Hacker News Reader

Comment by montyf | Hacker News Reader

The statements "sugar is bad", "fat is bad", "fat is good" are all equally simplistic and misleading. Fruits are high in naturally-occurring sugars and they are among the healthiest things you can eat.

Turns out that nutrition is a pretty complicated science, and there existing various political and special interests influencing the science doesn't help. It's 2018 and I don't think there's even remotely a scientific consensus on what food is healthy or not, but classic common sense and listening to your body's reactions to food can go pretty far for an individual.

Nutrition is something we need to figure out as public health is declining, and I'm saddened to say the problem goes beyond the US based on what I've seen traveling. Psychology needs to get involved as well. Why do people make such bad eating decisions? I'm in Thailand and I see tons of tourists eating hamburgers instead of the tastier and healthier traditional cuisine... sigh.

View on HN

> Fruits are high in naturally-occurring sugars and they are among the healthiest things you can eat.

Can you be precise about what you mean by this, or at least qualify this statement? Modern fruit obviously pushes the definition of "natural" to it's absolute limits, but more importantly, it's at least deeply unintuitive that something that consists mostly of fructose, a little fiber, trace metals, the rare vitamin, and next to no protein or fat could be considered healthy.

Yet another poster on HN, just echoing the platitudes of keto/paleo...

> Modern fruit obviously pushes the definition of "natural" to it's absolute limits

Modern fruit is not much different nutritionally from wild fruit[1]. Sure, some ancient fruit like bananas were pretty inedible, but that is a far cry from what keto/paleo dogma suggests. As an anecdote, I am living in Borneo right now, and we can go out into the jungles of some of the most untouched land in the world and find the sweetest fruits we have ever tasted.

> it's at least deeply unintuitive that something that consists mostly of fructose, a little fiber, trace metals, the rare vitamin

I think by "deeply unintuitive" you mean "when compared to my beliefs". Fruit is some of the most nutritionally dense and healthy foods you can eat (I don't think I need to source this, but will if you refuse to yourself). HIGH in fibre, vitamins, phytonutrients, antioxidants, enzymes etc.

> and next to no protein or fat could be considered healthy.

And here again you reveal your beliefs/dogma. The MACROnutrient content of a food tells you nothing about how healthy it is.

1. https://deniseminger.com/2011/05/31/wild-and-ancient-fruit/

Do not put words into my mouth. I said nothing about keto/paleo. (If you are curious about my thoughts about those diets, KozmoNau7 elsewhere in this thread has said most of the relevant information)

Fruit, the reproductive organ of a plant, is commonly available in markets without seeds. But again, this truth is tangential to the important claims about what is actually in specific foods.

Provide your sources. Before my original post, I bing searched for "apple nutrients," "orange nutrients," and "banana nutrients." I choose these three fruits because they are the most commonly available where I live. Yes, I certainly accept that foods in ecosystems foreign to mine have different nutrient profiles than the fruits I'm familiar with, and if you're in a region where there grows a fruit with a nutrient profile similar to, for example, spinach, then you have access to some healthy fruit! However, I assume most people in the "Was there ever really a “sugar conspiracy”?" thread are Americans or interested in American dietary habits.

If you're literally saying the specific nutrient content of a food tells you nothing about how well the food contributes to maintaining vital processes, then we have a breakdown in language. If it clears things up at all, I'm using Wikipedia definition of "nutrient."

> Do not put words into my mouth. I said nothing about keto/paleo.

My apologies. Although your points are very much in line with those lifestyles and the beliefs of their proponents, that of course doesn't mean you subscribe to them.

> Before my original post, I bing searched for "apple nutrients," "orange nutrients," and "banana nutrients."

I'm not sure how to address this paragraph. Did you learn that those fruits are low in nutrients? Or are you saying that fruits that are more local to you are not nutritious? I'm not sure where exactly you live or how local we are talking so I can't comment, but those three fruits you mentioned are certainly nutritious regardless of whether they have seeds or are local.

