USDA ignoring the science on low-carb diets • Hacker News Board

Re: USDA ignoring the science on low-carb diets

#21

Post by darzu » Mon, Jun 27, 2022, 4:13 AM UTC

mlindner wrote: post #15

imglorp wrote: post #10

The USDA only protects and represents producers: full corporate capture. They run interference for Puppy mills [1], organic food mislabeling [2], misdirected trade aid to large operations instead of family farms [3], and germane to OP, all kinds of lobbying and gigabuck price supports for dairy products which shouldn't even be recommended daily diet. Etc. 1, https://www.aspca.org/news/usda-letting-puppy-mills-operate…

Organic food itself is a fraud as it doesn't actually mean anything. If anything they should just ban the label entirely.

Citations needed. I worked on an organic vineyard for a summer and I can tell you it took a lot of work to get that label.

Non-organic vineyards in our area had barren earth or gravel under the stalks as they used weedkillers regularly. In contrast, we practiced “turf flipping” where we would, with clever machine and hard work, turn the soil over to smother weeds. The soil was alive and rich with the longest earthworms I’ve ever seen. This took incomparably more time than spraying chemicals but we believed in the mission. And the extra money from labeling it organic didn’t come close to covering the extra effort.

In some cases at least, the label means something.

Re: USDA ignoring the science on low-carb diets

#22

Post by cmckn » Mon, Jun 27, 2022, 4:14 AM UTC

mlindner wrote: post #15

imglorp wrote: post #10

The USDA only protects and represents producers: full corporate capture. They run interference for Puppy mills [1], organic food mislabeling [2], misdirected trade aid to large operations instead of family farms [3], and germane to OP, all kinds of lobbying and gigabuck price supports for dairy products which shouldn't even be recommended daily diet. Etc. 1, https://www.aspca.org/news/usda-letting-puppy-mills-operate…

Organic food itself is a fraud as it doesn't actually mean anything. If anything they should just ban the label entirely.

It’s (generally, though not always) a proxy for “premium” food; so it’s useful to me as a consumer in that sense. But yeah, the idea that “organic” has any meaningful benefit is flimsy even when the definition is strict.

Re: USDA ignoring the science on low-carb diets

#23

Post by andreareina » Mon, Jun 27, 2022, 4:22 AM UTC

TeeMassive wrote: post #3

throwaway98797 wrote: post #2

the best diet is the one that works for you. for some it’s low carb, for others it’s vegan. what’s key is to focus on what you eat, that’s probably 80% of the battle.

Euh no, while diets must be adapted to individuals, there are objective and well established principles about what works or not.

The problem isn't finding a diet that works: anything that reduces calories below maintenance does it. The problem is what a person will stick to. Different people find different diets to be easier to stick to. If they're luck they find one that leads to a spontaneous reduction of calories consumed and don't need to count.

Re: USDA ignoring the science on low-carb diets

#24

Post by StanislavPetrov » Mon, Jun 27, 2022, 4:23 AM UTC

mlindner wrote: post #15

imglorp wrote: post #10

The USDA only protects and represents producers: full corporate capture. They run interference for Puppy mills [1], organic food mislabeling [2], misdirected trade aid to large operations instead of family farms [3], and germane to OP, all kinds of lobbying and gigabuck price supports for dairy products which shouldn't even be recommended daily diet. Etc. 1, https://www.aspca.org/news/usda-letting-puppy-mills-operate…

Organic food itself is a fraud as it doesn't actually mean anything. If anything they should just ban the label entirely.

That's completely false.

While the label "organic" may have been hijacked and rendered largely meaningless by government agencies like the FDA and their corporate masters, there is indeed a difference between food produced using chemicals, pesticides, antibiotics and growth hormones (among other things), and food that is produced naturally without these drugs, poisons and other additives. That some people dispute the fact that there is a measurable difference in health outcomes when consuming food produced "naturally" vs food produced with a host of drugs, chemicals and poisons is irrelevant to the fact that the word "organic" actually has a meaning, and people who choose to consume food produced without drugs, chemicals and poisons should be free to do so (even if this is considered silly by those who believe that the drugs, chemicals and poisons used to produce their food have no measurable effects).

