Sweden Becomes First Western Nation to Reject Low-fat Diet Dogma in Favor of Low-carb

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by AustinIllini, Oct 30, 2013.

  1. AustinIllini macrumors demi-god

    AustinIllini

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2011
    Location:
    Austin, USA
    #1
    I couldn't decide where to put this, but it is quite astonishing.

    http://healthimpactnews.com/2013/sw...ogma-in-favor-of-low-carb-high-fat-nutrition/

    I guess maybe it's just a pipe dream that this will one day be a reality in the US as well? I have a feeling high carb food producers will lobby heavy against this one.
     
  2. Renzatic Suspended

    Renzatic

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2011
    Location:
    Gramps, what the hell am I paying you for?
    #2
    If the government goes this route, they'll be prying my fresh baked loaf of bread from my cold, dead hands. :mad:
     
  3. MyMac1976 macrumors 6502

    MyMac1976

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2013
    #3
    Muellers is going to join with Barilla to oppose any new pasta legislation the legislation we have on the books now is adequate.
     
  4. Ugg macrumors 68000

    Ugg

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2003
    Location:
    Penryn
    #4
    Michael Pollan wrote not long ago that highly processed carbs are the most dangerous food out there. I was skeptical , but I'm increasingly starting to believe this as truth.
     
  5. sviato macrumors 68020

    sviato

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2010
    Location:
    HR 9038 A
  6. thekev macrumors 604

    thekev

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2010
    #6
    It is. I hate the way this presents itself. The article suggests replacing unhealthy items with a different type of unhealthy item. The problem is that if they eat too much butter, cream, and bacon, they are likely to take in too much fat and cholesterol. The author goes off into silly stories without enough clear reasoning.


    Nowhere does he say if any limits should be adhered to in terms of saturated fats or cholesterol intake. He doesn't mention much in the way of actual reasoning for these things. He mentions fattier cuts, yet so much livestock is already overfed, to the point of being unnaturally high in fat when comparing livestock to their wild counterparts. I'm concerned that none of the article addresses cholesterol intake concerns. In spite of that I don't touch wheat, barely touch pasta, regularly eat almonds, and I like steak.
     
  7. Technarchy macrumors 603

    Technarchy

    Joined:
    May 21, 2012
  8. AustinIllini thread starter macrumors demi-god

    AustinIllini

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2011
    Location:
    Austin, USA
    #8
    This times 1000. Before you buy something in a box, look at the ingredients.

    This is a common misconception. Fat doesn't make you fat. Carbs raise your insulin level and put you in fat storing mode. That doesn't mean cut all carbs (we need them), but the US recommendations of eating 4 (?) times the amount of carbs as protein is a recipe for making us fatter than anything high fat.

    This is an older type of thinking. The link between diet and cholesterol levels is much weaker than we originally thought. Food like eggs have been inappropriately vilified for decades. Your choice of foods is really quite healthy (especially the no wheat).

    For reference, a "high fat" diet is 40% fat, 30% protein, and 30% carbs. 30% carbs is still a lot (for a 25 y/o man it's like 170 g+). Atkins was absolutely crazy (I would have absolutely no energy), but he was on the right track, IMO.
     
  9. Huntn macrumors G5

    Huntn

    Joined:
    May 5, 2008
    Location:
    The Misty Mountains
    #9
    "Low fat" as a regimen ignoring sugars has always been a farce. If you look at the average "low fat" anything, it has more calories than the regular version because what they replace the fat with is worse for you. The exception are foods like skim milk where fat is removed and nothing is added.
     
  10. TheHateMachine, Oct 31, 2013
    Last edited: Oct 31, 2013

    TheHateMachine macrumors 6502a

    TheHateMachine

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2012
    Location:
    Houston, TX
    #10
    Do you have any source that says dietary cholesterol affects serum cholesterol levels?

    Also, anything to show that saturated fats are more harmful to ones body than say unsaturated fats?
     
  11. SLC Flyfishing Suspended

    SLC Flyfishing

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2007
    Location:
    Portland, OR
    #11
    It's fairly common knowledge in medical circles that cholesterol in and of itself does not really cause atherosclerosis. It takes cholesterol and either sugar or an oxidative reaction.

    It's the oxidized or glycated cholesterol that can then contribute to plaques in arteries.

    This is why Diabetes is such a huge risk factor for coronary heart disease and peripheral artery disease. It's not that diabetics necessarily have higher cholesterol than the rest of us, but they sure do run around with higher blood sugar levels. Higher blood sugar=more glycated cholesterol=atherosclerosis.

