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

171–180 of 296 posts

Re: USDA ignoring the science on low-carb diets

#171

Post by goodpoint »

swalsh wrote: post #160

My main issue with low carb is that humans have been eating carbs for thousands of years. The obesity epidemic is only decades old. I've seen enough evidence that low carb is working for people, so it would seem like something in the carbs we eat in particular is causing the problem... not carbs in general. We should significantly increase the science in this area in my opinion.

Correct. Yet demonizing carbohydrates is more dramatic that just eating the right amount. Fad diets are driven by hot takes and propelled by psychological biases.

Also, radical changes in diet often lead to temporary improvements in mood and energy levels.

People often ascribe the improvement to the new diet rather than the change and think they found the holy grail.

Edit: "keto" as "prescribed by reddit" is a fad.

If you are referring to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ketogenic_diet it's a therapeutic diet to be prescribed by specialists to ameliorate epilepsy.

"""The ketogenic diet is not considered a benign, holistic, or all-natural treatment. As with any serious medical therapy, it may result in complications, although these are generally less severe and less frequent than with anticonvulsant medication or surgery"""

Re: USDA ignoring the science on low-carb diets

#172

Post by treis »

swalsh wrote: post #160

My main issue with low carb is that humans have been eating carbs for thousands of years. The obesity epidemic is only decades old. I've seen enough evidence that low carb is working for people, so it would seem like something in the carbs we eat in particular is causing the problem... not carbs in general. We should significantly increase the science in this area in my opinion.

IMHO it's obvious why it works. If you came up with a diet program that cut out cake, cookies, candy, chips and basically every other bit of junk food that'd get you a "no duh". Add on eating your hamburger with lettuce buns and suddenly you're an innovative genius.

Re: USDA ignoring the science on low-carb diets

#173

Post by kennethh »

tomp wrote: post #148
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.

"meet" isn't environmentally unfriendly some methods of meat production are but you can focus on environmentally friendly methods instead don't hate the product, hate the process

Totally agree, this is a misconception. If you look at the numbers you get different results based on how you calculate it. Meat also comes out a lot better if you compare protein instead of calories.

Greenhouse gas emissions per 100g protein https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/ghg-per-protein-poore?tab... Dark Chocolate 93.30 kg Beef (beef herd) 49.89 kg Coffee 35.66 kg Lamb & Mutton 19.85 kg Tomatoes 19.00 kg Oatmeal 1.91 kg

When the tomato is grown in an open field, the production emits an average of 80 kg CO2 per ton. If the tomatoes are grown in a greenhouse, they emit up to 700 kg CO2 per ton. In tomatoes there is 1.31% protein https://www.sdu.dk/en/om_sdu/fakulteterne/teknik/nyt_fra_det...

At least for us in Northern Europe, all tomatoes are grown in green houses.

Re: USDA ignoring the science on low-carb diets

#175

Post by goodpoint »

xkbarkar wrote: post #107
diffeomorphism wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I disagree. When it comes to your eating habits listen to your body and ignore well meant but oftesn outright dangerous comments like this. Especially from anyone that has a “miracle” cure just for you. I have never eaten breakfast, always hated eating before lunch. Having had this exact comment thrown in my face for 30 years. Turns out ignoring everything and doing whatever fit me was not only healthy but has strong…

No, this is a false dichotomy: "listen to your body" VS "follow fad diets from random strangers".

Both options are dangerous.

There's a third option: actual nutritional science.

Re: USDA ignoring the science on low-carb diets

#176

Post by cskCollo »

swalsh wrote: post #160

My main issue with low carb is that humans have been eating carbs for thousands of years. The obesity epidemic is only decades old. I've seen enough evidence that low carb is working for people, so it would seem like something in the carbs we eat in particular is causing the problem... not carbs in general. We should significantly increase the science in this area in my opinion.

You are right - The a big difference is the increase in processed sugars/foods and what I personally call hidden sugars(For example, corn syrup is added into sausage). Many people do not also think of carbs as sugars. Our ancestors ate carbs for thousands of years but it was healthier carbs e.g whole grains. So its better for you to eat corn/beans than something like a big mac with a chocolate shake(the science is there). I believe that the point of this article is low carb diet should also be included in the diet recommendations so that health practioners should also have it in their arsenal of tools && schools to teach it. It's not an either or argument.

Re: USDA ignoring the science on low-carb diets

#177

Post by glenngillen »

mft_ wrote: post #122
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…

How does keto work for you doing exercise? Do you have a routine or adaptation that works for you? I ask because I’ve tried keto a couple of times and usually gave up within a few weeks because it was incompatible with (energetic) cycling. The difference with huge - I was crawling up hills that usually I’d barely notice. I assume it’s because I’m very carb-adapted and/or my level of exercise intensity is too high for…

I’ve done marathon training while on keto. Obviously a much different power output need to cycling so take this with a grain of salt… it took me about a month to adjust. That first month had me really struggling to even do 50% of the training distance I was used to. And then it all just clicked suddenly. Not like I started improving again, literally went from struggling to straight back to race performance. One day I was struggling to do a slow 10km. A few days later I ran 35km near race pace. It was a very weird experience.

I’ve been out of keto and training habit for a few months now (recovering from surgery) but I also seem to recall having a different sense of energy awareness while running. Like somewhere between the 30-40min range of a run I’d suddenly feel more awake and like I’d just had a coffee.

Re: USDA ignoring the science on low-carb diets

#178

Post by jrochkind1 »

> This amount of carbohydrates may seem quite low to the average person, but remember that for the most part, people turn to this way of eating because they’ve been diagnosed with a serious health problem, such as diabetes, which usually means that they can no longer tolerate high levels of sugars or starches.

This is disingenuous, right?

Re: USDA ignoring the science on low-carb diets

#179

Post by goodpoint »

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…

"Certain dietary choices that have been linked to heart disease, such as an 8 oz (230 g) serving of hamburger daily, were technically permitted under the pyramid."

Urgh.

Re: USDA ignoring the science on low-carb diets

#180

Post by lfuller »

simias wrote: post #152
oifjsidjf wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I'm currently doing a keto diet (mainly to support my girlfriend who wanted to do it, and it's easier if we do it together) and I did lose about 7kg in less than three months so far. That being said I remain a bit skeptical, for instance it seems to be a lot less effective for her than for me, and I feel like my weight loss may be explained by non "low-carb" factors, mainly that I eat a lot less. I have a sweet tooth…

In my experience that’s the primary positive point of carb-restrictive diets.

In general I find it extremely hard to restrict calories under a standard North American diet due to craving carb-heavy foods and feeling a constant base level of hunger. When on keto I tend to only feel hunger around dinner time and have no issues at all with portion control throughout the rest of the day.

I think the real advantage of low carb diets is regulating hunger and making it easier to properly manage carb intake - at least in my case.

Post reply on HN