
Why Cutting Carbs Is So Tough - robertgk
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/19/well/eat/are-you-a-carboholic-why-cutting-carbs-is-so-tough.html
======
nathan-wailes
Preface: Over the past 12+ years I have spent a fair amount of time learning
about foods/diets, at first to try to get rid of my acne (which I was
successful at), but then later to stay lean and stop any diet-related dips in
my mood (which I was also successful at).

What I want to say:

Cutting carbs is difficult for most people because of two things: 1)
withdrawal from the sugar-high that you get from eating high-glycemic-load
food (like bagels / pasta), and 2) your body _needs_ * some amount of carbs,
and people are cutting bad carbs without replacing them with good carbs, and
thus experiencing an _inescapable_ craving for carbs.

The vast majority of people in the US equate "carbs" with
"grains/sugars/starches", and so when they "cut carbs", they stop consuming
almost any carbs (like the author of this article says he did), they then
experience discomfort because of the two factors I listed above, and if they
get past the sugar-high withdrawal, the constant _inescapable /healthy_
cravings for carbs eventually push them to begin eating grains/sugars/starches
again.

My daily diet (when I'm eating "properly") has me consuming carbs in the form
of two bags of "steam-in-bag" broccoli and a bag of carrots. Every day. When
you've eaten that many vegetables, you experience no craving whatsoever for
unhealthy carbs. But for most people, the idea of consuming that many
vegetables per day has probably never entered their minds, and that's why they
have trouble "cutting carbs".

I highly recommend that people who are interested in this topic watch this
video:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M74Ao6y4vfg](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M74Ao6y4vfg)

\--------------------------------------

*I'm using 'need' in the sense of "your body needs glucose, and the typical way to get it is from carbs, and so if you eat almost no carbs, you may experience some 'healthy' level of craving for carbs".

~~~
abtinf
> your body _needs_ a fair amount of carbs every day

This is factually wrong. The human body ~100 grams of protein, ~10 grams of
fat, and zero carbs to stay healthy. The minimal amount of glucose required
for brain function can be synthesized from protein intake. And carb deficiency
is not associated with any impairment or disease.

~~~
nzygs
> The human body ~100 grams of protein, ~10 grams of fat, and zero carbs to
> stay healthy

Could you provide source (studies not blogposts or youtube videos) on this
matter?

Also what is your opinion on 80/10/10 or Okinawa diet? Okinavians used to get
most of their calories from carbs and they had one of the longest lifespans in
the world.

All things considered I am not against the keto diet but the food that people
on it eat. Animal based fats, usually heavily processed meats like bacon,
sausages etc on which there are peer reviewed studies that show their
correlation to cancer and heart deceases. Most of the information can be found
here: [https://nutritionfacts.org/](https://nutritionfacts.org/) the videos
linked have their sources provided in the description. And those are mostly
peer reviewed studies as well!

~~~
sleavey
It's probably genetic. Some people can eat a high carb diet and feel fine, and
not suffer the metabolic damage that others would. But that's definitely a
minority of the world population. The Okinawans seem to eat a lot of a certain
type of purple sweet potato which contains a good balance of vitamins and
minerals, but they also have a strong social element - elders are highly
respected and given responsibilities that keep them focused - and naturally
they exercise a lot due to the terrain, so it's not just the food.

~~~
xiaoma
Every time I go to Okinawa, like anywhere in Japan, I see people eating either
noodles or white rice with nearly every single meal. People often even have
rice (and an egg) for breakfast.

------
abtinf
I've posted these numbers before, but I'll post them again because they are so
low as to be totally unintuitive:

Normal human blood sugar [1]: 70-100 milligrams per deciliter of blood.

Blood volume of average human [2]: 5.5 liters

Thus, total blood sugar in non-diabetic human: 3.85 to 5.5 grams

Density of glucose: 1.54 grams per cubic centimeter

Thus, total volume of sugar in average human: 2.5 to 3.6 milliliters

Volume of teaspoon: ~5ml

Your body does its best to cap the amount of sugar flowing through you at
about _one-half teaspoon_. A 12 ounce can of coke has 39 grams of sugar, or
7-10 times what the human body considers normal. It's a tremendous shock to
the system - the resulting insulin response sends your body on a roller
coaster of hormone regulation.

[1]
[https://www.virginiamason.org/whatarenormalbloodglucoselevel...](https://www.virginiamason.org/whatarenormalbloodglucoselevels)

[2]
[http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=21...](http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=21474)

~~~
ue_
That's interesting. I regularly drink soft drinks, and written on the can is
the government-mandated notice of how much of my "daily recommended intake" is
in the can. For sugar, it says 40%. How does that figure relate to your one-
half teaspoon metric? Does it mean that one of the figures is wrong?

