The Science-Based Approach to Food Pyramids
What Does ‘Healthy Eating’ Look Like?
Determining the food pyramid through Google searches alone is inefficient, as there are many with varying degrees of consistency from pyramid-to-pyramid agreement-wise.
There’s been one pyramid going around online recently, but it’s the food pyramid from the USDA in 1992. This particular food pyramid has been said to advocate for a predominantly carbohydrate-based diet, which is true, but only part of the picture of things.
These carbohydrates are whole grains (6–11 daily servings), fruits (2–4 daily servings), and vegetables (3–5 daily servings), not simple sugars and the processed snacks they’re commonly found in.
The original food pyramid advocated limiting added sugar and oils like trans fats and saturated fats. Abiding strictly by the USDA’s food pyramid would be a high-carbohydrate diet relative to the amount of protein and fatty acids it permits. It is limited to 2–3 servings of dairy and 2–3 servings of other protein and fat sources, like meat, fish, eggs, and nuts.
What is Good about the Original Food Pyramid?
Since the standardization of this model, there’s been a health epidemic in America. Some say that the recommendation of a high carbohydrate diet is to blame for the rise of things like cardiovascular disease becoming the number one cause of death for Americans in the 21st century.
There is, however, no evidence to support this claim. It also mischaracterizes the food pyramid’s base –which, as we’ll see, does present room for some revision, as whole grains aren’t suitable for many people. Increased rates of diabetes, obesity, and cardiovascular disease, among other relevant factors, did occur following the food pyramid’s release. Still, these were trends already set in motion before its release among Americans through different causes.
Marketing science has done a number on our scales in its decades-long ability to incentivize consumers to buy what’s at the top of the food pyramid more often than what’s at the bottom — like by placing snacks front and center in all stores.
That’s just one cause, and with anything like this, there’s bound to be many. Still, the relevant one here is that the epidemic did not coincide with abidance to the food pyramid by large numbers of Americans, as noted by nutritional scientist Layne Norton.
There wasn’t even an increase in the number of carbohydrates increased among Americans after 1992’s recommendations.
Of the macronutrients, fatty acid consumption increased the most –consider that when eating fast food (which millions of Americans do daily), most of the calories are coming from fats –including trans fats, which are rightly at the top of the pyramid due to their toxic effects. The artificially-generated forms of trans fats are even banned from food products in some U.S. states!
The point is that even though health problems increased after 1992, it wasn’t because people were following the food pyramid. Most people, comparatively speaking, would benefit significantly if they actually did follow the USDA’s guidelines.
So if we define a “healthy diet” as one that provides all essential micronutrients at a balanced level of calories, the USDA’s food pyramid isn’t actually a bad choice –with some amendments and asterisks, especially on a case-by-case basis.
What needs to Change?
For instance, 6–11 servings of whole grains are excessive for most people, and other pyramids suggest having at least three servings. Having more can be helpful if you require extra calories for physical exertion. Still, because most people are sedentary, the USDA’s recommendation shouldn’t apply to them. Additionally, millions of people cannot have whole grains because of gluten intolerances, allergies, or celiac disease.
Harvard’s pyramid is here helpful to borrow from because it places whole grains, healthy fats (monounsaturated and polyunsaturated), and fruits & vegetables side-by-side at the base as the options we should be drawing from most when we’re eating.
There are very few people with conditions that make this base inappropriate –if you’re not allergic to gluten and enjoy it, the benefits of whole grains include high levels of dietary fiber and iron.
Likewise, unless you are lactose intolerant, dairy also doesn’t need to be as severely limited. Dairy contains high levels of calcium, potassium, vitamin D, and protein, which are all essential nutrients most of us do not get enough of.
Saturated fats are now understood to be less harmful than previously thought — albeit in ways not yet fully comprehended. So removing saturated fat from the peak of the food pyramid is one worthy amendment, while increasing dietary intake of saturated fats is not.
The food group that should instead see an increase in dietary consumption is protein –which in some cases, could increase saturated fat intake. According to University of Illinois nutrition scientist Dr. Donald Layman, increasing the RDA (Recommended Daily Allowance) for protein may, if followed, improve public health.
“The RDA [for protein] is okay. The definition of the RDA is the minimum intake to prevent a deficiency. Thus, as far as we can see, people in the U.S. that meet the RDA do not exhibit symptoms of protein deficiencies such as edema (2), fatty liver (3), hair/nail loss (4), loss of muscle mass (5), and increased bone weakness (6). Nevertheless, that is not the same as saying that the RDA generates optimal health. There is a range of good nutrition for any nutrient versus merely filling in the gaps of potential deficiencies. For instance, 60 mg of vitamin C will prevent scurvy, but people regularly take 500–1000mg to improve immunity and prevent colds. For protein, we misuse the RDA because it is perceived as the optimal amount for health when it is the minimal amount to offset the deficiency. There is a lot of evidence for healthy adults that twice the RDA is the optimal level for health and, particularly, muscular health. The reason for this is that as we age, the signaling elements for muscle protein synthesis [i.e., protein being produced to repair muscle damage] shift from (when we are young) being driven by hormones to (when we are older) being driven by dietary protein and in particular the quality and quantity of dietary protein.”
That being so, we’d want to bias particular sources of protein with an abundance of nutrients, such as eggs (choline; omega 3s), salmon (potassium; omega 3s), lean cuts of steak, such as sirloin (iron; the full spectrum of B-vitamins), and Greek yogurt (probiotics; calcium; vitamin D).
Likewise, if increasing saturated fat intake is of interest, coconut oil is one of the best options, as it has unique properties separate from its high saturated fat content, such as MCT oils, which can improve bowel function and functioning.
This modified pyramid is an excellent starting point because it encourages eating predominantly nutritious foods while allowing some room for junk food at the peak. As a starting point, each individual should modify it to their idiosyncratic dietary, health, and athletic needs. Some will need to eliminate whole food groups; however, this does not bar them from consuming a predominantly nutritious diet.
It permits health! This makes our food pyramid dynamic.
The importance here is in answering a common concern among those less acquainted with nutrition, encapsulated in the question: “what does ‘healthy eating’ look like?”
The modified and dynamic food pyramid is where anyone looking to answer that question should start.
This is because it acknowledges the generalities across human health and recognizes the need to accommodate negative reactions to general prescriptions.
For example, penicillin is a go-to for numerous bacterial infections.
However, some are allergic to it and need something else that is quite similar but not identical to penicillin. The same principle of generality conjoined with dynamism should apply to the food pyramid.
