Guiding Principle 2 – Foods and beverages to limit or avoid

over 2 years ago
The portal is now closed for submissions. Thank you for your interest in this consultation with Health Canada about Canada’s Food Guide.

Processed or prepared foods and beverages high in sodium, sugars, or saturated fat undermine healthy eating.

Health Canada is proposing the following recommendations for this Guiding Principle:

  • Limited intake of processed or prepared foods high in sodium, sugars or saturated fat
  • Avoidance of processed or prepared beverages high in sugars*

* Processed or prepared beverages that can be high in sugars include: soft drinks, fruit-flavoured drinks, 100% fruit juice, flavoured waters with added sugars, energy drinks, sport drinks, and other sweetened hot or cold beverages, such as flavoured milks and flavoured plant-based beverages.

What are your thoughts on this proposed Guiding Principle and its recommendations from Health Canada?

The portal is now closed for submissions. Thank you for your interest in this consultation with Health Canada about Canada’s Food Guide. 

  • pmt99955 over 2 years ago
    Limited intake of foods requires education. Teaching people how to read food labels will go a long way to understanding what they are eating. A recommendation on not consuming artificial sweeteners would be useful, instead look for and consume natural sweeteners, not processed granulated sugars.
  • SnowOwl over 2 years ago
    I think the average consumer needs more examples. For ex, so many parents think granola bars are a healthy snack...not realizing the huge amount of sugar it contains. They give their children yogurt (great) but don't realize the sweet flavour is from sugar. Chocolate milk is marketed as healthy (only has 1% fat, compared to 2% milk) but again - the amount of added sugar is an issue not identified by everyone.
    Hide Replies (140)
    • Eugen S. over 2 years ago
      ... and the saturated fat, the growth hormones, the estrogens, than there is Bovine Leukemia Virus and Breast Cancer risk.
      Hide Replies (139)
      • ryanshaw over 2 years ago
        Dairy is perfectly save, and actually repeatable studies have shown the numerous health benefits.https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5122229/
        Hide Replies (138)
        • Eugen S. over 2 years ago
          Removed by moderator.
        • Jmehninger over 2 years ago
          The only thing I really wish for is that we would allow for raw milk dairies in Canada. With properly kept cows and hygiene there should not be issues with contamination and the benefits are so big compared to pasteurized and homogenized milk. It would also give those dairy farmers that are interested a small niche market. In Switzerland you can buy raw, grass-fed milk directly from the farmer, why not here? Never understood that. If you're a dairy farmer, I'd genuinely appreciate your thoughts on that.
          Hide Replies (4)
          • ryanshaw over 2 years ago
            Not against that, our operation looked into organic production a few years back but the regulation requirements to get that certification was out of reach financially, for example the type of wood we used in our barns did not qualify. The only thing is there is an agreement with the facilities and with the current supply-management system it would be difficult to transfer over.
            Hide reply (1)
            • Jmehninger over 2 years ago
              Not the right wood!? That's too bad - I really think they should facilitate things for people trying to go organic. We need more organic farmers. It's good to have strict regulations, but that sounds like overkill to me...
          • cdorazietti over 2 years ago
            I read over and over again that one of the best way to help fix dental issues is through the consumption of organic RAW milk from grass-fed cows. I don't like being denied access to something that could be very beneficial to my health. People should be given the freedom to choose what works best for them, although not at the expense of humane animal treatment. I would ideally purchase this directly from a small organic farm that is SPCA certified. I do NOT support the current factory farm dairy system, which is in dire need of changing. HEARTLESS.
            Hide reply (1)
            • Ashleypfister over 2 years ago
              Hi there! Our family has a dairy farm and i encourage you to visit a local dairy farm over forming your idea of dairy farms from media sources. I am glad you care enough to be aware of where your food comes from. Dairy Farmers are regulated by animal welfare standards under the DFC. As well, all cows are fed legumes, and a lot of them. Most dairy diets contain over 60% legumes!
        • nzouri over 2 years ago
          One of the article authors is funded by the US Dairy Research Institute and another by the Australia Dairy Research Institute. Another author is a consultant for The Bio-competence Centre of Healthy Dairy Products. And a fourth author has even more complex interests in the dairy industry as he is a consultant or advisory board member for European Milk Forum McDonald. Unfortunately, these researchers conclusions are carefully worded to promote the agenda of the institutions they receive funding from.There are lots of intentional omission of evidence in the article: for example, talking extensively about calcium but not mentioning that calcium is not produced by cows but by plants and that calcium is more easily absorbed from plants. Also, mentioning soy isoflavones that are oestrogen like substances without mentioning that cow milk contain actual oestrogen and that this is very harmful to humans.
          Hide Replies (63)
          • ryanshaw over 2 years ago
            Removed by moderator.
            Hide Replies (62)
            • nzouri over 2 years ago
              If the funding for research is coming from the industry that makes a profit from these products and if researchers are paid by these companies for their consultancy role it is hard to believe that their conclusions are all independent. I also have to point that there are numerous studies that contradict the fact that milk is safe and healthy for humans. Why would you disregard all other scientific research that concludes that dairy consumption increases the risk of breast cancer, prostate cancer, diabetes, etc?
              Hide Replies (61)
              • ryanshaw over 2 years ago
                Well then one needs to dive into the methodology to identify where the fallacies are, as well as identify data collection errors, confirm faulty analysis, and determine where a misrepresentation of the data is found within the reports itself, a simple assumption that its a conspiracy doesn't suffice.What peer-reviewed, quasi-experimental designed research are you speaking of? I have yet to see any in my studies.
                Hide Replies (60)
                • nzouri over 2 years ago
                  • ryanshaw over 2 years ago
                    Okay the first few links are not reputable, so I’ll focus on the US Library of Medicine research which are reputable studies. The last link is a study done on n=100 (not a sufficient sample size) and on cow’s milk formula to binding on bovine insulin with those toddlers with diabetes-associated autoantibodies. Conclusion? A few children in Finland that were susceptible to type 1 diabetes shouldn’t necessarily replace human formula with cow formula because it “may” cause insulin resistance. This does not mean at all that dairy is bad for the general healthy population, did you read that and infer milk causes diabetes?? The next study on hip fractures with teenagers and their “recollection of milk consumption” showed in the actual study (you have to read beyond the study abstract in observational studies) “Although the recommendation for milk consumption in children and adolescents focuses primarily on its calcium content, milk contributes in other ways to bone development. Fortified milk is a good source of vitamin D which can increase spine and hip bone mineral density around puberty52. Vitamin D supplementation, however, may only be advantageous in children and adolescents with low baseline 25(OH)D levels53 and benefit may not persist after supplementation is discontinued54. Milk also contributes protein which promotes bone mineralization in childhood and adolescence48,55,56. IGF-1, a key mediator of bone growth57, is regulated by dietary protein, and protein from milk may be superior in this role to that from other sources58,59. Nutrients or bioactive factors in milk may also stimulate endogenous production of growth hormone60.”. This is why it’s important to read the entirety of studies, overall the study is saying those that are taller are at “higher risk for hip fractures later in life” and milk contributes to growth (that’s true I won’t argue that). Further the study notes, “To our knowledge, no studies have examined whether milk consumption during childhood and adolescence is associated with other bone measures that increase risk of hip fracture independent of height, such as hip axis length or femoral neck width29–32 So what’s the conclusion? Those (male) teenagers that are taller are more susceptible to hip fractures than those that are shorter, simple law of gravity and activity risk. Did you infer that drinking milk causes hip fractures?
                    Hide Replies (49)
                    • nzouri over 2 years ago
                      Why would you consider the studies with conclusions you do not agree with as coming from not so reputable sources? I noticed from your other postings that you have the tendency to discredit some researchers calling them vegan activists and some research as vegan propaganda at the same time you post links to questionable studies such as https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5122229/ who's authors receive funding from US Dairy Research Institute, Danish Dairy Research Foundation, Dairy Australia, and other like it. Of course it is stated that the sponsors had no role in the study but seriously, who is going to bite the hand that feeds them! Animal agriculture is a relatively new endeavor in the human evolution as the first animals were domesticated only 10,000 to 12,000 years ago and humans have evolved over several millions years. Animal milk consumption by humans started only 7-8,000 years ago. Common sense tells me animal milk is not adequate for human consumption because we did not evolve to consume it. Here is another much larger study that connects higher consumption of animal products with poorer health: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0002914998007188
                      Hide Replies (48)
                      • ryanshaw over 2 years ago
                        If I had time to review every link a vegan activist sent me I would, but it's like trying to convince a 9/11 truther that 9/11 wasn't an inside job, no matter what you show them they will always double down on their belief. Regarding the studies I've posted, If research is faulty in any way then that opens your flank for attack in your methodology and then if you're known to "fudge the results" so to speak you're out of business and good luck getting future grants or sponsors. Again you fail to point to the flaws in the studies I cite but only make assumptions that they must have tweaked the study because of the sponsor even though it's clarified they had no role in the actual study itself. The studies I reviewed that you posted have very serious considerations and conclusions that you failed to mention, hence why I pointed out the major tenants of them. Animal agriculture is "fairly new" (12,000 yrs ago) I don't know but that sounds pretty established to me...milk consumption only started 7-8k yrs ago, hmmm and look where we have come in cognitive and physical abilities during that time, can it solely be attributed to animal agriculture, no it can't, but you're helping me make my point so I thank you :)
                        Hide Replies (37)
                        • nzouri over 2 years ago
                          If animal agriculture is responsible for the advances in human physical abilities then it is worth pointing that in the last 50-60 years the incidence of diabetes, cancer and heart diseases has increased exponentially alongside with an increase in consumption of animal products. Many top athletes are eating mostly a plant based diet: Serena and Venus Williams to give just one example. You can Google for more if you like. As for cognitive abilities: even with animal agriculture, most people were consuming little animal products. They are the high achievers. The rich were consuming the meats and the dairy hence the expression eating like kings and queens. It is also rather well documented in the history the ill results of eating like kings and queens and it is very similar to what happens today when most people are eating a diet rich in animal products. Many famous scientist were eating mostly a plant based diet: Leonardo Da Vinci, Tesla, ancient Greek philosophers, etc.
                          Hide Replies (36)
                          • ryanshaw over 2 years ago
                            Also shoe purchases have dramatically increased in the last 50-60 yrs, therefore, those must be linked with those diseases as well. Should I explain causation vs correlation and the merrit of control case studies with quasi experimental methodology ? Or regression analysis? You know who else ate a plant based diet and refused to eat animals? Adolf Hitler but you fail to mention him why?
                            Hide Replies (35)
                            • nzouri over 2 years ago
                              Making fun of the connection between an increased animal product consumption and the epidemic of chronic diseases is worrisome.
                              Hide Replies (34)
                              • ryanshaw over 2 years ago
                                Removed by moderator.
                              • ryanshaw over 2 years ago
                                Not making fun, just pointing out out the fallacies of perceived corrections.
                                Hide Replies (32)
                                • nzouri over 2 years ago
                                  Your perspective is typical to someone who has vested interests in the dairy and meat industry.
                                  Hide Replies (31)
                                  • reitsmad over 2 years ago
                                    I do not have a vested interest in the dairy or meat industry and like some kinds of dairy and meats. So far there have been no indications of any ill health.
                                    Hide reply (1)
                                    • nzouri over 2 years ago
                                      Liking dairy and meat has nothing to do with the impact these food has on human health. Some cardiovascular diseases have no symptoms until you drop dead. You personally, may not develop any cardiovascular disease, just like smokers who do not develop lung cancer but overall, a higher rate of smokers develop lung cancer than non smokers. Research has shown that meat and dairy eaters are more likely to develop chronic diseases.
                                  • ryanshaw over 2 years ago
                                    Again you're making assumptions in a desperate attempt to shut me out of the conversation. Let me ask you this, are you a vegan? Are vegans bias when it comes to dairy, poultry, fish, meats?
                                    Hide Replies (28)
                                    • nzouri over 2 years ago
                                      I gave up eating animal products several years ago. Before that I used to eat organic animal products. As one who lived with both diets, I believe that I am more objective than someone with economic interest in dairy industry.
                                      Hide Replies (27)
                                      • ryanshaw over 2 years ago
                                        Again I don't have any income whatsoever from dairy, and I can prove that. My passion comes from my experience helping out my dad and grandfather on the family dairy farm where I have witnessed first hand the treatment and care of the animals, the milking process, the collection and testing, the inspections and reports etc. So what I'm trying to do here is counter the vocal vegan/animal rights activists who are spreading misinformation about dairy. This is why I've pointed out on several occasions the conclusions and assumptions you've made in the study links you've shared. The only criticism (which I'll mention again is not valid) that you've shared is assuming the peer-reviewed published studies I've shared were faked because of the sponsors. So you conclude that because you ate organic animal products in the past but are now a vegan your posts are more credible than mine? Really?
                                        Hide Replies (26)
                                        • nzouri over 2 years ago
                                          Removed by moderator.
                                        • nzouri over 2 years ago
                                          Interesting that you are trying to distance yourself from the dairy industry when you said in a previous post that "you are defending your livelihood". Also, you said that you have served in dairy boards. Here is the exact language you used only a few days ago: "as a 12th generation dairy farmer, professional researcher, and someone that's visited over 200 farms, been in 4-H, sat on milk boards, has a lifetime of dairy farming" This is evidence of bias and self serving interests. As well as having relatives still involved in the dairy industry.
                                        • nzouri over 2 years ago
                                        • nzouri over 2 years ago
                                          I can compare the omnivore diet and the plant based diet based on their effect on my health so I offer an objective view. Whole food plant based is incomparable superior. The health benefits are immense.
                                          Hide Replies (22)
                                          • ryanshaw over 2 years ago
                                            That's anecdotal not scientific, and your "diet" does not give you expertise in research and dairy and confirm non-bias, did you actually just claim vegans are non-bias against animal products? And I'm bias because I'm educated and have experience in dairy? Being vegan or vegetarian does not mean you will live longer, do they tend to be healthier, yes, but not because of diet, it's because they are more health conscious like yourself, exercise more, drink and smoke less etc. http://nationalpost.com/news/canada/vegetarians-study-lower-risk-death/wcm/ffea78b6-40cd-4de2-a0e5-920e362f5d25
                                            Hide Replies (19)
                                            • ryanshaw over 2 years ago
                                              And you're right, the results are favorable for the study sponsors, that does not mean, however, the results were fabricated in any way.
                                            • nzouri over 2 years ago
                                              Its observational not anecdotal. If in my case eliminating animal foods resulted in better health there are sure many other people who could have same results going on a plant based diet.
                                              Hide Replies (8)
                                              • ryanshaw over 2 years ago
                                                Based on what? The placebo effect you experienced? What were your base measurements?
                                                Hide Replies (7)
                                                • nzouri over 2 years ago
                                                  Removed by moderator.
                                                • nzouri over 2 years ago
                                                  Placebo effect that lasts for years for me and my entire family? I am healthier now than I have ever been even when I was consuming organic dairy.
                                                  Hide Replies (5)
                                                  • ryanshaw over 2 years ago
                                                    Actually it can in your head.
                                                    Hide Replies (4)
                                                    • nzouri over 2 years ago
                                                      It is actually proven though annual medical tests.
                                                      Hide Replies (3)
                                                      • ryanshaw over 2 years ago
                                                        "Proven" so what were the pre measurements and post measurements and the controls in your little study there?
                                                        Hide Replies (2)
                                                        • nzouri over 2 years ago
                                                          I have years of medical records on dairy and after dairy. The effects of a plant based diet are clear. I understand that for you as a dairy industry insider is hard to accept.
                                                          Hide reply (1)
                                                          • ryanshaw over 2 years ago
                                                            Interesting you make such a claim with no evidence to support your made up story. So sad, it really is, starting to feel sorry for you and your endless flawed reasoning.
                                            • nzouri over 2 years ago
                                              You are bias because of your economic interests and personal involvement in the dairy industry.
                                              Hide Replies (8)
                                              • ryanshaw over 2 years ago
                                                What have I told you on numerous occasions? This is a desperate attempt to shut me out of the conversation. I receive absolutely no money from dairy, I work as a professional researcher and statistician.
                                                Hide Replies (7)
                                                • nzouri over 2 years ago
                                                  You mentioned in several occasions about your personal involvement with the dairy industry.
                                                • nzouri over 2 years ago
                                                  You mentioned earlier about you being a 12 generation farmer with family still involved in the dairy industry, with personal connections in the dairy industry and you are trying to say that you are not bias? It does not pass the common sense test.
                                                  Hide Replies (5)
                                                  • ryanshaw over 2 years ago
                                                    So I'm not allowed to weigh in this consultation process because you and other activists claim I'm bias? Scary.
                                                    Hide Replies (4)
                                                    • nzouri over 2 years ago
                                                      I am saying that because of your personal connections to the dairy industry your claims are bias and self serving.
                                                      Hide Replies (3)
                                                      • ryanshaw over 2 years ago
                                                        Even with my job experience, education, peer-reviewed sources? Don't try convenient arguments such as you're "self-serving" and "bias" just because you lack facts.
                                                        Hide Replies (2)
                                                        • nzouri over 2 years ago
                                                          You are not a medical doctor and your experience was to produce dairy. I suspect that despite what you are saying there is more to your relationship to the dairy industry.
                                                          Hide reply (1)
                                                          • ryanshaw over 2 years ago
                                                            Care to elaborate on your accusations?
                                          • reitsmad over 2 years ago
                                            I can say the same about an omnivore diet because I am enjoying the best health I have ever had, except perhaps when I was an infant but I don't remember that part. I am no longer obese and maintaining a stable weight, have normal blood pressure and reversed cholesterol makers now with low triglycerides and high HDL (after giving up PUFA seed oils, significantly reducing carbohydrates like sugar, flour, rice, potatoes and no more processed foods for saturated fat and other healthy fats), as well as no more IBS-D. I also limit protein intake and get most of my calories from fat. Because I am an omnivore I still eat meat but because of limiting protein I also eat vegetables and whatever fat I do not get from animal sources comes from plant sources like nuts, coconut and extra virgin olive oil.
                                            Hide reply (1)
                                            • nzouri over 2 years ago
                                              Removed by moderator.
                      • nickarrizza over 2 years ago
                        Removed by moderator.
                        Hide Replies (9)
                        • ryanshaw over 2 years ago
                          My family runs a dairy farm, and I help out for free on weekends. Because of this I have seen how cows are treated, how milk is produced, how the numerous regulations are followed to the strictest of requirements. My battle here is with the misinformation about dairy such as it causes cancer, it's responsible for 51% of greenhouse gases, it's cruel, it causes autism, it causes disease A and B, and yes that it's even racist.
                          Hide Replies (8)
                          • nzouri over 2 years ago
                            Your battle here is to maintain the status quo, regardless of the ill effects of dairy in people's diet.
                            Hide Replies (3)
                            • ryanshaw over 2 years ago
                              And which effects are those my friend? You have failed time and again to prove anything substantial.
                              Hide Replies (2)
                              • nzouri over 2 years ago
                                Myself and others on this forum have provided links to numerous studies that prove dairy is not healthy. However, you failed to even recognize the validity of these independent studies. You have provided only dubious studies to support your claims.
                                Hide reply (1)
                                • ryanshaw over 2 years ago
                                  Again you have nothing as usual. Prove is quite the claim so I'm very curious to see this research. Waiting.
                          • nzouri over 2 years ago
                            You personally have conflicts of interests when discussing this issue. Since your education is not in nutrition or medicine, you cannot say that you saw evidence of a plant based diet not being healthy. Actually, all references you used in your comments are sponsored by the food industry, especially dairy industry.
                            Hide Replies (3)
                            • ryanshaw over 2 years ago
                              So the results were faked is what you're saying? Why aren't you able to point out study fallacies? Do you not know how? Clearly you don't.
                              Hide Replies (2)
                              • nzouri over 2 years ago
                                Can you prove that a whole food plant based diet is less healthy than a diet that includes milk? No, because cannot be proven. Common sense tells me not to eat food that is advertised. Dairy is advertised heavily.
                                Hide reply (1)
                                • ryanshaw over 2 years ago
                                  Fruits and vegetables are advertised, so is water. I guess you don't consume those either. Please provide just one source.
                • nickarrizza over 2 years ago
                  Yes, very astute, but the first thing one must assess as a researcher is conflicts of interest generated by funding sources. This can affect the entire integrity of the study at every level and can make your suggestions above a waste of time and energy, as much as you refuse to accept this. In fact if a researcher refuses to accept or see this then I would say they are unequivocally biased themselves and any of their statements/arguments should be taken with great caution.
                  Hide Replies (8)
                  • ryanshaw over 2 years ago
                    Or when you disagree with the findings because they don't confirm with your beliefs. That's called confirmation bias. If your disagree with the numerous studies you must find fault in the methodology itself, not the study sponsors since it's been stated time and again they played no role. Perhaps which inferential testing was inappropriate given x1,x2,x3. Were they linked incorrectly with y, or was y inappropriate given the research questions or H1?
                    Hide Replies (7)
                    • nickarrizza over 2 years ago
                      Thank you but I don't need a statistics lesson. Best wishes.
                      Hide Replies (6)
                      • ryanshaw over 2 years ago
                        Sorry I was confused because you have not demonstrated fallacies within research when applying quantitative methods so I'm asking you to identify those within the peer-reviewed research I have provided.
                        Hide Replies (5)
                        • nzouri over 2 years ago
                          Your findings are bias because the research you are using is paid by the dairy industry. It does not matter how they manipulate the data to reach their desired conclusion. It is very telling when 93% of industry sponsored studies are in favor of the industry.
                          Hide Replies (4)
                          • ryanshaw over 2 years ago
                            I'm sorry you don't know how to read scientific articles, perhaps if you did you wouldn't make broad assumptions out of fear of fact and truth, instead you fear monger with outrageous claims to force people in your beliefs. Very scary and dangerous Nzouri.
                            Hide Replies (3)
                            • nzouri over 2 years ago
                              I am supporting a whole food plant based diet. There is nothing scary about it nor dangerous.
                              Hide reply (1)
                              • ryanshaw over 2 years ago
                                Hmmm defamatory....yikes.
                            • nzouri over 2 years ago
                              Removed by moderator.
        • debena over 2 years ago
          Milk from a cow is baby calf growth fluid and the sole purpose of it is to turn a 60 pound calf into a 400 pound cow as quickly as possible and by consuming it we are introducing a countless number of negative health issues. Everything in it including the hormones, the lipids, the proteins, the sodium, the growth factors, the IGF1 is meant to turn a small calf into a great big cow and it doesn't matter whether you pour it onto cereal as a liquid, or clot it into yogurt, or ferment it into cheese, or freeze it into ice cream, it's baby calf growth fluid and the only creatures that should be consuming it are baby cows. Not even cows that have been weaned should be consuming it. We have as much business drinking cows milk as we do moose milk, elephant milk, or mouse milk. It is not a healthy food and you can do perfectly well without it.
          Hide Replies (63)
          • ryanshaw over 2 years ago
            Okay quoting Cowspiracy is not a valid argument for ditching dairy. https://www.metabunk.org/debunked-doctors-advice-on-cow-milk.t7899/
            Hide Replies (51)
            • debena over 2 years ago
              Doesn't make the statements that he puts forward any less true. What can I say go on drinking milk if you want but the balance of evidence that I've looked at has convinced me at least that I'm on the right path and I hope that others will eventually come to the same conclusions so that we can all benefit as a society. I guess we all have to come to our own conclusions based on the science that has made the greatest personal impact on each one of our own personal decision making processes but it's the job of the government to disseminate that science as objectively as possible and I just don't think they've done that in this case but at least it's a step in the right direction.
              Hide Replies (39)
              • ryanshaw over 2 years ago
                Only thing is I've provided sound methodological peer reviwed science, not something from vegan blogger or vegan propaganda like What the Health and Cowspiracy, both of which used Mr.Kaplan cites the same flawed logic and inaccuracies in both documentaries. Also I bring in a life time experience in working in dairy at every stage of the process. Dairy is safe and healthy and that's the general public and scientific consensus, unless you're a vegan...
                Hide Replies (38)
                • nzouri over 2 years ago
                  Your work experience in the dairy industry is not a proof that dairy is safe, quite contrary: indicates bias. As for studies you mentioned, you constantly downplayed the role played directly or indirectly by the sponsors. Actually, these defense tactics are very similar to the tobacco industry desperate attempts in the past. Hopefully we will be moving towards a Food Guide that is based on scientific studies not paid by special interests groups.
                  Hide Replies (37)
                  • ryanshaw over 2 years ago
                    Okay that's like saying we shouldn't ask rocket scientists if sending people to space is safe because of course they are going to say yes, they are bias! Farmers are involved in every step of the production of milk, preventative measures, care, veterinary, management, inspections, and testing quality, so the milk is indeed safe otherwise it wouldn't pass inspection and be on store shelves. If experience is something indicative of bias, then no expert opinions should ever be considered simply because they are "bias". Removing evidence-based facts is dangerous, we can see that in climate change deniers, anti-GMO movement, Climate change deniers, 9/11 truthers, anti-vaxxers, and now activist vegans perpetrating falsifications and faulty research to support the agenda of the elimination of every single animal product regardless of the proven benefits and noted welfare regulations.Again, if the research is faulty why can’t you point the fallacies out instead of concluding the research must have been falsified based on the study sponsors, you need evidence my friend not accusations. Yes, I hope the Food Guide does move forward based on science and evidence, not accusations and flawed logic from vegan activists.
                    Hide Replies (36)
                    • nzouri over 2 years ago
                      Farmers are focused on maximizing the profits. All preventative measures, veterinary care, and inspections are done so that cows produce as much milk as possible and that the industry maintain its customers. But it does not change the saturated fat content in milk, estrogen content, etc. So, dairy industry interests are mostly economic rather than human health. That is why there is a lobby to influence dairy consumption. This is similar to what the tobacco industry did in the past. Hopefully, this new guide will help people understand that it is better to eat plants and reduce or eliminate all animal products, dairy included.
                      Hide Replies (35)
                      • ryanshaw over 2 years ago
                        Actually as a 12th generation dairy farmer, professional researcher, and someone that's visited over 200 farms, been in 4-H, sat on milk boards, has a lifetime of dairy farming experience you're absolutely incorrect to make such inequitably ignorant statements.I don't know where you think you get your information from but you don't cite anything unless it's from a vegan blog, or it's misinterpreted. Let me put it to you this way, could you work a 12 hr, 365 days a year with no vacation? If dairy farmers didn't care about their animals and only profits why don't Canadian dairy farmers use rBST?? (https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/drugs-health-products/veterinary-drugs/factsheets-faq/hormonal-growth-promoters.html) That would increase production! Why do they issue supply management where you're financially penalized if you over produce, "Producers have an overproduction limit of 10 times their daily quota. If a producer ships more than its monthly total quota, any underproduction credits it has accumulated are used to offset the overproduction. If the producer does not have any underproduction credits to offset the overproduction, then the overproduction credits will accumulate. If the producer exceeds the overproduction limit, any further overproduction is considered “over-quota DFNS Producer Manual v. 1.12 Page 15 production” and the producer will receive the over-quota price, which is currently set at zero dollars. In other words, if you're not careful and you over produce, or in your words "as much milk as possible" you're producing milk for free, which means you go into massive debt. So to say farmers only care about money shows complete lack of education on the subject.
                        Hide Replies (34)
                        • nzouri over 2 years ago
                          rBST is banned in Canada, so that is the reason they are not using it. However, there are several other hormonal growth promoters approved for use in Canada. The supply management was established to help dairy farmers make more money (says so on Dairy Farmers lobby group website http://www.milk.org/Corporate/PDF/Students-FarmCare_DairyCows.pdf).
                          Hide Replies (33)
                          • ryanshaw over 2 years ago
                            This is getting funny. Do you always just google something, not read the source, and then make an argument to fit your narrative without actual citation and checks? Which page does it say in your link that supply management was established “to make farmers more money”? I’ve read the entire thing and there is not one noted statement even remotely claiming that. When you get a chance to read your own source (and I suggest you do) you will see the quote on page 2 “This system has allowed the dairy industry to prosper, providing a constant, reliable supply of high-quality milk products for consumers at reasonable prices while ensuring a fair return to the farmer.” When you go to university and take a microeconomics class, this is the first principle you will learn, it’s called supply and demand. The American model is free market where production is maximized to increase market share between producers which leads to oversupply, not to mention rBST is used there as well. Now again you have to read, on the Government of Canada site I posted it notes, “rBST was reviewed by Health Canada in the 1990's. Although it was determined that it did not pose a health risk to humans, there were animal health concerns, and therefore it was never approved for sale in Canada.” I know you’re trying to support a narrative but you can’t just make things up. So no Canadian dairy farmers aren’t about maximizing production to maximize profit, for several reasons, one farmers love and care for their animals, two we have checks in place to ensure production only meets demand hence the quota system, three the use of rBST is banned for animal welfare reasons.
                            Hide Replies (32)
                            • nzouri over 2 years ago
                              This statement “This system has allowed the dairy industry to prosper, providing a constant, reliable supply of high-quality milk products for consumers at reasonable prices while ensuring a fair return to the farmer.” means exactly to make farmers more money. rBST is banned for animal welfare because if an animal gets sick it does not produce as much milk. What about the other hormonal growth promoters that not banned in Canada but banned in Europe? The above comment is typical to what is expected form a dairy industry lobbyist that is to deride any idea that is contradictory to their interests or that it may affect the sale of their products.
                              Hide Replies (31)
                              • ryanshaw over 2 years ago
                                Removed by moderator.
                                Hide Replies (29)
                                • nzouri over 2 years ago
                                  Removed by moderator.
                                  Hide Replies (28)
                                  • ryanshaw over 2 years ago
                                    So sad you try to vilify Canadian family farmers which I'm apart of, do you see how we feel? I'm willing to have respectful dialogue with you but when you say "farmers are focused on maximizing the profits" when you compare us with the tobacco industry, when you hope "we go under" I will defend my families livelihood and of course will point out the fallacies in your arguments, which there are plenty.
                                    Hide Replies (27)
                                    • nzouri over 2 years ago
                                      As a dairy industry insider who sat on dairy boards (you admitted to that) of course you are defending the dairy industry, and you are using the same tactics the tobacco industry used before it became common knowledge that is smoking if bad for people: half truths, misinterpretation, using industry sponsored research, personal attacks, denigrating anyone who opposes your point of view, etc. No matter how hard a farmer works it does not change the fact that animal milk contain ingredients that are potentially harmful to humans: saturated fat, hormones (at minimum estrogen), antibiotics, and even casein.
                                      Hide Replies (26)
                                      • ryanshaw over 2 years ago
                                        Those are a lot of accusations, are you able to back any of that up? I believe my work and education allows me to speak to the real issues, I'm using proper citation, and experience to back up what I'm saying.
                                        Hide Replies (25)
                                        • nzouri over 2 years ago
                                          Your work experience demonstrate bias. I am not clear of what your education is, but you definitely have strong economic interests in maintaining the status quo. The citations you have used are from studies who's authors have been sponsored by the dairy industry. You are like a Coca-cola guy saying people should have cola-cola every day for its health benefits, or like the McDonalds guy saying people should have a burger every day.
                                          Hide Replies (24)
                                          • ryanshaw over 2 years ago
                                            You can't say I'm bias because I'm not basing my statements off assumptions and opinions, so I ask you be respectful in this dialogue because someone doesn't agree with you it's lazy to call them bias because I actually have working knowledge of how the industry is. If someone applies for a job that they have ample experience in do you call it relative, or bias? My education is a Bachelor in economics, a double major, in political science and history, a Master's degree in Public Administration with focus on research methods and statistics (both qualitative and quantitative) and I also work as a professional statistician and researcher, and yes I have a lifetime experience working on the family dairy farm where I've spend countless hours raising, and providing love and care for our animals. I am receiving no money at all from dairy, I'm doing this based off what I know, learned, and my passion to fight misinformation about an industry I know, love and care for. Again you can't throw out studies based off the sponsor, that's like saying climate change isn't real because the studies were sponsored by the US Climate Change Network. Again, if you can't point to the fallacies in the study, try research design, inadequate data collection, inappropriate analysis, we will going down a dangerous road where throwing out the science will be common place simply because you don't agree with the conclusions. I have critiqued yours based off the methodologies and the introduction of certain variables for the conclusion that were missed.Okay, if I'm like that point me to the recent peer-reviewed research where the conclusion was Coke helps with growth, helps fight certain ailments or diseases etc, and where those studies were sponsored by Coke. You're using a comparison which can't be substantiated my friend.
                                            Hide Replies (23)
                                            • nzouri over 2 years ago
                                              In a previous post you mentioned that you have the right to defend your livelihood and you talked about your dairy farm and you serving on dairy board, this indicates bias. Being a dairy industry insider indicates bias as well. Using studies sponsored by the dairy industry indicates bias. It is very easy to manipulate research to reach conclusions in the direction you want them to be: choosing a sample size, selecting samples, using a carefully selected research method, etc.
                                              Hide Replies (12)
                                              • ryanshaw over 2 years ago
                                                So you're saying there's a conspiracy, and I'm in on it?
                                                Hide Replies (11)
                                                • nzouri over 2 years ago
                                                  Removed by moderator.
                                                  Hide Replies (10)
                                                  • ryanshaw over 2 years ago
                                                    I sat on discussions, I was never a member, how does that make me corrupt? You make the assumption that there are ulterior motives in the Canadian dairy industry and I'm telling you from my experience the only thing we care about is the quality of the product, and the welfare of the animals. I still work for free on my families farm, I receive absolutely no money from dairy. So I would like to shut down this accusation that I have ulterior motives here, can we agree on that at least? I believe your motives for discussion come from a good place, I'm just saying based on my experience and education I disagree with some of your comments.
                                                    Hide Replies (9)
                                                    • nzouri over 2 years ago
                                                      Removed by moderator.
                                                    • nzouri over 2 years ago
                                                      Your personal connections to the dairy industry are very important to be taken in consideration in the evaluation of your "dairy benefits research".
                                                    • nzouri over 2 years ago
                                                      You mentioned earlier about you being a 12 generation farmer with family still involved in the dairy industry, with personal connections in the dairy industry and you are trying to say that you are not bias? It does not pass the common sense test.
                                                      Hide Replies (6)
                                                      • ryanshaw over 2 years ago
                                                        Is education and experience bias?
                                                        Hide Replies (5)
                                                        • nzouri over 2 years ago
                                                          Your education is not related to nutrition or medicine therefore mostly irrelevant. Your work experience in the dairy industry tells me that you want to keep people believing that dairy is healthy while ignoring independent research that says otherwise.
                                                          Hide reply (1)
                                                          • ryanshaw over 2 years ago
                                                            Is that right, and what's your education again?
