A low-carb diet most effective for weight loss


Which diet is the most effective for weight loss?

This could be a historic day in Sweden. Today it became official. After over two years of work, a Swedish expert committee published their expert inquiry Dietary Treatment for Obesity (Google translated from Swedish).

This report from SBU (Swedish Council on Health Technology Assessment) is likely to be the basis for future dietary guidelines for obesity treatment within the Swedish health care system.

The health care system has for a long time given general advice to avoid fat and calories. A low-carbohydrate diet (such as LCHF) has often been dismissed as a fad diet lacking scientific foundation. The time has now come to update knowledge in this area.

According to SBU, the only clear difference among different dietary recommendations is seen during the first six months. Here a low-carbohydrate diet, such as LCHF, is clearly more effective than today’s conventional advice.

From fad diet to best in test.

Here are some more highlights from the report: 

Health markers

In addition, health markers will improve on a low-carbohydrate diet, according to SBU. You’ll get:

…a greater increase in HDL cholesterol (“the good cholesterol”) without having any adverse affects on LDL cholesterol (“the bad cholesterol”). This applies to both the moderate low-carbohydrate intake of less than 40 percent of the total energy intake, as well as to the stricter low-carbohydrate diet, where carbohydrate intake is less than 20 percent of the total energy intake. In addition, the stricter low-carbohydrate diet will lead to improved glucose levels for individuals with obesity and diabetes, and to marginally decreased levels of triglycerides.

So, all important health markers improved or unchanged on a stricter low-carbohydrate diet. Just like an international review of all research in the area showed last year:

Systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical trials of the effects of low carbohydrate diets on cardiovascular risk factors

Long-term uncertainty

Long term, studies show no statistically significant differences among different diets, and the differences decrease with time. The SBU suggests that this is because of decreasing compliance with time. People simply tend to fall back to old habits.

The more studies we add, the better we can see the clear advantage of low-carbohydrate diets. Unfortunately SBU has excluded all studies examining both obese and overweight people. If you include studies on weight loss where overweight people are included – to get a greater scientific basis – a clear advantage for the low-carbohydrate diet was seen even after a year:

New Analysis: LCHF Best For Long-Term Weight and Health Markers

A well-designed study, which for the same reason as above, was dropped from the SBU report’s analysis, still showed a persistent advantage for the LCHF-like diet (Atkins) after two years, despite the difficulty with such long-term diet studies.

For the long-term effect, if you keep to a strict low-carbohydrate diet, there are only anecdotal reports on weight and cholesterol levels.

Physical activity

SBU also kills the idea that exercise plays an important roll in weight loss. Exercise may be very good for health, but:

Systematic reviews of the literature show that the addition of physical activity to a dietary intervention for individuals with obesity have, if any, a marginal effect on weight loss at the group level.

The effect of exercise on weight in studies is in other words marginal or non-existent. Just like you read about here.

Warnings against LCHF dismissed

There’s a great lack of knowledge today on what dietary guidelines are best for long-term health. We simply don’t know.

Recent cautions on low-carbohydrate diets are at best based on statistical associations derived from food questionnaires from people who didn’t (!) eat a low-carbohydrate diet. The SBU also dismisses these warnings:

Most of these studies suffer from major shortcomings, which make them difficult to interpret. The foremost shortcoming in these studies is that it’s often impossible to determine whether those with the lowest intake are knowingly eating a moderate low-carbohydrate diet for health reasons, or if they are high consumers of fast-food.

The breakdown of carbohydrates, fat and protein, which in such studies are imaginatively labeled “a low-carbohydrate diet” is usually very similar to the macronutrient distribution in a hamburger with fries and soda…

Towards the future

What will be the consequences of today’s report?

Advice on a low-carbohydrate diet is however very rare, if we look at the practice survey. It’s not clear how common it is to actively discourage patients from the strict low-carbohydrate diet. A low-carbohydrate diet, even the stricter form, will lead to a greater weight loss in the short term than the low-fat diet, and studies have indicated no adverse effects on blood lipids, provided that the weight stays low. One possible consequence of this report will therefore be an increased use of a strict low-carbohydrate diet for short-term weight reduction.

