Legume food crops can contribute to the solution of diet-related public health challenges. The rich diversity of the botanical family Fabaceae (Leguminosae) allows legumes to fill numerous ...nutritional niches. Pulses (i.e., a subgroup of legumes including chickpeas, cowpeas, dry beans, dry peas, and lentils) are a nutrient-dense food that could play a key role in eliminating the dramatic underconsumption of dietary fiber and potassium, two dietary components of public health concern, all while maintaining a caloric intake that promotes a healthy weight status. However, incorrect use of terminology-in the commercial and scientific literature as well as in publications and materials prepared for the consuming public-creates confusion and represents a barrier to dissemination of clear dietary guideline messaging. The use of accurate terminology and a simple classification scheme can promote public health through differentiation among types of legumes, better informing the development and implementation of nutritional policies and allowing health care professionals and the public to capitalize on the health benefits associated with different legumes. Although inconsistent grouping of legumes exists across countries, the recently released 2020-2025 Dietary Guidelines for Americans (DGA) were chosen to illustrate potential challenges faced and areas for clarification. In the 2020-2025 DGA, pulses are included in two food groups: the protein food group and 'beans, peas, lentils' vegetable subgroup. To evaluate the potential of pulses to contribute to intake of key dietary components within calorie recommendations, we compared 100 kilocalorie edible portions of pulses versus other foods. These comparisons demonstrate the unique nutritional profile of pulses and the opportunity afforded by this type of legume to address public health concerns, which can be greatly advanced by reducing confusion through global harmonization of terminology.
Objective: To assess the appropriateness and understanding of the revised, draft South African Paediatric Food-Based Dietary Guidelines (SA-PFBDGs) among mothers/caregivers of children aged 12-36 ...months. Exposure to guidelines with similar messages, barriers and enablers to following of the guidelines were also assessed.
Design: A descriptive cross-sectional qualitative study was conducted. Data were collected from nine focus-group discussions (FGDs) conducted in isiXhosa, English and Afrikaans, resulting in 65 participants, 20 from formal areas and 45 from informal areas.
Setting: Stellenbosch Municipality (Stellenbosch, Pniel and Franschhoek)
Subjects: The study population included mothers/caregivers older than 18 years, who consented to participate.
Results: This study revealed that participants expressed a general understanding of the core messages contained in the revised, draft SA-PFBDGs. Misinterpretation arose regarding certain guidelines as a result of ambiguity. Participants were familiar with and recognised the majority of the concepts conveyed owing to previous exposure, mostly from healthcare facilities and the media. Financial constraints were identified as the biggest barrier to following the guidelines, while perceived enablers included receiving education on the guidelines as well as visual portrayal thereof.
Conclusion: Following field-testing, it is clear that the draft, revised SA-PFBDGs for the age group 12-36 months are appropriate. Minor rewording is required to enhance understanding. Effective dissemination of the guidelines through multiple communication platforms is recommended.
AbstractObjectiveTo analyse the health and environmental implications of adopting national food based dietary guidelines (FBDGs) at a national level and compared with global health and environmental ...targets.DesignModelling study.Setting85 countries.ParticipantsPopulation of 85 countries.Main outcome measuresA graded coding method was developed and used to extract quantitative recommendations from 85 FBDGs. The health and environmental impacts of these guidelines were assessed by using a comparative risk assessment of deaths from chronic diseases and a set of country specific environmental footprints for greenhouse gas emissions, freshwater use, cropland use, and fertiliser application. For comparison, the impacts of adopting the global dietary recommendations of the World Health Organization and the EAT-Lancet Commission on Healthy Diets from Sustainable Food Systems were also analysed. Each guideline’s health and sustainability implications were assessed by modelling its adoption at both the national level and globally, and comparing the impacts to global health and environmental targets, including the Action Agenda on Non-Communicable Diseases, the Paris Climate Agreement, the Aichi biodiversity targets related to land use, and the sustainable development goals and planetary boundaries related to freshwater use and fertiliser application.ResultsAdoption of national FBDGs was associated with reductions in premature mortality of 15% on average (95% uncertainty interval 13% to 16%) and mixed changes in environmental resource demand, including a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions of 13% on average (regional range −34% to 35%). When universally adopted globally, most of the national guidelines (83, 98%) were not compatible with at least one of the global health and environmental targets. About a third of the FBDGs (29, 34%) were incompatible with the agenda on non-communicable diseases, and most (57 to 74, 67% to 87%) were incompatible with the Paris Climate Agreement and other environmental targets. In comparison, adoption of the WHO recommendations was associated with similar health and environmental changes, whereas adoption of the EAT-Lancet recommendations was associated with 34% greater reductions in premature mortality, more than three times greater reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, and general attainment of the global health and environmental targets. As an example, the FBDGs of the UK, US, and China were incompatible with the climate change, land use, freshwater, and nitrogen targets, and adopting guidelines in line with the EAT-Lancet recommendation could increase the number of avoided deaths from 78 000 (74 000 to 81 000) to 104 000 (96 000 to 112 000) in the UK, from 480 000 (445 000 to 516 000) to 585 000 (523 000 to 646 000) in the USA, and from 1 149 000 (1 095 000 to 1 204 000) to 1 802 000 (1 664 000 to 1 941 000) in China.ConclusionsThis analysis suggests that national guidelines could be both healthier and more sustainable. Providing clearer advice on limiting in most contexts the consumption of animal source foods, in particular beef and dairy, was found to have the greatest potential for increasing the environmental sustainability of dietary guidelines, whereas increasing the intake of whole grains, fruits and vegetables, nuts and seeds, and legumes, reducing the intake of red and processed meat, and highlighting the importance of attaining balanced energy intake and weight levels were associated with most of the additional health benefits. The health results were based on observational data and assuming a causal relation between dietary risk factors and health outcomes. The certainty of evidence for these relations is mostly graded as moderate in existing meta-analyses.