> If you're literally saying the specific nutrient content of a food tells you nothing about how well the food contributes to maintaining vital processes, then we have a breakdown in language. If it clears things up at all, I'm using Wikipedia definition of "nutrient."

If you read what I said, it was "MACROnutrient" (protein/fat/carb). You cannot tell how nutritious a food is by the MACROnutrient content alone, you have to at least look at the MICROnutients (vitamins + minerals). This is why when a diet suggests that an entire MACROnutrient is "bad", it is totally misunderstanding nutrition.

monkeys eat 70%+ fruit and then a mix of bugs, worms, and seeds for proteins to make up the rest. Do you want gorilla strength or not? :)

> but classic common sense

Common sense is kind of a myth though right? You have no clue what is and isn't good for you: that's the point of people demonizing fat one minute and sugar the next, because you can't just do this on "gut feel".

Fruits are artificially high in naturally-occurring sugars. Fruits we have today are all fruits of artificial selection of the most sweet.

Fruits arent that good because of this.

Fruits are good. Fruit juice is bad.

Why?

The fibre content in fruits make consumption self regulated.

With juices however, refinement concentrates the sugars and removes fibre.

Example: You'd need to eat bags of coca leaves to feel high. A few pinches of cocaine?

It's difficult to eat half a stick of sugar cane. But trivial to eat 50 sticks worth of refined sugar.

Basically, overdose due to concentration by refinement is the killer.

> Fruits are artificially high in naturally-occurring sugars. Fruits we have today are all fruits of artificial selection of the most sweet.

Source? Here is some information to the contrary:

https://deniseminger.com/2011/05/31/wild-and-ancient-fruit/

No they select for fruits with the longest shelf life for economic reasons

There will never be a universal answer to the question of what foods are good and what foods are bad because a universal answer would be a stateless solution to a stateful problem. And that problem is: who are you? What do you do? How much do you move your body? What are your goals? What are your genetics predisposed to? How much do you sleep? What are your causes of stress?

At one point in my life, a very well respected nutritionist recommended to me that I eat at least 3 candy bars per day. The reason: I was a D1 swimmer in college, and I couldn't keep my weight on with 4 hours of training per day, and I was having trouble keeping up with the 7000 calorie/day diet she had prescribed for me. Sugars filled that gap. And yes, that would have been unhealthy advice to almost any other American, but for me at the state I was in, it was the healthiest thing for me.

Not everybody is a swimmer. But that doesn't matter because there is no "average" human. We're all different in some way or another, and no diet is universal. Maybe we can hone in on basic dietary recommendations, but the idea that we can find universally good or universally bad things is going to be impossible.

>At one point in my life, a very well respected nutritionist recommended to me that I eat at least 3 candy bars per day.

I received equally bizarre advice from my doctor based upon some blood test results. I was explicitly directed to eat more red meat. At the time I wasn't eating much in the way of meat at all (though I wasn't a vegetarian). He recommended that as opposed to only supplementation, and preferably alongside supplementation.

Your doctor was right. Meat is the healthiest stuff you can eat. Throw some liver in there as well and you are covered.

While it is tricky with fats, sugar is never good for you (unless some genetic disease where you die if you don’t consume sugar?).

Fruits are to various degrees beneficial but not in unlimited amounts. Fruits also don’t have a lot of sugar, see the watermelon comment in the other thread.

The problem with sugar is how easy it is in our diets to consume ridiculous amounts of it and how nobody understands that even a little of table sugar is already a ridiculous amount.

P.S. even bigger problem is that people don't understand that all the flours and starches are for all intents and purposes sugar, so it doesn't matter that you only have one teaspoon of sugar with your coffee if you consume it in large quantities in other forms.