                                                        • nzouri over 2 years ago
                                                          I have cited numerous independent studies that conclude dairy is not as healthy as the industry is trying to make people believe. Check the links. However, in many cases you choose to dismiss them for reasons that have nothing to do with reason or replay with industry sponsored studies. Yikes!
                                                          Hide Replies (2)
                                                          • ryanshaw over 2 years ago
                                                            Yea I haven't come across anything you've posted at all, let's see these "numerous independent studies". Remember the importance of peer-review! Okay let's see....
                                                            Hide reply (1)
                                                            • nzouri over 2 years ago
                                                              Removed by moderator.
                                            • nzouri over 2 years ago
                                              • ryanshaw over 2 years ago
                                                So this is definitive proof my sources that you refuse to evaluate have indeed been faked?
                                                Hide Replies (8)
                                                • nzouri over 2 years ago
                                                  It is definitely proof of your self-serving bias.
                                                • nzouri over 2 years ago
                                                  It is definitely of your self-serving bias. 93% of industry sponsored studies come in favor of the sponsor.
                                                  Hide Replies (6)
                                                  • reitsmad over 2 years ago
                                                    Maybe they are just very good at developing a sound hypothesis in the first place and then proving it. One has to review the studies.
                                                  • ryanshaw over 2 years ago
                                                    My self serving bias? Is that all you have is to try to shut me out of the conversation by saying I'm bias, when NASA published a study on space exploration are they bias because of the industry they are in? Or does that only pertain to industries you disagree with?
                                                    Hide Replies (4)
                                                    • nzouri over 2 years ago
                                                      Dairy industry is like tobacco industry. Dairy industry has strong economic interests, NASA does not. Somebody once said "follow the money".
                                                      Hide Replies (3)
                                                      • ryanshaw over 2 years ago
                                                        Then why aren't you able to prove dairy fakes their research? Or prove Canadian milk has bovine growth hormone, or prove it's full of pesticides. Like in law, the onus is on the one that accuses to prove, yet you can not.
                                                        Hide Replies (2)
                                                        • nzouri over 2 years ago
                                                          Again, so sad that you are denying knowledge that could be used to improve people's health.
                                                          Hide reply (1)
                                                          • ryanshaw over 2 years ago
                                                            I use science, not anecdotes, so sad you don't know how to read valid research. What's your education level? More than high school??
                              • ryanshaw over 2 years ago
                                The statement refers to "fair return to farmers" meaning farmers get a price to over their massive overhead (equipment, quota, land, infrastructure, labour) since milk is a perishable item the supply must meet demand, if supply outpaces demand then you have to dump the milk. No where in that Government of Canada does it state, or even imply, that the system is in place "to make farmers more money". Perhaps I missed that part, if so could you redirect us to it? rBST is banned because the concerns Canadian dairy farmers raised with too much production, the health effect on our animals was not worth the risk and that is why dairy producers do not use it. If rBST makes the animals sick, which diseases are you referring to? Hormonal growth promoters are not used in dairy cows as the link clarifies.
            • nzouri over 2 years ago
              It is if it makes sense. And it does.
            • nzouri over 2 years ago
              You always request peer-reviewed studies when someone voice their opinion against dairy, yet you post this link.
              Hide Replies (3)
              • ryanshaw over 2 years ago
                Well the person says, " countless number of negative health issues" and I ask one to substantiate that, that statement isn't an opinion, but they are trying to pass is off as fact, so when someone makes such a claim I simply ask them to back it up and they haven't. Now the narrative they are going off of is based off Cowspiracy, a vegan documentary full of fallacies and inefficiencies in statistics (double counting, cross industry inflation, and inclusion of carbon dioxide). Now my post was simply to note the fallacies in their presented argument that milk is baby calf food, a very popular argument in the vegan circle these days which I'm sure you know. Now can you point out where in the link they have it wrong as a counter argument? It makes many of the points that I have already made.
                Hide Replies (2)
                • nzouri over 2 years ago
                  So you bring counter arguments to the statement "countless number of negative health issues" by providing e link to an article that cite studies paid by Dairy Australia (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16373955) or points to a review by the drug companies (http://science.sciencemag.org/content/249/4971/875.long) ?
                  Hide reply (1)
                  • ryanshaw over 2 years ago
                    I bring a counter argument by citing peer-reviewed medically published studies. The money has to come from somewhere, and the way studies work (I'm a professional researcher) is you pose a hypothesis or research question you want answers to. Now animal rights/vegan groups have perpetrated a lot of misinformation such as milk cause A,B,C. Now maybe their hearts are in the right place, but it has caused the industry to gather research addressing those claims. Fortunately for the dairy industry numerous studies have shown that dairy is indeed safe and actually provides many benefits. Like I said, the people that pay for the research are the ones interested in the research question, and in no way skew results. "The sponsors had no role in design and conduct of the meta-analyses, data collection and analysis, interpretation of the data, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscripts."
            • nzouri over 2 years ago
              The metabunk article uses old studies that are all funded by the dairy industry. If you use counter-arguments by citing industry sponsored studies your argument is not valid. Its advertising. Just like tobacco industry did in the past.
              Hide Replies (5)
              • ryanshaw over 2 years ago
                Many of the studies are from 2014-2016, that's really recent. Scientific research is advertising?? Why aren't you able to debunk them using valid research methods and not on assumptions the results have been falsified based on sponsorship?
                Hide Replies (4)
                • nzouri over 2 years ago
                  It's not worth my time trying to validate a study paid by the dairy industry. All I have to do is look to the past and compare it with the tobacco industry. Dairy industry and tobacco industry methods are strikingly similar.
                  Hide Replies (3)
                  • ryanshaw over 2 years ago
                    So you don't know how to validate research is what your just admitted. Finally, Thank you!
                    Hide Replies (2)
                    • nzouri over 2 years ago
                      Interesting. Actually, I know but for the purpose of this forum its not worth my time to take each study and try to validate it. However, I don't even have to do that to judge its validity. All I have to do is look at who is trying to push it.
                      Hide reply (1)
                      • ryanshaw over 2 years ago
                        Wow, that's ridiculous and scary stupid. Yea the US Library of Medicine pushes it. Care to critique them?? Waiting.
          • Jmehninger over 2 years ago
            Depends also on your genetics - some people do perfectly well with dairy, right into adulthood. Especially raw milk from grass-fed cattle. If they didn't, every second person in Switzerland, Denmark or the Netherlands would be keeling over from dairy-related health problems. Vegetarians in India also consume lots of water buffalo milk - haven't heard about any dairy-related health problems from there either.Why would cultures that have evolved with animal farming adapt their gut to dairy any less than the Papua Highlanders have genetically and through gut microbes adapted to a protein deficient diet?
            Hide Replies (10)
            • nzouri over 2 years ago
              Denmark, Switzerland and the Netherlands are rife with chronic diseases: hearth diseases, cancer, diabetes, Alzheimer are top causes of death (see http://www.worldlifeexpectancy.com/country-health-profile/Switzerland and http://www.worldlifeexpectancy.com/country-health-profile/Netherlands and http://www.worldlifeexpectancy.com/country-health-profile/denmark)India has the fastest rate of diabetes growth.
              Hide Replies (9)
              • reitsmad over 2 years ago
                Rife with chronic diseases from what? Why is India's diabetes increasing? In a word - sugar.
                Hide Replies (7)
                • nzouri over 2 years ago
                  Your earlier statement that people in Northern Europe are not sick, was incorrect. Proven by the health profile of each country you mentioned. The chronic diseases in Denmark, Switzerland and the Netherlands are due to bad eating habits, specifically too many animal source of food and not enough plants. India's diabetes rate is growing because of a rise in the middle class, who in turn buy more animal products (chicken, cheese, etc)
                  Hide Replies (6)
                  • ryanshaw over 2 years ago
                    You're making assumptions and correlations that don't exist.
                    Hide Replies (5)
                    • nzouri over 2 years ago
                      Removed by moderator.
                      Hide Replies (4)
                      • ryanshaw over 2 years ago
                        Research your claims my friend, stop being lazy and making assumptions and blanket statements.
                        Hide Replies (3)
                        • nzouri over 2 years ago
                          Whole food plant based diet is best. Research has proven this numerous times. About lazy: how many times did you post the same link with all authors sponsored by dairy industry? How many times did I pointed out that it is advertising, and not science? You've got nothing outside the dairy industry to support your claim that people need dairy in their diet or even that benefits outweigh the harms dairy causes.
                          Hide Replies (2)
                          • ryanshaw over 2 years ago
                            Removed by moderator.
                          • ryanshaw over 2 years ago
                            Okay let's see some research then....waiting.
              • reitsmad over 2 years ago
                I will also add the consumption of margarine (PUFA's) instead of butter along with processed seed oils.
        • debena over 2 years ago
          Removed by moderator.
        • Rickcouture over 2 years ago
          FTFY: Dairy is perfectly safe for lil baby calves, and actually repeatable studies have shown the numerous health benefits.https://www.mothersmilkisonlygoodforbabies.com
        • Amber over 2 years ago
          You are so misinformed. Go read the science. Look up Casien and what it does to you.
          Hide reply (1)
          • ryanshaw over 2 years ago
            "Go read the science" enough said.
  • Francois over 2 years ago
    Here are a few of the health issues of dairy:1.Largest source of saturated fat and contains trans fats:These 2 fats are the main causes of insulin resistance which leads to weight gain, obesity, diabetes, impotence - also know as erectile dysfunction - (25% of men by age 60), heart attacks and strokes. These are also the main risk factor, other than genetic, which can trigger minimal cognitive impairment and Alzheimer's disease. People who consume a lot of trans fats have also been shown to have memory issues even at age 20. (I will give you more information on the health impact of trans fats in another post in the near future as well as its sources and how they legalized their mislabeling in Canada and the US after the discovery that they were so damaging that no amount above 0 mg/day was safe).2.Major inflammatory source in the body: A major cause of auto-immune and inflammatory disorders. If you have such a disorder such as rheumatoid arthritis, chronic sinusitis, skin problems, you can get a major improvement if not a complete cure by cutting out ALL dairy. These appear to be largely, not completely related to the protein and saturated fats. Lactose intolerance is of less worry because it is more discomfort than the potentially permanent damages which are immune related.3.A cause of multiple cancers: Increases breast cancer risk by 37%, lethal prostate cancer by 81% and ovarian cancer. It doesn't even really matter much if they say no hormones added because a lactating or pregnant cow has higher level of certain hormones naturally. Interesting fact, Phillip Morris international used to defend tobacco by showing other products consumed caused more cancer...one of them being dairy. They purchased Kraft in 1988 and little of this advertising can be found past 1991.4.A major cause of osteoporosis, yes that is right. It doesn't allow your body to improve bone density, it's calcium content doesn't offer benefits in the form present in milk. If you drink 3 or ore glasses a day you will have 60% more chance of getting a hip fracture. Commercials have no requirement to tel the truth and should be regarded as dishonest used car salesman. Doctors will just repeat guidelines which are often determined by industry representatives or corporately supported/financed healthcare workers. In many cases the science can seem contradictory until you understand statistical manipulation and parameter adjustments made to create misinforming/borderline falsified research which are then promoted in the media to make sponsors happy. (I will give in later posts how certain studies were falsified such as the last 20 years of saturated fat research and the idea that eggs are healthy).5. Iron deficiency anemia, yes, if you drink a lot of milk, you will absorb less iron.6. Type 1 diabetes. There are a series of studies that show that dairy can trigger type one diabetes. The main culprits appear to be either casein or the natural cow insulin which has molecular mimicry which components of your pancreatic beta cells causing the autoimmune reaction which destroys them. The younger one is at the exposure the more risk (much higher if exposed below 3 months of age).7. Due to all the health issues involved, each glass of milk per day increases cause of death of all causes by 15% until you reach 3 or more then it is 93% higher than those who do not drink dairy. In other words: Milk, it does nobody good.8. Philip Morris international used to defend themselves by pointing to dairy as causing more cancer than tobacco, this stopped 3 years after purchasing Kraft in 1988.
    Hide Replies (6)
    • Bodybuilder and Chef over 2 years ago
      That is ridiculous. Pardon me, perhaps you've never had milk. If milk is chilled properly it is the ultimate muscle building and fat loss food. Milk's high vitamin A content will triple your testosterone if you're worried about that. Milk contains 80% Casein protein and 20% Whey protein. Casein is a slow digesting protein which builds muscle over a long period of time, and whey builds muscle over a short period of time. The high calcium content when eaten with vitamins will leave your bones very strong.
      Hide Replies (5)
      • ryanshaw over 2 years ago
        Francois nothing you said can be substantiated whatsoever, nothing you cited is peer-reviewed and its fear mongering at best. Stop with the propaganda. Here is some actual valid peer-reviewed published research on the benefits of dairy.https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5122229/
        Hide Replies (4)
        • nzouri over 2 years ago
          Ryan this article is advertising. The study was founded by several Dairy Organizations. It should be considered paid advertising, not science.
          Hide Replies (3)
          • ryanshaw over 2 years ago
            Sorry which organization published the meta-analysis again? Were they paid off as well? Science is not a conspiracy my friend.
            Hide Replies (2)
            • nzouri over 2 years ago
              All authors were paid by the dairy industry. It is very likely that they have carefully chosen studies in their meta-analysis. This is manipulation of scientific evidence and we should not use it for sound nutritional advice.
              Hide reply (1)
              • ryanshaw over 2 years ago
                No actually not all authors were, stop making things up. Why are you avoiding the question and just repeating an ill-logic fallacy, stop being lazy and cite actual issues with the methodology. If you're not educated that's okay, clearly you aren't. Again who published the meta-analysis?
  • Doncasters' Highfield Farm over 2 years ago
    We believe that Dairy products are very necessary part of healthy eating and should be eaten on a daily basis and should be specifically mentioned in the Canada Food Guideline from Health Canada.
  • scganguli over 2 years ago
    In a recent peer-reviewed article in the medical literature, Dr Lustig looked at the effect of restricting fructose intake in children with obesity and metabolic syndrome. CONCLUSIONS: Isocaloric fructose restriction improved surrogate metabolic parameters in children with obesity and metabolic syndrome irrespective of weight changeThis supports principle 2 and avoiding added fructose in the Canadian diet.Reference to paper: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=26499447
  • scganguli over 2 years ago
    ADDED SUGAR INTAKE AND CARDIOVASCULAR DISEASES MORTALITYIn a recent peer-reviewed medical publication (see below for reference), a prospective examination of added sugar intake and cardiovascular mortality (CVD) in the USA from 1988 to 2010 was conducted. During a median followup of 14.6 years, 831 CVD deaths were documented during 163,039 person-years of followup. Adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) of CVD mortality across quintiles of the percentage of daily calories consumed from added sugar were 1.00 (reference), 1.07 (1.02-1.12), 1.18 (1.06-1.31), 1.38 (1.11-1.70), and 2.03 (1.26-3.27; P = .004), respectively. Adjusted HRs were 1.30 (95% CI, 1.09-1.55) and 2.75 (1.40-5.42; P = .004), respectively, comparing participants who consumed 10.0% to 24.9% or 25.0% or more calories from added sugar with those who consumed less than 10.0% of calories from added sugar. These findings were largely consistent across age group, sex, race/ethnicity (except among non-Hispanic blacks), educational attainment, physical activity, health eating index, and body mass index. The authors conclusions were as follows: "Most US adults consume more added sugar than is recommended for a healthy diet. We observed a significant relationship between added sugar consumption and increased risk for CVD mortality." Since the Canadian diet is very similar to that in the USA, this is directly relevant to principle 2 and supports the avoidance of processed foods with added sugars. Reference to paper: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24493081
  • sppoulos over 2 years ago
    The Calorie Control Council is concerned that the focus on food preparation rather than overall diet and nutrient intake may mislead consumers to believe that recipes prepared at home are inherently healthier than those purchased at the store. This is described in a 2016 review which describes how experts in public health have attributed some chronic diseases to food processing and have created new food classification systems which differ from processing concepts in food science, and incorrectly imply that food processing is causally related to nutritional impact of food. Botelho et al., (2016) states, “Nutritional quality of a product or preparation is associated with formulation/recipe and not with the level of processing, with few exceptions. The impact of these recommendations on the actual comprehension of food processing and quality must be considered by the population.”Furthermore, food preparation at home does not necessarily result in “healthier” food consumption. In a report by Schneider et al. (2013), it was found that approximately half of Canadians prepare food at home, and many prepare foods at home by relying on Internet recipes that can result in foods that exceed recommended amounts of saturated fat and sodium. Another study out of the UK found that recipes sourced from a popular Internet site available to the UK but also Canada and the US (and elsewhere) found that their recipes “are less healthy than TV chef recipes and ready meals from leading UK supermarkets. Only 6 out of 5,237 Internet recipes fully complied with the WHO recommendations” (Trattner et al., 2017). The Council believes that focusing on preparation of food rather than overall diet and nutrient intake related to health promotion and disease prevention has the potential to further confuse individuals without significantly affecting nutrient intake patterns, and recommends that Health Canada take this into account when making updates to its Food Guide.
  • H over 2 years ago
    Lots of health benefits in dairy products, just because something is low in sugar doesn't mean it is good for you. Diet soft drinks contain aspartame, which has terrible side effects and not one single health benefit.
  • heiferlady over 2 years ago
    Processed foods or prepared foods high in sodium, sugar or saturated fat include a large number of grocery store products from bakery items and sweetened cereals to granola bars and potato chips, just a few examples. Many are costly and aren't needed as part of a healthy diet. It is the convenience that people pay for! Beverages high in sugar also take up a lot of space on the grocery aisles. But 100% fruit juice- why is it so bad? The one I have in the refrigerator has potassium, folate and Vitamin C.The manufacturers put far too much sugar in flavoured milks ( IMO) and the way to deal with that is dilute it half and half with regular milk. The Guide gives a lot of beverages to avoid, but for kids in particular, there should be suggestions for what they can have! So far I see plain water, soy beverages and low fat milk as the only recommendations.
    Hide reply (1)
    • SnowOwl over 2 years ago
      Unless there are allergy issues, I would limit soy beverages, especially to children.
  • hg over 2 years ago
    I agree with this
  • urmi over 2 years ago
    Added sugar and salt in snacks marketed and promoted as "healthy food" are the main culprits in childhood obesity and other lifestyle diseases like hypertension in adults.
  • Awenmann over 2 years ago
    The best way to avoid saturated fat, and trans fats, for that matter is to completely remove meat and dairy from your diet. I believe sugar drinks should not be promoted either as they are empty calories. Everything you consume should give you vitamins and minerals. The best sources of nutrition are plants foods.
    Hide reply (1)
    • sgentili over 2 years ago
      what about baked goods, take them all out too? Hmm not too interesting unless you lack a sweet tooth.Otherwise I pretty much agree with you.
  • mwenmann over 2 years ago
    I agree with this guiding principle.
  • Dale Williams over 2 years ago
    Agree that processed foods are to be avoided. I rarely eat or drink anything in a box or from a can or bottle. I do eat salt because the foods I eat are generally low in same. I agree that drinks as described are to be avoided. I do not consume sugars or grain products. I do not limit my intake of saturated fats. Blood and other health markers are excellent.
    Hide Replies (100)
    • JulienB over 2 years ago
      Do you eat lots of green leafy vegetables such as broccoli asparagus brussel sprouts, fruits rich in antioxidents such as berries, legumes such as beans peas chickpeas lentils, seeds such as flax or chia? There's lots to eat.
      Hide Replies (99)
      • Dale Williams over 2 years ago
        For many years I lived pretty much a vegetarian lifestyle, and was for a while following vegan eating principles (ala Esselstyn). My energy input (measured via My Fitness Pal) was about 60% carbs, 20% protein and 20% fat. Calorie consumption was about 1500-1800 daily. And yes lots of the foods you mention above were consumed. Unfortunately, even with regular and intensive exercise my weight plateaued higher than I wanted, I had serious IBS and was constantly achey. My hands and joints were puffy and my skin tone was quite grey. I seriously considered quitting work because I felt so sick. I also thought maybe these symptoms were just due to aging (I'm now 65). By chance I visited a naturopathic doctor recommended by a family member and he suggested that perhaps I should eat more like my ancestors did (from England, Germany and Poland) and that I should cut down on fresh fruits and vegetables that were out of season. So I did. Over the last year I have been following essentially a moderately low carb diet with 60% fat, 20% protein and 20% carbohydrate diet with lots of meat, eggs, cream, butter, cheese, yoghurt, vegetables of all kinds, limited fruit and very limited amounts of flax and hemp seeds. All the symptoms described above including the IBS disappeared and I lost about 30 pounds. I feel better than I have in years and my doctor is happy with the results.I don't know much about the science, but am aware that there are 10's of thousands of us low carb types including myself, who are now much healthier and happier than we were following the Canada Food Guide.Cheers!
        Hide Replies (98)
        • JulienB over 2 years ago
          This is seriously misleading. It goes against the scientific consensus. I'm sorry, but your anecdotal evidence does not belong in this forum.
          Hide Replies (91)
          • Dale Williams over 2 years ago
            Really? I'm not allowed to say how changing my diet affected my health? And I believe you asked. My understanding is there is a massive and growing amount of valid peer reviewed scientific evidence supporting reduction in consumption of carbohydrate in its various forms and re-instatement of saturated fats as a proper fuel source. From my review of the literature, it also seems that the demonization of fat resulted from epidemiological studies (ie. not causal) using cherry picked information which was supported by the various economic interests in support of same. You really only have to go back 50 years (which I remember) to see that we used to eat quite differently than we do today and there was much less obesity and many fewer cases of diabetes as well as other metabolic diseases.
            Hide Replies (73)
            • JulienB over 2 years ago
              Which studies are you talking about? Are they high quality studies? Randomized controlled trials? Double blind placebo controlled? The best evidence can be seen in dietary intervention studies. Where's the evidence that cutting whole plant foods in favor of animal products has any benefits? Watch this video. https://youtu.be/2Ftoy6jqxm8 It really has me concerned that industries on the pro-saturated fat side are muddying the waters. Doubt is their product.
              Hide Replies (56)
              • Jmehninger over 2 years ago
                Funny, mother's milk is 55% fat and it is mostly saturated fat. Now why would that be? Shouldn't it resemble kale juice if veggies were the best thing for you and saturated fat was really as bad as vegans would have us believe?
                Hide Replies (46)
                • JulienB over 2 years ago
                  Are you suggesting we drink mother's milk beyond childhood? Mother's milk is the best thing for babies, yes. How do you make the connection between that and animal products for adults? I'm merely asking for proof here, ideally someone who so certain about his/her position should have some good evidence on which to base that.
                  Hide Replies (32)
                  • Jmehninger over 2 years ago
                    No, I'm asking why and where along the line saturated fats suddenly become "evil" when nature designed our first food to be full of them. After all, our bodies never stop renewing themselves, our cell walls consist of saturated fats, we need them for hormone production and even the staunchest medical proponent of a low-fat diet will grudgingly admit that you need at least some saturated fat in your diet. However, if you want to eat local, and you happen to live in a northern climate, that leaves you with animal fats. Since I want to know where my food comes from and I want the animals treated well, I raise my own. Of course not everyone has that luxury, but I think the answer there is not necessarily going vegan, but rather to start supporting small local farms that use sound environmental and organic principles and for governments to support practices that minimize suffering by farm animals. If you're doing great on a vegan diet, then all the power to you. Not everyone does though, and it doesn't matter how many studies you throw at them - people know what works for them and what doesn't. As soon as I stop drinking bone broth for example, my joints start hurting. And the final point I will make (and then I think we'll just have to agree to disagree) is this:Even a vegan lifestyle depends on animals, particularly the big grazers and also the pollinators, somewhere down the line. The animals are part of the whole web of things - you cannot simply take them out of the equation. What bothers me is that people often don't consider the big picture or all the implications of what they are advocating. Anyways - that's my final two cents worth! :-)
                    Hide Replies (31)
                    • JulienB over 2 years ago
                      As in the video I cited, I'll post it again https://youtu.be/2Ftoy6jqxm8 we've known for over 50 years about the effects of saturated fat on cholesterol. The evidence is clear, it was through medical ward experiements, i.e: dietary intervention studies that show a definitive link. This is thr scientific consensus. Fast forward to the present, the consensus hasn't changed but the public is confused because of the efforts put forward to confuse the public. All summarised in the video. You have yet to show me these studies you talk about.
                      Hide Replies (22)
                      • Jmehninger over 2 years ago
                        I'm not sure what exact post you're replying to, but it wasn't mine. Oh well...
                        Hide Replies (19)
                        • JulienB over 2 years ago
                          It was Dale who claimed to have evidence. The ball is in your court regardless.
                          Hide Replies (18)
                          • Dale Williams over 2 years ago
                            I'll take the ball for a while. I don't claim to have any evidence. However I do pay attention to a number of researchers, medical practitioners, journalists and coaches who seem credible to me. Feel free to check out what any of these folks have to say. None are supported by agricultural or food industries: Tim Noakes, Gary and Belinda Fettke, Marika Sboros, Michael Eades, Nina Teicholz, Nicolette Niman, Ted Naiman, Peter Ballerstedt, Valter Longo, Ron Rosedale, Jason Fung, Vinnie Tortorich, Chris Kresser, Amy Berger, Eric Sodicoff, Robert Lustig, Maryanne Demasi, David Unwin, Gary Taubes, Zoe Harcombe, Ivor Cummins, Sarah Hallberg, Michael Joseph, Verner Wheelock, Kailash Chand, John Schoonbee, Dave Feldman, Mark Cucuzella, Eric Westman, Antonio Martinez, David Diamond, Dominic D'Agostino, Angela Poff, Georgia Ede, Priyanka Wali, William Yancy, Rangan Chatterjee, Peter Brukner, Peter Defty,Jeffry Gerber, Cate Shanahan, Jenni Callihan, Terry Wahls, Jeff Volek, Jay Wortman, Eugene Fine, Dwight Lundell, Mary Vernon, Loren Cordain, Stephen Phinney, Richard Feinman, Jeff Cyr and many many more. Hundreds of thousands of healthy people, including me, owe their health and perhaps their lives to these brave pioneers!
                            Hide Replies (17)
                            • Dale Williams over 2 years ago
                              Oops. I forgot to mention the person who started me on the road to health redemption a year ago, Andreas Eenfeldt. His website - Dietdoctor.com is a revelation.
                            • JulienB over 2 years ago
                              The Nobel Prize winning physicist has some diet advice? Certainly none of these people all agree. Three of them I know aren't credible: Nina Teicholtz, Kris Kresser, and Gary Taubes. I respect two other scientists you listed: Valter Longo and Dominic D'Agustino. This argument doesn't really seem compelling because they are seemingly all chosen at random.
                              Hide Replies (15)
                              • Dale Williams over 2 years ago
                                From my observation all these folks are part of the low carb/ketogenic sphere. You may think some aren't credible, I heartily disagree. Their work stands up.
                                Hide Replies (14)
                                • nickarrizza over 2 years ago
                                  Actually, it doesn't. Their fundamental premise for their high fat diet is that the low fat experiment initiated by the USDA in the 50's and 60's following the work of Ancel Keys suggesting that saturated fat was responsible for higher rates of arteriosclerosis was a complete failure. What they assume is that everyone actually adopted a low fat diet and that in light of the epidemic of chronic diseases it failed and hence it must be because there was too little fat in the diet. This premise is absolutely and fundamentally wrong! The diet that most of North Americans actually adopted was the Standard American Diet with daily fat levels in the range of 35-70%. This is their definition of "extremely" low fat! Amazing to me when truly low fat diets in the range of 10-15% found in the Seven Day Adventist Study -2 showed these people to have the greatest longevity and the lowest all cause mortality of any other group in the Western World!
                                  Hide Replies (13)
                                  • nickarrizza over 2 years ago
                                    Oh, and I forgot to add, the Seven Day Adventists largely subsist on whole plant based diets.
                                    Hide reply (1)
                                    • Dale Williams over 2 years ago
                                      Subsist sounds about right.
                                  • Dale Williams over 2 years ago
                                    It seems to me that a high fat high carb high calorie diet is likely to be pretty dangerous. My understanding is most North Americans have followed the food guide reasonably well and have increased their carbohydrate intake primarily due to increasing consumption of grain based products and reduced meat/egg/dairy consumption. It appears that these factors are the causes of increased obesity and diabetes over the past 30-40 years.
                                    Hide Replies (10)
                                    • nickarrizza over 2 years ago
                                      The so called low fat foods aren't actually that low fat, they often contain 30% of calories in fat. The "low fat" experiment actually never took place except may be in Loma Linda California where teh Seven Day Adventists eat a plant based diet with 10-15% fat in calories and these people have no diabetes, rarely heart disease or any of the other chronic diseases in the west as well as the lowest all cause mortality and greatest longevity. Diabetes types 1 & 2 are primarily caused by dairy. Thanks for your response!
                                      Hide Replies (9)
                                      • reitsmad over 2 years ago
                                        Absolutely ridiculous. There is no causal connection between dairy and diabetes. There are hundreds (if not thousands) of low fat and no fat processed foods on the market that are high in sugar. A lot are dairy products because of the demonization of saturated fat contributing in large part to the type 2 diabetes and metabolic syndrome epidemics. It was not dairy but the the over processing and added sugars.
                                        Hide Replies (8)
                                        • nickarrizza over 2 years ago
                                          Ridiculous you say?Well here are some studies that prove you wrong.Nutr Diabetes. 2017 May 15;7(5):e274. doi: 10.1038/nutd.2017.16.A1 beta-casein milk protein and other environmental pre-disposing factors for type 1 diabetes.Chia JSJ1, McRae JL1, Kukuljan S2, Woodford K3, Elliott RB4, Swinburn B5, Dwyer KM1,6,7.Author informationAbstractGlobally type 1 diabetes incidence is increasing. It is widely accepted that the pathophysiology of type 1 diabetes is influenced by environmental factors in people with specific human leukocyte antigen haplotypes. We propose that a complex interplay between dietary triggers, permissive gut factors and potentially other influencing factors underpins disease progression. We present evidence that A1 β-casein cows' milk protein is a primary causal trigger of type 1 diabetes in individuals with genetic risk factors. Permissive gut factors (for example, aberrant mucosal immunity), intervene by impacting the gut's environment and the mucosal barrier. Various influencing factors (for example, breastfeeding duration, exposure to other dietary triggers and vitamin D) modify the impact of triggers and permissive gut factors on disease. The power of the dominant trigger and permissive gut factors on disease is influenced by timing, magnitude and/or duration of exposure. Within this framework, removal of a dominant dietary trigger may profoundly affect type 1 diabetes incidence. We present epidemiological, animal-based, in vitro and theoretical evidence for A1 β-casein and its β-casomorphin-7 derivative as dominant causal triggers of type 1 diabetes. The effects of ordinary milk containing A1 and A2 β-casein and milk containing only the A2 β-casein warrant comparison in prospective trials.N Z Med J. 2003 Jan 24;116(1168):U295.Ischaemic heart disease, Type 1 diabetes, and cow milk A1 beta-casein.Laugesen M1, Elliott R.Author informationAbstractAIM:To test the correlation of per capita A1 beta-casein (A1/capita) and milk protein with: 1) ischaemic heart disease (IHD) mortality; 2) Type 1 (insulin-dependent) diabetes mellitus (DM-1) incidence.METHODS:A1/capita was estimated as the product of per capita cow milk and cream supply and its A1 beta-casein content (A1/beta) (calculated from herd tests and breed distribution, or from tests of commercial milk), then tested for correlation with: 1) IHD five years later in 1980, 1985, 1990 and 1995, in 20 countries which spent at least US $1000 (purchasing power parities) per capita in 1995 on healthcare; 2) DM-1 at age 0-14 years in 1990-4 (51 were surveyed by WHO DiaMond Project; 19 had A1 data). For comparison, we also correlated 77 food, and 110 nutritive supply FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization)-based measures, against IHD and DM-1.RESULTS:For IHD, cow milk proteins (A1/capita, r = 0.76, p <0.001; A1/capita including cheese, r = 0.66; milk protein r = 0.60, p = 0.005) had stronger positive correlations with IHD five years later, than fat supply variables, such as the atherogenic index (r = 0.50), and myristic, the 14-carbon saturated fat (r = 0.48, p <0.05). The Hegsted scores for estimating serum cholesterol (r = 0.42); saturated fat (r = 0.37); and total dairy fat (r = 0.31) were not significant for IHD in 1995. Across the 20 countries, a 1% change in A1/capita in 1990 was associated with a 0.57% change in IHD in 1995. A1/capita correlations were stronger for male than female mortality. On multiple regression of A1/capita and other food supply variables in 1990, only A1/capita was significantly correlated with IHD in 1995. DM-1 was correlated with supply of: A1/capita in milk and cream (r = 0.92, p <0.00001); milk and cream protein excluding cheese (r = 0.68, p <0.0001); and with A1/beta in milk and cream (r = 0.47, p <0.05). Correlations were not significant for A2, B or C variants of milk beta-casein. DM-1 incidence at 0-4, 5-9 and 10-14 years was equally correlated (r = 0.80, 0.81, 0.81 respectively) with milk protein supply. A 1% change in A1/capita was associated with a 1.3% change in DM-1 in the same direction.CONCLUSIONS:Cow A1 beta-casein per capita supply in milk and cream (A1/capita) was significantly and positively correlated with IHD in 20 affluent countries five years later over a 20-year period--providing an alternative hypothesis to explain the high IHD mortality rates in northern compared to southern Europe. For DM-1, this study confirms Elliott's 1999 correlation on 10 countries for A1/capita,1 but not for B beta-casein/capita. Surveys of A1 beta-casein consumption in two-year-old Nordic children, and some casein animal feeding experiments, confirm the A1/capita and milk protein/capita correlations. They raise the possibility that intensive dairy cattle breeding may have emphasised a genetic variant in milk with adverse effects in humans. Further animal research and clinical trials would be needed to compare disease risks of A1-free versus 'ordinary' milk.
                                          Hide Replies (2)
                                          • reitsmad over 2 years ago
                                            So more milk production = more diabetes. theoretical evidence?
                                            Hide reply (1)
                                            • nickarrizza over 2 years ago
                                              It really is not worth my time debating this with you as you and I clearly disagree. Best wishes with your low carb and high fat diet and we'll see who the last man (literally) standing is.
