Revolutionary diet advice from US Government

Post by **reinhard** » Tue Feb 01, 2011 9:45 pm

From:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/01/busin ... ef=general

January 31, 2011

Governmentâ€™s Dietary Advice: Eat Less

By ANDREW MARTIN

As the nationâ€™s obesity crisis continues unabated, federal regulators on Monday issued their bluntest nutrition advice to date: drink water instead of sugary drinks like soda, fill your plate with fruits and vegetables and cut down on processed foods filled with sodium, fat or sugar.

More important, perhaps, the government told Americans, â€œEnjoy your food, but eat less.â€ Many Americans eat too many calories every day, expanding their waistlines and imperiling their health.

While the recommendations may seem obvious, it is nonetheless considered major progress for federal regulators, who have long skirted the issue, wary of the powerful food lobby. (The 112-page report even subtly suggests that people eat less pizza and dessert.)

Previous guidelines urged Americans to curb sugar, solid fats and salt, but avoided naming specific foods, let alone urging consumers to eat less food over all.

â€œFor them to have said â€˜eat lessâ€™ is really new. Who would have thought?â€ said Margo G. Wootan, director of nutrition policy at the Center for Science in the Public Interest.

Reinhard

Blithe Morning · Post by **Blithe Morning** » Tue Feb 01, 2011 9:56 pm

The smart aleck in me wants to make a comment about government tax dollars at work.

Unfortunately, I think the economy is still headed towards some shaky times so some people WILL be eating less - though not by choice and probably not from the more nutritious offerings of low priced foods.

wosnes · Post by **wosnes** » Tue Feb 01, 2011 11:35 pm

Blithe Morning wrote:
Unfortunately, I think the economy is still headed towards some shaky times so some people WILL be eating less - though not by choice and probably not from the more nutritious offerings of low priced foods.

I don't think a lot of Americans know what the nutritious, low-priced offerings are; don't think that they can be tasty and enjoyable; and don't know how to cook them.

Aleria · Post by **Aleria** » Wed Feb 02, 2011 12:45 am

wosnes wrote:
I don't think a lot of Americans know what the nutritious, low-priced offerings are; don't think that they can be tasty and enjoyable; and don't know how to cook them.

This is true, and not just of Americans. My best friend eats horribly because she thinks it's too expensive to eat healthy. I've been slowly converting her though, because I eat fairly well on a reduced budget.

Blithe Morning · Post by **Blithe Morning** » Wed Feb 02, 2011 1:29 am

I know of one woman doing a Food Stamp challenge (here)where she is trying to keep her food purchases to the amount given to a family of the same number on food stamps.

According to the food stamp calculator she references, my household would be eligible - max - for $463.

Hmmm.... I wonder how far I could make that stretch.

Well, it's a new month. This might be a good time to find out. Of course, I won't be starting from scratch as I have most of the ingredients for three more dinners, PLUS some stuff frozen PLUS my staples.

wosnes · Post by **wosnes** » Thu Feb 03, 2011 12:06 am

I like this better than the food stamp challenge.

One of the things that has annoyed me about the various food stamp challenges is the limitations people have put on themselves. Foods stamps are meant to supplement the food budget, not be the entire thing. While I'm sure that some people start with nothing in the kitchen and some do use it as their entire food budget, I don't think it's the norm.

However, either the Food Cost at Home or the Food Stamp Challenge can show us that eating well doesn't need to be expensive.

NoelFigart · Post by **NoelFigart** » Thu Feb 03, 2011 12:57 am

Interesting about the food plans.

The thrifty plan for my family would run ~110/week. That's about what I habitually spend.

Now, I did give my son a challenge to teach him food budgeting for a few weeks. I handed him a c-note and told him to make a meal plan and grocery list for the week, then he could keep the change. We were not allowed to live on only pasta, veggies were required and even if he doesn't care about fruit, I'm damned if I'm going to live without my Clementines in season, so he was going to have to suck that one up!

He averaged about $5/week for his own. We ate heathily enough (he planned his meals from that cookbook I wrote, and from what was on sale in the circulars), but that required more exacting meal planning than I prefer to do on a weekly basis and we couldn't afford Cabot cheese. (I figured if I was going to dig in my heels about the oranges, I should let the cheese go).

I'm fine with spending 110/week on groceries though. That's enough to eat just fine for the three of us, but I cook from scratch most of the time, as it's considerably cheaper.

The one week he went over, I dug in my heels because there was a huge deal on 20# of rice.

This talks about eating well on the cheap and is very funny: http://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comme ... _weeks_so/

Blithe Morning · Post by **Blithe Morning** » Thu Feb 03, 2011 1:02 am

I average about $110 which is what our household would pay for the thrifty plan. Some weeks it's more, some a lot less.

I love that challenge for your son. I wish I'd thought of that.

NoelFigart · Post by **NoelFigart** » Thu Feb 03, 2011 1:06 am

Blithe Morning wrote:I love that challenge for your son. I wish I'd thought of that.

My son has Nonverbal Learning Disorder (i.e. Well, it's not quite AUTISM, Ms. Figart...).

That means I have to teach him consciously things that we seem to expect kids to pick up on their own. Now in RL, yes yes yes, he's getting the Life 101 lessons I wish my parents had thought to give me, but in his case I HAVE to because he probably wouldn't be able to muddle through on his own as an adult. So I have to think about things more consciously than a parent of a "normal" child might.