The Food Pyramid, Safefood and non-competition entries

Mellor

I hoped my post that scored enough thanks to be a last minute game winner.

Would of been a good, "we know you guys are right but our bosses have our hands tied" gesture if it went to anybody on this thread. I guess the reps above do actually believe their own BS.

g'em

Darragh wrote: »

And yes, that was a snotty reply that I probably should have thought more about, but the frustration I have in trying to bring people onto Boards.ie and have them communicate with our members only to have that fail again and again is something I have to deal with daily. It's not easy. I could do with some help on it. Dav and I both could.

Well, next time communicate more with the forum Moderators and get their insight first instead of announcing it to us when it's signed and sealed. We'd be delighted to help. Every forum is unique and with its own personality and I warned you explicitly that this would happen so you can't claim surprise. I would have helped out more if I could but I told you I was going away and it went ahead anyway.

fatmammycat

I think, if it is still possible to do so, Gauge's post ought to be up there with the winners.

drdeadlift

It looks like the government yet again appoint the wrong people for the wrong job.With the amount of information available today there is no excuse for these people not to be up to speed with the latest info on food nutrition.
It isnt the end of the special k diet just yet....

Tea-a-Maria

Having read through this thread and the other one about the safe food advert,any notions I had that the food pyramid was a good guide to eating have been blown out of the water!

The thing is,as a mental guide,it was quite useful when I went food shopping so make sure I got a proper (or so I thought) spread of nutrients.Is there any alternative,more up to date guide that I could use instead?I'm kind of at a loss as to how to proceed right now.:(

El_Dangeroso

Tea-a-Maria wrote: »

Having read through this thread and the other one about the safe food advert,any notions I had that the food pyramid was a good guide to eating have been blown out of the water!

The thing is,as a mental guide,it was quite useful when I went food shopping so make sure I got a proper (or so I thought) spread of nutrients.Is there any alternative,more up to date guide that I could use instead?I'm kind of at a loss as to how to proceed right now.:(

It's actually quite simple, just buy a wide variety of one-ingredient food. Stick to natural fats, good quality meat and seafood, fresh fruits and vegetables, dairy (preferably fermented) and some grains such as fermented oats and rice.

Adjust to taste/digestion/energy requirements. Done.

Cookie_Monster

El_Dangeroso wrote: »

and some grains such as fermented oats and rice & barley

so lots of beer then, right

El_Dangeroso

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

so lots of beer then, right

Ha! No.;)

seeing_ie

Have to agree with what Tigger posted here .

What a fascinating and instructive saga.

It seems that Boards has a decision to make: does it serve it's posters interests or those of it's commercial partners?

Can you monetize a forum?

Brian?

seeing_ie wrote: »

Have to agree with what Tigger posted here .

What a fascinating and instructive saga.

It seems that Boards has a decision to make: does it serve it's posters interests or those of it's commercial partners?

Can you monetize a forum?

Did you happen to notic who won the prize?

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=73232463&postcount=269

It can't really be said that this serves Safefoods interest.

nesf

briankeating wrote: »

Did you happen to notic who won the prize?

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=73232463&postcount=269

It can't really be said that this serves Safefoods interest.

Yeah, an excellent choice for the prize that.

seeing_ie

briankeating wrote: »

Did you happen to notic who won the prize?

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=73232463&postcount=269

It can't really be said that this serves Safefoods interest.

Wasn't that just the mod's prize?

Thought the main prizewinners were announced here.

Brian?

seeing_ie wrote: »

Wasn't that just the mod's prize?

Thought the main prizewinners were announced here.

It was just the mods prize unfortunatly.

opinion guy

WOW

I just found this thread now. One of the best boards threads I've seen in a long time.
Staggering really.

cc87 wrote: »

Whats worse is look at the advisory board members background
http://www.safefood.eu/en/About-Us/Who-we-are-2/Advisory-board/Advisory-Board-Members/

Closest thing to any form of nutritional qualifications is a fruit scientist.
Full of politicians and PR BSers

WOW. Just WOW. Talk about your vested interests!! Not a doctor, pharmacist or dietitian in the group. Just jaw dropping. If you gave me this list of bios without telling me they were the board of safefood and asked me which body did they work for I would guess a food industry lobby group. SHOCKING

Newaglish wrote: »

Sweet obese Jesus.

Lol...made me laugh

opinion guy

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.

Oh dear oh dear.
Rda's - one of my most hated and loathed concepts for how it is peddled as actually relevant to individuals food choices.