                                        • nickarrizza over 2 years ago
                                          As mentioned above those low fat diets are measured by weight, not by calories. So if you do the math and convert to fat "calories" suddenly that those so called "low fat" foods are 30% or more in "fat calories". That in my definition is NOT LOW Fat. My definition of low fat is 10-15% of fat calories which can only be obtained from a whole plant based diet. It is true that when you combine high fat (which is responsible for insulin receptor insensitivity and insulin resistance) with refined sugars in foods you overload the body with simple sugars and simultaneously compromise its ability to clear it. So what does that leave you with? Chronic High Blood Sugar or type 2 diabetes. If you look at most processed dairy product what do you see, if you read the labels with discernment? High fat, high refined carbs and NO fibre! I rest my case.
                                          Hide Replies (2)
                                          • reitsmad over 2 years ago
                                            Calories are irrelevant. This is what happens when people don't understand physiology. Your body doesn't know what a calorie is. It is a man made construct to try and explain weight gain / loss. Of course fat would look bad because it has 2x the calories per gram compared to carbohydrates and protein. I don't even like the saying that not all calories are created equally or a calorie is a calorie or a calorie. What is relevant is how nutrients are broken down and where they go to provide food for our cells or friendly bacteria. What is relevant is how much your body has to process and where it goes. Too much of a good thing (like glucose and fructose) and it becomes toxic. Toxic amounts of glucose and fructose along with PUFA's has created the epidemics of heart disease (which might also be caused by a virus according to some hypothesis), type 2 diabetes and metabolic syndrome. There have been so many studies of measuring glucose and fructose response that it makes my head spin. Not one shows a problem with protein or fat. Low calorie diets work because they restrict carbohydrates and result in ketosis. This can happen eating potatoes or sugar for example. If one is not getting enough food to the cells from wherever it comes from then the body converts fat to ketones and glucose and feeds the body until the stores are exhausted and then starts feeding on lean tissue. Millions starved during WWII knew this all too well.
                                            Hide reply (1)
                                            • nickarrizza over 2 years ago
                                              Well, I agree that excess simple sugars and PUFA's contribute to heart disease. Since the 50's there was a shift from high saturated fat diets that caused say heart disease to high refined carb and high unsaturated and moderate saturated fat diets that also caused heart disease. No argument there. Those who had their protein sources taken away in WW1 and WW2 existed on starches however and that is what is responsible for much of the reduction in chronic diseases seen in places like Norway and Czechoslovakia. Yes, I agree some did starve and fasting is a useful temporary way to cleanse the body but it "temporary". The brain's key source of fuel is glucose and RBC's and kidney cells can only survive on glucose. Another way to naturally burn fat without starving, but please be my guest if that is your drug of choice, is to eat a low density starch diet and get all the benefits while supporting the body in a natural way.
                                        • nickarrizza over 2 years ago
                                          With respect to alleviating type 2 diabetes its simply a matter of removing the fat and simple sugars and the diet that does this is a whole plant based diet as is shown in the following published studies by Neal Barnard MD.Diabetes Educ. 2010 Jan-Feb;36(1):33-48. doi: 10.1177/0145721709357797.A plant-based diet for type 2 diabetes: scientific support and practical strategies.Trapp C1, Barnard N, Katcher H.Author informationAbstractPURPOSE:The purpose of this review is to provide educators with the knowledge and tools to utilize plant-based nutrition education as an intervention for type 2 diabetes. Scientific support for the efficacy, acceptability, and nutritional adequacy of a plant-based diet for people with type 2 diabetes is presented, and practical considerations such as medication adjustment and risk of hypoglycemia are reviewed.CONCLUSIONS:Plant-based meal planning is an acceptable and effective strategy that educators can use to improve diabetes management and reduce risk of complications. Studies show that dietary changes that are effective for reducing cardiac risk may also be helpful for management of type 2 diabetes. A low-fat, plant-based diet reduces body weight and improves glycemic control, and has been shown to be remarkably well accepted by patients.Curr Diab Rep. 2010 Apr;10(2):152-8. doi: 10.1007/s11892-010-0093-7.Usefulness of vegetarian and vegan diets for treating type 2 diabetes.Trapp CB1, Barnard ND.Author informationAbstractSignificant benefits for diabetes prevention and management have been observed with vegetarian and especially vegan diets. This article reviews observational studies and intervention trials on such diets, and discusses their efficacy, nutritional adequacy, acceptability, and sustainability. Research to date has demonstrated that a low-fat, plant-based nutritional approach improves control of weight, glycemia, and cardiovascular risk. These studies have also shown that carefully planned vegan diets can be more nutritious than diets based on more conventional diet guidelines, with an acceptability that is comparable with that of other therapeutic regimens. Current intervention guidelines from professional organizations offer support for this approach. Vegetarian and vegan diets present potential advantages in managing type 2 diabetes that merit the attention of individuals with diabetes and their caregivers.
                                          Hide reply (1)
                                          • reitsmad over 2 years ago
                                            It is not necessary to remove the fat or meat. These studies are just a means to an end to support a hypothesis rather than disprove it which is what experimentation is supposed attempt to do. Regardless of what low fat diet one goes on they will lose weight if you eat keep eating less until the body is forced to use fat stores. Long term however something like only 3% managed to keep the weight off and end up gaining more back.
                      • reitsmad over 2 years ago
                        Scientific consensus to increase carbohydrates in the standard American diet has resulted in the obesity and type II diabetes epidemic. Ancel Keys 7 country study has been shown by the current scientific community to be flawed and is ignored now as being completely biased in order to justify his hypothethis.
                        Hide reply (1)
                        • nickarrizza over 2 years ago
                          OK, one more (my last I promise): But what kind of carbs are you talking about? Simple refined carbs, which we all agree are toxic. And where do you find these carbs? In many dairy products that also come with fat! So as I've said before "the low fat experiment" that low carb'rs often speak of NEVER ACTUALLY TOOK PLACE! The only place you'll see truly low fat (10-15% fat by calories) and high unrefined starchy carb diet that promotes longevity and reduced all cause mortality is in Vegan Seven Day Adventists! This totally negates your argument!
                    • Francois over 2 years ago
                      Saturated and trans fasts cause insulin resistance which leads to diabetes, obesity, heart attacks and strokes as well as dementia, this has been proven multiple times. The las 20 years of saturated fat studies by industry were falsified to hide health issues. Here is how they did it: the old studies looked at cholesterol increase with the ingestion of animal/saturated fats. We all have a similar biology but different genetics. Thus we react in a similar way. This is why we were able to establish an equation that precisely predicted an increase in cholesterol in any individual based on the amount of fat consumed. The last 20 years of studies done by the industry changed the y axis from increase to absolute cholesterol because the variability due to our genetics would drown out the increase following consumption, the p value would be non significant. Using American values, individuals absolute cholesterol can easily vary between 25 and 225 prior to fat intake just due to genetics. When variability is already 200, an increase by 10 for everyone becomes statistical background noise. This is why the media is trying to say saturated fats aren't the problem.
                      Hide Replies (7)
                      • Jmehninger over 2 years ago
                        In that case, I will repeat my answer once more for JulienB and Francois:Mother's milk can contain over 50% saturated fat. Explain to me, where along the line saturated fats suddenly become "evil" when nature designed our first food to be full of them? And at what point does the body no longer need them?After all, our bodies never stop renewing themselves, our cell walls consist of saturated fats, nerve sheathing is made up of saturated fats, etc. Now: If you want to eat local, and you happen to live in a northern climate, that leaves you with animal fats. Since I want to know where my food comes from and I want the animals treated well, I raise my own. Of course not everyone has that luxury, but I think the answer there is not necessarily going vegan, but rather to start supporting small local farms that use sound environmental and organic principles.And, as I mentioned once before: Even if you're Vegan, your food will depend on animals somewhere along the line. Where do you think the compost that the organic market gardener uses comes from? And what pollinates your food, especially mass-grown crops?
                        Hide Replies (2)
                        • JulienB over 2 years ago
                          I feel like you clutching at straws here. The big picture is we know about the role of saturated fat in many of the preventable diseases affecting those eating a typical western diet. Yes babies' milk contains a high portion of saturated fat, but that doesn't necessarily imply those past the weaning stage require the same proportions. Human development comes in stages, and our deitary needs change. The fact remains that there's a consensus among all nutrition authorities with an overwhelming body of literature to back it up.
                          Hide reply (1)
                          • reitsmad over 2 years ago
                            That is not a fact except among the vegan community who overtly attack saturated fat as a way to eliminate meat from diets but unfortunately also wnds up grouping in coconut oil for example.
                      • reitsmad over 2 years ago
                        • nzouri over 2 years ago
                          Chris Kresser AHA is funded by the food industry. The meta-study from AJCN is also funded by the national Dairy Council and by Unilever. These are industry sponsored studies that should be considered advertising.
                      • reitsmad over 2 years ago
                        That is just plain wrong. Sorry. Excess carbohydrates and particularly fructose leads to non-alcoholic fatty liver disease and insulin resistance as well as all markers for metabolic syndrome. A low carb high fat reverses this. Total (absolute) cholesterol is meaning less. Triglycerides decrease and HDL cholesterol increases on a low carb high fat diet which decreases the risk of CVD. Lots of studies to support that as well as thousands with anecdotal evidence of that.
                        Hide reply (1)
                        • nickarrizza over 2 years ago
                          Yes, you are correct but you must premise your argument on the fact that you are talking about "refined" carbs and not unrefined starchy carbs which (when consumed in the range of 80-90% of daily plant based calories) actually lower total cholesterol, raise HDL, lower weight, blood pressure, eliminate type 2 diabetes, virtually eliminate heart disease, obesity, inflammatory bowel disease, rheumatoid arthritis and much more.
                • nzouri over 2 years ago
                  Human milk is only about 1.3% fat. Has the lowest fat content among all mammals. Humans are the only species that consume milk (another species milk) beyond infancy. Cow milk is designed by nature to take a baby calf from about 60 lb to about 400 lb in 6 months.
                  Hide Replies (10)
                  • Jmehninger over 2 years ago
                    I am sure that no one has yet analyzed and charted the milk of ALL mammals, so please do not throw out general statements like "the lowest fat content among ALL mammals" - you do not know that and neither does anyone else.Margot is correct, see:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/392766
                    Hide Replies (5)
                    • nzouri over 2 years ago
                      Thank you for pointing out my error. I was actually referring to protein content which is lowest among all mammals. The statements about humans being the only species consuming milk after infancy and consuming another species milk are correct. The nutritional content of cow milk is specifically designed for baby cows. Human milk is the only milk that can be fed to human infants without any health risks.
                      Hide Replies (4)
                      • ryanshaw over 2 years ago
                        Removed by moderator.
                      • Jmehninger over 2 years ago
                        Well, you obviously haven't lived on a farm and seen a fully grown donkey steal a snack of milk from a lactating mare. I've seen a bull do the same thing - running over to grab some milk every time he saw the calf was nursing. My dog is also quite happy with the occasional drink of milk and my cat likes to lick a bit of cream every now and then. The reason it doesn't happen more often with other species, is simply lack of opportunity out in nature! There is also tons of egg stealing going on - if eggs were as poisonous, non-nutritious and unhealthy as many posters here claim, why are so many species into stealing each others eggs?
                        Hide Replies (2)
                        • nzouri over 2 years ago
                          Other animals consumption of milk is negligible as it happens too rare. Dogs and cats do not naturally consume milk but rather consume what is made available by humans. No other species consume milk with the frequency and in the quantities that humans consume. Humans also consume other dairy products in which the fat and protein content is concentrated and therefore bad for you.
                          Hide reply (1)
                          • ryanshaw over 2 years ago
                            Any peer-reviewed, medical study source?
                  • reitsmad over 2 years ago
                    That is initital milk which is for antibodies and uick energy. Hind milk has a significant reduction in carbohydrates and increase in fat for long term energy.
                  • reitsmad over 2 years ago
                    Hind milk is higher in fat.
                  • nickarrizza over 2 years ago
                    That 1.3% is by weight, a ploy of the dairy industry to fool you into thinking that it is a low source of fat. When you actually calculate out the percentage in terms of fat calories you'll find that it comes out closer to 30%. So, what is being said here is that although many people think the "low fat experiment" has failed, I would say it actually never started!
                    Hide reply (1)
                    • nickarrizza over 2 years ago
                      Sorry, I thought you meant cows milk. Please note that my comments pertain to "low fat cows milk". Blessings!
                • MargotFreitag over 2 years ago
                  This is incorrect. Human breast milk contains 3%-5% fat.
                  Hide reply (1)
                  • nickarrizza over 2 years ago
                    But human milk, being species specific, does not have the same powerful IGF-1 promoting factors found in cows milk that, as said, are required to help a calf grow very rapidly in the first year. Imagine what that growth promoting factor is doing to human children who drink it. And to human adults who drink/eat it most of their lives. Now maybe one can begin to understand why we have a cancer epidemic.
              • reitsmad over 2 years ago
                Trig/HDL is the best marker of CVD and should be as low as possible. Reducing carbohydrates and increasing fat causes a reduction triglycerides and increase in HDL. There are several studies showing no adverse effects from eating saturated fat. http://m.ajcn.nutrition.org/content/early/2010/01/13/ajcn.2009.27725.abstract. https://chriskresser.com/coconut-oil-is-still-healthy-despite-aha-claims/
                Hide Replies (7)
                • nzouri over 2 years ago
                  Your first cites article is for a study supported by National Dairy Council, therefore the results should be considered more like an advertising for the dairy industry rather than actual science.
                  Hide Replies (6)
                  • reitsmad over 2 years ago
                    Trig / HDL as a marker of cardiovascular health has been well established through several studies.
                    Hide Replies (2)
                    • nzouri over 2 years ago
                      Trig / HDL are improving on a whole food plant based diet. Mine are now at optimal levels after several years of plant based diet.
                      Hide reply (1)
                      • reitsmad over 2 years ago
                        My trigs dropped like a rock and HDL increased dramtically on a ketogenic diet. Looks like there is more thanone solution.
                  • reitsmad over 2 years ago
                    Coconut oil does not come from a cow. This is where vegans shoot themselves in the foot by demonizing saturated fat.
                    Hide Replies (2)
                    • nzouri over 2 years ago
                      I don't understand your point. Not everybody consumes coconut oil. Actually, I believe the best diet is low fat and the small amount of fat should come only from nuts, seeds and avocado.
                      Hide reply (1)
                      • reitsmad over 2 years ago
                        If tou eat low fat then you are replacing it with protein or carbohydrates. Neither have positive health effects in excess. Saturated fat is neutral and monosaturated have positive effects when it comes to CVD prevention according to SURE study.
              • Eugen S. over 2 years ago
                Removed by moderator.
            • Jmehninger over 2 years ago
              Hi Dale - Your story echoes those of quite a few people I've heard about and yes, folks need to hear about those personal experiences as well as the scientific studies. Thanks for sharing.
            • RDC911 over 2 years ago
              He's right, and yes there are multiple studies supporting that fat is not as bad as it seems. Refer to : https://authoritynutrition.com/23-studies-on-low-carb-and-low-fat-diets/
              Hide Replies (4)
              • Francois over 2 years ago
                Saturated and trans fasts cause insulin resistance which leads to diabetes, obesity, heart attacks and strokes as well as dementia, this has been proven multiple times. The las 20 years of saturated fat studies by industry were falsified to hide health issues. Here is how they did it: the old studies looked at cholesterol increase with the ingestion of animal/saturated fats. We all have a similar biology but different genetics. Thus we react in a similar way. This is why we were able to establish an equation that precisely predicted an increase in cholesterol in any individual based on the amount of fat consumed. The last 20 years of studies done by the industry changed the y axis from increase to absolute cholesterol because the variability due to our genetics would drown out the increase following consumption, the p value would be non significant. Using American values, individuals absolute cholesterol can easily vary between 25 and 225 prior to fat intake just due to genetics. When variability is already 200, an increase by 10 for everyone becomes statistical background noise. This is why the media is trying to say saturated fats aren't the problem. P.S. Authority nutrition is another corporate cover site.
                Hide Replies (2)
              • Eugen S. over 2 years ago
                that is a blog with cherry picked studies that were done by the industry
            • MargotFreitag over 2 years ago
              With every respect, Dale, I understand you have lost weight and you are happy with that. Congratulations. However just because you have lost weight does not mean you are protecting yourself from heart disease. All four of my grandparents (born around the turn of the Century) ate just as you are now. They were very lean. Three died of a massive heart attack and one spent the last few years of her life confined to a wheel chair because of a stroke. Just because you are lean does not mean you are protecting yourself from diet-related illnesses. At the risk of sounding pushy, I encourage you to check out Dr. Michael Greger's book "How Not to Die". I wish you well. Warmly, Margot Freitag
              Hide Replies (5)
              • Dale Williams over 2 years ago
                Thanks Margot. I do appreciate your comments and thank you for them. I suspect there could be some dietary requirement differences among us. When I ate vegetarian and later, vegan, as mentioned above, I didn't feel great but kept pushing the diet, thinking I wasn't doing it well enough. When I switched to low carb, it felt like my body breathed a sigh of relief. Maybe I'm short sighted, but I'm thinking if I've lost weight, feel great and have Energizer Bunny energy, it can't be all bad! Thanks again for your thoughts.
                Hide Replies (3)
                • nickarrizza over 2 years ago
                  Sadly many vegans have been misinformed over the years believing that simply avoiding animal products is a healthy route to take. Clearly a vegan diet can consist of fried chips and Coke, clearly not a healthy diet, not that I'm suggesting this was your diet. The concept of a whole plant based diet consisting of 80-90% starchy vegetables, non starchy green and yellow vegetables, fruits, legumes, whole grains, a daily Vitamin B12 supplement, sunshine exposure for 20-30 minutes a day, limited use of nuts, seeds, avocados, and NO processed oils has been shown by many researchers, John McDougall MD et al, to be not only our species specific diet but one that halts and reverses many of today's chronic diseases as well as extending longevity. Sticking to this composition is vital if one hopes to achieve any significant gains in health. The typical vegan diet based on processed oils and soy foods often from soy isolates is actually toxic, sometimes as toxic as the Standard American Diet.
                  Hide Replies (2)
                  • Dale Williams over 2 years ago
                    Actually, my diet at the time followed the recommendations of Esselstyn and others in that cohort and was much as you've described above. I worked at it, but it didn't work for me. From the puffiness and bloating I experienced, I'm thinking I was either allergic to the plants I was eating or they were somewhat toxic.
                    Hide reply (1)
                    • nickarrizza over 2 years ago
                      Esselstyn used a diet very low in the starchy vegetables category to help lower cholesterol in severely ill patients. This is a therapeutic nutrient dense diet as opposed to a normal diet. Although nutrient dense it may have provided insufficient daily calories. When the body does not have sufficient calories it will not have the ability to clear the overload of these dense nutrients that can possibly lead to an overloaded liver, kidneys and body possibly leading to some of the problems you had. I would suggest you review Dr Mcdougall's work (which is a very different diet than Esselstyn's) if that interests you. I seriously think your current diet will have long term negative consequences, but certainly it's up to you. Blessings.
              • reitsmad over 2 years ago
            • MargotFreitag over 2 years ago
              Also forgot to mention my grandfather had type 2 diabetes.
              Hide reply (1)
              • Jmehninger over 2 years ago
                Hi Margot: I can see how losing your grandparents like that would be traumatic, but without any further data as to the exact cause of death, can you really be sure that their deaths were purely diet-related? Especially in women non-obstructive heart disease can be much more common than most people realize, and in those cases there is no major coronary blockage.I am all for a healthy diet, I just happen to disagree that the only way to go is Vegan.And, as we see here, there is still lots of controversy about the correlation of cholesterol and heart disease. Just look at the "French Paradox" or the "Seven countries" study - nothing seems to be as clearcut as we'd all like it to be: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1768013/
            • Eugen S. over 2 years ago
              Low-carbohydrate diets and all-cause and cause-specific mortality: Two cohort Studies https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2989112/ " A low-carbohydrate diet based on animal sources was associated with higher all-cause mortality in both men and women, whereas a vegetable-based low-carbohydrate diet was associated with lower all-cause and cardiovascular disease mortality rates."
              Hide reply (1)
              • reitsmad over 2 years ago
                Both cohort studies were complete failures as even associative factors are easily refuted.
          • Darioush over 2 years ago
            Julien B - You should research Ketogenic diet, which is Low Carb, High Fat, Moderate Protein. There is lot's of science to back it up, going back 100 years +. I'm sorry but your condescending tone does not belong in this forum.
            Hide Replies (13)
            • JulienB over 2 years ago
              Are you presenting any evidence against the case for a plant-based diet? I haven't seen any evidence that ketogenic diets are healthy. Read "How a Low-Carb Diet is Metabolically Like Being Obese" https://nutritionfacts.org/2016/11/22/how-a-low-carb-diet-is-metabolically-like-being-obese/
              Hide Replies (7)
              • reitsmad over 2 years ago
                Removed by moderator.
              • reitsmad over 2 years ago
                Is everyone eating a plant based diet at normal body weight and metabolically healthy? I read the article. If you are burning fat (natural state) you produce ketone bodies (also a natural state). In order for this to happen glucose (blood sugar) has to drop and along with it insulin (the stuff that allows glucose storage). A correction to the article - we still make small fat cells during adulthood. Not sure how he can say more fat in the blood when triglycerides are reduced on a high fat diet, unless it it high carb as well. As I read about spillover the level or carbohydrates was somewhere around 50%. This is no where near a ketogenic diet. I suggest you read about Dr. Tim Noakes, Phinney and and Volek who have actual experience and done the studies on how a low carb diet high fat diet reverses insulin resistance and metabolic syndrome. It may not cure type II diabetes in all cases but certainly reverses pre-diabetes.
                Hide Replies (5)
                • nickarrizza over 2 years ago
                  No, not if the vegan diet consists of Coke and fried chips. A truly healthy whole plant based diet that can restore normal weight, reverse type 2 diabetes, hypertension, rheumatoid arthritis, inflammatory, bowel disease, and much more consists ideally of one with 80-90% starchy vegetables or whole grains (i.e. potatoes, sweet potatoes, rice, corn, pasta) along with non starchy green and yellow vegetables, fruits, legumes, daily vitamin B12 supplement, 20-30 minutes of daily sunshine exposure, limited use of nuts, seeds, avocados, olives and the elimination of ALL processed oils. This diet is our species specific diet used successfully to reverse chronic diseases for the last 40 yrs by Dr John Mcdougall et al.
                  Hide Replies (4)
                  • reitsmad over 2 years ago
                    That might work for you but there are millions who are carb intolerant now. Potatoes have been so genetically altered that they are rapidly digestible so rapidly convert to glucose. No way this is good for anyone when it spikes insulin. Same goes for corn, pasta, anything made with white flour and so call who whole grains that have been ground so fine as to have lost their slow digestive ability. Better to eat greens that are not starchy (pretty much anything that grows about ground). I agree that processed oils are one of the worst offenders.
                    Hide Replies (3)
                    • nickarrizza over 2 years ago
                      I agree there is a great deal of toxicity in the food chain but it exists everywhere and tough to eradicate. you must however realize that eating as low as possible on the food chain is the only real way to reduce one's toxic load as animals fed grains and the like bio-accumulate and bio-magnify this toxicity. Certainly eating "organic" is best and I subscribe to that. What is interesting, and what many don't realize is that eating a whole plant based diet can reduce one's shopping bill by as much as 70% leading to huge savings. If governments were to stop subsidizing the meat and dairy industries and shift subsidies to vegetable farmers this number could be reduced even more, and give greater incentive to produce (and the ability to afford for consumers) non GMO organic foods thereby making your point moot. As for the glycemic rise in insulin there has been much confusion and misinformation about so called high glycemic foods. A rise in insulin is actually a normal physiological response and is not the cause of diabetes rather it is an indication of how much satiety a food is able to produce. It's actually low glycemic foods (i.e. low carb foods) that fail to produce satiety (not to mention that they have a low to non existent fibre content) that lead to a) over eating b) obesity c) type 2 diabetes and insulin resistance (which is due to intracellular fats that deactivate insulin receptors (See Dr Neal Barnard's research on reversing Type 2 Diabetes) d) heart disease and many of the other chronic diseases on the planet.
                      Hide Replies (2)
                      • reitsmad over 2 years ago
                        Eating high on the food chain is what gave us a small gut and large brain. Biomagnification as you say also works with nutrient density as well. Eat low on the food chain and you have to eat a lot more to get the same amount of nutrients. That is why herbivores have bigger guts and smaller brains than us. Don't kid yourself about economics. Our pockets would be picked the same way. Yes, an increase in insulin is a normal response but what is not normal is the amount of insulin and frequency. Dr. Neal Barnard's research is flawed. Plenty of research showing how the pathways of glucose and fructose cause disruption to the liver pathways. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7MTNJNAZPiw. See his other work on his website.
                        Hide reply (1)
                        • nickarrizza over 2 years ago
                          Until you have published research in a peer reviewed journal your comments about people like Barnard have no credibility. The link you provided provides fancy theories but until it can completely reverse type 2 diabetes that is all it is in my view. With respect to the size of the gut, a) eating a low calorie density diet consisting of starchy vegetables (and I'll give you the credit for seeing this and pointing it out) actually means that one reaches satiety before one over consumes excess calories as the body's ways of assessing satiety is with stretch receptors in the the lining of the stomach and with the level of blood sugars achieved in the blood i.e what you have referred to as the glycemic effect. This ensures, by the way that one does not over stuff themselves and hence loses or maintains their normal weight b) eating a low carb and hence a low fibre diet on the other hand has a low glycemic effect, a low to non existent fibre content and is very high in calories which leaves one feeling like they are not yet full, starving and ravenous leading to a vicious circle of having to eat more of the same foods that lead to more hunger and hence at some point to over stuffing themselves while still feeling hungry. This leads (among other things such as obesity, type 2 diabetes, etc..) to a stomach that is overextended, constipation, gastroesophageal reflux, Barrett's esophagus, and a predisposition to esophageal carcinoma, which if you haven't heard is rising in epidemic proportions in North America.
            • Eugen S. over 2 years ago
              Low-carbohydrate diets and all-cause and cause-specific mortality: Two cohort Studies https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2989112/ " A low-carbohydrate diet based on animal sources was associated with higher all-cause mortality in both men and women, whereas a vegetable-based low-carbohydrate diet was associated with lower all-cause and cardiovascular disease mortality rates."
              Hide Replies (4)
              • JulienB over 2 years ago
                This is good. Plant-based low carb diets may be good. I don't know why you're getting downvotes. I think the more i to a comment thread you get, the more ideological people are.
                Hide Replies (3)
                • Eugen S. over 2 years ago
                  there is bunch of farmers and carnists here that feel threatened by what is in store for 2018, the world is changing and some take longer to adapt
                  Hide Replies (2)
                  • reitsmad over 2 years ago
                    I don't feel threatened by someone who doesn't know what they are talking about. There re no studies showing causation of meat consumption shortening lifespan. Stop eating Frankenfood and sugar.
                    Hide reply (1)
                    • Eugen S. over 2 years ago
                      well we will see about this in 2018 ;-)
          • Honeybeemkg over 2 years ago
            No JulienB, your wrong. This is a forum! It is for all opinions, experiences and views in order to educate each other, (and the government to hopefully put forth the best document possible)not a place for those to vent that just agree with you. Dale Williams' experience and advice and others like him is just as valid.
          • reitsmad over 2 years ago
            What scientific concensus are tou referring too? There is substantial evidence for a low carb high fat diet. Reducing carbohydrates and increasing fat in the diet has a well known effect on lipid profile by reducing triglycerides, increasing HDL dueing and after weight loss and reducing LDL after weight stabilization due to release of LDL from adioose tissue. One review regarding saturated fat...http://m.ajcn.nutrition.org/content/early/2010/01/13/ajcn.2009.27725.abstract
            Hide reply (1)
            • nzouri over 2 years ago
              Removed by moderator.
        • NatBeau over 2 years ago
          Dale, this is awesome. I consume a gluten free vegan diet that works well for me. My husband needs some animal protein on a weekly basis to feel 100%. The moral of this story is that there is no one diet that "works". Everyone needs to figure out what works for them. This is why the Alternative Medical Community is having such an impact, they are here to help us figure this out.
        • Francois over 2 years ago
          Here is the result of your suggestions which are clearly against scientific research: https://nutritionfacts.org/video/atkins-diet-trouble-keeping-it-up/and https://nutritionfacts.org/video/paleo-diets-may-negate-benefits-of-exercise/Your problems may be related to pesticides or a specific substance or way you prepared meals. Remember the order of freshness, local, frozen and far third the rest.
        • Eugen S. over 2 years ago
          Low-carbohydrate diets and all-cause and cause-specific mortality: Two cohort Studies https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2989112/ " A low-carbohydrate diet based on animal sources was associated with higher all-cause mortality in both men and women, whereas a vegetable-based low-carbohydrate diet was associated with lower all-cause and cardiovascular disease mortality rates."
        • Eugen S. over 2 years ago
          with " Calorie consumption was about 1500-1800 daily." you were starving yourself .... the Basal Resting Metabolic rate in the average male is about 2000 calories, never-mind day to day activities. Your body had no energy because you were NOT giving it any and it went into calorie preservation mode.
        • nickarrizza over 2 years ago
          I actually had the exact opposite experience having been on a ketogenic diet for a couple of years that made me feel sick, gave me constipation, hemorrhoids, gastroesophageal reflux, candidiasis, bad breath, low back and cervical pain, low energy etc. Only after switching to a high starch and plant based diet was I able to heal from much of this in a matter of weeks. My weight normalized naturally without calorie restriction, as hard as that is to believe. Now I feel and look younger than I did in my 30's and I'm 61.I'm not a nutritionist but it's likely the reason you felt sick was because you were not getting enough calories from starchy vegetables which can leave one feeling tired and unsatiated and this can lead clandestinely to overeating the very fatty foods that keep one heavy. Add intensive exercise and you stress your system in a compromised state. Your weight problem was also likely due to your higher (yes higher) than acceptable fat intake. Dr. John Mcdougall has often suggested that the diet must be around 85-90% starches with the elimination of all fats in the form of oil, nuts, seeds, avocados etc. It would be nice to know what your lipid profile, blood pressure and PSA level, are at this point? Blessings.
          Hide reply (1)
          • Skyla over 2 years ago
            I think all you've proved is different people require different diets and that one size fits all is no more appropriate in diet than in medicine. Some people will do well on a vegan diet, some people will be extremely sick.
  • washlock over 2 years ago
    I agree with the many other comments that saturated fats should not be demonized. People should be warned instead about unhealthy fats. Unhealthy fats are refined fats like corn oil, canola oil, and margarine. Examples of healthy fats are olive oil, sesame oil, and butter. Healthy keywords include "cold-pressed" and "extra virgin" and "expires on ..." Unhealthy keywords include "partially hydrogenated" and "trans fat." A good rule of thumb is that if it doesn't have a flavour, it isn't healthy.
    Hide Replies (79)
    • JulienB over 2 years ago
      Removed by moderator.
      Hide Replies (74)
      • Regan over 2 years ago
        Scientific consensus? No way. The one size fits all approach is not working...
        Hide Replies (8)
        • JulienB over 2 years ago
          Of course it is. There's a reason why the major health authorities slam Saturated fat. It's not a matter of public perception but scientific consensus. Meanwhile, people like you are easily swayed by lobbyist funded "science journalists" such as Gary Taubes without proper proof due to your scientific illiteracy. Most people are scientifically illiterate, so please stop pushing your agenda. It's actually quite ironic because you argue Saturated fats are "demonized" due to public perception, but it's this narrative you've subscribed to that demonstrates the very danger of how public perception can go astray.
          Hide Replies (7)
          • reitsmad over 2 years ago
            • nzouri over 2 years ago
              Your citation is from a study sponsored by National Dairy Council. This is not real science. It is paid advertising.
              Hide Replies (4)
              • reitsmad over 2 years ago
                Good science is still good science. If there is bias then it has to be declared but pretty hard to make numbers lie. I suppose if we use your logic then anyone who has a bias should not publish.
                Hide Replies (3)
                • nzouri over 2 years ago
                  Studies can be easily manipulated by selecting sample size, sample to study, methodology, etc. Industry sponsored studies are pure advertising.
                  Hide Replies (2)
                  • reitsmad over 2 years ago
                    That is a general statement that can be applied broadly. Time is another.
                    Hide reply (1)
                    • nzouri over 2 years ago
                      Over 93% of industry sponsored studies have conclusions in favor of the industry. This is in itself very telling.
            • nzouri over 2 years ago
              Removed by moderator.
      • Jmehninger over 2 years ago
        That's hogwash. All our ancestors ate more saturated fats and less processed and refined foods and did much better than our modern culture. No weight problems back then!If you look, for example, at the traditional diets of people living in the North, whether it's the Inuit, Lapland or similar, many of their calories HAD to come from saturated fat, because you're not going to grow many veggies or grains up there, are you? What about one of the staples of First Nations - pemmican? And everyone was doing just fine, until they were exposed to non-traditional diets that were high in sugars and carbs. While a high fat diet might not be the right thing for everyone, it's beneficial to many. We now know that the sugar industry paid off Harvard scientists 50 years ago to blame fat for coronary disease. And this faulty research was perpetuated and supported for decades. Look at the article by Stanton Glantz, Cristin Kearns and Laura Schmidt on this topic - I believe it was in the New York Times. And also check what Weston A. Price found in his travels and studies. Notice how general health declined in the past few decades after traditional diets that people had thrived on for millennia, were suddenly declared to be "bad"!
        Hide Replies (58)
        • JulienB over 2 years ago
          I'll break this down point for point to make sure everything is addressed.(1) "All our ancestors ate more saturated fats and less processed and refined foods and did much better than our modern culture" It's likely they weren't eating as much processed foods, depending how far you look back and which civilizations you concentrate on. I posit that our ancestorS, the modern day humans who have lived for the past 200'000 years did not have the luxury we have had in recent history with the largely available foods high in saturated fat such as animal products. Coconuts may be ok, and we definitely didn't all eat palm oil.(2) "No weight problems back then!" I agree that humans this past century have the most weight problems than any other time period.(3) "If you look, for example, at the traditional diets of people living in the North, whether it's the Inuit, Lapland or similar, many of their calories HAD to come from saturated fat, because you're not going to grow many veggies or grains up there, are you? What about one of the staples of First Nations - pemmican? And everyone was doing just fine, until they were exposed to non-traditional diets that were high in sugars and carbs" That's been disproven time and time again starting in the 30s. Explain why the Eskimos had twice the stroke rate of non-Eskimos? Read this one study. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1561651/pdf/canmedaj00512-0065.pdf or watch this video https://nutritionfacts.org/video/omega-3s-and-the-eskimo-fish-tale/(3)"While a high fat diet might not be the right thing for everyone, it's beneficial to many." What makes you think there's so much interpersonal variability in diets? Especially when speaking generally. Generally, plant-based foods are good for everyone. (4) "We now know that the sugar industry paid off Harvard scientists 50 years ago to blame fat for coronary disease" Do you have evidence for this? Of course, each industry will protect it's own interests. Do you think the dairy, meat and egg industries have never done the same. It's the same Tobacco industry tactics that have been used.(5) "Look at the article by Stanton Glantz, Cristin Kearns and Laura Schmidt on this topic - I believe it was in the New York Times" How do you leap to the conclusion that sugar causes all harm? Of course it's bad, but it's not all that is bad with the Western Diet.(6) "And also check what Weston A. Price found in his travels and studies. Notice how general health declined in the past few decades after traditional diets that people had thrived on for millennia, were suddenly declared to be "bad"!" Dr. Joel Furhman, a well respected doctor, has written an article about the Weston A Price Foundation. an Interesting read http://www.vegsource.com/articles2/fuhrman_dietary_myths.htm also, there is evidence that Weston A Price himself recommended a Vegitarian/Vegan diet to his family. Anyways, perhaps we shouldn't place so much trust in this organisation.
