Hi Ellis,

I wouldn't say that the original Food Pyramid was necessarily "foisted"
on an "unsuspecting public", but more that it's design was purposely
crafted to avoid "confusing" (or possibly educating?) the general
public with any real information.

The authors of the first pyramid had one primary and overly simplistic
message - eating fat is what makes people fat, ergo, cutting fats from
the diet will lead to weight loss.

[Hello Jim. Yes. And I don't doubt that it was well intended, when it
was first drawn. But it also served a lot of interests, particularly
the wheat and cereal farmers, and also backs up an inexpensive school
lunch.

The problem then becomes that if you change the pyramid you hurt the
farmers and you put up the cost of the school lunch, so then there
is pressure not to change something that is not only mistaken but
causing health problems around the world. Remember that when the
United States sneezes, the rest of the world catches a cold. If U.S.
Government experts say this is the healthy way to eat, who are we in
the rest of the world to say it isn't? You will find virtually no
disagreement from Mexican nutrition experts... they agree with whatever
you say, since you are the ones who spend billions on research, we
prefer to agree with whatever your research shows.

My research budget got to be about $50 dollars per month in glucose
test strips, and with that it was enough to show me that the Pyramid
is exactly upside down, or schizophrenic. - Ellis]


Even when members of the team drafting the pyramid pointed out that
this message overlooked the importance of healthy dietary fats and
oils, the majority of government scientists working on the project
believed that the great unwashed public was too uniformed (true)
and would be too confused by any content that required thinking, and
the result was the famous pictogram of the pyramid.

As a side note, the first pyramid was also designed when long-distance
running was becoming popular, and the image of marathon runners
carbo-loading by wolfing down huge plates of pasta seemed to epitomize
the picture of optimal health.

[The first pyramid was probably also inspired by Nathan Pritikin and
his low low fat diet, which he said reversed his heart problems.
- Ellis]

In the end, politics played a heavy hand in burying any nutritional
science beneath the pyramid. And as is often the case, a rare
opportunity to educate and empower the general public was reduced to
pictograms and cheap slogans, like all political projects.

Jim English

http://www.nutritionreview.org/library/food.pyramid.html

[Whatever the reason, for a long time I was convinced that the
Pyramid is correct, so that is how I was eating. Then came Atkins,
and I refused to even READ Atkins, when I learned he was so
lax on fats... I read a few quotes about how you can pour on
the butter and cream, and I thought he was mad. I STILL try
to AVOID fat as much as I can, if it doesn't come mixed in the
food.

But if you reduce the amount of carbs from 70% to 10% and if you
continue to calculate what remains in percentages, of course the
percentage of protein and fat has to go UP... so you get figures
like "40% FAT" or more... and all this used to sound horrible
to me when I was in my "20% protein, 20% fat, 60% carbs" days.

Today I just concentrate on AVOIDING everything from 12.5% and
above on MY Carbohydrate Thermometer. Nobody could convince me
to change, until I convinced myself to change with the Carbohydrate
Thermometer and the Glucose Meter. There just can be no doubt
about it anymore: if you don't believe me, BELIEVE THE GLUCOSE
METER... in fact, PLEASE DON'T BELIEVE ME, test yourself with a
glucose meter and believe your own eyes!

Thanks for writing. Three stars for this post. It makes pretty
interesting reading to read all the posts below, too, I might
just put them all up on a page... - Ellis]


On Thursday, March 10, 2005, at 04:18 PM, T Cooper wrote:

