Look at this gem that Will showed me the other day…
How is it that the US Food Administration of 1917 was more on point with their nutrition recommendations than the USDA is today?
Besides the “less meat”, I would recommend these guidelines to people before I would ever choose to recommend the vague and unhelpful “My Plate” (above) that the government is using these days. This makes sense. This is logical and sustainable.
True, it doesn’t tell us “what” to eat, but if we’re sticking to real, whole foods, than we don’t need someone to tell us what we should be eating. Veggies, meats, poultry, fish, eggs, and fruits. That’s what we should be eating. Sprinkle in some nuts and seeds, and you have yourself what I would call a pretty well balanced diet.
Grains? If you want, but they certainly don’t need to make up a quarter of your “plate”, as the USDA would like us to think. And dairy? If you want, and if you can tolerate it. It does not have to be a dietary staple for all, although the Milk lobbyists would have you believe that if you don’t drink milk, you’re going to shrivel up and die a horrible death.
Following simple and logical recommendations such as those shown above require that people do one thing: be mindful about your food. Choose carefully, choose foods that will truly nourish you, and make these local foods whenever possible.
Just a little food for thought on this lovely Wednesday — what do you think are more accurate recommendations, these from 1917 or the USDA official recommendations of today? Why do you think that food “rules” have become so complicated in modern day? Can you think of anything you’d want to add on to that list from 1917 to make it more applicable to today?