USDA's 'Food Plate' Replaces Pyramid


http://www.cnn.com/2011/HEALTH/06/02/usda.new.food.plate/index.html?hpt=hp_c1

I’m going to take a bold stance and say that this $2 million-taxpayer-funded colorful pie chart will do roughly nothing to help American obeasity.

Eh, whatever.

People who don’t care about their health will probably to continue to not care, and those who do will continue down their path.

And it’s not like it’s surprising to see American tax-payer money to be blown on ridiculous things (defense budget.)

I also think there should be a spot for diabetes meds.

[quote]steadfastred wrote:
http://www.cnn.com/2011/HEALTH/06/02/usda.new.food.plate/index.html?hpt=hp_c1

I’m going to take a bold stance and say that this $2 million-taxpayer-funded colorful pie chart will do roughly nothing to help American obeasity.

[/quote]

Not because that pie chart is necessary wrong, but because it doesn’t do anything to convince people who don’t give a fuck that they should, in fact, give a fuck.

[quote]MODOK wrote:

[quote]Stronghold wrote:

[quote]steadfastred wrote:
http://www.cnn.com/2011/HEALTH/06/02/usda.new.food.plate/index.html?hpt=hp_c1

I’m going to take a bold stance and say that this $2 million-taxpayer-funded colorful pie chart will do roughly nothing to help American obeasity.

[/quote]

Not because that pie chart is necessary wrong, but because it doesn’t do anything to convince people who don’t give a fuck that they should, in fact, give a fuck.[/quote]

So true. I am convinced that the only thing that could possibly convince the general public to give a shit about their health is if they are forced to pay straight cash money for their health care. You’d see some fat asses on the move then.[/quote]

I do think the new “plate” is a great improvement over the old pyramid. It gives a more accurate visual representation of how to compose healthy meals (my university’s sports nutritionist used a similar model when instructing the football team on what to get at the dining hall). For a normal sized plate, that amounts to maybe 50-60g carbohydrate, 40-50g protein, moderate amounts of fat, and lots of fruits and vegetables. Of course, since it’s got the word GRAINS on it, it won’t be worth shit to some on this site, because, hey, it’s not the general public’s fault that they can’t follow a guideline that’s simple and specific, it’s the grains.

I like how this took two years to develop.

But still, I like it. if people literally followed this on their meals, they’d be doing good. And the rainbow food pyramid was just a distaster of confusingness and unicorns.

Modok, that’s WAY too many carbs…(kidding)

PSAs to the effect of: “You’re fat as fuck and we’re tired of looking at you,” would probably be more helpful.

This same exact picture has been hanging on the wall in my local gym for at least 3 years (since I’ve been there). So what the hell exactly have they been doing?

fats are bad

apparently

I read this post while eating. Let’s see, looking at my plate there is some grass-fed teriyaki hanger steak and bacon, and some…wait…that’s it. I guess I fail.

[quote]PB Andy wrote:
fats are bad
apparently[/quote]
naw, it just ignores scary words like “carbs” or “fats”. Too confusing. People aren’t going to know what the hell to do with a gram of a fat. I guess they had to put “protein” in there to make sure people don’t die.

I also like it’s resemblence to Sunday Dinner from ye oldend days. Except without the pies that Grandma would make. Pity.

Liked Dr. Davis’s take on the “new”, which isn’t much different than the old, USDA eating guidelines.

“You?ve come a long way, baby”
http://www.trackyourplaque.com/blog/2011/06/youve-come-a-long-way-baby.html

Snippet:

"Have we made any progress over the past 65 years? We certainly have in computing power and awareness of the adverse effects of smoking. But have US government agencies like the USDA kept up with nutritional advice? Compare the 2011 Food Plate with the dietary advice of 1945.

It looks to me like the USDA has not only failed to keep up with the evolution of nutritional thought, but has regressed to something close to advising Americans to go out and buy stocks on the eve of the 1929 depression. Most of us discuss issues like the genetic distortions introduced into wheat, corn, and soy; the dangers of fructose; exogenous glycoxidation and lipoxidation products yielded via high-temperature cooking; organic, free-range meats and the dangers of factory farming, etc. None of this, of course, fits the agenda of the USDA.

My advice: The USDA should stay out of the business of offering nutritional advice. They are very bad at it. They also have too many hidden motives to be a reliable source of unbiased information."

[quote]steadfastred wrote:
http://www.cnn.com/2011/HEALTH/06/02/usda.new.food.plate/index.html?hpt=hp_c1

I’m going to take a bold stance and say that this $2 million-taxpayer-funded colorful pie chart will do roughly nothing to help American obeasity.

[/quote]

$2 million? Seriously?

I personally think it’s fantastic, and [obviously] a huge improvement over the old model. It actually would be a pretty good way to add muscle as well, provided your portions were large enough to fit your needs.

I just had 65g of Bison fat for breakfast. oh noes.

[quote]Menthol wrote:
Dr. Davis’
" Most of us discuss issues like the genetic distortions…"
[/quote]
I usually discuss people eating too damn much peanut butter.

[quote]EasyRhino wrote:

[quote]Menthol wrote:
Dr. Davis’
" Most of us discuss issues like the genetic distortions…"
[/quote]
I usually discuss people eating too damn much peanut butter.[/quote]

BUT ITS KLEEN!

Will it change much? Probably not, but it’s certainly more relate able to than the old pyramid.

Good improvement.

Still heavier on the “carbs” than most need. I also don’t like that the dairy is in cup shape, this will of course make people think milk, rather than yogurt or cottage cheese.

And again, makes it seem like fat isn’t important, though they do count nuts as protein, same as peas I believe correct???