SBU will always express itself very carefully. But it can’t be said much clearer: It’s high time for the health care system to take seriously advice on LCHF for weight loss!

This is also interesting:

…it’s not possible to draw any conclusions about the relationship between a low-carbohydrate diet – regardless of fat content – and cardiovascular disease. Here we could apply the precautionary principle, and advise some restraint on saturated fat intake, as long as the documentation of the long-term effects are inadequate.

Many health care workers will no doubt (without any better reasons than preconceptions) be wary of dietary advice on more saturated fat. I was once scared of saturated fat myself.

I think that SBU is keeping a reasonable attitude here, as it isn’t even necessary to give advice on a lot of saturated fat for a low-carbohydrate diet. You can eat even a strict low-carbohydrate diet (such as LCHF) emphasizing unsaturated fats. This has been shown to be effective in studies:

It would be wonderful if the health care system started to apply the benefits of a low-carbohydrate diet, even before the outdated fear of butter has melted away everywhere.

The SBU-report Dietary Treatment for Obesity is a gigantic step towards more effective dietary guidelines within the health care system. This is a historic day in Sweden.

Media coverage

Today’s big news created quite a media frenzy in Sweden, here Google translated from Swedish:

More on the SBU report Dietary Treatment for Obesity:


LCHF for Beginners

Just a few examples of that today’s news could mean for more and more people:

1 2


  1. robert
    Soooo... that's Ragnarök for the low-fat diet pushers. Finally.

    It would be interesting to hear how and how soon the Swedish medical institutions (hospitals, dietitians, docs...) react to this. How long will it take until the high-carb low-fat health information found in some leaflets in GP offices will be removed?

    Also if this news gets the media coverage it deserves. Not just the usual mentioning in a news-flash, that every new diet may get, but in-depth reports.

  2. hazel
    What does this mean for chronic kidney disease sufferers? Trying to stay Low Carb High fat while also trying to keep acid levels low. Its a balancing act but I'm feeling good and my bloods have had some improvement. Blood pressure medication was halved.
    Haven't told my doctor as he is still promoting high carb low fat.
  3. FrankG
    I especially liked your line about the fear of butter melting away :-) Nice touch! Sad to say we still have those shameless "heart healthy" Becel margarine adverts running over here :-(

    Great to see Sweden leading the way with this. It seems to me that they applied a common-sense approach to this review.

    It is just a matter of time before the haters crawl back under their rocks and the "experts" claim that of course they knew this and have been supporting it all along :-P

  4. Catherine Polumbus
    I knew that. Problem is making it a health, livable program, not a "diet". When you get stuck...a just fruit & vegetable day works wonders.
    Reply: #6
  5. FrankG
    Although I must admit o being puzzled as to why in reviewing the literature regarding "Dietary Treatment For Obesity", SBU has excluded all studies examining both obese and overweight people. That seems a little odd to me. That might make sense if they were only examining ways to prevent obesity.
  6. FrankG
    Where is the problem Catherine? Did you read Dr Andreas links on LCHF here on this blog for example. It is not a "diet" as in a rigid set of rules but more of an approach and guidelines that lend themselves very well to a lifestyle change... for life.

    A "just fruit & vegetable day" might "work wonders" for you but it would not do so for me and I daresay others.

