3 ms·

I don't have an HN account, because it is a poor use of my time, but I made one to counter your points (which date back decades, and have been already debunked

I don't have an HN account, because it is a poor use of my time, but I made one to counter your points (which date back decades, and have been already debunked by those more eloquent than I). 1. High-fat diets, as done in your 3rd paper and as done in most "high fat" studies, are incorrectly labeled such. "High-fat diet (HFD, n = 10: 55 % fat/25 % saturated fat/27 % carbohydrate)"[0] is not what the parent meant by "reducing sugar and carbs altogether instead of promoting whole grains as they do." A more honest interpretation would be "max 40g carbs, the rest fats and proteins." This is because the main benefits of such a diet only come out when carbohydrates are severely restricted -- as has been known for a while now. 2. Linking papers, without any sort of commentary or notion as to the reason for their inclusion, is in poor taste. In most cases this is done when the poster themselves haven't thoroughly read the articles in question. I won't go so far as to say this has been done today, but I will say it is a disrespect of our time to post lengthy papers without any sort of reasoning behind why they've been posted. 3. The first two links (technically one paper)[1][2] are statistical analyses of different food groups and their association with type 2 diabetes. The same error is done here as has been mentioned in my first point: without controlling for the whole diet, and using a very low carb, high fat/protein diet, the findings are irrelevant. Risk ratios are a notable finding, not a be-all end-all. Correlation is not causation. Continue platitudes ad infinitum and ad nauseam. [0] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5291812/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5291812/ [1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5506108/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5506108/ [2] https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/ijc.31198 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/ijc.31198

876978095789789 3y ago
> 1. High-fat diets, as done in your 3rd paper and as done in most "high fat" studies, are incorrectly labeled such. "High-fat diet (HFD, n = 10: 55 % fat/25 % saturated fat/27 % carbohydrate)"[0] is not what the parent meant by "reducing sugar and carbs altogether instead of promoting whole grains as they do." A more honest interpretation would be "max 40g carbs, the rest fats and proteins." This is because the main benefits of such a diet only come out when carbohydrates are severely restricted -- as has been known for a while now. Where's the evidence? I linked to a study, one that isn't confounded by weight-loss (unlike the studies you people like to cite) demonstrating that as the fat (especially saturated fat) content of the diet increased to an absurd degree (55%!), insulin sensitivity tanked. Why would insulin sensitivity, when measured by an Oral Glucose Tolerance Test, suddenly improve if you restricted carbohydrate even further? Yeah, at some point your intake will be so low that you can "game" an HbA1c or fasting BG test, but underlying insulin sensitivity will be trash (which an OGTT would show), unless maybe you lose enough bodyfat to offset it. Why do so many people on keto develop "physiological insulin resistance?" Why does all of the epidemiological evidence show strong inverse correlations between low-fat carbohydrate consumption (like whole grains and fruits) and T2DM, but the reverse for high-fat "carbs" like cookies or pizza? The most reasonable interpretation of the data right now is that high-fat diets make you less insulin sensitive.
- xenonite 3y ago
  I understand that the metabolic syndrome is the actual problem, not insulin resistance (although it may be part of the syndrome). Moreover, physiological (not pathological) insulin resistance should be reversed within few days. Nonetheless, I found it easy to find studies showing the exact opposite. So I think the situation is not so clear-cut as you write. What do you mean with "losing enough bodyfat to offset it"?

876978095789789 3y ago

> 1. High-fat diets, as done in your 3rd paper and as done in most "high fat" studies, are incorrectly labeled such. "High-fat diet (HFD, n = 10: 55 % fat/25 % saturated fat/27 % carbohydrate)"[0] is not what the parent meant by "reducing sugar and carbs altogether instead of promoting whole grains as they do." A more honest interpretation would be "max 40g carbs, the rest fats and proteins." This is because the main benefits of such a diet only come out when carbohydrates are severely restricted -- as has been known for a while now. Where's the evidence? I linked to a study, one that isn't confounded by weight-loss (unlike the studies you people like to cite) demonstrating that as the fat (especially saturated fat) content of the diet increased to an absurd degree (55%!), insulin sensitivity tanked. Why would insulin sensitivity, when measured by an Oral Glucose Tolerance Test, suddenly improve if you restricted carbohydrate even further? Yeah, at some point your intake will be so low that you can "game" an HbA1c or fasting BG test, but underlying insulin sensitivity will be trash (which an OGTT would show), unless maybe you lose enough bodyfat to offset it. Why do so many people on keto develop "physiological insulin resistance?" Why does all of the epidemiological evidence show strong inverse correlations between low-fat carbohydrate consumption (like whole grains and fruits) and T2DM, but the reverse for high-fat "carbs" like cookies or pizza? The most reasonable interpretation of the data right now is that high-fat diets make you less insulin sensitive.

xenonite 3y ago
I understand that the metabolic syndrome is the actual problem, not insulin resistance (although it may be part of the syndrome). Moreover, physiological (not pathological) insulin resistance should be reversed within few days. Nonetheless, I found it easy to find studies showing the exact opposite. So I think the situation is not so clear-cut as you write. What do you mean with "losing enough bodyfat to offset it"?