70 ms·

I'll answer for them. None. It's just another fad diet, no less ridiculous than any other.

by pdog 10y ago

ethanbond 10y ago
Except for the long, long, long history of well established medical benefits from cutting out carbs. http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/mind-guest-blog/the-fat-fueled-brain-unnatural-or-advantageous/ http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/mind-guest-blog/the-fat-... Besides the plain fact that you can't "answer for [someone else]" when the question is about their body's reaction to certain things. I personally don't deal with carbs well, which is probably related to the diabetes that runs rampant through my family despite myself not having it. You know how there are probably foods that you like that others don't? Or that others like and you don't? Some people simply don't like consuming carbohydrates. Not because they have any disease (real nor imagined), but simply because they don't like it. It seems like you take a personal affront to people eating how they prefer to eat. Could I ask why you care? Historically speaking, in fact, the uber carb-rich diets that dominate developed western culture is the real fad. Never before have humans ingested carbohydrates in the proportion that your average American does today. > Although dairy products, cereals, refined sugars, refined vegetable oils, and alcohol make up 72.1% of the total daily energy consumed by all people in the United States, these types of foods would have contributed little or none of the energy in the typical preagricultural hominin diet (20). Additionally, mixtures of foods listed in Table 1⇓ make up the ubiquitous processed foods (eg, cookies, cake, bakery foods, breakfast cereals, bagels, rolls, muffins, crackers, chips, snack foods, pizza, soft drinks, candy, ice cream, condiments, and salad dressings) that dominate the typical US diet. http://m.ajcn.nutrition.org/content/81/2/341.full http://m.ajcn.nutrition.org/content/81/2/341.full
- M_Grey 10y ago
  From that blog, "While promising, large-scale placebo-controlled clinical trials in patients with neurological disorders are still lacking." That's the opposite of "well established medical benefits", and is more in line with, "Lots of gaps to find your god in!"
  - ethanbond 10y ago
    http://www.nature.com/ejcn/journal/v67/n8/full/ejcn2013116a.html http://www.nature.com/ejcn/journal/v67/n8/full/ejcn2013116a.... Strong evidence of therapeutic effects for: Epilesy, Type 2 diabetes, weight loss, cardiovascular disease Emerging evidence for: acne, cancer, PCOS, MS, Alzheimer's, Parkinson's
    - M_Grey 10y ago
      An example of the "strong evidence" being cited in that tome. http://press.endocrine.org/doi/10.1210/jc.2002-021480 http://press.endocrine.org/doi/10.1210/jc.2002-021480 Nutrition research a is a joke, and with 53 subjects it's easy to see where the punchline is.
      - ethanbond 10y ago
        Oh, so you're one those people who believes low n means a study is meaningless. Not sure why you even bother looking up the studies if that's how you're going to attempt to understand them.
        M_Grey 10y ago
        I'm one of those people who doesn't think they constitute, "Strong evidence", but rather a good starting point for a more telling study.
- pdog 10y ago
  > It seems like you take a personal affront to people eating how they prefer to eat. Could I ask why you care? You're probably reading too much into my comment. However—to answer your question—the overwhelming evidence of every large-scale, forward-looking nutrition study points to the consumption of complex carbohydrates (in the form of whole grains, legumes, and tubers) as the staple of a healthy diet.
sctb 10y ago
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12606335 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12606335 and marked it off-topic.

I'll answer for them. None. It's just another fad diet, no less ridiculous than any other.

by pdog 10y ago

I'll answer for them. None. It's just another fad diet, no less ridiculous than any other.

Except for the long, long, long history of well established medical benefits from cutting out carbs. http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/mind-guest-blog/the-fat-fueled-brain-unnatural-or-advantageous/ http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/mind-guest-blog/the-fat-... Besides the plain fact that you can't "answer for [someone else]" when the question is about their body's reaction to certain things. I personally don't deal with carbs well, which is probably related to the diabetes that runs rampant through my family despite myself not having it. You know how there are probably foods that you like that others don't? Or that others like and you don't? Some people simply don't like consuming carbohydrates. Not because they have any disease (real nor imagined), but simply because they don't like it. It seems like you take a personal affront to people eating how they prefer to eat. Could I ask why you care? Historically speaking, in fact, the uber carb-rich diets that dominate developed western culture is the real fad. Never before have humans ingested carbohydrates in the proportion that your average American does today. > Although dairy products, cereals, refined sugars, refined vegetable oils, and alcohol make up 72.1% of the total daily energy consumed by all people in the United States, these types of foods would have contributed little or none of the energy in the typical preagricultural hominin diet (20). Additionally, mixtures of foods listed in Table 1⇓ make up the ubiquitous processed foods (eg, cookies, cake, bakery foods, breakfast cereals, bagels, rolls, muffins, crackers, chips, snack foods, pizza, soft drinks, candy, ice cream, condiments, and salad dressings) that dominate the typical US diet. http://m.ajcn.nutrition.org/content/81/2/341.full http://m.ajcn.nutrition.org/content/81/2/341.full

M_Grey 10y ago
From that blog, "While promising, large-scale placebo-controlled clinical trials in patients with neurological disorders are still lacking." That's the opposite of "well established medical benefits", and is more in line with, "Lots of gaps to find your god in!"
- ethanbond 10y ago
  http://www.nature.com/ejcn/journal/v67/n8/full/ejcn2013116a.html http://www.nature.com/ejcn/journal/v67/n8/full/ejcn2013116a.... Strong evidence of therapeutic effects for: Epilesy, Type 2 diabetes, weight loss, cardiovascular disease Emerging evidence for: acne, cancer, PCOS, MS, Alzheimer's, Parkinson's
  - M_Grey 10y ago
    An example of the "strong evidence" being cited in that tome. http://press.endocrine.org/doi/10.1210/jc.2002-021480 http://press.endocrine.org/doi/10.1210/jc.2002-021480 Nutrition research a is a joke, and with 53 subjects it's easy to see where the punchline is.
    - ethanbond 10y ago
      Oh, so you're one those people who believes low n means a study is meaningless. Not sure why you even bother looking up the studies if that's how you're going to attempt to understand them.
      - M_Grey 10y ago
        I'm one of those people who doesn't think they constitute, "Strong evidence", but rather a good starting point for a more telling study.
pdog 10y ago
> It seems like you take a personal affront to people eating how they prefer to eat. Could I ask why you care? You're probably reading too much into my comment. However—to answer your question—the overwhelming evidence of every large-scale, forward-looking nutrition study points to the consumption of complex carbohydrates (in the form of whole grains, legumes, and tubers) as the staple of a healthy diet.

sctb 10y ago

We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12606335 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12606335 and marked it off-topic.