          Hide Replies (20)
          • Jmehninger over 2 years ago
            Weston A. Price was a dentist and wanted to be a vegetarian. However, he had to revise his position after he concluded his studies in the field. He travelled extensively and visited a number of isolated cultures, where he noted that for example dental health was much better and that people did not have issues with crowded teeth and too narrow jaws, while they ate their traditional diets. This changed within a couple of generations after being exposed to refined flours, processed foods and sugar. Perhaps you should look at the original research first, before dissing it.Your article on the Inuit is very interesting - did you actually read it? Seems to me that it is proof for the theory that the more contact the culture had with the West. the poorer their health became, other than of course the conditions caused by they very harsh environmental conditions and practices such as chewing leather etc. - but no cancer and no diabetes, the two scourges of our society.
            Hide Replies (16)
            • JulienB over 2 years ago
              From the article I cited "Our data, I believe, definitely disprove the alleged absence of arteriosclerosis amongst the Eskimo, at least in the Eastern Arctic. " and "Also of interest in the metabolic data is the inability to tolerate large doses of glucose, judging from the blood sugar time curves." Perhaps that's evidence of insulin resistance, which we can now attribute to fat cell in the blood. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aw8hufhIDu0More Articles:(1) "A decreasing trend in mortality from IHD in Inuit populations undergoing rapid westernization supports the need for a critical rethinking of cardiovascular epidemiology among the Inuit and the role of a marine diet in this population." https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12535749(2) "Naturally frozen bodies of ancient human beings have also been found inAlaska. The oldest one, dating to about 400 AD), was that of a 53-year-old Eskimowoman found on St. Lawrence Island in the Bering Sea... There was a moderate degree of aortic and coronary atherosclerosis, visible grossly as yellow streaking in the brown vessels, and confirmed on microscopy. There was no evidence of myocardial infarction,acute or healed." "Both the NB and the SB showed severe osteoporosis, the bone spicules being remarkably thinned and decalcified. Osteoporosis is a major health problem for modern Eskimos, the most likely cause being the traditional high-protein diet, which results in metabolic acidosis and consequent calcium loss from the bones." https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC325106/pdf/thij00043-0014.pdf
            • Eugen S. over 2 years ago
              Weston A Price is a fraud that created a hypothesis based an flawed assumptions and paved the way for Atkins / Dukan / Paleo / Keto and other ridiculous FAD DIETS that have no scientific base to them.
              Hide Replies (14)
              • reitsmad over 2 years ago
                Hide reply (1)
                • nzouri over 2 years ago
                  Removed by moderator.
              • Jmehninger over 2 years ago
                On what do you base your statement that Weston A. Price was a "fraud"? He was a respected dentist of his time, although sometimes controversial. The fact remains that in 1939, Price published Nutrition and Physical Degeneration,[7] a book that details a series of ethnographic nutritional studies he performed across diverse cultures, including the Lötschental in Switzerland, Native Americans, Polynesians, Pygmies, and Aborigines, among many others.[22] The research materials include some 15,000 photographs, 4,000 slides, and many filmstrips.[8]The Weston A. Price nutritional guidelines are based on his findings. You may not agree with them, but there is nothing fraudulent here.
                Hide Replies (11)
                • Eugen S. over 2 years ago
                  https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/sbm-weston-prices-appalling-legacy/ "Since I started writing for Science-Based Medicine almost 8 years ago, I have visited many, many websites offering questionable information about health. In my opinion, the Weston A. Price Foundation is one of the worst. It is full of misinformation and dangerous advice. It might be useful in reverse: if you read it on WAPF, it is probably wrong."
                • Eugen S. over 2 years ago
                  WAPF makes bunch of scientifically unsound (dangerous) advice, do you even follow what they recommend?: (1) Butter and butter oil are our "super foods" which contain the "X factor", discovered by Weston Price.(2) Glandular Organ Extracts - to promote health and healing of the corresponding organ.(3) Poached brains of animals should be added to other ground meats for better nutrition(4) Raw cows milk and meat broth should be fed to newborns who don't breast feed, rather than infant formula.(5) Regular ingestion of clay (Azolimite Mineral Powder) because the clay particles remove pathogens from the body.(6) There are benefits of feeding sea salt to infants and babies.(7) Fruits and vegetables should be limited in children's diets.
                  Hide Replies (2)
                • Eugen S. over 2 years ago
                  Weston Price had recommended a vegetarian and dairy diet to his own family members as the healthiest diet. http://www.vegsource.com/news/2009/11/reflections-on-the-weston-a-price-foundation.html
                  Hide reply (1)
                  • Jmehninger over 2 years ago
                    Yes, I had pointed out already that he very much would have liked to be a vegetarian, but changed his mind after his travels and studies and retracted those recommendations.
                • Eugen S. over 2 years ago
                  " ... promoting "questionable dietary strategies" and Price's core assumptions as contrary to contemporary medical understanding." http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/holisticdent.html
                  Hide Replies (4)
                  • Jmehninger over 2 years ago
                    I wonder if Quackwatch went to the trouble of visiting peoples in Switzerland (main staples grassfed milk, butter and fermented bread), Native Americans, Polynesians, Pygmies, and others and took 15,000 photographs, 4,000 slides, and many filmstrips to support their position OR even bothered looking at the original research material...
                    Hide Replies (3)
                    • Eugen S. over 2 years ago
                      taking pictures of teeth vs autopsy and lab values and clinical records ... yes, tooth pictures trump it all
                      Hide Replies (2)
                      • reitsmad over 2 years ago
                        Sugar and poor oral hygiene rots your teeth.
                        Hide reply (1)
                        • Eugen S. over 2 years ago
                          fats also are powerful oxidizing agents and are the #1 cause of gingivitis and gingivitis is the #1 cause of tooth loss, not caries ;-)
          • Leahmarie64 over 2 years ago
            Dear Moderator. Can you please remove my "like" from this comment. It was meant for the previous comment. Thank you
          • reitsmad over 2 years ago
            Saturated fat is not harmful. One of several studies / reviews.http://m.ajcn.nutrition.org/content/early/2010/01/13/ajcn.2009.27725.abstract
            Hide reply (1)
            • nzouri over 2 years ago
              The study you are citing is sponsored by the National Dairy Council and by Unilever. This is industry sponsored advertising, not science.
        • Francois over 2 years ago
          Actually if you look at prehistoric poop, over 95% plant matter. Saturated and trans fasts cause insulin resistance which leads to diabetes, obesity, heart attacks and strokes as well as dementia, this has been proven multiple times. The las 20 years of saturated fat studies by industry were falsified to hide health issues. Here is how they did it: the old studies looked at cholesterol increase with the ingestion of animal/saturated fats. We all have a similar biology but different genetics. Thus we react in a similar way. This is why we were able to establish an equation that precisely predicted an increase in cholesterol in any individual based on the amount of fat consumed. The last 20 years of studies done by the industry changed the y axis from increase to absolute cholesterol because the variability due to our genetics would drown out the increase following consumption, the p value would be non significant. Using American values, individuals absolute cholesterol can easily vary between 25 and 225 prior to fat intake just due to genetics. When variability is already 200, an increase by 10 for everyone becomes statistical background noise. This is why the media is trying to say saturated fats aren't the problem, they protect their sponsors, meat and dairy.
          Hide Replies (7)
          • Francois over 2 years ago
            Look at these links: three links and you will understand: for the controversy here is the explanation: https://nutritionfacts.org/video/the-saturated-fat-studies-set-up-to-fail/ and disease process https://nutritionfacts.org/video/lipotoxicity-how-saturated-fat-raises-blood-sugar/
            Hide reply (1)
            • reitsmad over 2 years ago
              The nutritionfacts website is just vegan propaganda. No facts at all.
          • reitsmad over 2 years ago
            Hide Replies (3)
            • nzouri over 2 years ago
              The article you mentioned is a meta-analysis of other studies. A lot of the published studies are funded by special interest organization who have vested interests. I would look at who funded the research before believing just about anything published.
              Hide reply (1)
              • reitsmad over 2 years ago
                Regardless. There is no proof either way.
            • nzouri over 2 years ago
              Removed by moderator.
          • nickarrizza over 2 years ago
            I agree entirely! In fact Neal Barnard MD has published recent studies showing that intramyocellular lipids (i.e. fat that gets into cells) actually deactivate insulin receptors and lead to the insulin resistance seen in type 2 diabetes. In his studies, all published and peer reviewed, using a whole plant based diet he was able to completely reverse type 2 diabetes and get patients of their diabetic medications completely with a matter of a few weeks! These were people who had been on these medications sometimes for decades! Additionally, Caldwell Esselstyn MD and Dean Ornish MD, have shown again in peer reviewed published research, that coronary artery disease can not only be halted it can be completely, yes you read that correctly COMPLETELY Reversed on a low fat plant based diet. Studies also reveal that fat, one of the main contributors to obesity, generated estrogens in the body that sets individuals up for breast cancer. Need I go on? Whole plant based diet get my vote!
        • Eugen S. over 2 years ago
          our ancestors were plant eaters, 95%+ was plant matter, where would they get saturated fats from ? https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/human-ancestors-were-nearly-all-vegetarians/ Human Ancestors Were Nearly All Vegetarians
          Hide Replies (18)
          • Jmehninger over 2 years ago
            I suppose that's why there are cave paintings with hunting scenes. Sure, they hunted down some beast, just for fun, and then they left it for the hyenas, while they nibbled on some leaves to celebrate their success!? Get real...There is plenty of evidence that they tried to get as much meat as they could. Whether or not they succeeded very often is another questions altogether.http://www.marksdailyapple.com/what-did-our-ancient-ancestors-actually-eat/
            Hide Replies (13)
            • Eugen S. over 2 years ago
              Here is what real anthropologists have to say about Paleo Diets from the evidence they have (opposed to Paleo Diet bloggers beliefs) ---> Debunking the paleo diet | Christina Warinner | TEDx https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BMOjVYgYaG8
              Hide Replies (10)
            • Eugen S. over 2 years ago
              Ancient dietary practices based on analyzing the fiber content of fossilized human waste can give us insights for combatting the modern obesity epidemic.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ZEZYu_7zR4
            • nickarrizza over 2 years ago
              Well, much of the gathering was done by the women, children and the elderly. This was a much more reliable source of food and starches were the main staple, in spite of the cave paintings, as nice as they are. According to Nathaniel Dominy, PhD, the world-renowned anthropologist from Dartmouth College, , “A majority of calories for most hunter-gatherer societies came from plant-foods, not animal-foods, thus humans might be more appropriately described as starchivores.”
          • reitsmad over 2 years ago
            Hide Replies (3)
            • Eugen S. over 2 years ago
              Hide reply (1)
              • reitsmad over 2 years ago
                Old irrelevant information.
            • Eugen S. over 2 years ago
              ( https://f1000.com/prime/1947957 (1) The pooled relative risk estimates that compared extreme quantiles (lowest and highest 20%) of saturated fat intake. (2) negative finding in cohort studies may be related to imprecise assessment of dietary intake at baseline, changes in dietary habits during the follow-up and 'over-adjusting' for other dietary variables. (3) Jakobsen et al. showed a reduction in coronary heart disease risk when saturated fat (equal to 5% of energy intake) was replaced by a similar amount of polyunsaturated fat.
        • reitsmad over 2 years ago
          Hide Replies (6)
          • Eugen S. over 2 years ago
            Hide Replies (5)
            • reitsmad over 2 years ago
              Just because a vegan disagrees doesn't mean the study is invalid. As I pointed out there are several other studies that support saturated fat not contributing to CVD or all cause mortality. The AHA is also using studies from the '60's that have been invalidated. As well their comparison with stains in error as they took a percentage of the percentage increase in all all cause mortality so works out to something like 1500 people need to take a stain in order for one of them to live 3 months longer. In a word insignificant since the studies were flawed.
              Hide Replies (2)
              • nzouri over 2 years ago
                The study is invalid because is paid by the dairy industry.
                Hide reply (1)
                • reitsmad over 2 years ago
                  So other studies by anti-dairy must also be invalid if you are using that argument.
            • reitsmad over 2 years ago
              Debunked by a vegan that has a vested interest in not supporting saturated fat because they don't want to admit that they were wrong. There is no substantive evidence one way or the other that saturated fat is harmful or beneficial for CVD or any other disease.
              Hide reply (1)
              • nzouri over 2 years ago
                I don't consider myself a vegan but I don't have a problem being called a vegan. Vegans eat plants for health or for animal welfare. There is nothing wrong with that no matter how much you try to attach a negative connotation to the term. There is a mountain of evidence that saturated fat is extremely dangerous for people's health.
        • nickarrizza over 2 years ago
          Yes, the Inuit eat fat because that's all they have. If you look at their health statistics though you will see they suffer from heart disease, strokes, obesity, cancer and many of the chronic diseases of western civilization. Ancient civilizations and the longest lived, trimmest and healthiest peoples on the planet (in Okinawa Japan, Rural parts of China, Ecuador, South East Asia) all subsisted and thrived on largely starch based diets with little or no fats, animal proteins, oils, fish or refined carbohydrates. The largest epidemiological study on the planet, The China Study (among others) showed this. Dr Denis Burkitt, surgeon general in Uganda for 20 years from 1950-70 looked after 10 million people and never saw a case of obesity, heart disease, cancer, diabetes or many of the western chronic diseases in a population that survived on a starch based diet. In fact not only is this diet health promoting, studies have been shown that in addition to Vitamin B12 and sunshine daily one can essentially survive on starches alone (i.e. sweet potatoes, or potatoes).
          Hide Replies (2)
          • Jmehninger over 2 years ago
            Look a bit closer. Most of the traditional diets contained saturated animal fats. Whenever an animal was hunted or killed, the fat was rendered and used - nothing was thrown away. The Okinawans fried all their blue potatoes in lard and Chinese traditionally used goose fat for cooking. It's much easier to obtain animal fats than to manufacture vegetable oils. And really ancient cultures left behind a lot of cave paintings of hunts - not of vegetable gathering. No one is going to convince me that they didn't use all that meat and fat once they had succeeded.
            Hide reply (1)
            • nickarrizza over 2 years ago
              Dan Buttener, (the Blue Zones Project) actually looked at the Okinawan diet and his assessment, in this population of centenarians, was that the amount of animal protein and fat used was on the order of 5%. So, I am not sure where you are getting your information?
      • Jmehninger over 2 years ago
        Since you like studies so much, why don't we balance things out a bit with these two. One deals with the "seven countries study" and the "French paradox" while the other article discusses the virtues of grass-fed beef.Things are NOT as clear-cut as you make them out to be: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1768013/ and http://www.mercola.com/beef/cla.htm
      • reitsmad over 2 years ago
        They mention studies but don't reference them. This is more vegan propaganda. See..Results: During 5–23 y of follow-up of 347,747 subjects, 11,006 developed CHD or stroke. Intake of saturated fat was not associated with an increased risk of CHD, stroke, or CVD. The pooled relative risk estimates that compared extreme quantiles of saturated fat intake were 1.07 (95% CI: 0.96, 1.19; P = 0.22) for CHD, 0.81 (95% CI: 0.62, 1.05; P = 0.11) for stroke, and 1.00 (95% CI: 0.89, 1.11; P = 0.95) for CVD. Consideration of age, sex, and study quality did not change the results.Conclusions: A meta-analysis of prospective epidemiologic studies showed that there is no significant evidence for concluding that dietary saturated fat is associated with an increased risk of CHD or CVD. More data are needed to elucidate whether CVD risks are likely to be influenced by the specific nutrients used to replace saturated fat.http://m.ajcn.nutrition.org/content/early/2010/01/13/ajcn.2009.27725.abstract
        Hide Replies (4)
        • JulienB over 2 years ago
          Right, vegan propaganda. What was said of this study? The point nwas to highlight that the data is inconclusive, and there is evidence to indicate they suffered from CHD and stroke.
          Hide Replies (2)
          • Dale Williams over 2 years ago
            But not unduly to saturated fats
          • reitsmad over 2 years ago
            There is evidence to suggest they didn't as well.
        • nickarrizza over 2 years ago
          When you compare an apple to an apple they don't look much different, do they? It's only when you compare an apple to an orange that you recognize some major differences. All this to say that many of these industry manufactured studies often compare populations on high fat diets 50-70% calories) to their so called "low fat" diets (30-35% of daily calories) (which in my view are BOTH high fat diets. Its no surprise then when they conclude that "high saturated fat" is not associated with increased health risks! However if one were to truly look at a study where participants were given a LOW FAT diet (i.e. 10-15% daily calories in fats) such as the Seven Day Adventist Study-2 then you'll see that for, say men on this diet had a 55% lower risk of heart disease! I agree, there are so many studies out there and one truly needs to exercise discernment because there are forces that do not have the public's best interests at heart.
    • nickarrizza over 2 years ago
      Your concept of "healthy fats" has been indoctrinated by industries that obfuscate scientific results. These fats are responsible for heart disease, obesity, strokes, type 2 diabetes, cancer and more!An exhaustive review of why a vegan diet (based on a whole plant based diet consisting of starchy and non starchy vegetables, fruits, legumes, whole grains, limited amounts of nuts/seeds, Vitamin B12 supplementation), daily sunshine exposure, regular exercise, the elimination of all animal protein/fat sources, AND the elimination of ALL processed oils and refined foods is available in Jan Deckers 2016 review: Animal (De)liberation: Should the Consumption of Animal Products Be Banned? (Might a Vegan Diet Be Healthy, or Even Healthier?) available at: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK396513/
      Hide Replies (2)
      • reitsmad over 2 years ago
        More vegan propaganda.
        Hide reply (1)
        • nickarrizza over 2 years ago
          Yes, that sounds like a very erudite response, thank you for your wisdom.
    • nickarrizza over 2 years ago
      The only fats that we truly need are the essential fats alpha-linolenic acid (ALA) and Linoleic acid both available in adequate amounts from plant sources in balanced proportions. These help us to form the omega 3's and 6's in balanced and healthy proportions. All other fats (and this includes All processed oils) go straight into fat storage and contribute to type 2 diabetes, obesity, heart disease, strokes, cancers etc....
  • wrlindeman over 2 years ago
    You are surveying the converted. People dont have time to do these stupid surveys, especially the ones who cant afford the imported expensive foods you think are important all year round.Look at the number of people surveyed. What % of the population actually care or have the time????? Not very damd many. I would bet almost every responder is a govt employee with a guaranteed job and not much to do.
  • wrlindeman over 2 years ago
    I think sugar and artificial sweeteners are the worst. How do you legislate against something that tastes good. You dont. Education and peer condemnation work somewhat but as an example people still smoke and drink, no matter what you do. Sugar is just as addicting.
  • Rawther over 2 years ago
    I believe the wording should be changed to "Avoidance " in stead of "Limited Intake" of prepared foods such high in sodium, sugars, or saturated fat based on the research and personal experience.
  • LSC over 2 years ago
    The ability to buy fresh LOCAL produce must be a priority. The government should be subsidizing greenhouse facilities near urban centres. The government needs to address trade deals that make it difficult for local farmers to compete with imported produce that has travelled hundreds or thousands of miles from the source. People need to be educated about all the benefits of purchasing produce that is in season.
  • LSC over 2 years ago
    Access to safe clean water is a human right. Governments must enact strong environmental laws and laws against privatization of water resources. A campaign to educate people on the waste of water resources and environmental consequences of single serve disposable plastic water bottles should accompany a BAN of sales of water to private companies as well as a ban on single serve, disposable water bottles.
  • martina over 2 years ago
    I don't see any recommendations about proccesed animal foods like deli meats, grilled meats and all milks.( All have too much sugar added).
    Hide Replies (7)
    • Aladak over 2 years ago
      Processed meats are labelled as a class 1 carcinogen by the who and should be banned or there should be a tax on those items like cigarettes. Processed meats are bacon, cold cuts, sausage, etc. Same category as tobacco, asbestos, plutonium and tumour viruses
      Hide reply (1)
      • SayNoToPseudoScience over 2 years ago
        Removed by moderator.
    • Ageiser24 over 2 years ago
      Grilled meats have sugar? Are you referring to prepackaged meats (such as those from M&M) or the fact that we tend to add unnecessary sauces to our BBQ'd foodstuffs? Genuinely curious what you mean as I'm a bit confused.
      Hide Replies (2)
      • JulienB over 2 years ago
        Grilled meats can be bad due to PAHs. Not sure why Martina would say there was so much sugar.
      • Eugen S. over 2 years ago
        There are sugars in meat and one of them called Neu5-GC that was recently discovered has been shown to cause cancer and help existing cancer grow faster ( https://www.ucdmc.ucdavis.edu/publish/news/newsroom/11551 )
    • Filiatrault_t over 2 years ago
      Thought the same thing!
    • ElizabethTurn over 2 years ago
      I was shocked that processed meats were never mentioned, especially as they are as carcinogenic as smoking cigarettes.
  • canadianveggie over 2 years ago
    It should be more explicit that meat and dairy consumption should be limited.
    Hide Replies (3)
    • cbanman over 2 years ago
      Yes, meat and dairy need to be explicated stated on the limit/do to consume list instead of blanketed those products under saturated fats.
    • ElizabethTurn over 2 years ago
      I completely agree. They also need to be informing Canadians that processed meats should be avoided at all costs as they are carcinogenic.
      Hide reply (1)
  • Ellabellathefair1 over 2 years ago
    Limit sugars and processed food- do not agree with limiting whole food and natural saturated fats.
    Hide Replies (99)
    • JulienB over 2 years ago
      Why do you disagree about limiting natural saturated fat? What foods are we talking about?https://nutritionfacts.org/topics/saturated-fat/
      Hide Replies (47)
      • Jmehninger over 2 years ago
        The article you cite is simply spouting the current believe that saturated fats are bad. It's written by a volunteer named "Randy" (whoever that is) and just points to a bunch of links that contain advertisements. If you're going to post links, please make sure that they are at least from reputable sources or real scientific studies.
        Hide Replies (46)
        • JulienB over 2 years ago
          Nutritionfacts.org is a reputable site. If you follow the links in the article to the videos, those videos are done by Dr Greger and he posts transcripts and sources cited. His non profit organisation has a team of researchers who go through the medical litterature. https://nutritionfacts.org/about/
          Hide Replies (43)
          • ryanshaw over 2 years ago
            Removed by moderator.
          • reitsmad over 2 years ago
            C''mon. Dr. Michael Greger is a vegan with an extreme personal self serving bias. It would be next to impossible to for him to provide an objective opinion. As I said before, in order to protect animals or get people to stop eating them at least the vegan community has decided to attack saturated fat. Shades of Ancel Keys! Unfortunately one has to also attack coconut oil.
            Hide Replies (39)
            • JulienB over 2 years ago
              He's very good, his website is a non-profit. No ads, no corporate sponsorships, strictly non commercial. It's done as a public service, as a labor of love, as a tribute to his grandmother who extended her own life another 30 years after being confined to a wheelchair and given 6 months to live. His website is very informative, he has over a thousand videos covering thousands of health topics. To paint him as biased and extreme in one fell swoop is not fair.
              Hide Replies (34)
              • reitsmad over 2 years ago
                But does not support findings with recent research.
              • ryanshaw over 2 years ago
                "He's very good", he does it "as a labor of love", a "tribute to his grandmother", he has a lot of videos. Therefore, you conclude he couldn't be bias. I'm afraid you need peer reviewed research with sound methodologies such as quasi-experimental controls in place, the Vegan research Institute is (as the former name suggests) a vegan activist site at best.
                Hide Replies (32)
                • JulienB over 2 years ago
                  You question the research cited but provide no concrete examples for false equivalencies or misleading claims. Why do you use Vegan as a pejorative? And where does this "Vgena Research Institute" coming from? That's not the former name at all.
                  Hide Replies (31)
                  • ryanshaw over 2 years ago
                    Well 1) he claims the WHO says that chicken and turkey have “carcinogenic effects” (Source: https://nutritionfacts.org/video/how-much-cancer-does-lunch-meat-cause/_) it doesn’t! (Source http://www.who.int/features/qa/cancer-red-meat/en/) 2) He claims sucralose and aspartame isn’t safe for consumption, over 110 studies prove it is safe for consumption (Source: https://www.fda.gov/Food/IngredientsPackagingLabeling/FoodAdditivesIngredients/ucm397725.htm#Sucralose) and https://www.fda.gov/Food/IngredientsPackagingLabeling/FoodAdditivesIngredients/ucm397725.htm#Aspartame 3) He claims sucralose is “Harmful, based primarily on the role it may play as a migraine trigger.” (Source: https://nutritionfacts.org/video/a-harmless-artificial-sweetener/_ He deducts this from a general review of sweeteners that actually claims them to be healthy and a few single blind case studies where a trigger was also Ne-Yo of all things. You claim he’s non-profit but he set up a “charity” called Nutritionfacts.org is a 501(c)3 where the proceeds help Greger talk more about his claims, write more books, and make more videos, which in turn, makes more money for his own charity. I am sure his contribution to his own charity gives him a tax deduction as well.He’s not a vegan for health reasons but for ethical ones (source: http://www.madcowboy.com/02_MCIview06.002.html) which is fine but it’s clear the rubbish he’s spewing is non-sense.Here are some claims, “vegan blood cures cancer” hmmm actually there is no peer-reviewed research to back this at all, very careless. “Milk causes autiism (source : https://nutritionfacts.org/video/cows-milk-casomorphin-and-autism/ this goes with Peta’s claim as well https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/05/the-bad-science-behind-petas-claim-that-milk-might-cause-autism/371751/ yet no real science is available to back up that ridiculous claim either. You can believe what you want, but citing nutirionfacts.org as medical evidence is like citing https://www.bfro.net/ as a source to prove Bigfoot is real. Please use reputable sources, this is one database I often use, and no it's not made by Dairy Farmers of Canada. https://www.nlm.nih.gov/
                    Hide Replies (29)
                    • JulienB over 2 years ago
                      Removed by moderator.
                    • nzouri over 2 years ago
                      Here is a link to a study that concludes cow milk based formula could be a trigger for autism: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19576256
                      Hide reply (1)
                      • ryanshaw over 2 years ago
                        I’m actually glad you have a reputable source for once, but you need to learn the difference between an abstract vs a ‘study link’ which this is not. Only a few issues, this study (based off the abstract) is almost a decade old and may “possibly” support a hypothesis, I don’t think you know how hypothesis testing works, but you never accept the H1 you only fail to reject H0, and the sample sizes were not equal in the infants 1=37 and the other =53 so there was a detection of a possible “risk factor” in a small sample, but the results are not conclusive and the sample size is inefficient. Could you provide a link to the entire study? It’s asking me to purchase it and since you read the entire study could you share your copy or are you just cherry picking statements in abstracts? There is no association between milk and autism, unless you believe PETA, and spreading this kind of false information is dangerous. Please read http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/special-diets-do-not-work-for-autism/
                    • nzouri over 2 years ago
                      WHO says that red meat and processed meats have carcinogenic effect. Dr Greger refers to processed chicken and turkey meats and these cause cancer. Regardless of his opinion on animal rights, the health concerns he is expressing in his videos with regards to animal food consumption are making a lot of sense. As a medical doctor who does not conduct industry sponsored research he is a lot more trustworthy that someone who has financial interests in keeping the status quo.
                      Hide Replies (19)
                      • ryanshaw over 2 years ago
                        Removed by moderator.
                      • ryanshaw over 2 years ago
                        Chicken and turkey do not cause cancer, he doesn't conduct industry sponsor, research, but he does conduct research that sponsored by vegan/animals rights organizations. That's a conflict of interest in my mind.
                        Hide Replies (6)
                        • nzouri over 2 years ago
                          Actually most if not all of his cited studies are not sponsored by any animal rights organizations. His organization is funded by a reputable foundation called Jesse and Julie Rasch Foundation.As for chicken and turkey, here is an oposite opinion: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/fda-admitted-chicken-meat-contains-cancer-causing-arsenic-atalla and another: https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/diet/cooked-meats-fact-sheet
                          Hide Replies (5)
                          • ryanshaw over 2 years ago
                            I see you've posted links to support your claim but when I read them there is nothing in them to support what you're saying
                            Hide Replies (4)
                            • nzouri over 2 years ago
                              Removed by moderator.
                            • nickarrizza over 2 years ago
                              I see that you never post anything to support your position.
                              Hide Replies (2)
                              • ryanshaw over 2 years ago
                                There is plenty of peer-reviewed research that I have shared on this form.
                                Hide reply (1)
                                • Eugen S. over 2 years ago
                                  you posted one and the same study on dairy that was sponsored by all the dairy organizations possible throughout the world and links to blogs of pelo/keto gurus ...
                      • nickarrizza over 2 years ago
                        I agree, there is a mountain of industry sponsored research, as they have the money and can use this as their vehicle for advertising, that unfortunately a lot of us have been indoctrinated into unhealthy beliefs most of our lives and sets us up in conflict with any new information that might actually convey the truth. One must employ an open mind, discernment and a desire for truth and integrity in one's self and others in order to make it through this storm that, in my view is putting not only our health but that of the planet at risk.
                        Hide Replies (10)
                        • ryanshaw over 2 years ago
                          If it is not truthful point out the fallacies instead of assume and speculate.
                          Hide Replies (9)
                          • nickarrizza over 2 years ago
                            Here's a fact that you, with your omniscience can check out I'm sure: Since 1980 over 92% of published peer reviewed studies have come from the egg, meat and dairy industry. A clear conflict of interest!
                            Hide Replies (2)
                            • ryanshaw over 2 years ago
                              Here's an intersting fact 0% of respondents can not dispute the methodology, data collection, analysis, or the report in general. It's lazy to point to research sponsors as the means to ignore the results.
                              Hide reply (1)
                              • nickarrizza over 2 years ago
                                It has been documented (reading Marion Nestle's reports) that many of these industry funding contracts come with non disclosure agreements that bind/pressure researchers from producing objective results that suggest or prove that the products they are researching have side effects or are harmful. That is what you call objective "methodology and data collection"? Quite a stretch I'd say. On another note, I have reviewed many of your posts and you seem to consistently criticize research supporting whole plant based nutritional research and come out in favor of processed or animal industry research that presents lukewarm results. So tell me you are not biased and have a conflict of interest. As far as I'm concerned this erodes any credibility to the statements you make. Finally, I do not appreciate being slandered and called "lazy".
                          • nickarrizza over 2 years ago
                            Sugar Daddies of Nutrition Researchby John Swartzberg, M.D. | November 11, 2015 reviews the growing degree of industry sponsored research that is influencing food guidelines and should be heeded by any discerning individual who is interested in their nutritional health.
                            Hide Replies (5)
                            • ryanshaw over 2 years ago
                              Again why can't anyone discredit the actual research instead of making the assumption that it's faulty? What about the effects of this type of propaganda? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/progress-canadas-new-food-guide-will-favor-plant_us_5966eb4ce4b07b5e1d96ed5e
                              Hide Replies (4)
                              • nickarrizza over 2 years ago
                                (OK,last one). Great Article! Everyone should read it! Thanks for bringing it to our attention!
                                Hide reply (1)
                                • reitsmad over 2 years ago
                                  Why would anyone buy into propaganda without a scientific basis. As much as vegans want to demonize the dairy and meat industry because of their constant guilt tripping there is no scientific evidence to support their claims that dairy or meat does any harm whereas other studies suggest that meat and dairy can be protective.
                              • reitsmad over 2 years ago
                                Absolute propaganda without any scientific basis.
                                Hide reply (1)
                                • nickarrizza over 2 years ago
                                  Yes, I'm sure your sweeping (and biased) statements have tremendous credibility and radiate the essence of objectivity. BTW, I am not vegan.
                    • nickarrizza over 2 years ago
                      The grilling of any animal protein, and that includes chicken, turkey and fish, creates heterocyclic amines that are carcinogenic. This has been common knowledge for decades. Also, when added to processed oils the cancer risk essentially doubles.
                      Hide Replies (5)
                      • ryanshaw over 2 years ago
                        Not verified whatsoever, you need to cite peer reviewed material. Again evidence based decisions are best, not speculative ones.
                        Hide Replies (3)
                        • nickarrizza over 2 years ago
                          Is this evidenced based enough for something that has been verified for over 20 years?Nutr Cancer. 2013;65(8):1141-50. doi: 10.1080/01635581.2013.834945. Epub 2013 Oct 29.Red meat-derived heterocyclic amines increase risk of colon cancer: a population-based case-control study.Helmus DS1, Thompson CL, Zelenskiy S, Tucker TC, Li L.////Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2001 May;10(5):559-62.Dietary intake of heterocyclic amines, meat-derived mutagenic activity, and risk of colorectal adenomas.Sinha R1, Kulldorff M, Chow WH, Denobile J, Rothman N.////Cancer Res. 1999 Sep 1;59(17):4320-4.Well-done, grilled red meat increases the risk of colorectal adenomas.Sinha R1, Chow WH, Kulldorff M, Denobile J, Butler J, Garcia-Closas M, Weil R, Hoover RN, Rothman N.////Mutat Res. 2002 Sep 30;506-507:225-31.Meat intake and cooking techniques: associations with pancreatic cancer.Anderson KE1, Sinha R, Kulldorff M, Gross M, Lang NP, Barber C, Harnack L, DiMagno E, Bliss R, Kadlubar FF.////And there are dozens more!!! Maybe I should expect the same level of evidence from you.
                          Hide Replies (2)
                          • ryanshaw over 2 years ago
                            If you looked you would see.
                            Hide reply (1)
                            • nickarrizza over 2 years ago
                              I find these kinds of comments not only lacking in constructiveness but highly disrespectful. Such desperate measures only betray the weakness and tenuousness of one's position. I will no longer entertain any of your responses. Best wishes.
