Newsgroup: it.salute.alimentazione
Titolo: Restyling per la piramide

A quanto pare, è allo studio una nuova "piramide" americana, nel senso di
nuova rappresentazione grafica delle raccomandazioni nutrizionali. 
(Le raccomandazioni, come contenuto, sono quelle delle nuove Linee guida
2005)
Tra l'altro, hanno finalmente capito che con il discorso dei "serving" o
porzioni nessuno capiva nulla, così si sono decisi a usare le comuni misure
da cucina (quelle americane, naturalmente: cups, ounces, ecc.). 
Si sono anche rivolti a una società di consulenza di marketing... 
Pare insomma che stiano cominciando a capire che le informazioni deve
essere comunicate in maniera chiara e pratica!
http://www.newsday.com/news/politics/wire/sns-ap-fit-food-pyramid,0,6398873.story?coll=sns-ap-politics-headlines
Government to Unveil New Food Pyramid By LIBBY QUAIDAssociated Press Writer
April 19, 2005, 7:46 AM EDTWASHINGTON -- A makeover for the food pyramid --
that triangle-shaped guide to better eating -- might renew interest in
healthy habits, but officials say it likely will take time to make a
difference for America's growing girth."We didn't get to be obese
overnight. We're not going to reverse it overnight," said Eric Hentges, the
Agriculture Department official who is overseeing the new pyramid.After
months of revision, a new symbol for healthy habits was being introduced
Tuesday. The image has been kept under wraps, but the real question is
whether Americans -- two out of three of whom are overweight if not obese
-- will follow the new guide no matter what its shape.People have steadily
grown fatter since the food pyramid debuted in 1992. Areport last month in
The New England Journal of Medicine contended that obesity, particularly in
children, was fueling a reversal in life expectancy, shaving four to nine
months off the average life span.The new guide is just one element of a
system aimed at making people slimmer and healthier, said Hentges, director
of the Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion. Also in store are
Internet tools to help follow the new recommendations, as well as tools to
help educators and nutritionists spread the word."Part of the problem
previously was that we had this one symbol, this one pyramid, and it was
one size fits all," Hentges told agriculture reporterslast week. "Or it was
a misinterpretation. In the case of grain servings, it said six to 11
servings. Well, if you're supposed to be eating 1,600 calories, you never
did get to choose these 11 servings of grain."Who knows what a serving is?"
Hentges added. "It's whatever I put on my plate. The servings differ for
you than for your spouse, maybe."This time, to make its advice more
understandable, the government will switch to cups, ounces and other
household measures. The switch was recommended in a 70-page booklet,
"Dietary Guidelines for Americans 2005,"that was developed by a panel of
scientists and doctors and released in January. The guidelines, which were
the basis for revising the pyramid, include eating 2 cups of fruit and 2
1/2 cups of vegetables a day; eating 3 ouncesof whole-grain foods a day and
drinking 3 cups of fat-free or lowfat milk aday. The government also
advises exercising at least 30 minutes a day to reduce the risk of chronic
disease, even more to prevent weight gain ormaintain weight loss.In all,
there were 23 general recommendations and 18 suggestions for older people,
children and other special populations.That's too much to cram into a
symbol that is supposed to be clipped out andstuck to the refrigerator,
Hentges said.The Agriculture Department will offer Web pages that let
people appraise their diet and exercise habits. Such a tool has already
been available through the agency's Web site; the Interactive Healthy
Eating Index has anotice on its home page that it will soon be updated.Even
if the symbol and online tools don't motivate people to change their
habits, they'll still have some healthier choices. Food companies have been
removing trans fats from their products and adding whole grains because of
the government guidance."If you get the industry involved and make them
feel that they're doing a good thing and that they're getting credit for
doing a good thing, they'lldo it. They'll change their product," said K.
Dun Gifford, president of Oldways Preservation Trust, a Boston-based think
tank that specializes in food issues.Critics have raised questions about
the public relations agency hired to help create the new version of the
pyramid. The firm, Porter Novelli, has food companies as clients, but both
Agriculture Department and Porter Novelli officials have said the firm's
industry work is handled separately and there would be no conflict of
interest. Hentges said his staff of scientists, economists and
nutritionists isn't equipped to promote its new approach. If it's not
marketed effectively, he said, "then we're not going to be able to get this
behavior change or improve anything for Americans."* __On the
Net:Agriculture Department: 
http://www.usda.govCopyright
 2005 Newsday Inc.

 April 19, 2005, 7:46 AM EDTWASHINGTON -- A makeover for the food pyramid --
[...]
