Skip to main content Skip to section navigation
DietaryGuidelines.gov logo

Dietary Guidelines for Americans, 2015

Read Comments

Instructions: You can browse comments by topic, or search by comment text, organization, affiliation, or comment ID. The search phrase must match in its entirety for a result to be returned. Searches are not case-sensitive.


  1 2 3 4 5  ...   

Anonymous Comment ID #644

08/28/2014

The National WIC Association (NWA) is the non-profit education arm and education voice of the Special Supplemental Nutrition Education Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC), the nearly 9 million women and young children served by WIC and the 12,000 service provider Agencies who are the frontlines of WIC’s public health nutrition services for the nation’s nutritionally at-risk mothers and young children. The NWA has made recommendations pertaining to the DGAC’s SC 2: Dietary Patterns, Foods and Nutrients, and Health Outcomes. Specifically, our recommendations focus on overall dietary pattern, restaurant foods, portion sizes, sodium, added sugars, trans fatty acids, saturated fat, dietary cholesterol, whole grains, red and processed meats, fruits and vegetables, dairy products, and breastfeeding. See Attachment #1 for our specific recommendations and references.

Affiliation: Professional Association Organization: National WIC Association
Topic:
  • Eating Patterns-Diets (USDA Food Patterns, DASH, Vegetarian, Low Carb, Hi-Protein, etc.)
  • Food Groups (Fruits, Vegetables, Grains, Dairy, Protein Foods)

Tina Ruggiero MS, RD, LD Comment ID #643

08/28/2014

Request 5-2. As a registered dietitian, I know first-hand how important it is to eat a nutrient-rich diet, including seafood. A power-house food, eating seafood at least two times per week has been shown to provide numerous health benefits. For all Americans, a seafood-rich diet can help reduce the risk of heart disease. In fact, studies have shown that eating fish at least twice a week can reduce the risk of dying from a heart attack by 36 percent. Additionally, studies have shown that pregnant and breastfeeding women who eat seafood at least twice a week have a reduced risk for anxiety and depression, and their developing babies have an increase in cognitive development. Unfortunately, because of confusion over past advice, the majority of Americans are eating less than one serving of the recommended two to three seafood servings each week. Putting additional restrictions or qualifiers on seafood will only add to past confusion and encourage limited seafood consumption. We would be remiss if we provided muddled information that, as a consequence, held Americans back from including an essential food in their diet. Our goal should be to provide clear and concise dietary recommendations that are in the best interest of the people’s health. Remove the nuances and encourage all Americans to eat more seafood every day.

Affiliation: Individual/Professional Organization:
Topic:
  • Sustainability

Anonymous Comment ID #642

08/28/2014

I switched from DGA diet to low carb, high fat.

I ate UNLIMITED amounts of saturated fat.

Result: LDL-P is in top 2% of the country, i.e., no heart disease risk. Unbelievable weight loss. All diabetes numbers reversed to normal range.

Those results are IMPOSSIBLE to achieve under the current DGA.

And according to the DGA rationale, I should be at high risk for heart disease, not low risk.

See attached for details.

Affiliation: Individual/Professional Organization:
Topic:
  • Eating Patterns-Diets (USDA Food Patterns, DASH, Vegetarian, Low Carb, Hi-Protein, etc.)

Martin Heller PhD Comment ID #641

08/27/2014

Request: 5-2 Food Systems Sustainability

After viewing the presentation of Subcommittee 5's summary and conclusions at Meeting 4, I feel a need to indicate that our recent research, which is based in LCA methodology and looks at the current US diet and implications to 2010 Dietary Recommendations, does NOT agree with the general conclusion that environmental impacts are aligned with dietary recommendations. Our findings agree with the conclusion that animal-based foods have greater impact than plant based foods, and since a significant decrease in caloric intake is necessary to reach dietary guidelines, this does indeed result in a (slightly) reduced level of associated greenhouse gas emissions. But an isocaloric shift from current intake to dietary guidelines actually results in an INCREASE in GHGE. It appears that the increase in dairy necessary to meet recommendations is the primary driver of this result.

I am attaching an already published proceedings paper (available online at: http://lcafood2014.org/papers/42.pdf ) that presents some of these results. The proceedings paper references another peer-reviewed study that will come out in Journal of Industrial Ecology in mid-September (Heller and Keoleian, "Greenhouse Gas Emission Estimates of U.S. Dietary Choices and Food Loss" ) which goes into more detail on the methodology and data sources.

I'd be happy to discuss this further, but I feel that the evidence shows that the story is not as simple and straightforward as the subcommittee's conclusions would suggest.

best,
Dr. Martin Heller
Center for Sustainable Systems
University of Michigan

Affiliation: Educational Institution: Higher Education Organization: Center for Sustainable Systems, U of M
Topic:
  • Sustainability

Colin Dawes Professor Comment ID #640

08/27/2014

Dear members of the 2015 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee,

Please find attached my comments on the 2015 Dietary Guidelines and a supporting document published in the Journal of the American Dental Association in 2008.

