
A Call for a Low-Carb Diet - leephillips
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/02/health/low-carb-vs-low-fat-diet.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&version=HpSum&module=second-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0
======
latch
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. Or, more specifically, any diet will make people
pay attention to what they're eating, and that's the real win.

[1]
[http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/70/3/516s.full](http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/70/3/516s.full)

~~~
a8da6b0c91d
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. 1) The meat is mostly
garbage; you have to consider only grass fed. 2) People are eating large
amounts of muscle meat to the exclusion of the organ meats and connective
tissue. This results in a chronic excess of tryptophan and a major deficiency
of glycine. Iron overload is also a problem with eating too much muscle meat.
A diet of steaks and chicken breasts without eating the rest of the animals is
totally unnatural.

Dairy doesn't have these problems of low quality meat and too much muscle
meat. Vegetarian with high dairy intake is an excellent nutritional choice.

~~~
Evgeny
_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 benefits from "potato
diet".

~~~
will_work4tears
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) has a 93/100.

~~~
Evgeny
_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.

~~~
will_work4tears
Gotcha, Sorry for jumping to a conclusion then.

------
drcode
I know this is just anecdotal coincidence (and not really that interesting to
most people other than myself) but today when I weighed myself I had my ideal
body weight for the first time in my life. This is after following a low carb
diet for six months and losing 50 pounds... so throw another vote in the "yes,
low carb seems to be effective" bucket. The findings in this article are
certainly music to my ears.

(Here is the version I followed [http://fourhourworkweek.com/2007/04/06/how-
to-lose-20-lbs-of...](http://fourhourworkweek.com/2007/04/06/how-to-
lose-20-lbs-of-fat-in-30-days-without-doing-any-exercise/))

~~~
SeanDav
This is very interesting to me! I had quite an argument / discussion about
this only 2 days ago with my father. He calls it the "Slow Carb" diet and
tried to get me to go on it. I had a look around and found that this is the
invention of just 1 man with seemingly not much backing evidence out there. My
argument was how can I follow the diet of 1 man, even if it is effective
(anecdotally)? I think I used an argument that if I came out with a "water and
beans diet" it would probably be effective but without supporting evidence how
safe would it be long term?

I still stand by this, in the sense that I would love to see if there is more
"proof" out there, even anecdotal is good if in sufficient quantity.

~~~
drcode
Oh, I don't think Tim Ferris' diet is anything special, it's just one of many
ketogenic/paleo diets that probably all work about the same. I just liked his
version because his grocery list & preparation steps are practical for my own
routine. Additionally, I have a hunch the focus on eating similar meals over
and over again is a valuable psychological trick to help you keep your
portions modest (because it forces your brain to focus more on the sustenance
aspect of food, not the enjoyment element)

------
jrapdx3
"Diet" is a subject that I've studied for most of my life, and I'm no
youngster.

The same arguments about dietary composition have been going on for at least
150 years. There may be many opinions but for my part, I'd rather listen to
the scientific evidence.

I was medical director of an obesity treatment clinic for many years. The low
carbohydrate (CHO), optimal protein intake diet was often effective for weight
loss and was not associated with bad effects. We felt compelled to closely
track indicators of potential adverse effects but none were apparent.

There were good effects, e.g., type 2 diabetics had reduced insulin
requirements, in some it was decreased to none. Other metabolic conditions,
hypertension, dyslipidemias, etc., improved as well.

The science surrounding diet, metabolic disease, obesity and related things is
indeed very complex. However as I see it, research into human evolution sheds
light on what the optimum diet would be.

There's evidence that human hunter-gatherers were taller, stronger, healthier
than their agricultural descendants. The idea is consuming a diet closer to
that of pre-agricultural humans would better meet our physiological
requirements.

Pre-agriculture diet had more high-quality protein (animal sources), less fat,
with an omega-3 to omega-6 fatty acids ratio approximating 1:1, and low in
saturated fat. Importantly, the intake of simple sugars was much lower that it
is today.

On average, in the ancient human diet it's estimated that protein intake
accounted for about 35% of calories, fat ~20%, and the rest ~45% from CHO. Of
course, diets varied widely. These averages suggest a direction to take to
improve health rather than absolute prescriptions to be followed rigidly.

So I guess everyone is partly right. Ideally, get more protein, less saturated
fat, more omega-3, less omega-6 (seed oils), and moderate the CHO intake,
especially sugar in all forms.

Sorry to say this, but our remote ancestors were conspicuous meat eaters,
never natural vegetarians, though vegetables (leaves, stems, roots) were an
important part of the human diet.

And BTW exercise was a constant component of primordial human lifestyle; we
might do well to emulate that as well.

~~~
Mikeb85
And yet some of the healthiest people on earth eat vegetable heavy diets...

The archaeological record shows that hunter-gatherers had an abysmally short
lifespan, and were far from healthy... Pretty much every positive development
in human health history happened after the advent of agriculture. Hunter
gatherers were lucky to live past 30...

