↓ Skip to main content

In the face of contradictory evidence: Report of the Dietary Guidelines for Americans Committee

Overview of attention for article published in Nutrition, October 2010
Altmetric Badge
146

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#21 of 2,065)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (98th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
3 news outlets
blogs
9 blogs
policy
1 policy source
twitter
56 tweeters
facebook
10 Facebook pages
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page
googleplus
3 Google+ users
reddit
3 Redditors
video
3 video uploaders

Citations

dimensions_citation
51 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
192 Mendeley
citeulike
2 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
In the face of contradictory evidence: Report of the Dietary Guidelines for Americans Committee
Published in
Nutrition, October 2010
DOI 10.1016/j.nut.2010.08.012
Pubmed ID
Authors

Adele H. Hite, Richard David Feinman, Gabriel E. Guzman, Morton Satin, Pamela A. Schoenfeld, Richard J. Wood

Abstract

Concerns that were raised with the first dietary recommendations 30 y ago have yet to be adequately addressed. The initial Dietary Goals for Americans (1977) proposed increases in carbohydrate intake and decreases in fat, saturated fat, cholesterol, and salt consumption that are carried further in the 2010 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee (DGAC) Report. Important aspects of these recommendations remain unproven, yet a dietary shift in this direction has already taken place even as overweight/obesity and diabetes have increased. Although appealing to an evidence-based methodology, the DGAC Report demonstrates several critical weaknesses, including use of an incomplete body of relevant science; inaccurately representing, interpreting, or summarizing the literature; and drawing conclusions and/or making recommendations that do not reflect the limitations or controversies in the science. An objective assessment of evidence in the DGAC Report does not suggest a conclusive proscription against low-carbohydrate diets. The DGAC Report does not provide sufficient evidence to conclude that increases in whole grain and fiber and decreases in dietary saturated fat, salt, and animal protein will lead to positive health outcomes. Lack of supporting evidence limits the value of the proposed recommendations as guidance for consumers or as the basis for public health policy. It is time to reexamine how US dietary guidelines are created and ask whether the current process is still appropriate for our needs.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 56 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 192 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 8 4%
United Kingdom 3 2%
Australia 2 1%
Brazil 2 1%
Italy 1 <1%
France 1 <1%
Belgium 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
New Zealand 1 <1%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 172 90%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 53 28%
Other 22 11%
Student > Bachelor 22 11%
Researcher 21 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 17 9%
Other 57 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 68 35%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 35 18%
Nursing and Health Professions 26 14%
Unspecified 13 7%
Social Sciences 12 6%
Other 38 20%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 146. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 28 September 2018.
All research outputs
#95,562
of 13,232,126 outputs
Outputs from Nutrition
#21
of 2,065 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#93,309
of 12,601,394 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Nutrition
#21
of 2,064 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,232,126 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,065 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 12,601,394 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 2,064 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.