~~~
Cerium
Just an observation, but if a soda has 10 times more sugar than you need in
your body, and it is about half the daily value of sugar you need, then I
suppose it is a rate problem. Drinking a whole soda at once puts way too much
sugar into your system, but it may be possible to drink a sip an hour.

~~~
CuriousSkeptic
Only the glucose part of the sugar would end up in the blood stream though,
the fructose part gets converted into liver fat directly. So you'd need to
keep the time between sips long enough to start converting that liver fat into
glucose, and that could take longer than a day.

------
shanev
The trick is to force yourself to do it for at least two weeks. Afterwards,
pizza and bread will look disgusting. I experienced this when I followed a
strict low-carb/paleo diet for 4 months. Many of my low carb friends have
experienced the same thing. I lost 35lbs and got a six pack without working
out. As soon as you introduce processed carbs back though, the addiction
starts up again.

~~~
basseq

      Afterwards, pizza and bread will look disgusting.
    

YMMV. I went on a low/no carb diet for 3-4 weeks last year, never had terrible
_cravings_ or _crashes_ , and still love me some carbs. I just love bread,
pasta, pizza, etc. (e.g., food in general) too much, but it's a good way to
monitor what you eat.

~~~
jehlakj
Most people have been on a moderately high carb diet for most of their
lifetime. It's gonna take a little more than 3-4 weeks to shift your
perspective.

~~~
basseq
Probably true. This was in response to the parent [emphasis mine]: "The trick
is to force yourself to do it for at least _two weeks_. Afterwards, pizza and
bread will look disgusting."

------
donatj
When I lived alone it was easy. I simply didn't buy any at the grocery store
and as such didn't eat any. It's nearly impossible, now living with my wife
who adores pasta and everything potato based.

~~~
the_af
> _[...] living with my wife who adores pasta_

And who can blame her? I suppose you could live without pasta, but would you
call that living? :)

~~~
bonniemuffin
If a life without pasta isn't worth living, then I'd rather die than get back
on the blood sugar roller coaster that pasta puts me on.

This is like telling an alcoholic that life isn't worth living without
tequila. You know what? Turns out you can live a meaningful life without it if
you have to.

~~~
nicky0
What were the effects of this "blood sugar rollercoaster"? I eat 55% carbs and
don't experience this... What am I missing?

~~~
pandaman
Can you skip a meal without going through a withdrawal? A spike in blood sugar
from a carb-heavy meal causes an insulin spike and, in turn, it drops the
blood sugar below the healthy level, which is experienced as a feeling of
hunger and a need to have the next meal or a snack (which in turn spikes sugar
again, causing another insulin burst etc. etc.)

~~~
the_af
If I skip a meal I get hungry, but beyond extraordinary circumstances (like
being extremely busy or fasting before a blood analysis), why would I want to
do that?

> _which is experienced as a feeling of hunger and a need to have the next
> meal or a snack_

Why is this bad or surprising? Isn't this how things work? You don't eat ==>
you get hungry. Similarly with water and thirst. I'm not being flippant, I
genuinely want to know why someone would think this is surprising.

~~~
pandaman
I am not dispensing life-style advise here but merely describing the effect of
sugar/insulin rollercoaster.

Personally I don't like feeling of hunger so I don't do that. Getting hungry
just a few hours after a meal is surprising when you got more than enough
energy to last you several days already and your body has stored several
months worth of energy in fat.

If you're limiting your calorie intake and have no weight issues then it is
not, of course. You have used up all the energy from the food you have -> you
will starve if you won't get more.

------
shadykiller
Being an Indian, I was raised on a diet with the major macro-nutrient as
carbohydrates (wheat and rice), it was hard to switch to a low carb ketogenic
diet. But once I switched the health benefits were tremendous - 30lb weight
loss and prediabetic symptoms gone.

Also, ketogenic doesn't mean you completely give up on carbs. I take about 2-3
cups of green vegetables everyday. These veggies have very low amount of carbs
< 10-20gms. Rest is fiber which has no glycemic load. Also, once you are keto-
adapted, all the craving for carb goes away as your brain is well fed on
Ketones - much cleaner fuel when compared to glucose.

~~~
HenryTheHorse
Curious - what does a low-carb Indian/vegetarian diet look like? It seems like
one simply can't avoid rice and _roti_.

