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

A Call for a Low-Carb Diet

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 248 posts

Re: A Call for a Low-Carb Diet

#191

Post by collyw »

Smaug123 wrote: post #163
drcode wrote: post #26

I know this is just anecdotal coincidence (and not really that interesting to most people other than myself) but today when I weighed myself I had my ideal body weight for the first time in my life. This is after following a low carb diet for six months and losing 50 pounds... so throw another vote in the "yes, low carb seems to be effective" bucket. The findings in this article are certainly music to my ears. (Here…

For me, a very-low-carb diet clears up my acne within four weeks of starting the diet. It comes back again within a week of ending the diet. (I also find low-carb very hard to stick to.)

I noticed the same sort of thing (many years ago when I was a student), going from processed foods to cooking fresh. I mainly did it to save money (a bag of potatoes was cheap), but noticed less colds and acne as a side effect.

Re: A Call for a Low-Carb Diet

#192

Post by huehue »

a8da6b0c91d wrote: post #37
latch wrote: post #11

It'd be nice to have this squared with research in vegetarianism (high-carb, low-fat) which long term studies indicate has a number of health benefits [1] My own take, which I've mentioned before, is that the the starting point is so bad (refined carbohydrates) that you can pretty much walk in any direction and get positive results. That is, what people are eating doesn't matter nearly as much as what people aren't.…

Refined carbohydrates are not a problem. Sugar, potatoes, properly prepared white flour, and white rice are excellent food choices. In fact they are superior choices to foods like whole grains and beans, which tend to have allergens and antinutrients like phytic acid and trypsin inhibitors. Anyway, any apparent epidemiological advantages to avoiding animal products in the industrialized world come down to two things.…

You're giving out excellent advice and I have no idea why you're being down-voted. It seems to me that some folks can't stand to lose their scapegoat, which currently happens to be sugar/fructose, as saturated fat was in the 80s.

As for the empty calories counter argument, sometimes you just need energy/heat and simple sugars are a wonderful source. The average healthy person is eating between 2500 and 3000 calories a day. So even if you're eating half of them as junk you're still leaving enough room for nutrient dense foods.

Re: A Call for a Low-Carb Diet

#193

Post by Evgeny »

source99 wrote: post #89

Carbs(aka glucose) is a poisonous substance and as soon as your body detects the glucose it releases insulin. The Insulin lowers blood glucose levels by forcing the glucose to move into your fat cells as fat(through a long chain reaction). So carbs essentially become fat. If you don't eat carbs your body doesn't release insulin so you can't store anything as fat. In fact once you truly go very low carb your body rele…

Carbs(aka glucose)

No, these are not equal. Carbs covers all carbohydrates, including starches, cellulose etc. Glucose is a simple carbohydrate - what all carbs are broken down to by the digestive system, if they can be broken (cellulose, i.e., can not be digested by humans). So glucose indeed may raise insulin significantly, while more complex carbs by a lesser and slower degree.

If you don't eat carbs your body doesn't release insulin so you can't store anything as fat.

This is completely wrong at least on two counts. First, proteins also raise insulin significantly, just as much as carbohydrates. Second, you certainly can store fat as fat on a low carb diet, and you will, if you keep overeating.

Re: A Call for a Low-Carb Diet

#194

Post by andyjohnson0 »

vacri wrote: post #174
Mikeb85 wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And yet some of the healthiest people on earth eat vegetable heavy diets... The archaeological record shows that hunter-gatherers had an abysmally short lifespan, and were far from healthy... Pretty much every positive development in human health history happened after the advent of agriculture. Hunter gatherers were lucky to live past 30... I'd guess your 'low carb' diet still had more vegetables and grains than mos…

The whole vegetarian vs meat-eater thing is something of a canard anyway. We're biologically omnivores. If you want to be a vegetarian, that's cool, but you need to ensure your diet covers the things you'd usually get from meats. But at this point, you're making a moral decision, not a nutritional decision - whether you get your protein from fish or from beans matters little to your body, as long as you get it. Hunte…

Wikipedia has some numbers [1] on life expectancy at various time in history.

In the Upper Paleolithic, life expectancy at birth was 33 years, and by 15 years of age the total expectancy went up to 54 years.

In Classical Rome, life expectancy at birth was 20-30 years, and by 10 years of age the total expectancy went up to 45-47 years.

In Medieval Britain, life expectancy at birth was 30 years, and by 15 years of age the total expectancy went up to 64 years.

This looks kind of mixed to me. Certainly, as you point out, people weren't "dropping dead at 30". But dying around 45 or 55 is not what people nowadays would call a "fairly full adult life" either.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_expectancy#Life_expectancy...