                      • reitsmad over 2 years ago
                        ....same goesfor grilling vegetables. Doubles? .0001 x 2? So how many times would one have to do this to get cancer? Same as the WHO saying meat is a type 1 carcinogen. While technically speaking that may be true, practically speaking one would have to consume far more than normal tondevelop enough risk to the even be noteworthy. This is just vegan radicals grasping at straws.
                  • Rhea over 2 years ago
                    Vegetarians, vegans, and fruitarians have been ridiculed for decades. Let's stop that.There is much wisdom in all the local diets that have sustained the human race over time. The only problematic diet seems to be the current state of affairs in North America.
            • nzouri over 2 years ago
              There are many others who support a plant based diet: Dr. John McDougall (https://www.drmcdougall.com/), Dr. Colin Campbell (http://nutritionstudies.org/), and a non profit group of over 12,000 US physicians called Physicians for Responsible Medicine (http://www.pcrm.org/). Plant based diet approach to cure diseases, including diabetes and heart diseases is covered by medicare in the US. Some Canadian hospitals are promoting a plant based diet as well.
            • nickarrizza over 2 years ago
              The greatest source of saturated fat in the western diet comes from animal flesh, fish, eggs, dairy and if you really want to go on consuming it, be my guest. Be aware, however it will not be for much longer because the environmental impacts of this type of diet, organic or not, grass fed or not, is coming to an end (I suggest John Robbins and A Diet for a New America). This diet is not only unsustainable for the planet, is also unsustainable health wise for those who consume it simply by natural selection.
            • nickarrizza over 2 years ago
              It would be nice if you too could provide an objective opinion based in facts rather than the informed emotional responses you have given so far. It would really be nice to get to the truth, so if you have some studies that need to be put on the table in support of your position I really would love to see them so that we can discuss them with reason and discernment. Thanks for your contribution so far.
            • SayNoToPseudoScience over 2 years ago
              Agreed. A bit of info about Dr. Greger... https://www.humanewatch.org/hsus_doc_exposed_as_schlock/
          • Ted over 2 years ago
            junk science, like most nutrition science claims areno doubt this will be removed for not respecting your right to spread misinformation, like you began friend the moderator did to some other poster
          • reitsmad over 2 years ago
            That website i vegan propaganda by a doctor that makes his living promoting veganism.
        • nzouri over 2 years ago
          The plant based diet has benefits well recognized. It is proven by the fact that some insurance companies in the US that offering insurance plans that include this type of approach to healing: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/06/30/medicare-dean-ornish-medi_n_630608.html Currently nutrition therapy is becoming more and more mainstream: https://www.medicare.gov/coverage/nutrition-therapy-services.html and https://healthplans.providence.org/fittogether/find-your-fit/healthy-eating/making-good-choices/ready-for-a-plant-based-diet/ and https://www.aarpmedicareplans.com/healthday/the-mainstreaming-of-vegan-diets. Lets not forget the most famous politician who became a convinced practitioner of a plant based diet after his own scare with CVD: Bill Clinton.
          Hide reply (1)
          • reitsmad over 2 years ago
            Removed by moderator.
    • Francois over 2 years ago
      Saturated and trans fats cause insulin resistance which leads to diabetes, obesity, heart attacks and strokes as well as dementia, this has been proven multiple times. The las 20 years of saturated fat studies by industry were falsified to hide health issues. Here is how they did it: the old studies looked at cholesterol increase with the ingestion of animal/saturated fats. We all have a similar biology but different genetics. Thus we react in a similar way. This is why we were able to establish an equation that precisely predicted an increase in cholesterol in any individual based on the amount of fat consumed. The last 20 years of studies done by the industry changed the y axis from increase to absolute cholesterol because the variability due to our genetics would drown out the increase following consumption, the p value would be non significant. Using American values, individuals absolute cholesterol can easily vary between 25 and 225 prior to fat intake just due to genetics. When variability is already 200, an increase by 10 for everyone becomes statistical background noise. This is why the media is trying to say saturated fats aren't the problem. All saturated fats are damaging no matter the source, this has benn proven in studies.
      Hide Replies (49)
      • SayNoToPseudoScience over 2 years ago
        Can you describe the process where fat is the cause to insulin resistance? AFAIK, it doesn't cause the body to secrete insulin. Eating simple carbohydrates will do this. Fairly confident that every diabetics know this and have confirmed this fact with their glucometers.
        Hide Replies (47)
        • Eugen S. over 2 years ago
          How about a word from a Diabetes Research Centre ? http://blog.joslin.org/2011/09/why-does-fat-increase-blood-glucose/ "meal containing 40 or more grams of fat, especially if the fat is saturated (found in animal meats, etc.), can make it harder to control blood glucose levels."
          Hide Replies (14)
          • SayNoToPseudoScience over 2 years ago
            The comments on that blog post seem to tell a completely different tale.
            Hide Replies (13)
            • Eugen S. over 2 years ago
              Removed by moderator.
            • Eugen S. over 2 years ago
              That is because you are only reading what you want to hear, there is a lot of people there talking about how fats and protein raise their sugar levels on a zero-carb diet "Greg says: October 20, 2015 at 4:21 pm You’re wrong. What is described in. The article is what is happening. Eat a zero carb high fat, moderate protein meal and this blood sugar spike around 6 hours later still happens. "
              Hide Replies (11)
              • SayNoToPseudoScience over 2 years ago
                First, I think that we're all guilty of "reading what we want to hear" (me included, I have a bias for a specific diet I will admit, more on that later). Second, this post is anecdotal, I will also admit. Simply put, what you say and the links you post, just doesn't reflect the reality of what's happening to me or in my circle today. I'm at "mind blown" levels. I know some people with T1D (some with kids with T1D), and fat is their friend, enabling them to normalize their glucose levels and insulin usage levels with minimal effort. The glucometer tells the tale. Their daily diaries shows this too. I used to be pre-T2D, but switching to LCHF (the diet I'm biased towards, which was being practiced in my circle at the time) has helped immensely in resolving this issue (amongst others). This was accomplished with minimal effort by simply eliminating grains and sugar, no calorie counting, every whole food being fair game - freakin' simple IMO. I could provide my labs (for which my GP keeps stating, "keep doing what you're doing") for the last 6 years, but that would be considered anecdotal at best. Unless labs are no longer what's used to determine if a specific diet is working?
                Hide Replies (10)
                • Eugen S. over 2 years ago
                  Low carb diets are band-aid solutions, high sugar levels in the blood are NOT the cause they are a symptom of the disease, diabetes is a metabolic disease caused by FAT over-accumulation in body tissue and later spillover into the blood where it blocks the pancreas from releasing insulin and blocks insulin receptors on cells from accepting the insulin molecules to uptake sugars from blood into muscle cells and liver cells to be stored as glycogen. Yes not eating sugars will lower your blood glucose levels will drop you blood sugar levels but your body will remain Insulin Resistant and even more so on high fat diets. These low-carb diets cause more disease and earlier death, just look up "low-carb diets mortality" there is plenty of studies on this and look up "diabetes lipotoxicity". Now, there is many studies and groups of people treating diabetes with low-fat high carb diets and unlike the low-carbers their life expectancy is longer and risks of other diseases is lower, for me it is not trivial on what diet the human body was designed to thrive on, but to each their own.
                  Hide Replies (6)
                  • reitsmad over 2 years ago
                    Saying obesity is the cause of T2D is putting the cart before the horse. Carbohydrates are converted to glucose and insukin increases in response. This does not happen when fat is metabolised but because the body is in energy storage because of high insulin any excess is stored as fat and is locked in as long as insulin is high. One only needs to look at glycemic load and index tables as well insulin index tables to see how carbohydrates far and away elevate these levels compared to protein and fat. Fat being the lowest. I also saw the youtube video about how fat caused a glucose response when fat was infused into the blood stream. Infused?! This does not happen when fat is metabolized so is irrelevant. Obviously they did not even have a rudimentart understanding of the endocrine system.
                    Hide Replies (2)
                  • reitsmad over 2 years ago
                    I also know people who have been on a low carb high fat moderate protein diet for more than five years that reversed pre diabetes, metabolic syndrome markers, improved cholesterol as well as maintaining weight losss. Not a band-aid. It's the way we used to eat. Intermittent fasting is also used. Because less calories are consumed it would also increase lifespan which is well accepted. Simply - eat less and live longer.
                    Hide Replies (2)
                    • SayNoToPseudoScience over 2 years ago
                      Agreed. Don't forget the autophagy aspect of fasting that is beneficial.
                    • Eugen S. over 2 years ago
                      "you" might know of some anecdotal evidence, but science does not show that
                • Eugen S. over 2 years ago
                  Low carb diets lower sugars in the diet = lower levels in blood levels, but that is a band-aid solution and sugar levels are NOT the cause, they are symptom. Low carb diets increase insulin resistance (even with lower blood sugar level) and this can be proven with insulin level monitors (insulin spikes but it does NOT work because cells are covered and disabled from working properly by FAT) ... and low carbers diet sooner with more complications ... it is science
                • Eugen S. over 2 years ago
                  and T1D is related to cow milk consumption
                  Hide reply (1)
                  • SayNoToPseudoScience over 2 years ago
                    Curious, do you have links, resources proving this point?
        • Eugen S. over 2 years ago
          How about the Diabetes Journal ? http://journal.diabetes.org/diabetesspectrum/00v13n3/pg132.htm "patients often report that when they eat large amounts of certain foods, such as pizza, meat, or fat, their blood glucose responses are elevated even if they keep their carbohydrate consistent."
          Hide Replies (13)
          • SayNoToPseudoScience over 2 years ago
            Followed by: "The reason remains a mystery, but this does mean that if patients have documented this response to certain foods...". There's also right above: "Thus, the carbohydrate content of the meal is the main determinant of the peak glucose response."
            Hide Replies (6)
            • Eugen S. over 2 years ago
              The mechanisms are described in this study. Free fatty acids and skeletal muscle insulin resistance.https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18460913
            • Eugen S. over 2 years ago
              And in this one, Mechanisms underlying skeletal muscle insulin resistance induced by fatty acids: importance of the mitochondrial function https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3312873/
            • Eugen S. over 2 years ago
              And in this one. Skeletal muscle lipid deposition and insulin resistance: effect of dietary fatty acids and exercise. http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/85/3/662.full
              Hide Replies (3)
              • SayNoToPseudoScience over 2 years ago
                They all seem to have the same keywords: "skeletal muscle"... to me, this points to "physiological insulin resistance" or "​adaptive glucose sparing". There seems to be two types of insulin sensitivity: physiological (normal and expected in a LCFH diet) and pathological (touches the liver and leads to T2D). Google returned quite a bit of results for "adaptive glucose sparing". One of the hits: https://www.headsuphealth.com/blog/self-tracking/blood-sugar-test/
              • reitsmad over 2 years ago
                What's your point about fatty acids? We don't eat fatty acids. They are converted and used as energy.
                Hide reply (1)
                • Eugen S. over 2 years ago
                  fat / oils = fatty acids
          • Dale Williams over 2 years ago
            Eating pizza is a low carb activity?
          • reitsmad over 2 years ago
            Insulin index is not the same as glycemic index. Might be a good idea for them to reference it as well and could help to explain it. Fat has a very low response.
            Hide reply (1)
            • Eugen S. over 2 years ago
              i don't know what insulenimic index you are looking at but FAT and MEAT are high on it ( causing more hunger and more fat storage
          • reitsmad over 2 years ago
            That's about as unscientific as it comes.
            Hide Replies (2)
            • Eugen S. over 2 years ago
              Ohhh really, there is numerous studies done on this ( https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4512604/ ) " ... meat intake, particularly red and processed meats, is associated with higher levels of insulin resistance in middle-aged women without type 2 diabetes .... Consequently, both a lower meat intake and lower levels of body fat appear important in reducing the likelihood of insulin resistance"
              Hide reply (1)
              • reitsmad over 2 years ago
                Associated? Nothing to do with cause.These are meaningless studies if all they can come up with is association.
        • Eugen S. over 2 years ago
          How about a study explaining the mechanics by which fats cause this ? https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC507380/ " ... results demonstrate that free fatty acids induce insulin resistance ... "
          Hide Replies (3)
          • SayNoToPseudoScience over 2 years ago
            I will need more time to dissect this, but the very first phrase of this study: "To examine the mechanism by which lipids cause insulin resistance in humans, skeletal muscle glycogen"... "skeletal muscle glycogen". This isn't the same as blood glucose insulin resistance. Two different processes at play if I'm not mistaken. Strangely enough, I was reading this article just a few days ago: http://ketopia.com/physiological-insulin-resistance/
            Hide reply (1)
            • Eugen S. over 2 years ago
              Removed by moderator.
          • reitsmad over 2 years ago
            Free fatty acids are what the body uses for energy.
        • Eugen S. over 2 years ago
          Here is more if you are still interested in reading more ... https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9416027 " fat intake does appear to contribute to insulin resistance "
          Hide Replies (6)
          • SayNoToPseudoScience over 2 years ago
            Same article, "Fat has little, if any, effect on blood glucose levels...". Which is it? Shame that the rest of the study can't be accessed without joining the site.
            Hide Replies (5)
            • Eugen S. over 2 years ago
              Removed by moderator.
            • nzouri over 2 years ago
              A high fat intake does appear to contribute to insulin resistance (from same study linked above). In my opinion a whole plant based diet is the one with optimal amount of fat.
              Hide Replies (3)
              • reitsmad over 2 years ago
                A high fat low carbohydrate diet has been proven to reduce insulin resistance. I don't disagree that a whole plant based diet would eliminate the processed carbohydrates and sugar, so long as it limits citrus and other high sugar fruit like bananas. Optimal fat is the amount that satiates.
                Hide Replies (2)
        • Eugen S. over 2 years ago
          Glycemic Index is an outdated way at looking at foods, there is a more complete index called the Insulenimic Index and all the low Glycemic foods cause Insulin spikes ( = more obesity, more insulin resistance, more hunger ) https://keycdn.drcarney.com/images/Insulin_index_of_foods_Size400.JPG
          Hide Replies (6)
          • reitsmad over 2 years ago
            Look where carbs are in relation to protein and fat. Carbs are significntly higher than protein and fat.
            Hide Replies (5)
            • reitsmad over 2 years ago
              Looks like someone photo shopped the one you are using Eugen and put in beef! https://intensivedietarymanagement.com/insulin-index/
              Hide Replies (4)
              • Eugen S. over 2 years ago
                no one photoshopped the picture ... it is all over the web and it is a screen shot from a study from American Journal of Clinical Nutrition ( https://www.pinterest.com/pin/313774299015273135/ )
                Hide Replies (3)
                • reitsmad over 2 years ago
                  So now we know where is was photo shopped from at worst more vegan propaganda and does not agree with any other sources.
                  Hide Replies (2)
                  • Eugen S. over 2 years ago
                    making up excuses ^^^
                    Hide reply (1)
                    • Rickcouture over 2 years ago
                      I think this is borderline trolling....
      • nickarrizza over 2 years ago
        Agree! Neal Barnard MD has shown that excess fat inside cells (intramyocellular lipids) from a diet high in fat (i.e. daily calories of >25-30% which many low carb'rs surprizingly consider "low fat diets") deactivate insulin receptors and lead to insulin resistance which is seen in type 2 diabetes. He was able to completely reverse type 2 diabetes in a matter of weeks and eliminate the need for diabetic medications in clients who had been on them for decades by employing a truly low fat (10-15% fat in daily calories) in a matter of WEEKS! Additionally the reason there has been so much confusion in the literature around saturated fat is, as suggested in the post above, the plethora of industry sponsored and self serving profit based "research/advertising" has compared high fat (>50-60% diets) against the typical Western diet (daily fat calories of >30-50% diets) which they call "low fat diets and come to the conclusion, which is no surprise that the two groups show no difference in cardiovascular disease. Well, that's because they are BOTH dangerous diets. Caldwell Esselstyn MD and Dean Ornish MD on truly low fat all plant based diet (daily calories of 10-15%) that excluded ALL processed oils were able to not only halt coronary artery disease but completely REVERSE IT! I would like to see a high saturated fat diet study that could do that, but it never will and we all know why!
    • brndn over 2 years ago
      I agree. There are many healthy foods, such as nuts and eggs, that contain some saturated fat.
  • Laurel over 2 years ago
    One of the biggest issues in our society. More research needs to be done on the effects of sugar addiction on health.
  • Melodieamber over 2 years ago
    Certainly limiting sugars is excellent. But what about limiting food additives like artificial colours. My kids school and the parents at it seem to think its their duty to feed blue cupcakes to every kid in the class once or twice a week. No amount of arguing seems to convince them it's not healthy for their own kids let alone should not be proposed to mine. And what about buying pesticide free if not organic foods when ever possible - especially foods that have high pesticide retention issues and where standard industry practice seems to be overuse of pesticides.
    Hide Replies (4)
    • homecook over 2 years ago
      1 - what is the evidence showing that artificial colouring is not healthy? 2 - what evidence do you have that there is high pesticide retention in your foods? Organic foods (from the grocery store) also may have had pesticides used in their production.
    • JulienB over 2 years ago
      While pesticides are a concern, they should never dissuade people from eating healthy foods, even if they aren't organic. Those who can afford organic foods and who are willing to buy them should because they have higher nutrient content and fewer pesticides.
    • Eugen S. over 2 years ago
      If anyone is truly concerned about pesticides they would stop eating animal foods since this 2011 joint study by USDA & FDA tested all foods sold in the USA and showed that Meat and Milk are the most contaminated foods with pesticides because of bioaccumulation. The Dirty Dozen—Contaminated Foods ( http://www.prevention.com/food/healthy-eating-tips/12-commonly-contaminated-foods ) " 1. Beef, Pork and Poultry The EPA reports that meat is contaminated with higher levels of pesticides than ANY plant food.
      Hide reply (1)
      • SayNoToPseudoScience over 2 years ago
        Why would this pesticide be in the animals? Probably because they were spraying nearby plants fields.
  • LaurieJane over 2 years ago
    A few years ago the World Health Organization classified processed meat as a carcinogen, something that causes cancer; and it has classified red meat as a probable carcinogen, something that probably causes cancer. Why is this not widely known by all the public?? These items should be LABELLED as such. I believe that if red meat and processed meat had the same labels as the labels on a pack of cigarettes people would have a much greater understanding of the serious issues with these products.
    Hide reply (1)
  • Michael Kelly over 2 years ago
    There is a lot of scientific evidence which show that the introduction of grains into the human diet over the last 10,000 yrs. correlates with declines in many aspects of human health. (Anthropological studies).In addition, there seems to be current evidence indicating that our ability to digest grain products creates various health quality risks.Please consider grains as a possible cause of and contributor to various health issues such as diabetes, acne, ulcerative colitis, and others. It is well documented that grain phytates (anti-nutrients) block the absorption of essential magnesium long term. The deficiency in magnesium is linked to high blood sugar, or erratic blood sugar levels, high blood pressure, higher risk of heart attack, muscle cramps,  migraines, osteoporosis, and constipation.  Therefore, you may wish to consider alternatives to grain products in the newly revised Canada food Guide.   "Undoctored" by William Davis, MD.Grains might be best listed on the low end of the food Guide for consumption with some caveats attached so that those using the guide can do their own research. 
    Hide Replies (3)
  • Catharine Francis over 2 years ago
    I would prefer that 100% pure fruit juice not be lumped in with the other beverages mentioned. I would prefer that a suggested daily maximum of 100% fruit juice be added instead.
    Hide reply (1)
    • Eugen S. over 2 years ago
      fruit juice that is deprived of fibre is NOT healthy, best fruit drinks are smoothies and better yet, eating fruits is healthiest still.
  • djbala over 2 years ago
    Intake of processed foods and beverages with sugars should be banned and manufacturers should be encouraged to make healthy drinks and processed foods with no sugar or saturated fat and all sugary drinks should not be manufactured.
    Hide reply (1)
    • reitsmad over 2 years ago
      I agree except saturated fat.
  • nickarrizza over 2 years ago
    In addition to a whole plant based diet many suggest the total elimination of ALL processed oils and the limited use of nuts and seeds. Below I report on two studies A) The PREDIMED study looking at the the Mediterranean diet and heart disease and B) Dr Caldwell Esselstyn's study on a whole plant based diet that eliminated all processed oils and nuts. The study links are:1) Mediterranean diet and cardiovascular health: Teachings of the PREDIMED study. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24829485///////////// And/////////////// 2)A way to reverse CAD? https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25198208////////////////In the PREDIMED study Participants were randomly assigned to 3 diet groups: 1) MeDiet supplemented with extra-virgin olive oil (EVOO); 2) MeDiet supplemented with nuts; and 3) control diet (advice on a low-fat diet). After 4.8 y, 288 major CVD events occurred in 7447 participants; ( a recurrent event rate of 3.8%)/////////In the Esselstyn study Of the 198 patients with CVD, 177 (89%) were adherent. Major cardiac events judged to be recurrent disease totaled one stroke in the adherent cardiovascular participants—(A recurrent event rate of .6%), significantly less than reported by other studies of plant-based nutrition therapy/////////////This strongly suggests that the elimination of all processed oils and extremely limited use of nuts and seeds improves coronary artery disease and possibly acts as a preventative factor in its development. This is why I would like to see the Canada Food Guide remove its promotion of unsaturated fats from the list of suggested "health foods".
    Hide Replies (6)
    • reitsmad over 2 years ago
      I agree with eliminating PUFA's. Not sure what all those farmers are going to do with their fields after that, but that's the way the ball bounces. Esselstyn can only say "no more oil" trying to blame the return of heart disease after WWII in Norway on butter. Sorry Esselstn, it was sugar. Let's eliminate sugar as well. Esselstyn also stopped the study early. You have to follow them for the rest of their lives to determine all cause mortality which is the real measure.
      Hide Replies (5)
      • nickarrizza over 2 years ago
        Well farmers could start growing non GMO organic starches and other vegetables if the govt would subsidize that instead of meat, dairy, eggs, poultry etc. As for Esselstyn he followed his patients for 12 years, 8 yrs longer than the PREDIMED study with an astoundingly low recurrence rate. I challenge you to present a similar study of patients who follow your prescribed diet, whatever that is that shows similar or better results.
        Hide reply (1)
        • reitsmad over 2 years ago
          Again, didn't prove that meat or dairy was the causes. Biased observations do not prove cause due to absence. Saying I only ate vegetables and didn't have another heart attack therefore it was mest and dairy that caused my first heart attack is not supported.
      • nickarrizza over 2 years ago
        Oh, on the topic of all cause mortality I refer you to the Seven Day Adventist Study-2 that showed vegetarians/vegans had the lowest all cause mortality of any population and the greatest longevity and best health measures. Again I challenge you to present a study with similar or better results on an animal based diet. I don't think you can because it doesn't exist. The most the food industry has been able to accomplish is "manufacture" data that obfuscates their weaknesses in an effort to cast doubt on the real benefits of a whole plant based diet.
        Hide Replies (2)
        • reitsmad over 2 years ago
          It's not a study, it's an observation with several variables that need to be studied. If it was a study then there would be a comtrol group amd other groups with different variables. Not eatimg meat is but one, so really doesn't prove cause. I doubt there will ever be such srudies because of cost and ethics.
          Hide reply (1)
          • nickarrizza over 2 years ago
            First off, you subtly avoided presenting your own study. It seems all you can do is criticize. That sounds like the position of a desperate man! Secondly, the study I quoted is a Cross Sectional "Study" that suggests the need to investigate further. Thirdly, you want a randomized control study, well here it is: Citation: Nutrition & Diabetes (2017) 7, e256; doi:10.1038/nutd.2017.3Published online 20 March 2017The BROAD study: A randomised controlled trial using a whole food plant-based diet in the community for obesity, ischaemic heart disease or diabetesOpenN Wright1, L Wilson2, M Smith3, B Duncan4 and P McHugh5 1Royal New Zealand College of General Practitioners, Gisborne, New Zealand 2Two Zesty Bananas Limited, Wellington, New Zealand 3BROAD Study, Gisborne, New Zealand 4Hauora Tairāwhiti, Gisborne, New Zealand 5Department Primary Health Care and General Practice, University of Otago, Wellington, New ZealandCorrespondence: Dr N Wright, Royal New Zealand College of General Practice, BROAD study, PO Box 2064, Gisborne 4040, New Zealand. E-mail: Nicholas.samuel.wright@gmail.comReceived 21 October 2016; Revised 20 December 2016; Accepted 27 December 2016Top of pageAbstractBackground/Objective: There is little randomised evidence using a whole food plant-based (WFPB) diet as intervention for elevated body mass index (BMI) or dyslipidaemia. We investigated the effectiveness of a community-based dietary programme. Primary end points: BMI and cholesterol at 6 months (subsequently extended).Subjects: Ages 35–70, from one general practice in Gisborne, New Zealand. Diagnosed with obesity or overweight and at least one of type 2 diabetes, ischaemic heart disease, hypertension or hypercholesterolaemia. Of 65 subjects randomised (control n=32, intervention n=33), 49 (75.4%) completed the study to 6 months. Twenty-three (70%) intervention participants were followed up at 12 months.Methods: All participants received normal care. Intervention participants attended facilitated meetings twice-weekly for 12 weeks, and followed a non-energy-restricted WFPB diet with vitamin B12 supplementation.Results: At 6 months, mean BMI reduction was greater with the WFPB diet compared with normal care (4.4 vs 0.4, difference: 3.9 kg m−2 (95% confidence interval (CI)±1), P<0.0001). Mean cholesterol reduction was greater with the WFPB diet, but the difference was not significant compared with normal care (0.71 vs 0.26, difference: 0.45 mmol l−1 (95% CI±0.54), P=0.1), unless dropouts were excluded (difference: 0.56 mmol l−1 (95% CI±0.54), P=0.05). Twelve-month mean reductions for the WFPB diet group were 4.2 (±0.8) kg m−2 BMI points and 0.55 (±0.54, P=0.05) mmol l−1 total cholesterol. No serious harms were reported.Conclusions: This programme led to significant improvements in BMI, cholesterol and other risk factors. To the best of our knowledge, this research has achieved greater weight loss at 6 and 12 months than any other trial that does not limit energy intake or mandate regular exercise.
  • moi over 2 years ago
    Could principle #2 also include:consume in moderation refined carbohydrates that lack fiber (such as white rice, white bread and pasta), andavoid trans fats that raise cholesterol
  • Brian Shaver over 2 years ago
    Please add: Exercise caution with specific regard to the consumption of foods known to contain the transgenic Bt toxin (examples Bt corn, and, more recently, potatoes) and of foods derived from livestock raised or finished on Bt containing feed(s). About five years ago, I believe, a study at Laval University demonstrated the persistence of Bt toxin in a study population of ordinary women of childbearing age, mothers, and their offspring. Although the implications are not yet clear, it must not be overlooked that the Bt bacteria, from which the transgenic Bt toxin is derived, is a close evolutionary relative of Anthrax, with the major difference between the two being mostly just in the plasmids. There is a responsibility to educate people about this, in my opinion.
  • nickarrizza over 2 years ago
    An exhaustive review of why a vegan diet (based on a whole plant based diet consisting of starchy and non starchy vegetables, fruits, legumes, whole grains, limited amounts of nuts/seeds, Vitamin B12 supplementation), daily sunshine exposure, regular exercise, the elimination of all animal protein/fat/dairy sources, AND the elimination of ALL processed oils and refined foods is available in Jan Deckers 2016 review: Animal (De)liberation: Should the Consumption of Animal Products Be Banned? (Might a Vegan Diet Be Healthy, or Even Healthier?) available at: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK396513/
    Hide Replies (8)
    • reitsmad over 2 years ago
      More vegan propaganda based on poor science.
      Hide Replies (7)
      • nickarrizza over 2 years ago
        Again thank you for your unemotional response, much appreciated!
      • nickarrizza over 2 years ago
        Again thank you for your "informed" emotional opinion.
        Hide Replies (5)
        • reitsmad over 2 years ago
          Not emotional. Considered the source and bias attached.
        • reitsmad over 2 years ago
          Watch this... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RprGtr_cHlY and read this The Vegetarian Myth: Food, Justice, and Sustainability by Lierre Keith. Veganism is a guaranteed way to poor health by eating less nutrient dense food.
          Hide Replies (3)
          • nickarrizza over 2 years ago
            I agree veganism can be detrimental to one's health but that is primarily because a vegan diet can consist of Coke, fired chips, fake soy foods based on soy isolates and refined carbs. This can and has been as toxic as the Standard American Diet. So there we are on the same page. Thank you for pointing this out to the audience. I am not advocating a "traditional" vegan diet based. New (actually old) information that has existed for at least 100 yrs in the scientific literature (see Walter Kempner, Roy Swank, Nathan Pritikin, John Mcdougall etc...) have shown that a whole plant based diet based on 80-90% starchy vegetables and whole grains, along with non starchy green and yellow vegetables, fruits, legumes, along with a daily Vitamin B 12 supplement, 20-30 minutes of daily sunshine, limited consumption of olives, avocados, nuts and seeds and the complete elimination of ALL processed oils ( along with of course the avoidance of excessive consumption of refined flours and carbs( can virtually eliminate many chronic diseases. This is what I am advocating. This is not only health promoting, sustainable for the environment but is our species specific diet as it is aligned with our human anatomy and physiology.
            Hide reply (1)
            • Jmehninger over 2 years ago
              I like to eat local and I like to know where my food comes from. Since we live in a country where most folks experience around 5-6 months of winter that means including at least some animal proteins and saturated fats.There is plenty of evidence that traditional diets that include saturated fats from pastured animals is just as healthy as vegan diets. Of course that means that you cannot just buy your food at the super market - you have to raise your own or work with small, local farmers that use sustainable practices.
          • nickarrizza over 2 years ago
            Additionally I watched your video on Dr Eades. BTW I too am an engineer and (retired physician) as is he.First off I would like to say that simply looking at this man he looks overweight and unhealthy but putting that aside here is an excerpt from Dr John Mcdougall and this Atkins Like diet:"The 1990s version of the high protein diet is carbohydrate-reduced, resulting in a calorie distribution of 40% carbohydrate, 30% fat, and 30% protein. This kind of program was pioneered by Barry Sears PhD author of "Enter the Zone." By limiting the amount of protein a person eats, and sticking to the 40/30/30 ratio, food intake is restricted to 1200 to 1700 calories per day. Weight loss is accomplished by semistarvation. Again, there are shot term (constipation and the pain of hunger) and long term unhealthy side effects. Other best-selling books like "Protein Power" by Michael Eades, MD and Mary Dan Eades, MD, and "Heathy for Life" by Richard Heller PhD and and Rachael Heller PhD have capitalized on restricting carbohydrates in order to sell to the desperate, always-dieting, public.Their popularity has finally caused a long over due backlash from the scientific community. The American College of Sports Medicine, The American Dietetic Association, the Women’s Sports Foundation, and the Cooper Institute for Aerobic Research have made their concerns known in a recently published brochure titled "Questioning 40/30/30."These authors recommending more protein claim a diet based on the 40/30/30 ratio burns calories more efficiently, resulting in achieving and maintaining a healthy weight. However, according to the experts, "Following the plans recommended in the popular high-protein diet books will result in weight loss only because they provide so few calories. Experts stress that the plans are too low in calories to provide the energy needed by most athletes or active people... An educated examination shows the premises of this diet to be misguided and the diet plan inadequate in some major nutrients, particularly carbohydrates." "
  • washlock over 2 years ago
    Sodium is bad for some people and not for others. It shouldn't be singled out in recommendations meant for all Canadians.
    Hide Replies (3)
  • cnote over 2 years ago
    Let's take a quick poll. Of all of you who have commented here, how many are going to eat differently when these new guidelines come into play? How many of you are just here to defend or promote things that you already believe? I am going to guess the answers are going to be 0% and 100%. If I did another survey later, I'd bet 0% of people will be 100% satisfied. That is because these guidelines will be based on a competing hoard of special interests and ultimately will be a political document based on compromise. All your references to double-blind studies, are meaningless to a government that wants to promote vegetable consumption as a means of water conservation. Listening to special interests is stupid. Even now, right here on this page, people are arguing about animals versus plants, while we all really know that sugar is the real enemy. Why not, for now, put aside those differences and fight sugar? A diet low in added sugar will lead people to eat more real food. But by all means continue to squabble about the lesser things.
    Hide reply (1)
    • Skyla over 2 years ago
      Depends on if what we're able to buy in stores changes as a result of these guidelines.
  • Susanjohnston over 2 years ago
    No mention of avoiding cholesterol?
    Hide Replies (2)
    • Bodybuilder and Chef over 2 years ago
      cholesterol is important to have in moderation for men's testosterone production.
    • Skyla over 2 years ago
      The belief that dietary cholesterol has much, if anything to do with blood cholesterol is pretty thoroughly debunked at this point.
  • Barry Yanaky over 2 years ago
    This should be a self evident truth. The average person in Canada consumes approximately 3,400 mg of sodium which is twice the amount recommended by the World Health Organization and more than 5 times the amount necessary for a healthy person. With respect to sugar, one can of soda may contain almost twice the amount of added sugar recommended by the World Health Organization. In spite of this [and pending the forthcoming proposed changes in our nutritional guidelines] there are no guidelines as to the recommended daily amount of sugar on our nutritional guidelines. The owner of one soda company suggests drinking 5 cans of regular soda a day too feel young as they proclaimed 6 year olds drink this amount. This is more than ridiculous and it is a good thing that the same person does not own a tobacco company and recommend smoking 6 packages of cigarettes a day. Eating healthy foods is a great idea but closing a blind eye to the whole spectrum of what we eat probably falls short of what the goals of Health Canada should be. In recent years, the rate of diabetes has doubled. With respect to the Aboriginal community the rate of diabetes is 3 to 5 times greater than the general population ane yet the cost of food can easily be double that of the general population. Something is wrong and something should be corrected and changing the information provided by our nutritional guidelines is a good start.
    Hide Replies (8)
    • JulienB over 2 years ago
      People are unaware of what consists a healthy diet, and how diet impacts their lives and the lives of those around them. It's tragic. I agree, there should be more action, more outreach.
    • Eugen S. over 2 years ago
      We also overeat FAT, overeat MEAT, overeat MILK, overeat EGGS (makes up ~50% of our food) and those are even more detrimental to health, obesity, diabetes, cancer, blood pressure, heart disease than sugars, but the focus is on SUGAR for some reason, instead of the real culprits.http://www.dailyinfographic.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/american-average-food-consumption.jpeg If sugars would be so bad, clearly vegans and frutarians would have all the diseases that sugar claims to be causing, but nothing if further from the truth.
      Hide Replies (5)
      • reitsmad over 2 years ago
        All vegans are healthy?