~~~
shadykiller
It's hard. You can keep curries and meat appetizers. Although you'd need to
add greens which most indians don't consume regularly like kale, broccolli,
spinach etc

------
athenot
Two topics I rarely see addressed in the context of nutrition are _moderation_
and _taste_ , both summarized in the notion of savoring.

Full disclaimer: I'm part French. But that's a traditional notion in French
culture (and many others): food intake is not just some mechanical action we
do before getting on with better things in life; it's an art to itself.

When viewed as an art, moderation is actually a form of balance. We balance
quantity with richness and intensity of flavor. I am always amazed at seeing
someone who can devour a giant bowl of noodles probably totalling about 1,500
KCal and yet devoid of taste. Mediocre wheat flour topped with sauces made
with various commoditized (and bland) ingredients, spiked with sweeteners
resulting in an overall bland dish.

Contrast with some real Italian pasta in a small proportion, made with good
ingredients and assembled in a way to maximize the taste, as if to assemble a
work of art. The nutritional analysis per 100g may be worse than the previous
bowl of noodles, but two things stand out: (1) the portion is way smaller and
(2) the taste leaves you satisfied. You also consummed that dish slowly,
paying attention to the taste and eating it slower than that large bowl.

Now of course everyday life is not made of high-end culinary adventures—most
of use can't afford that. But even at a modest scale, one can pay attention to
the quality of a simple tomato, a simple loaf of bread, butter from cows
grazing fields... eating items slowly so as to appreciate their taste.

Then it's no longer about numbers or labels, it's about taste. Eat your
hamburger, but make it with good ingredients and savor it. Eat your fries but
slowly and look for the taste of the potato itself. Can't find it? Use better
potatoes.

As for soda? Sure, enjoy it but sip a reasonable glass of it like wine, _over
the course of a meal_ instead of gulping a large amount with a straw. Of
course once you get in the habit of sipping it, you might move on to other
beverages that taste better when sipped... :)

------
overcast
Because they are delicious. Life is too short, not to enjoy one of life's
simple pleasures. Obviously moderation is key, but it's silly not to take
advantage of being human.

~~~
majkinetor
"Moderation" doesn't mean anything, obviously.

~~~
notyourloops
Moderation is usually a thought-terminating cliche. Whenever there's a
conversation among of those looking to examine the details, someone is around
to dismiss the inquiry with "everything in moderation".

~~~
ue_
Sort of similar how in political discussions, there's always someone around to
dismiss grievances with "left and right both suck, I'm in the center". I've
taken to calling these people "enlightened centrists". They will usually
mumble something about "horseshoe theory" while they are at it, too.

------
m1keil
I think a lot of people tend to over-think the whole cutting on carbs thing.
Trying to count grams, check for ketons and so on.

I decided to give the low carb thing a try about 4-5 months ago. I cut out all
bread, pasta, rice, starches and sugar I could find on my menu. Replaced it
with more meat and learned to love zucchini and cauliflower. I'm far from
being on the perfect low carb/keto/paleo diet. I eat cheese, have a morning
latte at work, and eat a fruit or two every day. I had few "cheat meals",
about once a month.

The scale now shows 10kg less. I was surprised by the ease of the process. I
like it.

------
roel_v
What is so annoying about articles like this is that they start out saying
'calorie intake has nothing to do with obesity! lol all you idiots! look at
how enlightened I am!' and then go on to say that carbs mess with insulin
levels so that it becomes hard to not eat more calories. Duh, that's what all
those others say too, but just not highlighting that aspect as much.

In the end, it's still calories. I get it, these people have books and
speaking engagements to sell, but please. If they'd just say 'not eating carbs
makes it easier to stick to a low calorie diet', it'd be fine. It's the
deliberate obtuseness that's so annoying.

I mean, if it's not about calories, please:

\- show me someone who can eat 1000 Cals a day and not loose weight. \- show
me someone who can eat 5000 Cals of bacon a day and not gain weight.

Until then - meh.

~~~
keymone
> calorie intake has nothing to do with obesity

who is saying that?

> that's what all those others say too

where? the author is talking about energy balance disorder vs insulin
hypothesis. first stops at "expend more than you intake and everything will be
ok", second goes further and explores difference between sources of calories
and why it's wrong to say that caloric number is all you need to care about.

