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

191–200 of 296 posts

Re: USDA ignoring the science on low-carb diets

#191

Post by zahma »

We have forgotten how to eat. The trope is eat a well-rounded diet, which includes carbs, but being mindful that anything processed is likely going to put you over the limit of sugar intake for that day. That's because carbs are an easy substitute for a meal -- pasta, pizza, bread... then add on a few beers or a glass of wine, some candy, fruit, and not to mention sugar put into everything processed to stabilize it or make it more palatable. They fill us up but don't add a lot of nutrition.

Our bodies just aren't meant to digest this much sugar. It's starting to transcend food groups too. I swear certain meat products are replete with carbs because large-scale hog and cattle operations are feeding their animals almost exclusively with corn or other grains, and I'm not sure they can digest all those carbs either, so it is passed on via bioaccumulation to us when we eat it. (I might be totally off the mark here.)

The cynical part of me isn't surprised that the USDA doesn't care. Sugar is a huge business for American farms. To the extent that we subsidize billions of dollars in corn, wheat, and beets, it's not surprising that the cycle continues because the economy relies on the energy these staples condense into processed and cheap foods. It's an externality that we're taking out on our bodies and has profound implications for underserved communities.

Re: USDA ignoring the science on low-carb diets

#192

Post by nightski »

goodpoint wrote: post #171
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. I…

Keto is not a fad diet nor a hot take. I've been on the diet for a decade and I know plenty of others who have as well. There is quite a bit of research around it and it has been in use for a century or more. It may not be for everyone and that is totally fine. But it's just a normal diet.

Re: USDA ignoring the science on low-carb diets

#193

Post by spaetzleesser »

jasonhansel wrote: post #181

A reminder to those who demonize carbs: as Stephan Guyenet points out, restricting your consumption of any category of food--whether you're avoiding carbs, or fat, or meat, or plants--will reliably cause weight loss by removing some highly rewarding/palatable foods from your diet. So we shouldn't be surprised that both low-carb and vegetarian diets can produce weight loss, and that many people have had success with e…

That's my theory too. Almost any diet will work because people will have a more controlled and thoughtful approach to eating vs the average diet where people eat all kinds of crap and too much.

Re: USDA ignoring the science on low-carb diets

#194

Post by mahogany »

kennethh wrote: post #173
tomp wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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 Oatmea…

> Greenhouse gas emissions per 100g protein https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/ghg-per-protein-poore?tab...

Doesn't this link confirm that meat is indeed bad with respect to emissions?

With respect, focusing on tomatoes is a bit odd. I don't think anyone is eating tomatoes for their protein source, as it would take a lot of tomatoes to get to 100g of protein (and yes, that would create a lot of emissions).

If we're talking about non-meat protein, it's best to focus on vegetarian protein-dense sources like legumes, grains such as oats or quinoa, nuts, etc. All of these are much lower than the meat examples here, sometimes by a factor of 10 or more. Poultry and fish are the closest, with poultry being 2x "grains" (a broad category), and almost 3x tofu.

Re: USDA ignoring the science on low-carb diets

#195

Post by cameron_b »

Important to note here is that the diet guidelines are largely used to underscore the USDA's funding for production guidelines.

Carb-heavy diets are tied to grain-heavy cultivation.

You might be able to think of a company or two that might be significantly interested in slowing that turn for as long as possible.

Initially there was a DoD influenced posture for ensuring that the country's diet and fields were appropriately aligned. I haven't been able to find any recent documentation of those conversations, but they're understandably difficult to track.

The guidelines here aren't a micro-service, and they're too tightly coupled to all the other fingers in the pot.

Re: USDA ignoring the science on low-carb diets

#196

Post by fn-mote »

kennethh wrote: post #173
tomp wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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 Oatmea…

I don't understand this list at all. Who is eating dark chocolate, coffee, and tomatoes as a source of protein??

On the other hand, you don't mention it, but greenhouse emissions for 100g of beef protein are 25x the emissions for 100g of oatmeal protein. That's astounding if you care about CO2 from your food production.

To address the tomatoes way more than they deserve, tomatoes have 4 protein per pound, and locally here cost perhaps USD$2 (maybe half that in season on sale). So 100g tomato protein is $50 and requires you to consume 25 lb (!!!) tomatoes.

[Edit: sister comment posted while writing.]

Re: USDA ignoring the science on low-carb diets

#198

Post by kuhewa »

cameron_b wrote: post #195

Important to note here is that the diet guidelines are largely used to underscore the USDA's funding for production guidelines. Carb-heavy diets are tied to grain-heavy cultivation. You might be able to think of a company or two that might be significantly interested in slowing that turn for as long as possible. Initially there was a DoD influenced posture for ensuring that the country's diet and fields were appropri…

> Carb-heavy diets are tied to grain-heavy cultivation.

Not as grain-heavy, at a national level, as if grains in the diet were replaced with animal products. A calorie of beef was required quite a few calories of grain.

Re: USDA ignoring the science on low-carb diets

#199

Post by joobus »

jasonhansel wrote: post #181

A reminder to those who demonize carbs: as Stephan Guyenet points out, restricting your consumption of any category of food--whether you're avoiding carbs, or fat, or meat, or plants--will reliably cause weight loss by removing some highly rewarding/palatable foods from your diet. So we shouldn't be surprised that both low-carb and vegetarian diets can produce weight loss, and that many people have had success with e…

You're missing a very key point of this work:

> Carbohydrate restriction is currently the only whole-foods approach that can reverse a diagnosis of type 2 diabetes.

Carbohydrates break down to glucose in the bloodstream, the same as pure sugar. For a large and growing number of people, low-carb diets are not simply a means of weight loss.

Re: USDA ignoring the science on low-carb diets

#200

Post by thelittleone »

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 do intense exercise at least 120 mins / day including running, HIIT, calisthenics but no heavy weights. No cycling here unfortunately as the roads are terrible, drivers are nuts, just not safe, but I used to ride centuries when living elsewhere so have some idea of how demanding that can be. I used to take gels and nuuns in bottle etc. Not sure how you'd go with hitting carbs before a ride but you can always try and then do a ketone urine test after the ride to see if you're still in ketosis. Maybe it works.

The main issue I encountered along the way where resolved by:

1) Supplementing basic electrolytes (sugar free). This helped with cramps and pains that I got once starting out.

2) Getting the right number of calories per day (how much I burn in the day +/- 150 calories). I check in on this with data from fitness band connected to a nutrition app. A deficit over 150 calories and I definitely have noticeable side effects, mood, focus etc. But for me it's not as severe once in ketosis as it is on regular diet.

3) Ensuring the right macros I was shocked how much fat I had to eat at first. I'd always thought keto was closer to a high protein diet. Getting quality fats was key. Tallow, Ghee, MCT oil, avocado, olives etc. For snack sometimes I take a tablespoon of feta marinated in olive oil and herbs.

My goal in switching was about freeing myself from sugar addiction. But the side benefit is I now exercise less (120 mins down from 160 mins). Yet in these last ~3 months I went from 90kg (198lbs) to 85kg (187lbs), the lightest and most energetic I've been for over a decade.

It's been great for me so far, but recognize it's not for everyone.

Post reply on HN