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

USDA ignoring the science on low-carb diets

unsettledscience.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 296 posts

Re: USDA ignoring the science on low-carb diets

#41

Post by smugma »

Scalene2 wrote: post #26
StanislavPetrov wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's completely false. While the label "organic" may have been hijacked and rendered largely meaningless by government agencies like the FDA and their corporate masters, there is indeed a difference between food produced using chemicals, pesticides, antibiotics and growth hormones (among other things), and food that is produced naturally without these drugs, poisons and other additives. That some people dispute the…

It is impossible to produce food without chemicals.

You're being pedantic but not actually using a common definition of chemical. Perhaps "chemical substance" might apply.

AOED definition of chemical: a compound or substance that has been purified or prepared, especially artificially: _never mix disinfectant with other chemicals | controversy arose over treatment of apples with this chemical._

Re: USDA ignoring the science on low-carb diets

#42

Post by eru »

mertd wrote: post #6

I imagine if the headline news declared that we should reduce the carbs in our diets, most Americans would up the meat intake and not vegetables, and that would reduce fiber in their diet even more.

Perhaps remove the government from these recommendations altogether?

Don't they have more important things to do?

Re: USDA ignoring the science on low-carb diets

#43

Post by [deleted] »

Madmallard wrote: post #5
readthenotes1 wrote: post #4

I'll know they're serious about health when they put a tax on added sugar and an additional tax on high fructose corn syrup. Until then, they're just actors on a stage

Do you mean taxes on the producers for using it because it is addictive? Because taxes on the consumer makes zero sense.

[deleted]

Re: USDA ignoring the science on low-carb diets

#46

Post by recyclelater »

andreareina wrote: post #39
recyclelater wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not anything, you could run a five hundred calorie deficit and only eat table sugar. You’d lose weight and gain serious metabolic disease. This is an extreme, but obviously there’s better and worse things. Maybe it’s pretty comparable in the reasonable middle, but let’s not kid ourselves and say anything can work if we are talking whole body health not just weight loss.

Given Professor Twinkie's experience I wouldn't be surprised if I didn't. We're finding more and more that for overweight people losing weight (and keeping it off, hence "what works for you") is the single best intervention they can do for better health. ETA: obviously I'm not advocating eating only sugar or twinkies. The point is that adherence is an crucial factor, more so than is often given credit.

Taking off my pedantic hat, I think we agree. Meaning in the pragmatic real world, if you can keep weight off it’s better than having the weight on, and no one is doing that in the real world with an all sugar diet.

With that being said, metabolic disease produces lots of skinny diabetics, and that will definitely shorten your life span.

Re: USDA ignoring the science on low-carb diets

#47

Post by eurasiantiger »

jbm wrote: post #17
imglorp wrote: post #10

The USDA only protects and represents producers: full corporate capture. They run interference for Puppy mills [1], organic food mislabeling [2], misdirected trade aid to large operations instead of family farms [3], and germane to OP, all kinds of lobbying and gigabuck price supports for dairy products which shouldn't even be recommended daily diet. Etc. 1, https://www.aspca.org/news/usda-letting-puppy-mills-operate…

Dairy products are a solid part of low carb; butter, cream and whey are all completely normal, even in Keto.

Lactose is sugar, though.

Re: USDA ignoring the science on low-carb diets

#48

Post by eurasiantiger »

rvbissell wrote: post #37
StanislavPetrov wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sure if they were still around today those who produced food for thousands of years without chemicals would beg to differ.

Hint: water is a chemical.

That’s not what was meant and you know it. You’re being intellectually dishonest.

Re: USDA ignoring the science on low-carb diets

#49

Post by tbrownaw »

throwawaymaths wrote: post #38
sfifs wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the question really is about benefit/trade-offs of the work/costs that goes into the organic. Apart from of course outright fraudulent actors. Case in point is Sri Lanka's current economic meltdown (1) - which is to a significant extent attributed to the government going all in on organic, banning fertilizers resulting in yields plummeting - less food to go around and no longer self sufficient, exports plumet…

Come on. Converting to all-organic at once having failed by no means suggests that slowly phasing out to get to organic wouldn't work. Switching suddenly, and by means of a ban -- what could go wrong? A free-market gradualistic solution would be to cap pesticide and fertilizer imports and auction licenses to buy them.

From the article linked in the parent comment, the failure was very well predicted by it sounds like basically everyone who knew anything about agriculture. And that prediction was based entirely on basic facts about agriculture rather than any "how to get there" effects like you're saying caused it to not work.

Re: USDA ignoring the science on low-carb diets

#50

Post by sfifs »

throwawaymaths wrote: post #38
sfifs wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the question really is about benefit/trade-offs of the work/costs that goes into the organic. Apart from of course outright fraudulent actors. Case in point is Sri Lanka's current economic meltdown (1) - which is to a significant extent attributed to the government going all in on organic, banning fertilizers resulting in yields plummeting - less food to go around and no longer self sufficient, exports plumet…

Come on. Converting to all-organic at once having failed by no means suggests that slowly phasing out to get to organic wouldn't work. Switching suddenly, and by means of a ban -- what could go wrong? A free-market gradualistic solution would be to cap pesticide and fertilizer imports and auction licenses to buy them.

The question I asked was about cost/benefit trade offs of organic and indeed as the linked article indicates, what are the trade offs with how the math adds up. I am not pre-supposing that a switch to organic is even desirable like this comment above.

For instance, if without inorganic fertilizers, yields plummet 20-30%, does that mean we need more forest land converted to farming tonkeep people fed? Do 20-30% more people have to work in agriculture vs today and stop working in cities? What would that do to urban services? What similarly are the trade offs from using fertilizers for land? What happens over time?

If there are good research papers that explore the total system costs and economic impacts?

Post reply on HN