    So I applaud Sweden for this, I think it's a step in the right direction. Though a combined approach targeting both sugar (carbs) and cholesterol and other fats is the best way to go.

    The makers of Lipitor and Crestor will have something to say about this though, mark my words.
     
  12. ElectronGuru macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2013
    Location:
    Oregon, USA
    #12
    For as long as I can remember, popular diets have gone after one of the three components of food, in favor of the other two:

    Protein
    Carbohydrates
    Fat

    Usually with some magic pill claim that the nature of the change will work so well that you can do more of what you want. I mean, who wouldn't want that? You can almost predict the next fad, based on when the next generation starts facing the issue and which of the 3 components is in line to be the next bad guy. The problem with processed carbohydrates isn't that they're carbohydrates, it's that they're processed. Processed fat and processed protein are also problematic. But that's where the profit is.

    We invented this problem. For most of the rest of history (and prehistory) before 100 years ago, being obese was a sign of wealth. Spreading this wealth has cost us dearly but we can choose to go back. Our bodies are built to do work and they are dying to do it. Moving about used to require work and so did digestion. But we've gotten so efficient at making both take as little energy as possible, and we are wearing the savings.
     
  13. thekev, Oct 31, 2013
    Last edited: Oct 31, 2013

    thekev macrumors 604

    thekev

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2010
    #13

    I felt the article drifted too much in its advice to the point of telling people that they should replace fruit yogurt with bunless hamburgers, and it doesn't really encourage the consumption of an appropriate amount of fruit or vegetables, most of which contain some amount of soluble fiber, which should work to prevent a real spike in insulin levels. They justifiably criticize processed carbs and soft drinks, then tell people that highly processed meat items are the answer as opposed to suggesting sensibly prepared food and mentioning that vegetables are still important for a source of fiber and vitamins. In my opinion the article uses a poor reference diet example, and they miss key elements such as portion control and important nutrients.

    For personal reference, if I make rice, it's wild rice and I really limit the amount. I limit bread, and typically eat oatmeal (and sometimes fruit) for breakfast. Lunch is often almonds + vegetables. As far as dead animal, I go for chicken breast or salmon more than anything else. After that probably sirloin. I would never advocate fruit yogurt or diet soda as being healthy, or any of the ridiculous foods that are often marketed as healthy. As an example some people who can't consume dairy try things like almond milk. Most of those have roughly 17g of added sugar per (suggested) serving, which is asinine.

    Good question. I'm looking for something up to date that really addresses the subject rather than glancing over it in an introduction, as I don't like to provide bad links just to provide something. Admittedly some of that may be cultural. Here's a somewhat colloquial piece from Harvard, but it doesn't go into great detail, merely says nuts and plant oils = good and animal products = bad. I was hoping for something better. They mention the topic of trans fats, which again relates to what I mentioned about replacing highly processed food with another type of highly processed food. A few semi-recent studies come up on google scholar that attempt to analyze the effects of cholesterol relative to particle size or the effects of eggs on cholesterol levels (only change seemed to be a minor one in triglycerides). I bookmarked a couple to review later, as I'm curious at what point they started to show notable effects.
     
  14. StephenCampbell macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2009
    #14
    The repercussions of this are going to be catastrophic until everybody realizes that it wasn't just "fat" that's good for you, but that it needs to be raw, unprocessed fat. Bacon will kill you if you eat a lot of it. Raw, unpasteurized milk will do the opposite.

    Oh boy. We're in for a rough ride.
     
  15. AustinIllini thread starter macrumors demi-god

    AustinIllini

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2011
    Location:
    Austin, USA
    #15
    What kind of bacon? I'm pretty sure uncured bacon is fine for you. In general, we don't eat enough fat.
     
  16. jnpy!$4g3cwk macrumors 65816

    jnpy!$4g3cwk

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2010
    #16
    Gary Taubes's book was the big "pop sci" book that put a lot of these issues back in the spotlight. Unfortunately, while he does a great job of showing people how much really was not known (when the establishment assumed it was known), he sometimes leads people to the "opposite" conclusion, which, also, really is unknown. I think he mostly did a great public service in re-opening these subjects, but, at the same time, although there is precious little evidence that bacon is bad for you, there is also precious little evidence that it is good for you. :)

    Here is a really good summary, on the NIH website, of the state of knowledge with respect to egg consumption:

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3538567/


    No question about that. People need to control their blood sugar. How best to do that? Moderate exercise throughout the day, and, walking a lot, can help.

