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

81–90 of 296 posts

Re: USDA ignoring the science on low-carb diets

#81

Post by eurleif »

wintermutestwin wrote: post #67
Moldoteck wrote: post #58

For me time restricted eating with high protein intake from beans and tofu and a lot of vegetables+seeds did the thing. I guess there are more ways to achieve the same goal. Some diets are healthier some are not, but i don't think there should be only one approved by fda or any other organization

>high protein intake from beans and tofu and a lot of vegetables+seeds Saying "high" protein implies that the protein:carb and/or protein:fat ratio is high. Beans have a much higher carb to protein ratio and tofu/seeds have high fat to protein ratios. It is close to impossible to eat a high protein diet that is vegan. The only way to do so requires large quantities of highly processed foods (saitan, etc...)

"Processed" isn't a well-defined term to begin with, but it's strange that you seem to implying that seitan, but not tofu, is highly processed. The steps from soybeans to tofu are: 1) dry soybeans, 2) soak soybeans, 3) puree soybeans, 4) boil soybeans, 5) separate pulp (okara), 6) coagulate with a coagulant compound, 7) press into block. The steps from wheat to seitan are: 1) mill wheat into flour, 2) wash flour to remove starch, 3) knead glutenous dough, 4) boil. That's fewer steps of "processing" for the latter. You can quibble a bit (in particular, if one buys vital wheat gluten powder, rather than making seitan directly from flour, add a drying step and a rehydrating step after step 3), but at the least, they're in the same league. Moreover, tofu production requires a somewhat exotic ingredient (the coagulant), whereas anyone can make seitan at home from a pantry staple.

Also, it's a logical leap from "requires large quantities of highly processed food" to "close to impossible". Whether seitan is "highly processed" or not, it's tasty, and eating a lot of it isn't close to impossible.

Re: USDA ignoring the science on low-carb diets

#82

Post by Semaphor »

RelaxedTree wrote: post #52
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.

I am not sure. I think it’s hard to tell if that would happen. A lot of low carb and keto processed foods on the market today are normally very high fibre and are more convenient to consume than making low carb meals at home which would have a reduction of fibre in comparison. However, I personally cannot eat fibrous foods. I’ve had to cut that completely out as a result of the damage fibre has done to my bowels afte…

> I am not sure. I think it’s hard to tell if that would happen.

I’ve been on Keto for close to ten years, my impression of at least the keto subreddit is that this would certainly happen. They’ve always been highly resistant to any statement that tons of meat is not the best thing. It was not great at the start, but it got worse over time where apparently almost everyone starting now needs electrolyte supplements because their dietary intake sucks.

/rant Sorry, I simply regularly get annoyed how a (for me) amazing diet gets dragged into the mud by the people of that sub.

Re: USDA ignoring the science on low-carb diets

#83

Post by adrian_b »

wintermutestwin wrote: post #67
Moldoteck wrote: post #58

For me time restricted eating with high protein intake from beans and tofu and a lot of vegetables+seeds did the thing. I guess there are more ways to achieve the same goal. Some diets are healthier some are not, but i don't think there should be only one approved by fda or any other organization

>high protein intake from beans and tofu and a lot of vegetables+seeds Saying "high" protein implies that the protein:carb and/or protein:fat ratio is high. Beans have a much higher carb to protein ratio and tofu/seeds have high fat to protein ratios. It is close to impossible to eat a high protein diet that is vegan. The only way to do so requires large quantities of highly processed foods (saitan, etc...)

Humans cannot live on really "high protein" food, which would eventually cause death. The majority of the energy intake has to come either from fat or from carbohydrates or from both.

So, when speaking about humans, it makes sense for "high protein diet", to mean a diet where proteins make a much higher percentage of the food in comparison to lower protein diets, like those recommended by USDA.

Therefore, when speaking, for example, about a diet where all the cereals (which have very low protein content) are replaced with legumes such as lentils, dried peas or beans (which have a protein content of up to a half of the carbohydrate content), it can be said that the legume-based diet is a high protein diet, as that would be true relatively, in comparison with the food eaten by most people, where the cheaper cereals are the main component.

