For more content like this, please SUBSCRIBE AND FOLLOW me on social media and check out these additional resources:
FREE GUIDE TO OPTIMAL CHOLESTEROL LEVELS: https://drmatthewnagra.com/resources/
JOIN MY COMMUNITY: https://drmatthewnagra.com/join/
WEBSITE: https://drmatthewnagra.com
NEWSLETTER: http://eepurl.com/gNAERv
INSTAGRAM: https://www.instagram.com/dr.matthewnagra/
TWITTER: https://twitter.com/drmatthewnagra
FACEBOOK: https://www.facebook.com/dr.matthewnagra/
TIKTOK: www.tiktok.com/@dr.matthewnagra
References:
https://www.fns.usda.gov/cnpp/dietary-guidelines-americans
https://www.dietaryguidelines.gov/about-dietary-guidelines/previous-editions/1980-dietary-guidelines-americans
#sugar #dietaryguidelines #nutrition
Full Transcript
USDA Added Sugar Guidelines Explained 0:00
95% of the folks that make our nutrition guidelines are directly paid for by food companies. That means the USDA recommends added sugar for two-year-olds. They say up to 10% out of a two year old's diet should be added to sugar. First off, the USDA does not tell people they should eat added sugar. They recommend consuming nutrient-dense foods with little to no added sugars. But if you're going to have some added-sugar, it should be in small amounts and used to help increase the consumption of healthy foods.
For example, stir-fried vegetables with a bit of teriyaki sauce, which typically has some sugar, and if are going be having these added sugars, they set the maximum accepted level at 10% of calories. Not that you should consume that much, but if your going too, that's the max. And for the record, the guidelines have never recommended added sugar intake as you can see right here in the original guidelines from 1980. Now for claim that 95% of advisors are directly paid by the food industry because it's always a conspiracy with these people.
Conflict of Interest Claims Debunked 0:52
A recent report found that 9 out of 20 members had medium or high-risk conflicts of interest while 4 had possible conflicts. So even if we include all of those, it falls way below the 95% number that he probably just made up. Now that isn't to downplay the importance of disclosing conflicts of interest, but just because someone has a potential conflict doesn't mean that they'll be biased in their recommendations. We ultimately have to look at the report, the methodology used, and how they formulate the recommendations, which in previous iterations has been pretty solid.
But there's more. Calley states that the conflicts in interest are what drive the recommendation around sugar, Which I already explained he's wrong about anyway. Well, some of the most common conflicts of interest that were reported were related to the dairy industry, with some members having ties to egg and beef as well. The closest thing to a direct connection to sugar industry that I could find was that one member spoke at a conference with numerous sponsors in which one of those sponsors was Coca-Cola, and that same member had conflicts related the National Dairy Council amongst other groups.
So this idea that the dietary guidelines are recommending that people eat added sugar is just plain false to begin with, even more laughable, especially when it's coming from the pro meat and dairy crowd.
Comments