Hacker News Reader

Comment by spraak | Hacker News Reader

> This may suggest that our lineage has evolved specific adaptations to digest starch-rich foods, underlining the long and continuing importance of these staples in our diet

This reminds me of the interest in keto dieting and the frustrating misunderstanding that carbs are the cause of excess weight, diabetes etc. If that were true, the whole world would be diabetic and obese, since everywhere has a staple carb. It's only with excess calories and fat that carbs contribute to, but are not the cause of, the problem.

View on HN

There are a few populations without (much) staple carbs, for example the Inuit and the Maasai. But I don't think many people solely blame carbs. It's processed carbs and sugar, hyper-palatable foods, lack of sleep, lack of sun exposure, microbiome damage from antibiotics, and a ton of other lifestyle factors.

But once you're in a compromised state (autoimmune, type 2 diabetes, hypertension, etc.), the ketogenic diet can be a very good way to treat or reverse those conditions. It doesn't mean that no one can eat carbs, it just means there are a lot of people who really do benefit from it.

Apparently Inuit people are actually fine on carbs because the meat they eat tends to retain its glycogen stores better because of the arctic conditions.

Inuits have mutated to adapt to that diet.

https://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/2015/sep/how-inuit-adapted-ice-ag...

Until recently, everyone has lived near the border of starvation, and not had an opportunity to get obese.

Since the agricultural revolution, carbs are what we have been able to mass produce, and therefore breed ourselves to greater numbers on. That it probably hasn't been the ideal diet for us is a distant secondary concern.

Now that we're finally overproducing food, we actually are getting obese on the carb diet. Coincidence? Maybe.

I think the Venus of Willendorf and her equally thicc cousins are, if you'll excuse the expression, ample proof that some people had an opportunity to get obese long before the agricultural revolution.

Sure. When I said "everybody" I really meant "almost everybody".

Of course, in preindustrial times, obesity was a sign of wealth, and that statue might be an ideal to strive for, made by paper thin worshippers.

The Venus is a fictional character. In the same era you would see statues of men with phalluses as big as their bodies. Obesity was probably rare before the agricultural revolution.

Didn't someone put a theory out that the Venus of Willendorf was not venerating the Fat Goddess, but rather what someone sees when they look straight down at their body?

(cuz cave people didn't have good mirrors and all)

Deeper explanation: https://steemit.com/science/@deeallen/self-portraits-of-fert...

There are all sorts of theories!

Olga Soffer points out that the woven clothing on the figurines is often incredibly detailed, and suggests they may have been some kind of fashion doll [1]. Mandy Weston speculates that they may be bobbins used for weaving [2]!

[1] https://www.researchgate.net/publication/235979951_The_Venus...

[2] https://www.academia.edu/31112020/Venus_Figurines_-_Evidence...

I believe that you're missing the point. We aren't getting obese on the carb diet. We are getting obese from excess calories and dietary fat. De novo lipogenesis (producing fat from only carbs) is inefficient and uncommon. Storing carbs as body fat via de novo lipogenesis is inefficient; storing dietary fat in body fat reserves is easy and efficient.

storing dietary fat works best when you eat carbs, because then your body will run on carbs and carbs will spike your insuline to signal the body to store the fat. Also the insuline spikes and drops make you crave more carbs...

That sounds like a very keto perspective. Meat can "spike" insulin, too.

> "In fact meat protein causes as much insulin release as pure sugar." and "Some of the protein-rich foods (beef, cheese, eggs) had larger insulin responses per gram than did many of the foods consisting predominately of carbohydrate." and "A low-fat diet based on less-refined, carbohydrate-rich foods with relatively low insulin scores may help enhance satiety and aid weight loss as well as improve blood glucose and lipid control" [1]

If you're not eating excess calories and are limiting fat intake, you won't get fat.

[1] http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/66/5/1264.full.pdf

"The results of this study are preliminary but we hope they stimulate discussion and further research. Additional studies are needed to determine whether the IS concept is useful, reproducible around the world, predictable in a mixed-meal context, and cliii ically useful in the treatment of diabetes mellitus, hyperlipidemia, and overweight"

Interesting but ultimately a flawed concept.

