The Food Pyramid, Safefood and non-competition entries

gavtron

safefood: Aileen wrote: »

Bearing in mind that the Food Pyramid is a guide that aims to achieve nutritional adequacy and prevent chronic disease at a population level and is not designed specifically for weight loss, the amount of carbohydrate recommended is necessary to provide adequate energy for weight maintenance for the whole population including adults and children. It is advised that most of the carbohydrates should be eaten in their unrefined forms; wholegrain bread and cereals, brown rice etc. This is to protect gut health and to prevent constipation. There is also a relationship between fibre intake and cardiovascular health. 80% of Irish adults don’t meet their recommended intake of dietary fibre.

why not aim to achieve nutritional supremacy?

Doug Cartel

compaqlaptop1 wrote: »

Can someone explain to me why the average Irish adult or child needs 6 portions of carbs a day? Is it in case they decide to run a half marathon or what?

Because the pyramid's definition of a portion is different to what the average Irish person would consider a portion.

Roger Marbles

safefood: Aileen wrote: »

Roger Marbles wrote: »

Questions were originally going to be collated by moderator briankeating on page 3-4. I have all of them here I think:

Again, a number of these questions refer to the national guideline to reduce saturated fat.
On the attached document we have pulled together an overview of the evidence as it stands at the moment and included both positive and negative studies.
For those with access to university libraries, the reference below gives a good overview of the state of the evidence in relation to epidemiologic, clinical and mechanistic studies. The evidence shows that the risk of CHD is reduced when saturated fatty acids are replaced with polyunsaturated fatty acids.

The role of reducing intakes of saturated fat in the prevention of cardiovascular disease: where does the evidence stand in 2010? Astrup A, Dyerberg J, Elwood P, Hermansen K, Hu FB, Jakobsen MU, Kok FJ, Krauss RM, Lecerf JM, LeGrand P, Nestel P, Risérus U, Sanders T, Sinclair A, Stender S, Tholstrop T, Willett WC.

In relation to the references we have used in answerig posts to date, and given that this is a public forum, in general we would prefer to link people to documents that they will have full access to. Most people don't have access to academic journals. Those with access can then examine the original research papers referred to in policy documents etc as they wish.

That 'study' has a number of flaws:

a) it can only at best show a correlation and not causation, therefore the safefood website is factually wrong when it says saturated fat causes heart disease

b) secondly that is a consensus document, not a meta analysis or systematic review, therefore in terms of the hierarchy of evidence, it falls far short of the evidence I have published previously

c) thirdly, the issue of bias....the 'expert' panel received "unrestricted grants were received from The Beef Checkoff (USA), Centre National Interprofessionnel de l'Economie Laitière (CNIEL), The Danish Agriculture & Food Council, Dairy Australia, the Dairy Council for Great Britain, the Dairy Council of California, the Dairy Farmers of Canada, The Global Dairy Platform, Milchindustrie-Verband, the National Dairy Council (USA), and Svensk Mjölk"

This has gone beyond joke at this stage.

I accept that you are answering questions, and you are to be commended for it, but some of the stuff you are saying isn't just wrong, it's downright dangerous!

"Safe-Food" - Very ironic really.

Ouchette

From the first conclusion listed under 2011 conclusions in the document linked by Aileen.

"[...] recent findings question the role of SFAs."

So I don't think it's fair to say that questioning Safefood's stance on saturated fat is far from mainstream.

Davei141

The protein comment is bizarre. If the majority of the population had a substantial bit of protein at each meal (at the expense of starchy carbs) that would go a long way to "stopping the spread"..

safefood: Aileen

Zamboni wrote: »

Is there any chance you could please quantify the two statements in bold?

What is the protein requirement for nutritional adequacy?
What quantity is 'far more protein than is necessary for good health?

Hi Zamboni, daily protein requirements for Ireland have been derived from nitrogen balance studies. You'll find an explanation here. http://www.fsai.ie/assets/0/86/204/fb3f2891-2896-4bf9-903f-938f3c2ad01f.pdf

G86

I have a headache, this thread is making it worse.

I'd really like to see some direct answers to the direct questions that have been posted. Instead of the series of replies which skirt around the issue.

I'd also like to see some actual common sense.

That's what I'd like... But, I'm willing to bet it's not what I'm going to get if I keep reading this thread. So I officially give up on it.

Zamboni

safefood: Aileen wrote: »

Hi Zamboni, daily protein requirements for Ireland have been derived from nitrogen balance studies. You'll find an explanation here. http://www.fsai.ie/assets/0/86/204/fb3f2891-2896-4bf9-903f-938f3c2ad01f.pdf

You said 'At the moment most people eat far more protein than is necessary for good health'.

That document provides RDAs from Ireland 1983 and the EU 1993.

It doesn't really support your comment in any way.

Wood

That guideline document is nearly 30 years old.

Rather than have you look for it, here's a study of what that food pyramid and nutritional guideline info has done for the people of Ireland.

Since that document was published:

Adults:
According to the SLÁN data, rates in Irish adults have risen from 11.3% of men in 1998 to 14.4% in 2002 and from 9.3% of women in 1998 to 11.8% in 2002 which indicates a minimum 1% increase in obesity per annum. The prevalence of adults who are overweight has also increased significantly from 39.6% in men in 1998 to 41.9% in 2002 and from 24.9% of women in 1998 to 26.5% in 2002.

Children:
In 1990 the Irish National Nutrition Survey reported that 1.9% of children aged 12-15 years were significantly overweight. Using the same criterion to assess Dublin school children in 2000, Griffin et al (2004) found that the rate of significant overweight had trebled to 6%


Now for the dietary evidence:
Evidence of dietary factors contributing to obesity There is convincing evidence that a high intake of energy dense foods promotes weight gain.Energy dense foods tend to be high in fat, sugars or starch. Several studies have shown that high energy dense diets lead to ‘passive over-consumption’ of food. Humans have an innate ability to recognise foods with a high energy density and to appropriately down-regulate the
bulk of food eaten in order to maintain energy balance. Despite this ability, energy-dense diets can undermine the normal processes of appetite regulation in humans which causes an accidental positive energy balance that has consequently been termed ‘passive overconsumption’

The newly released dietary guidelines in the United States outline measures to reduce diet related chronic disease, especially obesity, where dietary guidance is based on physical activity levels. Given the critical importance of guidelines on healthy eating and active living in the light of the recommendations in this report, the development of new guidelines appropriate for Ireland remains a priority (see recommendations in Chapter 5).

Obviously not

Now lets flick to page 42 shall we?

Summary of strength of evidence on factors that might promote or protect
against weight gain and obesity

Protein content of diet: No relationship


I'm not making this up by the way. It's from a group you may have heard of?

The National Taskforce on Obesity?

Full report:

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/special/2005/obesity/report.pdf

Please stop pedalling more defunct practices and listen to people who actually have good ideas and useful insights into helping the rest of the country.

tl:dr - Obesity rising since that protein and food guideline doc was introduced, protein content of diet has no relation to obesity.

Transform

safefood: Aileen wrote: »

Newaglish wrote: »

6 portions? The link you provided suggests 7 or 8 for women or men respectively trying to lose weight. Which is it?

We recommend 6. I provided the BDA link because they have more detail on a wider variety of foods. Apologies for the confusion.

I reallllly wanted to stay out of this thread as its such a minefield of misinformation so here I go and I will keep it as brief and succinct as possible -

1. Bread, cereals etc are a grain based food

2. Grain based foods have an autoimmune/inflammatory effect on the body which are then directly related to obesity and diabetes(might be a good one to look out for as its the fastest growing disease in the world right now!). These effects can and do effect people that are of low to normal weight as well as overweight/obese people.

"It has become evident that the inflammatory condition that is associated with obesity and overweight plays an important part in the aetiology of the metabolic syndrome and largely contributes to the related pathological outcomes". - link for that is here so might be a good place to start reading.

Therefore, your notion that you are NOT dealing with weight loss but recommeding the prevention of chronic disease is off the mark because basing your nutrition intake (food pyramid) on the very foods that CAUSE inflammation will in time lead to obesity, dibetes, syndrome x etc

3. Now lets get back to grain based foods again and really the work of Alessio Fasano is central to understaqnding all of this so I suggest one gets reading there first. Again these foods are really just gut irritants so the whole idea that you eat wholegrain actually could make matters worse and not better with the intro of more anti-nutrients. Extra fibre from grains will just act like a really rough sweeping brush - it might make things move along but jasus there are better ways to do the job and no auto immune response i.e. eat more veg.


Many many researchers are pointing out that leaky guy and optimal gut health can help in the fight against dibetes and obesity so again remind me why we NEED to eat the grains you suggest again?

