PHE say NOF advice to eat high fat is irresponsible

[SunnyExpat]

Sorry, i fail to see anything that supports your conclusion in the reports above. The second 23 study report only covers LCLF or calorie limited diets, but not the LCHF diet of the PHCUK report. So I do not see how you make your case from these reports as you do.

I didn't really see why these other studies were relevant to this report is the first place either.

 

[librarising]

The second 23 study report only covers LCLF or calorie limited diets, but not the LCHF diet of the PHCUK report.

LCLF ? That would by definition be a high protein diet, which no one is advocating. Low-carbing implicitly states that either fat or protein or both will be increased, unless a starvation diet is being adopted.

Low-carb is simply shorthand for a higher fat intake.

Geoff

 

[Oldvatr]

I would guess if they haven't updated it, it's still current advice for them.

I don't know if I've decried it the NOF report, I have said it's strange that the quietest people about the NOF report is the NOF themselves.
You would have thought such a groundbreaking report, jointly written, would at least be jointly published?
And the lack of accountability in the report by any party, no names, no authors, nothing ?


You've said you used to do critical reviews of reports, does it entirely sit right with you?

As you see from previous postings I made in this thread, I did raise the same queries about the NOF, and I am also suspicious about PHCUK. This does not invalidate the report itself. The lack of an author being declared is unusual but not of major concern. Many journals follow this practice. The report is not a scientific paper in itself, so does not need to have full traceability. It is collating information from published scientific papers that are properly referenced, so this is sufficient. The weakness therefore is in the conclusion it draws from the data, and this is journalism, not proof per se. The report is actually more of a blogspot, which is a commentary document.

 

[Oldvatr]

LCLF ? That would by definition be a high protein diet, which no one is advocating. Low-carbing implicitly states that either fat or protein or both will be increased, unless a starvation diet is being adopted.

Low-carb is simply shorthand for a higher fat intake.

Geoff

Atkins was originally an Low Carb high protein diet I believe. LC is not a synonym for higher fat. LC also covers variants of calorie capped diets too. LCHF is one of the first to actually advocate a higher fat intake. I personally believe it should be changed to LCMF since most of the dietary advice I see only advise a moderate increase in fat intake to support ketosis.

 

[Worrierfrog]

I continue to hear folks exclaim while shopping:"is that low fat? " I always want to say "what about the carbs and sugar?!!'
Have you read The Great Cholesterol Myth?
To mention just one.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Diabetes.co.uk Forum mobile app

 

[SunnyExpat]

As you see from previous postings I made in this thread, I did raise the same queries about the NOF, and I am also suspicious about PHCUK. This does not invalidate the report itself. The lack of an author being declared is unusual but not of major concern. Many journals follow this practice. The report is not a scientific paper in itself, so does not need to have full traceability. It is collating information from published scientific papers that are properly referenced, so this is sufficient. The weakness therefore is in the conclusion it draws from the data, and this is journalism, not proof per se. The report is actually more of a blogspot, which is a commentary document.

It would be nice to know who is writing the blog though, and what's behind the author's conclusions.
That's very difficult without knowing the pedigree of the author.

 

[librarising]

Atkins was originally an Low Carb high protein diet I believe. LC is not a synonym for higher fat. LC also covers variants of calorie capped diets too. LCHF is the first to actually advocate a higher fat intake. I personlly believe it should be changed to LCMF since most of the dietary advice I see only support a moderate increase in fat intake to support ketosis.

Originally ? Perhaps not now.
"Protein is an important part of any diet. With so many protein-rich foods also low in carbs, it’s really easy to incorporate this essential nutrient into your Atkins weight loss plan

However, don’t be misled into thinking that Atkins is a ‘high protein’ diet.
The combination of HIGHER FAT intake, moderate protein and low carbs (except vegetables) is the perfect path to weight loss, maintenance and good health." (emphasis mine)
http://uk.atkins.com/articles/high-protein-low-carb-foods.html

Also, I think you have to be quite disciplined to increase protein without increasing fat. Perhaps if we have any LCLFHP forum members out there, they can chip in ?