Però c'è chi pensa che stanno solo peggiorando le cose, e rendendo meno
chiaro il messaggio... 
http://www.economist.com/science/displayStory.cfm?story_id=3909472
Pyramid selling
Apr 28th 2005
From The Economist print edition
Rebranding America's diet
TRYING to get Americans to eat a healthy diet is a frustrating
business. Even the best-designed public-health campaigns cannot seem to
compete with the tempting flavours of the snack-food and fast-food
industries and their fat- and sugar-laden products. The results are
apparent on a walk down any American street-more than 60% of
Americans are overweight, and a full quarter of them are overweight to
the point of obesity.
Now, health advocates say, an ill-conceived redesign has taken one of
the more successful public-health campaigns-the Food Guide
Pyramid-and rendered it confusing to the point of uselessness. Some
of these critics worry that America's Department of Agriculture caved
in to pressure from parts of the food industry anxious to protect their
products.
The Food Guide Pyramid was a graphic which emphasises that a healthy
diet is built on a base of grains, vegetables and fruits, followed by
ever-decreasing amounts of dairy products, meat, sweets and oils. The
agriculture department launched the pyramid in 1992 to replace its
previous programme, which was centred on the idea of four basic food
groups. The "Basic Four" campaign showed a plate divided into
quarters, and seemed to imply that meat and dairy products should make
up half of a healthy diet, with grains, fruits and vegetables making up
the other half. It was replaced only over the strenuous objections of
the meat and dairy industries.
MyPyramid.gov, created by the Department of Agriculture, explains the
new US food pyramid and publishes the "Dietary Guidelines for
Americans 2005". Wikipedia provides information and links about the
1992 food guide pyramid. See also the Potato Board, the Almond Board of
California, the Sugar Association, the National Food Processors
Association, the National Watermelon Promotion Board and the California
Avocado Commission.
 The old pyramid was undoubtedly imperfect. It failed to distinguish
between a doughnut and a whole-grain roll, or a hamburger and a
skinless chicken breast, and it did not make clear exactly how much of
each foodstuff to eat. It did, however, manage to convey the basic idea
of proper proportions in an easily understandable way. The new pyramid,
called "My Pyramid", abandons the effort to provide this
information. Instead, it has been simplified to a mere logo. The food
groups are replaced with unlabelled, multi-coloured vertical stripes
which, in some versions, rise out of a cartoon jumble of foods that
look like the aftermath of a riot at a grocery store. Anyone who wants
to see how this translates into a healthy diet is invited to go to a
website, put in their age, sex and activity level, and get a
custom-designed pyramid, complete with healthy food choices and
suggested portion sizes. This is fine for those who are motivated, but
might prove too much effort for those who most need such information.
Admittedly, the designers of the new pyramid had a tough job to do.
They were supposed to condense the advice in the 84-page United States'
Dietary Guidelines into a simple, meaningful graphic suitable for
printing on the back of a cereal box. And they had to do this in the
face of pressure from dozens of special interest groups-from the
country's Potato Board, which thought potatoes would look nice in the
picture, to the Almond Board of California, which felt the same way
about almonds. The Sugar Association did not want to see sucrose
bad-mouthed, and the National Food Processors Association thought
packaged foods should get more respect. Vegetarians wanted meat struck
off, and Atkins diet advocates suggested dumping the carbs. Even the
National Watermelon Promotion Board and the California Avocado
Commission were eager to see their products recognised.
Nevertheless, many health advocates believe the new graphic is a missed
opportunity. Although officials insist industry pressure had nothing to
do with the eventual design, some critics suspect that political
influence was at work. On the other hand, it is not clear how much good
even the best graphic could do. Surveys found that 80% of Americans
recognised the old Food Guide Pyramid-a big success in the world of
public-health campaigns. Yet only 16% followed its advice

 public-health campaigns. Yet only 16% followed its advice
L'articolo conclude dicendo che l'80 per cento degli americani riconosceva
la vecchia piramide USDA... ma solo il 16 per cento seguiva i suoi
consigli. Forse, però, dico io, questa mancata adesione dipendeva, almeno
in parte, da un messaggio troppo debole e poco chiaro... Tra l'altro,
facevano riferimento a porzioni, o serving, di cui nessuno capiva realmente
il senso... ora invece usano le normali misure da cucina.