I'd guess your 'low carb' diet still had more vegetables and grains than most
hunter gatherers had access to...

~~~
jrapdx3
True enough, life span was often short until fairly recent times. In the
distant past there were many factors affecting life span, e.g., diseases,
accidents, predation (by large feline species in particular), childbirth to
name a few.

However there is evidence of populations in pre-agricultural times which had
favorable environments and consequently better health.

In fact there was just published by the Smithsonian an interesting article
describing findings in the 9000 year old Kennewick Man specimen. Of particular
interest was a comment about the condition of the teeth: all intact, no
cavities attributed to low CHO diet. Age at time of death was estimated to be
40 years old. Not bad for 9000 years ago.

BTW I'd appreciate references you have to the differences in pre- and early
post-agricultural health in human populations. Isolating dietary effects on
health is difficult to be sure and a subject I'm always eager to learn more
about.

As far as my diet is concerned, vegetables are emphasized, especially the
green, leafy kind. (Foods that are relatively high in protein, low in CHO.) I
recommend, and practice myself, reducing grains to a minimum.

As you no doubt know, protein, certain fats, a bunch of minerals and vitamins
are essential to humans because we can't synthesize certain molecules--we must
get them in our diet. Curiously, there is no essential carbohydrate. Our
bodies can produce all the CHO it needs from non-CHO sources.

That's not to say CHO intake is not useful, and it is useful as a source of
calories. In the past when calories were expensive, less costly CHO sources of
calories were valuable, in essence to prevent starvation. In the current era
when calories are extremely cheap, high CHO intake is positively dangerous--
it's easy to consume a surplus of calories.

Interestingly, the data shows over the last 30 years there has been very
little change in dietary fat intake in the USA, but sugars have increased
dramatically. The rise in obesity has been attributed to inclusion of sugars
in manufactured foods. The idea of decreasing dietary CHO intake, especially
sugars, is logical.

Gluten and corn intolerance is common according to reports. Wheat, corn and
many other grain products are grass seeds. Grass and its seeds are frequently
allergenic to humans, which supports the idea humans are not native grass
eaters, hence the advice to minimize it.

~~~
timcederman
No, not true - life span has always been long (ish), but life EXPECTANCY has
been low due to infant mortality.

~~~
lukasm
Depends what do you mean by long-ish. It's possible that life span in 10 000
B.C. was 50 and in 1500 A.C. was 70.*

*Aristocrats and other people that had high protein intake, security etc.

------
wdewind
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
> calories. And that’s really important because someone can change what they
> eat more easily than trying to cut down on their calories.”

It doesn't actually control for calories so basically the study shows us that
a diet that's low in carbs can help people eat fewer calories while still
feeling full. That's important, but nothing we don't already know.

The health benefits are completely confounded by the lack of caloric control
and control for weight loss: losing weight simply makes people less disease
prone no matter the contents of the diet.

~~~
ghshephard
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 does not necessarily lead towards heart disease.

I think that's going to be a wake up call.

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.

~~~
wdewind
> 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.

Sure, I guess to me whether or not high fat diets have higher satiety is just
not interesting - it's a settled issue and it's obvious to me.

> 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 does not necessarily lead towards heart disease.

Right, but with similar weight it suggested eating less calories helps prevent
heart disease. This study doesn't answer the question of whether or not diet
composition affected heart disease.

> 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.

Let's not get dramatic. Don't forget that people are significantly less active
than they were 50 years ago, and that just because low carb diets happen to be
in fashion right now doesn't mean they are right for everyone. That being
said, I agree, the diet/nutrition industry is a joke, and most people could do
a lot worse than cut carbs out of their diet.

~~~
ghshephard
What annoys me, is how _certain_ the vast majority of nutritionists were,
despite the lack of clear scientific trials, that dietary fat would lead to
heart disease.

Seriously - how difficult would it have been to do a couple-hundred person
trial for a year or so to get some confirmation? And yet, billions of dollars
(10s of billions?) of policy and dietary guidance were based on this poorly
supported theory.

~~~
wdewind
Yeah but think about the data they had. They didn't have massive fast food and
snack food industries that were primarily carb based, and so people who
overate overate fats much more frequently than they do now.

The certainty you dislike is the same certainty I react against with the low
carb movement.

We are only certain of two things:

1) Having less fat on your body is healthier (to an extent) and will help
prevent things like heart disease, diabetes etc.

2) If you have too much fat lowering caloric consumption will make you burn
it.

Anything else is speculation.

> Seriously - how difficult would it have been to do a couple-hundred person
> trial for a year or so to get some confirmation? And yet, billions of
> dollars (10s of billions?) of policy and dietary guidance were based on this
> poorly supported theory.

Really difficult, actually. And doing it without pissing off a major industry
is impossible.

------
buss
For anyone who has access to the paper
([http://annals.org/article.aspx?articleid=1900694](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 jerky before I get sick of it, and couldn't find any
snack food that fit the diet that was also appealing.

On my normal omnivorous diet I snack when I feel hungry, usually opting for
trail mix, toast (from bread I bake), or a piece of fruit (sometimes chips,
but not often). Since none of my available snacks were acceptable on the diet
I just opted for drinking coffee and a big glass of water when I felt a little
hungry between meals. As a result, I ended up losing a few pounds over a few
weeks.

I'm curious if the same thing happened with the participants on the low carb
diet. Did they lose weight and become healthier because none of their snacks
fit the diet, so they ended up not snacking?