    For me the word "diet" simply means (as it is defined) "what is habitually eaten" :-)

    Reply: #7
  7. Randal L. Schwartz
    Yeah, a "just fruit and vegetable" day for me would be a disaster. First, I wouldn't get enough protein, so my body would likely start tearing down my muscles for any rebuilding happening that day. Then, the fruits would likely be a bit too carb-y and knock me out of ketosis, and both the fruits *and* veggies would have a lot more fiber than I am used to, and cause problems "on the throne" the next morning. And finally, without satiating fats, I'd be hungry all day! Nope, count me out.
  8. Galina L.
    What is so wonderful about eating fruits and veggies the whole day? I remember how it feels - you feel like you have no more space in your stomach, but hungry any way - the total torture.
    I would rather fast - at least it doesn't leave me hungry, just I miss the fun eating food.
  9. PaleoDentist
    So now that there is clear evidence of an actual healthy diet, and with one country already in the process of making dietary guide line changes. will the American Medical Establishment take their head out of their asses and follow suit? Plan B is the media. lets see what the US media will do.
  10. raz
    This is epic. Been following your site for a year or so. Thanks andreas for introducing to the other sitea as well
    (Im a I.M. resident) lost 26kgs on low carb. It works
  11. Stefan
    That's some great news - actually calls for a little celebration, doesn't it? Has anyone done any research on paleo/lowcarb/prima friendly beer, yet? :-)

    Thanks so much for the info, Andreas!


  12. murray
    I would not be so fussed about a fruit and vegetable day. For me that would essentially be a fasting day. Of course for fruit i would only have either avocado, olives or a small serving of fresh cranberries or wild blueberries, and vegetables would be leafy greens (in which I would include Brussels sprouts) or celery. Total carbs under 50 grams, for sure.
  13. Alexandra M
    Unfortunately, Jane Brody, who actually gets paid to write a health column in the science section of the New York Times has not gotten the message. She gives a brief mention to the CSPI nutritionist's observation that we're eating too much grain, but she's more concerned about all the calories in butter and oil. Then she winds up her column with this doozie:

    "This summer I discovered a great new way to enhance the family’s fruit intake. It’s a gadget called Yonanas: using frozen, slightly overripe bananas as a base and other frozen fruits for color and flavor (like strawberries, pineapple, or mango), it produces a sweet, creamy dessert or snack with the consistency of frozen yogurt but no added sugar or cream. With a 20-percent off coupon from Bed Bath & Beyond, this tool costs $40 and — who knows? — could ultimately save hundreds in medical bills."


    Reply: #15
  14. Daniel
    As much as this represents an advancement, it does appear to be somewhat vague, easily misinterpreted and slightly non committal.

    I understand they have to be careful; but people need clarity. I am however, very pleased to see a nation taking drastic steps to make a change.

  15. robert
    Why is it necessary to turn fruit into something that might as well be a food-industry concoction: an unrecognizable gooey mush of various fruit (maybe) items. And why does it take a special machine for that? Whatever happened to mashing bananas with a fork?

    It seems like her family suffers from taste-bud / eating-habits malfunction - probably caused by prolonged exposure to flavor-enhanced fake products.

    Plain fruit apparently isn't sweet enough, creamy enough, seductive enough - compared to a food-engineer's product.

    Solution: add the damn cream!

  16. murray
    Yonanas seems like a redundant kitchen tool. I do just as well with a blender and spatula--you can make it ice cream texture or smoothie. Specifying "over-ripe" bananas is a touchstone for carb-addicted sweet tooth. They want the "hit" of acellular sugar while pretending to be whole fruit.

    I'll make smoothies for my 14-year old son (who loves to bounce over six feet high on the trampoline a half hour at a time) using slightly green bananas for the pre-biotic resistant starch, but of course I add protein and fat (such as macadamia nut butter and coconut milk or cream). Over-ripe bananas are all glycemic all the time. My son would be bouncing off the walls instead of the trampoline. Little wonder Ms. Brody has been publicly fretting over her triglycerides lately, following the standard nutritional guidelines and eating over-ripe bananas.

  17. Richard lowfat4ever

    the SBU is an expert group without the experts.

    Most LCHF studies sponsored by Atkins foundation (see the papers by Shai et al) do not even report change in LDL cholesterol. Hernandez et al did report LDL cholesterol in their RCT. The participants in the LCHF arm lost 6kg's and and their LDL went up by 10%. The "low-fat" group demonstrated identical weight loss, and LDL went down 6%.

