This leaves a whole lot of people doomed.
Well, we can't all be eating the butter and meats. Not enough to sustain the world. Somebody has to eat all those grains! Ain't gonna be me!

Gobsmacked.

I'm guessing that in New Zealand, as here in the U.S., there are a number of influential and monied special interests devoted to keeping the status quo. (Although I'm guessing the U.S. is Number One in corporate/government corruption. Our government at all levels is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.)

I apologize to any New Zealanders, but it seems you have idiots running your dietary recommendations, just as the U.S. does! Geez! I'm absolutely positive this has nothing to do with the beauty of your country though!

Man! I wish these policy makers could get their act together and look at the real research. The article stated that sixty years of building proof (can't recall exact words) on how saturated fat contributes to high cholesterol and heart disease. I'd like to know where their research is, because mine shows the opposite!

@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.

Thank you @wabmester for posting!

It is sort of like magic @BalmyD! Keep doing what works, and try not to worry about the rest. Btw: CICO never worked for me!

Karlottap wrote: »

@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.

That's a rather harsh thing to say to someone. Besides, I don't think she's saying they're spot on about all things in the article, but rather correct in the idea that LCHF isn't a miracle, magical weight loss diet. I do agree with you and disagree with her on the saturated fat part, but I still think your response was more harsh than necessary.

Science may win over in time.

BalmyD wrote: »

aylajane wrote: »

And what they state is that lwo carb is not a miracle - calories in still has to be less than calories out. Low carb/high fat is not for weight loss so much as appetite control, which leads to weight loss (for some people - not so much me).

But for me...it IS a miracle! I've struggled for years eating lower calories than I eat now-- and I went for very long stretches of time with no cheating at all, weighing and measuring everything and eating according to the wisdom of the powers that be with little to no weight loss. I eat this way, including lots of saturated fat and suddenly I'm melting! I don't even really need to count calories anymore. Turns out I'm still eating at a deficit, but its a much smaller deficit than before and I'm losing more than CICO would predict.

Same here! Well, I'm still logging, but changing macros made a HUGE difference for me in terms of weight loss. I can eat fewer calories, higher carb (or even moderate carbs), be hungry all the time and only lose 2 lbs in 4 months ... or I can eat the same or more calories, follow LCHF/keto and feel satisfied, and lose 19 lbs in 3 months. Tough choice.

So embarrassing!! - Here in NZ we have excellent grass fed meat, butter, cream and all that lovely stuff and here they are telling us not to eat it. I agree that this WOE is not for everyone but I like the comments from Prof Grant Schofield and hopefully people will read these as well.

totaloblivia wrote: »

Fasting today, keto tomorrow. I am "screwed"!

hahaha! I am the same but other way round, keto today, fasting tomorrow

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.

Karlottap wrote: »

@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

aylajane wrote: »

Karlottap wrote: »

@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...

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

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.