~~~
Taylorious
Its weird that this pops up on HN because I have been trying a low carb diet
for the last 2.5 weeks (with quite a bit of success). I have run into the same
issue as you in regards to snacking. The best snack I found was flavored
almonds. They are about 4 carbs an ounce and come in a bunch of flavors
(coconut is my favorite).

I have had a huge sweet tooth my whole life but I find the thing that I crave
the most is fruit (I know fruit is sweet but not like ice-cream and candy).
I've always ate a ton of apples and now that I can't I am craving them like
crazy. Also, no bread is really hard, especially since good whole wheat bread
seems so healthy and is so satisfying, and it limits your options for most
meals like pizza and sandwiches.

I hear a lot of knee-jerk reactions about the diet saying how it must be
awesome to just eat steak, chicken, etc. all the time, but it gets real old
real fast. Without bread/buns, bbq source, and common high carb toppings, it
become really repetitive. Cheeseburgers are amazing but they are a hell of a
lot less appealing with no bun, onions, tomato, or ketchup.

All this being said I do not see keto or whatever you want to call it as a
long term diet/lifestyle for me. I have been convinced that I used to eat way
too many carbs, but I think I just need to balance my meals more and do some
portion control. Eating no more than like 20 carbs a day is really hard and
for me it affects the quality of my life too much. But, I totally understand
that there are people out there where this diet is basically the only thing
that works for them, so I think it's awesome that more people are at least
trying it.

~~~
Nav_Panel
> Cheeseburgers are amazing but they are a hell of a lot less appealing with
> no bun, onions, tomato, or ketchup

This is true, but honestly the only one of those you really need to cut out is
the bun. The onions and tomato add up to 2-3g of carbs, and the ketchup is
another 4g, so the whole burger in a lettuce wrap would be 6-7g of carbs, not
at all bad for a meal! For reference, I use myfitnesspal to keep track of my
food consumption and to research carb/calorie counts.

> Eating no more than like 20 carbs a day is really hard and for me it affects
> the quality of my life too much

Would 50g be more sustainable? Or 100g? From what I've seen, the 20g limit is
mostly an introductory phase. 50g is still a huge reduction from what most
people consume on a daily basis.

~~~
kaitai
Agreed. The 20g limit is not sustainable long-term. Even 50g can be hard or
impossible (from a health perspective) for some people to sustain. Diets are
not really all-or-nothing -- check out marksdailyapple.com for a more flexible
approach to low-ish carb eating.

Playing with carb intake can be very educational: while low-carb diets benefit
a lot of people, different folks have different needs. Your athletic pursuits,
sex, pregnancy status, thyroid health, etc, are all really important to
consider.

------
erikpukinskis
To bad it's environmentally unsustainable. There's no way our ecosystem can
survive all of us eating eggs, tuna, and chicken all day. We need to consume
less animal products not more. Low carb is fine for a few wealthy people who
want to lose weight but it's not a responsible solution to the public health
problem.

What about a low-junk food diet? No cqlorie restrictions but no refined carbs?
I don't think we need ti discourage people from eating whole grains and beans.

~~~
bhousel
Low carb doesn't necessarily mean more animal products. It can mean that you
replace the carbs with nuts and veggies, so that you are getting more of your
calories from protein and healthy fats.

~~~
afafsd
100 calories of nuts or broccoli costs a whole lot more than 100 calories of
bread or rice, and this is reflective of the greater agricultural demands of
pretty much everything else versus bread and rice.

~~~
Pxtl
Even rice is a substantial improvement in glycemic index over refined wheat
and sugars. If it does turn out that empty carbs are a major public health
problem, there are incremental improvements that can be made all over the
world regardless of poverty.

------
arjie
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.

~~~
arrrg
Weight loss is psychological, so if you feel like shit the diet is not good at
all and not working for you. If you can’t keep your motivation up all the rest
is completely worthless.

What I did and still successfully do is calorie restriction (that made me feel
crappy for about a month or so, but now I don’t feel crappy most of the time)
combined with lots of experimenting around and cooking of different foods to
see what makes me feel happy and full.

(Non deep-fried) potatoes, salad, white meat (turkey, chicken) and (garlic)
butter do it for me personally. Meals with those ingredients will make me feel
full. Sometimes I still go for pasta and pizza (my favourite foods), but my
desire to feel full automatically seems to override that by now. Maybe pasta
and pizza is something I will go for once a week or, but no more.

Maybe it’s different for you. Just try different things. Also, it takes some
time to get used to a new diet, especially if you eat less calories. It took a
month or so for me. Maybe also try being active? I found that being active –
going on a long walk, driving the bike – gets completely rid of my hunger for
some weird reason.