The last decade has seen nearly 20 papers reviewing the totality of the data on saturated fats and cardiovascular outcomes, which, altogether, have demonstrated a lack of rigorous evidence to support ...continued recommendations either to limit the consumption of saturated fatty acids or to replace them with polyunsaturated fatty acids. These papers were unfortunately not considered by the process leading to the most recent U.S. Dietary Guidelines for Americans, the country’s national nutrition policy, which recently reconfirmed its recommendation to limit saturated fats to 10% or less of total energy intake, based on insufficient and inconsistent evidence. Continuation of a cap on saturated fat intake also fails to consider the important effects of the food matrix and the overall dietary pattern in which saturated fatty acids are consumed.
The History and Future of Dietary Guidance in America Jahns, Lisa; Davis-Shaw, Wendy; Lichtenstein, Alice H ...
Advances in nutrition (Bethesda, Md.),
March 2018, 20180301, 2018-03-01, 2018-03-00, Volume:
9, Issue:
2
Journal Article
Peer reviewed
Open access
Evidence-based dietary guidance in the United States has progressed substantially since its inception >100 y ago. This review describes the historical development and significance of dietary guidance ...in the United States, including the Dietary Guidelines for Americans (DGAs), and emphasizes the foundations upon which they were developed, the process in the formation of past and current guidelines, and present and future applications. Dietary guidance during the first half of the 20th century was focused primarily on food groups in a healthy diet, food safety, safe food storage, and the role of some minerals and vitamins in the prevention of disease. This was punctuated by World War II messaging to reduce food waste and increase food storage. In 1980, the first DGA report was released, and later, the USDA and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) were given a mandate for reissuance and reassessment every 5 y. An ad hoc advisory committee made up of nongovernmental experts was established for each edition to review the scientific evidence and provide content recommendations to the Secretaries of the USDA and the HHS. Wording was changed from negative (avoid) to positive (choose) and emphasis was increasingly placed on reducing the prevalence of overweight and obesity and prevention of chronic diseases. Today, the DGAs guide all federally funded feeding and educational programs, including food policies, food assistance programs, and consumer education programs, as well as these programs at the regional, state, and local levels. Additional users include dietitians and other health professionals, food service personnel, food and beverage manufacturers, schools, and day care facilities. Currently, the DGAs are intended for individuals aged ≥2 y. Future editions of the DGAs will include guidance for infants and children <2 y, as well as pregnant women.
Wprowadzenie i cel: W cukrzycy typu 1 odpowiedzialność za zdrowie i akceptacja choroby mogą wpływać na przestrzeganie diety. Zbadano, w jaki sposób odpowiedzialność za zdrowie i akceptacja choroby ...wpływają na przestrzeganie diety u młodych pacjentów z cukrzycą typu 1, biorąc pod uwagę rolę objawów zaburzeń odżywiania. Materiał i metody: Obserwacyjne, przekrojowe badanie kwestionariuszowe online przeprowadzono wśród 190 pacjentów w wieku 12-18 lat z cukrzycą typu 1 (lub w przypadku młodszych pacjentów wśród ich rodziców) w okresie od maja 2021 do maja 2023 roku. Użyto skal: Diabetes Dietary Guidelines Adherence Index, Acceptance of Illness Scale, Diabetes Eating Problem Survey- Revised Scale oraz Sense of Responsibility for Health Scale. Na podstawie literatury opracowano model pokazujący wpływ odpowiedzialności za zdrowie i akceptacji choroby na przestrzeganie diety, z uwzględnieniem pośredniczącej roli zaburzeń odżywiania. Wyniki: Stopień przestrzegania diety przez młodzież z cukrzycą typu 1 zależał do poziomu akceptacji choroby, poczucia odpowiedzialności za własne zdrowie oraz nasilenia symptomów zaburzeń odżywiania. Poziom akceptacji choroby miał negatywny wpływ na przestrzeganie diety, natomiast poczucie odpowiedzialności za zdrowie pozytywnie wpływało na przestrzeganie diety. Wystąpienie objawów zaburzeń odżywiania miało negatywny wpływ na przestrzeganie diety. Wnioski: Projektując i wdrażając interwencje edukacyjne dla pacjentów z cukrzycą typu 1, należy uwzględnić działania mające na celu wzmacnianie poczucia odpowiedzialności za własne zdrowie oraz identyfikujące ryzyko wystąpienia zaburzeń odżywiania.
While food-based dietary guidelines have been widely disseminated for decades to improve nutritional knowledge in the population about healthy diets, more recent interventions such as front-of-pack ...labelling have made the differences between the two approaches apparent. While food-based dietary guidelines provide the overarching framework and benchmarks for a healthy diet, based on the current knowledge of the associations between various dietary components and health outcomes, front-of-pack labelling provides guidance to select a specific food, either within a food group or among similar foods belonging to various brands. Labelling foods as 'healthy' or 'unhealthy' raises multiple questions on the criteria used to define the terms and the implications of assigning an absolute healthiness value to an individual food in the context of complex diets. Gradual systems may provide more relative assessments and avoid dichotomisation. The present article presents the inherent differences and the complementarity of food-based dietary guidelines and food choice guidance in the context of food labelling.
PDF
