zlacker

>>atestu+(OP)
Of note: the US's per capita consumption of meat has increased by more than 100 pounds over the last century[1]. We now consume an immense amount of meat per person in this country. That increase is disproportionately in poultry, but we also consume more beef[2].

A demand for the average American to eat more meat would have to explain, as a baseline, why our already positive trend in meat consumption isn't yielding positive outcomes. There are potential explanations (you could argue increased processing offsets the purported benefits, for example), but those are left unstated by the website.

[1]: https://www.agweb.com/opinion/drivers-u-s-capita-meat-consum...

[2]: https://ers.usda.gov/data-products/chart-gallery/chart-detai...

>>woodru+fO
I'd strongly prefer the government just not try to tell people what to eat, the incentives will always be perverse and nutrition science is anything but science in most cases.

EDIT down-thread to prove my point you'll see people citing studies in favor of and against the new recommendations. The studies are almost always in animals or use self reported data with tiny sample sizes.

>>ch4s3+iR
The whole point of government performing the function is that they don't profit from misleading you, rather their goal is the country's welfare.

Obviously there are exceptions - particularly right now - but those are solved by rooting out corruption.

>>cosmic+w81
You say that but the food pyramid was devised but the agriculture lobby, and was never based on science.

>>ch4s3+Pb1
Is this true? Specifically, "devised by" vs "influenced by" and "never based on science" meaning there was no, for example, attempt to improve heart disease rates?

In any event, looking at the whole history of food guidance paints a clearer picture of my point. Happy to hear of alternatives though!

>>cosmic+1l1
I guess it would be more correct to say it was heavily influenced by the ag industry[1].

> attempt to improve heart disease rates

The diet basedheart disease science of the early 1990s was totally junk.[2]

[1] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8375951/

[2] https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2016/09/404081/sugar-papers-reveal...

>>ch4s3+zp1
Totally junk or skewed to ignore sugar as a contributor? Again I have to immediately doubt your dire accusations because they diverge from what is said in your link as well as what my physician says about cholesterol.

And it's not like the 90s pyramid had sugar at the base.

>>cosmic+8x1
Yes, largely junk. As I mentioned the literature is full of studies that are nothing but some regressions on top of self reported dietary data. It’s almost all very low quality[1].

[1] https://www.science.org/content/article/people-are-bad-repor...