New Zealand warns against low carb, paleo, and IF
Options
Replies
-
I don't whether to laugh or cry when someone claims eating "paleo" is dangerous. It's a stricter diet than I'm willing to follow, but geez it's pretty basic food for an omnivore.0
-
sault_girl wrote: »I don't whether to laugh or cry when someone claims eating "paleo" is dangerous. It's a stricter diet than I'm willing to follow, but geez it's pretty basic food for an omnivore.
Yeah, That ones a mystery to me too..0 -
@aylajane, I think you should read the article. If you still believe they are spot on you may want to evaluate why you're in this group. This article goes against most of what I have been led to believe through my personal research.
I didnt read the article because I dont really care what a random government has to say about how I should eat - certainly not enough to waste time on it. I just read the two bullets and didnt see what a big deal it was. I agree everyone is different, but in an article posted for an *entire country*, their advice about CICO is appropriate (while most people may benefit from LCHF WOE as a choice, it is not necessary for health/weight loss *for most people*). And as for saturated fat, I agree its not horrible and is misunderstood but again for an *entire country* is appropriate - most people think of saturated fat as bacon and butter and cakes, etc and in absence of a LCHF diet, letting them think that "more is better" could lead people to overindulgence. HF is appropriate along with LC... but without the LC it is a disaster for CICO.
I dont need to evaluate why I am in the group. I am not ultra low carb because I do not need to be. I get that some people have insulin issues that make this appear to be a "miracle" for them (and I am very glad for them! everyone finds different things that work for their particular body!), but I am not one. Controlling carbs for me is about hunger control - under 150 is good for me, over 150 makes me want to eat my arm off. Under 100 is bad for me - I become a slug who cannot function. This group helped me figure out my "sweet spot" -- and I would never tell anyone else that my "sweet spot" must be everyone's. I also am part of this group because my mom is T2D and doesnt like reading forums and has a really hard time with low carb, thinking she can never eat anything good again - I get lots of good talking point ideas and recipes for her here.
I will, though, stop commenting. Clearly this group is mostly for "hard core" LCHF lifestyles, and my input/opinion is probably not relevant.
Cheers
0 -
I will, though, stop commenting. Clearly this group is mostly for "hard core" LCHF lifestyles, and my input/opinion is probably not relevant.
Cheers
I do not think you need to justify why you are in the group and I am very sorry you feel the need to stop commenting. I did not mean to contribute to this kind of feeling. 150 carbs is certainly a lot lower than the average person and is wonderful if it works for you!
0 -
@aylajane, I think you should read the article. If you still believe they are spot on you may want to evaluate why you're in this group. This article goes against most of what I have been led to believe through my personal research.
I didnt read the article because I dont really care what a random government has to say about how I should eat - certainly not enough to waste time on it. I just read the two bullets and didnt see what a big deal it was. I agree everyone is different, but in an article posted for an *entire country*, their advice about CICO is appropriate (while most people may benefit from LCHF WOE as a choice, it is not necessary for health/weight loss *for most people*). And as for saturated fat, I agree its not horrible and is misunderstood but again for an *entire country* is appropriate - most people think of saturated fat as bacon and butter and cakes, etc and in absence of a LCHF diet, letting them think that "more is better" could lead people to overindulgence. HF is appropriate along with LC... but without the LC it is a disaster for CICO.
I dont need to evaluate why I am in the group. I am not ultra low carb because I do not need to be. I get that some people have insulin issues that make this appear to be a "miracle" for them (and I am very glad for them! everyone finds different things that work for their particular body!), but I am not one. Controlling carbs for me is about hunger control - under 150 is good for me, over 150 makes me want to eat my arm off. Under 100 is bad for me - I become a slug who cannot function. This group helped me figure out my "sweet spot" -- and I would never tell anyone else that my "sweet spot" must be everyone's. I also am part of this group because my mom is T2D and doesnt like reading forums and has a really hard time with low carb, thinking she can never eat anything good again - I get lots of good talking point ideas and recipes for her here.