Yours sincerely,
Colin Dawes

Affiliation: Individual/Professional Organization: University of Manitoba
Topic:
  • Carbohydrates (Added Sugars, Fiber, Glycemic Index, Whole Grains)
  • Other

George Stookey MSD, PhD Comment ID #639

08/27/2014

I respectfully submit my comments to the 2015 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee (DGAC) discussing scientific evidence supporting the anti-caries benefits from chewing sugar-free gum after any eating or drinking occasion. Dental caries continues to be the single-most widespread chronic disease globally. In the United States, approximately 40 percent of young school children have at least one cavity, and the incidence increases with age. Thus, even with the introduction of modern oral hygiene practices such as the use of fluoride in toothpastes and drinking water, dental caries continues to be a relevant and modifiable problem which potentially affects every individual in the United States.

I am the distinguished professor emeritus at the Indiana University School of Dentistry, Indianapolis, and the president of a dental research company, Therametric Technologies, located in Noblesville, Indiana. For more than 40 years my career has focused on research and education to improve dental health. For example, in 2008, I authored the attached review on the effect of saliva on dental health, which I submit along with my comments for the DGAC to consider.

Based on my findings explained in the attached review, I request that the DGAC conduct a scientific review to answer the following question: “Can sugar-free gum reduce the incidence of dental caries in children and adults in the U.S.?” Upon its review of the scientific evidence, I also request that the DGAC make a recommendation in its technical report that “chewing sugar-free gum after eating or drinking can help to optimize oral hygiene practices in order to reduce dental caries.”

My review found that the stimulation of saliva flow by chewing sugar-free gum after consuming fermentable carbohydrates has been demonstrated to substantially and significantly modify the dental caries formation process.

For my full comments and a copy of my review, please refer to the attachments.

Affiliation: Individual/Professional Organization: Therametric Technologies, Inc.
Topic:
  • Carbohydrates (Added Sugars, Fiber, Glycemic Index, Whole Grains)
  • Other

Clara Lau PhD Comment ID #638

08/27/2014

The Beef Checkoff, on behalf of America’s farmers and ranchers, appreciates the opportunity to provide scientific evidence to the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee (DGAC), on lean beef’s role in healthful dietary patterns. At the fourth meeting of the DGAC, it was noted that the dietary patterns outlined in the 2010 Dietary Guidelines for Americans (DGA)[1] may continue to offer a framework for future guidance as they are consistent with the latest evidence. The following illustrates how Americans are consuming beef within the 2010 DGA recommendations – and how currently available lean beef in the marketplace fits within healthful dietary patterns.

I.Americans are consuming protein foods within the 2010 DGA recommendations. On average, Americans consume 5.1 ounces of protein foods each day from meat, poultry, eggs, fish/seafood, nuts, seeds and soy products.[1] The 2010 DGA USDA base pattern recommends 5.5 ounces of protein foods daily.[1]
a.The 2010 DGA protein recommendations are based on the Recommended Dietary Allowance (RDA) for protein, which is set to meet the needs of 97-98% of the total population. However, the Institute of Medicine outlines macronutrient recommendations within an Acceptable Macronutrient Distribution Range (AMDR), which is defined as the range “associated with reduced risk of chronic diseases, while providing adequate intakes of essential nutrients.”[2] The AMDR for protein is 10-35% of calories, with the lower end of 10% being approximately the RDA. Protein intake between the RDA and AMDR may provide flexibility to practically help people follow a range of healthful dietary patterns that are associated with various positive health outcomes and that address diverse needs and lifestyles, which the DGAC has noted as a priority.
II.Americans are eating beef at levels that fit a variety of healthful eating patterns that can meet the goals of the 2010 DGA. Based on recent NHANES data, beef contributes less than 15% to Americans’ total protein intake, meaning 85% of the protein intake in the U.S. is from other animal and plant sources besides beef.[3]
III.Beef delivers key nutrients to support healthful dietary patterns, and consumption of calories and fat from beef has declined. In fact, according to recent NHANES data, beef consumption today contributes 5% of calories, yet more than 5% of 8 essential nutrients to Americans’ diets.[3] Calculations from food disappearance data reveal an estimated 44% reduction in available total fat and a 29% reduction in saturated fat per capita contributed by beef over the past four decades.[4]
IV.Advances in cattle feeding, breeding and trimming practices have made it easier for Americans to enjoy lean beef within healthful dietary patterns. Approximately 60% of beef cuts sold at retail are lean (cooked and trimmed).[5] In addition, external fat in retail cuts has decreased 80%, and sirloin steak contains 34% less fat now than it contained in the 1960s.[4]
V.Finally, well-designed published clinical trials demonstrate that eating lean beef within the protein recommendations of the 2010 DGA base dietary pattern can support important health outcomes. Numerous randomized clinical trials consistently demonstrate that consuming 4-5.5 ounces of lean beef as part of a heart-healthy diet, even daily, can contribute to overall healthful dietary patterns and improve markers for health.[6-8]
This evidence demonstrates how today’s lean beef fits within currently recommended dietary patterns – and that Americans are consuming red meat, including beef, within this guidance. This evidence also indicates that, with whole grains, fruits, vegetables and low-fat dairy, lean beef can be enjoyed as part of a healthful dietary pattern that is consistent with the 2010 DGA and accepted eating patterns such as the Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension (DASH) plan.

