Comments on: The evolution of healthy eating advice: our new Dietary Guidelines

By: Bill Shrapnel

Bill Shrapnel — Mon, 26 Aug 2013 04:58:07 +0000

Hi Alison
Thanks for your feedback. Sorry that some of my posts are out of reach. It’s hard when the potential audience is so broad. But I’m glad that you are taking the time to learn a bit about nutrition. A few one-liners:
* Good nutrition is a broad concept, not a narrow one. Healthy diets are many and varied.
* Ignore feverish passion. Embrace commonsense.
* Steer clear of radical approaches. They are often misguided and they never deliver in the long term, because no-one can stick with them in the long term.
* Don’t suffer through food. It’s there to be enjoyed, preferably in the company of family or friends.
Regards, Bill

By: Alison

Alison — Sat, 24 Aug 2013 09:45:38 +0000

Thanks so much for all this information Bill – at 37 years of age I’m finally biting the biscuit (pardon the pun) and educating myself about healthy eating, including trying to debunk some myths and illuminate some of my pre-enlightnment assumptions.
As I seek to navigate a path between my hippy wholefood friends (as is my intuition), my extremely uninformed and unhealthy upbringing, and the conventional wisdom (low fat is best, even though it means it might be heavily processed food), your posts are an island of sanity in a sea of feverous passion – i just wish i could understand more of what you write, perhaps you might consider including an occasional brief one-sentence summary for nutrition “beginners”.
cheers,
Alison

By: Bill Shrapnel

Bill Shrapnel — Fri, 01 Mar 2013 05:29:57 +0000

Hi Jenna. You and I are on the same wavelength. I think nutrient density is one dimension of healthiness – it reflects the potential of a food to deliver essential nutrients. I follow Adam Drewnowski’s advice on the calculation of nutrient density and he only includes nutrients with Nutrient Reference Values, so monos are not included.
But as you point out, there is another dimension of healthiness, which I would call fat quality. So rather than targeting foods that are energy-dense, nutrient-poor I would target foods that are nutrient-poor with poor fat quality (and foods that are nutrient-poor with poor carbohydrate quality). Regards, Bill

By: Jenna

Jenna — Mon, 25 Feb 2013 02:30:43 +0000

Bill, what term would you propose rather than ‘energy-dense, nutrient-poor’? Macadamias might be micro-nutrient poor, but they are high in unsaturated fats, so to me I would not call it nutrient-poor in general. Would you suggest making the distinction between foods which offer *a* benefit as opposed to no benefit and possibly detriment? That would help separate nuts from, say, cream. Also, can you comment on where you think rice belongs on the AGHE.

By: Pamela Holdsworth JP APD...Gold Coast and Mt Gravatt Brisbane South.

Pamela Holdsworth JP APD...Gold Coast and Mt Gravatt Brisbane South. — Sun, 24 Feb 2013 22:39:58 +0000

Dear Bill….I always look forward to reading your wise words of wisdom…..They help me in giving the most up to date direction to my own patients, family and friends. Muchly appreciated….thank you…Pamela Holdsworth APD.