Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Medical guidelines don’t include a diet low in carbohydrates

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 185 posts

Re: Medical guidelines don’t include a diet low in carbohydrates

#71

Post by aduitsis »

CPLX wrote: post #58
nxc18 wrote: post #21

Whether or not you believe in low/no carbs for everyday health, it is uniquely horrifying that the Diabetes association is promoting a high carb diet. Having recently made changes to my own eating, which still includes carbs but at a much less extreme amount, I'm amazed at the differences. I don't have diabetes and the doctors say my blood sugar control is very good, but the energy differences I feel before and after…

> Diet soda, although technically not containing carbs, prompts a similar insulin response to drinking sugared soda Is there any scientific basis for this claim?

A 15-second google search reveals this:

http://www.marksdailyapple.com/artificial-sweeteners-insulin...

Some interesting links to pubmed there. Seems that aspartame does not affect insulin fwiw.

Re: Medical guidelines don’t include a diet low in carbohydrates

#72

Post by sago »

colanderman wrote: post #3

"This" being a low-carb diet. Even NYT stoops to click-baity headlines these days; what is the world coming to.

At what point will the constant background noise of people complaining about click-bait be more annoying than the wording of the headlines themselves?

Re: Medical guidelines don’t include a diet low in carbohydrates

#73

Post by charlesism »

mchmch wrote: post #61
charlesism wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Dangerous nonsense. Do you fatten up a goose by feeding it butter, or by feeding it grain? Since America fell in love with a low-fat diet, have Americans become lighter, or heavier?

Americans never fell in love with a low fat diet. Our diet is extremely high in fat and individuals that are obese consume much a much higher amount than average. By very low fat, I am saying reduce saturated fat to near 0 and limit intake of unsaturated fat to 30g or less a day. http://healthyeating.sfgate.com/average-fat-intake-sad-11370...

Well, whatever the fat intake, it won't be enough to mitigate the refined wheat, and sugars.

Re: Medical guidelines don’t include a diet low in carbohydrates

#75

Post by ggregoire »

nxc18 wrote: post #21

Whether or not you believe in low/no carbs for everyday health, it is uniquely horrifying that the Diabetes association is promoting a high carb diet. Having recently made changes to my own eating, which still includes carbs but at a much less extreme amount, I'm amazed at the differences. I don't have diabetes and the doctors say my blood sugar control is very good, but the energy differences I feel before and after…

Why people drink diet soda? If someone cares about his sugar intake, why not skip the soda and drink some water?

It also amazes me how people associate some dishes to sodas. For example, at lunch with my colleagues (I'm in France), I observed that when they eat a pizza or a burger, they order a soda. But if they eat a salad, they order a bottle of water!

(I don't like sodas so my opinion is probably oriented)

Re: Medical guidelines don’t include a diet low in carbohydrates

#76

Post by scholia »

analog31 wrote: post #57

While the article is about diabetes, it's been my understanding that the low fat diet thing was a response to an epidemic of heart disease. I recently eliminated a number of things from my diet: Butter, my daily cheese sandwiches with mayo, processed meats, and pretty much all restaurant and vending machine food. I went from 175 to 150 pounds in six months, and have felt no urge to put it back on. I eat more lean mea…

Cutting out most or all processed foods is a great start.

There are plenty of nourishing high-fat foods that you can eat, and that are good for you. This includes eggs, avocados, salmon and mackerel, macadamia nuts etc [1]

> All these things support the fact that diet is not just a biochemical problem, but a psychological and social one.

Yes. Decades of experience has shown that "dieting" doesn't work, and it often results in people gaining weight (after losing weight temporarily). [2]

It's better to make permanent lifestyle changes that result in long-term weight loss and increased fitness, even if it takes a few years. I assume this is what you've actually done.

If you change what you eat, and the way you eat it, then you don't have to "cut down" on food -- which is how most people understand dieting. It's really easy to over-eat doughnuts but quite hard to over-eat on salad and veggies....

[1] https://authoritynutrition.com/10-super-healthy-high-fat-foo...

[2] http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/02/health/biggest-loser-weigh...

Re: Medical guidelines don’t include a diet low in carbohydrates

#78

Post by jsmthrowaway »

dogma1138 wrote: post #52
CyberDildonics wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People basically evolved without any sugar (fructose) except what they could get in fruit (which was limited and contained fiber). With the sugar islands it became available to people though expensive and volatile in price. With high fructose corn syrup etc. it became a consistent priced commodity with little to no volatility.

Eh, fruits are the core diet of primates, infact most primates wait for the fruits to start ferment which increases their caloric value while actually reduces the fiber count. Humans have evolved eating sugar just fine, fruits and fermentation were used before we learned to walk, and other sources of sugar including honey were also commonly consumed. You can easily look at the diets of "modern" hunter gatherers and s…

> Until the 1900's starch fed the world, it still does, some how what is succesfully feeding the 5.5-6bln poor people of the world is no longer good for you.

What are you even talking about? We have a public health epidemic of obesity, especially among the "poor people of the world." They are literally the most affected group by low-cost availability of processed foods. This is undisputed and self-evident.

Of course it is worth it to revisit our recommendations and practices given what it looks like when we look out the damned window. You think someone just decided well, starch has had a good run, time to move on based on no scientific basis?

Your commentary in this thread is actively harmful in its complete substitution of science and understanding for your own personal gut feeling. You sure are saying a lot and ignoring the requests for citations.

Re: Medical guidelines don’t include a diet low in carbohydrates

#79

Post by richardboegli »

I laugh to myself whenever I see weight loss articles like this.

Just Eat Less! Worked for me*

Shameless plug

My Weight Loss Story 40kg in 40 Weeks (90lb in 9 months) Without Exercise

http://40in40book.com

The book is more for motivational reading of my story.

*DISCLAIMER: The information and opinions set out in this publication are provided only to convey the author’s personal experiences and opinions for information purposes only and are not intended to constitute medical advice, guidance or recommendations as to the reader’s actions or omissions. Disclaimer truncated for brevity of comment. The rest of the disclaimer is available here: http://40in40book.com/disclaimer

Re: Medical guidelines don’t include a diet low in carbohydrates

#80

Post by chillwaves »

dogma1138 wrote: post #52
CyberDildonics wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People basically evolved without any sugar (fructose) except what they could get in fruit (which was limited and contained fiber). With the sugar islands it became available to people though expensive and volatile in price. With high fructose corn syrup etc. it became a consistent priced commodity with little to no volatility.

Eh, fruits are the core diet of primates, infact most primates wait for the fruits to start ferment which increases their caloric value while actually reduces the fiber count. Humans have evolved eating sugar just fine, fruits and fermentation were used before we learned to walk, and other sources of sugar including honey were also commonly consumed. You can easily look at the diets of "modern" hunter gatherers and s…

I hope you realize that starch has fed the world only in a post agricultural world. That may be thousands of years, but we spent hundreds of thousands of years living without agriculture. That argument does not hold water.

Secondly, eating fruit and eating sugar are two very different things. Fruit has things like nutrients and fiber that is lost in processing, which is likely the root of the disorder. The fiber, for example, slows down the absorption of sugars. The modern world is full of highly refined sugars that are missing the goodness found in nature (that our bodies adapted to).

Post reply on HN