Why did we evolve to enjoy the taste of sugar?

i don't think it is a right question. it's like asking why did we evolve to get high on morphine?

sure, there definitely are evolutionary benefits to being able to taste sugar and like it, as that will help you to spot nutrients, but this has little to do with the way we industrialized sugar production and consumption in last 200 years. rice, wheat and potatoes are not even sweet but in some countries those are primary sources of glucose.

Because you take sweet ultraprocessed food since your a baby. Then, children don't like veggies.

Plain vegetables are not palatable because they have very little nutritional value, like saw dust. If you were as rewarded for eating vegetables as you are for foods with actual nutritional value you would quickly be malnourished. If you ate a vegetable only meal you wouldn't even absorb the fat soluble vitamins from them because they don't have any fat.

In the wild where the immediate pressure is on getting enough calories and macronutrients while lack of micronutrients only cause problems in the long term, any human wasting energy collecting and digesting food that doesn't have calories and macronutrients (vegetables) would be quickly weeded out.

Look at the nutritional information of any vegetable for yourself. Fruits, nuts, legumes, grains, potatoes etc all come with the fiber, vitamins and minerals that misinformed people think can only come from vegetables while also being loaded with calories, protein and essential fatty acids all which are pretty much completely lacking in vegetables.

No. Our sense of taste is far from good at measuring nutritional value.

It's simply good enough for humanity to survive without having to evolve a more accurate taste organ.

I haven't seen any study suggesting eating vegetables is cancerous but have seen a few from meat and processed meat (studies from the WHO). I'm not vegan, but meat is 30% of my diet. If vegetables are that bad in nutritional value, why can you survive being vegan and just taking vitamin B12 complements?

I think using palatability as a way of measuring nutritional quality is not going to help you in the context of a society raised on ultraprocessed foods, because sugar, salt and other chemicals give taste to food without giving it nutritional value.

If vegetables don't give you as many calories as meat and as you say: "...any human wasting energy collecting and digesting food that doesn't have calories and macronutrients (vegetables) would be quickly weeded out", why there are so many animals still alive after millions of years eating plants (some of them eating many kilograms every day)?

I think I didn't mention meat anywhere. I am actually vegan. There are a lot of plant foods that are relatively high in calories, vitamins, minerals, fat and protein which I mentioned: fruits, nuts, legumes, grains, potatoes, berries and so on. Vegetables (e.g. cabbage, lettuce, tomatoes, cucumber etc) only have vitamins and minerals when you consider that as human you don't have the digestive system and time to digest tens of kilograms of food in a day.

Sugar contains a lot of energy so it's not fooling you when it's tasting great.

Can you say which specific animal is alive eating food without much caloric content (and which specific vegetable are they eating)?

Same reason we evolved to have brain receptors for nicotine?

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicotinic_acetylcholine_recept...

I noticed my ears have a notch that appears to be specifically designed to fit the cord of my earbuds.

I noticed earbuds and their cords are both designed to fit the human ear.

We enjoy the taste of sweetness because it tends in nature to indicate that the thing we're eating contains a lot of energy, such as fruits and sweet vegetables. And we underestimate how finely attuned this sense is. Chew on wheat for a little bit and it will begin to taste sweet as the starch breaks down in your mouth and turns into sugar.

Sugar is ridiculously sweet. Anyone who's laid off sweets for a few weeks or months and goes back to eating a muffin or having a soda tends to find it offputtingly sweet. We've taken this evolutionary benefit and exploited it for pleasure, which is quite alright in moderation. But the natural pleasure we feel from the sweetness of fruit is set in overdrive with concentrated sweetness such as powder sugar.

> it will begin to taste sweet as the starch breaks down in your mouth and turns into sugar

are you sure about this? wheat doesn't have any fructose, and it's the fructose in sugar that gives it sweetness. glucose is taste-neutral.