> show me someone who can eat 1000 Cals a day and not loose weight

> show me someone who can eat 5000 Cals of bacon a day and not gain weight

except those are not the claims being made. that's a second strawman in your
comment, you really should read up on ketogenic diet before criticizing it.

~~~
roel_v
"who is saying that?"

"The conventional thinking, held by the large proportion of the many
researchers and clinicians I’ve interviewed over the years, is that obesity is
caused by caloric excess." "The minority position in this field — one that Dr.
Ludwig holds, as do I after years of reporting — is that obesity is actually a
hormonal regulatory disorder, and the hormone that dominates this process is
insulin."

5 or so paragraphs in. Waffling and innuendo about how it's really not about
calories, while when you look deeper, it is - but they never acknowledge it as
such because if they would, WTF would be so special about it?

"second goes further and explores difference between sources of calories and
why it's wrong to say that caloric number is all you need to care about."

Caloric number _is_ all you need to care about. It's just easier to control
when your blood sugar levels don't swing all over the place.

Caloric intake is like the first oscillation on a 1D Perlin noise function;
cutting back specific foods (not 'sources of calories', but specific compounds
that have a certain effect on the body) are a second oscillation, transposed
on the first one. So you can cut back all the carbs you want, if you don't get
your daily energy intake below your energy expenditure, you'll never lose
weight. There are other ways of losing weight too, that would work for
everybody, but they're mentally hard(er). You can lose weight by eating a McD
hamburger and small portion of fries each day, as long as you don't eat
anything else (actually, after those two, you still have a 1000 cal budget
left, which you could expend on another two portions of fries, or pure sugar
if you'd like, and you'd _still_ loose weight).

"you really should read up on ketogenic diet before criticizing it."

I'm not critizing the low carbs diet itself; it's well-known that cutting back
on carbs is a relatively easy way to loose weight. When I used to fight and
had to cut weight, it was standard advise to the point that it was obvious to
everybody who'd spend any time in the gym, even those who had been doing it
since the '80s at least. What I'm critizing is these shysters who peddle this
sort of 'advise' as something or somehow magical or more than a trick to make
it easier to get you calorie intake down. Because that's all it is. A good
trick, sure, but still just a way to get your calorie intake down.

~~~
keymone
> obesity is actually a hormonal regulatory disorder, and the hormone that
> dominates this process is insulin

where exactly in this sentence did you read "calories don't matter"?

> Caloric number _is_ all you need to care about

no it is _not_. calorie source is important. some sources spike your insulin,
some don't. insulin spikes are bad.

> just a way to get your calorie intake down

no, it's a way to lower blood glucose and remove insulin spikes. healthy
caloric deficit is important for sustainable weight loss, but avoiding foods
that cause insulin roller coaster is _also_ important. and to get into ketosis
it's literally _the only thing that matters_.

~~~
roel_v
"where exactly in this sentence did you read "calories don't matter"?"

Oh please. 'Sure I called him a no-good cotton picker, but where did I say
he's a lesser human? How dare you call me racist!' It's blatantly obvious that
the spin the OP is putting on his message is that it's not the calories that
matter, but rather 'where those calories came from', whatever that means. If
you're going to play word games (the lowest form of debate), we have nothing
to talk about here.

"some sources spike your insulin, some don't. insulin spikes are bad."

 _Insulin spikes do not cause your weight to go up_. They lead to eating more,
which is what makes your weight go up.

"but avoiding foods that cause insulin roller coaster is also important."

OK then please describe what is important about it that does not lead back to
eating less. And don't say 'just google keto diet' because it's all the same -
words and words and more words to not have to deal with the elephant in the
room which is caloric intake.

Again, I'm not saying low carb diets don't work. They obviously do, and
they're easier for many people to stick to than other diets. What I'm arguing
against is the mysticism around a subset of them, the refusal to just call
things for what they are. It's a cult thing, it seems.

~~~
keymone
> the spin the OP is putting on his message is that it's not the calories that
> matter, but rather 'where those calories came from'

you're implying that the rest of the message is "eating 1k calories is not
going to make you lose weight" and "eating 5k calories is not going to make
you gain weight" which is frankly completely false.

the message begins with "given reasonable amount of calories _it matters where
they come from_ and here's how".

> Insulin spikes do not cause your weight to go up. They lead to eating more,
> which is what makes your weight go up.

well you've basically just agreed with OPs thesis here. eating more makes you
fat, but the ultimate reason _why you eat more_ is hormonal disorder.

> what is important about it that does not lead back to eating less

eating less

a) reduces your BMR which cancels out a good amount of mental effort you've
put in restricting your calories

b) the weight you _are_ losing is in more muscle mass than fat mass due to
body's conservation mechanics

and that's not even mentioning all the nasty consequences of spiking insulin,
most of which are putting people on a fast track to diabetes (read - more
obesity, more health damage, etc).

on keto you can eat the same volume of food and same caloric intake but have
increased BMR, effectively burning fats quicker. fat foods are denser in
calories so you have more volume for things like fiber. i'm oversimplifying a
lot here, but you told me to not just say "google it".