In the end I’m just guessing – but dieting is all about how you feel. That’s
the most important thing. You have to stay motivated, otherwise it just
doesn’t work. So keep that in mind.

~~~
arjie
To be honest, it wasn't a weight loss thing. I was just curious. But you know,
grad school doesn't really let you survive on 1.5 kg of meat a day (plus other
food).

Thanks for the advice, though. I've gone and gained a lot of weight post-
university and it'll help. All that activity disappeared and I kept eating the
same. That's got to change.

------
braveheart1723
I recommend Lyle MacDonald,
[http://www.bodyrecomposition.com](http://www.bodyrecomposition.com) he's
quite scientific to his approach, plenty of material can be found on youtube
and on those 'sites' you know of ;)

Pdf such has [http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/the-rapid-fat-loss-
handbook](http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/the-rapid-fat-loss-handbook) have
helped me structure great nutrition programs.

------
trwea
> They had significantly greater reductions in body fat than the low-fat
> group, and improvements in lean muscle mass

I'm a bodybuilder and spend a good deal of time reading about the subject
every week. It is common knowledge among bodybuilders that an increase in
muscle and loss of fat at the same time is possible only with steroids. So
what does "improvements in lean muscle mass" mean here?

> what foods are best to eat for weight loss and overall health.

Bodybuilders avoid weight loss like fire, and instead only focus on fat loss.
What's the sense in losing muscle? This article needs to be read very
carefully.

> "It shows that in a free-living setting, cutting your carbs helps you lose
> weight without focusing on calories. And that's really important because
> someone can change what they eat more easily than trying to cut down on
> their calories."

Again "weight loss". Every piece of bodybuilding knowledge states that you
cannot lose fat without a calorie deficit. Here we read that the people in the
experiment did not limit their calories, but "lost weight". This couldn't have
been fat. If you want to lose fat, then just eat less - it works for all
bodybuilders, why would it not work for the rest of the population. I don't
see how there can be some more "easy" method than just eating less.

Furthermore the article does not state how the amount of fat in the body was
measured - most methods are said to be highly inaccurate. I believe this
article is a misleading piece of bullshit.

~~~
kaitai
Bodybuilders are people trying to perfect a good physique. Normal Americans
are, generally, a little fat.

> It is common knowledge among bodybuilders that an increase in muscle and
> loss of fat at the same time is possible only with steroids.

For bodybuilders. If you're a 166-pound 5'1" 45-year-old woman who can't
manage a 45-lb deadlift because of a combination of inflexibility and
weakness, an increase in muscle mass and loss of fat at the same time is
totally possible :)

> Here we read that the people in the experiment did not limit their calories,
> but "lost weight". This couldn't have been fat.

Why in the world not?

You sound like you think all people are bodybuilders, paying attention to
their nutrition, hitting the gym regularly, deciding between chicken breasts
and oatmeal for breakfast, focusing on fat loss instead of weight loss. Wrong
audience.

------
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.

~~~
pbreit
I'm wondering how you would fare eating whole foods without additives? The
grocery store is actually pretty chock full of such foods. Stay away from
boxes and trays.

------
programminggeek
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.

------
alrs
Reddit has been drowning in anecdotal evidence for years.

Low-fat, high-carb flat-out kills people.

[http://reddit.com/r/keto](http://reddit.com/r/keto)

~~~
nicklovescode
I believe you would be downvoted less harshly if you provided a few reputable
sources to back your statement.

~~~
alrs
This subject freaks people out, vegetarians especially.

A huge part of identity for some people is based on the knowledge that they're
living on a healthy plant-based diet. It turns out that said diet is less
healthy than subsisting on bacon grease.

This causes cognitive dissonance. Cognitive dissonance causes knee-jerk
downvotes.

Citations? How about the study spelled out in the article?

~~~
throwaway5752
The reddit thread, you mean? Are we calling those articles now?

The vegetarian thing _does not folow_. Just because keto/atkins/paleo works,
doesn't mean anything else works. Nothing is better than the low calorie diet.

~~~
alrs
No, not Reddit. The NYT article that we are commenting on.

I offer up the reddit link for anyone interested in the mechanics of HFLC.

~~~
fintler
It might be a good idea to link to the FAQ instead of the subreddit. It has an
overview of the chemistry behind the diet -- for example, the use of
urinalysis test strips.

[http://www.reddit.com/r/keto/wiki/faq](http://www.reddit.com/r/keto/wiki/faq)

------
krelian
I found that losing weight using a low-carb diet was pretty easy. After the
adjustement period of about two weeks you suddenly start feeling much less
hungry and the portions you eat become smaller. You are essentially losing
weight without feeling hungry at all which is terrific. The only problem is
that a very strict low-carb diet can be a bit monotonous with the type of
foods you are "allowed" to eat and can be hard to follow if you don't have the
time or patience to actually _cook_ food for yourself.

------
brandnewlow
After we got acquired in June I hired a nutritionist to help me get onto a
low-carb diet. I'm down about 42 lbs so far and it hasn't been hard at all.
The trickiest part is the questions, comments and eye-rolling when I take the
bun off my burger or whatnot.

The other thing I've noticed is how different my moods are when I'm "sugar-
free". Routine tasks that typically bore me to tears become much more
manageable and I'm able to just sit and think for longer. YMMV

~~~
whiddershins
That is the main reason I restrict carbs. I have tried a variety of low carb
diets, starting with Tim Ferris' slow carb, (because I was starting to get a
little puffy around the middle) then an atkins style, then a strict paleo a la
Robb Wolf, then, intermittent fasting with mostly only meat-and-greens.

Regardless of the specific diet, my energy levels and moods are so much more
consistent with reduced carbs, I continue to restrict carbs regardless of
other hypothetical benefits.

------
Mikeb85
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 going to the gym, though that's good too), and
you'll be fine.

~~~
Rainymood
>Carbs = sugar. Sugar, if not burned off, gets stored as fat.