>
> No, I don't think it was or is right that the Food Pyramid was foisted
> on an unsuspecting public...
>
> However, I never agreed with it either... I was somewhat fortunate in
> that I basically viewed food as fuel only, and I never craved sweets...
> simple pbservation told me that people who ate an abundance of carbs,
> fried food, etc. got fat and from there seemed to be more sickly...
>
> [My problem, never having studied nutrition in school or anywhere else,
> was that I didn't realize that "carbohydrates" ARE SUGAR, or at least
> "a chain of sugar"... I didn't know that... I learned that right here
> on Rejuvenation, and when I really SAW it was when I put together the
> Carbohydrate Thermometer... if one end is zero, and the other end with
> 100% carbs is SUGAR, then it seems like all the rest of it is varying
> percentages of SUGAR. 
>
> It finally dawned on me that I had missed a very important definition
> somewhere along the line.  I had never read this in any diet book.
> - Ellis]
>
>
> If the Food Pyramid was instituted for any reason other than to support
> business then it would be too Machevellian... but then Machevelli may
> very well be alive and well on Capitol Hill...
>
> The good news is that things are slowly turning around... Even fast
> food places are making a bit of an effort to serve more nutritious
> foods...
>
> [The movie "FAT" probably had something to do to shame them all into
> submission.  But I can eat at MacDonald's and not get fat... I just
> don't eat the potatoes, the soft drinks, and the bread... that leaves
> precious little left to eat, but what is left is the hamburger with
> no bread and no potatoes. - Ellis]
>
> However, businesses are definitely inclined to give people what they
> want as opposed to what is good for them...
>
> [Very definitely... This is lesson one in Capitalism 101. But if I had
> a restaurant I would specialize in high protein low carb, meat and
> chicken and fish, and vegetables, and fruits...  I would want my
> clients to get good health from eating in my restaurant.  - Ellis]
>
> It's a shame that even schools still allow soft drink machines on
> school grounds and still serve food that is on a par to fast foods...
> if the design is to kill people off, then it's likely that there won't
> be many around to support an already iffy social security system...
>
> [Thanks for writing.  - Ellis]
>
>
> T Cooper wrote:
>
> One of the major reasons for the erroneous Food Pyramid has got to
> be the fact that in the U.S. as well as in other countries, there
> are huge crops of corn, sugar cane,wheat, potatoes,rice, etc being
> raised.  There is also a big lobby in Congress that protects the
> interests of  institutional farms and individual farmers, as well
> as the manufacturers who process those products...
>
> [Well, yes, but don't you think it is wrong for the Government to
> knowingly give out information which is BAD FOR THE HEALTH of all
> the citizenry, in order to protect the monetary interests of any
> group of citizens?  I used to think it couldn't be so, it must be
> that they made an honest mistake, they didn't really want me to lose
> my Beta cells... but now I am beginning to believe there really is
> a PLOT to kill us...  or at least, to let us die at age 72 or 73.
> I know it sounds like a movie, but that is what it seems like. - Ellis]
>
>
> I don't think I have ever seen a big broccoli farm... but I have seen
> thousands of acres of the others, as we all have... and look at all
> the shelf space in super markets dedicated to carb products...
>
> [Yes, but that is the decision of the supermarkets.  If there would
> be more protein or low carb products, I'm sure they would probably
> occupy more space, but there aren't more healthy products.  That is
> just a fact of life.  Fish, chicken, and meat all fit in a small part
> of the supermarket... and eggs... and vegetables and fruits and beans
> and nuts... that's it.  Finish.  All the rest is bad for our health.
> - Ellis]
>
> While it's not impossible to eat healthfully, it is difficult to find
> things in the markets that are high in protein and low or no carb that
> are also low in cholesterol and fat... again not impossible...
>
> I have found that calamares en su tinta and salmon are two things that
> are fairly high protein and low fat and cholesterol...
>
> [I don't bother to worry about the cholesterol content of food.  It
> really doesn't bother me... I eat egg yolks with gusto...  Welcome
> protein, hello cholesterol.  Just compare how much more nutrients you
> have in egg yolk than egg white.  Of course I do choose the cuts of
> meat that are low fat, and I avoid fat where I can, but if it comes
> together with the chicken or fish or meat, I go ahead and eat it.
> - Ellis]
>
>
> Along with egg whites... I've also been reading more and more about
> various foods and what they do as far as health... seems it really does
> pay to eat a COLORFUL variety of these...
>
> Also, I've managed to get back to wearing bikinis...never thought