    Bantning med lågkolhydratdiet kan sätta fart på aterosklerosprocessen: Kolhydratfattig kost ökar fria fettsyror och LDL-kolesterol

    Health is not about rapid weight loss independent of the mechanism used. Amphetamies, food poisoning, chemotherapy, etc result in weight loss and with favorable effects on triglycerides and HDL-C cholesterol without any adverse effects of LDL cholesterol. This report by SBU was scientific travesty at best.

    Reply: #18
  18. murray
    Ripley: Bishop, you did okay.
    Bishop: I did?
    Ripley: Oh, yeah.
  19. Galina L.
    I wonder why is the main health marker mentioned a LDL cholesterol? No one wants a CVD, but such condition doesn't influence the quality of one's life. You can't notice without a blood test that you LDL went down or up. People on a LC diets report on other things that are hard
    to miss like increased immunity to seasonal flues, decreased susceptibility to allergies, absence of yeast infections, disappearance of hot flashes and fast wounds healing. I have my medical records to proove major positive changes in my health. I am sure people who participated in the research had their visits to a doctor recorded as well.
    Reply: #20
  20. FrankG
    Galina.. a cynical (skeptical? open-minded?) person might just wonder if it couldn't possibly be that the single-minded (simple-minded?) and overly simplistic focus on LDL-C has anything to do with the annual $16 BILLION statin sales? That LDL-C is ONLY one factor out of the many which have been associated with heart disease BUT that it is the ONLY one for which there is a pharmaceutical treatment which makes a difference to the numbers as calculated by your lab? However meaningless those number might be?
    Reply: #21
  21. robert
    And they have another cholesterol lowering drug in the works, which supposedly is even more effective in dropping those LDL levels.

    I red on Jimmy Moore's blog about a drug that causes the liver to increase its LDL uptake from the blood. The drug modulates a protein, which in turn affects LDL receptors on liver cells. Now the question arises, will the liver be happy with that? It has also been shown that messing with that protein makes cells more vulnerable to HEP-C infection.

    Not nice.

    It really must be about the money. Why would any person with half a working brain otherwise spend huge amount of $ and time to develop drugs, which of course must be pushed to people, if the whole issue can be resolved by simply eating real food?

    Is the carbage industry "in bed" with big pharma?




    Reply: #22
  22. FrankG
    Unfortunately I do think it is simply all about the money robert... not some great conspiracy (although like with Big Tobacco there are some accountable people who by rights should face convictions in the near future) but on the whole I see folks who are just trying to do their best and pay their bills... just like the rest of us.

    Statins are an easy sell to Family Doctors: not only because of all the "consensus" science -- which is bought and paid for by the pharmaceutical companies -- but also because increasingly, being a physician is "results driven". If you have a lab number showing "raised cholesterol" and six months later, after treatment with statins, you can show a "lower cholesterol" then that is a measurable result! Hooray! Gold Stars all around! All the while dismissing the side-effects as "just your age dear" and not really doing anything to improve the quality or quantity of that person's life.

    This is why we have the trolls like Tricky-Dicky who like to pretend there is a straight line of causality from "raised cholesterol" to sudden death from an heart attack! Guilt by association. Confabulation and just plain lies are his stock in trade. Interesting to see how this review -- which clearly blows massive holes in his claim of "overwhelming consensus" -- has brought him out from under his rock. :-P

  23. BillP
    I think one of the reasons that 'low-fat diets' are popular is the unconscious or subliminal alternative meaning of the phrase: a diet that lowers your body fat; which is exactly what most if not all dieters are anxious to achieve (rather than the intended meaning, of a diet composed of a smaller percentage of fats.) I think this unfortunate dual-meaning qualifies almost as an unintended disinformation, or subtle propaganda aspect, that cannot help but increase its appeal, much to the chagrin of us paleo types. That would certainly explain some of its attraction as perennial headline material in the womens' checkout-stand literature. Low-fat! How can that be bad?
    Reply: #24
  24. robert
    "Low-fat! How can that be bad?"

    For one, it seriously lacks in the taste department. Ever tried to live on low-fat steamed vegetables? You can add all the spices you like, but as a normal omnivorous life-form you will fervently hate that stuff after very little time - unless you add some fat, meaning butter and relatives. All those 80-10-10 adherers must be masochists. Unless they should switch to a 80% avocado diet.

  25. Daci
    Frank G :"and overly simplistic focus on LDL-C has anything to do with the annual $16 BILLION statin sales? "

    Ya think!? Yep,looks bloody suspicious to me as well.
    yeah,I find this really disturbing. I have a friend who had the particle test..And guess what..Yup,he has a bucket load of the teeny hdl ones..Is he making the switch to my diet? Nope. he's willing to take more and stronger statins...I just can't seem to reach him.

    Anyway,I'm pleased at least one country has seen the light and I suspect big food USA will fight any changes in the way they do things (if it comes to that) tooth and nail.

    Meanwhile, pass the butter.

  26. MIKI
    Daci the fight by the food and pharma has already started. See reply 17 Richard low fat 4 ever. I run a blog with over 200 posts and these troll guys appear whenever I have a post on statins. The are easy to identify beeing more sophisticated than the average guy. This Richard has already been taught by his bosses to add "LOL" somewhere in the post. Next time it will even appear in a propere place.
  27. Galina L.
    Frank, it was a Swedish expert committee , not statinators (I hope) who decided that LDL and HDL are the most important health markers.
    However,I suspect that the people who ate up to 40% of their energy intake in carbs didn't have as much health benefits as a regular LCarber. It is amazing that eating even so much carbs was beneficial anyway compare to other ways of eating.
    Reply: #28
  28. FrankG
    Galina... you might be interested to read Dr Malcolm Kendrick's piece about how guidelines such as cholesterol levels are decided and by whom...


  29. Z.M.
    Galina L: "Frank, it was a Swedish expert committee , not statinators (I hope) who decided that LDL and HDL are the most important health markers."

    Even if this is true, ask yourself how these people came to the conclusion that LDL and HDL are the most important health markers. Inevitably, the majority of research they would cite would come from pharmaceutical funded studies or from people with connections to the pharmaceutical industry. A very large part of the lipid hypothesis rests on the assumption that statins mainly work by lowering cholesterol, an idea that has very little support behind it.

  30. Galina L.
    Yes, I read the Dr.MK's piece. All that guidelines pushing is realy bisare. I always liked Peter/Hyperlipid's position on the immunity/cholesterol connection http://high-fat-nutrition.blogspot.jp/search/label/Cholesterol%20and%.... I also really want for people to pay attention on the article LeonRover recently link to http://file.scirp.org/Html/3-1980073_34065.htm from the "Open Journal of Endocrine and Metabolic Diseases" The Ugly Side of Statins. Systemic Appraisal of the Contemporary Un-Known Unknowns . I guess it is difficult to surprise anyone these days with another article about the danger of using statines, but that particular article really hits the nail.

    " They reviewed the current concept of the use of statins in primary prevention and found evidence of selective reporting of outcomes, failure to report adverse events and inclusion of people with cardiovascular disease." - that is not a piece news any longer.

    "The statin industry, with all of its spin-off, is a 20-billion-a-year industry. We are observing the revealing of the utmost medical tragedy of all times. It is unprecedented that the healthcare industry has inadvertently induced life-threatening nutrient deficiency in millions of otherwise healthy people. What is even more disparaging is that not only has there been a failure to report on these negative side-effects of statins, there has actually been active discouragement to publish any negative studies on statins.For normal healthy individuals who are eager to achieve primary prevention, we discovered that for every 10,000 people taking a statin, there were 307 extra patients with cataracts, 23 additional patients with acute kidney failure and 74 extra patients with liver dysfunction [6-8]. Furthermore, statin therapy increased muscle fatigabilty by 30% [9,10] with 11.3% incidence of rhabdomyolysis at high doses. What’s more, it induces inflammatory myopathy, including necrotizing autoimmune myopathy with immunosuppression and the statin-related myopathy can last for 12 months.An additional side-effect of statin therapy is erectile dysfunction, which is 10 times more in young men taking the lowest dose of statin. When statins were discontinued over 50 percent had full recovery within 6 months.Further still the FDA-Adverse reporting system database reported that for every 10,000 reports of a statin-associated adverse event, approximately 40 reports were for statin-induced interstitial lung disease [11]."

