I have to admit that I had successfully avoided the USDA's 2005 Food Pyramid altogether for years. Actually, I only noticed it for the first time today, though I remember hearing some indiscernible buzz about it, when it came out. I'm certain that I still see the 1992 version posted in public places but don't recall seeing the newest version at all before now. In fact, I was completely unaware of the many details of the 2005 version until I read Maddie Ruud's Internet article, What Does a Healthy Diet Look Like?

I was only familiar with the now outdated pyramid with breads and cereals making up the base and a slightly smaller amount of fruits and vegetables, as the next stage. On top of that came the meat and dairy and finally a narrow peak of fats, oils and sweets. The servings were easily readable at a glance with a clarity that the current pyramid lacks until one consults the list of explanations that accompanies it. I do see why criticism of the old food pyramid was justified, but it was so easy to take in with just a glance, which is not so with our current pyramid.

The newer, more complex, 2005 version requires a much closer look than did the older version and attempts to put a great many conditions into its interpretation. The recommendations are somewhat clarified in a line near the bottom of the index which specifies how many servings of each food group to include each day. Then there are more stipulations and conditions, as not to make planning one's daily food intake seem like something that can be done with no thought.

A closer look reveals that the Butterfinger group is conspicuously missing, as is any mention of sweets at all on the actual pyramid. If a person were only looking at the pictures he might imagine that he saw Pop Tarts or waffles between the two bowls in the grain category. The only mention of sweets at all is the last piece of advice at the very bottom, which says plainly, "Choose food and beverages low in added sugars. Added sugars contribute few, if any, nutrients."

Of course, the Butterfinger group doesn't really belong on any version of the food pyramid, but I found it a bit strange that beans were mentioned in both the vegetable and the meat categories. Had I been on the panel, I would have been pushing for the vegetable and the meat groups to be on either side of the beans and legumes group, perhaps visually blending with both. That idea is hereby public domain for the next revision.

But just so we don't get the idea that it's all too simple, even after we have consulted the chart explaining the pyramid with all its terms, conditions and permutations, we are directed to enter our personal data into the calculator at the USDA website to really make it applicable to us as individuals.

I'd have to agree that a person in good health who went by the newer USDA guidelines (2005) might not quickly decline in health, especially if that person were to use some good supplements. Of course, that dredges up a whole new area where people are largely confused and easily defrauded. Much of the confidence that people place in supplements is tragically misplaced. But I do have a few comments on the food pyramid.

Dairy is the most mucus producing food known to man, dark green, leafy vegetables are an excellent source of calcium. I feel that milk should be placed in a narrow strip, as is fat on the pyramid. A list of non dairy calcium sources may be found at:

http://home.bluegrass.net/~jclark/calcium_foods.htm

People might be cautioned to minimize processed meats with preservatives, and there could be more information on oils.

Even following these guidelines, many people may get too many starchy carbohydrates depending on the vegetables, breads and cereals, and beans they choose to consume. Unfortunately no mention is made of the fact that carbohydrates can be deadly except in moderation. It is very well established now that the insulin response to simple carbohydrates causes not only obesity but havoc on all the organs of the body. In point of fact, please check out the following New York Times article by Gary Taubes, a correspondent for the journal Science and author of the book Bad Science: The Short Life and Weird Times of Cold Fusion:

What If It's All Been a Big Fat Lie?

Yes, that's right, the proof is in again that it is indeed too many carbohydrates, instead of too much fat that causes us to be the most obese nation in the history of the world. How long will it take the status quo to realize that when people know the truth you might as well quit telling the low fat lie?

Maybe the next revision of the pyramid will acknowledge a few more scientifically established guidelines instead of pandering to special interests, or is it strange to think that the pyramid building process might be tainted?

As always, all comments, suggestions and criticisms are wholeheartedly encouraged.