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

91–100 of 296 posts

Re: USDA ignoring the science on low-carb diets

#91

Post by dawnerd »

oifjsidjf wrote: post #70
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.

A lot of success that carnivores have is attributed precisely to the removal of fiber, so fiber seems to be giving some people severe issues. Whether one should stay on the carnivore diet forever is ofcourse a different thing, but fiber is not an innocent thing as people say (at least for people in certain state, god knows what is going on in their intestines which causes them bloating etc.. after eating fiber). Also…

Easing into higher fiber probably should be more gradual. A lot of people doing keto jump right into the processed breads and foods that have mostly fiber. That’ll catch you off guard very quickly if you’re not used to it.

Re: USDA ignoring the science on low-carb diets

#93

Post by bruce511 »

diffeomorphism wrote: post #55
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.

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

You are right, that would be terrible advice. On the other hand that's not what he posted (although you can certainly read it that way if you want to.)

I read it more as "there's no one true diet" which seems to gel with my personal observation.

The best exercise is any exercise you actually do - the best diet for you is one that is both healthy, and that you can adapt to. Small adjustments are more likely to "stick", and doing something small can be beneficial.

For example, I'm not going to entertain "go vegan". That's too big a jump. But cutting down on meat is achievable. I'm not going carb free overnight, but I can start to reduce sugar (no sugar in coffee for example), eat more nuts for snacks, and less chips, and so on. I can do a "carb free month", I can reduce portion sizes.

Ultimately my balance will be different to the next person's.

Re: USDA ignoring the science on low-carb diets

#94

Post by bamboozled »

rayiner wrote: post #74

If you haven't tried a low-carb diet, you should and see how it works for you. I never felt better than I did when I was eating pretty much just Chipotle salads (chicken+salad+guac) and doing a bit of weightlifting three times a week ( https://stronglifts.com/5x5 ). Of course, I was in my mid-20s and had three fewer kids, so there's that... I'll add--free office snacks are the devil's work.

Yeah but what’s the point of living till 100 without some wine, pasta and pizza in there occasionally ?

Re: USDA ignoring the science on low-carb diets

#95

Post by mellavora »

rayiner wrote: post #74

If you haven't tried a low-carb diet, you should and see how it works for you. I never felt better than I did when I was eating pretty much just Chipotle salads (chicken+salad+guac) and doing a bit of weightlifting three times a week ( https://stronglifts.com/5x5 ). Of course, I was in my mid-20s and had three fewer kids, so there's that... I'll add--free office snacks are the devil's work.

Hey, if it gave you the energy to parent three children, it must have worked, right?

Re: USDA ignoring the science on low-carb diets

#96

Post by darzu »

BoorishBears wrote: post #73
darzu wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Citations needed. I worked on an organic vineyard for a summer and I can tell you it took a lot of work to get that label. Non-organic vineyards in our area had barren earth or gravel under the stalks as they used weedkillers regularly. In contrast, we practiced “turf flipping” where we would, with clever machine and hard work, turn the soil over to smother weeds. The soil was alive and rich with the longest earthwor…

> And the extra money from labeling it organic didn’t come close to covering the extra effort. And this right here is why people are skeptical about organic produce. There seems to be two kinds: - The kind that doesn't scale (so any would be environmental benefits would stop existing if it became more than a niche) - The kind that scales because they're abusing loose definitions of "organic" to charge the end custome…

Our vineyard didn’t make as much money as surrounding vineyards but it was still self sustaining. More robust demand for organic wines would have made it even more so.

Organic farming has external benefits as well, or rather the absence of negative externalities like harmful chemical run off and less water usage. These aren’t as easily noticed by just looking at market dynamics currently.

All that being said, my understanding is that organic farming isn’t the right choice in all cases. It’s definitely more labor and sometimes resource or land intensive. It takes a certain wealthy consumer base to support it.

Re: USDA ignoring the science on low-carb diets

#97

Post by jokethrowaway »

Another case of "trust the experts" and a corrupt centralised entity.

Of course it makes perfect sense: when you buy meat you're not buying highly processed, expensive, vegetarian/vegan food.

The meat and dairy industry vs vegetarian food. Guess who can lobby more?

Re: USDA ignoring the science on low-carb diets

#98

Post by bandrami »

andreareina wrote: post #23
TeeMassive wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Euh no, while diets must be adapted to individuals, there are objective and well established principles about what works or not.

The problem isn't finding a diet that works: anything that reduces calories below maintenance does it. The problem is what a person will stick to . Different people find different diets to be easier to stick to. If they're luck they find one that leads to a spontaneous reduction of calories consumed and don't need to count.

The "calories-in" approach sets minima and maxima, nothing else. For one thing we still are very bad at determining how much energy an individual will actually extract from a given food. We still get calorie counts from setting food on fire.

Re: USDA ignoring the science on low-carb diets

#99

Post by meowkit »

bamboozled wrote: post #94
rayiner wrote: post #74

If you haven't tried a low-carb diet, you should and see how it works for you. I never felt better than I did when I was eating pretty much just Chipotle salads (chicken+salad+guac) and doing a bit of weightlifting three times a week ( https://stronglifts.com/5x5 ). Of course, I was in my mid-20s and had three fewer kids, so there's that... I'll add--free office snacks are the devil's work.

Yeah but what’s the point of living till 100 without some wine, pasta and pizza in there occasionally ?

The biggest mistake in basic nutrition is false dichotomies like the one presented here.

You can have a baseline healthy diet, and on occassion have a heavy pasta meal, have a pizza, order a steak, drink some alcohol, eat a sweet.

The trick is these things are still good, but are not nearly as attractive when you acclimate to a diet that makes you feel great everyday.

Re: USDA ignoring the science on low-carb diets

#100

Post by bandrami »

eurasiantiger wrote: post #47
jbm wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Lactose is sugar, though.

There's almost no lactose in butter, and literally zero in ghee.
Post reply on HN