Posted on 02/22/2015 8:15:17 AM PST by NOBO2012
In honor of the five (5!) year anniversary of Lady M’s Let’s Move! initiative,
in conjunction with her “Eat Brighter” campaign, launched in 2013…
A tip for “eating brighter:” put the mic down first and keep your tongue in your mouth.
The federal committee responsible for nutrition guidelines (the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee, or DGAC) has finally issued a 571-page report of recommendations that calls for:
the adoption of “plant-based” diets, taxes on dessert, trained obesity “interventionists” at worksites, and electronic monitoring of how long Americans sit in front of the television.
So nothing real intrusive; it just wants to fundamentally change the way America eats. Because, OBESITY! and GLOBAL WARMING! It’s just 571-pages of recommendations that tell us what to eat, when to eat, how to eat and what to do before and after we eat.
Interestingly there is no acknowledgement of the fact that the way America eats is in large part due to the government’s previous recommendations; recommendations that now have been exposed through multiple sources to be misguided at best and dead wrong at worst. That’s right, the same people who brought you the low fat, no-fat, anti-egg, anti-red meat and dietary cholesterol, diet now say “never mind” --
From the esteemed New York Times:
FOR two generations, Americans ate fewer eggs and other animal products because policy makers told them that fat and cholesterol were bad for their health. Now both dogmas have been debunked in quick succession.
How did experts get it so wrong? Certainly, the food industry has muddied the waters through its lobbying. But the primary problem is that nutrition policy has long relied on a very weak kind of science: epidemiological, or “observational,” studies in which researchers follow large groups of people over many years. But even the most rigorous epidemiological studies suffer from a fundamental limitation. At best they can show only association, not causation. Epidemiological data can be used to suggest hypotheses but not to prove them.
Hmmmmm, “epidemiological” studies? Like the kind “scientists” use for everything they wish to tax, control, outlaw or encourage through new laws, guidelines or regulations? (e.g. “carbon dioxide”)
Answer: enthusiastic YES!
From the Wall Street Journal:
"Saturated fat does not cause heart disease"—or so concluded a big study published in March in the journal Annals of Internal Medicine. How could this be? The very cornerstone of dietary advice for generations has been that the saturated fats in butter, cheese and red meat should be avoided because they clog our arteries. For many diet-conscious Americans, it is simply second nature to opt for chicken over sirloin, canola oil over butter.
The new study's conclusion shouldn't surprise anyone familiar with modern nutritional science, however. The fact is, there has never been solid evidence for the idea that these fats cause disease. We only believe this to be the case because nutrition policy has been derailed over the past half-century by a mixture of personal ambition, bad science, politics and bias.
Butt remember, there are still a lot of people invested in personal ambition, bad science, politics and bias, so despite issuing a few “My Plate” revisions down the road expect them to continue to recommend pretty much more of what Lady M has already mandated for “healthy” lunches: eat more fruits and vegetables and whole grains, and eat less saturated fats, salt and sugar.
Just because we can no longer rely on the “animal fats are bad for you” argument to promote our eat less meat and more healthy carbs agenda, we’ll be switching over to the “save the planet” pitch; i.e. the dual appeal to reduce global warming while maintaining “sustainability” – as if raising livestock is non-sustainable. 
The committee has also discussed the idea of including sustainability as a dietary goal. The advisory panel said in its draft recommendations that there is “compatibility and overlap” between what is good for health and what is good for the environment.
A diet higher in plant-based foods and lower in animal-based foods is “more health promoting and is associated with lesser environmental impact than is the current average U.S. diet,” the draft recommendations said. - Yahoo News
And expect people who may be vested in the old advice, like Dr. Robert Eckel, a professor of medicine at the University of Colorado in Denver who is a past president of the American Heart Association, to proceed with extreme caution in the face of new data vindicating the role of eggs and dietary cholesterol in heart disease
People can enjoy high-cholesterol egg yolks in moderation, he advises, but “a three- to four-egg omelet isn’t something I’d ever recommend to a patient at risk for cardiovascular disease,” he says.
And why shouldn’t they be cautious? It’s hard to believe a report from the government that has previously given you the top 10 food fallacies.
Salt, butter, potato: which is bad for you?
So I’m just providing this information today as a Public Service Announcement. When your doctor – or more likely under Obamacare, your nurse practitioner or navigator - tells you that you need to go meatless Monday-Friday, you will know that they are driven by “a mixture of personal ambition, bad science, politics and bias” even if they don’t know it.
Just like the people who tell you that anthropogenic climate change is killing the planet and we all have to drive less, use less toilet paper and eat fewer animals: all victims of agenda driven propaganda they may not even be aware of. That’s why it’s called “propaganda.”
“All media exist to invest our lives with artificial perceptions and arbitrary values.” Marshall McLuhan
So the next time somebody tries to tell you to eat your peas tell them, well, you know…
h/t one of our own MOLs
Posted from: Michelle Obama’s Mirror
bump.
Republicans To Investigate Climate Data Tampering By NASA
Global Warming on Free Republic
Nanny State PING!
Thanks for the ping-—think I’ll go have a dish of ice cream...followed by some tea and a cigarette.
The post gave me an appetite.
.
It's missing sour cream! Chives and real bacon bits wouldn't hurt either.
You and me both, but I'll substitute the tea for a cold beer...
Thanks for the ping!
Can't wait til they just go away.
But the primary problem is that nutrition policy has long relied on a very weak kind of science: epidemiological, or “observational,” studies in which researchers follow large groups of people over many years. But even the most rigorous epidemiological studies suffer from a fundamental limitation. At best they can show only association, not causation. Epidemiological data can be used to suggest hypotheses but not to prove them.
Hmmmmm, “epidemiological” studies? Like the kind “scientists” use for everything they wish to tax, control, outlaw or encourage through new laws, guidelines or regulations? (e.g. “carbon dioxide”)
Also includes many of the alleged harms of marijuana.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