Rda' are calculated based upon estimated average requirements. Average being the key word there. Not best, not optimal, average. They are NOT designed to indicate the optimal intake for any individual (which is what everyone assumes including most doctors, dietitians etc). They are designed to "meet the needs of the vast majority of the population". By needs that means minimum needs in order that groups of people do not get things like scurvey and pellagra in your country. This kind of information is of course useful to governments managing food production and and health bodies etc - and is applicable on a population basis only. It is NOT NOT NOT applicable to advising individuals on their food choices for optimal health. This is perhaps thee biggest example of an 'ecological fallacy'. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecological_fallacy

God I get so angry when I see rda's peddled the way they are. Its well up there with the earth being flat in terms of biggest mistakes of the human race.

Mellor

seeing_ie wrote: »

It seems that Boards has a decision to make: does it serve it's posters interests or those of it's commercial partners?

Boards.ie and Safefood aren't commercial partners

opinion guy wrote: »

Oh dear oh dear.
Rda's - one of my most hated and loathed concepts for how it is peddled as actually relevant to individuals food choices.

Rda' are calculated based upon estimated average requirements. Average being the key word there. Not best, not optimal, average.

You are slightly wrong here.
It isn't the average. It's 2 standard diviations from the medium requirement. So its a level that should meet the requirements of the vast majority of the population. Aileen was right in that much at least.

However, as I criticised above, the assumion that the RDA was the max, the target or the optimal level was wrong. It's the minium amount we should take in. I consider the "requirements" to be the bare minimum for cell regeneration, growth, repair etc during day to day life. I can think of loads of reason why its a good reason to eat above this level. I do it regularly. Between breakfast and lunch today, I've had over my RDA. I'll probably hit 3x times it by bedtime

opinion guy

Mellor wrote: »

You are slightly wrong here.
It isn't the average. It's 2 standard diviations from the medium requirement. So its a level that should meet the requirements of the vast majority of the population. Aileen was right in that much at least.

I said it was calculated based on the EAR - I didn't say it was the EAR. Yes you are correct it is usually EAR + 2SD(EAR) - or in some cases where the SD of the EAR can't be worked out its + a set precentage (eg 10%). This has zero effect on my point. The average person might take in 50mg of vit c a day and the RDA is 60mg a day. But the average person includes lots of unhealthy-ish people. The truly healthy people may take in 1000mg a day or more). Or they guy with heavy exposure to pro-oxidants but remains healthy may take in 2000mg a day or more. The point is that applying average statistics to individuals is a logical fallacy. It should not be done. The EAR and RDA should only be used in management of food supplies etc (maybe) not in advising people what to eat. The entire rda/food pyramid concept is flawed from the outset. It was a war era concept that has long past its time

However, as I criticised above, the assumion that the RDA was the max, the target or the optimal level was wrong. It's the minium amount we should take in. I consider the "requirements" to be the bare minimum for cell regeneration, growth, repair etc during day to day life. I can think of loads of reason why its a good reason to eat above this level. I do it regularly. Between breakfast and lunch today, I've had over my RDA. I'll probably hit 3x times it by bedtime

Yeah exactly. Its a figure designed so the goverment knows how much of what nutrition it needs to produce for people not to get vitamin nutrition states like scurvy etc. Not for optimal health.

Tigger

Mellor wrote: »

Boards.ie and Safefood aren't commercial partners

well when one business or organisation pays another one to help spread a message or point then that can be refered to as a commercial partnership ca t it?

seeing_ie

briankeating wrote: »

It was just the mods prize unfortunatly.

Then why imply that the mod's prize was the main prize, when in fact the real prizes were given to those answers which suited safefood's ends?

As health&fitness mod do you see any conflict between serving forum posters and safefood?

g'em

seeing_ie wrote: »

Then why imply that the mod's prize was the main prize, when in fact the real prizes were given to those answers which suited safefood's ends?

As health&fitness mod do you see any conflict between serving forum posters and safefood?

seeing_ie I think you may be seeing (no pun intended) something that isn't there tbh. brian didn't imply anything in the wording of his post. I've made my feelings clear on the whole matter in the main competition thread and have pointed out that there were a number of miscommunications in this whole exercise.

As it happens Darragh is away at the moment and so can't clarify the whole debacle but I have been speaking with him and there was no malice, underhandedness or shadiness beneath all this.

Darragh initially said that Mods would be involved in choosing the winners. Dav picked with winners with Safefood but didn't realise that a) the Mods were to be involved too and b) there was another thread. This was pointed out and we (the Mods) were given the chance to award a Mod Prize which we did.

As I said on the competition thread this is being discussed ourselves and we'll be back with further clarification as soon as we're able to provide it. I'd rather this forum's users didn't start getting wound up in half-truths though, all I can do is assure you I'm giving you all the information I can at this point.

Frankly we're all disappointed with how this played out.