
Sweden becomes the first country to reject low-fat diet dogma - sasoon
http://healthimpactnews.com/2013/sweden-becomes-first-western-nation-to-reject-low-fat-diet-dogma-in-favor-of-low-carb-high-fat-nutrition/
======
unoti
Fat is not the enemy. Fat that you eat can be converted handily into energy.
An overabundance of carbs is the enemy! It's hilarious to me that people who
think nothing of downing a 48 oz Dr Pepper, then getting a refill, after a
dinner featuring potatoes, pasta, and bread will thumb their nose at having a
12 oz glass of whole milk. Those carbs, especially when consumed late in the
day, go straight into fat.

The nutrition information we were given in school is mostly a load of baloney,
and puts me in mind of the cargo cult science Richard Feynman discussion from
the other day
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6543791](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6543791)
. It's interesting how much of this nutrition information passes without being
scientifically proven.

~~~
danmaz74
"Fat that you eat can be converted handily into energy" What is this supposed
to mean? That an overabundance of carbs is bad, while an overabundance of fat
isn't? This is getting ridiculous.

~~~
unoti
By "Fat that you eat can be converted into energy" I meant that just because
you eat fat doesn't mean it's going right to your belly or hips.

And a lot of people are terrified of consuming 5 grams of fat, but think
nothing of consuming 400 carbs in the form of bread, pasta, and sugar. I'm
advocating an approach based on whole foods, less sugar, carbs only from
wholesome sources like oatmeal and whole grains. I'm just trying to say people
focus too much on fat.

~~~
danmaz74
Many people focus too much on fat. Many others, though, focus too much on
carbs. What worries me is seeing a myth spread, the myth that you can eat as
much fat as you want as long as you don't eat carbs: That's just not true, and
dangerous to tell.

------
StacyC
My wife and I have been on a very low carb / high fat diet for the last 4
months, and we have never felt better. Eating lots of eggs, bacon, steak,
butter, some veggies and fruit. We both lost weight too. Also cut out
processed food, sugar and grains — bread, pasta, rice, cereal — basically a
ketogenic diet, which adapts the body to burning fat more readily.

We both have also noticed that we just feel more mental clarity, more energy
and no cravings for junk food. It is amazing. I hope this message gets through
in the U.S. eventually.

~~~
nawitus
>Eating lots of eggs, bacon, steak

The problem with that is that the consumption of animal products is unethical.
You should consider switching to a vegan low-carb diet to decrease suffering.

~~~
sparkie
The consumption of plants is unethical, they're living organisms too!

~~~
TomGullen
Animals experience suffering and pain on a far more visceral level than
spinach. To suggest otherwise is dishonest.

~~~
grogenaut
They also experience life more viscerally than spinach. What's your point. Tis
better to have loved and lost than to never have loved at all. Also bacon is
tasty.

Keep your moral proscriptions to your self.

~~~
TomGullen
> What's your point.

My point is that the person above me suggested it's also unethical to eat
plants because they are also living organisms. I'm pointing out the
mistreatment of animals (obviously) is far less ethical than mistreatment of
plants.

> Tis better to have loved and lost than to never have loved at all.

If you're suggesting it's better to exist than not exist, it depends. I'd
rather not have existed at all rather than exist in a torturous and hopeless
existence.

> Keep your moral proscriptions to your self.

You don't know me. I eat more meat than most people. It's just that people are
in my opinion overly dismissive of the ethical problems with eating meat and
it's hard to discuss these ethics because a lot of people are overly
dismissive or retort with silly counterpoints such as "plants are also living
organisms".

------
coldcode
Everyone's an expert on food. If I ate what all the different experts told me
to eat I'd be on a different diet every day. I bet a different group of
nutritional scientists would take a look at these studies and find a
completely different conclusion (and likely have). There is nothing special
about Sweden to make me believe they know more about food than any other
country.

It's great if you feel good with your diet, as it's your body. But it's a
single data point. Trying to build a diet that works for everyone is like
trying to find a single programming language for everyone. A diet that works
for you over a few months isn't enough time to discover its true benefits,
just as a terrible diet's effects aren't obvious potentially for much of a
lifetime.

There are plenty of people around the world's whose diet is not high fat, low
carb (the Mediterranean for one) but still remain healthy so that isn't a
great indicator that there is strictly one way to eat.

I took enough biochemistry and nutritional chemistry classes in college to
know how complicated our processing of food is, and how difficult it is to
make guidelines for how people should eat.

------
gabemart
This article misrepresents the underlying research and seems to invent some
facts from whole cloth.