1.)U.S. Department of Agriculture and U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Dietary Guidelines for Americans, 2010.
2.)Institute of Medicine. Dietary Reference Intakes for Energy, Carbohydrate, Fiber, Fatty Acids, Cholesterol, Protein and Amino Acids. Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 2002/2005.
3.)Zanovec et al. Lean beef contributes significant amounts of key nutrients to the diets of US adults: National Health and examination Survey 1999-2004. Nut Res. 2010;30:375-81.
4.)McNeill et al. The evolution of lean beef: identifying lean beef in today’s U.S. marketplace. Meat Sci 2012;90:1-8.
5.)Information Resources, sales data 52 weeks ending 4/27/2014.
6.)Maki et al. A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing lipid effects of beef with poultry and/or fish consumption. J Clin Lipidol 2012;6:352-61.
7.)Roussell et al. Beef in an Optimal Lean Diet study: Effects on lipids, lipoproteins, and apolipoproteins. Am J Clin Nutr 2012;95:9-16.
8.)Roussell et al. Effects of a DASH-like diet containing lean beef on vascular health. J Hum Hypertens 2014 June 19 [Epub ahead of print].

Affiliation: Industry/Industry Association Organization: The Beef Checkoff
Topic:
  • Eating Patterns-Diets (USDA Food Patterns, DASH, Vegetarian, Low Carb, Hi-Protein, etc.)
  • Protein (Plant, Animal)

Anonymous Comment ID #637

08/27/2014

I just got back my test results after eating a low carb, high fat diet for 3 months.

My LDL-P, which most experts NOW believe is the correct indicator of heart disease risk, puts me in the top 1% of the US population. I was 818.

Even the company that developed the test says, "LDL-P provides a more clinically reliable measure of LDL quantity than LDL-C."

I asked Peter Attia who also eats a keto diet, and his numbers were similar to mine.

That's stunning and it isn't coincidence or chance. But to see it first-hand like makes it more than real for me.

It is well known if you eating a LCHF diet it minimizes your LDL-P numbers:
http://www.docsopinion.com/health-and-nutrition/lipids/ldl-p/

And people will point out that not everyone eating LCHF achieves such low numbers, but this is explainable:
http://chriskresser.com/what-causes-elevated-ldl-particle-number.

In fact, a friend of mine had one of these causes (gut bacteria), fixed it, and now has low LDL-P numbers.

It says to me, very clearly, that we are actually causing heart attacks by telling people to eat according to the current DGA.

If the DGA is right, then Peter Attia and I should have super high LDL-P numbers. We should be heart attacks waiting to happen. Yet we are the least likely people to die from heart disease per our triglycerides, HDL, and LDL-P numbers.

Our guidance is wrong, we need to admit it, and it rectify this as soon as possible.

Unfortunately, people's (incorrect) belief systems are very hard to change, even when the science is clear to unbiased experts (and non experts).

The focus of the DGAC on how Americans are complying with the DGA is the wrong issue to be looking at. That is like re-arranging deck chairs on the Titanic.

If you invited a bunch of top scientists who have no belief system to defend look at the data, they'd all agree with me.

Affiliation: Individual/Professional Organization:
Topic:
  • Eating Patterns-Diets (USDA Food Patterns, DASH, Vegetarian, Low Carb, Hi-Protein, etc.)

Anonymous Comment ID #636

08/26/2014

I simply want a list of calories in common foods, but have not been able to. It seems this should be an inexpensive service to have readily on your website. It would be easier for us all to understand what we are eating. I do not mean prepared food, only pure foods like butter, sugar fruit, vegies ,etc
Thank you,
Mabel Gerhardt

Affiliation: Individual/Professional Organization: none
Topic:
  • Other

Nancy Chapman MPH, RD Comment ID #635

08/26/2014

The Soyfoods Association of North America appreciates the opportunity to submit comments to the 2015 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Guidelines Committee. Attached are proposed adjustments to terminology when referencing soyfoods within the 2015 Dietary Guidelines for Americans.

Thank you,

Affiliation: Industry/Industry Association Organization: Soyfoods Association of North America
Topic:
  • Other
  • Protein (Plant, Animal)
  1 2 3 4 5  ...   

This graphic notice,External Link: You are leaving Health.gov, means that you are leaving the ODPHP/Health Communication site and entering a non-Federal Web site. View full disclaimer.

 

This site is coordinated by the Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health, Office of the Secretary, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.