The @usda MyPlate serves as the primary educational tool for the Dietary Guidelines for Americans.
📊New CDC report: how many Americans have even heard of MyPlate? And how many tried to follow its guidance?
💣Are you ready for this?
🍽️1
The USDA MyPlate infographic was unveiled in *2011* replacing its predecessors (pyramid, pyramid with steps) that intend to convey to Americans what defines a healthy diet. They accompany the Dietary Guidelines for Americans updated every 5 yrs.
The US passively assesses the overall health of kids and adults through the @CDCgov National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) which conducts in-person vitals & diet/lifestyle assessments.
It's the same data that generates the trends in obesity & diet:
🍽️3
The 2017-2020 series included these questions, asking pts whether they've heard of MyPlate, and if yes, whether they've tried following its recommendations:
Have at least half of US adults ever heard of it? Maybe more?
🍽️4
Ehhh, lower -- Sorry. A quarter. 25% of US adults have ever *heard* of MyPlate. 😬
Women were more likely than men to have heard of it.
🍽️5
And the big kicker -- only 8% of US adults report ever having attempted to follow its dietary guidance. LESS THAN 10% HAVE TRIED TO FOLLOW THE DIETARY GUIDELINES.
And if we're convinced pts over estimate their healthiness, then 8% is likely an OVERestimate.
🍽️6
Ok but maybe Americans aren't familiar with "MyPlate" but are still eating consistently with its recommendations through policy etc.?
Nope. Not really.
Health Eating Index (HEI) has been around for decades as a metric of guidelines adherence.
Max score is 100. Look:
🍽️7
Bottom line, MyPlate serves to market the guidelines but most US adults are not familiar. This leads to an overall very low <10% of adults having ever intentionally followed its diet recs. But even among those who've heard of MyPlate, only a third attempted following it.
🍽️8
We also know that MyPlate is just one tool of many for the dissemination and implementation of the Dietary Guidelines.
But the HEI score trends indicate not much is happening overall, regardless of the anonymity of the MyPlate.
🍽️9
Here are some readings if you're interested in exploring the massive heterogeneity underlying the national averages. There are many more stories in here...
If you were just triggered, then this thread is for you.
If “but the human genome can’t evolve in a generation!” has passed your lips in the past few months, then this thread is for you.
🧬This is why obesity is genetic. And the environment is to blame.
Let’s set the scene. It’s 1980s in America. Average BMI of adults is 25. There is a distribution around that value, whereby at the far right of that curve, 15% of the population fall past the threshold of obesity.
We looked something like this cartoon graph.
As the obesity epidemic unfolds, a keen genetic scientist with indispensable research funds genotypes 100,000 middle aged adults and performs a GWAS of BMI.
Collectively, their genetics explain a small proportion of the BMI variability.
Could there BE a more classic single food nutritional epi example? I submit that there is not!
When another egg paper recently popped up in @CircAHA I jumped at the chance to walk through some of my favorite fundamental issues with single food analyses.
Let me first remind you of "Is everything we eat associated with cancer? A systematic cookbook review" and its scathing illustration published a decade ago now by Prof Ioannidis.
Take-away: Everything is good. Everything is bad. Nutritional epi get your act together.
Noted.
Even though it's a cherry picked narrative review, his figure does actually make a valid point. But the take-home most people left with was that nutritional epi simply cannot be trusted. Measurement error. Bias. All that.
Introduction: NEEDS to hard sell the research's importance. Why is exposure and outcome of public health interest? What gap in knowledge do you seek to address?
But authors' common mistakes -- DO NOT pitch your hypothesis based on your...
✏️Results.
Your hypothesis & study should be interesting and needed regardless of its outcome. Keep results OUT OF THE INTRO. "Statistically significant findings" should *not* be the motivation to read your paper.
✏️First one to do it.
I see it ALL the time "we did this study because no one has looked this before". (Was there a reason for that?) Don't confuse being first with *novelty*. If you're truly so cutting edge then congrats! But it's novelty should be conveyed beyond stating that.
📜This comprehensive thread by lead author @KevinH_PhD on our new paper of what the modern Energy Balance Model (EBM) of obesity *is* and *is not* is a *must read*.
However - I want to emphasize a few points from the epi/population health P.O.V. that underscore the biology:
2/ Visit the above linked thread for some set-up. And this thread here by @kevinnbass gives further background into the motivation behind the hypothesis explored in this analysis: