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

161–170 of 185 posts

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

#161

Post by bjterry »

apathy wrote: post #115
aduitsis wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Mark has a bit of an agenda. He is not nearly as full of shit as many others (to include many in academia) but he nonetheless has a financial conflict of interest due to the way he makes a living. I'm not saying he is wrong, but I am saying that you must think critically in the presence of COI.

Mark Sisson's intellectual rigor is certainly higher than the average blogspam but not as high as the best diet bloggers in the paleo or fitness communities (e.g. Stephan Guyenet, Alan Aragon). That said, his biases would tend to go against artificial sweeteners, rather than towards them. In that article he suggests that you shouldn't eat them, even though he thinks the evidence of their insulin response effects is weak at best. If your point was that you should take all of his advice with a grain of salt, I definitely agree, since he promotes many things which have at most a marginal effect.

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

#162

Post by bjterry »

eatfruitnoteggs wrote: post #135
mchmch wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This one minute video will save your life. FAT is the cause of type 2 diabetes. Fat in cells stops your body from processing sugar correctly. You need to reduce dietary fat to very low levels and your body will be able to process carbs correctly. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S51D07bvlPY

I commend your effort, but don't even try bringing up Veganism on Hacker News. I've tried to do the same and low-carb dogma ideologues lost their minds to the point logical and evidence-based dialogue became impossible. My own theory is, there is too much emotional attachment to eating meat, dairy and eggs in Americans to consider Veganism seriously. They will perform incredible mental gymnastics to justify their vio…

Since you dropped a load of references I thought I might as well critique the ones in the first batch to satisfy my curiosity (the other citations would be less surprising to me, though I didn't check them).

1. This doesn't analyze low-carb vs. high-carb diets, it's just a study of satiety indices. The lowest satiety index foods were all high in carbs, as one would expect (croissants, cake and donuts were the bottom three) as were the highest satiety index foods (boiled potatoes). There were only 4 items on a list of 38 items that would be considered acceptable low-carb foods if you were trying to hit the keto subreddit's 20g low-carb diet (cheese, eggs, steak and fish). Everything else had a high amount of carbs, with the next highest protein foods being yoghurt, baked beans and lentils, which all contain significant amounts of carbs.

2. This study compares a low-carb animal diet to a low-carb vegetable diet, and therefore does not address the topic you described.

3. See the prior point.

4. This study compared saturated fat to monounsaturated fat, and thus does not address the question of low-carb vs. high carb diets in particular.

5. This link is a duplicate of 2, so see point 2.

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

#163

Post by EpicEng »

firasd wrote: post #16

Low carb is like magic for my health, fitness, and mental acuity. Reasons it's hard for me to stay on the bandwagon (1) it's more expensive to eat only meat, vegetables, eggs and fats v.s. eating stuff together with bread, rice etc. (2) Eating lots of vegetables means more fussy cooking of them (3) Carbs are nice 'comfort food' for when you're stressed.

It really doesn't have to be an all or nothing proposition though. Have you tried sticking mainly to low GI carbs, e.g., sweet potatoes, whole grain breads, etc? It takes a lot longer to digest these foods and, as a result, you get a smooth energy release instead of a huge insulin spike.

I've been into fitness, mostly around powerlifting and contact sports, for most of my life. Your body needs carbs; the problem is typically the form in which we consume them.

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

#164

Post by dylanz »

I decided to start lifting heavy shit... everyday. When I say heavy shit, I mean getting close to the max I can lift in one lift, each day I dedicate to that lift.

I've tired no-carb days, lifting on fasts, lifting on protein heavy mornings, etc... and it comes down to carbs being mental energy for me wanting to lift heavy. If I don't have carbs, I feel less energetic, and less willing to continue my lifting regimen for that day.

Eat a lot of carbs when you want to accomplish a lot of shit... physically.

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

#165

Post by luketych »

apathy wrote: post #151
luketych wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 fl…

I wouldn't say that HN is flawed the way elections are, because non readers aren't affected by what goes on here (I hope). You logic strikes me as specious -- the proximity of an idea to the mushy middle is orthogonal to whether it is correct. Great ideas are often met with violent opposition -- but shitty ideas are, too. If I thought most people on HN were in fact dumbasses, as most of the electorate often seems to…

Well then you are getting better at applying logic blindly.

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

#166

Post by [deleted] »

apathy wrote: post #151
luketych wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 fl…

I wouldn't say that HN is flawed the way elections are, because non readers aren't affected by what goes on here (I hope). You logic strikes me as specious -- the proximity of an idea to the mushy middle is orthogonal to whether it is correct. Great ideas are often met with violent opposition -- but shitty ideas are, too. If I thought most people on HN were in fact dumbasses, as most of the electorate often seems to…

[deleted]

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

#167

Post by luketych »

apathy wrote: post #150
luketych wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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

Wow you are so smart! Yay!!! You use big boy terms like "central thesis." Congratulations, your brain has the ability of language.

You must be pretty slow. Again, you are displaying your own lack of awareness to the whole world. Enjoy your upvotes because the majority of these readers are even less aware than you.

But I am sure you feel good knowing that you have the majority on your side :). Awwwwww, how cute.

Why don't you tell me how sweetness works genius, or do you not know what a receptor is?

Just because glucose and aspartame don't look the same doesn't mean they can't work the same. I am amazed by your lack of understanding, and you are braggin' that you are how old?...

I bet you are the type of person who always looks for the difference in things, rather than the similarities. I bet you can't even tell in what ways one song or piece of art draws inspiration from another. That involved a lot of divergent thinking (and convergent, etc.), but I see that you do not have that ability. Sorry there budd.

Haha. Successfully mindfucked. I will admit that I planned on getting you to react in a certain way and you did. Enjoy your votes, Darsh.

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

#168

Post by luketych »

apathy wrote: post #150
luketych wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

My final thought before I leave you is that you are likely emotionally vested in this issue and so your limbic system is blinding your neo-cortex.

Perhaps you or someone you care for deeply uses artificial sweeteners. Maybe you are pedantic and are passionate about proving things to 100% (is that even possible?). I am not sure. But for a rational mind, you are very emotional as well. Maybe you see yourself as a free mind who will sort the wheat from the chaff in order to destroy false information and flawed science.

When I was younger I would care about someone like yourself. Now, honestly I don't give af. You are for training on. Nothing more.

Soak it up before comments get deleted. IF they do..

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

#169

Post by tom_mellior »

pzh wrote: post #125
tom_mellior wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The French don't skimp on baguettes (= evil heavily processed white bread) either. There's no silver bullet.

Something tells me that the French baguettes don't have as much HFCS as the ones around here....

Sure, but many people here seem to be saying that all carbs are equally bad, and some seem to be suggesting that it's more or less impossible to be healthy when eating any carbs in significant amounts.

I just think it's a bit more nuanced than that :-)

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

#170

Post by [deleted] »

crispyambulance wrote: post #18
juandazapata wrote: post #4

I have been doing Keto for 3 months and lost 20kg without any exercise at all.

That's good, but don't make it sound like 3 months of Ketosis is "easier" than a full and strict exercise routine. That's an extraordinarily hard diet to follow.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN