zlacker

>>atestu+(OP)
For all the lunacy of RFK this somehow is actually a really good set of guidelines? Certainly better than the previous version. I didn't expect that to be honest.

>>zeroon+nI
It was a low bar. The previous nutrition guidelines were garbage for generations

>>deflat+tP
Which ones? The guidelines this replaced were "half your plate should be fruits and vegetables, the other half protein and grains (at least half of which should be whole grains)." That's not way different from this.

There are differences: the previous guidelines are very down on saturated fat, for example. But I feel like a lot of people are imagining that this is replacing the old food pyramid with the huge grain section at the bottom bigger than everything else, when that's been gone for over a decade.

Realistically I don't think these guidelines really have much effect at all, except maybe things like school lunch programs that may be downstream of them.

>>zerocr+SL1
> which ones?

The literal food pyramid that’s printed god knows where and that is recommended in many countries due to US recommendations.

Have you been to the site OP linked?

>>bharga+nL2
The pyramid references in the link is from 1992, it even says so on the page. I think that going to war against the recommendations from 1992 feels a bit...dishonest?