New US dietary guidelines “a recipe for disaster” and “an evidence-free zone”

Are the new US Dietary Guidelines “an evidence-free zone”?

Why are the new US Dietary Guidelines still issuing warnings about saturated fat in 2016? And why are they still discussing dietary cholesterol, even after removing the limit and even after their own preliminary report clearly said cholesterol is “no longer a nutrient of concern”?

Even more disturbingly, the guidelines pretend to have scientific support when in fact there is little to no evidence supporting them. A prominent cardiologist writing in the prestigious Annals of Internal Medicine yesterday even calls the guidelines “an evidence-free zone”!

Pretty remarkable, and it shows how non-existent the consensus behind the guidelines is.

There’s probably no good reason to obsess about saturated fat. There is no good evidence to support avoiding it.


New Dietary Guidelines for Americans: Eat Less Sugar, More Cholesterol!

“Why Mainstream Researchers Think the U.S. Dietary Guidelines Lack Scientific Rigor”

Best of 2015: “Reversing Type 2 Diabetes Starts with Ignoring the Guidelines”



  1. Fay
    The DGAC said that cholesterol was no longer a nutrient of concern and then the USDA guidelines tell people to avoid it.

    If the USDA had said that cholesterol is no longer a nutrient of concern in the guidelines, it would have had a HUGE impact.

    Fewer people would buy the 'heart-healthy' yogurts and processed cereals. The American Heart Association wouldn't be able to flog 'heart-healthy' logos to food manufacturers so revenue would be badly hit. People would extrapolate ' if cholesterol is no longer a nutrient of concern, why take statins ?' This would dent Big Pharma profits and not just in USA.

    The USDA represents agriculture so IMO it shouldn't be involved in dietary guidelines for consumers. I reckon the guidelines stay watered-down and useless because of the vested interests lobbying the USDA.

  2. chris c
    I'm a tad surprised that Sir Steven Statin, er Nissen, would come on board, is he playing both sides against the middle? As Fay says it's more about money than health. The farmers here produce mainly wheat, rape, sugar beet, potatoes, peas and barley, ie. carbs and margarine, and they are financially screwed just as much as the patients are screwed in terms of their health.

    The subsidies paid to farmers actually go straight to the Foodlike Substance Manufacturing Industry in the form of reduced prices. If Coke or Kelloggs made the same sort of return on capital the farmers are forced to accept, they would be sacked for gross incompetence.

Leave a reply

Reply to comment #0 by

Older posts