Nutritionally Unsound Fad Diet Endorsed By AND

I admit the last three weeks have not been good for my blood pressure. Again, my anger is fired by another group telling people with diabetes what they should be doing. This time it is the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics (AND) that is endorsing a fad diet based on white rice and fruit. White rice is not a food that is good for diabetes and causes our blood glucose to spike to high levels because the glycemic index is very high. The right fruit can be beneficial for diabetes, but certainly not all fruit as this fad diet proclaims.


Amy Jamieson-Petonic, a registered dietitian and a spokeswoman for AND is promoting the Rice Diet as nutritionally sound. The AND supports the Rice Diet, with few concerns such that it is difficult to follow and that it is low in vitamin D and calcium.


“There are so many weaknesses with this diet that it’s difficult to know where to start.

• First, the reason people lose so much weight is that dieters consume only 1200 calories per day—many of which are empty calories.
  
• The diet is low-fat and low-protein, even though healthy fats and proteins are essential for maintaining health.
  
• Despite the fruit, it’s low in micronutrients (vitamins and minerals), and this may accelerate the degenerative diseases of aging.
  
• White rice is extremely high on the glycemic index, which means that rice is rapidly digested and absorbed, resulting in dramatic fluctuations in blood sugar levels—the very things that can develop into type 2 diabetes or for those with type 2 diabetes, make it more difficult to manage.
  
• Too much fructose in fruit can be dangerous as well. While it’s better to have fructose in the form of whole fruits, people with diabetes, high blood pressure, and high cholesterol should be careful to limit fructose to 15 grams per day or less and even healthy people should probably not exceed 25 grams a day. One way to assess your fructose sensitivity is to have your uric acid levels tested.”
  

Given these reasons, I have to seriously wonder why people are determined to follow the AND way of nutrition when they have many companies in the processed food industry and companies such as Coca-Cola sponsoring their activities. The AND is continuing to press state legislatures and the federal agencies to allow them to be the only group educating people about nutrition. Then after getting many states to pass the legislation, they seek to criminalize degreed nutritionists who actually promote good nutrition.

'Whole Grain' Not Always Healthy

“Current standards for classifying foods as "whole grain" are inconsistent and, in some cases, misleading, according to a new study by Harvard School of Public Health (HSPH) researchers.” This is the opening paragraph of an article that hits at the problem the food industry is promoting and doing to an unsuspecting public. The Grain Foods Foundation must be behind much of this and they are the largest promoter of “whole grains.” Of course, we must not forget the USDA and HHS as they are promoting for the grain producers. Then add the American Diabetes Association and the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics to the mix and we have reasons to be concerned about the food we eat.

The study appears in the January 4, 2013 advanced online edition of Public Health Nutrition.  This is the link to another article. The authors say a new standard is needed to help consumers and organizations choose foods rich in whole grains.

How the “Whole Grain Stamp” (WGS) became a widely used standard is still a mystery, it is not clearly defined, and different companies use it differently. In actual use, it identifies grain products that contain higher sugars and calories than products without the WGS. The researchers want the adoption of a consistent, evidence-based standard when labeling whole grain foods. This is unfortunately the first study empirically (provable or verifiable by experience or experiment) to evaluate the healthfulness of whole grain foods. They took five commonly used industry and government definitions. This is one way to make them accountable and hold their feet to the fire.

These five definitions are:

1. The Whole Grain Stamp, a packaging symbol for products containing at least 8 grams of whole grains per serving (created by the Whole Grain Council, a non-governmental organization supported by industry dues)

2. Any whole grain as the first listed ingredient (recommended by the USDA's MyPlate and the Food and Drug Administration's Consumer Health Information guide)

3. Any whole grain as the first ingredient without added sugars in the first three ingredients (also recommended by USDA's MyPlate)

4. The word "whole" before any grain anywhere in the ingredient list (recommended by USDA's Dietary Guidelines for Americans 2010)

5. The "10:1 ratio," a ratio of total carbohydrate to fiber of less than 10 to 1, which is approximately the ratio of carbohydrate to fiber in whole wheat flour (recommended by the American Heart Association's 2020 Goals)

The researchers identified 545 grain products that they applied the five definitions to analyze how they rated. When the WGS was used, the grain products were high in fiber and lower in trans fats. However, the same grain products contained higher levels of sugar and calories when compared to products without the WGS.

The three USDA criteria had mixed results for finding healthier grain products. Considering the American Heart Association's standard (a ratio of total carbohydrate to fiber of less than or equal to 10 to 1), this proved to be the best indicator of overall healthfulness. The study found that products meeting this ratio were higher in fiber and lower in trans fats, sugar, and sodium, without higher calories than products that did not meet the ratio.

The senior author stated, "Our results will help inform national discussions about product labeling, school lunch programs, and guidance for consumers and organizations in their attempts to select whole grain products." Now will the “experts” even have a discussion or will the USDA just claim bad science and continue to give the children food that is loaded with sugar. My bet is on the last statement.