    As far as I know, Lipitor has been shown to decrease mortality.

    The good news is that all this controversy has reopened opportunities for scientific research in areas that were considered settled or uninteresting. Dietary cholesterol intake is an interesting subject. If you look at the egg survey article I posted, you will see that the case against consumption of egg yolk cholesterol is pretty limited.

    Can you give me a pointer to the scientific studies that justify these statements?

    My suggestion for cooking your uncured bacon would be baking in the oven in a baking pan, covered with a sheet of foil to prevent it from spattering everywhere.
     
  17. mrsir2009 macrumors 604

    mrsir2009

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2009
    Location:
    Melbourne, Australia
    #17
    It's about time - hopefully the governments of other countries will begin to realize that they've been horribly mistaken for the last 30 years. Because most people won't take it upon themselves to learn this stuff and will simply keep looking to the misinformed government and the so-called "experts" to tell them what's healthy.
     
  18. 63dot, Nov 8, 2013
    Last edited: Nov 8, 2013

    63dot macrumors 603

    63dot

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2006
    Location:
    norcal
    #18
    Watch for Swedes to be dying in record numbers if they hold this view. Yes, astonishing.

    This reminds me of the three party weight loss plan I saw on TV during the Fatkins craze: 1) eat all bacon 2) eat all sausage 3) skip exercise and you will lose a lot of weight.

    Yeah, you will die and be cremated and in that way you will lose weight.

    ----------

    +1

    As long as people are lazy, they will flock to the magic bullet diets.

    I would love to eat bacon and sausage, and ditch exercise and lose weight and lengthen my life, but the answer isn't in loading on carbs nor is it to load up on fat. Did the Swedish study look at moderation? It's kind of necessary to have carbs, fat, veggies, and a good dose of daily exercise. It's not easy to lose weight and keep it off but the fattest people who stay fat that I have ever met are the Atkins fans.

    There is so much feel good hogwash out there telling us it's OK to eat tons of fat and protein and then get thin, but for starters the scientific method and long term studies are better, even if not with the trend of the month:

    http://www.askmen.com/sports/foodcourt_100/124_eating_well.html
     
  19. AustinIllini thread starter macrumors demi-god

    AustinIllini

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2011
    Location:
    Austin, USA
    #19
    Based on what? Most studies of high fat diets focus on diets where carbs are not properly managed.
     
  20. 63dot macrumors 603

    63dot

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2006
    Location:
    norcal
    #20
    See previous post.

    Anyway, obesity is the key here. What is linked to health problems is that long term obesity.

    What Atkins did show, initially, is that weight is lost quickly but only for a time. It comes back and then some leading and aiding long term obesity. Cancer and heart disease love obesity. Anyway,

    http://forums.macrumors.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=18334994
     
  21. AustinIllini thread starter macrumors demi-god

    AustinIllini

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2011
    Location:
    Austin, USA
    #21
    Except that's simply not true. Fat doesn't make you fat. You burn the fat you eat. When you eat too many carbs, your increased blood sugar puts your body in fat storing mode.

    Everything the FDA has ever said has been wrong. There is no evidence to support salt causing high blood pressure. Dietary cholesterol's link to blood cholesterol is overblown (the egg is the most healthy food you can eat. the whole thing). There is no evidence to suggest that fat makes you fat. In fact, the worst thing the FDA ever did was call adipose tissue "fat". Dietary fat does not cause obesity.
     
  22. 63dot, Nov 8, 2013
    Last edited: Nov 8, 2013

    63dot macrumors 603

    63dot

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2006
    Location:
    norcal
    #22
    I will agree that "some" of the stuff the FDA is probably outdated and not true. I won't even venture into the popular FDA is evil talk because when they do say something that is true and people can't refute it, then it's easy to say they are evil and thus wrong. All logic goes out the window. If we want to go into a thread about the mistakes of the FDA, I can lead the charge there. ;)

    Also, too many carbs can make you fat, but also too much fat, too.

    Moderation is key.

    As for the blood sugar myth and all the junk science talk of insulin, read through the article and then try and scientifically refute it. For "short term" yes Atkins is good but we are talking about lifestyle weight loss. Too much ignoring the dangers of fat and oversimplifying the role of carbs is not only wrong, but dangerous. It's akin to the 1950s when cigarette ads/commercials published what a few MDs were saying about smoking and how it can reduce stress!

