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

111–120 of 296 posts

Re: USDA ignoring the science on low-carb diets

#111

Post by mtsr »

jokethrowaway wrote: post #102
thelittleone wrote: post #32

Even without the science... for me personally at 47 and a life long sugar addict (used to eat tablespoons of white sugar from pantry), a low carb (keto) diet has been a complete game changer. I kept my weight in check by doing 6 days of exercise a week, but I was on an energetic roller coaster. 3 months in, no sugar, no cravings (I crave oils sometimes) and damn I just feel well in a way I haven't for long before I c…

Similarly, with ageing, I started having tons of small health issues + diarrhoea and blood in my faeces. I tried removing milk (I was eating milk with cereals in the morning) - which appeared to improve the situation (becoming less frequent) - but it turned out it worked only because I got rid of eating cereals in the morning and I can drink milk just fine. The doctor said nothing was wrong and that it was just stres…

Only meat diet has some very serious downsides, though. It’s very environmentally unfriendly and because of the high cost it’s available to a very few people. That makes it rather hard to recommend, regardless of potential health upsides.

Re: USDA ignoring the science on low-carb diets

#112

Post by acje »

In the western world the default is a high-carb diet. Moving away from that i probably beneficial to most people. My personal journey has been from a rather normal western diet towards more vegetarian, but i still don't mind a little bit of bacon on top. The effect was OK, but not spectacular. Now in my mid-40 (25ish BMI) I started walking 2-3 times weekly about two years ago and have advanced to running about as often. Now a few weeks ago started running interval 1-2 times a week. The weight loss is really good with interval training. It doesn't take long to do the exercise, and the body keeps burning fat for hours afterwards. Or so it appears on my bathroom weight and on my garmin watch (forrunner 745, nice and not too expensive). So I save a lot of time doing interval vs walking for hours. That said walking alone in the forest is magic for solving problems, and prepares the untrained body for harder workouts. Also I realized I had a lot of time. I spent 15 years not maintaining this body properly, I can spend 5 years getting back to where I want to be. There is no rush, there is just life.

Re: USDA ignoring the science on low-carb diets

#113

Post by thelittleone »

jokethrowaway wrote: post #102
thelittleone wrote: post #32

Even without the science... for me personally at 47 and a life long sugar addict (used to eat tablespoons of white sugar from pantry), a low carb (keto) diet has been a complete game changer. I kept my weight in check by doing 6 days of exercise a week, but I was on an energetic roller coaster. 3 months in, no sugar, no cravings (I crave oils sometimes) and damn I just feel well in a way I haven't for long before I c…

Similarly, with ageing, I started having tons of small health issues + diarrhoea and blood in my faeces. I tried removing milk (I was eating milk with cereals in the morning) - which appeared to improve the situation (becoming less frequent) - but it turned out it worked only because I got rid of eating cereals in the morning and I can drink milk just fine. The doctor said nothing was wrong and that it was just stres…

That's great. Curious, do you eat your meats before or after the gym or both?

Re: USDA ignoring the science on low-carb diets

#114

Post by sph »

meowkit wrote: post #99
bamboozled wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That's true, though when your body is used to low carb, having a heavy pasta meal means going into carb coma for a couple hours. It's not fun.

Ease yourself into it, if you really have to. Or better yet, indulge in more natural sugary stuff, like fruit. Eating a pasta meal is like eating refined sugar, a massive shock if you're not used to it and are older than 20.

But I agree on your general point. It doesn't have to be a life of restriction. Nothing's better than pairing a glass of nice red wine and fancy European cheese with your steak and salad, once in a while.

Re: USDA ignoring the science on low-carb diets

#115

Post by andreareina »

recyclelater wrote: post #46
andreareina wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Definitely getting OT and deep into the weeds here, I wonder how many of those skinny diabetics are due to LADA and not insulin resistance.

Re: USDA ignoring the science on low-carb diets

#116

Post by Varqu »

mtsr wrote: post #111
jokethrowaway wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Similarly, with ageing, I started having tons of small health issues + diarrhoea and blood in my faeces. I tried removing milk (I was eating milk with cereals in the morning) - which appeared to improve the situation (becoming less frequent) - but it turned out it worked only because I got rid of eating cereals in the morning and I can drink milk just fine. The doctor said nothing was wrong and that it was just stres…

Only meat diet has some very serious downsides, though. It’s very environmentally unfriendly and because of the high cost it’s available to a very few people. That makes it rather hard to recommend, regardless of potential health upsides.

Any health-related downsides?

Re: USDA ignoring the science on low-carb diets

#117

Post by genghizkhan »

Varqu wrote: post #116
mtsr wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Only meat diet has some very serious downsides, though. It’s very environmentally unfriendly and because of the high cost it’s available to a very few people. That makes it rather hard to recommend, regardless of potential health upsides.

Any health-related downsides?

Not enough fibre.

Re: USDA ignoring the science on low-carb diets

#118

Post by 2rsf »

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-... )

50g is totally doable and not too hard if my memory serves me right, but like others have mentioned it's about how your body reacts to those 50g and not the amount itself

Re: USDA ignoring the science on low-carb diets

#119

Post by baisq »

genghizkhan wrote: post #117
Varqu wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Any health-related downsides?

Not enough fibre.

If you do keto, you are allowed to eat many vegetables that are rich in fibre. But if you follow a meat-only diet will make it really difficult to poop. I wonder how carnivorous animals do it. Are they constipated all the time?
Post reply on HN