> Sweden has become the first Western nation to develop national dietary
> guidelines that reject the popular low-fat diet dogma in favor of low-carb
> high-fat nutrition advice.

Where is the evidence that Sweden has developed "national dietary guidelines"?
All the sources link back to the paper [1][2] entitled "Dietary Treatment for
Obesity". Clearly, dietary treatment for obesity is not the same as national
dietary guidelines, and the conclusions of a paper are not the same as
government policy.

Further, the paper found low-carb diets more effective for weight loss only in
the first six months. Long term, it found no difference in the effectiveness
of low-fat vs. low carb. To quote from google translate:

> In the long run there are no differences in efficacy between weight loss
> tips on strict and moderate carbohydrate diet, low-fat diets,
> högproteinkost, Mediterranean diet, diet focuses on low-glycemic load diet
> or a high proportion of monounsaturated fats.

Further, on the "diet doctor" website, under the section "Warnings Against
LCHF Dismissed" [3], it quotes the study criticizing some studies that
concluded low-carb diets are unhealthy for not adequately distinguishing
between different classes of low-carb diets, specifically those high in fast-
food and those not. This may be a valid criticism, but is not the same as
endorsing the long-term health of a low-carb diet. The "diet doctor" concludes
"We simply don’t know" about the long-term effects of various macronutrient
compositions on health, which is fair, but this is a long way short of the
national government of Sweden endorsing high-fat low-carb diets as
unequivocally healthier than high-carb low-fat diets.

It may appear that I'm against low-carb diets; I'm not. I just think this is a
very poor and misleading article.

[1] [pdf warning]
[http://www.sbu.se/upload/Publikationer/Content0/1/Mat_vid_fe...](http://www.sbu.se/upload/Publikationer/Content0/1/Mat_vid_fetma_218-2013.pdf)

[2] [google translation of conclusions]
[http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=sv&tl=en&prev...](http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=sv&tl=en&prev=_dd&u=http://www.sbu.se/sv/Publicerat/Gul/Mat-
vid-fetma-/)

[3] [http://www.dietdoctor.com/swedish-expert-committee-low-
carb-...](http://www.dietdoctor.com/swedish-expert-committee-low-carb-diet-
effective-weight-loss)

~~~
pingvingryta
Swede here. Here is a google translate from the "government agency of food"
website, stating their stance on low-carb high-fat.
[http://translate.google.se/translate?hl=sv&sl=sv&tl=en&u=htt...](http://translate.google.se/translate?hl=sv&sl=sv&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.slv.se%2Fsv%2Fgrupp1%2FMat-
och-naring%2Fstod_till_varden%2FFragor-och-svar-LCHF%2F)

They also provide national dietary guidelines, found on the site.

------
swombat
I've been happily low-carb for the last couple of years or so. It's worked
great for me.

Occasionally I relapse (hmm, chocolate), and every time I do for any
substantial period, I see the effect on my weight. So long as I stick to low-
carb, I don't have to worry about what I eat... just eat as much as I feel
like, whenever I feel like - but low carb.

------
shaunrussell
I've lost 48 pounds in the last 2 years (188 => 140) by simply cutting all
carbs and most processed foods out of my diet. No change in habits, no
additional exercise. My cholesterol, triglycerides, and blood were good to
begin with, but are now EXCELLENT.

My typical day I eat 3-4 eggs, half avocado, 1/2lb of red meat/chicken/fish, 2
servings of greens, 1 serving of vegetables, 2-3 servings of cheese.

Never felt better. It is frustrating because people never believe me and just
tell me that I have a fast metabolism.

------
gdilla
For some easy to read, well summarized evidence of high fat diets, Science
journalist Gary Taubes has a few books on the subject
[http://www.amazon.com/Why-We-Get-Fat-
About/dp/0307474259?tag...](http://www.amazon.com/Why-We-Get-Fat-
About/dp/0307474259?tag=top10new-20)

------
felixfurtak
I would highly recommend watching the BBC documentary "The Men Who Made Us
Fat". This reaches broadly the same conclusions. Fat is fairly innocuous, but
the real danger food is Sugar, and artificial sweeteners tend to make things
worse.

~~~
swombat
Why do artificial sweeteners make things worse?