Although this is true, can't you say the same for fats/proteins? 'If it's not
burned off, it gets stored as fat'. Sugar that is not burned off first is used
(or together) to replenish glycogen stores iirc.

>Eat carbs in the morning, protein later in the day

Some people eat carbs in the morning (cereal, bread, fruits). If you're
looking to try something new you could look into Intermittent Fasting. This
basically is eating only in a 4-8~ hour window every day.

Why I love this approach is because it makes my diet really flexible. I just
fast until I get back home (usually around 5 pm) and make diner. This gives me
a caloric buffer during daytime which helps me a lot when there is unexpected
cake/muffins/lunch which I would otherwise have to decline.

------
Elizer0x0309
Add to the fact that carbs cause a lot of what I like to call depressive-
crashes, compared to caffeine-crashes for example.

Since off carbs I'm on a high and yes a I do a lot of caffeine, the latter
doesn't lead to depressive moods and also no weight gain!

Carbs are still useful for high intensity athletes and before a high endurance
workout (I'm talking fruits here and not the junk food).

~~~
drcode
FYI, I highly recommend becoming a connoisseur of cold brew coffee- It's
pretty tasty even without cream/sugar. It was the first zero-calorie coffee
drink I could find that could replace my addiction to caramel lattes...

~~~
Elizer0x0309
_Noted_ Thanks for the tip ;)

------
credo
In addition to the heart benefits listed in the report, I've read reports
which conclude that a low-carb diet is also very beneficial for regulating
blood sugar levels (and reducing diabetes risk).

However, I think it might have been interesting to read more about the risks
of a low-carb diet. For instance, some studies have shown that low-carb diets
can reduce testosterone levels in men and I've also read that it could hurt
short-term cognitive skills.

It is also unclear if the study involved (mostly) refined carbohydrates or
complex carbohydrates. Obviously, the effect of complex carbohydrates is very
different.

There are a number of studies regarding low-carb diets but most of them tend
to focus on a subset of the results that one might see from a low-carb diet.
So a smart strategy would be to read many of these reports and then decide
what makes sense (though it isn't going to be easy for a layperson to read a
wide range of different reports and draw the best conclusion on what is good
for them)

------
amasad
For an in-depth discussion about low-carb diets and the history of the
misconception that fats consumed = body fat and cholesterol levels I recommend
the book (although I haven't finished it yet): Good Calories, Bad Calories:
Fats, Carbs, and the Controversial Science of Diet and Health

~~~
Evgeny
And also make sure to read some decent reviews. I also was impressed by the
GCBC, but I've been reading some reviews recently and turns out there's quite
a lot Taubes took out of context, misrepresented or otherwise distorted.

This one seems a good place to start:

[http://thescienceofnutrition.wordpress.com/2012/09/26/good-c...](http://thescienceofnutrition.wordpress.com/2012/09/26/good-
calories-bad-calories-a-critical-review/)

------
lostbit
I've started Tim Ferriss diet on May/2013 and went strictly on it (no
supplements, aka, PAGG) up to September/13 when I reached my goal (97->82kg).
I did a body check-up (mostly on blood and urine tests) on November/13 and
everything was fine. I never came back on milk+bread on breakfast and I got
used to go low-fat 6 days a week. I'm not so strict on Tim's diet anymore but
I'm still low-fat-oriented. I'm turning 40 this month. So far, this diet
worked greatly for me. BTW: I got to know about Tim's book here in HN.

I must recall that the low-carb diet from Tim is focused on food with low
glycemic index. The idea is to avoid the conversion of the carbs you eat into
fat stored in your body.

------
vegancap
I absolutely cannot keep up with what we're supposed to eat? Some say low fat,
some say high fat, some say high carb, low carb... no sugar, some sugar, some
fats... It comes to a point where cutting one thing or another is surely
futile. And that we just need to accept that there's no miracle other than
eating a varied balanced diet, exercise and cut the fads. I know coming form a
vegan that might be calling the kettle black (or whatever the phrase is) but
I've given up on faddy diets, I just try to eat unprocessed shit and be done
with it.

------
balls187
First, congrats to all the commenters who have lost weight. I know it's not as
simple as "make better food choices" so it's awesome to read so many people
who have found success in weight loss.

I follow a diet similar to low-carb, moderate fat and protein, and I'm still
concerned about not getting enough plants, and fiber. While the low-carb diet
encourages consumption of veggies, I find it tough to make sure I get enough
veggies (not fruit), in a day.

~~~
hcarvalhoalves
> I find it tough to make sure I get enough veggies (not fruit), in a day.

When most people think veggies they think "lettuce", which makes it hard to
eat a lot. Try these recipes:

Broccoli (steam cooked, with olive oil and fried garlic), avocado (salad or
with honey + lemon), eggplant (roasted in slices) and Chinese cabbage (it's
crunchy and great to eat raw as salad).

------
dimitar
I don't understand why there is this constant search for a diet that isn't
just calorie restriction - learning about caloric content and restricting
yourself in calories is much easier than following a diet. You basically eat
the same foods you enjoy, but skip the occasional item that will take you
overboard.

Learning a few facts about caloric content of different types of food is much
easier than changing your lifestyle.

~~~
johnking
It's worth noting that whilst low calorie diets (of any macronutrient ratio),
will usually aid weight loss, they won't all improve your health in other
areas.

This study also looked at other health markers (including triglycerides and
cholesterol) and measured improvements.

