A Call for a Low-Carb Diet • Hacker News Board

Re: A Call for a Low-Carb Diet

#231

Post by jerf » Tue, Sep 02, 2014, 3:08 PM UTC

a8da6b0c91d wrote: post #70

jerf wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If it just told us that "fewer food choices lead to spontaneous calorie restriction", then both groups should have roughly equal results. They didn't. Any putative explanation of the results really needs to, well, explain the results. Not explain results other than the ones obtained.

Well, they did have roughly equal results if you look at the study. Both groups went from obese to slightly less obese. That said I don't follow your reasoning about equivalence. One diet was low carb. The other allowed for quite a bit of both fat and carbohydrate. Can't you see the difference?

The degree of squinting you're applying to call the results "equal" is not scientifically useful.

In fact I'd suggest you consider this a clue... you're clearly explaining away, rather than explaining. "Explaining away" is in a way the most fundamentally unscientific operation there is... the fact that you're joined by a number of people who call themselves "scientists" even so doesn't change that.

(No joke. The fundamental breakthrough of science philosophy is that instead of asking the cognitively-natural "How can I prove I am correct?", science teaches us to ask "How can I prove I am wrong?" Everything else is just elaborations on that theme. "Explaining away" is one of the easiest ways to do the first, and is thus one of the easiest unscientific things to do. The fact that we've managed to train a great number of people who fancy themselves scientists but think their job is more about the first than the second is an indictment of our society, not an excuse to follow those people.)

Re: A Call for a Low-Carb Diet

#232

Post by programminggeek » Tue, Sep 02, 2014, 3:52 PM UTC

I like low carb diet, but I think when people jump to primal arguments, they also forget that primal times you didn't have a constant, easy, cheap food source at your disposal 24/7.

At some point, things like fasting and reduced calorie intake combined with something low carb is probably closest to "primal" diets. Making pancakes with almond flour isn't.

If more people went without food somewhat regularly, they would probably be better off than they are eating 2000+ calories a day like people do now.

Macronutrients do matter, but volume matters as well. In my experience, higher fat diets keep you from eating as much, so you naturally get fewer calories and thus you lose weight.

If you could eat a high fat diet with 8000 calories a day, you'd still get fat, but my guess is that when people consciously eat a high fat diet, they are going to end up eating say 300-500 calories a day less over time, and that gives a significant advantage over a period of months or years.

Re: A Call for a Low-Carb Diet

#233

Post by hackaflocka » Tue, Sep 02, 2014, 4:30 PM UTC

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.…

Great points. You're being down-voted because you're asking people to think for themselves.

I have a question: if I cook chicken, meat etc. with "bone-in", do I get the benefits of bone-broth, glycine, etc.?

Re: A Call for a Low-Carb Diet

#234

Post by Cacti » Tue, Sep 02, 2014, 4:40 PM UTC

Mikeb85 wrote: post #160

Carbs = sugar. Sugar, if not burned off, gets stored as fat. Carb intake needs to match activity level. And of course, a varied diet is key (including fats). Eat carbs in the morning, protein later in the day, eat a varied diet with a good amount of vegetables, eat high quality fats (olive and other seed oils, nut oils, and even moderate amounts of butter), and exercise a decent amount (even just being active, not go…

Simple/refined carbs = sugar. Too much sugar in too short a time = insulin is generated to convert the sugar to fat. This time frame is about 30 min, so, unless you are exercising while eating, almost all simple carbs and sugars will end up as fat. Perhaps then you can burn off the fact but that is not entirely dependent on exercise but about how your body will react to that exercise in the light of other issues (what else you're eating, if you're fasting, what your sleep levels are like, etc.).

Re: A Call for a Low-Carb Diet

#235

Post by elliott34 » Tue, Sep 02, 2014, 4:43 PM UTC

laichzeit0 wrote: post #171

vacri wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I lost 10kg last year on a low-carb diet. The diet was "eat no more than two slices of bread's worth of carbs per day", and knowing what carbs are (including rice and sugar). There's very little management or tracking required, and certainly no need for a mental 'calorie dictionary'. Counting calories is not as trivial as you make it sound, and I don't think it's warranted that you mock people as lazy for not doing s…

My main gripe is that low-carb dieting is being sold as a "one stop shop" for dieting. You'll notice how the undertone of the article is that it's more "healthy" and "lower risk" to eat low carb. This complete myth if you count your calories. It's the programming world equivalent of someone going "A call for Functional Programming" and then telling you how shit imperative languages are. If everyone just coded in Hask…

Do you work from home?

