Those testifying against the Guidelines focused on the Committee’s misuse of scientific data to justify a high-carbohydrate, low-fat diet. Dr. Jeff Volek, scientist and academic researcher at the University of Connecticut, noted that the DGAC report ignored scientific studies showing the effectiveness of low carbohydrate diets for weight loss.
Four of the dissenters presented the views of the Nutrition and Metabolism Society, a group of nutrition researchers and medical professionals who have studied the benefits of a low-carbohydrate diet for weight loss, insulin regulation and protection against chronic disease. “We expected the new guidelines to recognize current research that vindicates saturated fats as a cause of heart disease and weight gain, and to acknowledge the demonstrated benefits of lower carbohydrate diets,” said Dr. Richard Feinman of Downstate University, New York.
Further, Dr. Andrew Shao, senior vice president, scientific and regulatory affairs of the Council for Responsible Nutrition (CRN), expressed concern that dietary supplements are not addressed in the draft to the extent necessary.
“Americans need practical guidance on improving their personal dietary habits and avoiding nutrient shortfalls, including the beneficial and supporting role that vitamin and mineral supplements play in a nutrition program. Unfortunately, the 2010 DGAC Draft Report takes a step backward—without scientific justification—when it comes to vitamin and mineral supplements, by failing to recognize how the multivitamin can address dietary inadequacies for nutrients,” he said.