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

A Call for a Low-Carb Diet

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 248 posts

Re: A Call for a Low-Carb Diet

#91

Post by commandar »

arjie wrote: post #62

Admittedly with little research I tried out a low-carb (more like no-carb) diet (of my own invention). I ate pretty much only meat and green leafy vegetables. I was ravenous all throughout. I remember eating large amounts of meat and still feeling like I was starving. It was hard to concentrate on pre-exam days because I was so hungry.

>Admittedly with little research I tried out a low-carb (more like no-carb) diet (of my own invention)

Not trying to be snarky, but I suspect this is where your problem was.

One of the most commonly reported side effects of typical low-carb diets is appetite suppression. Better focus after the first couple of weeks is pretty common as well.

I will note that while I think low carb diets work, I'm also firmly of the belief that, in terms of weight loss, they're still caloric deficit diets at the core. It's just there are a few other things going on metabolically -- including the appetite suppression -- that tend to make them easier for a lot of people.

Re: A Call for a Low-Carb Diet

#92

Post by taurath »

I lost 80 pounds doing low carb in a year and a half after 3-4 years of trying various diets after graduating high school at 320 pounds (being 6'4). Calorie counting "works" but you're constantly having to make willpower checks every day. Low fat left me ravenously hungry /all/ the time. Whenever I need to lose weight I just go on a ketogenic diet for a few months and it reliably drops the pounds very quickly, and I am also far less hungry throughout the day making it MUCH easier to stay on track.

The MOST difficult part of the diet is just how much every "healthy" food is set up for low-fat rather than low-carb - if you want to stay under 40g carbs per day about 90% of the grocery store is off limits, they fill EVERYTHING with sugar or corn, especially the "healthy low-fat" foods which usually trade fat for more carbs. I'm very glad that this study came out, hopefully we will start to see more foods with low carbs in stores and restaurants.

Re: A Call for a Low-Carb Diet

#93

Post by jordsmi »

buss wrote: post #9

For anyone who has access to the paper ( http://annals.org/article.aspx?articleid=1900694 ) and is skilled in reading medical research papers, I would love to know if they account for snacking. When I briefly tried a low-carb diet (just out of curiosity, not to lose weight as I'm already quite healthy) I found that I was unable to snack because almost all snack foods are loaded with carbs. I can only eat so much beef…

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.

Re: A Call for a Low-Carb Diet

#94

Post by lukifer »

source99 wrote: post #89

Carbs(aka glucose) is a poisonous substance and as soon as your body detects the glucose it releases insulin. The Insulin lowers blood glucose levels by forcing the glucose to move into your fat cells as fat(through a long chain reaction). So carbs essentially become fat. If you don't eat carbs your body doesn't release insulin so you can't store anything as fat. In fact once you truly go very low carb your body rele…

You're thinking of ketones, which are what trigger your body to burn fat for energy. (Another perk of ketosis is being able to go long stretches between meals without getting hungry.)

It should be noted that the first time moving to a low-carb, high fat diet, it's mildly traumatic and unpleasant. It takes 1-2 weeks of low energy and constant hunger before the body switches to ketosis mode. (This is sometimes called the "carb flu".)

Re: A Call for a Low-Carb Diet

#95

Post by taurath »

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?

12 lb lost vs 4 lb lost is extremely significant especially given neither diet was calorie restrictive.

Re: A Call for a Low-Carb Diet

#96

Post by whistlerbrk »

whiddershins wrote: post #79
arjie wrote: post #62

Admittedly with little research I tried out a low-carb (more like no-carb) diet (of my own invention). I ate pretty much only meat and green leafy vegetables. I was ravenous all throughout. I remember eating large amounts of meat and still feeling like I was starving. It was hard to concentrate on pre-exam days because I was so hungry.

Can you quantify how much meat you were eating? I did a similar diet and found that, depending on exercise level, I needed between 1 and 3 lbs of red meat per day. I suspect most people who are hungry on a meat and greens diet are accustomed to eating much, much, smaller portions of meat, hence why they are so hungry, but it would be interesting to find counter examples.

Too much meat not enough fat. Rabbit starvation they call it.

Also double.. triple your vegetables.

Re: A Call for a Low-Carb Diet

#98

Post by sciencemistakes »

ghshephard wrote: post #58
wdewind wrote: post #4

This study adds nothing new to the debate: > “To my knowledge, this is one of the first long-term trials that’s given these diets without calorie restrictions,” said Dariush Mozaffarian, the dean of the Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy at Tufts University, who was not involved in the new study. “It shows that in a free-living setting, cutting your carbs helps you lose weight without focusing on calorie…

The lack of caloric control is key to this study - any diet which restricts caloric intake, long term, will be self-defeating. Allowing people to eat as much as they want, but simply choosing from a particular food group, is one key to long term success. Another big part of this - an apparently non-biased researcher (presumably they don't run a food supplement business) - has suggested that eating fats of all things…

It also, in my mind, emphasizes that the bulk of "Nutritionists" for the last 50 years have been a bunch of cargo-cult practicing members of the mob - and it makes you wonder what other so-called-scientific disciplines are behaving in a like manner.

Global warming, climate change, or whatever name is being used this week to try and match reality.

Re: A Call for a Low-Carb Diet

#99

Post by pbreit »

I remain amazed at how much contradictory information we receive about diet.

My sense is the following would benefit pretty much everyone: eat in moderation, mostly unprocessed food, and be modestly active (ie, walk at least 10 miles per week).

Re: A Call for a Low-Carb Diet

#100

Post by pkaye »

a8da6b0c91d wrote: post #54
tootie wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The study they are discussing set up test subject with two different diets. One low in fat, one low in carbs. Low in carbs had far better outcomes. I agree that cutting anything will implicitly cut calories, it seems low carb really is superior.

They didn't test low fat. It was just carb restricted versus 30% fat (not low fat). Feeding was ad libitum, so it just confirms what we already knew: fewer food choices leads to spontaneous calorie restriction.

This is different that what we have been told which is to reduce fat and eat more whole grains and vegetables. You are saying that we just need to restrict our food choices.
Post reply on HN