Glucose is _not_ taste-neutral. Just less sweet than table sugar. Grab a bag of dextrose from AMZN and try it.

you're right, thanks

Yep. After eating Jif peanut butter for my life, I switched to "natural" about 10 or so years ago. Eating a spoonful of Jif after that, and the absurd amount of sugar is immediately apparent.

sugar is never good for you

Sources? I mean, I always thought just like with most things out there, in moderation it's not harmfull. But you are saying any amount is not good? Also by that logic fruit is also bad because it does contain a certain amount ('not a lot') of sugar, no? tldr; I don't completely get the point you are making due to possibly incorrect definitions (what types of sugar?) and seemingly contradicting/overly generalizing statements.

> Sources?

https://www.google.de/search?q=sugar+insulin+resistance+pubm...

> in moderation it's not harmfull

define "in moderation".

please don't provide such lazy sources for your broad generalizations. I would challenge you to provide a study that used WHOLE fruit as the variable (not fruit juice or sugar alone) and showed it had a negative effect on insulin response.

In an effort to do as I say, here are some studies/articles showing the opposite:

1. http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/jou...

2. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3836143/

3. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3978819/

4. http://www.berkeleywellness.com/healthy-eating/food/article/...

what is your point? fruits are infinitely better than sugar. fruits still contain sugar, which is why it is recommended not to drink too much fruit juice.

what specifically are you contesting about the claim that sugar causes insulin spikes?

It seems like you didn't read your own post.

> sugar is never good for you

Fruits contain sugar, fruits are very good for you. Does that answer "what is your point?" The OP of the thread said "Fruits are high in naturally-occurring sugars and they are among the healthiest things you can eat." That's what we are discussing.

> which is why it is recommended not to drink too much fruit juice.

Nobody is talking about fruit juice in this thread.

fruits are good because of things that sugar doesn't have.

and it seems you haven't read my comment past the first sentence, because i specifically wrote about fruits there.

> fruits are good because of things that sugar doesn't have.

> sugar is never good for you

You are contradicting yourself. Would you like to amend your original statement?

> and it seems you haven't read my comment past the first sentence, because i specifically wrote about fruits there.

I am not refuting the fact that our diets have too much sugar. I am only addressing the sweeping generalizing that "sugar is never good for you".

> Would you like to amend your original statement?

no. sugar is never good for you. fruits are good because of stuff that is not sugar. there is no contradiction.

You need carbohydrates for energy. Glucose is the primary source of energy for almost every food consuming organism. Too much sugar is harmful, yes, but don't say things that aren't true.

You don’t need to consume carbohydrates for energy. You can live off of fat and protein.

The Eskimos traditional diet is a good example of this. Their diet also includes organ meats, so they got all of their vitamins and minerals in good amounts.

https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/25/8/737/4733245

Carbohydrates accounted for 15 to 20% of their calories.

"Carbohydrate accounted for only 15 to 20% of their calories, largely in the form of glycogen from the meat they consumed."

> You need carbohydrates for energy

no you don't. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gluconeogenesis

> Glucose is the primary source of energy for almost every food consuming organism

yeah, those carnivores consume so much carbohydrates!

> Too much sugar is harmful, yes, but don't say things that aren't true.

the problem is with public perception of what is "too much" - it has to be lowered significantly and people have to start counting starches as sugar.

but in any case, you could always argue that fruits are good or starchy vegetables are good in moderation, but none of it will ever apply to table sugar.

> no you don't. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gluconeogenesis

That doesn't refute his argument.

> yeah, those carnivores consume so much carbohydrates!

Fresh raw meat actually has a good amount of carbs. The muscle glycogen (animal equivalent of plant starch) starts to turn into lactic acid after death, but it's there for a carnivore that immediately starts eating after the kill. Also carnivores have jacked up gluconeogenesis. Carbohydrates are vital for carnivores who need to use anaerobic energy system to catch prey. They might not be vital for coach potato ketoers.

People usually claim that Inuits somehow survive without carbs but that's not true at all. Inuits are eating 15-20% of their calories as carbs in the form of muscle glycogen: https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/25/8/737/4733245

> That doesn't refute his argument

how come? gluconeogenesis is how body gets glucose from non-carbbohydrate sources. his argument was "You need carbohydrates for energy". you don't.

