Live data from Hacker News

USDA ignoring the science on low-carb diets

unsettledscience.substack.com

131–140 of 296 posts

Re: USDA ignoring the science on low-carb diets

#131
post #106

Another case of "trust the experts" and a corrupt centralised entity. Of course it makes perfect sense: when you buy meat you're not buying highly processed, expensive, vegetarian/vegan food. The meat and dairy industry vs vegetarian food. Guess who can lobby more?

I don't know if this is sarcasm, but the answer is wholeheartedly the meat and dairy industry.

Imagine people still believing that veggie industry is small and not a gigantic player.

Every major organization/gov wants to make people eat more veggies and less meat

Re: USDA ignoring the science on low-carb diets

#132
post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Good for you. Strictly speaking, poop is not your body's output, it's your body's waste, and as such is indeed a good indicator of your body's efficiency in pulling out what it needs from the input. I guess your body's output is energy?

Good point. Similar to a car. Fuel is necessary to create power (output) and the exhaust is the waste. Putting bad fuel in reduces power and bad exhaust can be a symptom.

It's not the exhaust, that's what you exhale. It's more like disposable packaging. There isn't really a good analogy to fueling up a car; being fed by IV maybe?

Re: USDA ignoring the science on low-carb diets

#133
post #116
post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Only meat diet has some very serious downsides, though. It’s very environmentally unfriendly and because of the high cost it’s available to a very few people. That makes it rather hard to recommend, regardless of potential health upsides.

Any health-related downsides?

If the diet is high in (processed) red meat: higher cancer risk. If the diet is (too) high in saturated fat, increased cardio vascular risk.

Re: USDA ignoring the science on low-carb diets

#134
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…

yeah, obviously nutrition is far from being the only factor for their longevity and health in old age, but if you take the japanese diet, rice is a pretty major component in their calorie input...

Re: USDA ignoring the science on low-carb diets

#135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree. When it comes to your eating habits listen to your body and ignore well meant but oftesn outright dangerous comments like this. Especially from anyone that has a “miracle” cure just for you. I have never eaten breakfast, always hated eating before lunch. Having had this exact comment thrown in my face for 30 years. Turns out ignoring everything and doing whatever fit me was not only healthy but has strong…

Americans have been "listening" to their bodies for the past decades. Has it worked out for them? This is terrible advice sir

Surely you don’t mean that. You just stereotyped ~350M people, some of them are obese, and some of them world class athletes, and everywhere in between. What a thoughtless, low-effort comment to make.

Re: USDA ignoring the science on low-carb diets

#136
post #60

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…

Good for you. Strictly speaking, poop is not your body's output, it's your body's waste, and as such is indeed a good indicator of your body's efficiency in pulling out what it needs from the input. I guess your body's output is energy?

I would say there is no strictly speaking there without a strict context. Bear in mind the characteristics of different animals excrement is not designed to any specification, it evolves in the context of it altering the animals habitat to some extents. We specify 'waste' should alter our habitat to a minimal degree, but we cant say for sure it evolves to that effect. It can fertilize, it can create apparent immediate problems, but such apparent problems can have significant systematic roles. To me the term 'output' then is less potentially misleading than 'waste'. A bit like the distinction between a crop and a weed. Our naming of things encapsulates presumptions and intentions, which is fitting for design, but things that are not designed are liable to exceed expectations.

Re: USDA ignoring the science on low-carb diets

#137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The best way to change your oil is the one that works for your car" Which changes depending on your car, and standards have changed over time - in no small part because they wanted to sell more oil and filters (like selling diet food to folks) and you might not even need one if you have an electric and you might need more oil changes if you have a diesel engine. It doesn't mean that you should apply a one-size-fits-a…

Sorry but that doesn't come from feelings.

I'm not entirely certain what you are referring to at all? What feelings?

Re: USDA ignoring the science on low-carb diets

#138
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…

Carb is too broad of a term. Though it generally seems to mean "processed wheat with added refined sugar and oils". Yeah, processed foods aren't healthy. But fruits and vegetables are, and they have carbs (mostly simple, i.e. sugars)

Eating fruits is actually good for preventing type 2 diabetes [1]. In my personal experience, I've found that following a keto-ish approach for my diet by decreasing processed carbs, as well as increasing fruit intake, has had a positive impact on my weight/fasting blood sugar.

[1]: https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/press-releases/eating-whol...

Re: USDA ignoring the science on low-carb diets

#139
post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not enough fibre.

If you do keto, you are allowed to eat many vegetables that are rich in fibre. But if you follow a meat-only diet will make it really difficult to poop. I wonder how carnivorous animals do it. Are they constipated all the time?

> But if you follow a meat-only diet will make it really difficult to poop. I wonder how carnivorous animals do it. Are they constipated all the time?

Easiest poop was when I was carnivore(you poop very little amount). Being constipated means you didn't get enough fat. Having diarrhea means you got too much fat that your body couldn't absorb fast enough.

At start of carnivore you'll probably have diarrhea since your body/colon isn't yet used to so much fat/meat. But then you get get used to it (1-4 week).

Re: USDA ignoring the science on low-carb diets

#140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Taking off my pedantic hat, I think we agree. Meaning in the pragmatic real world, if you can keep weight off it’s better than having the weight on, and no one is doing that in the real world with an all sugar diet. With that being said, metabolic disease produces lots of skinny diabetics, and that will definitely shorten your life span.

Definitely getting OT and deep into the weeds here, I wonder how many of those skinny diabetics are due to LADA and not insulin resistance.

When you present with DM as an adult the immediate presumption is DM II not LADA and the insurance companies (and their actuaries) are uninterested in investigating otherwise. Thus endocrinologists are disincented to look as the hospital admin gets very upset when insurance companies deny reimbursement.

The ADA training the insurance companies recommend is weird too. It says, for example, that it’s fine to have a slice of cake, just have half. I assume this is because too large a change will lead to negligible compliance. I was at first shocked, but then wondered what kind of baseline recommendation would actually be effective.

Post reply on HN