    "Statins manipulate glucose metabolism as a consequence of inhibitory effects on adipocytes. They induce insulin resistance through reduction in insulin-stimulated glucose uptake with a strong impact on glycaemic control in non obese patients. "

    Probably, people like vegans could say that they are not statinators, just under-nutrition enthusiasts, and starving own body from fats and cholesterol would lower total LDL (and HDL).

    The article touches that aspect too -

    "Parkinson disease and ataxia like syndrome are increasing in nature in a subcategory of old patients. Cholesterol is a critical component of neuronal cell membranes and synapses, and plays an important role in their proper functioning. A strong association between lower cholesterol and Parkinson disease risk has been reported, such that each mmol/L increase in total cholesterol was accompanied by a 23% decrease in the risk of developing Parkinson disease. The risk reduction was significant in women but not in men [24].Cholesterol levels are the main determinant of coenzyme Q10, an important antioxidant and mitochondrial electron receptor [25]. Coenzyme Q10 is neuroprotective and in study involving patients with early Parkinson disease"

  31. Singly
    The real key to this program is that you will finally be able to eat all the foods you want and not have to spend your life in a gym, and you will be able to get down to a healthier size with a much quicker metabolic rate. - See more at: http://thebestdietsever.com >> video review ==>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GU6V3f2XpZA
  32. Eric Anderson
    And == more news comes out indicating more benifits of diets that reduce glucose and insulin. Not just weight but heart disease and all or almost all metabolic disease are impacted by our diets.

    UC Davis researchers discover a biological link between diabetes and heart disease

    “Let food be thy medicine and medicine be thy food”
    "All disease begins in the gut."

  33. Iltsu
    Now finally in finnish media, without any "experts" comments.
  34. David
    why have these not changed yet?:

    last updated in 2005.

    I will believe this when the above is ammended.

    Reply: #35
  35. Zepp
    Becuse SLV handle the food recomendation for the healty population and goes after WHO recomendation.. and Nordic Nutrient Comitee!

    They do not have any recomendations for sick or obese persons.. there it is Socialstyrelsen that got the responsebility.. its our Medical autority.. and SBU is part of that!

    SLV is part of our agricultural department.. its aim is to promote agricultur and food industry and to supervise those!

  36. kirsten
    That makes sense. Lets eat flesh, fat, and puss. (Meat, fat, and milk.) And we will looose weight but dont eat fruits and veggies. They will make us fat. Sooo smart. This study was probally done by the meat and dairy industry.
  37. Galina L.
    Only vegan would call a milk a puss, Kirsten. It may have resonance among fellow vegans, but for an outsider it is just a stupid senseless phrase. BTW, people who follow a LC don't drink milk - too much carbohydrates. Also, LC diet doesn't exclude plants, only ones which contain too much starch and fructose.
  38. slimmiracle
    Today everybody wants to know, which diet is the most effective for weight loss? According to Swedish Council on Health Technology Assessment, having a low-carb diet is most effective for weight Loss. We are also here to tell you the natural ways to lose weight.
    For more information visit our website: slim-miracle.com
  39. Rob
    Everyone seems to think the only thing that counts is their weight. I'd be more concerned about what's going on inside. The more saturated fat you eat the higher your cholesterol levels as well as the harmful LDL-C. The LCHF nonsense is just pandering to people that want to continue their bad habits. The carbophobes are as nutty as the 30bananasaday crowd.
    Reply: #40
  40. robert
    Citation for your claim on saturated fat please.
    Reply: #41
  41. Rob
    There is a mountain of evidence. If you care to ignore it that's your problem, not mine. I have tried Atkins in the past. Raised my cholesterols levels to the highest they have ever been and I developed angina. When I returned to a lower fat vegetarian diet my cholesterol dropped from 6.12mmol/L to 4.80mmol/L. That wasn't even a strict Ornish type diet. The angina disappeared. My blood test results over the years clearly indicated that increasing my intake of fats causes my cholesterol levels to elevate accordingly.

