Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The case for eating steak and cream

economist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 88 posts

Re: The case for eating steak and cream

#41

Post by nashequilibrium »

steveklabnik wrote: post #38
nashequilibrium wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Keto is not meant for long-term use. You will have one miserable life if you could pull that off but i doubt you could even if u tried. It works really well for cutting that last bit of stubborn fat when u trying to show your six pack.

There actually are people on long-term keto diets. It's actually used to help certain kinds of epilepsy, for example.

Maybe in extreme cases, read this docs blog, he has done keto for a long time but i noticed he has now changed up and only does it at certain times. Also he has a lot of stuff on keto. http://eatingacademy.com/personal/actually-eat-part-iii-circ...

Re: The case for eating steak and cream

#42

Post by fredsted »

scottjad wrote: post #6

For a critical response to Gary Taubes and the many other cholesterol confusionists, I highly recommend the videos by the PrimitiveNutrition Youtube user. He has over 30 hours of entertaining video analyzing medical studies and arguments related to this topic including the common attacks on Ancel Keys regurgitated in TFA. https://www.youtube.com/user/PrimitiveNutrition/featured Transcripts: http://www.plantpositive.c…

I'm a fan of Gary taubes (lost 30kg with simple low no-carb diet), those videos aren't really convincing. In the first one he talks about pork rinds being very bad, but really it's a good way to get some crisp in your food when you don't have flour and eggs. I couldn't get through it because of all the breathing.

Re: The case for eating steak and cream

#43

Post by xherberta »

hueving wrote: post #12
zt wrote: post #8

I have been participating in a Stanford Medical research study since October. The name of the randomized control study is "One Diet Does Not Fit All" ( http://nutrition.stanford.edu/projects/DietbyGenotype-Study.... ). The basic premise of the study is that as almost everyone has one of two insulin responses to glucose and that if you have one response, you should be on a low-fat diet, and if you have the other, you…

> it's as simple as calories in, calories out This is definitely true, if you eat less calories than you burn, you will lose weight. But this is really hard to enforce for many people. Without blatant calorie labels on everything you eat, it's really easy to go over and then assume that it must not be true.

Evidence does not support this as "definitely true." One example: http://m.ajcn.nutrition.org/content/79/5/899S.full

The human body is more complicated than that. Different foods cause different levels of insulin response. Insulin tells the body to "pack it away as fat." As mentioned in the article, it's likely insulin is more relevant to heart disease than saturated fat intake.

The role of insulin also helps to explain obesity observed in malnourished populations, people who simply aren't taking in enough calories to get fat, but are.

I also take issue with your message toward people who are struggling with overweight. It's not just that overweight people are bad at staying within limits; it's that fat cells stimulated by insulin to grow send messages requesting more energy, stimulating appetite.

Re: The case for eating steak and cream

#44

Post by xherberta »

Evgeny wrote: post #40
zurn wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A vegetarian calling meat eating "the most rational choice" ! It's destroying our planet and causing untold, horrific amounts suffering to animals just because people get a kick out of chewing on other beings. PS. I've been around other European countries most my vacations and never had the problem. Worst case you get salads and omelettes.

It's destroying our planet and causing untold, horrific amounts suffering to animals just because people get a kick out of chewing on other beings. You may be interested in this article: http://anthonycolpo.com/ordering-the-vegetarian-meal-theres-... Its arguments, in short, are: Published figures suggest that, in Australia, producing wheat and other grains results in: –at least 25 times more sentient animals being k…

Interesting! Thanks!

Animals do provide high quality fertilizers and ecosystem services. I'm trying to cut out factory farmed meat. Hence, budgetary constraints cause me to choose less meat and more pastured eggs.

Soy is insanely toxic. Until recently, Asians didn't consider it edible, except for monks who used it to decrease libido.

Re: The case for eating steak and cream

#45

Post by NotOscarWilde »

zurn wrote: post #34
NotOscarWilde wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a vegetarian, I don't laugh at people eating meat. In fact, when it comes to nutrition, eating (the right) meat is likely the most rational choice based on today's understanding. As a sidenote, I have looked into low-carb/keto diets and I've found that those are rather hard for vegetarians; reducing carb intake from some sources (rice, pasta) is easy, but even staple vegetarian foods rich in protein (tofu, lentils…

A vegetarian calling meat eating "the most rational choice" ! It's destroying our planet and causing untold, horrific amounts suffering to animals just because people get a kick out of chewing on other beings. PS. I've been around other European countries most my vacations and never had the problem. Worst case you get salads and omelettes.

I stand by my claim: rational when it comes to personal nutrition.

Destroying the planet and suffering of animals are worthy causes, but still unrelated to quality of personal nutrition.

Re: The case for eating steak and cream

#46

Post by NotOscarWilde »

ido wrote: post #18
NotOscarWilde wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a vegetarian, I don't laugh at people eating meat. In fact, when it comes to nutrition, eating (the right) meat is likely the most rational choice based on today's understanding. As a sidenote, I have looked into low-carb/keto diets and I've found that those are rather hard for vegetarians; reducing carb intake from some sources (rice, pasta) is easy, but even staple vegetarian foods rich in protein (tofu, lentils…

Where in Central Europe are you? I lived in Vienna and now living In Berlin, and while it was a bit of a struggle being vegetarian in the former it think over here there are actually quite a lot of good options (obviously not anywhere near as good as some other places like San Francisco).

Czech Republic. I don't complain about generic vegetarian places (indian food, asian food, some pasta), but if you wanted to go low-carb here, you find nothing.

Re: The case for eating steak and cream

#47

Post by Andys »

zt wrote: post #8

I have been participating in a Stanford Medical research study since October. The name of the randomized control study is "One Diet Does Not Fit All" ( http://nutrition.stanford.edu/projects/DietbyGenotype-Study.... ). The basic premise of the study is that as almost everyone has one of two insulin responses to glucose and that if you have one response, you should be on a low-fat diet, and if you have the other, you…

> it's as simple as calories in, calories out

I recently saw a study that was a great example of why it isn't this simple:

Intermittent fasting, with the same average daily calories consumed, resulted in more rapid weight loss than no fasting.

Re: The case for eating steak and cream

#49

Post by maxerickson »

Andys wrote: post #47
zt wrote: post #8

I have been participating in a Stanford Medical research study since October. The name of the randomized control study is "One Diet Does Not Fit All" ( http://nutrition.stanford.edu/projects/DietbyGenotype-Study.... ). The basic premise of the study is that as almost everyone has one of two insulin responses to glucose and that if you have one response, you should be on a low-fat diet, and if you have the other, you…

> it's as simple as calories in, calories out I recently saw a study that was a great example of why it isn't this simple: Intermittent fasting, with the same average daily calories consumed, resulted in more rapid weight loss than no fasting.

What were the details? If it's a statistically measurable 0.5% then who cares, if it's 15% then wow...

Re: The case for eating steak and cream

#50

Post by [deleted] »

zurn wrote: post #34
NotOscarWilde wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a vegetarian, I don't laugh at people eating meat. In fact, when it comes to nutrition, eating (the right) meat is likely the most rational choice based on today's understanding. As a sidenote, I have looked into low-carb/keto diets and I've found that those are rather hard for vegetarians; reducing carb intake from some sources (rice, pasta) is easy, but even staple vegetarian foods rich in protein (tofu, lentils…

A vegetarian calling meat eating "the most rational choice" ! It's destroying our planet and causing untold, horrific amounts suffering to animals just because people get a kick out of chewing on other beings. PS. I've been around other European countries most my vacations and never had the problem. Worst case you get salads and omelettes.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN