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

271–280 of 296 posts

Re: USDA ignoring the science on low-carb diets

#271

Post by Scalene2 »

StanislavPetrov wrote: post #159
vanattab wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

His point was they are/were using chemicals regardless of if they understood the chemistry at a low level or not. When ancient people/(or modern) used dung to fertilize crops they are using chemicals. With that being said I think when the power of modern chemistry / genetic engineering and modern economic agricultureraly forces collide caution is warranted.

>His point was they are/were using chemicals regardless of if they understood the chemistry at a low level or not. Even if that was his point, it is still completely wrong. >It is impossible to produce food without chemicals. If you live in the northern hemisphere, it is only June. Go plant a handful of pumpkin and watermelon seeds in a patch of fertile earth. Add no "chemicals" of any kind - man made or otherwise. R…

Fertile earth is composed of chemicals. Water is a chemical. Air is composed of chemicals. The seed is composed of chemicals.

It is impossible to grow food without chemicals.

Re: USDA ignoring the science on low-carb diets

#272

Post by sph »

cupofpython wrote: post #229
sph wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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, getti…

> you cant go no carb

This is incorrect information. You can go, and live on literally zero grams of carbohydrates, though in reality there is always trace amounts in meat and vegetables. My optimal diet is around 5g of carbs per day. Unlike fats and proteins, there is no minimum level of dietary carbohydrates required to function.

The little amount the body requires can produce thanks to gluconeogenesis, and the vast majority of the energy is provided first by ketones then by free fatty acids after adaptation.

Re: USDA ignoring the science on low-carb diets

#273

Post by Glench »

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…

For another perspective on the parent comment: I've gotten some use out of Ayurvedic* diet and lifestyle tips (hailing from ancient India). Here's a balanced article on a ketogenic diet detailing some of the modern science as well as one practitioner's take from an Ayurvedic perspective:

https://lifespa.com/diet-detox/diet/ketogenic-diet-ayurvedic...

*Ayurveda is cool — it's like a compendium of cause and effect relationships for foods and activities and their qualitative, subjective effects on the body and mind.

Re: USDA ignoring the science on low-carb diets

#274

Post by glenngillen »

nradov wrote: post #268
brianwawok wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As someone who both runs and bikes, I don't think Marathon vs Cycling is that different. You just need to compare similar efforts, are you pushing a marathon to hit 2:30 or whatever? Then compare to biking a shorter crit. Or if you are doing a 5:00 marathon, compare to a century.

Marathon running is typically at a steady pace with only minor variations in the energy output needed. Except for time trials, cycling power is a lot more variable. A cyclist in a road race might be cruising along in the peloton for most of the race but then have to sprint near maximum power to attack or chase several times at unpredictable intervals. So training plans focused on one sport or the other end up looking…

More like a low 3:00 time for me these days (to answer OP). Which as you’ve said is mostly a product of a very steady pace. Hopefully only a 3% variance of my cadence over the distance. Pace may change a little based on the gradient. But it’s a pretty consistent power output for 3hrs.

I’m basing my incredibly limited cycling knowledge on listening to my friends talk about their weekend rides. Certainly seems like a lot more variance with power demands for the climbs, slip streaming on the descents, and then the variance from peloton positioning when they’re in the long flat sections along the coast.

Re: USDA ignoring the science on low-carb diets

#275

Post by sizzle »

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…

Thoughts on artificial sugars like Splenda or natural alternatives like Stevia that don’t spike blood sugar? What about Agave or lower glycemic index sweeteners.

Finally, what about fruit? Isn’t Fructose really bad for your body, the science tells us?

Re: USDA ignoring the science on low-carb diets

#276

Post by sizzle »

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…

What is the PH of Coffee that it is causing this damage or is it a different molecule in coffee?

Re: USDA ignoring the science on low-carb diets

#277

Post by sph »

datacruncher01 wrote: post #258
thebigspacefuck wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What are the essential healthy foods that are missing?

The nutrients you'll be lacking typically include Folate, Thiamin(B1), Potassium, Calcium, and Manganese. You can do a healthy Keto and incorporate all of these but a lot of people stop and think I'll just eat as much bacon, steak, and chicken as I want. Also missing are legumes which are very healthy for you.

Please do some research before stating some blatantly incorrect facts. Here, I've done it for you.

* The biggest amount of folate per 100g can be found in chicken and calf liver, then nuts. There's some in legumes but "it is soluble in water, and so may be lost from foods boiled in water": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folate#Sources

* Thiamine is found in good amounts in pork and nuts: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thiamine#Sources

* Calcium is found in great amounts in dairy and animal bones (stock, marrow, etc.)

* Potassium is found pretty much anywhere and deficiency is extremely rare.

* Manganese is found in leafy green vegetables and nuts, both very low carb.

In general meat is the most complete food you can ingest. Nothing else comes even close. And meat is not only filet steak, organ meat is where most of the micronutrients are.

--

> missing are legumes which are very healthy for you

Another wives' tale. I guess you've never heard of phytic acid, have you? The more legumes you ingest, the less minerals your body is able to absorb.

"It is [...] present in many legumes, cereals, and grains. Phytic acid and phytate have a strong binding affinity to the dietary minerals, calcium, iron, and zinc, inhibiting their absorption in the small intestine".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phytic_acid

Re: USDA ignoring the science on low-carb diets

#278

Post by nradov »

glenngillen wrote: post #274
nradov wrote: post #268

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Marathon running is typically at a steady pace with only minor variations in the energy output needed. Except for time trials, cycling power is a lot more variable. A cyclist in a road race might be cruising along in the peloton for most of the race but then have to sprint near maximum power to attack or chase several times at unpredictable intervals. So training plans focused on one sport or the other end up looking…

More like a low 3:00 time for me these days (to answer OP). Which as you’ve said is mostly a product of a very steady pace. Hopefully only a 3% variance of my cadence over the distance. Pace may change a little based on the gradient. But it’s a pretty consistent power output for 3hrs. I’m basing my incredibly limited cycling knowledge on listening to my friends talk about their weekend rides. Certainly seems like a l…

Here's a good example from when Sepp Kuss won Stage 15 of the 2021 Tour de France. It was a massive effort over 5 hours but his power output varied a lot at various points.

https://www.strava.com/activities/5612150086/power-distribut...

Re: USDA ignoring the science on low-carb diets

#279

Post by ncmncm »

fsflover wrote: post #168
ncmncm wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That quote does not not support the assertion. And personal health was never the point of organic farming.

What was the point? Any links?

In a word, sustainability. It is about the farming.

Many people who buy organic food expect a reduced pesticide load (particularly in secondary products like eggs and dairy), but the main point is to support the organic farms and organic farmers, with the hope that the practice will spread.

Re: USDA ignoring the science on low-carb diets

#280

Post by sn9 »

timbit42 wrote: post #238
Dma54rhs wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Eating low-carb doesn't reduce weight directly, but indirectly. It reduces hunger because you don't get the sugar spike and subsequent crash which causes you to feel hungry 2 hours later. Instead, you get hungry 6 hours later. This helps reduce snacking between meals and total daily calories. Low-carb also helps because the carbs you eat are turned to sugar which your pancreas then has to produce insulin to tell your…

Or you could just eat as many carbs as you want, but from whole food sources with plenty of fiber like the rest of the world.
Post reply on HN