foods’ are valid aims.


Percentage of Irish children with inadequate vitamin and mineral intakes.


Calcium Vitamin A Folate Iron Vitamin C Vitamin B2
Boys (5-12 years) 28 22 21 13 10 8

Girls (5-12 years) 37 26 36 34 10 13

Boys (13 -17 years) 23 25 5 19 6 6
Girls (13-17 years) 42 31 29 74 7 23


Data from www.IUNA.net


We know others have asked questions and we will try to get to those too.

Regards

Aileen

Some questions re: your post above:

1) Are you suggesting a more heavily grain based diet is important for the development of children? it seems to be the case from the first paragraph above

2) Look at the food pyramid, look at the increase in the types of food being sold and consumed, look at the rates of obesity. Do you not see correlative factors there? Taken in the context of the overwhelming body of evidence available, who you disagree that they're also causitive?

3) You've said "The Food Pyramid attempts to guide people so that they will consume enough essential nutrients for good health while protecting themselves from chronic diseases" - can you please explain how a heavily grained based diet achieves any of this? If we were to cut out the base of the pyramid and start with fruit and veg instead, what 'nutrients' and 'protection' would be lost?

4) You've said "This table (which I'm having trouble formatting here, apologies) may help illustrate why moving towards higher fibre foods, more fruit and vegetables, adequate amounts of low fat dairy products and lean meats and a reduction in ‘treat foods’ are valid aims. " - would you agree then that since no heavily grain based food like rice, bread or pasta has been mentioned there that they are not neccessary?

Please understand when I say "you" in any context above, I mean it in the case of the body you represent.

Roger Marbles

I'm afraid the bulk of the evidence does not support the link between dietary saturated fat and heart disease. Indeed even though there was significant publication bias with omission of the Sydney diet-heart study in this Cochrane review, it still failed to support the theory:

http://www2.cochrane.org/reviews/en/ab002137.html

pinkypinky

Another question for the list:

What was the thinking behind using imperial measurements? Sure older people will understand it better but we need to be educating the children and teenagers too. Schools use the metric system now so 32 inches won't mean much to anyone under 20. How many of them will bother to find out?

Theresalwaysone

Wow I feel old. Im 23 and I still use inches for jeans, pants etc. I guess thats why they used it. I dont even know if the label on my jeans has a different measurement than inches.

nesf

pinkypinky wrote: »

Another question for the list:

What was the thinking behind using imperial measurements? Sure older people will understand it better but we need to be educating the children and teenagers too. Schools use the metric system now so 32 inches won't mean much to anyone under 20. How many of them will bother to find out?

Because inches are standard for chest, bust and waist measurements still on clothing and body measurements in general. I'm 6'1", if I gave that in meters most people wouldn't have a clue what height I was, ditto if I gave my chest measurement in centimeters.