DGA:n puheenjohtaja ilmoitti, että diabeteksen remissioon saattamista koskevat tutkimukset rajataan tarkastelun ulkopuolelle. Suositukset koskevat vain metabolisesti terveitä, jotka muuten ovat Yhdysvalloissa jo vähemmistönä.
Mutta mitenkäs kun Yhdysvalloista meille kopioituja suosituksia kaiken aikaa suositellaan meillä myös diabeetikoille?
Ellei se ole tähän asti ollut selvää, että vastaus ketjun otsikon kysymykseen on EI, niin nyt viimeistään on. Suuri määrä uudempaa tutkimusta rajataan tarkastelun ulkopuolelle ja kieltäydytään soveltamasta mitään kehittynyttä menetelmää tutkimusnäytön arvioinnissa - kaikki tämä jotta voidaan pitää ihmiskuntaa sairastuttaneet mutta Big Foodille ja Big Pharmalle hyvin tuottoisat suositukset suunnilleen ennallaan, mutta ollaan kuitenkin ikäänkuin katsastavinaan tutkimusnäyttöä. Ihme pelleilyä.
Nina Teichlz raportoi suoraan kuulemistilaisuudesta.:Lainaa:
DGA Committee Chair: They will exclude studies on people diagnosed with diet-related diseases such as T2 diabetes. This means recent science showing reversal of this disease will be excluded. #DGA still only for healthy people, a minority of Americans. Makes little sense.
Lainaa:
DGA: no methods for grading/scoring the relative strength of the studies. No mention of greater strength of trials (which show cause and effect) > epidemiological studies (show only show association). A basic failure to meet standards any state-of-the art methodology
@HouseAgDems
Lainaa:
DGA official, who at 1st meeting, said DGA would use "GRADE" methodology, which is a state-of-the-art standard used by >100 public health groups worldwide, now says that DGA will stick to "our own methodology." Which has historically made recommendations on v. weak science.
Lainaa:
On Dietary Patterns, USDA will exclude all studies that do not describe foods/beverages in the pattern. This will likely exclude many low-carb trials which focus on macronutrients. Low-carb is defined as <45% of calories as carbs. NOT a scientifically current definition.
Lainaa:
DGA committee will also use previous USDA reviews of the science on Dietary Patterns. The National Academies' of Sciences
@NASEM
determined that these reviews did not meet current state-of-art standards. So 2020 DGA will rely on highly flawed science of the past.
Lainaa:
USDA seems to plan on excluding low-carb studies that don't include description of food/beverages. Whole point of macronutrient-focused diet is that it will not always specify foods (as one committee member pointed out). Will thus miss many studies.
Lainaa:
More bad news. On saturated fats/heart disease, this committee will rely on previous, 2015 review on the topic. However, this review was not systematic. Followed no methodology at all. Led by Harvard prof. who is one of most outspoken anti-sat-fat researchers in the country.
Lainaa:
Sadly, #DietaryGuidelines' review of sat fats is bound to be wrong, bc it will rely on its 2015 review, which was not at all systematic. It was just an ad-hoc selection of outside papers, and 2015 conclusions did not reflect the data, as I wrote about:
Lainaa:
On 2 key disputed topics, sat fats and low-carb , the #dietaryguidelines committee revealed today they're using flawed approaches.This is bound to yield unreliable results. "Low-carb" review using wrong definition of the diet. Sat fat review relying on weak reviews of the past.
Lainaa:
#DietaryGuidelines has no methods for grading/scoring relative strength of studies. No mention of greater strength of trials (which show cause and effect) > epidemiological studies (show only show association). A basic failure to meet standards any state-of-the art methodology