    p.s. Do you ever notice that the people that push LCHF are all from countries that are known to eat higher fat diets traditionally? They also have the highest cholesterol levels and generally do not rank very highly in longevity. LCHF diets make fat, sick people feel good about their bad habits.

    Replies: #42, #44
  42. Galina L.
    There is a lot of studies about the danger of consuming fats, so the Independent Swedish Council on Health Technology Assessment check the data on 16000 studies and found all of it not convincing.
    "Butter, olive oil, heavy cream, and bacon are not harmful foods," reads an English translation of a local Swedish newspaper, reporting on the committee's findings. "Quite the opposite. Fat is the best thing for those who want to lose weight. And there are no connections between a high fat intake and cardiovascular disease."


    Reply: #43
  43. Rob

    With all due respect, my personal experience has been quite the opposite. So statements like "Fat is the best thing for those who want to lose weight. And there are no connections between a high fat intake and cardiovascular disease." really sound hollow.

    Btw, butter, cream and oils are relatively recent food items in the human diet. Our ancestors never consumed fat like that until the Neolithic.

    I'm slim, I don't need to lose weight. Losing weight isn't the be-all and end-all of health. Those foods would literally kill me.

    Reply: #45
  44. robert
    I've just had a bowl of steamed cauliflower.

    And yes, there was a lot of butter (from grass fed bovines) involved!

    If you think that is junk-food and unhealthy...

    I know from personal experience that if I eat LFHC, that I don't do too well. Veggies are a nice thing, but I would starve if they were my only source of food - unless I ate like a gorilla (all the time, including gas and shall we say 'accelerated digestion').

    Maybe there are carb-types and fat-types, and I guess most people here are the latter.

    If eating whole-grains and 30 bananas a day makes you feel good and keeps you healthy, be happy and accept that it doesn't work for others.

    There is a reason why we eat this way, being that any other diet didn't work.

    Reply: #46
  45. Galina L.
    I do believe that we may have individual responses on the food, and my own main concern is also my health because I have several health issues to manage, and my body size and body shape are both quite acceptable . Ketosis is a very effective therapeutic remedy for some of my health issues, and even my doctor approves of my diet because he can see the remarkable results.

    I guess, many do not realize that eating high fat diet is often the comfortable way to eat less often and less in general, and we are talking about percentages and improved ability to self-regulate the necessary amount of food without too much of a will-power. Probably, gorging on any food consistently is unhealthy, and the fat/carbs combination is the most problematic. When somebody olmost removes starches and sugars from his/her diet, percentage of protein and especially fat goes up, and majority of people can't overeat such foods without carbohydrates, but some do. I am at no position to tell you what is the best for you, but I disagree with your statement that it is well established that saturated fats are unhealthy. As the situation with the Swedish committee demonstrated, most of such research can't hold under a serious scrutiny.

    Reply: #47
  46. Rob
    "Maybe there are carb-types and fat-types, and I guess most people here are the latter."

    Yes, I'm probably more tolerant of carbohydrate than some people but I would hardly say I'm in the minority. I'd say the people that tolerate high fat diets are in the minority. The people I see that tout LCHF tend to be metabolically challenge and are prone to gaining weight on high carb. The one positive of LCHF is that ketosis kills the appetite.

    "If eating whole-grains and 30 bananas a day makes you feel good and keeps you healthy, be happy and accept that it doesn't work for others."

