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

Why Cutting Carbs Is So Tough

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

251–260 of 275 posts

Re: Why Cutting Carbs Is So Tough

#251

Post by jshevek »

ksk wrote: post #237
sn9 wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you list anything specifically that anyone is likely to encounter? Your comments are rather vague.

The field is so vast that it depends on what you want to look at. So for e.g. When you consume a high protein diet (proteins > purine > uric acid) you can have problems with your kidneys. I've seen reports of people ending up in the hospital because the body couldn't regulate blood glucose, caused by a low-carb diet. Now, since its more ethical to experiment on rats, you can find numerous studies which show problems…

You haven't answered the question. Nothing you say is evidence of any impairment due to insufficient carbs.

Edit: My mistake, it looks like someone else made the following mistaken argument, first - not you. My apologies.

[ Elsewhere in this thread your invocation of kidney problems was already corrected, and yet you invoke it here, again. This has everything to do with over-consumption of protein, nothing to do with a supposed "carb deficiency". This is not evidence of any alleged "impairment" resulting from insufficient carbohydrates. ]

Re: Why Cutting Carbs Is So Tough

#252

Post by roel_v »

eeks wrote: post #224
roel_v wrote: post #114

What is so annoying about articles like this is that they start out saying 'calorie intake has nothing to do with obesity! lol all you idiots! look at how enlightened I am!' and then go on to say that carbs mess with insulin levels so that it becomes hard to not eat more calories. Duh, that's what all those others say too, but just not highlighting that aspect as much. In the end, it's still calories. I get it, these…

We are not created equal when it comes to metabolism. I have an extremely slow metabolism. I'm a 6'3, 205lbs male and I must eat no more than 1000 calories a day to keep a balanced weight, and that includes 1 hour of work out a day.

Well, I'm highly skeptical of that number, but that's not the point here - I don't think anyone disputes that some people have a higher resting energy expenditure than others. Just to be clear - are you arguing against my point? Because if you wanted to lose weight, you'd 'just' have to eat less (quotes because of course it's not really easy. It's like the engineer's meaning of the concepts 'very hard', 'hard', 'trivial' etc.) Which is all I'm saying here - the relationship between weight and caloric intake.

Re: Why Cutting Carbs Is So Tough

#253

Post by jshevek »

sn9 wrote: post #213
ksk wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Err, they said this > And carb deficiency is not associated with any impairment or disease. This is an entirely false statement. Different people have different reactions to carbohydrate restriction based on genetics, past diet, medical issues, environmental factors, and a boatload of other well understood reasons.

Can you list anything specifically that anyone is likely to encounter? Your comments are rather vague.

If you skim through the whole thread, you can get a feel for where this poster is coming from. The comment is "hand waving" because the fact of the matter is: Carbs are not an essential nutrient, and the parent poster was correct to say "carb deficiency is not associated with any impairment or disease"

Re: Why Cutting Carbs Is So Tough

#254

Post by qbrass »

otabdeveloper1 wrote: post #107
E6300 wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, fat certainly is worse than carbs, as far as weight loss is concerned. Fat contains twice the calories per gram compared to carbohydrates or protein, that's why things like cheese and oil are a big no-no if you're trying to lose weight. Butter is alright as long as you don't take a big ol' chomp out of a stick.

Gasoline is more caloric than fat, but subsisting on a diet of gas won't make you obese, quite the opposite.

Which is why you should subsist on a diet of biodiesel.

Re: Why Cutting Carbs Is So Tough

#255

Post by jshevek »

gitlabuser wrote: post #243
hashable wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> your body needs a fair amount of carbs every day, I think you're mistaken. Carb is the only macronutrient that is not required. The body can make glucose via gluconeogenesis. Take someone who has not eaten a single carb for a month and measure their blood glucose level and you will find a stable 90mg/dL. This is why Type-1 diabetics still need insulin (although much much lesser than otherwise) in spite of being on…

You don't eat vegetables?

Most ketoers eat high fiber, low carb, nutrient dense vegetables. Non-digestible fiber is listed on the food label as a carbohydrate, though it doesn't enter the blood stream - so ketoers are concerned with 'net carbs', not total carbs.

If you keep your incidental carbs low enough, they will be burned off without taking you out of the ketogenic, fat-burning state.

It is not the incidental carbs in these vegetables for which we might have a nutritional need, but the vitamins and minerals.

Re: Why Cutting Carbs Is So Tough

#256

Post by roel_v »

keymone wrote: post #229
roel_v wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"who is saying that?" "The conventional thinking, held by the large proportion of the many researchers and clinicians I’ve interviewed over the years, is that obesity is caused by caloric excess." "The minority position in this field — one that Dr. Ludwig holds, as do I after years of reporting — is that obesity is actually a hormonal regulatory disorder, and the hormone that dominates this process is insulin." 5 or…

> obesity is actually a hormonal regulatory disorder, and the hormone that dominates this process is insulin where exactly in this sentence did you read "calories don't matter"? > Caloric number is all you need to care about no it is not . calorie source is important. some sources spike your insulin, some don't. insulin spikes are bad. > just a way to get your calorie intake down no, it's a way to lower blood glucose…

"where exactly in this sentence did you read "calories don't matter"?"

Oh please. 'Sure I called him a no-good cotton picker, but where did I say he's a lesser human? How dare you call me racist!' It's blatantly obvious that the spin the OP is putting on his message is that it's not the calories that matter, but rather 'where those calories came from', whatever that means. If you're going to play word games (the lowest form of debate), we have nothing to talk about here.

"some sources spike your insulin, some don't. insulin spikes are bad."

Insulin spikes do not cause your weight to go up. They lead to eating more, which is what makes your weight go up.

"but avoiding foods that cause insulin roller coaster is also important."

OK then please describe what is important about it that does not lead back to eating less. And don't say 'just google keto diet' because it's all the same - words and words and more words to not have to deal with the elephant in the room which is caloric intake.

Again, I'm not saying low carb diets don't work. They obviously do, and they're easier for many people to stick to than other diets. What I'm arguing against is the mysticism around a subset of them, the refusal to just call things for what they are. It's a cult thing, it seems.

Re: Why Cutting Carbs Is So Tough

#257

Post by ksk »

jshevek wrote: post #251
ksk wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The field is so vast that it depends on what you want to look at. So for e.g. When you consume a high protein diet (proteins > purine > uric acid) you can have problems with your kidneys. I've seen reports of people ending up in the hospital because the body couldn't regulate blood glucose, caused by a low-carb diet. Now, since its more ethical to experiment on rats, you can find numerous studies which show problems…

You haven't answered the question. Nothing you say is evidence of any impairment due to insufficient carbs. Edit: My mistake, it looks like someone else made the following mistaken argument, first - not you. My apologies. [ Elsewhere in this thread your invocation of kidney problems was already corrected, and yet you invoke it here, again. This has everything to do with over-consumption of protein, nothing to do with…

Claiming that 0 grams of carbs allows you to remain healthy is not accurate. It is plainly obvious that unless you want to starve someone, a 0 carb diet, _necessarily_ means a diet that's either high protein or high fat. Both of which have documented problems, in humans, and in other models such as mice.

Re: Why Cutting Carbs Is So Tough

#258

Post by keymone »

roel_v wrote: post #256
keymone wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> obesity is actually a hormonal regulatory disorder, and the hormone that dominates this process is insulin where exactly in this sentence did you read "calories don't matter"? > Caloric number is all you need to care about no it is not . calorie source is important. some sources spike your insulin, some don't. insulin spikes are bad. > just a way to get your calorie intake down no, it's a way to lower blood glucose…

"where exactly in this sentence did you read "calories don't matter"?" Oh please. 'Sure I called him a no-good cotton picker, but where did I say he's a lesser human? How dare you call me racist!' It's blatantly obvious that the spin the OP is putting on his message is that it's not the calories that matter, but rather 'where those calories came from', whatever that means. If you're going to play word games (the lowe…

> the spin the OP is putting on his message is that it's not the calories that matter, but rather 'where those calories came from'

you're implying that the rest of the message is "eating 1k calories is not going to make you lose weight" and "eating 5k calories is not going to make you gain weight" which is frankly completely false.

the message begins with "given reasonable amount of calories it matters where they come from and here's how".

> Insulin spikes do not cause your weight to go up. They lead to eating more, which is what makes your weight go up.

well you've basically just agreed with OPs thesis here. eating more makes you fat, but the ultimate reason why you eat more is hormonal disorder.

> what is important about it that does not lead back to eating less

eating less

a) reduces your BMR which cancels out a good amount of mental effort you've put in restricting your calories

b) the weight you are losing is in more muscle mass than fat mass due to body's conservation mechanics

and that's not even mentioning all the nasty consequences of spiking insulin, most of which are putting people on a fast track to diabetes (read - more obesity, more health damage, etc).

on keto you can eat the same volume of food and same caloric intake but have increased BMR, effectively burning fats quicker. fat foods are denser in calories so you have more volume for things like fiber. i'm oversimplifying a lot here, but you told me to not just say "google it".

Re: Why Cutting Carbs Is So Tough

#259

Post by [deleted] »

nathan-wailes wrote: post #24

Preface: Over the past 12+ years I have spent a fair amount of time learning about foods/diets, at first to try to get rid of my acne (which I was successful at), but then later to stay lean and stop any diet-related dips in my mood (which I was also successful at). What I want to say: Cutting carbs is difficult for most people because of two things: 1) withdrawal from the sugar-high that you get from eating high-gly…

[deleted]

Re: Why Cutting Carbs Is So Tough

#260

Post by sn9 »

ksk wrote: post #257
jshevek wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You haven't answered the question. Nothing you say is evidence of any impairment due to insufficient carbs. Edit: My mistake, it looks like someone else made the following mistaken argument, first - not you. My apologies. [ Elsewhere in this thread your invocation of kidney problems was already corrected, and yet you invoke it here, again. This has everything to do with over-consumption of protein, nothing to do with…

Claiming that 0 grams of carbs allows you to remain healthy is not accurate. It is plainly obvious that unless you want to starve someone, a 0 carb diet, _necessarily_ means a diet that's either high protein or high fat. Both of which have documented problems, in humans, and in other models such as mice.

What are the documented problems in humans with low carb, high fat diets?
Post reply on HN