I will, though, stop commenting. Clearly this group is mostly for "hard core" LCHF lifestyles, and my input/opinion is probably not relevant.
Cheers
I get what you're saying and you should definitely not stop commenting. Different ideas, even ones that think we are wrong are still just another persons ideas... Just like yours. If everyone stopped participating in the face of disagreement, nobody would ever discover anything new.
Anyway, the article is breaking down, with supporting information, why the guidelines are a problem. It also recognizes the good points in the recommendations just as you had done. It just highlights the areas where they really dropped the ball and where they continue to ignore proven evidence and support old, now debunked ideas.
It also literally speaks as if these guidelines are appropriate for all people and gives no indication that there may be better suited dietary plans for some people. That's the biggest fault in my opinion. It actually goes on to say that low carb diets are not recommended and hints at long term safety issues. It even specifically says that "spreads" should be used instead of butter after suggesting less processed foods and it delivers a rating system based on processed foods...
It's very contradicting and simply ignoring scientific evidence.
So, your support of the guidelines as a whole in the ways that they do make sense for the masses, appeared to be non-supporting of the article which is only discussing the ways that the guidelines fall short. Ways that are ignoring evidence and literally telling people margarine is healthier than butter.
What I'm saying is that because you didn't read the article, I don't think you realize what it appeared that you were in opposition to. Does that make sense?
I think there was simple misunderstanding...
0 -
I'm going to check MY numbers, i.e. cholesterol, triglycerides, and blood sugar, and not worry about broad guidelines.0
-
Sunny_Bunny_ wrote: »
What I'm saying is that because you didn't read the article, I don't think you realize what it appeared that you were in opposition to. Does that make sense?
I think there was simple misunderstanding...
THe original poster pulled out the two bullets and I was simply responding to those - which I stated in my original post (as a disclaimer to the rest of the article). I guess I thought if they pulled those two out, that was the gist of it? Anyway, I did not agree/disagree with the article as a whole - just those two bullets. I should have just not commented if I wasnt going to take the time to read the article (which I wont). Lesson learned.
I just comment in general as a form of interaction (basically my only social interaction is stuff like this) and conversation, not really here to become an indepth scholar or authority on this, and I always state as such in case a newbie reads it as gospel instead of opinion. Oh well.
Sounds like the article was pretty bad. Glad I didnt waste time reading it 0 -
This is a good opportunity to see why a committee rarely gets anything right,that government is a huge committee, and the average reporter makes things even worse0
-
In my opinion they are on par with th US, if not worse, and that's what I am against, and feel (felt)this group is (was) against. Your comment I felt was in favor and didn't make sense to me. That is all. I would never tell anyone the should eat a certain way (which I don't think I did) .......we all must find what works for us. I had previously read the article, and knew what it was about. When I saw you use the words "spot on" I didn't see much of anything else besides that you hadn't read the article.0
-
@aylajane I appreciate seeing and learning different views. Folk do have a rant occasionally which enables expression of the views that are commonly surpressed in the public arena. Happy to continue to hear your views and others too.
Personally I eat low carb as a result of needing to eat low sugar to fight candida gut bacteria. I then saw the health benefits here and I am a keto girl right now. Looking forward to when, hopefully in a few months, I can eat raspberries and jonathan apples off a tree. Meantime I love finding out that people can live as carnivores or if they do dairy, even vegetarian ketos. Fun.
0 -
I saw that article. Not sure of the agenda.
0 -
While most people here agree that the data does not support saturated fats being harmful. And, some people here don't believe the fruit and vegetable recommendations are based on sound science. And some believe that vegetable oils are inflammatory and harmful. And, there are a few of us who believe that calories are not something that you need to pay attention to. None of these things are required to be a part of this.
How many of us started believing that bacon grease was bad for our heart? How many of us though "healthy fats" meant canola oil? I know I did. We don't need to agree on those things to be in agreement that the recommended amounts of carbs (50%+) in the current popular diets is too high and probably bad for health or weight loss.0 -
I think an explanation is warranted here. About a week before this post the group was, sort of, attacked for our woe. When what I perceived to be a negative comment came up on this post I allowed my passion for keto/lchf to over ride my thoughts on the comment! I truly apologise for making anyone feel unwelcome or discouraged from participation in the group here! I support all levels of low carb, and know that no one way works for all! I never meant to come across as such, and I am sorry it seemed that way!
I've spent days thinking about this thread, and the feelings I hurt with my comments! I'm not that kind of person! I don't intentionally hurt people like that, and I've felt bad for doing so!! I ask for forgiveness from anyone I may have ever hurt with my comments!!
I love this woe, and always will!0 -
I think an explanation is warranted here. About a week before this post the group was, sort of, attacked for our woe. When what I perceived to be a negative comment came up on this post I allowed my passion for keto/lchf to over ride my thoughts on the comment! I truly apologise for making anyone feel unwelcome or discouraged from participation in the group here! I support all levels of low carb, and know that no one way works for all! I never meant to come across as such, and I am sorry it seemed that way!
I've spent days thinking about this thread, and the feelings I hurt with my comments! I'm not that kind of person! I don't intentionally hurt people like that, and I've felt bad for doing so!! I ask for forgiveness from anyone I may have ever hurt with my comments!!
I love this woe, and always will!
I personally understood what you were meaning and how what you were responding to seemed negative. And I also tend to want to put on my red cape and defend LCHF whenever duty calls.
I really think it was a simple misunderstanding and that's what I was hoping to expose with my own responses regarding the tension. I don't think anything truly negative was intended by anyone. Just at first glance, kinda seemed that way.
I believe that all of us that read the forum regularly know you to be very supportive and passionate about this lifestyle. I certainly knew you never meant to seem discouraging or unwelcoming.
Discussing things in this manner puts us at a slight disadvantage since we don't get tone and body language and things that help us to interpret the full meaning of someone's words.
My abundant use of emojis and LOL are my attempts to insert some hint of demeanor when I might sound rough or my sarcasm might not be detected. LOL
See...
And dude, I honestly hate using LOL so much! Winkies!0 -
Sunny_Bunny_ wrote: »My abundant use of emojis and LOL are my attempts to insert some hint of demeanor when I might sound rough or my sarcasm might not be detected. LOL
I hate how much I use smilies and Lol, but its the only way I can convey "tone" too! And "cheers" to indicate no hard feelings!
No worries anyone Its just a forum. I have gotten too "comfortable" with these forums being like regular social "chit-chat" so I dont think too much about my comments, and sometimes that is not a good thing. A good reminder to me that this is not the same as a social life, and you all wonderful people are not *really* friends or co-workers . And my passion for LCHF is not on your level! So being casual about it is probably not going to be received too well.
Cheers (LOL )
0 -
Sunny_Bunny_ wrote: »My abundant use of emojis and LOL are my attempts to insert some hint of demeanor when I might sound rough or my sarcasm might not be detected. LOL
I hate how much I use smilies and Lol, but its the only way I can convey "tone" too! And "cheers" to indicate no hard feelings!
No worries anyone Its just a forum. I have gotten too "comfortable" with these forums being like regular social "chit-chat" so I dont think too much about my comments, and sometimes that is not a good thing. A good reminder to me that this is not the same as a social life, and you all wonderful people are not *really* friends or co-workers . And my passion for LCHF is not on your level! So being casual about it is probably not going to be received too well.
Cheers (LOL )
I think overall, everyone here is accepting of the casual low carbing IF the person is not comparing their results to those that are more strict. Casual results could be more or less dramatic. It just depends on each individual and their sensitivity and numerous other factors.
The only thing I hate to see is someone feeling disappointed and down for lack of results but unwilling to either tighten up their plan or adjust their expectations. One or the other has to give if things aren't working and a relaxed approach is being used. It's not to fair to blame low carb for "not working" if low carb is only halfway followed.
That's the only time I find myself feeling defensive about this way of life. 0