> muscle glycogen

fair enough. the comment about carnivores was not entirely correct.

> how come? gluconeogenesis is how body gets glucose from non-carbbohydrate sources. his argument was "You need carbohydrates for energy". you don't.

The body can create fat from carbs and protein via fatty acid synthesis. Does this mean fat in diet is unnecessary? Of course not. Similarly, there existing a pathway for creating carbohydrate from fat and protein doesn't by itself prove that carbohydrate is unnecessary.

> Does this mean fat in diet is unnecessary

goalpost has shifted? his wording was "body needs carbs for energy". no, body doesn't need carbs for energy.

besides, there definitely are essential fatty acids that our body cannot produce and cannot survive without, so you're wrong implying that body can survive without fats just like it can without carbs. there are no essential carbohydrates.

>all the flours and starches are for all intents and purposes sugar

Only if you look at the most refined and treated flours. Overly refined and bleached flour is obviously not great nutritionally, as with all processed foods.

Even just unbleached wheat flour is significantly better, and whole grain types are much better, plenty of fiber and vitamins/minerals.

I hope you're not claiming a good wholegrain mixed-grain sourdough bread is the same as eating white sugar.

> I hope you're not claiming a good wholegrain mixed-grain sourdough bread is the same as eating white sugar.

no, it's the same as eating 33% of that weight in white sugar, but of course ymmv

https://www.eatthismuch.com/food/view/sourdough-whole-grain-...

First of all, you're looking at a mass-produced ("artisinal" is marketing wank) low-fiber generic bread, with a rather low percentage of whole-grain flour.

Not to mention that what the US allows under the umbrella of "whole grain" is problematic.

Secondly, you're completely ignoring the fiber, vitamins and minerals you get from the bread, compared to eating straight refined pure white sugar.

No food is nutrionally perfect, but good whole-grain bread can certainly be an essential part of a balanced and healthy diet.

This war against all carbs is insane. Sure, you should absolutely avoid refined carbs and straight sugar. But that does not make keto/paleo a healthy diet.

> you're completely ignoring the fiber

how come? 33% is net carbs, which is carbs minus fiber.

i'm not advocating for paleo or keto here. just saying that people overeat simple sugars and often don't know the source.

i also don't agree keto/paleo is unhealthy. gotta provide sources for claims like that.

Bread provides additional quality nutrition, compared to straight sugar. That's my point. Not every foodstuff needs to be nutritionally complete and macro nutrient balanced.

The keto diet is widely acknowledged to be a bad choice. Here's just one summary: https://www.thedailymeal.com/healthy-eating/keto-ranked-wors...

Keto diets are useful as medical tools, but they absolutely should not be used generally by otherwise healthy people.

This is a bullshit link if I ever saw one... I mean of course the Department of Agriculture will recommend a high carb diet, given that they are mostly concerned for an agricultural sector that produces corn and other grains en masse...

The Department of Agriculture reference is only in there for context, they didn't conduct the survey.

Your conspiracy theories are showing.

> keto diet is widely acknowledged to be a bad choice

"Keto Is Ranked the Worst Diet by Health Experts"

are those the same "experts" that have been recommending people to reduce their fat intake for the last 4 decades, effectively increasing sugar consumption and being responbsible for literally millions of dead people around the world?

sorry if i won't take you seriously anymore.

These are the experts on the panel: https://health.usnews.com/best-diet/experts

The overall consensus used to be that fat was bad, but science has advanced and our view on the subject is a lot more nuanced than "fat bad". Clinical dieticians and other experts have updated their recommendations accordingly. That's how science works, we continually improve our collective knowledge.

Going completely off the rails and jumping on fad diets instead is not a wise choice.