Re: USDA ignoring the science on low-carb diets

#25

Post by andreareina » Mon, Jun 27, 2022, 4:27 AM UTC

themitigating wrote: post #14

throwaway98797 wrote: post #2

the best diet is the one that works for you. for some it’s low carb, for others it’s vegan. what’s key is to focus on what you eat, that’s probably 80% of the battle.

"The best treatment for cancer is the one that works for you" "The best way to change your oil is the one that works for your car" Come on.

The difference is that for weight loss they basically all work (to the extent that they reduce calories). So "what works for you" translates to "what lets you consume X calories with less mental effort".

Re: USDA ignoring the science on low-carb diets

#26

Post by Scalene2 » Mon, Jun 27, 2022, 4:28 AM UTC

StanislavPetrov wrote: post #24

mlindner wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Organic food itself is a fraud as it doesn't actually mean anything. If anything they should just ban the label entirely.

That's completely false. While the label "organic" may have been hijacked and rendered largely meaningless by government agencies like the FDA and their corporate masters, there is indeed a difference between food produced using chemicals, pesticides, antibiotics and growth hormones (among other things), and food that is produced naturally without these drugs, poisons and other additives. That some people dispute the…

It is impossible to produce food without chemicals.

Re: USDA ignoring the science on low-carb diets

#27

Post by StanislavPetrov » Mon, Jun 27, 2022, 4:28 AM UTC

themitigating wrote: post #14

throwaway98797 wrote: post #2

the best diet is the one that works for you. for some it’s low carb, for others it’s vegan. what’s key is to focus on what you eat, that’s probably 80% of the battle.

"The best treatment for cancer is the one that works for you" "The best way to change your oil is the one that works for your car" Come on.

Both of the above statements are true, which anyone who is an expert in the field of cancer treatment or automotives will be happy to explain. Cancers, like automobiles (and most everything else), vary widely, and have different optimal courses of treatment for the ideal outcome.

Re: USDA ignoring the science on low-carb diets

#28

Post by tylersmith » Mon, Jun 27, 2022, 4:29 AM UTC

Madmallard wrote: post #5

readthenotes1 wrote: post #4

I'll know they're serious about health when they put a tax on added sugar and an additional tax on high fructose corn syrup. Until then, they're just actors on a stage

Do you mean taxes on the producers for using it because it is addictive? Because taxes on the consumer makes zero sense.

Consumers pay the cost of production, taxes and all. Otherwise the business is losing money.

Re: USDA ignoring the science on low-carb diets

#29

Post by StanislavPetrov » Mon, Jun 27, 2022, 4:30 AM UTC

Scalene2 wrote: post #26

StanislavPetrov wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's completely false. While the label "organic" may have been hijacked and rendered largely meaningless by government agencies like the FDA and their corporate masters, there is indeed a difference between food produced using chemicals, pesticides, antibiotics and growth hormones (among other things), and food that is produced naturally without these drugs, poisons and other additives. That some people dispute the…

It is impossible to produce food without chemicals.

I'm sure if they were still around today those who produced food for thousands of years without chemicals would beg to differ.

Re: USDA ignoring the science on low-carb diets

#30

Post by recyclelater » Mon, Jun 27, 2022, 4:30 AM UTC

andreareina wrote: post #23

TeeMassive wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Euh no, while diets must be adapted to individuals, there are objective and well established principles about what works or not.

The problem isn't finding a diet that works: anything that reduces calories below maintenance does it. The problem is what a person will stick to . Different people find different diets to be easier to stick to. If they're luck they find one that leads to a spontaneous reduction of calories consumed and don't need to count.

Not anything, you could run a five hundred calorie deficit and only eat table sugar. You’d lose weight and gain serious metabolic disease.

This is an extreme, but obviously there’s better and worse things. Maybe it’s pretty comparable in the reasonable middle, but let’s not kid ourselves and say anything can work if we are talking whole body health not just weight loss.