Govenment dietary recommendations

He will know doubt find a way to spend one sentence agreeing and six sentences disagreeing.


I just found this:

The Internet was soon full of headlines like: “Sweden Becomes First Western Nation to Reject Low-fat Diet Dogma in Favor of Low-Carb High-Fat Nutrition” and “Sweden Rejects Low-Fat Diet Myth, Encourages Citizens to Cut Carbs and Eat More Fat.”

At Experience Life, we’ve touted the benefits of healthy fats for years and were intrigued by Sweden’s bold move. The problem? The stories weren’t true.

When we contacted Anna Karin Lindroos, PhD, a nutritionist at Sweden’s National Food Agency, to ask about the new guidelines, she set the record straight: “Sweden does not have any guidelines on low-carb-high-fat diets. The information that Sweden has guidelines on low-carb-high-fat diets is based on incorrect information circulating on the Internet.”

As it turns out, reporters had mistaken a review published by the Swedish Council on Health Technology Assessment (SBU) in September for new national guidelines. Måns Rosén, PhD, executive director at SBU, was anxious to squelch the rumors. “First, I would like to stress that we do not do guidelines, only systematic reviews and health technology assessment reports,” he says. “Second, we have earlier focused on patients with diabetes and now obese persons, not the general population.”
http://experiencelife.com/newsflashes/debunking-news-of-swedens-low-carb-high-fat-guidelines/

 

I wouldn't bring the word 'truth' into this - you just agree with it.


As far as 'truth' goes, I post true things all the the time...


...you're not the best person to judge (that was an opinion).

 

The basic premise of what they're saying is correct, regardless if they're offering/changing their guidelines or not. The Swedish government apparently does not offer nutritional guidelines, but their findings on fat intake based on a multitude of studies are still correct.

 

Well, I think the whole point of the thread was should 'the government' be giving recommendations to the general public. Should they (in your opinion?) They say: 'SBU’s independent, scientifically based, assessments are intended to support key decisions in health and medical care.' So not technically 'the government'?

The Swedish Council on Health Technology ... also say:

'There is strong scientific evidence that the daily use of fluoride toothpaste is an effective method for preventing caries in permanent teeth in children and adolescents. Toothpaste with a higher fluoride concentration (1500 ppm) shows better effects than toothpaste with 1000 ppm.'

So is that 'correct/true' or an opinion?


It's funny how things become opinions rather than 'facts' sometimes.

 

"Cavities" is misspelled, I fixed it in my quote of the post.

Also I know the fluoride in toothpaste, and in drinking water, is a false conspiracy theory, because I haven't had a single cavity IN MY LIFE, nor have any of my academic grades suffered.

I should not have those life results, if the fluoride is as detrimental to bone health, and brain cells if the conspiracy theory was true.

But then again I don't drink soda 12 years ago, I drink more "fluoride" water instead.

---

However I will stop drinking water from the tap, due to another type of pollution by factories, dumping pollution into public water systems, kinda like what happened in West Virginia, and other places in similar situations.


http://www.rollingstone.com/culture...st-virginia-after-the-chemical-spill-20140312

 

I thought it was misspelled too, but then I looked it up:
'Dental caries (Latin, "rot"), also known as tooth decay or a cavity, is an infection, bacterial in origin'
I suppose they use that because it is more of an academic term.

Every time I read somebody go on about the dangers of fluoride they always seem to point to research carried out where the doses were ten fold or more than I am ever likely to be exposed to. That figure is off the top of my head - it could well be 100 times more exposure than I am ever likely to encounter.
That's if they point to any research at all.
YES fluoride is a potential toxin. Caveat: In LARGE doses.
They get around that by saying: well, it is stored in the body.
Well, like you, I have not encountered any ill effects, and only have one cavity.

As for drinking water, I drink some but I don't drink an awful lot of it.
But my drinking water goes through a different process - I would imagine - than your e.g.
And isn't as open to containments as your e.g.
So, I am not as concerned about it as the people in your e.g.

 

If you ask someone under forty, "floride don't do nothin! We need it!" If you ask someone over forty, "of course flouride makes adhd retards! Look around!"
But it's more than flouride in the water.

 

What are you talking about?

 

Do you mean people over forty have bought into the idea fluoride is 'bad' and are unlikely to think differently, and those under forty are likely to think otherwise? A bit of a generalised statement isn't it?
The over forties have some monopoly on 'the truth'? Lol. If you say so.