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

221–230 of 296 posts

Re: USDA ignoring the science on low-carb diets

#221

Post by malfist »

itsoktocry wrote: post #215
malfist wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

100% agree with you. If you listen to what food scientists are actually saying, they're almost always espousing fractional improvements with small tweaks to diets and the media runs with "You should stop eating X because Y" or "You should only eat Z" stories. Any dietitian will tell you, the key to a healthy diet is moderation and variety.

> If you listen to what food scientists are actually saying "The science" again. Food scientists say all kinds of things, including promoting vegetarian or ketogenic diets. Which ones are the true scientists here? > Any dietitian will tell you, the key to a healthy diet is moderation and variety. What does "moderation" and "variety" mean in scientific terms? Global nutritional availability varies drastically across t…

>Food scientists say all kinds of things, including promoting vegetarian or ketogenic diets. Which ones are the true scientists here?

Sure, but look at what they publish professionally in journals. It's never black or white. Ignore what they talk about from a personal perspective to journalists or on TV, that stuff isn't peer reviewed.

>What does "moderation" and "variety" mean in scientific terms? Global nutritional availability varies drastically across the globe, and I'm not just talking about poor versus rich countries.

Come on dude, being obtuse isn't helpful. I'm not going to argue semantics with an internet stranger. If you can't figure out what moderation and variety mean in this context, I'm not sure you're worth arguing with.

Re: USDA ignoring the science on low-carb diets

#222

Post by nradov »

jasonhansel wrote: post #166
ncmncm wrote: post #142

I would be satisfied if the USDA recognized fructose as a toxin, and required labels to say how much fructose is in everything. We might then start seeing the things pumped full of sugar having glucose/dextrose instead. And, the greatest health crisis the UK and its former colonies has ever seen might then start winding down. If we can institute emergency measures for COVID-19, it seems like we ought to be able to do…

So...fruit would now be considered toxic? Fructose is naturally occurring.

The dose makes the poison. Metabolically healthy people can consume small amounts of fructose with no harmful effects, but too much causes problems.

https://peterattiamd.com/is-natural-sugar-from-fruit-just-as...

Re: USDA ignoring the science on low-carb diets

#223

Post by throwaway14356 »

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…

nothing wrong with sugar or carbs if you are going to completely wear yourself out.

on any other day it just kills you.

Re: USDA ignoring the science on low-carb diets

#224

Post by malfist »

itsoktocry wrote: post #219
goodpoint wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> eat tablespoons of white sugar from pantry), a low carb (keto) diet You jumped from an extreme diet to the opposite. Some societies (mostly US) have a very unhealthy sugar addiction and it should be avoided. Equally, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ketogenic_diet is meant to ameliorate epilepsy and it's not a safe diet to be adopted without medical supervision or without a real need. It had been turned into an intern…

> Equally, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ketogenic_diet is meant to ameliorate epilepsy and it's not a safe diet to be adopted without medical supervision or without a real need. So a ketogenic diet can affect a human body as drastically as controlling a specific debilitating disease, but has no other benefits (or, of course costs)? I find those sorts of claims really hard to believe.

What are you going on about? I believe GP was specifically saying that there were costs associated with e ketogenic diet and that it shouldn't be done willynilly.

And there are tons of things that control diseases that do jack shit for healthy people, or are even harmful. Antibiotics will control an infection, but if used in healthy people it'll kill your gut flora, stimulants that might help ADHD will absolutely fuck up a normal person, consistent use of PPIs without an underlying issue will unbalance your gut's acidity, cocaine is a great numbing agent and vasoconstrictor for nasal surgery, but we all know what happens to people using cocaine. All these examples ignore things like cancer drugs that control a disease, but will absolutely wreck your body.

It's not like GP is saying the keto diet will help with epilespy and is side effect free. GP said it will help epilespy, and it might.

Re: USDA ignoring the science on low-carb diets

#225

Post by Dma54rhs »

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.