        Hide Replies (4)
        • nzouri over 2 years ago
          A lot more people who eat a plant based diet are healthy than any other group: lacto-vegetarians, lacto-ovo-vegetarians, omnivores. Here are some articles about the benefits of plant based diets: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/07315724.1998.10718786?src=recsys and http://europepmc.org/abstract/med/19562864
          Hide Replies (3)
          • rchavoshi over 2 years ago
            No, not all vegans are healthy, some are very malnourished because of lack of knowledge about nutrition or being brainwashed by companies that exploit naivety so that they purchase products that lack actual nutritional benefits. They do not always eat sustainable foods either. Many "vegan" foods are exported from developing nations in the world.
            Hide Replies (2)
            • nzouri over 2 years ago
              A lot more meat eaters are unhealthy and have a higher risk of coronary hearth diseases, cancer, diabetes and Alzheimer. I am not sure what vegan foods you are referring too when you say they are not sustainable: a whole food plant based is what I am talking about and this is as sustainable as it gets.
              Hide reply (1)
              • reitsmad over 2 years ago
                That may be, but perhaps not because of meat. You are making an associative statement. Might be the plants they eat along with the meat are killing them. i.e. McDonald's french fries. Plant based can still include meat. Unless you mean only plant based.
    • Skyla over 2 years ago
      Your math skills are sorely lacking if you think that 3,400 mg of sodium a day is 5x the amount needed. The lowest recommended amount is 1500mg, which is only 2.3 times less. Never mind that studies have shown serious health concerns with a low salt diet.http://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/1105553http://www.metabolismjournal.com/article/S0026-0495(10)00329-X/abstracthttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16431193https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/its-time-to-end-the-war-on-salt/
  • William Schill over 2 years ago
    This is the most critical principle as it is the underlying cause of all of our issues. Restrict all refined carbohydrates. If we are consuming carbohydrates, let them come from whole foods but reduce their consumption to about 5-10% of our diet rather than the 50-70% they comprise now. HYPERINSULINEMIA is the root cause of obesity and Type 2 diabetes. I think we also need to be cautious with people substituting artificial sweeteners and thinking they are the answer. Most will result in triggering an insulin response. It appears that erythritol might be the best natural sugar alcohol in that it doesn't seem to illicit an insulin response. So if people replace sugar laden beverages with artficially sweetened beverages they will be no better off and the evidence confirms they will not lose weight.
    Hide Replies (2)
    • JulienB over 2 years ago
      This is not an effective strategy whatsoever. There's nothing wrong with a high carb diet provided it comes from healthy whole foods. Diabetes can be caused by our cells inability use insulin, not hyperinsulinemia. In fact, this video will show a completely different theory blaming fat for causing diabetes type 2. https://youtu.be/Aw8hufhIDu0
      Hide reply (1)
      • Eugen S. over 2 years ago
        Removed by moderator.
  • coldwinterwind over 2 years ago
    The foods to avoid should be meat, eggs, dairy and honey. They are not as healthy for us as plant-based food, they are not sustainable from an environmental standpoint, and they are very unethical. These animals have their own lives and families and they are literally slaves for us. The conditions within factory farms in Canada are deplorable. Do the right thing and suggest to avoid consuming animal products. I agree with Health Canada suggesting to limit refined sugar and oil as well.
    Hide Replies (22)
    • Jmehninger over 2 years ago
      Guess what: There would be VERY FEW animals left, if we all followed your advice. Which means there would also be no compost for your veggie garden or for the one of your organic market gardener. There would be a lot fewer bees. Who do you think is currently pollinating all those fruits, nuts and veggies you eat in you vegan diet?Do you know the latest and best approach to build and improve topsoil? It's called "mob grazing" - look it up!You do not seem to understand the larger picture and how intricately everything is connected in nature. If the farmers no longer keep big grazers like cows, who will?By the way: I do NOT support factory farming. We raise our own animals that get to spend as much time outside as possible. If you want changes, then support local farmers that keep their animals on grass.
      Hide Replies (20)
      • coldwinterwind over 2 years ago
        Removed by moderator.
        Hide Replies (12)
        • Jmehninger over 2 years ago
          My cows are neither branded, dehorned nor separated from their offspring. If we milk, then we calf-share.Please educate yourself on alternative methods of farming before painting everyone keeping animals with the same brush. You seem to be basing your views on a few videos that focus on methods used in conventional factory farming. Not everyone "exploits" their farm animals. Yes, they are domesticated, but the benefits go both ways. My animals also receive shelter, protection and ample food, even when the natural supply is low and they'd be starving in the wild. Anyways, I agree with Kate Schieck, this discussion does not really belong into this forum.Suffice it to say: I know exactly where my food comes from and I have no trouble sleeping at night knowing that I provided the best possible care for my animals.
          Hide Replies (11)
          • Eugen S. over 2 years ago
            98% of the animals in North America are raised in Factory Farms in horrible conditions, the 2% do not make a large impact on the overall picture and they are still abused and used as property rather than sentient beings, they are kept pregnant most of their life and killed when are no longer optimally productive.
            Hide Replies (10)
            • ryanshaw over 2 years ago
              Care to quantify "factory farms" what does that consist of in Canada? Number of head, sales, land, infrastructure, or is it some buzz term?
              Hide Replies (8)
              • Eugen S. over 2 years ago
                you are a farmer, why don't you tell us, the point remains that no matter in what farm the animals are, they still suffer a great deal and live a miserable short life. https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/94/33/13/943313e0f11805e1cbc4cecacfc1ed10.jpg
                Hide Replies (7)
                • ryanshaw over 2 years ago
                  Yes I am a farmer, I don't know what a "factory farm" is, I hear about it all the time to help vilify farming as if it is some corrupt industry that leads to "short life" but the evidence isn't there to claim systemic abuse. Cows live happy and healthy lives, hence all the medical checks that take place. And sorry a vegan info-graphic with no sources is just propaganda.http://www.nfacc.ca/codes-of-practice/dairy-cattle/code
                  Hide Replies (6)
                  • Eugen S. over 2 years ago
                    If you need sources just ask, a cow's life expectancy is around 20 years, guess how long they live before they become "lame" in the dairy industry and get turned to cheap bugers (because their meat can't be sold for stakes) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dairy_cattle ... 3-4 years of being impregnated 90% of their short miserable life.
                    Hide Replies (4)
                    • ryanshaw over 2 years ago
                      See you're being subjective (miserable), a cows life is similar to what you would see in the wild, and with the veterinary care they receive it would be longer on a farm (fed, protected etc.) I know this because I've worked in the industry all my life, a quick google search with Wikipedia cited is far from accurate.
                      Hide Replies (3)
                      • Eugen S. over 2 years ago
                        in the wild cows are not slaughtered at 3-4 years of age, they live long happier lives, no one is there to exploit them and kill them prematurely, they are NOT forced into pregnancy, they are NOT forced to eat grains, their kids are not killed shortly after birth
                        Hide Replies (2)
                        • ryanshaw over 2 years ago
                          Please keep the dialogue respectful. Newborn cows are actually called calves not 'kids.' They are not forced to eat grain, farms have grain dispensers and the cow chooses when to eat. I should also mention they eat grass, silage and hay which makes up the majority of their diet. We also do not slaughter them at three or four yrs of age, we tend to find if they are alive they milk better. We also do not kill the calves shortly after birth, we find it's harder to grow and replace the herd if the calves are killed.
                          Hide reply (1)
                  • Eugen S. over 2 years ago
                    Removed by moderator.
            • nickarrizza over 2 years ago
              Keeping cows pregnant all year round also means that their estrogen levels are also elevated and this gets into the dairy products whether you like it or not. Excess estrogen is responsible for breast and other cancers and this is being given to children daily! Additionally cows milk is also responsible for stimulating IGF-1 a potent cancer promoter in humans. What''s more humans are the only species that drinks the milk of another species well into adulthood whereas all other species stop drinking milk once they are weaned. Clearly somewhere along the line we got indoctrinated into giving cows milk to children and becoming addicted to it through the addition of refined sugars. Recently, where I live a woman decided to bake cookies for her child to bring to school. Guess what time of milk she used? Breast Milk! So if that sounds disgusting, imagine how much more disgusting it might feel to know that many drink the milk of another species. You see many of us have been programmed into such habits against our inherent body wisdom. I wonder if we will wake up in time to save ourselves and the planet in time?
      • Eugen S. over 2 years ago
        Grazing does not work, it has been debunked, it is NOT economical, it is NOT ecological and it does NOT restore soil ... the studies showed that it does the OPPOSITE of what it claims it will do. http://www.slate.com/articles/life/food/2013/04/allan_savory_s_ted_talk_is_wrong_and_the_benefits_of_holistic_grazing_have.html
        Hide Replies (2)
      • ElizabethTurn over 2 years ago
        Have you heard of veganic farming? It is becoming increasingly popular and quite effective. The bees used for honey are not the same bees used to pollinate crops commercially, so avoiding honey won't change the availability of plant foods. There is also not nearly enough grass on Earth to support the number of "free-range grass-fed" animals we would need to feed the current human population the amount of meat they are currently eating from factory farms. It is simply impossible to sustain 7.5 billion people on grass fed animals. Plant based diets take 18x less land to maintain and are the only way we are going to be able to feed our growing human population.
        Hide Replies (3)
        • ryanshaw over 2 years ago
          Not enough grass on earth? Have any reputable sources for these claims?
        • Jmehninger over 2 years ago
          Veganic farming is basically forest agriculture minus the animals. I'll reserve judgement on how effective it is until there is more data. Well composted animal manure has shown to give an incredible boost to plant health, even though some Vegans disagree. I would like to see a study of crop yield and soil health using veganic principles versus organic ones.However, your statement: The bees used for honey are not the same bees used to pollinate crops commercially... is NOT TRUE.The vast majority of commercial crops are pollinated by apis mellifera and apis cerana. Yes, there are other pollinators, but unless you are talking an organic forest farm or a farm that includes lots of habitat for native pollinators, they actually have to truck honeybees in to pollinate (not a practice I am in agreement with, by the way). Other pollinators are simply to few in number to make much of a difference in a commercial, mono-culture setting. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_crop_plants_pollinated_by_bees)
          Hide reply (1)
          • nickarrizza over 2 years ago
            Although I could call myself a vegan as I don't eat animal products at all and I applaud your comments fortunately we don't actually need to reinvent the wheel. Simply by shifting land use from growing grains and other foods for livestock to growing it for people there will be enough to feed the entire planet and more. If we don't however, there won't even be enough to feed the livestock.
    • KateS over 2 years ago
      Coldwinterwind: I appreciate that you have an agenda, but I think the discussion is about processed and prepared foods, of which your final sentence references; and I agree with you on the recommendation to limit refined sugars.
  • reitsmad over 2 years ago
    I suggest we don't keep on eating like the ancient Egyptians who ate copious amounts of stone ground whole wheat and had CVD and other health problems. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RprGtr_cHlY
  • Olga Szczepanska over 2 years ago
    Agree
  • Gregor over 2 years ago
    I think you have to be careful with such strict recommendations. Sweeteners are far worse than natural sugar for our microbes and health. If we are cutting out 100% fruit juice, what should replace it? Water that has been processed by Coke then put into plastic bottles that leach chemicals is surely more dangerous to us than freshly made fruit juice? I would like to see recommendations about chemically treated foods, especially from other countries known to use high amounts of pesticides. I am not convinced these are adequately tested before entering Canada.
  • hortense over 2 years ago
    The ingredients mentioned, sodium, sugar, fat, are all addictive. Some fats are healthy and a little salt too. There is no need for sugar, one of the worst hazards to health. If extra sweetening is absolutely necessary stevia is an option. On a regular basis we can get all the sweet we need with no health deficits by eating the whole fresh fruit. For an occasional treat dried fruit is very sweet. You might be interested to note that when we take a sensible iodine supplement (most people are iodine deficient) the craving for salt is hugely diminished. It is the iodine in the salt we are after. Drinking water rather than processed drinks is advised. We must ensure that people on the go have access to municipal tap water. Municipalities must be encouraged to commence distributing tap water in reusable bottles and to provide easy access to municipal water in public to refill personal water bottles.
  • Elizabeth over 2 years ago
    Processed or prepared foods and beverages high in sodium, sugars, or saturated fat undermine healthy eating. Simple carbohydrates are dangerous. They're more refined than complex carbohydrates and are generally found in foods with fewer nutrients. They are less satisfying, highly addictive, and consequently, more fattening than whole foods. Simple carbs can be difficult to digest, contribute to deposits of belly fat, and create health problems. Here are examples of some simple carbohydrates to eliminate:• Fruit juice• All Baked Goods made with white flour or “wheat” flour• Bread made with white flour or “wheat” flour• Pasta made with white flour “wheat” flour• Cake, Cookies, Doughnuts, and Deserts made with sugar and white flour.• Most packaged cereals• Table sugar• Corn syrup• Candy• Soda pop• White rice• Crackers• Store-bought French Fries• Chips
    Hide Replies (17)
    • Eugen S. over 2 years ago
      If that were true than the populations that ate the most carbs would be the fattest and most disease ridden, but that is simply not true, it is not the sugar, it is the fat and oils.http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/entry/japan-healthiest-people-in-the-world-carbs-high-grain-diet_us_56f08cc4e4b084c6722139ca - Okinawa Japan - Sardinia Italy - Ikara Greece - Nycoia Costa Rica - Central Africa - Rural China - Tarahumara Indians - Papua Highlanders they all have extremely high carbohydrate consumption compared to fat and protein (opposite of what the west eats) and they have the least Diabetes, Obesity, Heart Disease and Cancers.
      Hide Replies (16)
      • Jmehninger over 2 years ago
        And the article goes on to say that Japanese people tend to eat lots of seafood, which is rich in healthy omega-3 fatty acids, and they don’t eat as many processed foods, plus that they walk much more than the average Americans. Finally it says:"I think the best takeaway for Americans, when looking at the Japanese, is that if we restrict our intake of refined sugar, industrial seed oils, and increase [our] intake of marine omega-3s, then we might be able to tolerate eating more rice,” he said. “We can learn a lot about how to be healthy from the Japanese, and it really comes down to 'eat real food' and 'exercise.'"Note also that the French and some other countries have high intakes of saturated fats, but low incidence of heart disease. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1768013/
        Hide Replies (12)
        • Eugen S. over 2 years ago
          The healthiest and longest living Japanese are in Okinawa https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Okinawa_diet and they compared to the rest of the Japanese consumed significantly less fish (15g vs. 62g), significantly less meat and poultry (3g vs. 11g), less eggs (1g vs. 7g), less dairy (<1g vs. 8g), much more sweet potatoes (849g vs. 66g)
          Hide Replies (10)
          • Jmehninger over 2 years ago
            I am so very glad that you brought up Okinawa!!Why don't we read a bit further in the same article that you quoted:...the proportion of energy from proteins and FATS were significantly higher in Okinawa than in Akita. Conversely, intakes of carbohydrates and salt were lower in Okinawa than in Akita.[5]The quantity of pork consumption per person a year in Okinawa is larger than that of the Japanese national average. For example, the quantity of pork consumption per person a year in Okinawa in 1979 was 7.9 kg (17 lb) which exceeded by about 50% that of the Japanese national average.[6] However, pork is primarily only eaten at monthly festivals and the daily diet is almost entirely plant based... And in a linked article on Okinawan cuisine, we find this statement: An Okinawan saying states that Okinawan cuisine "begins with pig and ends with pig" and "every part of a pig can be eaten except its hooves and its oink."[2]***** Yes, a lot of the diet is plant based - but just what do you suppose they use for frying their veggies in? I'll bet you anything it is LARD!! You don't go slaughtering a pig and then not using a large part of it, which in case of a pig happens to be lard. Check out the picture here (about Aguu Pork): http://www.jpn-okinawa.com/en/products/pork/
            Hide Replies (2)
            • Eugen S. over 2 years ago
              Okinawans have declined in health since the 1950s when they appropriated American culture and cuisine, and they lost their #1 spot for longevity ... it is Loma Linda now (7th day Adventists).Look at the stats from 1950 (and before that) they ate very little meat, just because they eat pork and KFC and McDonalds now it does NOT mean they are healthy, the stats show the opposite, since they started eating more pork and meat and eggs their death rates increased too.
              Hide reply (1)
              • nickarrizza over 2 years ago
                Exactly! Thank you!
          • ryanshaw over 2 years ago
            Eugene is trying to make a casual inference that less animal products = longevity, there is absolutely to medical evidence to support this causation. Factors such as exercise, stress, gender, genetics all have significant roles to play.
            Hide Replies (5)
            • Eugen S. over 2 years ago
              Hide Replies (4)
              • Jmehninger over 2 years ago
                Modern American diet, yes, where healthy and natural saturated fats (like lard) have been replaced by vegetable oils, trans fats and sugar - there has never been more "low-fat" and "zero-fat" crap on the market than today and you're right - the population as a whole is getting sicker!I eat natural saturated fats by the ton and my cholesterol and health are just fine, thank You very much! And I don't care how you try to spin it, but traditional Okinawan diet had a healthy amount of saturated fats, because no part of the animal was wasted and if you butcher a fat pig, you'll end up with lots of crocks of lard, long after the meat is gone! So that's what they used to fry their veggies.
                Hide Replies (2)
                • Eugen S. over 2 years ago
                  .... 25-35% fat is NOT low fat !!! http://livehealthy.chron.com/average-american-diet-calorie-intake-2960.html no matter how you spin it, Okinawas in the 70s-80s-now stated increasing their animal foods consumption, but I am walking about the TRADITIONAL (pre war diet) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Okinawa_diet
                  Hide reply (1)
                  • Jmehninger over 2 years ago
                    They are not increasing their animal consumption, they are increasing their junk food consumption. No one is going to argue with you that MacDonald's burgers are not healthy for anyone. The article you keep throwing at me says very clearly that the traditional diet included pork, which was highly valued, although only eaten rarely. It also says that no part of the animal was wasted. The point here, which you keep ignoring, is that if you kill a pig, even if it's only once or twice a year for a festival, that pig will keep you in lard for months. And rendering pig fat is easy - unlike vegetable oil production. Please just think this through - they are sitting on all this lard, what do you suppose those blue potatoes got fried in? You don't need some study to figure this out. The difference was that those pigs were probably kept on pasture and being fed a healthy diet - unlike most of the commercial pork that people consume these days. Anyways, I feel as though we're going around in circles. I'm obviously not going to convince you (or any other dedicated Vegan), you're likewise not going to convince me (or anyone else adhering to either the Paleo or Weston Price diet), so I'm outta here. I got animals to look after...
              • reitsmad over 2 years ago
                Right increased sugar and rapidly digestible carbohydrates along with poly unsaturated fats.
          • nickarrizza over 2 years ago
            Exactly! Thank you!
        • nickarrizza over 2 years ago
          Actually the percentage of their diet that consists of seafood is actually small. The fish industry has overblown this to serve their own agenda.
      • ariannedickson over 2 years ago
        yes i agree fats should be limited but these countries are mostly eating real, whole food carbohydrates, completely different than here in the west.
        Hide Replies (2)
        • Jmehninger over 2 years ago
          Apparently you don't limit your fat all that much if you belong to the longest living people in Okinawa! See above...
        • reitsmad over 2 years ago
          Rapidly digestible carbohydrates and sugar should be limited. No problem with healthy fats as doing both reduces triglycerides and increase HDL.
  • cnote over 2 years ago
    Who really thinks this is a good idea? Amid all the disagreement on these pages you won't find anyone arguing that Dunkeroos or potato chips and Coca-cola are good options from any perspective. Yet the same government that is proposing to create new guidelines for our diets is the same one that is in charge of regulation of the ongoing sale of sugar waters like soda or skim milk. They might like to say eat grassfed beef, but they are the ones who regulate hormone injection. They can't very well tell you that you should eat local and enact laws that make it cheaper to get potatoes from Idaho than it is to get them from a local farm. The fox is guarding the hen house. The best thing government can do is stay the hell out of it.
    Hide Replies (15)
    • royale over 2 years ago
      i am inclined to agree with you. instead of focusing so much on targeting people's knowledge about nutrition in order to influence change, why not just focus on behaviour and the food environment. if you make nutritious food cheaper, people will change their behaviour. for the most part, i think people know that vegetables are good for them, but if other options are more accessible, they're going to go for them instead, and for many people, this means reaching for the potato chips or other processed items.
      Hide Replies (12)
      • Eugen S. over 2 years ago
        The government really does not even need to make the new guidelines, all they have to do is remove the subsides that the animal industry gets and the bailouts they get all the time and make people pay the real price of meat, milk and eggs and people will vote with their dollar and buy healthier foods be default because plants cost a whole lot less to produce. Taxpayers oblivious to the cost of farm subsidies https://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/taxpayers-oblivious-to-the-cost-of-farm-subsidies/article13055078/
        Hide Replies (11)
        • ryanshaw over 2 years ago
          So you're advocating to rid of supply management? Dairy farms don't receive cash subsidies if you read the article, it's supply management that they base their figures from ( for dairy and poultry), that doesn't mean taxpayers are subsidizing dairy but there is a system in place to ensure hard working family farms receive a fair price. The Americans have a comparative advantage because of climate, actual billions in subsidies, and rbGh which isn't allowed in Canada. Keeping supply management not only ensures quality dairy (bovine growth hormone free) but ensures a fair and stable price on the store selves (unless you believe Maxime Bernier). It's a system of supply meeting demand.
          Hide Replies (9)
          • Eugen S. over 2 years ago
            Animal Factory Farms get about 50% of their operational cost covered by the subsides (cheaper fuel, cheaper water, cheaper electricity, cashbacks on farm equipment, bailouts ... ALL from tax dollars) Why Canadian Dairy Won a Massive Subsidy Despite Falling Demand. http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/yan-roberts/canadian-dairy-tpp_b_8253432.html if they are going to do that, why not give it to all farmers, why only the animal industry? Now with the new guide lines maybe the shift will occur and it already is happening (without the government) that people are moving away from milk and meat because they are realizing the detrimental impact on health and environments.
            Hide Replies (6)
            • ryanshaw over 2 years ago
              Milk does not have a "detrimental impact on health" there are many nutrients and in many peer-reviewed studies they have shown a positive impact on health. Farmers are also putting a lot of systems in place to make their operations more environmentally friendly. What do you say is number one cause of global warming? Lots of studies put forth by "animal rights" groups and Netflix docs, ignore crucial efficiencies in their statistics to skew the results, one being carbon dioxide. http://blog.ucsusa.org/doug-boucher/cowspiracy-movie-reviewhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5122229/
              Hide reply (1)
            • Jmehninger over 2 years ago
              Eugen S.: Perhaps you should be more concerned with giving Canadian farmers the means to keep their cows as humanely as possible and to prevent American dairy imports that truly come from huge factory farms. Canadian operations milk on average only about 77 cows (with the notable exception of CCS dairy that milks around 3,500 and is way too big for my taste) and the use of bovine growth hormone is forbidden.By contrast, there are some true mega-dairies in the United States, with 30,000 heads of cattle or more, which is awful. Which milk do you think the masses are going to buy? Most people don't know any of what is being discussed here - they'll just buy the cheapest milk, right out of the USA probably laced with BGH and antibiotics and who knows what else, if we allow those type of trade deals to go ahead.
              Hide Replies (3)
              • Eugen S. over 2 years ago
                Dairy is as inhumane as it gets, there is NO such thing as humane milk, because it involves imprisoning animals, constantly and artificially keeping them pregnant (otherwise they don't make milk), stealing the babies from moms in the first few hours/days and killing all the baby male cows (because they do not produce milk they are useless to the industry). There is nothing good in the milk industry, 75% of adults are intolerant to milk, you can't give cow milk to infants because it causes anemia from micro-haemorrhages in the intestine, it is the #1 allergy in kids, it is a very resources intensive product (grain, water, antibiotics, electricity, fuel ... etc) Milk drinking is archaic practice and should be abolished. People are waking up and ditching dairy in droves. http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/twyla-francois/canadians-dairy-industry_b_6280934.html
                Hide Replies (2)
                • reitsmad over 2 years ago
                  So please stop drinking milk if that's what you prefer. It's only your opinion and not science.
                • nickarrizza over 2 years ago
                  Absolutely Agree! Thank you for your comments!
          • Jmehninger over 2 years ago
            I used to think that we should get rid of supply management, but I recently talked to the son of a dairy farmer from Germany, where they did exactly that and for most of the dairy farms it's not been good at all. Definitely not a decision that can be taken lightly. What I would like to see are ways so that small farmers can also compete. Not everyone has quota for 150 cows and the money to install robotic milkers, but it seems that's the way it's going if you want stay in business. As far as "factory farms" (I think you were asking in another post) - I think that definitely starts to apply when you have some of these places in the States where they milk thousands of cows that never see the light of day and the cull rate starts going through the roof.
            Hide reply (1)
            • ryanshaw over 2 years ago
              Oh I agree, just activists use the term "factory farms" instead of farms, or "family farms" to help perpetrate that dairy is "big and evil" when in reality there are a lot of small scale family farms that love and care for their animals at every cost. This is why you never see a farmer take a day off, its all about the love and care of our animals. I think supply-management is important so that every producer can adjust their operation to suite the quota requirements, this helps with budgeting and overhead and the consensus is it has worked well for farmers, consumers, and retailers alike.
        • nickarrizza over 2 years ago
          Absolutely! Removal of subsidies will cause the price of a burger shoot upwards of $40-50! Wouldn't that be a wonderful level playing field! I and others believe that we are on the cusp of a food revolution where, like in the 50"s doctors were literally prescribing cigarettes to their patients and were forced by scientific evidence into the dangerous of smoking to awaken (although many people still haven't heard even that message) to the truth, we are now beginning to awaken to the new (old) truth that must push aside much of the childhood programming that animal flesh of any kind, dairy, eggs, and processed oils are toxic to human beings and must be eliminated once and for all.
    • SayNoToPseudoScience over 2 years ago
      Agreed. I hope they use also use real science this time around. Maybe isolate commonalities between diets that seem to be producing great results (optimal weight management, optimal lab results, etc) and start from there.
    • nickarrizza over 2 years ago
      I like your comment because in a way this very process, where we meet and hash out what we, the people, want may only be subverted by the very governments who are in the pockets of the meat, dairy, fish and processed oils industries. I hope that by "inviting" us to debate this very important issue we are not simply being used to give to consent to an agenda that already exists and that has industry written all over it. My experience dealing with policy matters often has this clandestine side to it, giving the participants the false illusion that what we say here really matters. On similar note we can all vote with the daily food choices we make each and every day. That, along with our ability to discern the truth in ourselves and others may be the only real power, and what power it is, we have.
  • reitsmad over 2 years ago
    Dr. Gary Fettke has a simple message - Sugar Makes You Hungry, Carbohydrates Make you Sick (and are not a required nutrient) and Polyunsaturated Fats Make You Inflamed and Sick.
    Hide reply (1)
    • nickarrizza over 2 years ago
      All ancient civilizations with the trimmest, most youthful looking, and healthiest peoples (potatoes in Peru, Rice in Japan, China, Korea, Thailand, Indonesia and Philippines, corn in Mexico, sweet potatoes in central Papua New Guinea) have subsisted on a high starch based diet, or unrefined plant based carbohydrates, (total calories from starch averaging 80-95%) throughout the centuries. These same populations have extremely low rates of diabetes, arthritis, gallbladder disease, constipation, indigestion, multiple sclerosis, heart disease and cancers of the breast, prostate and colon) Starch, is a necessary staple of the human diet, promotes satiety, does not turn to fat (except at a very high- -30%- - energy cost) helps one attain their ideal weight easily and effortlessly and also helps one to radiate vitality. Compare that to individuals eating the typical western diet high in animal meats, dairy, eggs, processed oils, refined sugars and what do you get? obesity, heart disease, strokes, prostate, colon and breast cancer to name a few, type 1 & 2 diabetes, multiple sclerosis, inflammatory bowel disease and I could go on and on. Neal Barnard MD, John Mcdougall MD, Michael Greger MD, Michael Klaper MD, Dean Ornish MD, Caldwell Esselstyn MD, Joel Fuhrman MD, T. Colin Campbell PhD and John Robbins, all proponents of a whole plant based diet are leaders and respected pioneers with peer reviewed published research behind them, in the field of truly healthy nutrition and we should listen to their message. The health of Canadians, our healthcare system and the planet itself depend on it.
  • Regan over 2 years ago
    STOP implying Saturated Fat is bad.There is simply no legitimate scientific evidence to support this. Read Good Calories, Bad Calories by Gary Taubes. It is an unbiased breakdown of all major scientific nutrition study in the last 100 years. Educate yourself. Learn what good science is. You are worth it.
    Hide Replies (16)
  • Ron over 2 years ago
    These guiding principles are good in general but the recommendations are based on bad information fed to us over the last 50 years from big business, government lobbyists, and governments. We all know about essential nutrients, but have you ever heard of an essential carbohydrate? Heavily laden carbohydrates such as Fruits, less berries, grains of any kind and starches are the problem. See Guiding Principle 3 for an explanation and a way out of this total disaster we are in. KETOGENIC WAY OF EATING is the path to consider.
    Hide Replies (5)
    • JulienB over 2 years ago
      I'm afraid this poster is generalising and pushing for an unproven diet. Incorrectly stating that all fruit but berries are bad, and stating all grains are bad. There's no such proof.Dr Michael Greger says "On a high fat, ketogenic diet, our bodies become insulin resistant. Learn more here: (link: http://bit.ly/2eVNHSv) bit.ly/2eVNHSv "
    • Eugen S. over 2 years ago
      Ketogenic diets might help you lose weight in short term but with the expense of your health (more metabolic disease, more cancer, more diabetes and heart conditions) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2989112/ "A low-carbohydrate diet based on animal sources was associated with higher all-cause mortality in both men and women, whereas a vegetable-based low-carbohydrate diet was associated with lower all-cause and cardiovascular disease mortality rates."
      Hide Replies (3)
      • reitsmad over 2 years ago
        There is no causal data from those studies. A lot of money spent on cohort studies for nothing.
        Hide Replies (2)
  • lkgadd over 2 years ago
    From extensive reading, and personal experience, I have learned that it is essential to AVOID all grains, all high glycemic foods, all sugars and/or foods that convert easily to sugars; and to limit all other carbs to about 25 - 30 gm/day. Proteins should also be limited to about 40 gm/day. Both of these measures of course will vary depending on activity levels, and body sizes. Healthy oils should be increased dramatically such that they are a much larger portion of our fuel than we have been led to believe over the last few decades. Organic and non-GMO are also best. And no cheating - ever! If more info is required, please read "Fat for Fuel" by Dr. Mercola - an American GP with a strong interest, and researched background in fitness, health, and nutrition. Bon Appatite!!!!
    Hide Replies (12)
    • JulienB over 2 years ago
      While I agree that refined carbs are bad, I believe your research doesn't match the scientific concensus. The healthiest plant-based diets can have a large majority of calories in carbohydrate form. You can opt for low glycemic foods without limiting carbohydrates. Oils have a very low nutrient to calorie ratio, are easily absorbed and turned into adipose tissue, and are therefore not recommended in large quantities. Dr Mercola interviewed Dr Greger, someone you shod perhaps be more familiar with, why don't you watch that?
      Hide Replies (5)
      • Eugen S. over 2 years ago
        Healthiest and longest living populations on earth get most of their calories from carbs:- Okinawa Japan- Ikara Greece- Sardinia Italy- Nicoya Costa Rica- Central Africa- Rural China- Tarahumara Indians- Papua Highlandershttp://www.huffingtonpost.ca/entry/japan-healthiest-people-in-the-world-carbs-high-grain-diet_us_56f08cc4e4b084c6722139ca
        Hide Replies (4)
        • Jmehninger over 2 years ago
          As mentioned above, people in Okinawa love pork. An Okinawan saying states that Okinawan cuisine "begins with pig and ends with pig" and "every part of a pig can be eaten except its hooves and its oink."[2]Here's some more info about Okinawan Aguu pork: http://www.jpn-okinawa.com/en/products/pork/* Chinese traditionally fry their veggies in goose fat, not vegetable oil.* Sardinians' diet is particularly rich in proteins derived from milk and cheese, while low on sugary food and meat. Many of them eat meat only once or twice a week. The dishes are usually a small piece of lamb, lean pork, oily fish or shellfish accompanied by a lot of vegetables.A glass of wine is considered indispensable in Sardinian culture, along with a chunk of sheep's cheese or goat's ricotta (again, far from vegan...).* As far as the Papua Highlanders are concerned, they seem to have adapted to a protein-deficient diet either genetically or through their gut microbes, see (https://events.unimelb.edu.au/events/4321-adaptation-to-low-protein-diet-among-papua-new-guinea-highlanders) and (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7441383). Just because they do well on it does not mean other non-adapted people will thrive on the same diet.
          Hide Replies (3)
          • Eugen S. over 2 years ago
            What Okinawas eat today is NOT what they used to eat and it is NOT what made them live longer lives, they eat KFC and McDonalds now, want to see what their death rtes from heart disease and cancer and diabetes look like now ?
          • Eugen S. over 2 years ago
            And there are studies that show what part of the Mediterranean diet influences health positively and negatively and it is NOT the cheese and NOT the fish that helps prolong their lives. and Mediterraneans (Greeks) are the fattest Europeans today (https://blogs.wsj.com/numbers/greece-leads-the-world-in-overweight-and-obese-kids-1718/)
          • Eugen S. over 2 years ago
            Papua Highlanders have virtually no heart disease, diabetes, cancer ... after WW2 there were studies done on army recruits to see how much protein one needs in the diet to not go into deficit and those 18 year olds that were still developing and doing hard training daily needed 25g of protein a day not to go into catabolism and subsequently that number was doubles to 50g a day and was made into the first american dietary guidelines to cover everyone. Strict vegans on average get 70% more protein than what the body can absorb ... here is the study
    • Eugen S. over 2 years ago
      Dr. Mercola is NOT a doctor, but a scammer https://www.quackwatch.org/11Ind/mercola.html
      Hide Replies (5)
      • Jmehninger over 2 years ago
        Not everyone agrees with Dr. Michael Greger either:https://www.humanewatch.org/hsus_doc_exposed_as_schlock/
        Hide reply (1)
        • Eugen S. over 2 years ago
          Removed by moderator.
      • Laura Comparey over 2 years ago
        Sorry but Dr Mercola is in fact a Medical Doctor.
        Hide reply (1)
        • Eugen S. over 2 years ago
          Removed by moderator.
      • louise11 over 2 years ago
        You're so wrong,
  • reitsmad over 2 years ago
    No to soybean oil, corn oil, sunflower oil and Canola oil. They may be unsaturated but are processed polyunsaturated fats that promote inflammation. While the recommendations demonize saturated fat for some unfathomable reason the Canada Food Guide would rather poison us with PUFA's as an alternative!