------
indogooner
Is it proved that Carbs are harmful? Don't want to cut down on them only so
that a study 10 years down the line lists out Carb-diet benefits just like Fat
ones these days.

~~~
simonsarris
It's not carbs _per se,_ whats proven is this: Insulin spikes in your body
drive fat storage.

"Foods with lots of carbs" are a very good approximation of the nature of
foods that tend to do that. (More accurately, foods with a high glycemic
load/glycemic index)

So offhand we can say foods that contain a lot of carbs tend to have a high
gylcemic index, some more than others. Eating raw sugar is different than
slowly eating _al dente_ pasta with other foods in the mix like butter,
cheese, etc, even though they both "have carbs." Think about approximately how
long it takes different foods to break down. I hope that's intuitive as an
example.

So "carbs are harmful" isn't quite the right picture. You can eat carbs,
they're not going to harm you. But if you want to easily maintain a healthy
weight, eat mostly fat and lots of protein. And being overweight is harmful,
obviously.

(No such thing as fat but fit:
[https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/may/17/obesity-
heal...](https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/may/17/obesity-health-no-
such-thing-as-fat-but-fit-major-study))

~~~
filleokus
An interesting point (which you bring up) is how complex the behaviour of the
glycemic load is. It's dependent on the combination of food stuffs (as you
point out), but also on things like the physical shape of the food.

In Sweden we have something called "snabbmakaroner", which is basically
macaronis but smaller and with thinner walls to shorten the time needed to
boil them. Regular "makaroner", with the thicker walls has a lower GI compared
to these thinner-walled ones. Even though they have the same exact ingredients
and nutrients. I did a report on this during highschool when I tested it out
on a bunch of willing classmates, and I was able to confirm it.

------
FussyZeus
And none of this even goes into how much modern food is designed and
engineered to be as addictive as possible. Every snack food is built
practically from the molecule up to hit as many of the addiction-causing
transmitters as possible, from the texture of the food, to the shape of the
salt they use, to the size of the serving, all of it is designed to make you
want more, perpetually, and as much more as possible.

The average consumer is not even remotely prepared in a fight against a food
industry with thousands of PhD's working to make the food as addictive as
possible, the fight isn't even remotely fair. And then we get mad at everyone
who fails, and wonder why so many are so horribly obese.

~~~
philipkglass
When I was in graduate school many foreign students noted that American food
was too sweet and put in extra effort to find food that more resembled that
from their home countries. This seems at odds with humans "naturally" loving
sweetness-everywhere.

The other thing that makes the "carbs are fattening us" story seem incomplete
(though not necessarily _wrong_ ) is that a generation or two ago obesity
rates were much lower even in countries where people ate/eat carbohydrate-rich
foods routinely (noodles, rice, tortillas, bread). It's not like everyone in
Italy was on a ketogenic diet in the 1980s.

It seems like there must be multiple overlapping causes for the rise in
obesity rates because all of the One Big Thing stories I've read about it have
obvious counterexamples.

~~~
FussyZeus
Your foreign friends were onto it; the problem is that those carb-rich foods
in the US are by and large CRAMMED with sugar, which doubles down the effect;
carbs to trigger the insulin response, and sugar that the body can convert
extremely efficiently to fat. Homemade pasta is incredibly healthy; you still
should meter your intake of course, but for the most part it's very good for
you (especially if you're doing a lot of exercise). Look at the ingredients in
most box pasta sold in the US, however, and you see so much added sugar and
corn syrup.

It's not One Big Thing. It's several fairly big things, most of which are
concentrated heavily in the USA.

~~~
philipkglass
I was more questioning statements like _The average consumer is not even
remotely prepared in a fight against a food industry with thousands of PhD 's
working to make the food as addictive as possible_ \-- food from the
laboratories of Chef Boyardee is not alluring for people who haven't already
acquired the taste. If you're not conditioned to it, it's repulsive to eat
otherwise-bland food that's sweet and salty. I find much prepared American
food unappealing-to-disgusting and I've lived here all my life.

But obesity rates are rising in America and across the world, and many people
obviously have a hard time giving up this lousy food. So it seems like there's
a fairly complicated feedback loop around how people acquire/retain tastes for
foods and what they find "irresistible." I love garlic bread, french fries,
and popcorn but I eat them only a few times a month and don't feel deprived on
days that I don't. Pancakes with syrup: yuck, I'd rather go hungry for
breakfast. I don't know why I don't experience carb-cravings or have to
exercise any particular willpower to avoid sweets while others struggle
mightily.