Are 2 little sweetener pills in my coffee really worse than two cubes of
sugar?

~~~
unoti
It seems possible to me. I know Sucralose is actually made from sugar as a
starting point, then they chemically alter it.

As for can it be harmful, maybe so:

"A Duke University study[35] funded by the Sugar Association found evidence
that doses of Splenda of between 100 and 1000 mg/kg, containing sucralose at
1.1 to 11 mg/kg (compare to the FDA Acceptable Daily Intake of 5 mg/kg),
reduced the amount of fecal microflora in rats by up to 50%, increased the pH
level in the intestines, contributed to increases in body weight, and
increased levels of P-glycoprotein (P-gp).[36] These effects have not been
reported in humans."

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sucralose#Other_potential_effec...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sucralose#Other_potential_effects)

------
bluecalm
Loading up beacon and eggs while putting butter in your coffee and refusing
slices of bread (whole grain of course) and then explaining you do it for
health reasons is priceless ;)

On serious note, evidence is there it's time to at least tell people they have
a choice. Low carb did wonders to my family members (fat whole life, skinny
and feeling great now) and when I keep at it (instead of succumbing to sugar
addiction) I fell way better as well. It's safe, many (maybe even most) people
function much better while eating this way and there is no way you get fat on
it.

------
pasbesoin
The People's Pharmacy (well regarded U.S. public radio show):

Show 895 The Great Cholesterol Myth

[http://www.peoplespharmacy.com/2013/03/09/895-the-great-
chol...](http://www.peoplespharmacy.com/2013/03/09/895-the-great-cholesterol-
myth/)

Further recent discussion on Wisconsin Public Radio:

[http://www.wpr.org/shows/peoples-pharmacy-special-pledge-
dri...](http://www.wpr.org/shows/peoples-pharmacy-special-pledge-drive-
edition)

------
elrzn
Wow at the low-carb comments. Way to reject a dogma with another dogma.

I have a daily intake of 400g of carbohydrates. According to you I'd be
overwheight and dying of diabetes, cancer, metabolic syndrome and whatnot.

Exercise daily, provide adequate protein intake and watch out the calories.
That's it. No need to blame food but yourselves.

~~~
TomGullen
> According to you I'd be overwheight and dying of diabetes, cancer, metabolic
> syndrome and whatnot.

Nope, not sure where you get that idea from.

> Exercise daily, provide adequate protein intake and watch out the calories.
> That's it.

So I can eat a few chicken breasts a day, and then 1,500 kcal of mars bars?
Sounds great!

Alternatively if you're trying to lose weight, you can simply cut out the
sugar. Exercise is of course important for a host of reasons, but for weight
loss it's probably just about the hardest way to do it. I'm in despair when my
severely overweight friend relays the advice from her doctor and nutritionist:

"Eat less calories, and get on the treadmill".

Doesn't sound fun, or easy at all. There are other ways.

~~~
Dewie
> Doesn't sound fun, or easy at all. There are other ways.

You'd think, with the title of this webpage, that most would be interested in
ways of elegantly and easily solving problems that are important to
themselves. But it seems that the constant chanting of _no pain no gain_ has
left a lot of people with the conviction that, when it comes to health, things
_should not_ be easy nor simple.

~~~
socillion
What if people took the same tack when it comes to mental processes? "Math is
challenging, so I refuse to do any". "Reading books is too hard because I have
to look up some of the words". Surely we can agree that challenging your mind
is a good thing.

Is it impossible to find any enjoyment in challenging your body as well as
mind?

~~~
Dewie
> What if people took the same tack when it comes to mental processes? "Math
> is challenging, so I refuse to do any". "Reading books is too hard because I
> have to look up some of the words". Surely we can agree that challenging
> your mind is a good thing.

Don't try to generalize my argument into absurdity. Simply not doing math
because it is difficult doesn't solve the underlying problem, which is
probably to become proficient at math. Now if there were easier ways to become
proficient at math than what you were already doing, that would be more in
line with my argument.

The key thing is _solving problems_. Simply giving up on learning math, or
reading, solves _no_ problem.

> Is it impossible to find any enjoyment in challenging your body as well as
> mind?

Challenging your body and maintaining good health are distinct goals, though
they may be satisfied through the same processes. If you want good health, and
a certain diet makes that easier, then I will say that it is no sense in
maintaining whatever old diet you had simply because that would make it
harder. If you want to challenge your body, and simply maintaining good health
is not challenging enough, there are endless possibilities. Recreational
sports, for example. Gymnastics. Parkour. But personally I would not choose to
do things that were clearly suboptimal for my body solely because it would be
_more challenging_. I might do it because I gain other things, such as eating
tasty but unhealthy food, but I wouldn't choose to do it if the goal was only
to make things harder for myself.

~~~
socillion
My argument is that challenging yourself is healthy, and that applies to both
physical and mental activities. I suspect the difference may lie in what we
consider "good health".

Being challenging also doesn't imply an activity is unenjoyable or
unrewarding.

> But personally I would not choose to do things that were clearly suboptimal
> for my body solely because it would be more challenging.