  • rchavoshi over 2 years ago
    I worked in a restaurant where the only drink options were alcoholic or very high in sugar. The juice option was a fruit-flavoured drink. These were served to children. Avoidance is definitely necessary as the rate of diabetes in Canada has doubled over the last 15-20 years.
  • ShannonN over 2 years ago
    Will there be any discussion about the many health issues surrounding GMO/Roundup grains? There is a lot of solid evidence that disease rates and food intolerances have risen with the use of these agricultural products. Our government should be looking out for us and the country's health care spending by recommending we ban Roundup ready GMO grains.
  • bronwynevans over 2 years ago
    It's unnecessary to list meat and dairy foods as sources of protein when plant-based protein sources are more healthful. Instead, please list a wider variety of protein-rich plant sources.
    Hide Replies (3)
    • Jmehninger over 2 years ago
      Hmmm, I guess the Okinawans in Japan live especially long and healthy in spite of frying everything in lard... Although they seem to attribute their longevity to their love for pork.
      Hide Replies (2)
      • nzouri over 2 years ago
        Okinawans consumed only 3% of their calories from meat and dairy. The traditional diet was based on starch (mainly sweet potatoes) and vegetables. The pork consumed was only on special occasions and had its fat removed. See more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dan-buettner/okinawa-blue-zone_b_7012042.html
        Hide reply (1)
        • reitsmad over 2 years ago
          And now they are getting sicker because of the standard american diet.
  • nzouri over 2 years ago
    Processed or prepared foods high in sodium, sugars and saturated fat as well as beverages should be banned from being sold in schools or for the schools benefits. These questionable food choices are currently sold during school events and fundraisers, including in elementary schools. Healthy eating habits should be promoted at all times in schools.
    Hide Replies (5)
    • ElizabethTurn over 2 years ago
      Would you include processed meats (bacon, ham, lunch meats, sausages, hot dogs) in the list of foods to be banned? They are class 1 carcinogens, after all.
      Hide Replies (4)
      • nzouri over 2 years ago
        Absolutely, the processed meats should be banned.
        Hide Replies (3)
        • reitsmad over 2 years ago
          If people decide they don't want to eat it then they are self banning. I would prefer this to government interference based on personal bias and lack of scientific proof.
          Hide Replies (2)
          • nzouri over 2 years ago
            Government interference is based on scientific proof. Medical scientists are now in agreement: processes meats are a major risk to human health.
            Hide reply (1)
            • reitsmad over 2 years ago
              The diet health HYPOTHESIS was not proof and led to the obesity and type 2 diabetes epidemic we see today. Salt restriction was anther bungle along with high cholesterol. One cannot use majority rules when it comes determining scientific facts. If they can prove a hypothesis then fine but so far they remain as such.
  • tj over 2 years ago
    I support the recommended revisions to Canada’s Food Guide that emphasize eating fresh whole foods and limiting or eliminating meat, egg, and dairy products, as these products have been linked to disease epidemics and environmental destruction. Numerous studies have proved the benefits of reducing or eliminating red meat, chicken, fish, dairy, and eggs from our diets. Plant-based diets can lower the risk of chronic preventable diseases, help reduce our carbon footprints, and save precious resources such as fresh water and fossil fuel. Specifically, plant-focused diets have been shown to do the following:Limit Cancer RiskReduce Heart DiseaseFight DiabetesCurb ObesityIncrease LongevityReduce Our Carbon FootprintMinimize Water UsageReduce Fossil Fuel DependenceThe government is obligated to act in the best interests of Canadian citizens. Accordingly, I encourage the Canadian government to act responsibly and ethically by ensuring that Canada’s Food Guide recommendations strongly focus on plant-based foods. Thank you.
  • lkm over 2 years ago
    I agree with this recommendation.
  • Perkinsh over 2 years ago
    What ever you may think of the details, which can never please everyone, the fact is that the general principles as proposed point people in a healthier direction. (I happen to eat Paleo and am a fan of coconut oil). Most importantly, you are leagues ahead of the USA in all the new guidelines. As a member of the Functional Medicine community in Michigan, I am envious. Please count your blessings here.
  • nzouri over 2 years ago
    It would be important to ban all industry backed boards to promote food to children. This ban should include commercials and advertising as well as hidden agenda activities such as Dairy Education Programs for children which is conveniently sponsored by Dairy Farmers of Canada.
    Hide reply (1)
    • ryanshaw over 2 years ago
      Removed by moderator.
  • brndn over 2 years ago
    I am underweight and always have been. It's not a fast metabolism but a weak digestive tract - there are many foods I can't eat. I also know some athletes who would not be able to keep weight on with the diet being proposed. I wonder how these changes will affect people who need calorie-dense foods.
    Hide Replies (2)
    • nzouri over 2 years ago
      They should eat nuts, seeds and avocado if they want to gain weight. But anyway, these changes are only guidelines and people will continue to eat what they think it is good for them.
      Hide reply (1)
      • reitsmad over 2 years ago
        Eat carbohydrates and you will most certainly cause a weight gain. Protein and fat satiate and reduce appetite.
  • reitsmad over 2 years ago
    Consuming a low carbohydrate (less tha 50g per day), moderate protein (less than 100g per day) and high fat diet (which also includes saturates far) where I also stopped eating processed foods like breakfast cereal and low fat foods loaded with sugar has reversed my pre-diabetes and metabolic syndrome markers and resulted in a 25 kg weight loss that I am maintaining through a healthier way of eating. My triglyceride level has also reduced dramatically with a significant increase in HDL which has been shown to reduce the risk of heart disease.I recommend supporting the doctors who are petitioning for an improved Canada food guide based on these principles.https://www.change.org/p/support-evidenced-based-food-guidelines-pour-un-guide-alimentaire-bas%C3%A9-sur-la-science/naftaExp1/control?recruiter=339524179&utm_source=share_petition&utm_medium=facebook&utm_campaign=autopublish&utm_content=nafta_share_post_copy_en_5%3Acontrol
  • brendadavis over 2 years ago
    Please consider adding processed meat to this list. It has been declared a group 1 human carcinogen and is strongly linked to an increased risk of heart disease and diabetes. Also, I am not so sure 100% fruit juice should be excluded for everyone all the time. A fresh squeezed grapefruit juice after a long run seems reasonable. It is not an inherently unhealthy food - especially if squeezed fresh with lots of pulp. It is a beverage that could add nutrition when consumed appropriately, especially by those with high energy needs or with chewing difficulties.
  • OliviaJ over 2 years ago
    I live in Newfoundland and Labrador where obesity is a big problem (so to speak). It's my very firm belief that there should be a tax on sugary drinks, maybe not just here but across the country. There is nothing to recommend those drinks and there is the additional problem of the bottles and drinks containers ending up in the garbage. The finance minister in this province owns 2 or more MacDonald's franchises so that may be the reason she doesn't want this drinks tax to further burden her customers. But they are already burdened by everything else on the menu there. I really hope someone will have the courage to starting taxing horrible, sugary beverages.
  • Stephanie over 2 years ago
    There should be inventive ways to curb the use of soft drinks and imitation fruit drinks. Also fruit drinks with REAL fruit hold sooo much sugar they should be cut back on as well. More focus on clean water with fresh lemon or lime.
  • hortense over 2 years ago
    Meat, dairy and eggs have been scientifically proven to be carcinogenic (There are many rigorous studies including the WHO study in 2015, the Harvard Nurses Study of the effects of daily milk intake on bone health and many others that are not industry funded). Milk has been shown to cause increased bone fractures. Eggs have been equated with tobacco for carcinogenicity. The animals suffer terribly, horribly. Animal agriculture causes 51% of climate change. Kindly take these horrifying toxins off the Canada Food Guide. A face-to-face between decision-makers at Health Canada and the true experts on this subject is expected.
    Hide reply (1)
    • Ted over 2 years ago
      more junk science claims
  • hortense over 2 years ago
    I would like to add, as it pertains to an immediate removal of meat, dairy and eggs from our diet (as the cause of 51% of climate change it is imperative to our very survival. Let us be aware that this is a crisis.), that the government must commence establishing support groups and sites and phone lines to help people withdraw from what is a very nasty addiction. Why do you think people get so hostile? They are afraid. Afraid or not, this is inescapable, so let us help each other through it. All the established principles for addiction withdrawal apply. Not moderation, complete abstinence.
    Hide reply (1)
    • Ted over 2 years ago
      Removed by moderator.
  • HeatherVY over 2 years ago
    Although this point is important, is there not a way that the government can regulate these unhealthy ingredients in some foods? We have seen the government regulate alcohol, tobacco, advertising to children etc. If we are looking to improve the way Canadians eat by recreating the Canadian food guide, this is a great first step. But how far will that go compared to the billions in advertising that food companies are spending to make sugary, transfat ladden cheap foods? (Even opening this window to read the new recommendations for the food guide, a hamburger advertisement popped up). There must be a way to hold the food companies somewhat accountable instead of just encouraging the consumer to make better choices.
  • Simonne MacNeil over 2 years ago
    Avoidance of processed or prepared beverages high in sugar is as important as the AVOIDANCE of the intake of processed or prepared foods high in sodium, sugars or saturated fat, same degree of importance, why a different level of importance with wording such as "limited vs avoidance"?
  • AlM over 2 years ago
    GM grains, vegetables, fruits, and even salmon, and grain fed animals are not as healthful as non GM. GM lab testing is not sufficient to prove benefits for human consumption, even if the nutrient levels are similar to non-GM foods according to the testing. The basic reason is because genetically modified foods are not what our digestive systems readly recognize. If our Canadian food guidelines are supposed to be promoting healthy nutrition, GM crops and ingredients derived from those crops should be labeled, and whether pesticides, herbicides, and other damaging chemicals have been applied! And keep in mind, just because a label states a food is organic, does not also mean the food is not genetically altered, because it is possible to grow genetically modified crops organically! Consumers should be informed as to whether or not any of our foods are genetically altered or contain GM or non-food chemical additives such as flavour enhancers, preservatives, or colourants. We, the citizens of Canada, have a right to know what we are being exposed to and what we are eating!
  • AlM over 2 years ago
    Although most saturated fats may be problematic, there are some that actually are helpful nutritionally, such as unprocessed extra virgin coconut oil, which is a medium chain fat, and easily digested, and contains properties that are anti-inflammatory. Processed coconut oil is not as healthy a choice. Omega 6 vegetable oils such as safflower, corn oil, and soy oils, which actually can cause inflammation! Omega 3 vegetable oils are anti-inflammatory. Avocado oil, which has a fairly high heat point is good for pan frying on medium, and cold pressed virgin olive oil which should only be used for cool applications so not for frying etc, are great. Dairy butter from pasteurized milk is not easily digested, whereas from raw unpasteurized milk from grass fed cattle can be beneficial and is high in butyrates. The same for ghee.
  • Lisa Worthington over 2 years ago
    I support the recommended revisions to Canada’s Food Guide that emphasize eating fresh whole foods and limiting or eliminating meat, egg, and dairy products, as these products have been linked to disease epidemics and environmental destruction.Numerous studies have proved the benefits of reducing or eliminating red meat, chicken, fish, dairy, and eggs from our diets. Plant-based diets can lower the risk of chronic preventable diseases, help reduce our carbon footprints, and save precious resources such as fresh water and fossil fuel. Specifically, plant-focused diets have been shown to do the following:• Limit Cancer Risk• Reduce Heart Disease• Fight Diabetes• Curb Obesity• Increase Longevity• Reduce Our Carbon Footprint• Minimize Water Usage• Reduce Fossil Fuel DependenceThe government is obligated to act in the best interests of Canadian citizens. Accordingly, I encourage the Canadian government to act responsibly and ethically by ensuring that Canada’s Food Guide recommendations strongly focus on plant-based foods.Two additional points: Rather than saying ".... - especially plant-based sources of protein", Health Canada would be wiser to write "in particular," or "...with a particular focus on plant-based sources of protein". I say this because those who I know who eat a lot of steaks, french fries and hamburgers really don't pay attention to the word "especially". The word “especially” is not strong enough. Also, has Health Canada ever considered using "Community-based social marketing" to accompany their broad public education campaigns (a concept created by Doug McKenzie-Mohr). Check the following weblinks for further detail:http://www.cbsm.com/pages/guide/preface/ orhttps://static1.squarespace.com/static/51b0ce25e4b0e8d244de368b/t/51fff536e4b0a5bf19050dee/1375728950962/%E2%80%8BCommunity-Based+Social+Marketing+Intro+Guide.pdf
    Hide reply (1)
    • ryanshaw over 2 years ago
      "these products have been linked to disease epidemics and environmental destruction" Care to cite your peer-reviewed studies?
  • Payton Godon over 2 years ago
    We need our guide to recommend almost a completely plant based diet, even for kids. Dairy is not the best way to get calcium, leafy greens are. Meat is not the best way to get iron or protein etc. We are learning that red meat is not meant for us and fish contains high amounts of mercury from pollution. Dairy is now shown to increase risk of breast cancer and prostate cancer, not to mention most people are lactose intolerant. We are humans, not calves that need fatty milk to gain hundreds of pounds in a short amount of time. It is essentially baby cow growth formula. We also need to think of the major environmental concerns about factory farming and the fact that animal agriculture is worse than the whole vehicle industry. Animal agriculture is the main cause of ocean dead zones, deforestation and species extinction. We need to think about the future, where will we live when most of the country is covered in dirty factory farms and covered in soy and corn fields that feed animals? We are a smart country, it's time to be a pioneer.
  • lylebunn over 2 years ago
    As input to the Food Guide consultation, I would offer the following:- Product labeling is a key factor in food selection and so should include clear information about additives such as food coloring, preservatives and ingredient bleaching.- Clarifications about terms such as “Natural”, “organic” and similar claims should be standardized so they are used as consumer information and not just marketing messages.- Where food or ingredients include elements that are sourced from Genetically Modified Organisms, this should be clear on product packaging- The residual impact of pesticides and insecticides on foods that are table ready or for snacks should be included in consumer information.I really love the basis on scientific information that underpins this new food guide.
  • denmacc over 2 years ago
    Also quick question who are the big funders/influencers.. of this Guide.. No doubt the Dairy and meat industry are probably involved.. ..?!
  • denmacc over 2 years ago
    Please take out Dairy in the guide.. We do not need to drink cows milk.. and it does more harm than good.. Lets see more of a push for a plant based diet.. And in regards to meat.. this should be in the category.. as alternative.. I do not think we need meat as a heading as a plant based diet does not cause colon cancer or heart disease and meat tends to be over eaten .. Lets get progressive with the truth about what healthy diet is..
  • sacha.cavelier over 2 years ago
    I support the recommended revisions to Canada’s Food Guide that emphasize eating fresh whole foods and limiting or eliminating meat, egg, and dairy products, as these products have been linked to disease epidemics and environmental destruction.Numerous studies have proved the benefits of reducing or eliminating red meat, chicken, fish, dairy, and eggs from our diets. Plant-based diets can lower the risk of chronic preventable diseases, help reduce our carbon footprints, and save precious resources such as fresh water and fossil fuel. Specifically, plant-focused diets have been shown to do the following: Limit Cancer Risk Reduce Heart Disease Fight Diabetes Curb Obesity Increase Longevity Reduce Our Carbon Footprint Minimize Water Usage Reduce Fossil Fuel DependenceThe government is obligated to act in the best interests of Canadian citizens. Accordingly, I encourage the Canadian government to act responsibly and ethically by ensuring that Canada’s Food Guide recommendations strongly focus on plant-based foods.
  • Martin MP over 2 years ago
    Anybody can watch some of these documentaries? :Food Choices (2016) - Eating you Alive (2016) - PlantPure Nation (2015) - Forks Over Knives (2011) - Live and Let Live (2013) - What the Health (2017).Thanks.
  • Martin MP over 2 years ago
    The government is obligated to act in the best interests of Canadian citizens. Accordingly, I encourage the Canadian government to act responsibly and ethically by ensuring that Canada’s Food Guide recommendations strongly focus on plant-based foods.I support the recommended revisions to Canada’s Food Guide that emphasize eating fresh whole foods and limiting or eliminating meat, egg, and dairy products, as these products have been linked to disease epidemics and environmental destruction.Numerous studies have proved the benefits of reducing or eliminating red meat, chicken, fish, dairy, and eggs from our diets. Plant-based diets can lower the risk of chronic preventable diseases, help reduce our carbon footprints, and save precious resources such as fresh water and fossil fuel. Specifically, plant-focused diets have been shown to do the following: Limit Cancer Risk Reduce Heart Disease Fight Diabetes Curb Obesity Increase Longevity Reduce Our Carbon Footprint Minimize Water Usage Reduce Fossil Fuel Dependence.Thank you.
  • twolever over 2 years ago
    I am most concerned about the recommendation to limit sugars consumption from all processed or prepared foods. I believe this will encourage people to reduce their intake of healthy foods containing sugars for which there is no evidence of harm and for which there is accumulating evidence for benefit from both observational studies and clinical trials (eg. whole grain cereals, yogurt).I agree with the focus on beverages high in sugars since this is where the signal for harm comes from. However, the wording of the recommendation to avoid "processed or prepared beverages high in sugars" is somewhat difficult and hopefully has been given a good deal of thought. Why are the terms "processed or prepared" necessary? Is this meant to exclude milk from the beverages to avoid? What is "high"? Is the wording "high in sugars" used instead of "sugar-sweetened" so as to include 100% fruit juice? I agree that the evidence shows that fruit juice is harmful - though perhaps less strongly so than sugar-sweetened beverages. But I don' t think people should avoid having one small (4-6oz) glass of juice once a day (which may contribute important amounts of vitamin C and other nutrients) if they wish - which is what this recommendation says. It is a deceptively complex area!The evidence in favour of sodium reduction from observational studies is unclear and while I agree that sodium reduction reduces blood pressure this may not necessarily translate into hard endpoints: I am not aware of any evidence that sodium reduction reduces cardiovascular disease or stroke, and there is some evidence that sodium reduction may be harmful in some populations.
    Hide Replies (16)
    • washlock over 2 years ago
      Eating yogurt WITHOUT added sugar is an option. Plain fully-fatted yogurt is both delicious and healthy -- high protein, full of probiotics, prevents osteoporosis. You can dress it up a little by adding chopped nuts, seeds, or fresh fruit, maybe a dash of maple syrup. Many flavoured yogurts you can buy are not at all healthy, little better than candy.
      Hide Replies (14)
      • JulienB over 2 years ago
        While I agree people should select low sugar alternatives, I must implore you stop perpetuating the idea that yogurt is good in the prevention of osteoperosis. There's no proof. Resistance exercise is the best thing you can do. Additionally, the animal protein in yogurt may increase you IGF-1 secretion, increasing cellular division and therefore increasing the risk of getting cancer.
        Hide Replies (5)
        • washlock over 2 years ago
          These is some evidence that yogurt is good in the prevention of osteoporoisis: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/16/well/eat/yogurt-may-be-good-for-the-bones.html?mcubz=0&_r=0 However, I agree that resistance exercise is the best prevention. There is no magic answer for everybody. Sometimes we just get sick because of bad luck. Government recommendations meant for the entire Canadian population should avoid getting too specific. It is clear that sugar is harmful for everybody in large quantities. The government should warn people about that.
          Hide Replies (3)
          • JulienB over 2 years ago
            That's an associative study. It's a good basis for further research. But it's not conclusive, hence the use of the word "may" in the article. There are wholesome plant-based sources of calcium for bones. Hydrolized collagen supplements can be used too. Also, probiotic supplements such as VSL #3 are far superior in potency.
          • Francois over 2 years ago
            Actually, look at the study on 72000 women over 18 years, no benefit, many studies actually show worse risk , upt to 60% increase in fracture risk with dairy consumption. See references: http://www.pcrm.org/health/diets/vegdiets/health-concerns-about-dairy-products
            Hide reply (1)
        • Jmehninger over 2 years ago
          I tend to agree that there are better sources of calcium than yoghurt, but unsweetened live culture yoghurt and other fermented dairy products such as kefir etc. are considered an important source of probiotics:http://www.webmd.com/vitamins-and-supplements/nutrition-vitamins-11/probiotics
      • Eugen S. over 2 years ago
        The Dairy Industry got sued by the American Government for billions of dollar for using the word "healthy, nutritious, high quality, prevents osteoporosis" when referring to milk because to use those word you have to provide scientific evidence and they had NONE.
        Hide Replies (7)
    • Sbarrette over 2 years ago
      Thank you! I implore more people to look into the evidence about sodium intake and cardiovascular disease. In fact, those eating a low-carb diet or intermittently fasting can easily become sodium-deficient without considerable sodium intake.
  • Jelena over 2 years ago
    I think that we have to avoid sugar as more as possible ,especially processed sugar, because we are not genetically used to consume such great amount of sugar,except one that is in fruits and that is connected to fibers,so abyoprtion is slower. To much consumtion of sugar is connecetes to fatty liver disease,to atherosclerosis,it is responsible for addiction,it depletes our pancreas from insulin,gets to high insulin resistence which leads to metabolic issues like diabetesII, it leads to carcinoma, and to Alzheimer and dementia. Nothing can replace clean water.
  • Teo.tarita-nistor@rogers over 2 years ago
    Natural saturated fats are fine. They are not as good as olive oil but they are definitely not bad. The rule of what fats to use is this: could you make it yourself? Then use it. Can you make corn or canola oil? No. It is an industrial product. It is not for human consumption. Can you make butter or lard in your kitchen? Yes. Then eat it.
  • Bodybuilder and Chef over 2 years ago
    Mono sodium Glutamate and corn syrup should be listed as foods to look for and avoid!
    Hide reply (1)
    • Bodybuilder and Chef over 2 years ago
      Labels for these two should be Larger.
  • Apegirl5 over 2 years ago
    Sugars and saturated fats are not the biggest problems, either for our health, or the environment, it is animal products.
    Hide Replies (2)
  • millerashleyp over 2 years ago
    I think these recommendations overemphasize singular nutrient components to avoid, which has previously fuelled decades of dietary confusion (as has been the experience with overemphasis on fat and carbohydrates as "evil")...Instead, I think the foods to be avoided should instead focus on non-whole foods as a concept. ALL processed and prepared foods should generally be avoided. Not just those high in the components listed here. Again, go back to the basics with simplified advice such as that given by Michael Pollan: "Eat FOOD. Mostly plants. Not too much."Among his most poignant and relatable food rules are:Don't eat anything with ingredients your grandmother wouldn't recognize. ANDEat anything that you make yourself from scratch.This approach is much more relatable and realistic than expecting Canadians to draw judgments on "bad foods" based on quantified components in the nutritional info.Bravo for explicitly calling out sugared sweetened beverages and including milks.
    Hide Replies (2)
    • Francois over 2 years ago
      Trans fats have been shown to have no safe levels for consumption. These and saturated fats have numerous research papers showing their direct link to insulin resistance, diabetes, obesity, heart attacks and strokes as well as dementia. Thier main sources are also known for zoonoses, diseases transferred from animal to human. Leukemic bovine virus found in beef and dairy responsible for 37% of breast cancer in women. Two large studies, one of 32000 the other over 23000 individuals showed exposure to poultry viruses gave a nine fold increase in pancreatic and liver cancer and increase lymphoma incidence. Carbs do not cause lipogenesis, they do not cause weight gain, especially complex carbs. Refined in large amounts are still limited in ability to cause weight gain. We naturally evolved on carbs, look at human mother's milk, mostly carbs, very little protein and fat.
    • Bodybuilder and Chef over 2 years ago
      Milk lactose is natural, everything else you said was very astute, especially the natural food part.
  • Sara Cinq-Mars over 2 years ago
    I agree. Please make a note that dinks with artificial sweeteners should be avoided.
  • bronwynevans over 2 years ago
    It's unnecessary to list meat and dairy foods as sources of protein when plant-based protein sources are more healthful. Instead, please list a wider variety of protein-rich plant sources.
  • Wayne and Janie Jolley over 2 years ago
    I would like to see health Canada use the precautionary principle when it comes to GMO foods and to require all foods that are genetically modified and or contain GMO substances be labelled so people who are very concerned about GMO foods can know what they are eating. Presently i use the rule of thumb :when in doubt, leave it out." I often have to phone the manufacturers since so many products are made using , canola, corn or soy oils. Rarely do I eat in restaurants because of the unknown origin of oils.
  • Ray Kowalchuk over 2 years ago
    I think it's unbelievably brave for Canada's Food Guide to reject industry-sponsored "alternative facts" about animal-derived foods, and I think we have arrived at a space where we are willing to promote the facts that we've known for a long time but have been politically sheepish to state boldly and confidently. It is great that Canada's Food Guide will promote plant-based protein and break the first part of the protein myth -- that meat is necessary for its protein. The second part of the myth, that protein intake is a vital and prominent part of nutrition in the first place, has, in some respects, been addressed in past Food Guides, but will require greater strides this time around. We know the cultural problems created from the meatification of our diets. Ask someone "What's for dinner" and you will be told the "protein-providing" portion of the meal; the grain may get a mention and the "side dish" of vegetables will hardly gather interest. We fill half our plates with meat and meat substitutes, despite the 20%-of-plate recommendation that we have long been promoting (and roundly ignoring).We are the only species on earth without the instinct to inherently KNOW what to eat. Here's what we do know -- protein is needed to build tissue, and at the moment when we do the most growing we will ever do -- in infancy -- we have the perfect formula for our food. Human breast milk has around 8% protein (perhaps a more accurate portion than 20% of our plate) and virtually none of our population suffer from a lack of protein (unless they have absorption issues, regardless of consumption). It is a well-known fact that humans are very good at recycling our amino acids, and even extreme cases of kwashiorkor exist in a lack of carbohydrates to fuel that recycling engine. We are experiencing an epidemic of excessive protein consumption (well past the conservative 20%) yet portions do not enter into the public consultation? I hope the drafters of the Food Guide understand that they are responsible for unravelling the whole protein myth. #proteinaholic
  • Roisin Doria over 2 years ago
    A favourable step forward for the citizens of Canada. People depend on the food guide as a guide line to feed their families. It is time the food guide was honest about the dangers of sugars and processed foods.
  • sophie80 over 2 years ago
    I completely agree with both points. Since a high amount of people do not have the time or take the time to cook, grocery stores should make a better effort at providing fresh cooked meals (on-site) that are plant-based only. The food prepared in supermarkets is not balanced or healthy. There is a lack of awareness and options for people who are vegan and eat plant-based food and want to have a healthy lifestyle. There should be a lot more support provided around this, whether it's in the downtown area of a city or in the suburbs.
  • Kathy over 2 years ago
    This proposal alone could significantly reduce the incidence of type 2 diabetes and reduce insulin resistance in existing type 2 diabetics. You are to be congratulated for these bold moves. Medical practice in general is 30 years behind scientific research. This proposed CFG is responsive to current research findings and can reduce health care costs immeasurably. Dr. Christian Barnard said that he saved 150 lives by transplanting hearts but that he could have saved 150,000 had he practiced prevention.
  • Jennifer Humphries over 2 years ago
    This Guiding Principle and its recommendations make eminent sense. The emphasis on shifting to plant-based eating is excellent. It would be helpful to provide information on the types of dietary fibre and why it is important. It is important to advise Canadians that switching from sugar to artificial sweeteners is not necessarily healthy, however. It would also be useful to indicate that bottled water is not a required alternative to tap water in most places in Canada, and that tap water is generally a healthier and environmentally sound choice.
  • Nemeth over 2 years ago
    Processed or prepared foods and beverages are all containing ingredients that is not healthy! Sodium, sugars and fats are just part of the problem! There are other ingredients such as food colouring, nitrites, preservatives and other chemicals that is not good for the body! They should also be disclosed in the guide!!!
  • Frances Cunliffe over 2 years ago
    This comment is under review.
    Hide reply (1)
    • BarbaraEngland over 2 years ago
      It should be a NO BRAINER!! What's there to review????Make people sicker or start helping them get their health back. Unfortunately people, by fault of their own, lack of education AND MOSTLY BEING MISS INFORMED do not realize the crap that is put into their foods these days.
  • BarbaraEngland over 2 years ago
    I applaud Canada for taking a bold stance for their citizens. Not helping the companies that poison us to get richer while the people get sicker. It has been appalling what has happened to our morals and values towards human life. I THANK YOU SO MUCH and pray to God the US would follow suit.
  • Angelam.cameron over 2 years ago
    Again this is excellent advice that many young families I know are already following. Nice to see it on the guide. The volume of sugar in Fruit juice is nearly as bad as soft drinks and can cause serious tooth decay in young kids.
  • Jackie Maguire over 2 years ago
    This is scientifically correct--and may save money on medicare--as well as prevent some childhood diabetes which is on the rise
  • Sue Blasiak over 2 years ago
    Agree with limited trasfats but coconut oil has been a beneficial addition to my diet.
  • Sue Blasiak over 2 years ago
    Agree
  • FrancineRP123 over 2 years ago
    Yes to recommending against processed foods. Yes to recommending against high sugar beverages including fruit juice. Yes to recommending water rather than formulated drinks that are low sugar.
  • Valhardy over 2 years ago
    Way to go in asking Canadians input and not being pressured by the meat and dairy industry. I'm talking about factory farming. I respect the farmers that use humane methods.
  • Shelleykeddy over 2 years ago
    Awesome!!!
  • Ekalyta over 2 years ago
    Avoid food containing chemicals, artificial sweeteners, pesticides, gmo.
  • MrsB over 2 years ago
    What is lacking in the old food guide is the division of foods into essential macronutrients: protein (plants and meats)(8 essential amino acids), carbohydrates (plants) and carbohydrate's 3 types (sugars [not=white sugar only], starches, and fiber), and fats (saturated=animal mostly, unsaturated=plants, trans-fat=synthetic/man made). What is missing is that plants = carbohydrates and we need to stop the message of a low-carb diet. Oh, and add water because that is essential too.
  • MEAT over 2 years ago
    It would be good to give examples of heavily salted foods, many don't get it...that eating is a restaurant or cured meats will most often be high sodium.
  • fparasca over 2 years ago
    limit processed meats and give detailed explanation of what processed meats include.Limit red meat.Processed and red meat are linked to increased risk of cancer
  • JMP over 2 years ago
    Good start... The focus should be on limiting processed foods and animal products, explicitly.
    Hide Replies (4)
    • royale over 2 years ago
      agree, and it should be spelled out for people that animal products includes dairy and eggs. (not just meat)
    • Ageiser24 over 2 years ago
      This guideline is about added sugar, salt and fat, not animal products specifically. Please stay on topic.
      Hide Replies (2)
      • JulienB over 2 years ago
        Well it should be. People need to know animal products aren't healthy. They're a source of trans fat and saturated fat. They should mention things like IGF-1 heterocyclic amines and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons.
        Hide reply (1)
  • Skyking over 2 years ago
    Have to warn about SUGAR
    Hide reply (1)
    • Eugen S. over 2 years ago
      and FAT, especially Trans and Saturated fats.
  • Teri over 2 years ago
    Processed and packaged foods laden with GMOs and toxic chemicals should be banned. But since that is not going to happen, they should most definitely be discouraged publicly by the Food guide
  • cassidyk over 2 years ago
    I agree- all animal products should be eliminated from the guide as most recommended foods on the following grounds: 1) negative impact on the environment 2) moral rationale to end the cycle of mass cruelty to animals in Canadian society 3) existence of many wonderful food alternatives that ensure adequate nutrition today 4) improved health/ health outcomes for all Canadians. Of course people will still eat animal products, but in 2017 there is no good reason for our official guide to recommend doing so...
  • MireilleM over 2 years ago
    I would like to see all meat, eggs, fish and other seafood, poultry, dairy products such as milk, yogurt, and cheeses eliminated from the Guiding Principle. Since those industries will financially coerce the Canadian Government that their poisonous products be included in the Guiding Principles, at least have it recommended that all meat, eggs, fish and other seafood, poultry, dairy products such as milk, yogurt, and cheeses products are to be avoided as much as possible. Canada / Canadians will save in health care spending costs by eliminating those poisonous products from the national diet. Our country would also be helping to reduce our contributions to climate change.
    Hide Replies (8)
    • ElizabethTurn over 2 years ago
      I completely agree!
    • kuervers over 2 years ago
      good luck Vegan
    • B Beard over 2 years ago
      Agree!
    • William over 2 years ago
      Elimination no because these foods are too popular. We should be informed about the risks associated with these foods and given guidelines to keep us in low risk of disease. For example, what is the recommended daily minimum limits; 5% calories from animal sources, 10%, 25%? Eat only once a week, or once a month, and so forth? I do not know the answers but recommendations based on the current available body of scientific knowledge would be a helpful guiding principle.
    • ryanshaw over 2 years ago
      Removed by moderator.
    • ryanshaw over 2 years ago
      Where is your evidence to show dairy is poisonous?
    • Jmehninger over 2 years ago
      And if they banned all those foods tomorrow, we'd all starve... Our country, in case you haven't noticed, has a lot of areas where the summer isn't long or warm enough to grow a heck of a lot in terms of vegetables or fruits. In those areas, if you want to eat local or be somewhat self-sufficient, you'll have to include some animal protein in your diet. And, as mentioned in another post: If for example eggs where that poisonous and unhealthy, why are so many species into stealing eggs? Including primates by the way! Nature knows just how nutritious eggs are!
    • Moz over 2 years ago
      Never going to happen: the meat and dairy industries have tremendous pull. Even if HC felt that way, no one would commit the political hara kari of making that recommendation .... EVEN THOUGH Albert Einstein would back you up. And while I agree with you in part, the fact is HC cannot tell people what to eat anymore than they can tell people who to vote, think, breathe or dream. Thus, the terms "recommendations" and "guidelines." However, in the case of fish ... that's a whole other issue for another day. That industry is deader than Dennis Rodman's singing career.
  • adameslie over 2 years ago
    I find this topic should be a huge part in the Canada food guide. There are many who are not educated in how processed foods contain higher sodium levels, sugars, and saturated fats. Low sodium diets are espeacially hard enough to follow as in. Our supermarkets are flooded with processed and prepared foods. Let's highlight that and focus on the fact that food that can be made at home (minimally processed) are lower in sodium, sugars, and saturated fats.
  • Aladak over 2 years ago
    We need to eliminate all juices, soft drinks and remove all transfats. Trans fats are much more harmful then just saturated fat. Trans fats are hydrogenated oils, and occur in all animal sourced foods. Also we need to remove all added sugars to food.
    Hide Replies (7)
    • Aladak over 2 years ago
      We also need to eliminate all gmo foods or at least have clear labelling like in europe so that we can choose
      Hide Replies (5)
      • Nicholestephen over 2 years ago
        I wouldn't say all GMO foods as some are actually quite beneficial for us. GMO isn't necessarily a bad thing.
