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

USDA ignoring the science on low-carb diets

unsettledscience.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 296 posts

Re: USDA ignoring the science on low-carb diets

#31

Post by shkkmo »

Spivak wrote: post #18

I wish the article was framed in terms of what the author really wants instead of burying it. The author is framing the issue as something mostly non-political, simply acknowledging the existing body of research, but actually wants something very political which is changing the USDA guidelines (which have far reaching effects) to recommend low-carb as essentially the go to default diet. So while the aim is noble the…

> but actually wants something very political which is changing the USDA guidelines (which have far reaching effects) to recommend low-carb as essentially the go to default diet.

That seems like an uncharitable and inaccurate assumption on your part and goes against what the author explicitly stated. The author summarizes their argument at the end of the article: "But the only way to create change is if the Dietary Guidelines considers low-carb as an option. Not a prescription, just an option."

> the accusation of ignoring science except as a way to make the board look bad because the author would clearly not be satisfied with “we each read in full literally every paper on the subject of low-carb diets but as a group remain unconvinced in its merits for a general recommendation.”

The author laid out a pretty clear case for the claim. Instead of engaging with that case, you instead choose to speculate that the author has unreachable standards.

That is not how you engage in good faith discussion.

Re: USDA ignoring the science on low-carb diets

#32

Post by thelittleone »

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 can remember.

My habits formed when young and when my body was more capable of handling high sugar. But after aging, insulin sensitivity declines, sugars have a more adverse effect, and feels like high sugar levels have just been feeding an imbalance in the GI tract.

Reading into the peculiar new science of poop transplants it's been interesting to observe my body as a factory process and the quality of the output (poop) is an important great indicator of system health. Obvious to many, but was not to me for years. In parallel to improved gut health my focus and productivity are more predictable.

I thought I'd never kick my addiction to sugar. After making the switch and viewing from a different perspective I'm shocked how where I live 95% of everything in the grocery store has sugar added.

Re: USDA ignoring the science on low-carb diets

#33

Post by sfifs »

darzu wrote: post #21
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.

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 earthwor…

I think the question really is about benefit/trade-offs of the work/costs that goes into the organic. Apart from of course outright fraudulent actors.

Case in point is Sri Lanka's current economic meltdown (1) - which is to a significant extent attributed to the government going all in on organic, banning fertilizers resulting in yields plummeting - less food to go around and no longer self sufficient, exports plumetting so less hard cash to buy oil, medicines no way to provide power, transport etc

(1) https://foreignpolicy.com/2022/03/05/sri-lanka-organic-farmi...

Re: USDA ignoring the science on low-carb diets

#34

Post by mhh__ »

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 best knife sharpening method is the one you actually do.

This isn't about efficacy but rather sticking to it. A diet you hate is, just that, a diet not a change in lifestyle.

Re: USDA ignoring the science on low-carb diets

#36

Post by vanattab »

StanislavPetrov wrote: post #29
Scalene2 wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

His point was they are/were using chemicals regardless of if they understood the chemistry at a low level or not. When ancient people/(or modern) used dung to fertilize crops they are using chemicals. With that being said I think when the power of modern chemistry / genetic engineering and modern economic agricultureraly forces collide caution is warranted.

Re: USDA ignoring the science on low-carb diets

#37

Post by rvbissell »

StanislavPetrov wrote: post #29
Scalene2 wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Hint: water is a chemical.

Re: USDA ignoring the science on low-carb diets

#38

Post by throwawaymaths »

sfifs wrote: post #33
darzu wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 earthwor…

I think the question really is about benefit/trade-offs of the work/costs that goes into the organic. Apart from of course outright fraudulent actors. Case in point is Sri Lanka's current economic meltdown (1) - which is to a significant extent attributed to the government going all in on organic, banning fertilizers resulting in yields plummeting - less food to go around and no longer self sufficient, exports plumet…

Come on. Converting to all-organic at once having failed by no means suggests that slowly phasing out to get to organic wouldn't work.

Switching suddenly, and by means of a ban -- what could go wrong?

A free-market gradualistic solution would be to cap pesticide and fertilizer imports and auction licenses to buy them.

Re: USDA ignoring the science on low-carb diets

#39

Post by andreareina »

recyclelater wrote: post #30
andreareina wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Given Professor Twinkie's experience I wouldn't be surprised if I didn't. We're finding more and more that for overweight people losing weight (and keeping it off, hence "what works for you") is the single best intervention they can do for better health.

ETA: obviously I'm not advocating eating only sugar or twinkies. The point is that adherence is an crucial factor, more so than is often given credit.

Post reply on HN