Hacker News Reader

Comment by noondip | Hacker News Reader

What you're saying is scientifically untenable. For one, dietary fiber is not a macronutrient, so including that in your ratio is just incorrect. Secondly, carbohydrates are the preferred source of energy for your brain and body - the majority (80%+) of a healthy diet should consist of carbs - whole wheat like pasta, veggies, fruit, legumes, etc. Finally, even WHO recommends only 5% of caloric intake from protein. May I ask where you're sourcing your information? Every respectable medical and nutritional journal I've read recommends a whole plant-based diet, low in protein and fat, and high in carbohydrates, for optimal human health.

View on HN

Just a few nit-picks:

Dietary fiber (at least fermentable poly/oligosaccharides), while technically a form of carbohydrate, is fermented to short chain fatty acids by the bacteria in your gut. These short chain fatty acids have some fairly special physiological effects that you can't get from other macronutrients. For this reason, from a health perspective it does make sense to treat fermentable fibers as a separate category of nutrient, and set an intake target for it.

Also, lactate is the preferred fuel for your brain; it has been shown that if lactate is available glucose uptake by the brain is _greatly_ diminished. In fact, a major role of astrocytes in the brain is the metabolism of glucose to lactate for primary neurons.

As for the 5% protein number, for starters that is meaningless without knowing the number of calories being consumed. If someone was somehow active enough to burn 10K calories a day 5% protein might be a reasonable amount. For your typical 2K cal/day diet, however, that number is woefully inadequate. 0.8g/Kg/day is the minimum anyone should reasonably be getting, and even non-exercising populations will tend to be leaner and feel better around 1.2g/Kg/day, not to mention athletes who will do best around 1.7g/Kg/day.

I find low protein and fat and high carb diets troublesome for myself. The opposite, high fat/high protein has proven significantly better from a health perspective. I'm skeptical of what any organization tells me, especially when the majority of food companies benefit with high carb consumption. One could argue that portion size is the culprit, after all, carbs are not as satiating as fat or protein. As obesity becomes the no. 1 cost for insurance companies, I am sure they will invest in a solution to be rid of it.

How are you determining it to be "significantly better from a health perspective"? What is your blood pressure? How do you know you don't have elevated low-density lipoprotein cholesterol serum? What are you eating in a high carb diet - is it whole plant-based foods, or refined and processed junk? Portion size is not the culprit; can you find a case study of an overweight plant-based vegan who does not portion control?

Anyone who eats above their TDEE for an extended period will become obese, which is trivially possible on a vegan diet of french fries topped with sugar and olive oil. What does this have to do with a vegan diet?

Since you're asking personal medical questions, my blood pressure/blood tests are all nominal, my RHR is ~55, and I eat a high-protein vegetarian diet, with the primary protein sources being skim greek yogurt, whey powder, eggs, tofu, edamame, and seitan. Besides that I mostly eat vegetables and noodles.

That's why I've said "plant-based vegan diet" and not "vegan diet of french fries topped with sugar and olive oil".

Please post the actual numbers, as "nominal" levels in a society where it is normal to die from cardiovascular disease, for example, are not a good representation of optimal health.

Did potatoes, sugar cane, and olives stop being plants...?

A potato is not a french fry, sugar cane is not sucrose syrup, nor are olives equal to olive oil. This is why I keep saying, whole plant-based foods, i.e., unprocessed and unrefined ones.

> Anyone who eats above their TDEE for an extended period will become obese

Well, they'll gain weight; whether that's muscle or fat -- and thus whether it contributes to obesity by the more significant adiposity-based standards rather than the less-meaningful BMI-based standards -- depends on other factors than whether they are consuming more calories than their TDEE.

Sorry, you're totally correct - this assumes someone that isn't performing strength-based exercise!

Probably from the /r/keto echo chamber. Don't waste your time arguing with fanatics.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com