Last update and review: February 12, 2020.
Low Carb Denver 2019 – Q&A Day 2 Morning Session.
4:02 Someone from the audience:
I’d like to ask Nina (Teicholz) about her opinion. And I was very happy to hear the fact that there is a spark of the change in the US dietary guidelines. And I’d like to ask you (Nina) how do you think after we get some studies and the empirical data that prove the low-carb diet or low carb high fat diet is beneficial rather than the vegetarian diet, then how do you think the change of the US dietary guidelines would be revolutionary or the gradual change?
Nina Teicholz:
So, I think the US dietary guidelines were the first national guidelines in the world. They started as a policy program in 1980 and they are probably our worst export product. We influence the whole world to adopt national guidelines and we are considered around the world to be the gold standard. That’s why they were able to bring charges against Tim Noakes in South Africa. So, I think, a change in our guidelines, if it were to, say, adopt a low carbohydrate dietary pattern, just as an option, so it’s no longer a taboo, I think, it would be enormously influential globally. Really.
What do the guidelines say in reality?
Well, it depends on what guidelines we choose. Let us look at the Dietary reference intakes for energy, carbohydrate, fiber, fat, fatty acids, cholesterol, protein, and amino acids, established by the Institute of Medicine, a part of the National Academy of Sciences in the US.
It turns out that the 2005 edition of the Dietary Reference Intakes recommends a “low carb diet” (DRI 2005) (1):
Carbohydrate EAR (estimated average requirements) and RDA (recommended daily allowance). Summary, Ages 19 Years and Older
EAR for Men
19–30 years 100 g/d of carbohydrate
31–50 years 100 g/d of carbohydrate
51–70 years 100 g/d of carbohydrate
> 70 years 100 g/d of carbohydrateEAR for Women
19–30 years 100 g/d of carbohydrate
31–50 years 100 g/d of carbohydrate
51–70 years 100 g/d of carbohydrate
> 70 years 100 g/d of carbohydrateThe RDA for carbohydrate is set by using a CV of 15 percent based on the variation in brain glucose utilization. The RDA is defined as equal to the EAR plus twice the CV to cover the needs of 97 to 98 percent of the individuals in the group (therefore, for carbohydrate the RDA is 130 percent of the EAR).
RDA for Men
19–30 years 130 g/d of carbohydrate
31–50 years 130 g/d of carbohydrate
51–70 years 130 g/d of carbohydrate
> 70 years 130 g/d of carbohydrateRDA for Women
19–30 years 130 g/d of carbohydrate
31–50 years 130 g/d of carbohydrate
51–70 years 130 g/d of carbohydrate
> 70 years 130 g/d of carbohydrate
The “low carb” advice is not the only thing that the DRI 2005 got right. And though there are some errors, the DRI 2005 is an overall interesting and informative work.
A side note: 100 to 150 grams of carbohydrates a day is not enough for physically active athletic people.
We need to note here that 100 to 150 grams of carbohydrate a day is not enough for physically active people. If carbohydrates are chronically limited to 150 grams a day in, for example, endurance athletes, many hormonal axes will be suppressed. It is notably that case of hypothalamus-pituitary-thyroid axis. Check the link below on the recommended thyroid laboratory tests. If you need help with interpreting your laboratory tests, do not hesitate to get in contact with us.
Who was involved and who funded the Dietary reference intakes for energy, carbohydrate, fiber, fat, fatty acids, cholesterol, protein, and amino acids?
Well, the same corrupt US bureaucracy and even “Big Sugar” and “Big Pharma”:
This project was funded by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Contract No. 282-96-0033, TO #4; Health Canada; the U.S. Food and Drug Administration; the National Institutes of Health; the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; the U.S. Department of Agriculture; the Department of Defense; the Institute of Medicine; the Dietary Reference Intakes Private Foundation Fund, including the Dannon Institute and the International Life Sciences Institute, North America; and the Dietary Reference Intakes Corporate Donors’ Fund. Contributors to the Fund include Roche Vitamins Inc, Mead Johnson Nutrition Group, and M&M Mars. The views presented in this report are those of the Institute of Medicine Standing Committee on the Scientific Evaluation of Dietary Reference Intakes and its panels and subcommittes and are not necessarily those of the funding agencies.