Re: A Call for a Low-Carb Diet

#236

Post by jordsmi » Tue, Sep 02, 2014, 5:10 PM UTC

sb23 wrote: post #145

jordsmi wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm currently on a keto diet and have lost like 60 pounds. For my snacks I eat pepperoni, beef sticks, almonds(so many different flavored versions. smokehouse jalapeno is my favorite), cheeses, pork rinds, sugar free jello(cut with HWC), and this chocolate pudding/mousse I make.

Got a recipe for the chocolate mousse?

This is about what I do: 1/4-1/2 cup heavy whipping cream, 2 tbsp cocoa, half a scoop of chocolate whey.

Then just whip it until it gets the texture you want. Barely whip for pudding, whip alot for a more mousse like texture. Sometime I'll freeze it in cubes and they taste like fudge pops.

Re: A Call for a Low-Carb Diet

#237

Post by Mikeb85 » Tue, Sep 02, 2014, 5:24 PM UTC

PeterisP wrote: post #208

Mikeb85 wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ask any archaeologist. Most adult hunter gatherers did not make it to 40. We're not talking averages, we're talking maximum life expectancy...

The modal age of death for hunter gatherers that survived to adulthood ranges from 65 to 72 among the reasearched cultures. Sure, a large proportion of them die at early childhood - "life expectancy" measures takes that into account by definition, as it measures the total average life expectancy; and if you get a 100 kids who live to 70 and 100 kids who die as infants, then the average life expectancy is 35.

Maybe you could present a paper? Because amongst most hunter gatherers researched the modal age is much lower...

Re: A Call for a Low-Carb Diet

#238

Post by PeterisP » Tue, Sep 02, 2014, 6:26 PM UTC

Mikeb85 wrote: post #237

PeterisP wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The modal age of death for hunter gatherers that survived to adulthood ranges from 65 to 72 among the reasearched cultures. Sure, a large proportion of them die at early childhood - "life expectancy" measures takes that into account by definition, as it measures the total average life expectancy; and if you get a 100 kids who live to 70 and 100 kids who die as infants, then the average life expectancy is 35.

Maybe you could present a paper? Because amongst most hunter gatherers researched the modal age is much lower...

M.Gurven & H.Kaplan Longevity Among Hunter-Gatherers: A Cross-Cultural Examination has a conclusion of "The average modal age of adult death for hunter-gatherers is 72 with a range of 68–78 years."

It's not about the ancient societies but is relevant because for this discussion the point is not history, but the effects of a hunter-gatherer diet.

http://www.anth.ucsb.edu/faculty/gurven/papers/GurvenKaplan2...

Re: A Call for a Low-Carb Diet

#239

Post by toomuchtodo » Tue, Sep 02, 2014, 6:53 PM UTC

nashequilibrium wrote: post #199

cdurr wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 bodybui…

I'm on an extreme version of keto (come stop by /r/keto on reddit!), where I consume under 20g/sugar a day (the rest is fat and vegetable protein). I'm losing ~2-2.5lbs/week, and have never felt better.

Re: A Call for a Low-Carb Diet

#240

Post by Evgeny » Tue, Sep 02, 2014, 8:06 PM UTC

will_work4tears wrote: post #220

Evgeny wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sugar, potatoes, properly prepared white flour, and white rice are excellent food choices. All mentioned, except probably potatoes, have very low nutrient density (also called "empty calories"). That alone makes them horrible food choices, even not considering the effects on metabolism. Potatoes are ok though, I was surprised to find out that they contain complete protein. There were also some studies that recorded b…

Sugar and white rice are on that list and you single out potatoes? Nutritiondata.self.com has a "completeness score" of 57/100 for potatoes, but only 27/100 for white rice (long grain), and a 0/100 for sugar (which is nothing but empty calories). FWIW, wheat flour is listed as 33/100 so potatoes are the top of the whole list. Edit: for comparison, Kale (raw) has a "completeness score" of 85/100 and Spinach (cooked) h…

Sugar and white rice are on that list and you single out potatoes?

Yes, sorry - I singled out potatoes as a decent food, while the others are truly horrible.