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

51–60 of 296 posts

Re: USDA ignoring the science on low-carb diets

#51

Post by kikokikokiko »

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…

Sri-Lanka decided to only produce food "without drugs, chemicals and poisons". Now they're starving. You're lucky 99% of the organic labeled food you consume were in fact produced using the same things all of the vegetables in the world use, but anyways, if you prefer to pay double the price for smaller carrots, who am I to stop you.

Re: USDA ignoring the science on low-carb diets

#52

Post by RelaxedTree »

mertd wrote: post #6

I imagine if the headline news declared that we should reduce the carbs in our diets, most Americans would up the meat intake and not vegetables, and that would reduce fiber in their diet even more.

I am not sure. I think it’s hard to tell if that would happen. A lot of low carb and keto processed foods on the market today are normally very high fibre and are more convenient to consume than making low carb meals at home which would have a reduction of fibre in comparison.

However, I personally cannot eat fibrous foods. I’ve had to cut that completely out as a result of the damage fibre has done to my bowels after years “healthy” eating.

I am not alone in this either as there was even a clinical trial that studied the effects of fibre on patients with idiopathic constipation and the results were highly statistically significant in that it showed causation between the consumption of fibre and increased risk of bowel related illnesses. This is not an epidemiological study either that only shows correlation! https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3435786/

Re: USDA ignoring the science on low-carb diets

#53

Post by heywoodlh »

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.

Are you implying that there isn't nuance in diet from person to person? i.e. low-carb diets works for everyone?

Oil in cars and cancer treatments you don't really have choices but there are many choices for diets. On top of that, in my experience some people's bodies have different affinities or intolerances (i.e. lactose intolerance). I feel like I agree with the original sentiment that diets can vary from person to person.

Am I wrong, though?

Re: USDA ignoring the science on low-carb diets

#54

Post by nl »

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…

That's a completely different issue to if the label "organic" means something.

Re: USDA ignoring the science on low-carb diets

#55

Post by diffeomorphism »

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.

No, "ignore everything and do whatever you like" is terrible and dangerous advice.

Re: USDA ignoring the science on low-carb diets

#56

Post by caminante »

mhh__ wrote: post #34
themitigating wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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.

I don't think the parent would disagree with your qualification of "best."

The point is that the GP left out the nuance you raised regarding "better [than nothing]" as "good enough".

Re: USDA ignoring the science on low-carb diets

#57

Post by diffeomorphism »

heywoodlh wrote: post #53
themitigating wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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.

Are you implying that there isn't nuance in diet from person to person? i.e. low-carb diets works for everyone? Oil in cars and cancer treatments you don't really have choices but there are many choices for diets. On top of that, in my experience some people's bodies have different affinities or intolerances (i.e. lactose intolerance). I feel like I agree with the original sentiment that diets can vary from person to…

> Are you implying that there isn't nuance in diet from person to person?

Obviously they aren't "implying" any of that. But you know that and hence you made up this ridiculous straw man. So, yes, you are wrong and dishonest.

Re: USDA ignoring the science on low-carb diets

#58

Post by Moldoteck »

For me time restricted eating with high protein intake from beans and tofu and a lot of vegetables+seeds did the thing. I guess there are more ways to achieve the same goal. Some diets are healthier some are not, but i don't think there should be only one approved by fda or any other organization

Re: USDA ignoring the science on low-carb diets

#59

Post by 411111111111111 »

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.

And yet there was that girl which went on a chocolate diet and lived just fine. It was a publicity stunt, but does kinda show that depending on your body, it might not matter anyway.

Re: USDA ignoring the science on low-carb diets

#60

Post by ciconia »

thelittleone wrote: post #32

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?
Post reply on HN