~~~
UrMomReadsHN
Calorie reduction doesn't improve health? Says who?

~~~
johnking
So to clarify on what I wrote:

"they won't all improve your health in other areas"

Meaning that there are different ways in which to reduce calories. If you were
to lower your calorie intake below your expenditure, but do it through a high
sugar diet, that may still result in weight loss, but it wouldn't necessarily
improve other health markers.

------
fasteo
I don´t have access to the paper referenced in the article, but a general rule
applies: You have to be _very_ cautious with the conclusions of a
interventional nutritional study. There are lots of challenges[1] in the
design, execution and evaluation of such studies.

[1]
[http://www.trialsjournal.com/content/13/1/111](http://www.trialsjournal.com/content/13/1/111)

------
dpweb
This is no secret. There will be endless mostly uninformed debate but the idea
that less carbs - less stored fat - its not counter-intuitive.

I wouldn't doubt keeping the blood sugar levels from spiking (especially
processed carbs) plays a big part. Weight watchers giving you credit for fiber
always wondered about that.

------
DennisP
I just finished reading _The Big Fat Surprise_ by Nina Teicholz, an
extensively-referenced account of the history of nutrition research over the
past century. It was really interesting to see the weakness of the evidence
against fat, and how our general fear of fat came about anyway.

------
holychiz
The Zone diet works pretty well which call for a balanced diet with smaller
portions, lots of veggies, way less meat. It advocates grazing, as oppose to 3
meals a day. After all we're not farmers of days past anymore, so we should
adapt to modern life eating patterns.

------
voronoff
I'm wondering how much of the difference is due to what you're drinking,
rather than eating. Cmd-f in the journal article found no "drink", "juice",
"soda", or "beer", so it seems likely they didn't consider it.

------
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).

------
hendzen
Here is the actual paper (paywalled) :
[http://annals.org/article.aspx?articleid=1900694](http://annals.org/article.aspx?articleid=1900694)

Anyone have access that can upload it to Scribd or similar?

~~~
kdoggy
[https://mega.co.nz/#!G4sEBYbT!kIzq_xi4-9zlWsRElqfjzTKUV6-tCm...](https://mega.co.nz/#!G4sEBYbT!kIzq_xi4-9zlWsRElqfjzTKUV6-tCm8sgl1rKkGfv18)

~~~
hendzen
Thanks!

Some noteworthy excerpts:

\- Participants assigned to the low-carbohydrate diet were instructed to
maintain an intake of digestible carbohydrate (total carbohydrate minus total
fiber) of less than 40 g/d.

\- The reduction in body weight was significantly greater in the low-
carbohydrate group (mean difference in change at 12 months, 3.5 kg; P=0.002)

\- those on the low-carbohydrate diet had significantly greater proportional
reductions in fat mass (mean difference in change at 12 months, 1.5% P=0.011)

\- those on the low-carbohydrate diet had significantly greater proportional
increases in lean mass (mean difference in change at 12 months, 1.7%; P=0.003)

\- Compared with a low-fat diet, a low-carbohydrate diet resulted in greater
improvements in body composition, HDL cholesterol level, ratio of total– HDL
cholesterol, triglyceride level, CRP level, and estimated 10-year CHD risk

\- Dietitians were not blinded to the study hypothesis(!!). To avoid potential
differences in dietary counseling due to this, we used specific and detailed
scripts for all counseling sessions and trained staff to deliver the scripts
without deviation.

\- The proportion of participants with detectable urinary ketone levels was
significantly higher in the low-carbohydrate group than in the low-fat group
at 3, 6, and 12 months (data not shown)

------
source99
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 releases
whatever hormone is the opposite of Insulin which allows fat to be released
from your fat cells and used as energy.

The low carb diet makes sense to me because of the basic biology that I know.
(I am not an expert and these are just my thoughts).

~~~
lukifer
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".)

~~~
whistlerbrk
never experienced it. I just ate more vegetables, nuts and fats.

------
nathan_long
I would like a book called Totally Boring Health Advice. It would only include
things that have been proven over and over and have totally ceased to be
controversial.

------
laichzeit0
Sigh. So this is another "diet" methodology focusing on fat people losing fat,
but these same people are too lazy to calculate their energy requirements,
energy input and energy output by counting calories and macronutrients?

I eat at 20% fat, 50% carb, 30% protein and I can gain weight, maintain or
lose fat simply by adjusting my calories. It really is not rocket science.
Self-discipline required, but if you lack that you have bigger problems.

TL;DR Overweight lazy people should eat less carbs and more meat if they can't
be bothered to count calories

~~~
vacri
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 so - especially when
the other half of the equation is figuring out how much energy you actually
use, which varies wildly with body type and lifestyle.

~~~
laichzeit0
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 Haskell the type system would take care of 90%
of the bugs.

And no it's completely trivial to track your intake. You need at most a
kitchen scale and an app on your phone. It probably takes me in total 5
minutes of my day to track everything. You greatly overestimate the
difficulty.

~~~
mark_integerdsv
Down 15kg since April, Keto.

I highly doubt that anyone doing Keto with a good amount of success is doing
so without tracking macros.

It is ironic that you'd decry ignorance and oversimplification when in point
of fact you are guilty of the same in doing so.

~~~
laichzeit0
From the article itself:

"It included a racially diverse group of 150 men and women — a rarity in
clinical nutrition studies — who were assigned to follow diets for one year
that limited either the amount of carbs or fat that they could eat, _but not
overall calories_." emphasis mine.

This particular study is touting the virtues of not tracking calories. It's
basically what the entire article is about. Eating low carb without counting
calories.

------
Kiro
The article is speaking of low carb, high fat but people are discussing low
carb diets in general here. Isn't there a big difference?

------
donniezazen
Is drinking milk good or bad for someone looking to lose fat and gain more
lean muscle mass?

------
niklas_a
This is why I would never eat Soylent. It's mostly carbs:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soylent_(drink)](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soylent_\(drink\))

------
shaunrussell
Lost and kept off 48# over 9 months on low carb paleo.

------
hownottowrite
When I first started programming for a living, I put on an enormous amount of
weight. I ended up topping out at just above 400lbs. Then I got sick.

I couldn't eat anything with fat in it. Nothing. So I flipped to a zero fat
diet that consisted of very little protein. It was almost 100% bowls of Grape
Nuts and sugar with skim milk. I lost 180lbs in 18 months. I took up exercise
along the way and sliced off another 20lbs.

At this point, things improved and I could eat "normally" again. I took up
running and worked myself up to 7 miles a day.

Life had other plans though. Work intruded. Family requirements, etc. The
running stopped. These are things anyone over 40 would understand.

As a result, I slid around on the scale for a decade or so and decided to
experiment with other forms of nutrient deprivation. I tried an all protein
diet (result: rapid weight loss but hungry all the time). I tried a heavy fat
diet (result: rapid weight loss but sick all the time). I've also tried
fasting and extreme calorie restriction (result: rapid weight loss and general
rending of the fabric of reality). I was a strict vegetarian for three years
(result: never felt more clear-headed in my life, but I also lost significant
muscle mass even though I took pains to get the right amino acids through
various sources).

So, after a decade of experimentation, I've learned quite a few things.

1\. Modern life is full of distractions, in fact it seems designed
specifically to introduce new distractions as a way of propagating itself.

2\. Any restrictive diet (and you have to be religious about it) will result
in temporary weight loss that may in fact be quite dramatic. But it won't
last. Eventually your body will get used to the new diet or you will develop
some rather unpleasant side effects.

3\. Vegetarian diets are superior in many ways, but depending on your body
type, can be rather hard on the muscles (I have a large frame and look
emaciated when I get to 200lb). This certainly doesn't happen to everyone, but
it's what happened to me. Pity. I liked the way my brain worked on that diet.

4\. A carb-restricted diet left me hungry, as in "I need to go out and hunt
something now" hungry. Even after months of focused effort.

5\. A balanced diet coupled with significant exercise is pretty much the only
thing that consistently works with this body. Your mileage may vary.

6\. Modern life is full of expectations that are unnecessary and unhealthy.
This couples with point #1. Distractions and expectations tend to go hand in
hand. They keep you from doing what is right for your mind and body.

7\. Don't look for a fast solution. Rather focus on a resolution, a shift in
perspective about what you expect from life. Then, live with awareness of this
goal each and every day.

~~~
trwea
> zero fat diet

A zero fat diet is very dangerous. You need fat for organs to function
properly, and vitamins to dissolve in.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fat#Importance_for_living_organ...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fat#Importance_for_living_organisms)

~~~
hownottowrite
Absolutely. I certainly wouldn't recommend it.

What's interesting is that doctors I spoke with at the time could neither
explain my violent reactions to fat nor the obvious results of cutting out fat
entirely from my diet (maybe 3-5g total across an entire day, but usually less
than 1). They also couldn't explain why I could suddenly eat fat again after
about a year and a half.

------
a8da6b0c91d
They didn't test a low fat diet in the study. 30% of calories from fat is not
low fat. Also, it appears they used low saturated fat (<7%) and high PUFA.
That's pretty much backwards as it's well known that PUFAs have antimetabolic
effects.

All these experiments ever confirm (over and over) is that plenty of protein
is helpful in the context of a reduced calorie diet, and that restricting food
choices results in spontaneous calorie reduction. Protein has very high
satiety and thermic effect. As for low fat or low carb it doesn't matter much.
It's just that carbs and fat go great together and it's very difficult to
overeat without the combination. A plain stick of butter and a large bowl of
plain white rice are equally difficult to overeat on, whereas ice cream with
its combined hit of sugar and fat is easy to gorge on.

------
beachstartup
i've been on a ketogenic diet for about 3 months now. i've lost around 20
pounds (5'10, 220 starting -> 200 current -> 180 goal) and will probably lose
another 20 before reaching my 'ideal' weight. it works. whether it works
because i naturally eat less, or because there's something magical going on w/
my hormones, _it doesn 't matter_ because i can simply remove carbs and eat
until i'm full every single time. eating well is a huge, huge motivating
factor for me to succeed in life.

for other people it's not an issue at all. they can simply just eat 1500
calories a day with a bunch of carbs and also lose weight. I CAN'T. i need to
ingest 2500-3000 calories a day or else i will just be constantly hungry and
unable to function without thinking about food. i'm in my 30s now - i know
this about myself. i've counted the calories for months on end, using MFP.

the hardest part is not talking about it, because if you tell people you 'eat
more fat' when they ask you what your new diet is, they'll think you're being
sarcastic and rude.

i've only told my closest friends, people who i respect intellectually and who
can handle an actual discussion about how things like the endocrine system
works and

and i've told a bunch of strangers on the internet of course.

