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

141–150 of 185 posts

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

#141

Post by eatfruitnoteggs »

tkyjonathan wrote: post #9

Enough with this dumb Paleo stupidity. Sure you lose weight temporarily. But its not sustainable and greatly reduces your chances of... being alive. Whole-foods plant-based - I know its boring, but there are decades of science behind it. Eat your greens.

You are brave for bringing up physiologically appropriate [1], T-2 diabetes-reversing [2], artery un-clogging [3], heart disease-reversing [4], plant-based [5] diets. It's truly amazing how many petulant adults just don't want to eat their vegetables and would rather invent "caveman" ideological fantasies [6], and other nonsense, to justify their indoctrinated beliefs [7, 8].

1. https://www.drmcdougall.com/health/education/videos/free-ele...

2. http://spectrum.diabetesjournals.org/content/25/1/38

3. http://nutritionfacts.org/video/plant-based-diets-and-artery...

4. https://www.pritikin.com/your-health/health-benefits/reverse...

5. http://www.forksoverknives.com/what-to-eat/

6. http://nutritionfacts.org/2013/02/21/the-real-paleo-diet/

7. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denialism#Animal_pain_and_suff...

8. http://www.carnism.org/

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

#142

Post by dogma1138 »

Jedd wrote: post #86
dogma1138 wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>If so, this seems entirely wrong to me - low-carb diets typically involve the consumption of a greater volume of energy (calories) compared to what your BMR would suggest you need to not gain weight. Eh no, now you are getting into the realm of physics, what happens often are 2 things. Some foods have overstated caloric values this is quite common. Your body doesn't metabolizes some foods at the same rate, especiall…

I feel you are intentionally conflating / confusing the discussion. For example: > If you think you can eat say 500-1000 cals over your daily allowance with any diet and not gain weight, man you have really really been sold hard on this. No one's saying this - at least, the article isn't, and nor am I. I will say that you can easily eat 500-1000 cals over your daily allowance with a particular diet (notably low-carb)…

You are not calculating the calories correctly then, either the input, output, or your metabolic factor.

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

#143

Post by apathy »

buu700 wrote: post #121
apathy wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you think about it, any molecule that isn't sugar but tastes like sugar will have a similar molecular shape to sugar. I'm going to go out on a limb here and propose that you may not be a professional medicinal chemist. Many theories conveniently support your position. Of course, many theories conveniently support the other side. How can we objectively determine who is right? Well, let's look at (among many, many…

> sucralose (Stevia) s/Stevia/Splenda/ (stevia is entirely different from sucralose).

Oh wow I fucked that one up. Thank you for correcting it.

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

#144

Post by analog31 »

scholia wrote: post #76
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 r…

Thanks. That's pretty much what I've done. When I was younger, I ate better, in no small part thanks to my mom getting into healthy cooking when I was a kid, and teaching me to cook. Then I gradually got into some bad habits over the years. When I had a wake up call regarding my cardio condition, it wasn't particularly painful to mend my ways. It helped a lot that I had neither an education problem nor a culture problem to overcome.

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

#145

Post by luketych »

apathy wrote: post #111
luketych wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I get annoyed when people stop a discussion dead in its tracks by asking for references like this, especially when they can easily look it up themselves if they actually cared about the answer rather than winning. If you think about it, any molecule that isn't sugar but tastes like sugar will have a similar molecular shape to sugar. Hmmmm I wonder if this will fit into receptors in other places in the body, not just…

> If you think about it, any molecule that isn't sugar but tastes like sugar will have a similar molecular shape to sugar. I'm going to go out on a limb here and propose that you may not be a professional medicinal chemist. Many theories conveniently support your position. Of course, many theories conveniently support the other side. How can we objectively determine who is right? Well, let's look at (among many, many…

LMAO.

Did I say that analogy is the end of the road?

You are one entertaining dude.

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

#146

Post by luketych »

apathy wrote: post #143
buu700 wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> sucralose (Stevia) s/Stevia/Splenda/ (stevia is entirely different from sucralose).

Oh wow I fucked that one up. Thank you for correcting it.

You are easy to read.

You admit a small error so that you can feel justified on your larger point. Hard to explain, but it is like reading the body language of a younglin. Sometimes you even know what they are thinking before they do.

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

#147

Post by luketych »

apathy wrote: post #112
luketych wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What I am trying to say is that if we close our minds right away then we will miss obvious answers. We will tend to overcomplicate things and reach for our most-expensive tools. I've read "scientific" articles that make use of the most cutting-edge statistical models in order to "prove" that something like "emotional intelligence does not correlate with success." Ok, poor example, and I made it up. But there are many…

> Ok, poor example, and I made it up. Why does this not surprise me? Outside of mathematics, there really isn't anything resembling proof. There is the weight of the evidence, and the weight of any substantive critiques of bias in said evidence. That's about it. > But there are many research articles out there that look impressive because of all the tools they throw at the problem. Under the surface these studies are…

Again, you are cherrypicking any flaw you see and then attacking. For a logically-trained person you are misusing it. Being overly logical can become a negative when it is used to justify your already-held beliefs.

I do not care what you think at this point, this has already blossomed into a 1 vs 1, so anything said will just make both sides more justified in their position.

This is about onlookers. Hacker News is flawed in the same way that elections are flawed. Every user is given the same power of opinion. A losing strategy that will eventually begin to conform to the middle of the pack, condemning any opinions falling too far from the centre.

Apathy, I have to ask you. If you are getting all the votes, all the +1's, all the likes, would you ever think that maybe that is not a good sign?

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

#148

Post by mixedCase »

arjie wrote: post #97
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…

Which diet do you mean? I looked and can only see evidence of their recommending 45-60 g of carbohydrates a meal. That's 180 g a day, some 60 g below my personal non-diabetic maintenance level.

180g a day is 6-9 times as many grams of carbs allowed in a low-carb diet.

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

#149

Post by mixedCase »

rwbcxrz wrote: post #103
mchmch wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Dietary fat -> Bloodstream -> Cells

That still doesn't make any sense. When you consume fat, carbs, or protein, those cells do not directly become part of your body. They're broken down and are either used as energy or reassembled into different types of cells based on the body's needs.

And to add onto that, it's insulin the protein that sends the signal for your body to store fat.

...and guess who's the bigger culprit for inducing insulin production. Hint: It's not fat.

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

#150

Post by apathy »

luketych wrote: post #146
apathy wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh wow I fucked that one up. Thank you for correcting it.

You are easy to read. You admit a small error so that you can feel justified on your larger point. Hard to explain, but it is like reading the body language of a younglin. Sometimes you even know what they are thinking before they do.

Your central thesis -- molecules that taste like sugar have the same shape -- is unalloyed horseshit.

Pull up the structures for glucose and aspartame. Are you seriously claiming they are similar?

Incidentally, I'm probably old enough to be your father, unless you're in a nursing home.

Post reply on HN