The current recommendation of a diet heavy in plants, low in saturated fat, moderate in carbs (complex carbs, ditch the simple ones) is perfectly sound, a good average diet for the average person.

> Going completely off the rails and jumping on fad diets instead is not a wise choice

it seems your opinion on how to tell which diet is fad is based not on research but on a quick google search. inform yourself on the topic, then we can argue.

> The current recommendation of a diet heavy in plants, low in saturated fat, moderate in carbs (complex carbs, ditch the simple ones) is perfectly sound, a good average diet for the average person

except none of what you said makes the keto diet bad. i can grant you that it's not recommended for average person mainly because it requires a lot of knowledge and discipline to be following properly, but the rest is bs.

Keto is definitely a fad diet, same as Atkins, paleo and a ton of others.

I'm deep in the crossfit world, and I definitely did look at keto and paleo, before an actual dietician talked some sense into me.

Ketosis is a medical condition that is potentially harmful and even deadly in some cases. You absolutely should not go into ketosis without qualified medical assistance.

> Ketosis is a medical condition that is potentially harmful and even deadly in some cases

it is not compatible with certain diseases or other medical conditions, but blanket statement like that is bullshit.

There is a very real risk of kidney damage, if not supervised by a medical professional.

source needed. proper hydration and not overeating protein means kidneys will be fine.

Keto and paleo are by definition "overeating protein".

If you’re going to make a blanket statement like this, would you also provide the definitions you’re working with? Ketosis (not to be confused with ketoacidosis) is a metabolic cycle. Paleo is a diet which, while having no completely agreed upon definition that I’m aware of, often focuses on limiting grain-based sources of carbohydrates. If your definition of “overeating protein” is based on a ratio of macronutrients, that’s something that can be usefully discussed; similarly if you’re referring to some quantity of protein. As it is, you’ve stated something which really isn’t helpful in moving discussion forward.

I'm not going to argue with fanatics.

just as i said - inform yourself on the topic, come arguing later. you have no idea what you're talking about.

just to not leave you completely uninformed - general guideline for protein on keto is 1g per kilogram of bodyweight. i really want to see how will you argue that that is "overeating protein", especially considering that you're "deep in crossfit world".

You're welcome to stick with your pseudoscientific fad diets, it has no effect on my life.

of course you have nothing to say when factual data gets involved :) good luck

I would have something to say if you came with actual data. I've provided expert opinions that keto and Paleo are objectively bad. You've provided nothing but emotional arguments and pseudoscience.

> I would have something to say if you came with actual data.

the actual data is that protein consumption on keto is 1g per kilogram of bodyweight.

the question is why do you think that is "overeating protein", and if you don't - you're obviously thinking of a different number and the question becomes what it is and where did you get that number?

> expert opinions that keto and Paleo are objectively bad

expert opinion is by definition not objective, it's an opinion. you haven't even provided any evidence that keto is "bad". from everything you've said the only conclusion i can make is that you have no idea what keto is at all.

The only positive thing keto does (as a side effect) is cut down on simple sugars. Everything else is counterproductive at best.

You're putting your body in an emergency state and stressing your overall health. It can work short term, if you're conscious of the dangers (especially ketoacidosis), but it absolutely shouldn't be done on the long term, unless you have a very specific medical need (such as epilepsy).

And as always, short term diets are silly and can cause more harm than good. Long term lifestyle change is what is actually needed, not short term fad diets.

so still no comment on protein? unless we get to the bottom of this, everything you're saying about keto comes with a huge blinking neon sign "HAS NO IDEA WHAT KETO IS"?

> emergency state

nope. it's a state our bodies have evolved to survive in. there is no scientific evidence that ketosis is harmful.

> if you're conscious of the dangers (especially ketoacidosis)

ketoacidosis is impossible to achieve on keto diet unless you are trying VERY hard. seriously, inform yourself on the topic https://www.healthline.com/health/ketosis-vs-ketoacidosis

> absolutely shouldn't be done on the long term

you know that because?