Re: USDA ignoring the science on low-carb diets

#84

Post by Semaphor »

yegle wrote: post #76
rafaelero wrote: post #68

If you want to convince regulators, perhaps you should first try to convince serious nutritionists. Because very few of them really buy this keto narrative.

Keto requires ~0 carbs (some references I can find claim up to 50g carbs per day), thus a very extreme kind of low-carb dietary. While keto might not be recommended by nutritionists, a low-carb diet is widely recommended to diabetes/prediabetes patients (e.g. https://www.cdc.gov/diabetes/managing/eat-well/diabetes-and-... )

> Keto requires ~0 carbs (some references I can find claim up to 50g carbs per day)

There’s no hard number. Keto requires you to stay in ketosis (which is something you enter by carb starvation and leave by consuming too many carbs), for many people about 20g/day is a very safe limit, but it depends on mass and body chemistry. 0g would be bad because you’d eat no veggies ;)

Re: USDA ignoring the science on low-carb diets

#85

Post by Semaphor »

throwaway98797 wrote: post #2

the best diet is the one that works for you. for some it’s low carb, for others it’s vegan. what’s key is to focus on what you eat, that’s probably 80% of the battle.

> what’s key is to focus on what you eat, that’s probably 80% of the battle.

As someone close to 10 years on keto, that’s something I’ve always been saying. Focus on what you eat, and find something you can stick with (well, and don’t eat crap :D)

Re: USDA ignoring the science on low-carb diets

#86

Post by cycomanic »

411111111111111 wrote: post #59
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.

And yet there was that girl which went on a chocolate diet and lived just fine. It was a publicity stunt, but does kinda show that depending on your body, it might not matter anyway.

> And yet there was that girl which went on a chocolate diet and lived just fine. It was a publicity stunt, but does kinda show that depending on your body, it might not matter anyway.

How long did she stay on it? I imagine serious metabolic complications will take some time to develop. Moreover, she'd be missing out on some essential minerals and vitamins so I suspect she was using supplements? In that case the diet is not really chocolate, but chocolate + supplements

Re: USDA ignoring the science on low-carb diets

#87

Post by GeekyBear »

Getting rid of the sugar and refined carbohydrates in my diet (as well as learning to cook my food from scratch) was the big lifestyle change that has kept the weight off of me for the past decade and a half.

I do eat a lot of legumes, which still have carbs, just not refined carbs.

Previously, I would yo-yo up and down.

Re: USDA ignoring the science on low-carb diets

#88

Post by gherkinnn »

oifjsidjf wrote: post #75
rafaelero wrote: post #68

If you want to convince regulators, perhaps you should first try to convince serious nutritionists. Because very few of them really buy this keto narrative.

And yet there are thousands of people who posted their successful weight loss or bloating and autoimmune issues online which were solved by keto or carnivore. The term "modern serious nutritionist" is a joke anyway: a true nutritionist is one who heals himself with a diet, and many people on keto do. Science advances one funeral at the time. Remember: ~150 years ago people were making fun of the guy and outsted him b…

Extensive fasting is also known to heal anything.

As does veganism, raw food, paleo, and eating only boiled potatoes.

Interesting how any diet that contains no processed food is good for you.

Even more interesting how people who follow these extreme diets make for boring company.

Re: USDA ignoring the science on low-carb diets

#89

Post by derbOac »

oifjsidjf wrote: post #78
diffeomorphism wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, "ignore everything and do whatever you like" is terrible and dangerous advice.

OP's point was that different people require different extreme diets (at least temporaril) to heal themselves. This is not dangerous advice: this is exprimentaion, beacuse modern medicine has obviously failed them.

It's also consistent with personalized nutrition studies:

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41579-019-0256-8

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41579-019-0256-8

Re: USDA ignoring the science on low-carb diets

#90

Post by eru »

Bilal_io wrote: post #62
eru wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps remove the government from these recommendations altogether? Don't they have more important things to do?

> Don't they have more important things to do? Like caring about the well being of the citizens?

Causal connection between that and writing recommendations is rather weak..
Post reply on HN