Since i was born and for 45 years i was eating a typical mediterranean diet (i live in these parts) very high in complex carbs and fibers from legumes, whole grain breads, beans. what exactly did that to my health? Gradualy from my early teens years i become overweight and later on obese, my cholesterol levels skyrocket and from the age of 20 i became pre-diabetic

Since i started a low carb diet 3 years ago (48 yo now) not only i lost all that extra weght, but i'm no longer pre diabetic and the cholesterol levels went down to normal levels. most importantly, i feel and i'm as healthy as i've never felt in my whole life so far. and all this by eating mostly meat, fish, eggs, full fat dairy and a bit of vegetables/fruits

I know very well what these 45 years of eating low-fat high complex carbs actualy did to my health and how much i suffered all these years, and i'm not intend to return back to these eating habits, Ever!

> 45 years of eating low-fat high complex carbs

Can you quantify how many grams per day "low fat" was for you? Were you consuming eggs, fish, dairy or olive oil? Were you consuming any processed foods?

Main source of my fat intake was from olive oil which was about 2 tablespoons per day (in salads). dairy, in the form of low fat yogurt (1-2 times per week) and eggs (max 2-3 eggs) was always on very limited quantities during the week, With the exception of (small fishes) fish which was only consumed durring the weekends and not more than 3 times per month, no other meat or poultry was consumed in my home. basically the majority of weekdays we were eating dishes with legumes (lentils, kidney beans, chickpea) green beans, peas, olive-oil based vegetable dishes, potatoes, brown rice, whole grain breads, salads which always were present in the table, and of course plenty of fruits. i was basically eating as vegetarian my entire life.

No processed foods, fast foods or sweets were allowed on my home, as a family, we were always very health conscious people.

I agree that you won't get fat if you're limiting calories intake, I was just saying all dietary fat isn't always stored and carbs do have an impact in fat absorption.

I'm currently losing the stubborn fat I've had for all my life, just a few pounds I couldn't get rid of: only a low carb higher fat diet has finally worked for me (my BMI is normal).

Also I'm 47 (not the killer)

That was one of the earliest GI measurement studies, though the term GI was invented later.

The problem with GI-based (or GL which takes quantity into account) is that insulin levels at 2 hours isn’t a good proxy for health. One really needs to measure the integral of the insulin level over 24 hours or more (which would involve lots of starving subjects). The best proxy we have for the overall insulin response over time is just net carbs.

The rise of obesity in the US tracks very closely with the massive increase in cheese & chicken consumption. Sugar consumption actually plateaued years earlier.

So if i switch to tofu and beef, i won't get fat?

I doubt you’d be able to stomach enough tofu to gain weight eating that alone. You’d have to eat 10 cups a day just to hit a maintenance level of about 2000 calories.

It would be a lot easier on fatty cuts of beef at 330 calories for 100g.

Undoubtedly multi-factorial, but excessive omega-6 fats as a major driver is the most convincing theory I've heard. Interesting reading: https://www.breaknutrition.com/omega-6-fatty-acids-alternati...

Your link references the street lamp joke - love that one, referenced it in a comment yesterday.

My understanding is the omega-3 oils are problematic for humans too, they’re just not as acutely toxic as the omega-6 oils. I started avoiding seed oils in college. It was not the specific intervention I needed, but I believe avoiding this anti-food has helped keep me from deteriorating like people commonly do...

As societies get richer and more sedentary they do get more diabetic and obese though. That’s not really due to carbs existing of course - but as we get easier access to luxury ultra rich foods it causes a lot of problems.

The number of carbs your body can tolerate without being converted and stored as fat is highly variable and may come down to specific genetic factors that are largely inherited from one's racial makeup. There's no doubt that carbs and sugars make a higher percentage of our diets than historical, traditional diets.

It's usually more of an issue with simple carbs, ie monosaccharides and disaccharides. Starch isn't one of them.

It is after amylase gets through with it. Amylase converts starch into disaccharides and trisaccharides. (Does that still count as simple?)

Which scientific journals have you read on the matter to form your opinion? Just curious -- always looking to learn.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com