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

281–290 of 296 posts

Re: USDA ignoring the science on low-carb diets

#281

Post by Semaphor »

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 might chronically knock yourself out of keto without realizing it

Isn’t the keto flu something almost everyone experiences? That was always my understanding, so chronically knocking yourself out of ketosis would mean chronically being sick, I have a hard time believing people can do that without realizing it (and I’m one of the lucky ones where the process only takes a few days, it’s 1-2 weeks for my wife)

Re: USDA ignoring the science on low-carb diets

#282

Post by Semaphor »

strken wrote: post #184
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…

Not only my source, but me as well. I think it's plausible that e.g. keto (as in actually entering ketosis) could raise mortality but low carb diets could lower it, or that there's a confounding effect with dietary fibre, or that low carb diets usually involve increased processed meat intake, or [insert story here]. However, we're talking about general health advice. If you tell people to eat low carb diets, they eat…

> If you tell people to eat low carb diets, they eat less dietary fibre as a result

That’s not a given, I’ve actually started getting more fiber on keto than before.

Re: USDA ignoring the science on low-carb diets

#283

Post by strken »

Semaphor wrote: post #282
strken wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not only my source, but me as well. I think it's plausible that e.g. keto (as in actually entering ketosis) could raise mortality but low carb diets could lower it, or that there's a confounding effect with dietary fibre, or that low carb diets usually involve increased processed meat intake, or [insert story here]. However, we're talking about general health advice. If you tell people to eat low carb diets, they eat…

> If you tell people to eat low carb diets, they eat less dietary fibre as a result That’s not a given, I’ve actually started getting more fiber on keto than before.

That's not a given, it's the first two predicates of an illustrative example of how dietary advice is more complicated than "which diet is best?" If all three of those predicates hold true, then your advice has killed them, therefore all-cause mortality rate is important.

It doesn't matter what the exact reason for higher all-cause mortality rates on low carb diets is unless you can give people advice on how to avoid them. What's important is the outcome of giving the advice, not a theoretical ivory-tower diet that most of the population won't or can't eat.

Re: USDA ignoring the science on low-carb diets

#284

Post by bpizzi »

rafaelero wrote: post #247
bpizzi wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Meta-analyses are not a panacea, that's clear. As I suspect you know well, two further meta-analysis came to the same conclusion: Chowdhury 2014 [0], De Souza 2015 [1]. More recently, Kang in 2018 [2] and Zhu in 2019 are also stating that they fail to find evidence of a clear association between SFA consumption and risk of CVD. Obviously, as science is what it is (and that's a good thing), those study are debatable a…

Why are you relying on meta-analysis of observational studies when we have meta-analysis of RCT's?

I’m all ear actually, if you could kindly point me to the relevant material.

Re: USDA ignoring the science on low-carb diets

#285

Post by Semaphor »

strken wrote: post #283
Semaphor wrote: post #282

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you tell people to eat low carb diets, they eat less dietary fibre as a result That’s not a given, I’ve actually started getting more fiber on keto than before.

That's not a given, it's the first two predicates of an illustrative example of how dietary advice is more complicated than "which diet is best?" If all three of those predicates hold true, then your advice has killed them, therefore all-cause mortality rate is important. It doesn't matter what the exact reason for higher all-cause mortality rates on low carb diets is unless you can give people advice on how to avoid…

That’s like saying you should never give any advice unless you exhaustively list all possible ways for someone to fuck up the implementation. Telling someone the pharmacy is on the other side of the street will raise mortality unless you also tell them that they should check for cars before crossing. And not run into cars. Or walls close to the pharmacy.

Re: USDA ignoring the science on low-carb diets

#286

Post by [deleted] »

memcg wrote: post #227
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.

[deleted]

Re: USDA ignoring the science on low-carb diets

#287

Post by [deleted] »

memcg wrote: post #227
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.

[deleted]

Re: USDA ignoring the science on low-carb diets

#288

Post by eru »

thebigspacefuck wrote: post #233
eru wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps remove the government from these recommendations altogether? Don't they have more important things to do?

It could change which crops are subsidized. Imagine if broccoli were subsidized as much as corn.

I'd rather imagine corn not being subsidized..

Re: USDA ignoring the science on low-carb diets

#289

Post by rvbissell »

eurasiantiger wrote: post #48
rvbissell wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hint: water is a chemical.

That’s not what was meant and you know it. You’re being intellectually dishonest.

I point that out in conversations similar to ours because (in my experience) so many people who make the chemical-free argument do so because they've fallen for the Appeal-To-Nature fallacy, e.g. "naturally grown food must be better for you." The reality is that Nature only finds local maxima for some variables relevant to the organism's survival, and those variables aren't necessarily relevant to what is best for human health.

In this particular thread, my first contribution was too flippant to be constructive, so I deserved the down-vote. But I wasn't being intellectually dishonest.

Re: USDA ignoring the science on low-carb diets

#290

Post by heywoodlh »

diffeomorphism wrote: post #57
heywoodlh wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you implying that there isn't nuance in diet from person to person? i.e. low-carb diets works for everyone? Oil in cars and cancer treatments you don't really have choices but there are many choices for diets. On top of that, in my experience some people's bodies have different affinities or intolerances (i.e. lactose intolerance). I feel like I agree with the original sentiment that diets can vary from person to…

> Are you implying that there isn't nuance in diet from person to person? Obviously they aren't "implying" any of that. But you know that and hence you made up this ridiculous straw man. So, yes, you are wrong and dishonest.

I was actually sincerely wondering if there is information indicating that low-carbing works for everyone. I apologize for coming off like I was looking for a straw man.
Post reply on HN