    Regarding insulin from article in AskMen:


    Myth #3: Carbs work with insulin to cause weight gain
    Many low-carb diets focus on the relationship between carbs and insulin, a hormone that transforms fuel into fat. The belief is that carbs cause insulin to be less effective at transporting sugar to the cells and that the excess sugar is stored as fat.

    Although insulin does play a role in fat storage, it also ships necessary glucose to the muscles. Thus, our diets should aim to maintain stable insulin levels, not try to suppress its release.


    When I hear an Atkins testimonial or similar adherence to a junk science or fad diet, it makes me mad because while hurting the person doing it, the evangelism behind it can make others try and hurt their health. Atkins, and similar theories, are very irresponsible.

    http://www.atkinsexposed.org/

    http://www.atkinsexposed.org/atkins/22/Opinions.htm
     
  23. PracticalMac macrumors 68030

    PracticalMac

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2009
    Location:
    Houston, TX
    #23
    He was making the joke about fat people in US, not the food. :rolleyes:
     
  24. jnpy!$4g3cwk macrumors 65816

    jnpy!$4g3cwk

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2010
    #24
    Seriously, I don't think it is clear either way.

    I know some (younger) people who are extremely into bacon. I would like to be able to quote them a study that controls for everything else (especially, obviously, smoking, the effect of which dwarfs everything we are talking about), and shows, one way or the other, whether bacon is good for you, or, bad for you. As far as I know, that study does not exist. There are studies that show that high-temperature frying is bad, there are studies that show that eating bacon combined with smoking is bad, there are studies that show that eating lots of sugar and eating bacon is bad. There are studies that show that smoking combined with eating bacon and eggs is bad. Almost the only dietary certainty at this time is that smoking is bad. :)

    Until recently, scientifically credible studies of the effect of diet on longevity were extremely rare. There has been a new wave of such studies published over the last five years, with more in the pipeline I hope. I am looking forward to seeing much more information about diet emerge over the next decade that will definitively answer the bacon question.
     
  25. 63dot, Nov 13, 2013
    Last edited: Nov 13, 2013

    63dot macrumors 603

    63dot

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2006
    Location:
    norcal
    #25
    I love bacon, of course, in moderation.

    There is really no food off my diet except I piss off somebody who thinks I should only eat bacon, or grapefruit juice, or pasta. I was a big believer in the pasta diet and I lost weight and got abs, but like any extreme or simplistic diet, it doesn't last. With excessive pasta, your weight maintains in first few days, but then goes down when you get so sick of it you simply eat less of it, and less of any food. Eating less turns into a thinner body, but then you think the weight loss was due to eating pasta. But when your normal eating habits return, but this time with too much of one thing (pasta, but other things in other diets), then weight comes back on. This is true of bacon, grapefruit, energy drinks, or anything. Balance in diet is key and we can't eat too much of any one thing lest we load up on calories or cause some sort of backlash with another food. The body goes bonkers and gains weight. We were built for moderation and variety, no matter how much some of us (me especially) loves bacon and sausage.

    What is unsexy, but effective, is that moderation is key (in lifestyle, too) but with a good dose of exercise and an avoidance of hard partying, smoking, alcohol, drugs, etc. People want some cool new fad diet that allows them into some sort of non-moderation in eating/drinking and some magic lifestyle that avoids any physical movement. Heck, if there was a lasting diet that could work that would let me eat candy bars, sit at TV and play video games, and then have the best abs in the world, or lose weight while I sleep, I would have discovered it.

    Other things in life excel with moderation, too. I used to get high scores on standardized tests in school so that led me to believe I could slack in homework, but then my grades suffered. While I put some time into tests but did better than average, I thought I could put no time into classes. I just prepared for tests and thought that I could only do that. Any gains towards elite college acceptance I may have got from high SAT scores was dashed by low GPA earned from skipping homework. For most, any person needs to do at least a moderate amount of test prep and homework and then they will do much better. Smart kids, but who were lazy, thought you can work smart, not hard and still do well. Yeah, you can get by in a class or a few tests by working smart, but unless one really puts in the time and effort, they are not going to graduate with a good GPA unless they are a complete genius. But then in life, you have no choice but to work hard to excel. Even genius, which can make maybe 1% percent of kids slack in college, will not help in the real world of cutthroat business in a society that rewards hard work. Well, diets pretty much mirror the hard work ethic of real life and the long term. The person who takes an extreme diet but then adds one or two forbidden foods (and thus holds back unconscious binging) will do much better long term than the person who strictly stays with simplistic and unscientific diet.
     

Share This Page