Re: A Call for a Low-Carb Diet

#195

Post by martiuk »

Mikeb85 wrote: post #178
martiuk wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you sure your number excludes early years deaths? I've seen this number bandied around and every time it include stillbirths and early years deaths.

It's not an average...

So, what you're saying is... every hunter-gatherer died before they were 30? Sounds like an average to me.

Re: A Call for a Low-Carb Diet

#196

Post by peripitea »

Elizer0x0309 wrote: post #50

Add to the fact that carbs cause a lot of what I like to call depressive-crashes, compared to caffeine-crashes for example. Since off carbs I'm on a high and yes a I do a lot of caffeine, the latter doesn't lead to depressive moods and also no weight gain! Carbs are still useful for high intensity athletes and before a high endurance workout (I'm talking fruits here and not the junk food).

I've been doing low carb on and off for a few years now, and have actually found it fine for athletics. The most striking example is that I ran a tough mudder (20km run through mountainous obstacle course; takes 4-5 hours) on nothing but a big portion of bacon I'd eaten that morning. I still felt full of energy at the end. I'd brought a bunch of snacks with me to be safe, but never ended up needing them. By comparison, I've done some other endurance stuff while not on low carb and there's no way I could have gone that long without refueling.

Re: A Call for a Low-Carb Diet

#197

Post by beaumartinez »

arjie wrote: post #62

Admittedly with little research I tried out a low-carb (more like no-carb) diet (of my own invention). I ate pretty much only meat and green leafy vegetables. I was ravenous all throughout. I remember eating large amounts of meat and still feeling like I was starving. It was hard to concentrate on pre-exam days because I was so hungry.

It's because you weren't eating any fats. On a low-carb diet, your body uses fat as its energy source. If you don't eat any fat, your body will not willingly consume your body fat.

Excess protein you eat is effectively broken down into carbohydrates as well—so everything was working against you.

> With little research

Try it again—/r/keto have an excellent FAQ.

Re: A Call for a Low-Carb Diet

#198

Post by collyw »

abecedarius wrote: post #142
latch wrote: post #11

It'd be nice to have this squared with research in vegetarianism (high-carb, low-fat) which long term studies indicate has a number of health benefits [1] My own take, which I've mentioned before, is that the the starting point is so bad (refined carbohydrates) that you can pretty much walk in any direction and get positive results. That is, what people are eating doesn't matter nearly as much as what people aren't.…

Visiting Buenos Aires, I noticed the patrons at a vegetarian restaurant were fatter than usual in that famously meat-centric city. (I went there three times.) This is just an anecdote, I know. I agree that a good vegetarian diet's probably much healthier than a standard American one.

The heavier vegetarians I know tend to be chocolate monsters.

Re: A Call for a Low-Carb Diet

#199

Post by nashequilibrium »

cdurr wrote: post #109
chriskanan wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Same here, except I'm not at my ideal weight yet. Since starting a low-carb and fairly lean meat diet, I've lost 20 lbs in three months (200 -> 180, and hoping to get back to my pre-grad school weight of 160). I feel awesome, and I intend to keep up with this in the long-term. The diet is basically to eat lean protein sources (scallops, salmon, round or loin steaks, chicken without skin, whey protein shakes (brand de…

Why are you going for lean meats? Most low carbers encourage consumption of fattier meats, to encourage production of ketones. Unless you're trying to limit your omega 6 intake, I don't see how it would be beneficial to eat lean meats on a low carb diet as a lower fat diet would limit your body fat mobilization and encourage muscle wasting through gluconeogenesis. But if it's going well for you, power on. I however,…

You talking about a keto diet which is high protein, high fat, limiting the carbs to under 50g or less, depending on your size. High protein, Low carb, does not reduce the carbs to such a level that it puts you in a keto state. Half a cup of mixed veg has around 12g carbs, so eating a cup at every meal with your protein will not put you in a keto state but will keep you at a low carb level. This is where most bodybuilders stay or go for 40/40/20 ration with 20 being fats.

Re: A Call for a Low-Carb Diet

#200

Post by lukasm »

timcederman wrote: post #186
jrapdx3 wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

True enough, life span was often short until fairly recent times. In the distant past there were many factors affecting life span, e.g., diseases, accidents, predation (by large feline species in particular), childbirth to name a few. However there is evidence of populations in pre-agricultural times which had favorable environments and consequently better health. In fact there was just published by the Smithsonian a…

No, not true - life span has always been long (ish), but life EXPECTANCY has been low due to infant mortality.

Depends what do you mean by long-ish. It's possible that life span in 10 000 B.C. was 50 and in 1500 A.C. was 70.*

*Aristocrats and other people that had high protein intake, security etc.

Post reply on HN