~~~
FussyZeus
> food from the laboratories of Chef Boyardee is not alluring for people who
> haven't already acquired the taste.

And that's the most insidious part (and why obesity tends to paradoxically
trend up toward lower income households). This cheap, shitty food is extremely
attractive to the people most vulnerable to the addictive behaviors; people
who already lack most luxuries, are often short on extra time or energy (i.e.
working two jobs), and people who work with children in the household (often
too tired or want time/energy to devote to their children) and don't cook. You
can call it irresponsible or what have you (as many do) but I mean, you go out
and work a 12 hour day and then go home and spend an hour prepping a healthy
meal. Then do it tomorrow. And the next day. And the next day.

------
mothax
Lots of replies to this story Encourage moderate eating. I have always had a
tortured relationship with food and an utter inability to be moderate with it.

I've eaten a very low carb diet for ~3 years, lost over 100 pounds and have
kept it off. I don't have cravings, and sticking with my odd diet is
preferable to the alternatives (getting fatter by the day and then bulimia)
for me.

"Moderation" doesn't work for me because I can't do it. So far in my 42 years,
I've never been able to be moderate. This works.

My bloodwork is fine, btw. I have it checked regularly.

It's an immoderate diet for an immoderate guy. For some people, a healthy
relationship with food and eating is just a fantasy.

------
darrmit
I think "carbs are bad" is sort of overgeneralizing the problem. The problem
isn't carbs, it's processed carbs that are low in fiber - i.e. not vegetables.

That said, I've experienced all this same stuff with processed carbs and
sugar. I'll beat it for a few months and then end up binging/getting right
back hooked.

The best recipe I've found for managing weight (personally, since YMMV is
super applicable when it comes to fitness) is low-carb, high protein/fat, and
weightlifting 3-4 times a week.

~~~
aeorgnoieang
> weightlifting 3-4 times a week

I don't really notice much fat being burned on a keto diet without regular
exercise.

------
netman21
[Anecdotal] I have been on a 15-20g of carbs per day diet for 41 days. Giving
up carbs feels like breaking an addiction and I treat it that way. I took it
in stages so lessened the impact of keto-flu. I was gluten free for 2.5 years.
Giving up all wheat oats, and barely products (accept beer and whiskey)was the
hardest stage. After three weeks of withdrawal I lost all interest in
bread/pasta/pastries/sweets. But I still ate substitutes like potatoes and
rice. Four months ago I gave up beer/wine/whisky to address tension headaches
(no improvement, thankfully). So when I was inspired to go ketogenic it was
relatively easy. I don't find it difficult at all. Business meals invariably
involve steak or fish. I am never hungry so long airplane rides can be
addressed with maybe a handful of nuts and lots of water.

The author's claims of difficulty derive from treating himself to sweets on
occasion. That is like a smoker being a social smoker. They never manage to
quit and always have the cravings.

------
rainbowmverse
I don't know if it's _exciting advancements in food science_ or something
else, but I used to be able to make a bag of chips last a month. Now I just
can't buy them because they disappear within a day.

What's weird is I can eat carb-rich foods and get a very different result from
what the researchers in this article found. It seems to have more to do with
the composition of the meal than the exact nutritional content. A tuna
sandwich or a pot pie dumped on a baked potato (both options are ~500
calories) fills me up to the point where I don't even get hungry at a normal
meal time.

You'd expect either of those to leave me desperate for more carbs based on the
usual low-carb diet sales pitch. I tried the low-carb lifestyle. It left me
hungry and tired, no matter how carefully I followed all the good advice or
how long I stuck with it.

~~~
elcapitan
I used it twice to lose weight, and it worked perfectly. The hungry and tired
problem goes away quickly and your body just switches to burning more fat.

But you're right about filling up - that's very simply the most important
part. Don't eat lots of small high-calorie stuff. Eat a real meal that fills
you up. In carbs that would be fiber-heavy, long chain carb stuff, protein
does that pretty much by itself.

~~~
rainbowmverse
>> _The hungry and tired problem goes away quickly and your body just switches
to burning more fat._

Didn't happen when I tried it for a couple of years. I guess it didn't help
that this was the '90s when hype for the diet was making people irrational,
and the people I was dependent on forced it on me. Stress and resentment make
anything harder.

Maybe I'll give it another shot in the future. Right now, eating filling meals
while avoiding random snacking is working.

~~~
aeorgnoieang
When you tried it before, was it low-carb and high _fat_? Or high protein? The
high fat versions were new to me a few years ago.