> that would happen...lol...but I don't feel like I look like my
> Mother anymore...I look more like I did ten years ago only healthier...
>
> patholly wrote:
>
> Ellis:
>
> I  agree that BOTH you and I .....are on our way to diabetes...
> simply because of  our age...
>
> [No, it shouldn't be simply because of our age.  If I had
> known when I was 20 what I found out by my own experiments
> with a glucose meter when I was 56, I definitely would not
> have eaten as I did for 36 more years... I might have had
> a 35 year-old pancreas today, instead of a 56 year-old
> pancreas.  I can't blame Adelle Davis for not knowing this
> in 1960's, but I can't understand that I never have read
> it in any book written after 1980's... and I can't understand
> how the Food Guide Pyramid could be so mistaken in the 1990's,
> when it is the Official Government Statement on how we should
> eat healthily.  THAT IS WHY I ATE high carbs and low protein
> for so many years, because the U.S. Government Experts were
> telling me (and all the world) that is what is healthy. 
>
> NOW I think they know this VERY WELL it is mistaken, because it
> has already been pointed out and discussed a hundred times by
> many others who disagree that it is correct... but I think
> they have an AGENDA... they have a lot of economic pressure to
> continue to give BAD ADVICE, to sell U.S. wheat and cereals...
> and because it would affect the cost of school breakfasts... but
> I think they know perfectly well that their advice is bad advice. 
>
> At least, SOME of those experts must have decided they are wrong
> by now.  How can they continue to receive their salaries and
> know they are giving bad advice?
>
> Whatever the economic reasons for doing it, I don't think
> Government experts should ever take economics into account
> when they give advice... it should be GOOD ADVICE, and then
> let the chips fall wherever they fall.  To me, knowingly giving
> bad advice (or else stupidly giving bad advice) makes ANYTHING
> else the Government says suspicious...
>
> I just don't believe what they say anymore like I used to,
> before.  I know I don't believe them when they tell us that
> growth hormone doesn't really work, it is all a plot by
> doctors and unscrupulous businessmen (me) to make money by
> making people think they can REVERSE the aging process.  You
> have all heard it before: Aging is inevitable.  Relax, and
> accept the inevitable.  Age with dignity. 
>
> Baloney! I'm not going to accept the "inevitable."  I am surely
> going to try to stay as well as I can, for as long as I possibly
> can.
>
> Of course it is also a time bomb which has in fact already
> exploded for Social Security as more and more people are living
> way past age 72 or 73, which is when we were all expected to die,
> according to the statistics gathered in the 1950's and 60's.
> - Ellis]
>
>
> Pat: We have lost a certain ammount of beta cells simply due
> to the aging process in which cells die....and from overwork...
> in which they die FASTER if we consume high carbohydrate diets
> that require much work by the pancreas. 
>
> [Yes, I agree some of them would have worn out, but I definitely
> burned up a lot more of them than I should have by eating high
> carbs as I did.  - Ellis]
>
> I do not know how many cells I have left... although apparently
> ENOUGH... since my  fasting blood sugar is now 85......up from
> 65 when I was in my 30's.
>
> Ellis: [How do you know that your blood sugar is up from 65 when
> you were in your 30's?  Are you saying this because you checked
> your blood sugar when you were in your 30's, or do you have
> information that persons in their 30's have blood sugar of about
> 65 mg/dl?  
>
> If 65 mg/dl is what persons in their 30's have, then my target
> of 90 is much too high!  Maybe I should try to bring it down a
> little???  It isn't a problem to do it... I can do it pretty
> easily by taking 1 iu of insulin, and eating a bite of protein.
>
> What is the blood sugar level of younger persons?  I thought it
> was about 70 to 90, usually 90.  But now you have made me wonder
> about this... I am going to have to find out if I should bring my
> glucose levels down below 90... - Ellis]
>
>
> This tells  me I am losing beta cells... but I am losing them slowly.
>
> Ellis: [Good.  I think Diabetes will get me some day anyways, but I'm
> not going to let it get me without a fight.  I think we have to start
> planning today, to be healthy when we are 120 years old... otherwise
> we might live to be 120, but we won't have our brain working well,
> and we will be without our minds, due to the fact that high blood
> glucose made us lose the nervous system.  We MUST fight the loss of
> neurons.  This is the single most important objective of any anti
> aging program, in my opinion.  Of what use is it to be alive if we
> don't have our BRAIN anymore?  - Ellis]
>
> Yes...I  plan to cover this in my book.....
>
> Pat  RN
>
> [Good.  I'll buy the first copy when you have it ready. - Ellis]