And yet, the resulting guidance is not bad. The scientists involved did a good job despite being funded by corrupt bureaucracies and corporations.
Which guidelines does Nina Teicholz attack then?
Nina Teicholz apparently did not read the DRI 2005. Nina attacks other guidelines, namely “The Dietary Guidelines for Americans”, which are established by the same notoriously dumb and corrupt current US bureaucracy, by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the Health and Human Services (HHS).
The current Secretary of Agriculture Sony Perdue, head of the USDA, was elected and several times re-elected as the Governor of Georgia. The current Secretary of Health and Human Services is Alex Azar, “a lawyer, pharmaceutical lobbyist, and former drug company executive”. The fact that a character like Azar is allowed to serve as the head of the HHS is an illustration of the abysmal corruption of the bureaucracy and of the abysmal stupidity of the masses who, by their votes, allow the corruption to continue. The dumb masses have the leadership and the dietary advice that they deserve. Nina Teicholz wants to save the masses from what they themselves vote for.
There are also corrupt scientists involved. Note, however, that not all scientists are corrupt. The scientists that worked on DRI 2005 did a good job despite being funded by the same corrupt bureaucratic bodies.
Why does our medical consultancy know what is in the Dietary Reference Intakes guidelines (DRI 2005) and others don’t?
Making sure that our consulting clients have adequate intakes of minerals and vitamins is one of our first interventions. We often use Dietary Reference Intakes (DRI 2005) as reference material. That is how we learned what else is inside apart from the daily allowances of minerals and vitamins.
What about other medical practitioners, health educators, and health-conscious public? What do they use as reference material to advise their patients, consulting clients and to make sure their intakes are adequate? Nina Teicholz gave dozens of presentations, writes books and blog posts, and comments about the evil guidelines as a member of panels of experts. Like in the case cited at the beginning of this article. So, why nobody corrected Nina so far? Why did nobody ask until now why DRI 2005 are not used as a reference instead of the evil “Dietary Guidelines for Americans”? Why schools, hospitals, companies, and families do not use DRI 2005 as guidance?
Anthropology: Apparently, nobody reads anything. People just mindlessly parrot some random things that they hear often.
The verdict.
Even in our age, the masses, the majority of the population, live in a state of illiteracy, believe in and spread superstitions. One of the currently popular superstitions is to accuse “the evil dietary guidance” and some imaginary evil forces or evil spirits that are behind the “evil guidelines”.
In reality, there are different dietary guidelines out there. Some of them are actually quite good. Everyone can read the existing publications, verify the information, and form his or her own opinion on what the appropriate intakes of nutrients are.
The “evil” also exists, notably, in the form of corrupt and incompetent bureaucracy. But this corrupt bureaucracy is a result of how the majority of the population behaves and how it votes in elections. The situation is the same in all the countries with several rare exceptions.
November 18, 2019, An update:
An account with the name Nina Teicholz responded to our article. Most likely, it is indeed Nina Teicholz:
There is only one Dietary Guidelines for Americans, and they do not recommend <100g carbs per day. Nothing I said was incorrect, so please do not say you are “debunking” me. This is inaccurate on your part. You are adding further information about other government standards. DRI/EAR are not as influential in terms of setting policy, so this is why I emphasize the guidelines.
Selected References:
- National Academies Press. (2005).Dietary reference intakes for energy, carbohydrate, fiber, fat, fatty acids, cholesterol, protein, and amino acids. Washington, DC.
There is only one Dietary Guidelines for Americans, and they do not recommend <100g carbs per day. Nothing I said was incorrect, so please do not say you are "debunking" me. This is inaccurate on your part. You are adding further information about other government standards. DRI/EAR are not as influential in terms of setting policy, so this is why I emphasize the guidelines