Nevertheless, We're For It

After ten years of Prohibition, Franklin P. Adams, writing for The New York World, summed up the effectiveness of the 18th Amendment with this bit of doggerel verse:

Prohibition is an awful flop,
We like it.
It can’t stop what it’s meant to stop,
We like it.
It’s filled our land with vice and crime,
It’s left a trail of graft and slime,
It don’t prohibit worth a dime,
Nevertheless we’re for it.

I was put in mind of that sardonic summing up of governmental cheer-leading for an obviously failed policy when I read of the latest USDA recommendations for nutritional guidelines. A few decades of telling us all to eat less meat, fewer eggs, less saturated fat, less salt, less cholesterol, more grains, more fruits and vegetables, more plant-based foods in general, more unsaturated oils, have corresponded with a meteoric rise in obesity and diabetes. In light of the remarkable erosion in American health, plus massive quantities of research showing that carbohydrates, not saturated fat and salt, are the problem, what are they recommending? More of the same, of course.

* Eat more vegetables, cooked dry beans and peas, fruits, whole grains, nuts and seeds. In general, eat more "plant-based" foods.

* Consume only "moderate amounts of lean meats, poultry, and eggs.”

* Forget all that stuff about macronutrient ratios -- you know, carb, protein, and fat intake. The only problem is “the over-consumption of total calories coupled with very low physical activity and too much sedentary time.”

* Pay attention to calories. Only calories count for weight control.

* A daily multivitamin/mineral supplement “does not offer health benefits to healthy Americans.” I'm wondering how they define "healthy," aren't you?

* Saturated fat should make up no more than 7% of daily calories. This is a drop from the previously recommended 10%. They want us to eat poly- and mono-unsaturated fats instead. Ignore the fact that eating lots of polyunsaturates can cause inflammation and perhaps even cancer. Ignore, too, the fact that the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition recently stated, A meta-analysis of prospective epidemiologic studies showed that there is no significant evidence for concluding that dietary saturated fat is associated with an increased risk of CHD or CVD. Ignore, also, the statement in the same issue (March 2010) that Replacement of saturated fat by polyunsaturated or monounsaturated fat lowers both LDL and HDL cholesterol. However, replacement with a higher carbohydrate intake, particularly refined carbohydrate, can exacerbate the atherogenic dyslipidemia associated with insulin resistance and obesity that includes increased triglycerides, small LDL particles, and reduced HDL cholesterol. No, no, no. The whole problem is saturated fat.

* Because, they say, 70% of Americans have high blood pressure or fall into the high-risk category, they've decided their previous recommendation of limiting salt to 2300 mgs per day was way too liberal. We're supposed to cut back to 1500 mgs. per day. Just so you know, that's less than a teaspoon per day. Yeah, that's gonna happen. Let's ignore the fact that restricting salt raised blood pressure in as many cases as it lowers it.

* They did recommend 3 servings, 4 oz each of fish or seafood per day, saying that the risks of mercury contamination were outweighed by the benefits of the health fats, but that we should “pay attention to local seafood advisories and limit their intake of large, predatory fish.” We are not, however, to pay attention to the fact that eating more omega-6 polyunsaturates increases our need for those fishy omega-3s, nor are we to pay attention to the fact that grass-fed beef and lamb are great sources of those healthy omega-3s. Perhaps they think it's unrealistic to suggest people buy grass-fed meat, but from people who think we'll all consider eating less than a teaspoon of salt per day, suggestions of unrealism are laughable.

* One bright spot: They did say a drink or two per day was a good idea, if your waistline can handle it. Reduces your risk of heart disease, and perhaps of dementia.

In short, it's not just more of the same, it's an intensification of the same low fat, high carb, animal-food-phobic garbage that got us into this mess in the first place.

Back in November, I wrote a blog post called Dana Does Politics, saying that whether you were for or agin health care reform, if we did, indeed get it, it was essential that we all raise our voices and tell our elected officials that, in the face of out-of-control health care costs, it is sheerest folly to continue along the path of the government nutritional guidelines of the past few decades. Well, it happened, and now's the time to tell them.

The USDA will be accepting comments on their recommendations for the new nutritional guidelines until July 15th. That's not a lot of time. Please, write them today and tell them about your experience with carbohydrate restriction, and how it has improved your health.

Or we're in for five more years of Americans getting fatter and sicker.