    I know this was just your attempt at a parting "shot" and normally I let them slide but just to educate you, I am not part of the 30 bananas a day crowd. I eat fruit but nowhere near the amount you are inferring by your "remark".

    As far as grains go, yes I eat whole grains but again, they are simply one of a wide variety of foods I eat such as vegetables, legumes and non-fat dairy.

  47. Rob

    It will be interesting to see how the health status of Swedes fares in 15-20 years or so from now. If in fact Swedes as a nation adopt the type of high fat diet being discussed here. With more disposable income in China, they seem to be developing a liking for beef. I expect to see their incidences of heart disease increase accordingly. Again, I'll keep my eyes on these two countries.

    p.s. My doctor would never recommend such a diet for me. If I suggested it he would likely disown me as his patient and I wouldn't blame him. I'm trying to lower it, not elevate it to the unhealthy levels it once was.

    Reply: #48
  48. Zepp
    If you think that Swedes as a population is on a LCHF diet.. then you missjudge the whole thing!

    We got the same problems as USA.. only some few years after.. our kids.. is like those in USA.. getting more then 25% of there energy from candy, sodas, cakes.. and the prediabetes and obesety is rising!

    The differens is that we are a small country, there single persons can make a bigger impact.. and comersial influence is easyer to stop!

    We did make a lot of fuss, and our goverment did trow out any expert that was linked to comercial interests in there expert comitees.

    And they was forced to pass the question of diet for obesety and diabetes from agricultural department to our healt deparment.. and to there investigation branch.. SBU.

    And then they came up with this scrutiny of availible science.. they get thru 16000 studies.. and fund that fat didnt make cholesterole levels geting worse.. it often get better!

    And thats not any remarkebly thing.. thats whats all good studies tell.. and thats why we are making that much fuss about it.. its like Emperors new clothes!


    And that what more scientist says to day!


  49. Galina L.
    Please, Rob, don't forget that the diet which is high fat/ high carbs at the same time is especially health-damaging, so I guess, if some group of people like China's would add to their already high-refined carbs food (like white rice and noodles) a lot of fatty meat, the result wouldn't be positive one. Swedes are eating a lot of fatty foods already, so lowering carbs would be healthy.

    My doctor didn't told one day to just start eating according to a LC diet. He observed how he couldn't help me for a whole year between 45 and 46 years old, when my health started to deteriorate quickly. I gained 26 lb despite exercising a lot and I always ate home-cooked food, but migraines and allergies got worse, I developed a leg edema, infections became more frequent. I went on a LC diet on my own at almost 46 as a last resort thing to do. Since then I yet to have a single infection or a seasonal flue and I stopped requesting asthma inhalers from my doc , the lost 30 lb didn't come back. Ketosis is a good remedy for migraines. I have been on a such diet for 6 years. My doctor was very impressed, especially by me not regaining lost fat. He told me he read a lot of medical research that almost all weight loss was temporary. He is very supportive of the things which work.

  50. eeenok
    it hurts my brain people are so stupid. people are quoting this article as if they are quoting the SBU, so for example they are saying the SBU report says high fat diets are healthy in the long term when (even according to this article, which has an obvious low-carb/high-fat agenda) the SBU has clearly not said that. people are also saying sweden has issued national dietary guidelines for high fat low carb diets, when no such thing has happened (nor, obviously, does that advice even exist in the SBU report). and then the alternative health bloggers are writing articles that are garbled versions of THIS report, saying things like sweden is now recommending saturated fats as healthy, when obviously, even according to the citations in this article, the SBU has said the exact opposite. long story short, people are incredibly lazy or talentless about fact checking, and will accept any statement telling them what they want to hear if it makes a vague hand-waving reference to some foreign language study. the SBU study does seem to suggest that maybe low carb diets are worth more serious investigation than they have previously received, but that seems to be about as far as it goes at this point. almost everything else you have heard about "sweden's new diet recommendations" is an example of how eagerly people ignorantly circulate their personal biases
    Reply: #51
1 2

Leave a reply

Reply to comment #0 by

Older posts