I've seen someone close to me having success with losing weight with this diet. But truth be told to me the low carb diet looked like lower calorie diet redefined. Whatever works of course.

Re: USDA ignoring the science on low-carb diets

#226

Post by Dma54rhs »

weberer wrote: post #185
acje wrote: post #112

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 oft…

>In the western world the default is a high-carb diet. It's like this everywhere in the world. You know rice is mostly carbs, right?

Ghana and many many other African countries are 80% carbs or more. The whole Western carb angle is just a cope for eating too damn much calories.

Re: USDA ignoring the science on low-carb diets

#227

Post by memcg »

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…

I have been following my version of low carb\keto for 17 months. I'm down 80 lbs from 325 lbs.

I eat lots of eggs, meat and leafy greens. I use a breathalyzer to track ketones and blood test strips for glucose.

My lab results at 3, 6 and 14 months show improvement. My A1C is back below diabetic levels.

My father died at 68. I'm almost 67, so I want to find what works for me.

Re: USDA ignoring the science on low-carb diets

#228

Post by carlmr »

linuxftw wrote: post #190
kennethh wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I had ulcerative colitis from I was 18 until 46 which is a chronic inflammation with blood in the faeces. I switched to the carnivore diet and within some months all my symptoms disappeared. This was also confirmed with a colonoscopy in a hospital. My brain fog is also gone. I used to be really strict but now I am more like 90-95% carnivore, but I try to get the carbs from potatoes, carrots and Nuts. I aim for under…

I was having the same (different age range, early 30's) symptoms, and I was able to eliminate my problems by cutting out coffee entirely. I can still drink caffeinated tea without issue. When I first quit coffee, I cut out all spicy foods and beans. Now I eat spicy foods and beans occasionally without issue. Naturally, the doctor that did my colonoscopy didn't recommend trying any of this, just wanted to slap me on s…

Can you drink decaf coffee or is it something else in the coffee?

Re: USDA ignoring the science on low-carb diets

#229

Post by cupofpython »

sph wrote: post #141
strken wrote: post #109

I'm not convinced by some of the common beliefs about low-carb diets either. They seem to be good for weight loss[0] but bad for all-cause mortality[1]. If you're making dietary recommendations, it's hard to justify choosing a diet that makes the people who eat it skinnier and less diabetic but also kills some of them. I'm also not convinced that "low-carb" in the literature means you can draw conclusions about ketog…

"Our meta-analysis supported long-term harm and no cardiovascular protection with low-carbohydrate diets. However, the observational studies were limited and moderately heterogeneous. Our findings underscore the imminent need for large-scale trials on the complex interactions between low-carbohydrate diets and long-term outcomes." From your second link. Also not a surprise when many research about low carb diets is r…

I think low carb diets are easier to mess up without realizing.

one - you cant go no carb, so it requires very accurate moderation which is something people tend to be bad at

two - the cheaper sources of protein and fat, which you now must eat more of, are often high in omega-6 instead of omega-3, or have the wrong balance of saturated vs unsaturated fats, not enough amino acids, etc

three - if you go for Keto, getting hit by points 1 and 2 together can easily create a health risk. Too much protein kicks you out of ketosis as well. You might chronically knock yourself out of keto without realizing it and eat a bunch of foods that you really only get away with eating by being in

So even though a proper keto diet, for example, might be perfectly fine. Recommending a keto diet to the general public very well might kill some people who historically have a bad track record for moderating their food intake

Re: USDA ignoring the science on low-carb diets

#230

Post by ellopoppit »

After going on a low carb diet, my skin has never been healthier. Acne, dry skin, dandruff, itchiness and random hives that I've experienced as long as I can remember have all dissapeared.

Also my mood and emotional balance have never been more stable.

I primarily eat whole, unprocessed foods: meat/fish, veggies, nuts and seeds, and occasionally some low sugar fruit after intense exercise.

It's been perhaps the most positive change Ive ever made for my mental and physical health

Post reply on HN