> Long term lifestyle change is what is actually needed, not short term fad diets

totally agree. the difference is that i know that keto is a valid long term lifestyle and there is no evidence of it being harmful, while the benefits i observe every day.

>it's a state our bodies have evolved to survive in

In an emergency

Which is absolutely not the same thing as a healthy long term state.

so what about that overeating protein? and what about your ketoacidosis fud? will you concede you were wrong?

> Which is absolutely not the same thing as a healthy long term state.

you call it emergency because you were told by some fad vegan food blogger to call it that because "emergency" comes with negative connotations.

it's just a different metabolic state, there is no evidence that it is harmful long term. unless you want to present some?

>fad vegan food blogger

What? Hell no.

I'm advocating for a healthy, balanced diet as part of a healthy, balanced lifestyle. "Eat food, mostly plants, not too much", and cut out those simple sugars and processed foods. Simple as that.

No fads, just a basic long term lifestyle change that works, without buzzwords, without fancy diets, without expensive books or courses or gurus.

And without the risks associated with ketogenic diets:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11575609

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.0013-9580.2005....

https://www.deepdyve.com/lp/elsevier/sudden-cardiac-death-in...

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S105913111...

i have to keep repeating this: so what about that overeating protein? and what about your ketoacidosis fud? will you concede you were wrong?

> healthy, balanced diet as part of a healthy, balanced lifestyle

there can be more than one healthy and balanced diet

> long term lifestyle change that works, without buzzwords, without fancy diets, without expensive books or courses or gurus.

yep, keto can be like this. no buzzwords, gurus, courses or books, just basic scientific facts about body metabolism.

> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11575609

9-yo girl with seizure disorder and ketogenic diet prescription since infancy. single case in 70 years of such treatment.

> http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.0013-9580.2005.....

retrospective study of epilepsy patients treated with the KD during 1995 through 2003 at the Korean multicenters

Conclusions: The KD is a safe and effective alternative therapy for intractable childhood epilepsy in Korea, although the customary diet contains substantially less fat than traditional Western diets, but life-threatening complications should be monitored closely during follow-up.

> https://www.deepdyve.com/lp/elsevier/sudden-cardiac-death-in....

more reports about complications in patients treated from seizures.

> https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S105913111....

evaluate the efficacy and safety of the ketogenic diet (KD) treatment of refractory childhood epilepsy

Conclusions The KD is a safe and efficacious therapy for intractable childhood epilepsy in Chinese children. The influence of age on efficacy is worth further investigation.

do you spot the similarities? all those are reports about patients with epilepsy/seizures. some had complications. for most KD was effective in reducing seizures.

making any implications from that data about effects on healthy individuals is ridiculous FUD.

Listen, I'm not going to stop you from keto or paleo or homeopathy or any other wild idea.

Just be aware that the claimed scientific proof for its effectiveness is shaky at best, and there are definite dangers, which is why a medical professional should be consulted before starting.

It may be fine for you, but you are not everyone.

There is a hell of a lot of Dunning-Kruger effect going on in nerd circles, where high technical skill in one area is mistakenly believed to mean equal mastery in all other subjects. In this case it is nutrition, where a group of people have decided that they've "cracked the metabolism's secrets", "dieticians hate this one easy trick!"-style. It doesn't work that way, though. There are no easy shortcuts to weight loss and health, no matter how you stress your metabolism.

Health is simple, but it is not easy.

Dollars to donuts (ha!) your overall increase in health happened because you now look at lot more carefully at what you eat, plus cut out simple sugars completely. That is a very good lifestyle change, and enough to make up for the negatives of ketogenic diets, giving a net positive.

you still refuse to answer: so what about that overeating protein? and what about your ketoacidosis fud? will you concede you were wrong?

> claimed scientific proof for its effectiveness is shaky at best

studies show the opposite: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2716748/

> there are definite dangers

yeah, for kids with epilepsy. still best treatment so far even despite complications.

none of this allows you to make any conclusions about harmful effects on healthy individuals.