Geoff

 

[Oldvatr]

Originally ? Perhaps not now.
"Protein is an important part of any diet. With so many protein-rich foods also low in carbs, it’s really easy to incorporate this essential nutrient into your Atkins weight loss plan

However, don’t be misled into thinking that Atkins is a ‘high protein’ diet.
The combination of HIGHER FAT intake, moderate protein and low carbs (except vegetables) is the perfect path to weight loss, maintenance and good health." (emphasis mine)
http://uk.atkins.com/articles/high-protein-low-carb-foods.html

Also, I think you have to be quite disciplined to increase protein without increasing fat. Perhaps if we have any LCLFHP forum members out there, they can chip in ?

Geoff

I would say that 175g of protein per meal is high compared to the recommended 80 g/day for LCHF. Anyway I will invite @CarbsRok to this thread since she is doing well on her diet

I think Atkins have discovered like others here that an LF diet does not satisfy, and leads to high dropout rates.

 

[librarising]

I would say that 175g of protein per meal is high compared to the recommended 80 g/day for LCHF.

175g is the high end of a range. I'd guess they'd recommend nearer the 125g for smaller and less active people.
Anyway, I don't do Atkins, so not my area of concern.
Where is your 80g from? Quick bit of surfing (e.g. Volek & Phinney etc.) brought up 60% to 100% of body weight (lbs/gms) which at 190 lbs for me gives between 114 and 190 gms per day. Less than Atkins but higher than your figure.

Geoff

 

[Oldvatr]

175g is the high end of a range. I'd guess they'd recommend nearer the 125g for smaller and less active people.
Anyway, I don't do Atkins, so not my area of concern.
Where is your 80g from? Quick bit of surfing (e.g. Volek & Phinney etc.) brought up 60% to 100% of body weight (lbs/gms) which at 190 lbs for me gives between 114 and 190 gms per day. Less than Atkins but higher than your figure.

Geoff

It is not written in stone, but the recommendations I have seen range between 0.5 - 1.5 gm per kg of body weight. I have never seen it expressed as 1 gm per lb of body weight. thus your 190 gm comes down to 74.8 g at 100%.

 

[SunnyExpat]

As you see from previous postings I made in this thread, I did raise the same queries about the NOF, and I am also suspicious about PHCUK. This does not invalidate the report itself. The lack of an author being declared is unusual but not of major concern. Many journals follow this practice. The report is not a scientific paper in itself, so does not need to have full traceability. It is collating information from published scientific papers that are properly referenced, so this is sufficient. The weakness therefore is in the conclusion it draws from the data, and this is journalism, not proof per se. The report is actually more of a blogspot, which is a commentary document.

Well, I've read through the articles, studies, reports, partners on the NOF.
Everything is mainstream, low fat, low salt, cut processed sugar.
Even the recent articles are completely at odds, both in content, and style, with the latest report, or blog.

It will be very interesting to see how this plays out, and if NOF remove all previous advice, and publish this one, or if they keep advocating low fat on their website, as I doubt they can sit on the fence for long.
I sure a lot of journalists will be looking for a follow up story here as well.

 

[Oldvatr]

Well, I've read through the articles, studies, reports, partners on the NOF.
Everything is mainstream, low fat, low salt, cut processed sugar.
Even the recent articles are completely at odds, both in content, and style, with the latest report, or blog.

It will be very interesting to see how this plays out, and if NOF remove all previous advice, and publish this one, or if they keep advocating low fat on their website, as I doubt they can sit on the fence for long.
I sure a lot of journalists will be looking for a follow up story here as well.

Agree. I think they have been hijacked into this. Their website also has forthcoming events advertised that are 2014 dates, so are they active? Maybe they had a conversation in the pub one night that opened the door for PHCUK to borrow their logo? One day the truth may out. I think your link to the F Times was illuminating. So true.
PS the NOF guidelines seem to echo the British Heart Foundation ones, and also the ones backed up by their expert witnesses in that other response link you posted.

 

[CarbsRok]

I would say that 175g of protein per meal is high compared to the recommended 80 g/day for LCHF. Anyway I will invite @CarbsRok to this thread since he is doing well on his diet

He is a she and I eat what I want in moderation as long as it's gluten free. Suspect you have the wrong person.

 

[SunnyExpat]

Agree. I think they have been hijacked into this. Their website also has forthcoming events advertised that are 2014 dates, so are they active? Maybe they had a conversation in the pub one night that opened the door for PHCUK to borrow their logo? One day the truth may out. I think your link to the F Times was illuminating. So true.
PS the NOF guidelines seem to echo the British Heart Foundation ones, and also the ones backed up by their expert witnesses in that other response link you posted.