        Hide Replies (3)
        • Aladak over 2 years ago
          Most gmo has a toxin in it that damamges the tight junctions between cells in the gut lining. Look at the increase of ibs and ibd with the introduction of gmo. Also it kills across insects mammals and birds. Toxic to bees. If a drug in development was toxic in just 2 models fda would bann it. Yet here gmos are toxic in hundreds and allowed in the food supplyLook up the impact of round up. Generationally toxic
        • Eugen S. over 2 years ago
          GMOs need heavy use of Pesticides and Herbicides, they have negative effects not only on human health, but also on wild animals, on soil health (bacteria/worms/insects) and the environment (they are petroleum based toxins) GMOs have shown to have have decrease in yields (something they claimed to have prevented) also there is increasing resistance to the herbicides used so now farmers are having to spray the RoundUP with the older pesticides on top of that = more money, more waste, more pollution, more environmental destruction.
        • Jmehninger over 2 years ago
          The problem with GMO foods, at least here in Canada, is that most (if not all of them) are "Roundup-Ready" crops. In other words, you can spray your field with Round-Up, your crop thrives, all other plants die (although we're starting to see some resistance in the weed world, as was to be expected).The active ingredient in Monsanto's Round-Up is "glyphosate", which is a very powerful molecule that delivers more than just weed-killing properties. To see what some of the issues are, just check one of the Youtube seminars by Dr. Thierry Vrain, a microbiologist, who explains the dangers of Round-Up Ready crops (easily found through Google).
      • Murphy888 over 2 years ago
        Why have so many great countries banned GMO's? Is it because they have listened to the independent science? Companies that produce GMO's are most interested in getting their product on the market so that they can make money and patent our food supply. Do Canadian's think that a company owning seeds is a good idea? Leaked e-mails from Monsanto indicates that they are aware that GMO's definitely pose risks. The health of individuals takes a back seat to making money for these companies and having clean food is a right! Health Canada really needs to do something about this and fast! We are being taken advantage of at the cost of our health and environment!
    • cnote over 2 years ago
      And yet trans fats exist today because of saturated fat paranoia. Can't make a flaky pastry or cracker with polyunsaturated canola oil. Ironic, isn't it?
  • Murphy888 over 2 years ago
    I agree that prepared foods are not healthy. I think Health Canada needs to investigate the long term implications of eating GMO's (they exists in almost all processed foods!!). I feel that there is a great link between glyphosate use and round-up ready foods with the many health issues that people suffer. GMO's may be damaging our gut bacterias and can never be as healthy as "Traditional Heritage Food". Furthermore independant studies on the impact of releasing these genetically modified organisms in the environment has not been thoroughly studied and is likely to damage our environment's natural genetics. The process of creating GMO's is completely trial and error and are not completely understood. Health Canada has approved GMO's without any consultation with the public. It's surprising to know how many people are completely unaware of how much GMO's they eat and I really feel that many health problems can be attributed to this type of diet - if only Health Canada would look at the many studies that have indicated so.Why have so many countries (Germany, Austria, Greece, France, Italy, Russia, Switzerland, Denmark, ...etc) made the step to protect their citizens and environment from this damaging technology. When will you protect Canada and Canadians? What does Health Canada not understand about the risks? We have a right to clean food and the information to know what we are putting in our bodies. For this reason I feel like I can not embrace the advice from Health Canada and feel many improvements need to be made.
  • csazam over 2 years ago
    I think that all of the confusion in this forum shows exactly why we need to change our guidelines. We need to move toward a plant based diet for our health and the environment. When people are fed non peer reviewed studies or look to blog posts for information, they end up confused and overwhelmed. We need to be able to trust that our government is recommending foods that are healthy for us. This is a whole food, plant based diet.
  • reitsmad over 2 years ago
    Carbohydrates have no nutritional value so should be limited to less than 15% per day for the average person. Protein should be limited to less than 20% per day as the body does not require more than this for the average person (0.8 grams per kg of lean body weight). The remainder should consist of monosaturated and saturated fats. Polyunsaturated and trans fats should be avoided.
  • reitsmad over 2 years ago
    There is no proof of saturated fats being harmful or increasing mortality. Why is it being rolled in with trans fat which has been shown to be an i creased risk factor of CVD? Feom the following study... Results: During 5–23 y of follow-up of 347,747 subjects, 11,006 developed CHD or stroke. Intake of saturated fat was not associated with an increased risk of CHD, stroke, or CVD. The pooled relative risk estimates that compared extreme quantiles of saturated fat intake were 1.07 (95% CI: 0.96, 1.19; P = 0.22) for CHD, 0.81 (95% CI: 0.62, 1.05; P = 0.11) for stroke, and 1.00 (95% CI: 0.89, 1.11; P = 0.95) for CVD. Consideration of age, sex, and study quality did not change the results.Conclusions: A meta-analysis of prospective epidemiologic studies showed that there is no significant evidence for concluding that dietary saturated fat is associated with an increased risk of CHD or CVD. More data are needed to elucidate whether CVD risks are likely to be influenced by the specific nutrients used to replace saturated fat.See... http://m.ajcn.nutrition.org/content/early/2010/01/13/ajcn.2009.27725.abstract
  • Anyab over 2 years ago
    1. Please, please, please introduce taxation on sugar-sweetened beverages....then use proceeds to supplement whole food options for low income .2. many products labeled as "whole grain" are highly processed and low in fiber compared with a whole kernel, unprocessed grain...deceiving to the general public. Cereal from a box is not the same as whole grain from a Mediterranean diet and should not be marketed as heart healthy! I have yet to see a cereal that does not spike insulin levels.3. Labeling should delineate added sugar, not just total sugar.
    Hide Replies (2)
    • Eugen S. over 2 years ago
      Instead of putting taxes on sugar the government should remove subsides (our tax dollars) from animal industries, making unhealthy foods cheap for everyone to consume in large amounts (and we in North America love to indulge in meat, milk and eggs) is counterintuitive, because the government is burdened to cover the health care cost from the aftereffects of cheap meat, milk and eggs. There is taxes in Europe on added sugars but scientists are showing that it is NOT sugar consumption that is causing obesity and diabetes but FAT consumption http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-3693008/Why-fat-not-sugar-blame-obesity-Scientists-warn-public-health-campaigns-Britain-s-weight-crisis-misguided.html as FAT people consume LESS sugar but MORE FAT.
      Hide reply (1)
      • ryanshaw over 2 years ago
        Where is your source to show that farms in Canada (especially dairy) receive cash subsidies?
  • JuliaKostin over 2 years ago
    There needs to be a direct emphasis placed on the avoidance of meat and dairy products. Not only do they severely harm our health, but they lead to environmental destruction and extreme animal cruelty.
    Hide Replies (5)
    • cbanman over 2 years ago
      I agree
      Hide Replies (3)
      • Laurabrining over 2 years ago
        Absolutely agree. There needs to be an emphasis on replacing meat and dairy with healthier alternatives such as beans and legumes, nut milk, etc. Not only is this cheaper, it is better for our health and the environment.
        Hide Replies (2)
        • Eugen S. over 2 years ago
          prices of plant foods vs animal foods http://i.imgur.com/xkcnGzT.png
        • ryanshaw over 2 years ago
          Actually the science doesn't know the effects of these synthetic drinks like almond and soy juice, can you tell me how many almonds in a carton of almond juice? More studies are needed to show these have health benefits on illnesses and diseases. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5122229/
    • ElizabethTurn over 2 years ago
      So very true. I was glad to see what seems to be a small movement in the right direction here with that first principle stating "especially plant-based proteins". I just wish they had taken it further. Why is there zero mention of processed meats and the fact that they are a class 1 carcinogen anywhere?
  • SayNoToPseudoScience over 2 years ago
    What should be the byproducts of a good diet? Optimal weight? Good lab results (glucose, lipids, etc)? Or something else entirely?
  • Jadams4326 over 2 years ago
    Processed meat should be in the avoided foods.It only gives examples of high sugar items, what about sodium and saturated fat items?
    Hide Replies (2)
    • ElizabethTurn over 2 years ago
      Exactly. Processed meats are carcinogenic and should be avoided at all costs.
      Hide reply (1)
      • William over 2 years ago
        Eating them are in the same class as smoking, maybe we should have them packaged and labeled with warnings, and restrict advertising too. At least the dietary guidelines should clear about the risks.
  • Vegucatordotcom over 2 years ago
    Great to see this.
  • Croninton1 over 2 years ago
    Television print and radio advertisers should have to have a disclaimer at the bottom of the tv or print ad or at the end of a radio commercial for sugary salty junk foods as they do in France.
  • Eburke over 2 years ago
    There needs to examples of processed foods listed here. There are examples of the beverages but not the food. Some people believe things like granola bars and crackers are good for you. While sometimes they can be, often times they are not. I also agree with some of the comments about processed meats needing to be highlighted.
    Hide reply (1)
    • ElizabethTurn over 2 years ago
      Yes, I can't believe processed meats were ignored. They are class 1 carcinogens for god sake!
  • Francois over 2 years ago
    In the words of the director of cardiovascular epidemiology at Harvard University:``We can't tell people to stop eating all meat and all dairy to become vegetarians. If we were truly basing this only on science we would, but it is a bit extreme.`` Something to think about...
    Hide reply (1)
    • ElizabethTurn over 2 years ago
      Why is not killing animals and then eating them considered extreme?
  • Edge over 2 years ago
    I agree with the general statements * Eat real locally grown low glyceic food that does not require a lable. Limit: red meat, wild salmon (no farmed), free range chicken and eggs local ethically grown pork and beef if. Move towards plant based and not processed.
    Hide reply (1)
    • Eugen S. over 2 years ago
      Low-carb diets cause early death and more disease.
  • ALar56 over 2 years ago
    Sure, let's call a spade a spade: Processed food is barely "food". Absolutely educate Canadians to avoid processed foods. I do not, however, stand by your false claims that saturated fat is bad for you. Can we please more honestly say that canola, soy and corn oils are dangerous for health and olive oil, avocado oil, butter, coconut oil for cooking are far healthier options while cold-pressed seed oils (borage, flax, hemp, walnut) are also beneficial in smaller quantities. Please see this article: https://www.westonaprice.org/health-topics/abcs-of-nutrition/saturated-fat-body-good/ . Stop black-listing saturated fat and start condemning the actual culprits which are the highly-processed vegetable oils!
    Hide Replies (2)
    • Eugen S. over 2 years ago
      Weston Price ? Really, the fore father of Atkins, Dukan, Paleo, Low-Carb, Keto movement that has NO health benefits for 99% of the general population and kills people sooner with more disease.https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23372809 " Low-carbohydrate diets were associated with a significantly higher risk of all-cause mortality "
    • Eugen S. over 2 years ago
      https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2989112/ "A low-carbohydrate diet based on animal sources was associated with higher all-cause mortality in both men and women, whereas a vegetable-based low-carbohydrate diet was associated with lower all-cause and cardiovascular disease mortality rates."
  • aczarnow over 2 years ago
    Companies should have to use the name "sugar" for any type of sugar, instead of hiding behind the 61 different names for sugar like: Corn syrup, Fructose, Malt, Corn syrup solids, Fruit juice, Maltodextrin, Confectioner's sugar, Fruit juice concentrate, Maltose, Carob syrup, Galactose, Malt syrup, Cane sugar, etc. All these names confuse consumers.
    Hide reply (1)
    • Eugen S. over 2 years ago
      same thing goes for the ambiguity of "saturated fat", list the top 10 foods that contain them ( meat, milk, eggs, cheese, yougurt, ceam ... etc)
  • Francois over 2 years ago
    Avoid all juices, remove their fruit and vegetable portion equivalents on the package which have been shown to be untrue. Encourage whole fruit and vegetable smoothies.
    Hide Replies (3)
    • sauconygirl over 2 years ago
      Not fond of smoothies, myself. Fibre is too broken down. Possible to overconsume calories. Sometimes very high glycemic if primarily made of fruit. I find that encouraging whole fruit and veg consumption would be more productive.
      Hide Replies (2)
      • Laura Comparey over 2 years ago
        Juicing raw vegetables are a healthy alternative to smoothies and the water contained in these veggies is structured living water, there is nothing better than that.
        Hide reply (1)
        • Francois over 2 years ago
          I would say that is false after getting one of my patients to quit juice (tropicana orange) not fruit and he lost 11.5 kg in 1.5 months and got rid of 150 units of insulin. No exercise he is paralyzed below the waist.
  • Vee Robillard over 2 years ago
    I find it depends on several factors. Are you diabetic? Is weight loss on your agenda? If yes:Avoid: All juices, refined sugars, Dairy products (and just to avoid confusion, this does not include nut milks), white rice, white potatoes, wheat based products (bread and pasta) all processed foods.Limit: All citrus fruit and fruit with stones in the center (peaches, plums, nectarines), manage intake of nuts (walnuts, cashew seeds, almonds).Weight loss not an objective, and/or not Diabetic?Avoid: nothing as long as it is plant based.Limit: Objective for health should always be limiting intake of food to a level which sustains your ideal weight. Using techniques like intermittent fasting has proven health and longevity benefits.
    Hide Replies (2)
    • Eugen S. over 2 years ago
      That is just bad advice with no scientific base, aka myth. Fruit consumption is NOT associated with diabetes or any other disease, fruit consumption helps improve Insulin Resistance and lower blood sugars. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3978819/ "Greater consumption of specific whole fruits, particularly blueberries, grapes, and apples, is significantly associated with a lower risk of type 2 diabetes, whereas greater consumption of fruit juice is associated with a higher risk."
      Hide reply (1)
      • Vee Robillard over 2 years ago
        I never said eating fruit is bad. If you read what I wrote I simply said if diabetes is concerned and weight loss is part of your agenda you should limit the amounts if certain kinds of foods. Not eliminate.
  • Francois over 2 years ago
    The governement should reverse the following industry favoring regulations: 1. Sugars whould be written in teaspoons or the conversion should be on the package 4g= 1 teaspoon.2. No longer allow concealing of trans fats which have been shown to be so dangerous that 0 mg per day was the only safe dose per day by allowing industry to write 0 mg if they reduced their potions enough to be under 0.2 mg. 3. Prevention of GMO labeling which would hide the impact of health issues from scrutiny.
    Hide reply (1)
    • Eugen S. over 2 years ago
      Same goes for saturated fats and cholesterol as it does for trans fats.
  • JDavey over 2 years ago
    I am all for this message! I try to limit my intake of processed and prepared foods (not only from a health perspective, but I really don't and really never enjoyed them.) With these messages though, I think to help guide people wanting to take a healthy approach, we should be providing a realistic move forward. In addition to the idea of "avoidance", could there be this idea of 'good', 'better', and 'best'? Example: I have found those not able/wanting to give up their soft drinks, fruit juices, etc... are more willing to try cutting their beverages with water, rather than avoidance all together. This option is a great stepping stone to minimize (and in some ways, slowly eliminate that addiction) the consumption of items high in sugars.The idea of "shopping the outside aisle", giving the knowledge of how to limit intake. I would love to see Health Canada have a outside aisle challenge (perhaps even done through an app such as Carrot Rewards?) There is a gap, there is the need to draw in the younger crowd and make it mainstream and fun to do.
    Hide Replies (2)
    • JulienB over 2 years ago
      I believe the government should instruct us on the best diet for the best possible health outcome. It's up to us to move towards those goals. While you're right that everything fits on a relative scale, we should be told what the best available science has to say about nutrition. Unfortunately, I've had to look elsewhere for that.
    • Eugen S. over 2 years ago
      look for Health IQ app, it is a lot more in-depth than Carrot
  • Sbarrette over 2 years ago
    So many commenters here have said this so eloquently but I want to add my voice to the chorus speaking out against refined sugars and carbohydrates. We really should be following the latest evidence and accept that our half century-long fight against fat was counter-productive and turn our attention to sugar and its effect on insulin response in order to tackle obesity.
    Hide Replies (2)
    • JulienB over 2 years ago
      What "war on fat"? You do know that health authorities have been pushing for whole plant foods right? Of course refined carbohydrates are bad, but don't give refined fats a break! People should avoid all of it.
    • Eugen S. over 2 years ago
      It was not counter-productive, everyone has been shouting that low-fat did not work, but we never were low-fat to begin with, EVER. Fat consumption was 25-35% on average North American diet, that is NOT low-fat.
  • Jmehninger over 2 years ago
    I think "saturated fat" needs to be replaced with trans fat or artificial fat in this and all the other guiding principles. It seems that many people, including those working on these Guiding principles, are still under the misconception that saturated fats are to blame, when the latest research and empirical data clearly shows that it is sugars and carbohydrates that are the main culprit when it comes to obesity, diabetes and inflammatory reactions. We also know now that saturated fats do NOT cause high cholesterol - so why do we keep vilifying naturally occurring saturated fats? Everyone tends to ignore that fact that all our cell walls are constructed of saturated fats, that our organs are securely held and cushioned in saturated fats (they're not swimming around in vegetable oils) and that our hormone production requires saturated fats.
    Hide Replies (5)
    • JulienB over 2 years ago
      They're all cuplrits. Including Saturated fat. Saturated fat does not have a protective effect. Saturated fat may potentiate the negative effects in a cholesterol laden meal for instance.https://nutritionfacts.org/topics/saturated-fat/
      Hide Replies (3)
      • Regan over 2 years ago
        Even the Americans in their latest Dietary Guidelines have labelled dietary cholesterol "no longer a nutrient of concern".
        Hide Replies (2)
        • JulienB over 2 years ago
          Ya, coming from the USDA, which is heavily influenced by the Dairy and Egg industries.
        • Eugen S. over 2 years ago
          you are making up your conclusions and putting words into people's (organization's) mouth, they did not include a recommended does because there is NO minimal recommended dose, anything above ZERO has been shown to increase risk of disease https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21521229 "The IOM did not set ULs for trans fat, saturated fat, and cholesterol because any intake level above 0% of energy increased LDL cholesterol concentration and these three food components are unavoidable in ordinary diets. "
    • JulienB over 2 years ago
      Watch this. It will show you what the dairy, meat and egg industries did to mislead the public. The lastest meta-analyses are attempts to use statistical tricks to confuse the public.https://youtu.be/2Ftoy6jqxm8
  • scganguli over 2 years ago
    Processed foods to avoid should also be expanded to include many of the toxic chemicals that are part of canned foods - eg bisphenol A. See the paper below:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27765541
    Hide reply (1)
    • Eugen S. over 2 years ago
      and industrial and natural pollutants should be monitored and advertised as to what foods contain them the most like Fish has been shown to be the #1 source of many plastic industry pollutants like BPAs, PCBs, Phenols, Dioxins ... etc
  • Mona Forrest over 2 years ago
    My concern is with the sodium levels in so much of the food we buy, to avoid it we should only buy fresh or frozen vegetables (most of frozen is ok but not "prepared" (i.e. frozen vegetables in sauce), non cooked meat and make our own rice and other side dishes. So, most of the packaged food in the middle ailes of grocery stores are too high in sodium. There seems to be much less awareness of sodium levels than of sugar. Now, restaurants are obliged to post calorie levels in their meals, I think they should also be posting sodium levels. And, the posting of the sodium level on packaged foods should always include the percentage of the recommended daily allowance.
    Hide reply (1)
    • Eugen S. over 2 years ago
      processed meats and chicken are also very high in sodium because they are added to preserve and to make the meat retain water (weight)
  • Josée over 2 years ago
    Illiminate or avoid all high fructose corn syrup. Whole unrefined sugar or fruit in a beverage once per day. Avoid sugar!
    Hide reply (1)
    • Eugen S. over 2 years ago
      ... avoid "processed sugars "
  • nancy chapman over 2 years ago
    I appreciate the emphasis on sodium, but research suggests that adding potassium to diet is as effective as lowering sodium in blood pressure control. The emphasis on avoidance is important but at the end limiting the portion sizes and frequency of foods high in saturated fat, sugar and sodium should be the target. When emphasizing avoidance of sugar, it is important when it comes to preventing dental caries the emphasis should be placed on all fermentable carbohydrates, the frequency of intake and the texture as well as the focus on foods with added sugar. As poor dental health impacts dietary intake; it might be useful to talk about ways to protect teeth from sugar intake by brushing with fluoride toothpaste and flossing. Chewing sugar free gum has also been shown to increase saliva to wash away fermented CHOs and remineralize the dentin as indicated by EU health claims. In the elderly, dry mouth, absence of saliva, can lead to dental caries and lost teeth which decreases nutritional quality of diet as Dr. Athena Papas has found.
    Hide reply (1)
    • Eugen S. over 2 years ago
      please post links or study names if you are going to reference them
  • Is67147 over 2 years ago
    Set a limit on sugars for daily consumption. No diet type drinks should be sold in schools as aspertame and other similar sweeteners are not healthy. Pretty much all processed foods are higher in salts and other low nutritional additives because they need to survive weeks on trucks, store shelves, and pantries. Home cooked meals should be encouraged even if it seems fiscally harmful to the economy. The cost of health care is worse than lost revenues from these sales.
    Hide Replies (4)
    • JulienB over 2 years ago
      Health care costs would plummet if everyone were to eat healthy meals! It pays for itself and then some.
    • cbanman over 2 years ago
      I agree with this. Educational materials for schools, households, and community services should be rolled out along with the new food guide. The general public has been misinformed for so long and needs the resources made available to change their life for the better.
      Hide reply (1)
      • nzouri over 2 years ago
        I agree. Beside educational materials they should also regulate the foods and beverages that are sold in schools.
    • Eugen S. over 2 years ago
      There should be a clear distinction between processed / refined sugars versus complex natural sugars found in whole fruits and plants. Today there is a large portion of doctors and nutritionists and dieticians that advise people not to consume fruits (because they have lots of sugar) all the while most don't consume the recommended daily dose to begin with and fruit consumption is NOT associated to Diabetes or other conditions, it actually helps improve insulin resistance and lowers blood sugars.https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/04/170411151024.htm
  • Mary Durand over 2 years ago
    labels to identify these products should be visible on purchased items
  • judith goldberg over 2 years ago
    All processed foods should be avoided. We should be looking at buying food to prepare from local farms. School children should never be eating "lunchables" as they are very high in salt, sugars and other unwanted items. Foods such as "Lunchables" (well I can hardly call lunchables nutritious food) also contribute to childhood obesity and future health problems. We should stop making hot dogs, pop, flavoured drinks etc to also counter the effects of childhood obesity. Again, great advice from Canada's food guide, well done!!!!
  • KateS over 2 years ago
    The starred “*processed or prepared beverages that can be high in sugars include: soft drinks, fruit-flavoured drinks, 100% fruit juice, flavoured waters with added sugars, energy drinks, sport drinks, and other sweetened hot or cold beverages, such as flavoured milks and flavoured plant-based beverages.” should be separated into either the ‘limited intake’ or the ‘avoidance of’ categories. I wonder if there is some way to inform the consumer that nutrient value is to be considered while making food choices. Although 100% fruit juice is not a better choice than the whole fruit, it is a considerably better choice compared to the sweetened and flavoured water since the 100% juice does have nutrient value per calorie. Similarly, chocolate milk, while it has added sugars, is also nutrient dense, especially in Calcium and Vitamin D, and many athletes advocate for its use following an activity.
  • Susan Diepeveen over 2 years ago
    This makes sense. So much of our food is processed and/or high is sugar, so total avoidance would be very difficult.
  • Gaia over 2 years ago
    As a nutritionist I agree. When you eat a whole food you are getting an array of macro and micronutrients. Let's take oranges for example you are getting all that fiber along with the natural fructose and nutrients. When you drink fruit juice specially if flavoured, you are getting processed sugars, sometimes food colouring that in the long run will likely take a toll on your overall health.Simple guideline for optimal health should be whatever you can not find in nature should not be consumed.I agree with the above statement. It's a step towards the right direction.
  • aand over 2 years ago
    I would like to see processed foods on a continuum. For example, an apple with skin is on one end of the continuum, peeling it, cooking it, pureeing it and apple juice is the most processed. I also like the overall nutritional quality index to compare apples to apples from a scale of 1 - 100. I also like having everything listed on labels per 100 grams as a standard, rather than servings which are ambivalent
  • RosePepper over 2 years ago
    It goes hand in hand with recent guidelines requiring fast food outlets having to post calories per serving. It is a start to get people to become more informed about the unhealthy aspects of processed foods.
    Hide reply (1)
    • nzouri over 2 years ago
      I would add that fast food outlets should post information regarding saturated fat, trans fat, sodium, fiber, sugar for each product they sell. And for products low in fiber and high in the bad stuff they should carry health warnings.
  • Wolfhound over 2 years ago
    Agree!
  • Jan Dyer over 2 years ago
    I agree with this principle
  • Cleanlittleplates over 2 years ago
    Processed foods should be limited, and I would educate that processed foods are any foods that have been refined/ altered from their natural state- or simply created artificially. Whole Foods, we can't go wrong with those!!!
  • Maxbrown34 over 2 years ago
    The nutrition label on foods should be updated to call out added sugars (as in US) and make the label easier to read with larger print re calorie counts and serving sizes.
    Hide reply (1)
    • Honeybeemkg over 2 years ago
      They should also eliminate the %daily requirements. So misleading as not everyone has same requirements and especially as it is based on 2000 cal a day. Neither I, healthy, active 125lb 53 year old, nor my 21 year old son require 2000 cal. a day. Not a responsible ideal for average Canadian to follow.
  • Nicholestephen over 2 years ago
    I agree with this guideline, but I feel it is important that emphasis should be directed to more water consumption, as water is the only beverage we need to consume in order to survive. Our bodies are comprised of a large amount of water, and when we perspire, or go to the washroom, we are reducing our amounts of water which need to be replenished in order for our bodies to continue working properly. It should also be noted that coffee and/or tea should only be consumed 1-2 times per day, nothing more.
    Hide reply (1)
    • Laura Comparey over 2 years ago
      Yes water is essential for our bodies to eliminate waste and to maintain hydration. However, tap water contains many chemicals that are harmful to our health. Fortunately many cities are beginning to eliminate the practice of adding fluoride to municipal city water. Wouldn't it be wonderful if the Canadian government made it a point to make our tap water safer so that we don't have to buy bottled spring water? There are alternative ways to purify municipal water besides adding harmful substances to it.
  • Jane Stringer over 2 years ago
    It looks sensible to me.
  • al2cand over 2 years ago
    more information on La Naturopathe Moderne website www.lanaturopathemoderne.com/avez-vous-toujours-faim-6-aliments-a-eviter And avoid as much as possible: dry fruits, cereals, juices in general, white rice, popcorn, alcool
  • grannyannie over 2 years ago
    try to be positive rather than negative- use **** as treats or special addditionsemphasize such beverages as ****rather than **** healthier suggestions include****
  • Madeleine Hodgson over 2 years ago
    Highly recommend eliminating processed foods that contain added sugars, salt and saturated fats. Prepare more meals, snacks from raw, unprepared food products. Avoid all sodas, juices, drinks containing added sugars. Drink more water flavoured with lemon or lime, etc.
    Hide reply (1)
    • cnote over 2 years ago
      Easy on the lemon though. Bad for the choppers.
  • janinas over 2 years ago
    If we could eliminate soft drinks from our culture I think it would be a revolutionary change. One thing that is key though is that grocery stores have to be behind these changes. I find it next to impossible to buy a drink in a grocery store that doesn't contain sugar. Even so called 'healthy' options like "pure-tea' have oodles of sugar in them. So I usually end up just buying water ;-)
  • pambryan over 2 years ago
    Bravo!
  • GrumpyOne over 2 years ago
    I'm almost looking forward to my son's next school session on the food guide. Last time he came home and told me that chocolate milk is healthy...
  • sauconygirl over 2 years ago
    This principle could use some improvement as it is underwhelming in its ability to guide Canadians. I agree with the comment below that restructures the sentence(s) as follows: processed or prepared foods and bev undermine health especially when high in s,s &s. I agree with the commenters who pointed out the failure to speak to nitrites and artificial sweeteners. I personally believe that it is possible to over-process foods at home to a point where they are no longer healthy (think smoothies, baking, BBQ, cooking with oils at high temperatures). I would encourage the use of a statement such as "whole foods or lightly processed foods are preferred" so as to offer a solution to Canadians.
  • anitacarol over 2 years ago
    great principle. We need to inform people of the different names for sugar used by companies to fool us.
  • wendyspring@hotmail.ca over 2 years ago
    I am in favour of this proposal.
  • davef44 over 2 years ago
    As a vegan, the conventional processed/prepared foods are a no-no, not only due to sodium, sugars and saturated fats, but as a result of preservatives and artificial colourings. The same goes for beverages.
  • Darcie over 2 years ago
    I like it but is it clear that juice fits the 'high in sugars' category.
    Hide Replies (2)
    • Francois over 2 years ago
      Yes, juice and juicers are to be avoided. However, whole fruit or vegetable smoothies are healthy.
    • arzajac over 2 years ago
      I agree that could be made a little more clear. As in: Don't drink juice thinking you are consuming the equivalent of one (or two!) fruits. If you are thirsty, drink water. If you want the health benefits of fruit, eat fruit.
  • TroyDettwiler over 2 years ago
    It should be more clear what foods are to be avoided or limited in this category, like the examples of beverages.
  • annamarie.mceachern@gmail.com over 2 years ago
    I love that this lists fruit juice as an item to limit. So many people think because it's fruit based, it's healthy, when it's not. I also think examples of foods high in saturated fats should have examples too, unless they are added to the first guidline.
  • John McEwen over 2 years ago
    My wife and I are completely in favour of this recommendation as written; please do not change it in any way due to industry pressure.
  • Diane Beckett over 2 years ago
    Sounds good - but be sure to state what foods are high in saturated fats and should be avoided. That means stating that meat and dairy should be avoided because they are high in saturated fat. There is also lots of evidence that low fat dairy causes health problems and should not be recommended. If the guide only states avoid saturated fats - without stating the foods that contain saturate fat it is caving in to the animal food industry.
  • PauletteG over 2 years ago
    I support these recommendations. As it is not possible to list each and every food/type that should be limited and be a readable guideline, the intent of the limit or avoid list should be general, clear and easy to remember so any food can be assessed where it falls by the consumer at the time of purchase. The only change to the wording of Guiding principle 2 is to reverse the order of limit & avoid. ie: - Foods to avoid or limit. The concept of `avoid` should have a higher emphasis than `the concept of `limit.` The ideal target is to avoid, the practical application may be to limit - it is not always easy to eliminate any type of food depending on food sources and availability where you are living.
  • Fred over 2 years ago
    Agree
  • Francois over 2 years ago
  • Monika over 2 years ago
    I think that the proposed guiding principles should distinguish added sugar and sodium from naturally present sugars and sodium in vegetables and fruits.The proposed regulation would signal a high in sodium content for all natural vegetable juices that have NO ADDED sodium simply because the serving size was lately increased from 250ml to 500ml per day for all juices that are sold in a 500ml container!!! This makes no sense to me.
    Hide reply (1)
    • Francois over 2 years ago
      Be careful, juice companies say no added sugars but use boiling and evaporation too concentrate them. That is why a small glass of Tropicana orange juice 22g (5.5 teaspoons) vs same size Pepsi 23g (5.75 teaspoons) of sugar
  • arthursc over 2 years ago
    Avoid all animal-based protein (all meat, eggs, and milk), avoid high-sugar and acidic drinks, limit high sugar, salt, and saturated fat foods like chips, candy, and non-dark chocolate. Limit all non-plant based/whole foods
  • Francois over 2 years ago
    Please make it clear that whole goods are healthy while refined products such as oils should be minimized or avoided if possible even olive oil. Make it clear that saturated fats and trans fats should be avoided as much as possible from all sources as they have similar health impacts (insulin resistance, diabetes, obesity, heart attack, stroke, dementia). This means animal fats, palm and coconut oil, all hydrogenated products.
  • Francois over 2 years ago
    All nitrite containing products (cold cuts, ham, bacon, hot-dogs, sausages, etc) should be labelled according to eithr FDA (class 1 cancer causing substance) or W.H.O. (group 1 cancer causing substance) as the risks are in the same range as tobacco, asbestos and plutonium.
  • StephJo over 2 years ago
    Yes yes yes
  • Lauratigger over 2 years ago
    Worried this leaves the door wide open for artificial sweeteners and chemical preservatives. (I can see Diet Coke etc already marketing themselves as being part of a healthy diet according to this recommendation). Would prefer the recommendation either stop after the word beverages or make note of 'chemicals'.
    Hide reply (1)
    • Lizmartin2017 over 2 years ago
      I share this concern. I would like the food guide to explicitly address artificial sweeteners.
  • Manuela over 2 years ago
    I may drink one can of pop in a year, never been a pop drinker or juice for that matter. I try to avoid anything that has added sugar. Trying to eat as little processed as well. Fruit is better in its natural form as you get the fiber as well not just the 100% sugar as in juice. Reading ingredients and learning all the names for sugar is helpful
  • happyviking over 2 years ago
    Definitely avoid saturated fat.
  • Pbqc over 2 years ago
    I agree
  • Margo.Riebe-Butt over 2 years ago
    I'm not sure how simple this principle is for the everyday person to understand. I like the fact that it's a statement-even though it has a negative slant, it doesn't come across as such. Maybe it's "Processed or prepared foods and beverages undermine healthy eating, especially when high in sodium, sugars and unhealthy fats." It's the "Undermining" that is the important principle here, and hiding it at the end does not serve.At the end of the day processed foods are less healthful than whole foods, regardless.
  • homecook over 2 years ago
    What about processed or prepared beverages high in alternative sweeteners? Hasn't there been some evidence that "diet" drinks and "zero calorie" drinks have some similar effect on the body as real-sugar drinks in that they don't help to reduce obesity?Should we put the 'avoid' label on processed or prepared foods, rather than 'limited'?
    Hide reply (1)
    • JulienB over 2 years ago
      Of course there's evidence those sweetners don't help. They downregulate your sweetness receptors, and they are bad for your gut lining and microbiome.
  • washlock over 2 years ago
    I love the emphasis on staying away from processed foods!
  • 14elyssa over 2 years ago
    there should be a limited intake of packaged processed foods altogether. whole foods contain nutrients in proper ratios that are better assimilated than foods that have had essential nutrients & enzymes stripped/refined by processing. Another problem with packaged processed prdts that hinders proper absorption of nutrients, as opposed to whole foods (animal products are not whole either, as the animals acquire all nutrients that could be obtained from eating their products from plants), are chemical additives that disrupt the digestive tract. it should be noted that processed meats are class 1 carcinogens & should not be consumed at all.
  • cdrysdale over 2 years ago
    Excellent recommendations, especially for children of today in this technological age.