> In this case it is nutrition, where a group of people have decided that they've "cracked the metabolism's secrets", "dieticians hate this one easy trick!"-style. It doesn't work that way, though. There are no easy shortcuts to weight loss and health, no matter how you stress your metabolism.

you're still in the mindset that keto is short term fat loss fad diet. it isn't, it's a longterm lifestyle change.

> That is a very good lifestyle change, and enough to make up for the negatives of ketogenic diets

of which you have yet to show any evidence.

this whole thread is you reiterating the same crap and me constantly asking to back it up with some evidence. it's getting tiresome.

Keto is deliberately putting your metabolism into survival mode. It is putting a stress factor on the organism.

The study you link claims to study a "long term ketogenic diet", but only cover a 24-week period. That's less than 6 months.

That is absolutely not "long term". When talking about long term in diet and lifestyle terms, we are talking about several years, hopefully the entire remainder of a person's life.

Maybe the keto diet is making your tired and argumentative (a well-known side effect). There is no reason to be belligerent, just because I don't believe in your chosen fad diet.

https://asunow.asu.edu/content/low-carb-diets-may-stress-bod...

> The study you link claims to study a "long term ketogenic diet", but only cover a 24-week period. That's less than 6 months.

24 weeks is 6 months give or take few days. but obviously you will keep coming up with higher barriers no matter the evidence presented to you.

you silence on this one is very telling: so what about that overeating protein? and what about your ketoacidosis fud? will you concede you were wrong?

inform yourself on the topic, then come arguing.

White bread is nutritionally poor

>White bread is nutritionally poor

Yes, absolutely. No one is arguing against that. But it's still less bad than straight sugar.

I live near an amazing bakery that does good sourdough bread with plenty of seeds, and I bake my own sourdough whole grain breads. The proximity of a good bakery and stores where I can buy good flour will seriously affect where I will even consider buying a house next time.

I buy meat, fish, vegetables, fruits and I have a nice diet without counting calories or other nutrients. I avoid ultra-processed foods, I may have a few of them on weekends.

I've had 2 blood analysis, one at the beginning of my new diet (and lifestyle) and the other one 6 months later. All perfect.

I just eat carbs for lunch and that's because I'm looking to lose weight. If I wouldn't want to lose weight I would just look at how reasonable are the quantities I eat. There's no need to be maniac at what you eat if what you eat is healthy and natural.

It seems like the food industry has made us forget how to eat properly, and that's normal because they influence us since we are kids (even babies).

"Lifestyle" is the key here. Diets are temporary, a lifestyle change is what most people need.

> Fruits are to various degrees beneficial but not in unlimited amounts.

You cannot eat too much fruit.

https://nutritionfacts.org/2017/02/23/can-you-eat-too-much-f...

you can, in form of fruit juice. many confuse the two.

I never mentioned juice. I was talking about fruit. Stop trying to equate the two.

ffs.. how on earth from me saying

> many confuse the two

you made the conclusion that i'm trying to equate the two?

When we say "sugar is bad" we refer to the 'simple sugars' found in ultraprocessed foods, not the slow absorption ones.

Fructose is unhealthy... but glucose is healthy. How they are metabolized is key. :)

Wrong, see above

You're wrong. If you want to know why:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM

A brilliant lecture by Robert H. Lustig, MD, UCSF Professor of Pediatrics in the Division of Endocrinology. He knows his stuff. :)

Ok, thanks. I do trust Lustig. Interesting then that the Europeans do have the opposite opinion. They are not influenced by the sugar lobby.

So there's no scientific consensus on what's healthy or not, but surely hamburgers are not healthy? Isn't that a contradiction? Hamburgers can be very healthy. Maybe that's why people make such eating decisions--there isn't enough good information and everyone thinks they have it figured out when they don't.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com