Sweden says f*ck you western food pyramid...

COH · 31-07-2014 11:44AM #1

http://healthimpactnews.com/2013/sweden-becomes-first-western-nation-to-reject-low-fat-diet-dogma-in-favor-of-low-carb-high-fat-nutrition/?fb_action_ids=10152564058917489&fb_action_types=og.likes

conzy · 31-07-2014 11:54AM

Everyone to IKEA for post workout meatball gains!

Great to see progress like that, although it will take decades to get fat = bad out of peoples heads

Hanley · 31-07-2014 12:09PM

Great news.

I love Sweden.

hB93BEB6D

SmithySeller · 31-07-2014 12:28PM

Take the average 180lb male with average BMR and middle thirties. What might be low carb and high fat in grams per day, average, on a daily basis?

runawaybishop · 31-07-2014 12:47PM

COH wrote: »

http://healthimpactnews.com/2013/sweden-becomes-first-western-nation-to-reject-low-fat-diet-dogma-in-favor-of-low-carb-high-fat-nutrition/?fb_action_ids=10152564058917489&fb_action_types=og.likes

No policy was approved though, just a study done last year that made suggestions. Progress though i guess.

bman · 31-07-2014 01:10PM

From the article:

There are many mantras we have been taught to accept as truths:

“Calories are calories, no matter where they come from.”

“It’s all about the balance between calories in and calories out.”

“People are fat because they don’t move enough.”

“Breakfast is the most important meal of the day.”

Of course these are not true. This kind of nonsense has people with weight problems feeling bad about themselves.

Interesting that these are often things you hear on this forum.

Rough Sleeper · 31-07-2014 01:33PM

SmithySeller wrote: »

Take the average 180lb male with average BMR and middle thirties. What might be low carb and high fat in grams per day, average, on a daily basis?

From the article, it seems that they're saying a non-obese person would benefit from a diet in which carbohydrtaes constitute <40% of total intake, while obese people should limit their intake to <20% for health purposes.

discus · 31-07-2014 01:34PM

bman wrote: »

From the article:

Interesting that these are often things you hear on this forum.

How dare you question the dogma

runawaybishop · 31-07-2014 01:59PM

bman wrote: »

From the article:

Interesting that these are often things you hear on this forum.

You often see them corrected here as well.

Doug Cartel · 31-07-2014 02:16PM

bman wrote: »

From the article:

Interesting that these are often things you hear on this forum.

When you completely remove any context like that, yes they are a bit meaningless. With context though, they can be valid statements.

bman · 31-07-2014 02:46PM

Doug Cartel wrote: »

When you completely remove any context like that, yes they are a bit meaningless. With context though, they can be valid statements.

I'm not saying one or the other are right, because I don't know. I was more so opening it up for discussion to see what people thought.

One that I hear a lot on here is: “It’s all about the balance between calories in and calories out.” Why do I see this around here a lot? Or vice-versa, why is the article saying this isn't the case?

Doug Cartel · 31-07-2014 03:03PM

bman wrote: »

I'm not saying one or the other are right, because I don't know. I was more so opening it up for discussion to see what people thought.

One that I hear a lot on here is: “It’s all about the balance between calories in and calories out.” Why do I see this around here a lot? Or vice-versa, why is the article saying this isn't the case?

It's not all about the balance between calories in and out, but this balance is something you have to keep in mind. If you have a diet that is really high in calories, you are not going to be able to train hard enough to burn them all. So in that case your best course of action will be to cut the calories. People usually add this bit of information on when they give out the advice.

On the other hand, if you are giving advice to the general population, and you don't specifically know what they are doing, then that advice becomes less meaningful. Calories in vs. calories out is easy to misinterpret, a lot of people might take that to mean they can eat as much as they want as long as they are active enough to burn it off.

The other thing they need to consider is that they need to encourage people to eat a healthy, varied diet. If people are only thinking about calories and nothing else, they might end up eating nothing but chips, feeling it's OK because they are within their calorie target.

Mellor · 31-07-2014 03:20PM

bman wrote: »

I'm not saying one or the other are right, because I don't know. I was more so opening it up for discussion to see what people thought.

One that I hear a lot on here is: “It’s all about the balance between calories in and calories out.” Why do I see this around here a lot? Or vice-versa, why is the article saying this isn't the case?

Because context maters.
In the context of the article, he isn't talking about calories as units of energy in relation to weight loss, he is talking about satiety, insulin response and adherence. A can of coke won't fill you like the equivalent amount of fat or protein.

31-07-2014 03:25PM

Mellor wrote: »

A can of come won't fill you like the equivalent amount of fat or protein.

Speak for yourself.

31-07-2014 03:27PM

I can't help but wonder if it's easier for a country which has quite a lot of its land completely unsuitable for high-yield grain production for much of the year to make this decision that others.

LuckyLloyd · 31-07-2014 03:39PM

Deleted User wrote: »

I can't help but wonder if it's easier for a country which has quite a lot of its land completely unsuitable for high-yield grain production for much of the year to make this decision that others.

Not much to wonder about. It absolutely is easier to make such a decision when you don't have a myriad of farmer / food company lobbies ready to oppose it and flood the media with misinformation and scare mongering on the topic.

31-07-2014 03:43PM

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Not much to wonder about. It absolutely is easier to make such a decision when you don't have a myriad of farmer / food company lobbies ready to oppose it and flood the media with misinformation and scare mongering on the topic.

I may have being disingenuous about how much I was wondering. :P

K4t · 31-07-2014 05:22PM

Have to laugh at all these studies and the constant harping on about diet and nutrition everywhere.

It's simple, don't eat as much, and if you are eating a lot do some exercise so you don't get fat. Have a balanced diet of carbs, protein, fat and throw in some fruit. It's not even remotely difficult to do.

31-07-2014 06:47PM

K4t wrote: »

Have to laugh at all these studies and the constant harping on about diet and nutrition everywhere.

It's simple, don't eat as much, and if you are eating a lot do some exercise so you don't get fat. Have a balanced diet of carbs, protein, fat and throw in some fruit. It's not even remotely difficult to do.

As I've said elsewhere, the information put out has to be judged on how effective it is rather than purely on accuracy. How have the attempts so far worked?

JJayoo · 31-07-2014 07:03PM

Mellor wrote: »

Because context maters.
A can of come won't fill you like the equivalent amount of fat or protein.

You are nasty

Sweden says f*ck you western food pyramid...

Comments