What things?

~~~
Dewie
And where did I ever say that challenging yourself is _not_ healthy? It seems
that you went on a tangent from the start (the math and reading examples were
clearly perversions of my original argument). Is your tactic now to gradually
water down your argument until we arrive at something so non-disagreeable that
I will just sheepishly agree, wondering what kind of misunderstanding lead us
to this point? The original claim was that; assuming that a low-carb diet is
superior to a more generic diet, it is better to use such a diet _rather than_
simply doing something harder that yields the same end result, simply because
of the attitude of "no pain no gain" ( _notice this last phrase_. It describes
a challenging activity that is also _not_ enjoyable). So, no. I don't find
value in challenging myself in masochistic ways. I might build character by
hopping on one leg to work each day, but I'd rather spend my time in other
ways, which may involve challenging myself in ways that also yields other
rewards

~~~
socillion
> it is better to use such a diet rather than simply doing something harder
> that yields the same end result

You assert that exercising and changing your diet have the same end result
when they clearly do not, unless you are using "healthy" as a euphemism for
"lose weight" or something similar. Do you have a factual basis for asserting
that changing your diet and exercising result in the same end results?

Thank you for clarifying that you do not find exercise enjoyable, I was
curious if that was the case. I find exercise to be rewarding in it's own
right - it's unfortunate that you don't experience it the same way.

"No pain, no gain" can be interpreted as saying that sometimes it is worth
enduring discomfort or pain in the short term for a longer term reward. It's
more a comment on dealing with delayed gratification than a description of
whether an activity is enjoyable or worth doing.

~~~
Dewie
> You assert that exercising and changing your diet have the same end result
> when they clearly do not, unless you are using "healthy" as a euphemism for
> "lose weight" or something similar. Do you have a factual basis for
> asserting that changing your diet and exercising result in the same end
> results?

I have NEVER said anything remotely similar to that. My argument has been that
_assuming_ (I've always said _assuming_ or some variation; it's a premise, not
an assertion) that low-carb is superior to some other method, like a more
generic diet, AND it is easier to follow, you should do that. Nowhere have I
said ANYTHING about exercising and dieting being the same. The argument is
more general; given that doing some thing (ANY thing, exercising, standing on
one foot, low-carb, etc.) is easier AND yields better results compared to
another thing (AGAIN, any one thing; standing on one foot, exercising, etc.),
you should do the former.

My argument does not rely on low-carb actually being better than something
(anything) else; that was simply the premise.

> Thank you for clarifying that you do not find exercise enjoyable, I was
> curious if that was the case. I find exercise to be rewarding in it's own
> right - it's unfortunate that you don't experience it the same way.

Thank you for for repeatedly misrepresenting, or even inventing, what I've
said. I wonder what leads you to jump to these specific conclusions; is it the
fact that I've been writing about 'challenging' things, or 'no pain no gain'?
Well, exercise is not solely the domain of 'challenging'; a diet can be
challenging. That was what was after all what was discussed originally, namely
the fact that a person scoffed at using a specific, claimed to be easier and
better diet, over another diet. Nothing about exercise, or that it replaces
it. "No pain no gain"? I'd venture to say that people that are one something
like "one apple for breakfast, one banana for dinner and that's it" are
probably going to feel some _pain_ while on this diet, certainly compared to
someone that is on a diet actually lets them eat enough food to become
somewhat sated. Exercise can be painful, but not necessarily. Nowhere have I
ever said that all exercise is just painful.

My sentence about "jumping on one leg to work" has nothing to do with exercise
in general. It is just a silly everyday limitation. I might like to play rugby
instead, because that is a sport that I enjoy.

As for if I find exercise enjoyable or not: it depends. Lifting weights can be
'enjoyable in its own right', i.e. simply the act of doing it. On the other
hand, something like high intensity interval training is often downright
miserable. In fact, let me for a moment take a page out of the exercise
masochists and say; if you are enjoying exercising, you are simply not
exercising hard enough! Which leads me to the last point:

> "No pain, no gain" can be interpreted as saying that sometimes it is worth
> enduring discomfort or pain in the short term for a longer term reward. It's
> more a comment on dealing with delayed gratification than a description of
> whether an activity is enjoyable or worth doing.

...and it can be eventually be taken so far as to become and end in itself
rather than something that serves a higher purpose. There are plenty of
fitness-geeks that use how much pain they are in to gauge how well they are
doing, but that is certainly not always the best strategy. You can bench press
a weight until you are so exhausted that you could hardly lift anything, but
you might be better off _not_ lifting until failure if your main goal is to
increase strength and stress your nervous system, over building muscle.