The quality of the foods you suggest is what i really have an issue with as I am someone that actually works one to one with clients week in week out and if i recommeded ANYTHING like what you recommend i would lose all my clients in about a month due to ill health, weight gain, bloating, joint pain, tiredness etc

I am sure there are many more questions but from my perspective I have ignored and will continue to ignore much (not all) of the advice your organisation promotes because -
A) its at best 30years out of date
It does not promote optimal health in any major way apart from a reduction in calories (a band aid approach)

All the best and I am not trying to be smart as I just stand on the shoudlers of guys/gals that are way better in the field of nutrition than I could ever be and apply what i know to work and help people feel and look their best

Newaglish

Just to clarify from Transform's post above ^^^^ the carb serving guidelines are safefood's, not mine!

Rovi

Newaglish wrote: »

Just to clarify from Transform's post above ^^^^ the carb serving guidelines are safefood's, not mine!

Perhaps a Mod might fix the quoting?

amacachi

As far as I can tell the food pyramid (along with plenty of other US government policies) was done as a sop to farmers. Funnily enough it's not awful advice in countries were food isn't plentiful but it's terrible advice when food is available in the quantities it is now. Also nice to see the agriculture sector being well-represented on the board of safe food.:rolleyes:

accensi0n

safefood: Aileen wrote: »

Hi Zamboni, daily protein requirements for Ireland have been derived from nitrogen balance studies. You'll find an explanation here. http://www.fsai.ie/assets/0/86/204/fb3f2891-2896-4bf9-903f-938f3c2ad01f.pdf

Hi,

Can you point out where that document answers this question: "What quantity is 'far more protein than is necessary for good health?"

I can't find it.

Cheers.

El_Dangeroso

safefood: Aileen wrote: »

Again, a number of these questions refer to the national guideline to reduce saturated fat.
On the attached document we have pulled together an overview of the evidence as it stands at the moment and included both positive and negative studies.
For those with access to university libraries, the reference below gives a good overview of the state of the evidence in relation to epidemiologic, clinical and mechanistic studies. The evidence shows that the risk of CHD is reduced when saturated fatty acids are replaced with polyunsaturated fatty acids.

The role of reducing intakes of saturated fat in the prevention of cardiovascular disease: where does the evidence stand in 2010? Astrup A, Dyerberg J, Elwood P, Hermansen K, Hu FB, Jakobsen MU, Kok FJ, Krauss RM, Lecerf JM, LeGrand P, Nestel P, Risérus U, Sanders T, Sinclair A, Stender S, Tholstrop T, Willett WC.

In relation to the references we have used in answerig posts to date, and given that this is a public forum, in general we would prefer to link people to documents that they will have full access to. Most people don't have access to academic journals. Those with access can then examine the original research papers referred to in policy documents etc as they wish.

Hi Aileen,

Thanks so much for responding, if I may address the paper 'The role of reducing intakes of saturated fat in the prevention of cardiovascular disease: where does the evidence stand in 2010? '

Note that paper does not state that the balance of evidence shows that reducing SFA reduces cardiac events, because it doesn't. It shows that sometimes risk-factors are modified. Risk factors =/= Disease.

Why would you base your recommendations on a lesser form of evidence than prospective human trials with actual disease-occurrence endpoints? Is it because those trials don't give you the answers you'd expect?

To address the trials in the docs you linked to, a suspicious amount of epidemiology padding out that list. You know of course that they are not sufficient to prove causation? The flaws in most of the studies are explained in the review I linked to. Also there are many papers missing from that list that showed no association, again shown in that paper. (Link)

@Eileen

@Eileen

I think we'd all agree to an amnesty if you just came clean and agreed that it was time to actually look at current thoughts as opposed to 20year old papers.

We have an opportunity to "fix" Safefood here, and I'd be sure that plenty of posters here would agree to pointing you in the direction of more up-to-date and correct information and studies with the important proviso that you agree to at the very least, consider them, and recognise that there is the (not small) possibility that you have gotten things a bit wrong here..

Not many business get an opportunity to meet a forum and be told exactly where theyre going wrong, and what they can do to sort themselves out. If you don't embrace this chance, I feel that you will have alienated even more of the people who you are supposed to be setting out to help.

This is a lifeline for you guys, take it!

El_Dangeroso

Another good free text review:

http://www.nmsociety.org/App_Themes/Images/AboutFat/Skeaff%20Dietary%20Fat%20and%20Coronary%20Heart%20Disease.pdf

This addresses both retrospective and prospective cohort studies.

Mellor

wow, just wow.
At first i though the safefood reps were just PR monkeys, so I gave them a little of slack. But some of the stuff thats been posted is scary.

Misapplication of facts and failing to understand basic studies.

Aileen, do you know (and understand) the phrase co-relation does not imply causation?

edit: I didn't plan of writing a post so long, it just happened, sorry

safefood: Aileen wrote: »

[On the protein issue, the Pyramid is designed to recommend enough protein foods to provide nutritional adequacy. At the moment most people eat far more protein than is necessary for good health.

safefood: Aileen wrote: »

Hi Zamboni, daily protein requirements for Ireland have been derived from nitrogen balance studies. You'll find an explanation here. http://www.fsai.ie/assets/0/86/204/fb3f2891-2896-4bf9-903f-938f3c2ad01f.pdf

This is a perfect example of not understanding.
I'll try to explain it to you. If you disagree, or fail to understand any of these please say so.

The body needs protein to function. Protein serves as the building blocks of everything. From new cells for growth, repair and replacement to creating of various crucial enzymes.

Those studies highlight the RDA needed. This is what the RDA is?

Point c [RDA] equals the mean requirement plus two standard deviations (SD) i.e. meeting the dietary requirements of nearly all (97.5 %) healthy people in a population

So the RDA is the amount that will satisfy most of the populations needs.

For some bizarre reason you have suggested that this minimum amount is the limit. Why is gods name do you think that. It is perfectly healthy to have an increased intake of protein so that should your body need more, it is availible.
Their is no downside to increased protein, if it is not needed, the body can process it to convery to sugar through glucogenesis.
This is not the same as certain vitamin and minerals where vastly excessive doses can cause harm.

Do you know what the minimum amount of carbohydrate our body needs?
Zero, that's right. Absolutely none. It is non essential. That's why there is no RDA for carbohydrate listed in that chart.
Now i'm not suggesting that we eat no carbs, if we ate the minimum levels of carbs, fat and protein, we would be grossly below the maintenance calories levels. (take the RDA for energy requirements from that chart if you wish)

To me it looks like you took the minimum level of protein and fatty acids, subtracted the related energy from the energy RDA. And decided that the remainder came from carbs alone.
What I am asking is why you think it is a good idea to make up these calories with only carbs? Why do you suggest carbs above the min level and nothing else.

I also believe that you aren't even reaching the minimum level.
From the document that you posted.
The daily requirements for me, a male 18-65, are 0.75g/kg. Which for me is just over 60g.

From the safefood protein sizes link you posted;
(the numbers in red are my own estimates on protein level is each portion)

Proteins - choose 2 a day

One portion is:

2oz(60g) cooked lean meat or poultry (e.g. – half of one small chicken breast; edible portion of one small lamb chop) 15g
3-4 oz(90-120g) cooked fish (e.g. – one small salmon steak; one small fillet of plaice) 20g
2 eggs (not more than 7 per week) 14g
3 tablespoons cooked pea/beans 5g
1oz(30g) nuts 6g

No matter which two I choose I won't get near the RDA.
Does this not prove that your guidlines are failing? You aren't even reachign the RDA?????????

gavtron

Fantastic post Mellor, safefood are pointing to studies that bare no correlation to the information provided on their website.
A complete overhaul is needed, to their website and more importantly the information they are giving out.

Ouchette

Mellor wrote: »

I also believe that you aren't even reaching the minimum level.
From the document that you posted.
The daily requirements for me, a male 18-65, are 0.75g/kg. Which for me is just over 60g.

From the safefood protein sizes link you posted;
(the numbers in red are my own estimates on protein level is each portion)


No matter which two I choose I won't get near the RDA.
Does this not prove that your guidlines are failing? You aren't even reachign the RDA?????????

You'd get another 2-3g of protein from each slice of bread or 12.5ish in 100g of pasta. Add in the amount of carbs Safefood recommends and you might still reach the RDA! Of course, that would imply that either they think people will combine proteins or they don't know the difference between protein in grains and protein in eggs...

duffyshuffle

Wow, just stumbled across this little beauty of a thread today, great reading!

So you're telling me that eating 'brown' everything with lowfat babybel and lo-fat lite spreads, rice cakes and ryvitas, special k and a banana with slimline milk for brekkie won't make me fat?? wow...

I jest... stopped eating grains/gluten for a few months, would never go back. Have had more than 10 other I know eat this way, everyone feels/looks/is healthier. I've seen blood pressure drop from dangerously high levels to excellent (i'm 29 and very 'active' ie marathons/tris and was always told ah sure you're grand, you couldn't have high blood pressure since you're so fit. what bo//ox advice) in a few weeks, i'm leaner, way better energy etc..

