It's nice to get quoted in the Los Angeles Times, even if the author obviously didn't understand what I was getting at. I'll try to clear up the confusion here.
Karen Caplan writes:
Does Kuznicki (or anyone else) really think that the goal of a healthy diet is simply to minimize the total number of calories consumed? (Perhaps these are the same folks who swear by Taco Bell's Drive-Thru Diet.)
A 12-ounce serving of whole milk contains 12 grams of protein, along with 45% of the calcium and 36% of the vitamin D you need each day. The same amount of soy milk also has 12 grams of protein and 14% of the daily recommended intake of iron.
Care to guess how many vitamins and minerals are in a can of Coke?
I certainly don't think that a healthy diet means only reducing one's calorie intake. I do, however, believe that the stated goal of the policy was not to improve overall health, but to reduce obesity. And for that, which one do you pick?
a) consume fewer calories
b) get more calcium and vitamin D.
Does anyone seriously suggest that (b) is the right choice? Is this what passes for nutritional advice at the Los Angeles Times? Eat whatever you want, and as long as you take your vitamins, you won't get fat?
The policy we're talking about was not intended to make sure that people get all their vitamins and minerals. It was intended to curb obesity. And for that purpose it will do essentially nothing, as I noted, I still think correctly, in the original post.