Ecco invece la piramide di Harvard e alcune critiche di Harvard a
MyPyramid.gov e alle American GuideLines 2005, sia sul metodo di
comunicazione che sul merito:
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/pyramids.html
What Should You Really Eat?
More than a decade ago, the U.S. Department of Agriculture created a
powerful and enduring icon - the Food Guide Pyramid. This simple
illustration conveyed in a flash what the USDA said were the elements of a
healthy diet. The Pyramid was taught in schools, appeared in countless
media articles and brochures, and was plastered on cereal boxes and food
labels.
Tragically, the information embodied in this pyramid didn't point the way
to healthy eating. Why not? Its blueprint was based on shaky scientific
evidence, and it barely changed over the years to reflect major advances in
our understanding of the connection between diet and health.
With much fanfare, the USDA recently retired the old Food Guide Pyramid and
replaced it with MyPyramid, a new symbol and "interactive food guidance
system." The new symbol is basically the old Pyramid turned on its side.
The good news is that this dismantles and buries the flawed Pyramid. The
bad news is that the new symbol doesn't convey enough information to help
you make informed choices about your diet and long-term health. And it
continues to recommend foods that aren't essential to good health, and may
even be detrimental in the quantities included in MyPyramid.
As an alternative to the USDA's flawed pyramid, faculty members in the
Harvard School of Public Health built the Healthy Eating Pyramid. It
resembles the USDA's in shape only. The Healthy Eating Pyramid takes into
consideration, and puts into perspective, the wealth of research conducted
during the last ten years that has reshaped the definition of healthy
eating.
Pyramid Building
In the children's book Who Built the Pyramid?,(1) different people take
credit for building the once-grand pyramid of Senwosret. King Senwosret, of
course, claims the honor. But so does his architect, the quarry master, the
stonecutters, slaves, and the boys who carried water to the workers.
The USDA's MyPyramid also had many builders. Some are obvious - USDA
scientists, nutrition experts, staff members, and consultants. Others
aren't. Intense lobbying efforts from a variety of food industries also
helped shape the pyramid.
In theory, the USDA pyramid should reflect the nutrition advice assembled
in the Dietary Guidelines for Americans. According to the USDA, the
guidelines "provide authoritative advice for people two years and older
about how good dietary habits can promote health and reduce risk for major
chronic diseases."
This document, which by law must be revised every five years, aims to offer
sound nutrition advice that corresponds to the latest scientific research.
The panel assembled to create the guidelines usually generates 100 or so
pages of dense nutrition-speak. This document is translated into a reader
friendly brochure aimed at helping the average person choose a balanced and
healthy diet. Of far greater importance, the Dietary Guidelines for
Americans set the standards for all federal nutrition programs, including
the school lunch program, and helps determine what food products Americans
buy. In other words, the guidelines influence how billions of dollars are
spent each year. So even minor changes can hurt or help a food industry.
According to federal regulations, the panel that writes the dietary
guidelines must include nutrition experts who are leaders in pediatrics,
obesity, cardiovascular disease, and public health. Selecting the panelists
is no easy task, and is subject to intense lobbying from organizations such
as the National Dairy Council, United Fresh Fruit and Vegetable
Association, Soft Drink Association, American Meat Institute, National
Cattlemen's Beef Association, and Wheat Foods Council.(2)
Dietary Guidelines, 2005
Released in early January, 2005, the Dietary Guidelines for Americans 2005
continues to reflect the tense interplay of science and the powerful food
industry. Several of the new recommendations represent important steps in
the right direction:
    * The new guidelines emphasize the importance of controlling weight,
which was not adequately addressed in previous versions. And they continue
to stress the importance of physical activity.
    * The recommendation on dietary fats makes a clear break from the past,
when all fats were considered bad. The guidelines now emphasize that intake
of trans fats should be as low as possible and that saturated fat should be
limited. There is no longer an artificially low cap on fat intake. The
latest advice recommends getting between 20% and 35% of daily calories from
fats and recognizes the potential health benefits of monounsaturated and
polyunsaturated fats.
    * Instead of emphasizing "complex carbohydrates," a term used in the
past that has little biological meaning, the new guidelines urge Americans
to limit sugar intake and they stress the benefits of whole grains.
