http://blogs.wsj.com/health/2011/06/02/does-the-plate-give-better-dietary-advice-than-the-pyramid/
While I agree that the plate is a better means to represent a desired meal than was the pyramid, especially when the message sender is the US Government who by definition must design a message that can be digested by that 50% of the population which has a below average intelligence, if the message is a bastardization of the science, it should still not be sent. IOW, this is just "lipstick on a pig". (I do not mean to belittle the appearance of pigs, but would note that I find the idea of lipstick on bacon is not appealing to the eye or the palate. Editor's note).
Please indulge me, dear reader, in a not so bold prediction: This "plate" will have zero effect on the propensity of the US population to gain an unhealthy amount of body fat, no matter how much money our government, via the USDA, has paid for this product's development, or will pay for its marketing.
Here's another: If our Surgeon General follows this eating plan, she will be just as heavy when she leaves office is as she was when she took office. However, she will actually deserve this fate because she's educated enough to know better.
Here's a third: at some point, someone in the government will be presented with the fact that grains rapidly raise blood sugars, regardless of their "wholeness" or lack thereof. Someone will, eventually, announce that grains of any kind have a glycemic impact which is deleterious and particularly to diabetics and pre-diabetics who already have glycemic control issues as their most significant health driver. No one will be required to take responsibility for the fact that our government has proclaimed all these years that so called whole grains are 'heart healthy.' Perhaps some will realize how much of the "health care crisis" was created and perpetuated by the USDA driven low fact dogma, but the damage will have been done.
While I agree that the plate is a better means to represent a desired meal than was the pyramid, especially when the message sender is the US Government who by definition must design a message that can be digested by that 50% of the population which has a below average intelligence, if the message is a bastardization of the science, it should still not be sent. IOW, this is just "lipstick on a pig". (I do not mean to belittle the appearance of pigs, but would note that I find the idea of lipstick on bacon is not appealing to the eye or the palate. Editor's note).
Please indulge me, dear reader, in a not so bold prediction: This "plate" will have zero effect on the propensity of the US population to gain an unhealthy amount of body fat, no matter how much money our government, via the USDA, has paid for this product's development, or will pay for its marketing.
Here's another: If our Surgeon General follows this eating plan, she will be just as heavy when she leaves office is as she was when she took office. However, she will actually deserve this fate because she's educated enough to know better.
Here's a third: at some point, someone in the government will be presented with the fact that grains rapidly raise blood sugars, regardless of their "wholeness" or lack thereof. Someone will, eventually, announce that grains of any kind have a glycemic impact which is deleterious and particularly to diabetics and pre-diabetics who already have glycemic control issues as their most significant health driver. No one will be required to take responsibility for the fact that our government has proclaimed all these years that so called whole grains are 'heart healthy.' Perhaps some will realize how much of the "health care crisis" was created and perpetuated by the USDA driven low fact dogma, but the damage will have been done.
No comments:
Post a Comment