------
JustAnotherPat
I cut carbs and have not looked back. I have even developed a dislike of them.
Our stomachs adjust to what we eat and after a while, eating two slices of
pizza just doesn't sit well.

I found always going for the lesser of two evils was a big help. Sweet potato
over regular potatoes. Vanilla Haagen-Daz over Ben and Jerry's (has lower
sugar and more fat). whole wheat wrap with some sort of high fat salad (e.g.
chicken salad) over a roll with just turkey and cheese. You wind up just
developing a preference that isn't necessarily one of exclusion.

~~~
maxerickson
Per 100 grams, there is little difference between potatoes and sweet potatoes.

The preparation and condiments will make a larger difference than the tuber.

~~~
hacktothefuture
This is pretty wrong. Take a look:

[http://www.precisionnutrition.com/regular-vs-sweet-
potatoes](http://www.precisionnutrition.com/regular-vs-sweet-potatoes)

~~~
maxerickson
No, I said per 100 grams, that page compares a medium potato to an average
sweet potato. Go find one that compares 100 grams of potato to 100 grams of
sweet potato.

(I had looked at it before I posted)

------
amelius
My tip: whenever you crave carbs, eat a hard boiled egg. The protein will make
the craving stop for a while.

------
PeterStuer
If you are going to cut out carbs, but then switch to binging on high calorie
foods such as cheese (the true crack-cocaine of food addiction) or nuts, don't
expect any results. Some claim that cutting carbs 'naturally' leads to taking
in less energy. This might be true for some, but certainly not for all.

~~~
rhinoceraptor
Ketogenic foods are very energy dense. But once you are in nutritional
ketosis, you will naturally have a moderated appetite.

Yesterday, I ate 4 eggs fried in butter (~500 calories), and three cans of
sardines (spot across lunch and dinner, ~1000 calories). I also walked about
20,0000 steps, about 10,000 of those was weighted with 30 lbs.

------
throwaway8800
I am underweight by about 10 - 20lbs and I have a lot of trouble reconciling
some of the advice around healthy eating with my attempts to gain weight. It
seems all but impossible for me to gain weight without _heavy_ reliance on
carbs. I think it's creating a bit of a dissonance because I feel damned if I
do, damned if I don't. Either stay underweight (unhealthy) or rely on carbs to
gain weight (also unhealthy?)

I have actually been drinking a lot of Soylent lately which seems very carb
heavy, but people also report success with it in terms of overall health and
ability to lose weight when used to control the total number of calories
consumed.

------
panglott
'"These studies represent the first rigorous scientific tests of the carb-
insulin model in humans," Hall added. "The public needs to understand that
this [insulin-carbohydrate] model now has pretty strong evidence against it."'
[https://www.vox.com/2016/7/6/12105660/do-low-carb-diets-
work](https://www.vox.com/2016/7/6/12105660/do-low-carb-diets-work)

------
bkjelden
For me, the single biggest boost I found to help cut my carb cravings was
cutting out diet soda and other artificial sweeteners.

------
panglott
There's a lot of people here who are really into this, but this is really the
opinion of a minority of nutrionists, without a large body of scientific
evidence supporting them. Low-carb diets are being sold to the public on a
ridiculous premise: the quality of foods can be identified based on their
major macronutrients, and "carbs" consists of a coherent group of foods. This
is ridiculous because it lumps refined sugars in the same category as
nutritious vegetables.

When my brother-in-law tried a low-carb diet, he would come over to dinner and
say that he couldn't eat lettuce, because lettuce is a carb. Well, it is, but
it has few calories, it's mostly water, and it has relatively a lot of
micronutrients. Avoiding high-satiety foods rich in micronutrients and
antioxidants—such as cabbages, apples, and greens—because you're categorizing
them with commercial soda seems insane to me.

People have psychological models of what a meal should consist of, and for
most Americans it consists of a large piece of meat as the star, some refined
starches on the side, and maybe a small amount of (probably overcooked)
vegetables. This is not very healthy: a healthier diet would put vegetables as
the base and star of the meal. There is plenty of good evidence that:

vegetable-centered diet > refined starch-centered diet

But where does meat-centered diet fit in there? What negative health
consequences are there from these diets? There are individuals who advocate
for this kind of diet, but is it really something that can be recommended to
the mass public? There is virtually no major culinary traditions built around
this style of eating, except maybe for people who subsist upon marine mammals.
My brother-in-law ended up eating grilled chicken thighs by himself until he
couldn't stand it anymore.

~~~
CosmicShadow
Just want to mention that there are always people who don't read the
literature or properly follow a "diet plan" for lack of a better word to call
it.

If you are doing the Ketogenic diet, right at the end of Gary Taubes' book
entitled "Why we get fat and what to do about it" which is about the diet (and
is the same the guy who wrote the linked article) it says this about your
daily diet in regards to vegetables:

    
    
        FOODS THAT MUST BE EATEN EVERY DAY:
    

Salad Greens: 2 cups a day. Includes arugula, bok choy, cabbage (all
varieties), chard, chives, endive, greens (all varieties, including beet,
collards, mustard, and turnip), kale, lettuce (all varieties), parsley,
spinach, radicchio, radishes, scallions, and watercress. (If it is a leaf, you
may eat it.)

Vegetables: 1 cup (measured uncooked) a day. Includes artichokes, asparagus,
broccoli, Brussels sprouts, cauliflower, celery, cucumber, eggplant, green
beans (string beans), jicama, leeks, mushrooms, okra, onions, peppers,
pumpkin, shallots, snow peas, sprouts (bean and alfalfa), sugar snap peas,
summer squash, tomatoes, rhubarb, wax beans, zucchini.

The vegetables that he says you need to stay away from: "...“starchy”
vegetables such as slow-cooked beans (pinto, lima, black beans), carrots,
parsnips, corn, peas, potatoes, French fries, potato chips."

So clearly the guy who wouldn't eat lettuce didn't do his research or just
heard "to cut all carbs is what you must do".

The book is a great read, very enlightening, and I've successfully done Keto
several times and lost a lot of weight and body fat using it, all the while
feeling better. I surely do not eat that many vegetables a day, if any,
because I hate most allowed vegetables (I just have Caesar salads
occasionally), but I still manage to feel good and lose weight. This feels
like a lot of vegetables suggested for a "meat only" viewed diet, and it seems
like more than I'm sure most people eat daily anyways, which I guess is
probably sad, but hey.

One last pitch for reading the book, it's essentially just science of the body
and fat and talk about the history of various studies and how they relate to
the science you just learned until the very end where in the appendix it
basically says, ok here is how you actually do it, if you didn't figure it out
by now (at least that's how I remember it).

~~~
panglott
My point is how this is communicated to the public. It's nice that you have
spend dozens or hundreds of hours reading ketogenic diet books, and have a
clear idea about the limitations, tradeoffs, and risks of this.

Ordinary members of the public get the message "only eat chicken thighs, and
don't eat lettuce". That's a long way from a diet that's healthy for ordinary
people.

~~~
hacktothefuture
Come on. I've never heard (no one has) the phrase, "don't eat lettuce". I've
heard don't eat processed carbs, don't eat bread, don't eat pasta, don't eat
simple sugars, don't eat potatoes.

~~~
panglott
Maybe he was doing one of those "try a ketogenic diets for 30 days", or
stumbled upon one of those keto advocates who only eats meat and lard.

If all you read about low-carb diets is the first paragraph about any popular
news story about them, then what you know is that low-carb diets are the ones
where you can eat lots of meat and you should shun any foods with sugar or
starches.

------
burnbabyburn
but why do you need to cut carbs? I eat cabs every day in the form of pasta
and I'm lean and healty

------
shadykiller
Most of the lifestyle diseases like obesity, diabetes, heart ailments are a
manifestation of carbohydrate intolerance.

However, everyone has different tolerance to carbs so the pattern is not
uniform, but as recent studies and data shows, most of us are not that lucky

------
hidflect
This concurs with my own experience precisely. If I take too much insulin I
have to take sugar to counterbalance the dose but this is no hardship as I
find I have an enormous, unstoppable craving for sweets beyond the physical
necessity.

------
shadykiller
A great video if you want to understand more on obesity -
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZKC3hiyLeRc](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZKC3hiyLeRc)

------
notadoc
It's really not hard to cut carbs, it's just a habit and exercise in minimal
self control like almost anything else in life. Eat more meat and more
vegetables, it's really that simple.

If you can't manage that because you love rice or pasta or bread, at least
replace processed and refined carbs with whole grains and you'll be much
better off.

And don't eat sweets or sugars, which are garbage. Have fruit or high quality
dark chocolate if you want something sweet or indulgent.

------
kyberias
It is the Taubes / Lustig propaganda again.

~~~
shadykiller
How is it a propaganda and what would they gain from it ?

Carbs are the most commercially profitable food to produce - sourced from
subsidized corn or wheat and have a high shelf life.

~~~
parrellel
Book Sales and the Speaking Circuit, obviously.