Others remain mired in the past:
    * The guidelines suggest that it is fine to consume half of our grains
as refined starch. That's a shame, since refined starches behave like
sugar. They add empty calories, have adverse metabolic effects, and
increase the risks of diabetes and heart disease.
    * In terms of protein, the guidelines continue to lump together red
meat, poultry, fish, and beans (including soy products). They ask us to
judge these protein sources by their total fat content, "make choices that
are lean, low-fat, or fat-free." This ignores the evidence that these foods
have different types of fats. It also overlooks mounting evidence that
replacing red meat with a combination of fish, poultry, beans, and nuts
offers numerous health benefits.
    * The recommendation to drink three glasses of low-fat milk or eat
three servings of other dairy products per day to prevent osteoporosis is
another step in the wrong direction. Of all the recommendations, this one
represents the most radical change from current dietary patterns. Three
glasses of low-fat milk add more than 300 calories a day. This is a real
issue for the millions of Americans who are trying to control their weight.
What's more, millions of Americans are lactose intolerant, and even small
amounts of milk or dairy products give them stomachaches, gas, or other
problems. This recommendation ignores the lack of evidence for a link
between consumption of dairy products and prevention of osteoporosis. It
also ignores the possible increases in risk of ovarian cancer and prostate
cancer associated with dairy products.
The USDA Pyramid Brick by Brick
Distilling nutrition advice into a pyramid was a stroke of genius. The
shape immediately suggests that some foods are good and should be eaten
often, and that others aren't so good and should be eaten only
occasionally. The layers represent major food groups that contribute to the
total diet. MyPyramid tries to do this in an abstract way, and fails.
Six swaths of color sweep from the apex of MyPyramid to the base: orange
for grains, green for vegetables, red for fruits, a teeny band of yellow
for oils, blue for milk, and purple for meat and beans. Each stripe starts
out as the same size, but they don't end that way at the base. The widths
suggest how much food a person should choose from each group. A band of
stairs running up the side of the Pyramid, with a little stick figure
chugging up it, serves as a reminder of the importance of physical
activity.
MyPyramid contains no text. According to the USDA, it was "designed to be
simple," and details are at MyPyramid.gov. Unless you've taken the time to
become familiar with the Pyramid, though, you have no idea what it means.
Relying on the Web site to provide key information - like what the color
stripes stand for and how many servings of each food group are recommended
each day - guarantees that the millions of Americans without access to a
computer or the Internet will have trouble getting these essential facts.
The USDA also chose not to put recommended numbers of servings on the new
Pyramid because these differ from individual to individual according to
weight, gender, activity level and age. Instead, it offers personalized
Pyramids at MyPyramid.gov.
Building a Better Pyramid
If the only goal of the Food Guide Pyramid is to give us the best possible
advice for healthy eating, then it should be grounded in the evidence and
be independent of business.
Instead of waiting for this to happen, nutrition experts from the Harvard
School of Public Health created the Healthy Eating Pyramid. It is based on
the best available scientific evidence about the links between diet and
health. This new pyramid fixes fundamental flaws in the USDA pyramid and
offers sound information to help people make better choices about what to
eat.
===

 eat.
e prosegue con la descrizione della Piramide di Harvard e del punteggio
Alternate Healthy Eating Index per misurare la "bontą" di una certa dieta
rispetto alle raccomandazioni della piramide harvardiana, nonché altre
critiche alla "nuova piramide" (che non č una piramide!, scusate il
contorcimento di parole...) ufficiale.... 
====
The Healthy Eating Pyramid sits on a foundation of daily exercise and
weight control. Why? These two related elements strongly influence your
chances of staying healthy. They also affect what and how you eat and how
your food affects you. The other bricks of the Healthy Eating Pyramid
include:
    * Whole Grain Foods (at most meals). The body needs carbohydrates
mainly for energy. The best sources of carbohydrates are whole grains such
as oatmeal, whole-wheat bread, and brown rice. They deliver the outer
(bran) and inner (germ) layers along with energy-rich starch. The body
can't digest whole grains as quickly as it can highly processed
carbohydrates such as white flour. This keeps blood sugar and insulin
levels from rising, then falling, too quickly. Better control of blood
sugar and insulin can keep hunger at bay and may prevent the development of
type 2 diabetes.