Oddly enough, google keeps warning me that the NOF may have been hacked, whenever I look at the link, so I'm still wondering what the bigger picture is.
I don't particularly have anything for or against any viewpoint here, just a suspicious mind when things don't add up, and then a desire to find out why that is.

 

[SunnyExpat]

Agree. I think they have been hijacked into this. Their website also has forthcoming events advertised that are 2014 dates, so are they active? Maybe they had a conversation in the pub one night that opened the door for PHCUK to borrow their logo? One day the truth may out. I think your link to the F Times was illuminating. So true.
PS the NOF guidelines seem to echo the British Heart Foundation ones, and also the ones backed up by their expert witnesses in that other response link you posted.

Still trading on paper, but seems to be quiet there since at least last year.
Maybe a shell?
Interesting that's not been in the papers yet?

https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/05177034

http://apps.charitycommission.gov.u...teredCharityNumber=1109600&SubsidiaryNumber=0

 

[Catlady19]

I look forward to more information on a fatty diet however, I'd love to be able to eat sausages and bacon again!

Hiya, I am on Slimming World and I can eat bacon and sausages - I just have to cut all excess fat off the bacon and get as high a pork content as possible in the sausages (97% plus). I also use 'fry light' or similar to cook with. We also make our own beefburgers and sometimes use giant mushrooms instead of baps.

 

[Oldvatr]

He is a she and I eat what I want in moderation as long as it's gluten free. Suspect you have the wrong person.

Oops, Sorry bout that, should've checked. I seem to remember we had a discussion some threads back regarding LCHF and fat and things, and I thought you advocated a highish protein intake. Must have been someone else, as you say. Apologies.

 

[sally and james]

I am keen supporter of the aims of the Public Health Collaboration (PHC), who initiated the report, which came out a few days ago, and, like many of you, I have been a bit confused by the connection with NOF. I've just emailed Sam Feltham, the PHC Director with my concerns and have had an almost immediate response,

"NOF approached the PHC in the run up to the publication of our report,
and as Dr. Aseem Malhotra is currently involved in both we thought it
would be a good match particularly with their established relationship
with the media already. They wrote a separate report "Eat Fat, Cut
Carbs, etc.", which is the one all the media were talking about, to link
to and compliment the PHC report on healthy eating and weight loss. We
think it gave the desired effect but this is where the relationship
ends, simply in a complimentary report. We remain independent and intend
to remain so indefinitely."

You can find links to the original PHC report and supporting graphics here, https://phcuk.org/healthy-eating-guidelines-weight-loss-advice-for-the-uk/
those of you who were (rightly) concerned about authorship, sponsors, references and so on, should find the information you want in this document. Please do give it a serious look, it's a team of right thinking people, trying their best to make things better for all of us.

Sally

 

[Oldvatr]

Oddly enough, google keeps warning me that the NOF may have been hacked, whenever I look at the link, so I'm still wondering what the bigger picture is.
I don't particularly have anything for or against any viewpoint here, just a suspicious mind when things don't add up, and then a desire to find out why that is.

I think an enquiring mind is healthy too.

Just seen the latest posting, so have edited my posting here since what I wrote has been superceded.

 

[RoseofSharon]

I would say that 175g of protein per meal is high compared to the recommended 80 g/day for LCHF. Anyway I will invite @CarbsRok to this thread since she is doing well on her diet

I think Atkins have discovered like others here that an LF diet does not satisfy, and leads to high dropout rates.

I'm not an expert on Atkins as its not a diet that I've ever read up on per se. Having said that Atkins developed his diet due to his research showing that fat and cholesterol was not the enemy that everybody was painting it to be. However a lot of the reasons that Atkins was not more successful than he was was down to personality issues, not to mention the fact that big business (i.e Sugar companies etc.) had their say in promotion of the whole LFHC debacle.

What I have actually tried is a variant of LCHF called best of health (Their name not mine.) The emphasis there was to limit carb intake to 30g daily and no more. The amount of protein and fat was viewed as being free to eat as much or as little as you like. It wasn't until I started to research into it further that the distinctions between triglcerides and various types of fats came through clearly. THe thing is that in the struggle to show that fat is not the enemy, the distinctions in the health of various types of fats has become blurred, and people dont realise that the fats they're advised to eat (vegetable oils, polyunsaturates etc.) ar ethe ones which are the worst for them.