~~~
socillion
Assertion: Something declared or stated positively, often with no support or
attempt at proof.

Euphemism: The substitution of a mild, indirect, or vague expression for one
thought to be offensive, harsh, or blunt.

Premise: A proposition upon which an argument is based or from which a
conclusion is drawn.

Your usage of "premise" is odd. An argument is made up of _premises_ which
support a conclusion, suggesting that the conclusion does not rely on the
premises of that argument is false.

> My argument has been that assuming (I've always said assuming or some
> variation; it's a premise, not an assertion)

It's an assertion, but also a premise of your argument. Whether or not it is
an assumption is irrelevant.

> If you want to challenge your body, and simply maintaining good health is
> not challenging enough, there are endless possibilities. Recreational
> sports, for example. Gymnastics. Parkour. But personally I would not choose
> to do things that were clearly suboptimal for my body solely because it
> would be more challenging.

Here is where you list examples of exercise and call them "suboptimal" (for
obtaining "good health") compared to a diet.

> The original claim was that; assuming that a low-carb diet is superior to a
> more generic diet, it is better to use such a diet rather than simply doing
> something harder that yields the same end result

Since, as you say and I correctly interpreted, this is a _general_ statement,
it can also be applied to your previous conclusion that exercise is suboptimal
compared to a diet and is therefore "something harder that yields the same end
result". You contradict this now with a much more balanced view on exercise.

> There are plenty of fitness-geeks that use how much pain they are in to
> gauge how well they are doing, but that is certainly not always the best
> strategy. You can bench press a weight until you are so exhausted that you
> could hardly lift anything, but you might be better off not lifting until
> failure if your main goal is to increase strength and stress your nervous
> system, over building muscle.

Doing bench presses until failure does not mean you're in pain. Doing bench
presses until failure doesn't even mean you'll feel pain the next day. I'm
also curious what you think is the best way to "increase strength and stress
your nervous system" if working to exhaustion is not optimal.

Maybe your arguments would be clearer if you didn't spend half of them on
snide remarks and potshots. I'm tired of this so I won't be returning.

------
Zolomon
Being a Swede in Sweden, last I heard was that everyone was giving critique to
LCHF due to high risks of cancer[1][2].

[1] [http://www.kostdoktorn.se/aftonbladet-varnar-for-lchf-
cancer](http://www.kostdoktorn.se/aftonbladet-varnar-for-lchf-cancer)

[2] [http://www.metro.se/nyheter/lakare-varnar-for-lchf-
cancer/EV...](http://www.metro.se/nyheter/lakare-varnar-for-lchf-
cancer/EVHmbs!laLUhkb5LnZKA/)

------
NoPiece
So when people say, "the science is decided," remember that science almost
unanimously pushed high carb low fat diets for decades before people
challenged it.

------
seivan
As my healthiest, I was on Low Carb High Fat. It all went away when I went to
Asia... :/

------
robabbott
Ok, bacon, sausage, and egg omelette it is for dinner, then!

~~~
TomGullen
Sounds like a good meal, I regularly eat those foods. When I was losing the
most weight, for dinner sometimes I was eating 500g fried mince meat, covered
in about 100-200g of cheese. Very filling lol! Diet food can be delicious and
grimy.

------
mtdewcmu
Isn't switching from low-fat to low-carb just trading one dogma for another?

------
nawitus
The problem with low-carb diets is that most people use it as an excuse to
consume animal products. A vegan low-carb diet is fine.

~~~
jonnathanson
Other than ethical reasons, what's the issue here?

Not being snarky; just legitimately curious. I would love to see some hard
science and longitudinal studies behind the ostensible benefits of a vegan
diet, or the drawbacks of a diet high -- but not overly high -- in animal
protein.

I realize cooked animal protein and preserved/processed animal protein
contains carcinogens, and that too much protein (regardless of source) can
cause a variety of problems ranging from kidney impairment to gout. But plant-
based sources have their costs as well (phytoestrogens, antinutrients,
oxalates, etc.).

I've never felt better in my life, and my various lab stats have never looked
better, than when I went on a Paleo-esque high fat, low carb diet that was
quite rich in animal sources, but which also contained a healthful amount of
vegetables (and no fruit). I took the diet as far as ketosis, and after
breaking through the ramp-up hurdles, I settled into it and got into fantastic
shape.

Anecdotal, yes. But I've struggled with "skinny-fatness" for much of my life,
and this particular combination made a remarkable improvement on my physique
without any changes in my exercise routine. Maybe my caloric consumption
shifted a bit, but if anything, it probably shifted north.

~~~
nawitus
Ethical reasons are enough.