The safe food campaign is an open joke to anyone that has any interest in themselves and has done some research in to what is a healthy diet. I hate the way they bandy the word 'balanced' around when they're pushing the exact opposite. So much hypocrisy and contradiction from their advice and responses above. Zero appreciation for inflammation and effect on blood sugars. Scandalous.

I think the best thing that could happen to Ireland, would be for Operation Transformation to take on two groups, one led as normal by the usual and another group led by a paleo-style guide. Have an everyday guide to how you feel, energy levels, mood, as well as weight loss. Have people realise you can feel so much better in life than you do stuffing processed junk in your mouth. Show how a lower carb, higher fat, higher protein diet will improve blood work at a dramatic difference to the stuff 'dr' eva pushes (remember those desserts made from jelly and uht cream, i shudder...)

Thanks Darragh for keeping the thread going as if Safe Food have any interest in the health of the nation they might pick through what they deem as criticism and realise its 99% constructive criticism, and that they should open their eyes and start reading actual factual studies that show the truth.

G

safefood: Aileen

My comments on protein have elicited a strong response so I thought I would clarify a few things.

Protein is available from a wide variety of foods, not the protein rich group only (as someone has already pointed out) so reaching your protein needs is not usually a challenge, unless you are a vegan. I should have included the link to the National Adults Nutrition Survey in the original post so that you could check average intakes of protein for Irish adults for yourselves. For men the mean intake is 85g and for women it is 70g. http://www.iuna.net/?p=106

To clarify what an RDA means, again as has been correctly pointed out, this is the amount that would meet the needs of the vast majority of the population. In real terms, it means that even the largest, most active individual with a high protein turn over (like a rugby player) would be served by these recommendations.

The nitrogen balance studies that are referred to in the 1999 dietary recommendations from the FSAI measure the amount of nitrogen that goes into the body (as protein in food) compared to what comes out the other end (as ammonia in urine). What stays in the body is the amount needed for growth, repair of body tissues etc. These are classical experiments that don’t need to be repeatedly updated.

Today is our last day on Boards.ie for now. We would like to thank all those who have contributed to the discussion. We have certainly learned a lot about what people are thinking and will consider your comments in the development of future resources.

Regards

Aileen and Dermot

duffyshuffle

safefood: Aileen wrote: »

My comments on protein have elicited a strong response so I thought I would clarify a few things.

Protein is available from a wide variety of foods, not the protein rich group only (as someone has already pointed out) so reaching your protein needs is not usually a challenge, unless you are a vegan. I should have included the link to the National Adults Nutrition Survey in the original post so that you could check average intakes of protein for Irish adults for yourselves. For men the mean intake is 85g and for women it is 70g. http://www.iuna.net/?p=106

To clarify what an RDA means, again as has been correctly pointed out, this is the amount that would meet the needs of the vast majority of the population. In real terms, it means that even the largest, most active individual with a high protein turn over (like a rugby player) would be served by these recommendations.

The nitrogen balance studies that are referred to in the 1999 dietary recommendations from the FSAI measure the amount of nitrogen that goes into the body (as protein in food) compared to what comes out the other end (as ammonia in urine). What stays in the body is the amount needed for growth, repair of body tissues etc. These are classical experiments that don’t need to be repeatedly updated.

Today is our last day on Boards.ie for now. We would like to thank all those who have contributed to the discussion. We have certainly learned a lot about what people are thinking and will consider your comments in the development of future resources.

Regards

Aileen and Dermot

For the love of god spend a tiny sum of our tax payer's money on Robb Wolf's Paleo Solution for every employee in safe foods. Educate yourselves in your field. Thanks for answering questions and being open to comments. But please, please, please take on board the advice from all here and realise nobody (just checked and stand to be corrected) has come on and said the food pyramid works or makes them feel or look good. Its killing people every day.

Zamboni

safefood: Aileen wrote: »

Today is our last day on Boards.ie for now. We would like to thank all those who have contributed to the discussion. We have certainly learned a lot about what people are thinking and will consider your comments in the development of future resources.

Regards

Aileen and Dermot

Thanks for coming on and replying where you did.
You've taken a lot of flak because a lot of people are frustrated with the current guidelines.
But you are one person in one promotional body in a large public structure trying to defend policies that you may not even personally agree with yourself.