    * Plant Oils. Surprised that the Healthy Eating Pyramid puts some fats
near the base, indicating they are okay to eat? Although this
recommendation seems to go against conventional wisdom, it's exactly in
line with the evidence and with common eating habits. The average American
gets one third or more of his or her daily calories from fats, so placing
them near the foundation of the pyramid makes sense. Note, though, that it
specifically mentions plant oils, not all types of fat. Good sources of
healthy unsaturated fats include olive, canola, soy, corn, sunflower,
peanut, and other vegetable oils, as well as fatty fish such as salmon.
These healthy fats not only improve cholesterol levels (when eaten in place
of highly processed carbohydrates) but can also protect the heart from
sudden and potentially deadly rhythm problems.(3)
    * Vegetables (in abundance) and Fruits (2 to 3 times). A diet rich in
fruits and vegetables can decrease the chances of having a heart attack or
stroke; protect against a variety of cancers; lower blood pressure; help
you avoid the painful intestinal ailment called diverticulitis; guard
against cataract and macular degeneration, the major cause of vision loss
among people over age 65; and add variety to your diet and wake up your
palate.
    * Fish, Poultry, and Eggs (0 to 2 times). These are important sources
of protein. A wealth of research suggests that eating fish can reduce the
risk of heart disease. Chicken and turkey are also good sources of protein
and can be low in saturated fat. Eggs, which have long been demonized
because they contain fairly high levels of cholesterol, aren't as bad as
they're cracked up to be. In fact, an egg is a much better breakfast than a
doughnut cooked in an oil rich in trans fats or a bagel made from refined
flour.
    * Nuts and Legumes (1 to 3 times). Nuts and legumes are excellent
sources of protein, fiber, vitamins, and minerals. Legumes include black
beans, navy beans, garbanzos, and other beans that are usually sold dried.
Many kinds of nuts contain healthy fats, and packages of some varieties
(almonds, walnuts, pecans, peanuts, hazelnuts, and pistachios) can now even
carry a label saying they're good for your heart.
    * Dairy or Calcium Supplement (1 to 2 times). Building bone and keeping
it strong takes calcium, vitamin D, exercise, and a whole lot more. Dairy
products have traditionally been Americans' main source of calcium. But
there are other healthy ways to get calcium than from milk and cheese,
which can contain a lot of saturated fat. Three glasses of whole milk, for
example, contains as much saturated fat as 13 strips of cooked bacon. If
you enjoy dairy foods, try to stick with no-fat or low-fat products. If you
don't like dairy products, calcium supplements offer an easy and
inexpensive way to get your daily calcium.
    * Red Meat and Butter (Use Sparingly): These sit at the top of the
Healthy Eating Pyramid because they contain lots of saturated fat. If you
eat red meat every day, switching to fish or chicken several times a week
can improve cholesterol levels. So can switching from butter to olive oil.
    * White Rice, White Bread, Potatoes, Pasta, and Sweets (Use Sparingly):
Why are these all-American staples at the top, rather than the bottom, of
the Healthy Eating Pyramid? They can cause fast and furious increases in
blood sugar that can lead to weight gain, diabetes, heart disease, and
other chronic disorders. Whole-grain carbohydrates cause slower, steadier
increases in blood sugar that don't overwhelm the body's ability to handle
this much needed but potentially dangerous nutrient.
    * Multiple Vitamin: A daily multivitamin, multimineral supplement
offers a kind of nutritional backup. While it can't in any way replace
healthy eating, or make up for unhealthy eating, it can fill in the
nutrient holes that may sometimes affect even the most careful eaters. You
don't need an expensive name-brand or designer vitamin. A standard,
store-brand, RDA-level one is fine. Look for one that meets the
requirements of the USP (U.S. Pharmacopeia), an organization that sets
standards for drugs and supplements.
    * Alcohol (in moderation): Scores of studies suggest that having an
alcoholic drink a day lowers the risk of heart disease. Moderation is
clearly important, since alcohol has risks as well as benefits. For men, a
good balance point is 1 to 2 drinks a day. For women, it's at most one
drink a day.
Other Alternatives
The Healthy Eating Pyramid summarizes the best dietary information
available today. It isn't set in stone, though, because nutrition
researchers will undoubtedly turn up new information in the years ahead.
The Healthy Eating Pyramid will change to reflect important new evidence.
This isn't the only alternative to the USDA's MyPyramid. The Asian, Latin,
Mediterranean, and vegetarian pyramids promoted by Oldways Preservation and
Exchange Trust are also good, evidence-based guides for healthy eating. The
Healthy Eating Pyramid takes advantage of even more extensive research and
offers a broader guide that is not based on a specific culture.The Healthy
Eating Pyramid is described in greater detail in Eat, Drink, and Be
Healthy: The Harvard Medical School Guide to Healthy Eating, published by
Simon and Schuster (2001).