~~~
Killswitch
Yup, and apparently everyone has a degree in nutrition and go on to tell you
that what you're doing is wrong and what they think you should do is right.

\- fellow Keto guy

------
justboxing
This article (and the Tim Ferriss article in the Top comment here) both cite
Atkin's High Protein, Low Carb diet. I am not sure I can believe that though.
It is well known that most of the people in the west consume way more proteins
that is required by their body, even those that don't exercise.

Excessive protein ingestion causes kidney failure, hypertension and heart
attacks.

Some believe (and allege) that Dr Atkins himself died of his own Atkins Diet.
Here are some quotes from news articles and mybuster sites from when he was
alive / had just died.

"It is known Robert Atkins did indeed weather a heart attack during his
lifetime. In April 2002, the diet guru issued a statement saying he was
recovering from cardiac arrest related to a heart infection he had suffered
from "for a few years." He said it was "in no way related to diet."

However, revelations in February 2004 from the city medical examiner's report
let slip the information that Atkins had suffered a heart attack, congestive
heart failure, and hypertension, before his death. "

Sources:

1) Dr. Robert Atkins, proponent of the low-carbohydrate diet, died of a heart
attack.
[http://www.snopes.com/medical/doctor/atkins.asp](http://www.snopes.com/medical/doctor/atkins.asp)

2) Atkins diet author home after cardiac arrest:
[http://edition.cnn.com/2002/HEALTH/diet.fitness/04/25/atkins...](http://edition.cnn.com/2002/HEALTH/diet.fitness/04/25/atkins.diet/)

One more note: What about Vegetarians and Lacto-vegetarians? Our diet
typically tends to be little high in carbs mainly white rice. What kind of
protein sources can we substitute lean meat like chicken, for? Tofu and
lentils don't cut it, you have to consume vast amounts to get sufficient
protein equivalent. Anyone with useful advice, experience, please share!

~~~
drcode
> It is well known that most of the people in the west consume way more
> proteins that is required by their body

If prehistoric humans didn't get their calories from protein, how do you
suggest they got them? Certainly not from sugars (found mainly in modern
cultivated fruits) or starches (found mainly in modern cultivated grains).

I'm not saying your "too much protein" thesis is wrong (I don't have enough of
an understanding of nutritional history and anthropology) but can you give
some better supporting documentation?

~~~
UrMomReadsHN
>If prehistoric humans didn't get their calories from protein, how do you
suggest they got them?

Probably mostly from plants.

[http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-
blog/2012/07/23/hu...](http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-
blog/2012/07/23/human-ancestors-were-nearly-all-vegetarians/)

------
forkandwait
Forgive my flip dismissal, bad use of caps, and general un-hacker newslike
tone just this once, but:

NO MORE FAD DIET BULLSHIT, PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE!!!

It's just like we have known since the Ancient Greeks and probably earlier --
eat fewer rich foods, more light foods, a big variety of foods, and get lots
of moderate activity.

Want to lose weight? Eat fewer calories than you burn. Want to gain muscle
mass and tone? Work out regularly. Etc.

Jesus christ, the next time I hear the words "Gluten Free" I am going to
scream, jumping up and down, Remember The South Beach Diet!?? Remember the no-
fat diet????!!! Don't you people ever learn!?!?!?!

Sorry. I promise to write more grown up posts in the future.

~~~
perplexes
> Want to lose weight? Eat fewer calories than you burn. Want to gain muscle
> mass and tone? Work out regularly. Etc.

This is why research about diet is important. Animals are complex systems, and
rarely are "simple" explanations correct (or correct enough). What we know
about about food and how we process it is remarkably incomplete considering
how important it is to supporting life.

So with that in mind, I'm excited that the prevailing view of diet, nutrition
and health in our society for the last century or so is getting challenged,
just as science should be challenged and overturned ("disrupted" in SV
parlance) in the face of new, better, more sound evidence.

What's coming out of this new research is that, perhaps, the mechanisms
concerned with storage of energy (fat) are unconcerned with the rest of what's
going on in the body. That perhaps the reservoir of energy available to your
muscles and brain to burn, intentionally and with conscious control, are in
competition with a sometimes overly-aggressive energy storage system.

It reminds me of how the U.S. does income tax - it comes directly out of your
paycheck, before you can even think of spending it. Even if you wanted to go
negative, the Govt still gets theirs.

And let's say that the regulator of storage vs. use is controlled by the kinds
of food that you eat... that, stretching this metaphor, your income tax
bracket was affected by where you worked, or where you got the money from.

Anyway, a more complete picture of how our bodies actually function is a
_good_ thing, and the more people try these "fad diets" is actually a boon for
the people studying them. ;)

(As an aside - the gluten free craze has helped a lot of people who _actually
have celiac disease_ to have more options in eating things that don't taste
like crap, or, you know, eat out once in a while.)