There are folks here from various backgrounds of sports/physio/nutrition fields who work hands on with this every day and have long ago ditched guidelines like the food pyramid to their clients benefit and that includes every type of individual from athletes to Joe Bloggs.

Maybe it is naieve to think that this small corner of the internet may have given Safefood a small jolt into action, and it would also be naieve to forget the politics that would come into play on subjects like this, but hopefully something positive may come out of this in the future.

Newaglish

Zamboni wrote: »

hopefully something positive may come out of this in the future.

I don't for one second expect that it will. I haven't seen any indication from any of the safefood reps that they're even giving consideration to the fact that their approach may be incorrect.

They still see a lot of the people here as promoting niche, alternative and non-"mainstream" ideas. They still haven't answered such a basic question as where they get their authority to advise on weight-related issues.

Perhaps I'm just a little disillusioned at the moment but if safefood has hired people with actual qualifications in nutrition and in the 10+ years of their existence all they've come up with is the food pyramid (which I learned about at the age of five) and a negative and non-educational advertising campaign (you're fat - stop being fat), I'm not sure if it's worth the spend.

Roger Marbles

I must say I'm majorly disappointed with the responses in the last 3 days.

I posted at least 16 questions I think, and the majority were not answered or even addressed.

If this was a discussion or debate thread, then it must have passed me by.

I honestly think safefood do more harm than good. Considering they sponsor Operation Transformation and the misinformation that program peddles, it's no wonder this country has such a problem. There is a massive difference between losing weight and losing weight in a healthy way while teaching good nutritional and exercise principles.

If I were safefood, I would be proactive, seek out certain (I don't include myself) people in this thread who clearly know their stuff, pm or talk to them and get them on board.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

@Eileen

I think we'd all agree to an amnesty if you just came clean and agreed that it was time to actually look at current thoughts as opposed to 20year old papers.

We have an opportunity to "fix" Safefood here, and I'd be sure that plenty of posters here would agree to pointing you in the direction of more up-to-date and correct information and studies with the important proviso that you agree to at the very least, consider them, and recognise that there is the (not small) possibility that you have gotten things a bit wrong here..

Not many business get an opportunity to meet a forum and be told exactly where theyre going wrong, and what they can do to sort themselves out. If you don't embrace this chance, I feel that you will have alienated even more of the people who you are supposed to be setting out to help.

This is a lifeline for you guys, take it!

safefood: Aileen wrote: »

My comments on protein have elicited a strong response so I thought I would clarify a few things.

Protein is available from a wide variety of foods, not the protein rich group only (as someone has already pointed out) so reaching your protein needs is not usually a challenge, unless you are a vegan. I should have included the link to the National Adults Nutrition Survey in the original post so that you could check average intakes of protein for Irish adults for yourselves. For men the mean intake is 85g and for women it is 70g. http://www.iuna.net/?p=106

To clarify what an RDA means, again as has been correctly pointed out, this is the amount that would meet the needs of the vast majority of the population. In real terms, it means that even the largest, most active individual with a high protein turn over (like a rugby player) would be served by these recommendations.

The nitrogen balance studies that are referred to in the 1999 dietary recommendations from the FSAI measure the amount of nitrogen that goes into the body (as protein in food) compared to what comes out the other end (as ammonia in urine). What stays in the body is the amount needed for growth, repair of body tissues etc. These are classical experiments that don’t need to be repeatedly updated.

Today is our last day on Boards.ie for now. We would like to thank all those who have contributed to the discussion. We have certainly learned a lot about what people are thinking and will consider your comments in the development of future resources.

Regards

Aileen and Dermot

Fairly disgraceful carry on tbh. Will only continue that nobody will have any faith in Safefood if this is indicative of how receptive and engaging they are to new (i.e not obsolete) ideas.

Mellor

safefood: Aileen wrote: »

To clarify what an RDA means, again as has been correctly pointed out, this is the amount that would meet the needs of the vast majority of the population. In real terms, it means that even the largest, most active individual with a high protein turn over (like a rugby player) would be served by these recommendations.

Aileen,
That exactly what I said by RDA means.

• RDA is based on bodyweight, so a rugby player has a bigger requirement
• I stated that the RDA for protein is the minimum level to meet needs, you ignored my question regarding the issues with eating more? you also ignored my questions regarding why its "ok" to make up the rest with carbs and not protein.

Head in the sand indeed.

Roger Marbles

Looks like none of us were prize winners.

I, for one, am shocked by this.