Failing The Test
A few years ago, the USDA's Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion
created the Healthy Eating Index "to measure how well American diets
conform to recommended healthy eating patterns."(4) This score sheet uses
five elements from the longstanding USDA Food Guide Pyramid (number of
daily servings of grains, vegetables, fruits, meat, and dairy products) and
five from the 1995 Dietary Guidelines for Americans (total fat in the diet,
percentage of calories from saturated fat, cholesterol intake, sodium
intake, and variety of the diet). A score of 100 means following the
federal recommendations to the letter while a score of 0 means totally
ignoring them.
To see how well the principles embodied in the Healthy Eating Pyramid
stacked up against the government's advice, Harvard School of Public Health
researchers created an Alternate Healthy Eating Index with a scoring system
similar to the USDA's index. They then used information about daily diets
collected from more than 100,000 female nurses and male health
professionals taking part in two long-term studies to complete both
indexes.
Men who scored highest on the USDA's Healthy Eating Index (meaning their
diets most closely followed federal recommendations) reduced their overall
risk of developing heart disease, cancer, or other chronic disease by 11%
over 8-12 years of follow-up compared to those who scored lowest. Women who
most closely followed the government's recommendations were only 3% less
likely to have developed a chronic disease.(5)
In comparison, scores on the Alternate Healthy Eating Index did appear to
correlate with disease. Men with high scores (those whose diets most
closely followed the guidelines in the Healthy Eating Pyramid) were 20%
less likely to have developed a major chronic disease than those with low
scores. Women with high scores lowered their overall risk by 11%. Men whose
diets most closely followed the Healthy Eating Pyramid lowered their risk
of cardiovascular disease by almost 40%; women with high scores lowered
their risk by almost 30%.
"The new USDA dietary pyramid is a lost opportunity to help Americans make
informed choices about diet and long-term health," says Walter Willett, the
Fredrick John Stare Professor of Epidemiology and Nutrition in the
Departments of Nutrition and Epidemiology. "It's clear that we need to
rebuild the pyramid from the ground up, not just tip it on its side and
dress it up with new colors. Every American deserves it."
====

 mangiato di più  e di altre meno.
Nella nuova MyPyramid USDA, in realtà, la larghezza di ciascuna fascia
colorata verticale indica l'abbondanza del gruppo di alimenti
Qui viene spiegato 
http://www.mypyramid.gov/downloads/MyPyramid_Anatomy.pdf
Ma continuo a pensare che il nuovo sistema non è molto chiaro, specie a un
primo sguardo...

 inexpensive way to get your daily calcium.
Dei vari consigli di Harvard, questo mi pare meno convincente degli altri,
forse un po' allarmistico verso il latte e gli alimenti con grassi saturi
in generale...
E poi, perché confrontare il contenuto di grassi del latte intero quando si
può benissimo usare quello parzialmente scremato?
Anche le compresse di calcio non è che mi entusiasmino come alternativa al
calcio del latte: OK, al limite, per chi è intollerante o non gradisce il
latte, ma se i nutrienti arrivino dal cibo non è meglio? 
-- 
Enrico C

 Dei vari consigli di Harvard, questo mi pare meno convincente degli altri,
<snip>
Ma forse la smitizzazione del latte da parte di Harvard č anche una
reazione all'enfasi eccessiva delle fonti ufficiali...!
Il MyPyramid ufficiale considera il latte addirittura come una delle
categorie principali di alimenti per la propria dieta, come se fosse
imprescindibile... pare un po' esagerato anche a me che sono un amante del
latte...! :)
Le categorie fondamentali evidenziate dall'USDA sono: Grains, Vegetables,
Fruits, Milk, Meat & Beans, Phisical Activity... e questa scelta delle
categorie mi pare discutibile anche per altri aspetti....
Per esempio "Meat & Beans", per designare tutte le fonti proteiche...,
senza accenno al pesce nel titolo, anche se nel testo di lato dicono "more
fish"...
Ecco per esempio un "piano alimentare" da 2000 Kcal secondo MyPyamid.gov
http://www.mypyramid.gov/downloads/worksheets/Worksheet_2000_18.pdf
-- 
Enrico C