USDA ignoring the science on low-carb diets

Even without the science... for me personally at 47 and a life long sugar addict (used to eat tablespoons of white sugar from pantry), a low carb (keto) diet has been a complete game changer. I kept my weight in check by doing 6 days of exercise a week, but I was on an energetic roller coaster. 3 months in, no sugar, no cravings (I crave oils sometimes) and damn I just feel well in a way I haven't for long before I can remember.

My habits formed when young and when my body was more capable of handling high sugar. But after aging, insulin sensitivity declines, sugars have a more adverse effect, and feels like high sugar levels have just been feeding an imbalance in the GI tract.

Reading into the peculiar new science of poop transplants it's been interesting to observe my body as a factory process and the quality of the output (poop) is an important great indicator of system health. Obvious to many, but was not to me for years. In parallel to improved gut health my focus and productivity are more predictable.

I thought I'd never kick my addiction to sugar. After making the switch and viewing from a different perspective I'm shocked how where I live 95% of everything in the grocery store has sugar added.

I'm not convinced by some of the common beliefs about low-carb diets either. They seem to be good for weight loss[0] but bad for all-cause mortality[1]. If you're making dietary recommendations, it's hard to justify choosing a diet that makes the people who eat it skinnier and less diabetic but also kills some of them.

I'm also not convinced that "low-carb" in the literature means you can draw conclusions about ketogenic diets, especially ones that actually send you into ketosis. Some low-carb diets from that first meta-analysis had 35% carbs by energy!

My impression of the available evidence is that if you want to lose weight, calorie restriction and high-satiety foods matter more than macros.

[0] https://www.mdpi.com/2072-6643/12/12/3774/htm

[1] https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal...

The BMJ has had to issue several corrections about this author’s work. For example:

This Feature (BMJ 2015;351:h4962, doi:10.1136/bmj.h4962) by Nina Teicholz stated that when the guidelines advisory committee started its work in 2012 there had been several prominent papers, including a meta-analysis and two major reviews (one systematic), that failed to confirm an association between saturated fats and heart disease. This statement did not aptly reflect the findings of the more authoritative of these reviews, by Hooper et al (Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2012;5:CD002137), which found that saturated fats had an effect on cardiovascular events but failed to confirm an effect on cardiovascular mortality.

https://www.bmj.com/content/351/bmj.h5686

Interesting name for a new blog.

And, the author's apparently had accuracy issues before: https://www.bmj.com/content/355/bmj.i6061

In the western world the default is a high-carb diet. Moving away from that i probably beneficial to most people. My personal journey has been from a rather normal western diet towards more vegetarian, but i still don't mind a little bit of bacon on top. The effect was OK, but not spectacular. Now in my mid-40 (25ish BMI) I started walking 2-3 times weekly about two years ago and have advanced to running about as often. Now a few weeks ago started running interval 1-2 times a week. The weight loss is really good with interval training. It doesn't take long to do the exercise, and the body keeps burning fat for hours afterwards. Or so it appears on my bathroom weight and on my garmin watch (forrunner 745, nice and not too expensive). So I save a lot of time doing interval vs walking for hours. That said walking alone in the forest is magic for solving problems, and prepares the untrained body for harder workouts. Also I realized I had a lot of time. I spent 15 years not maintaining this body properly, I can spend 5 years getting back to where I want to be. There is no rush, there is just life.

A reminder to those who demonize carbs: as Stephan Guyenet points out, restricting your consumption of any category of food--whether you're avoiding carbs, or fat, or meat, or plants--will reliably cause weight loss by removing some highly rewarding/palatable foods from your diet.

So we shouldn't be surprised that both low-carb and vegetarian diets can produce weight loss, and that many people have had success with each method.

Important to note here is that the diet guidelines are largely used to underscore the USDA's funding for production guidelines.

Carb-heavy diets are tied to grain-heavy cultivation.

You might be able to think of a company or two that might be significantly interested in slowing that turn for as long as possible.

Initially there was a DoD influenced posture for ensuring that the country's diet and fields were appropriately aligned. I haven't been able to find any recent documentation of those conversations, but they're understandably difficult to track.

The guidelines here aren't a micro-service, and they're too tightly coupled to all the other fingers in the pot.

I imagine if the headline news declared that we should reduce the carbs in our diets, most Americans would up the meat intake and not vegetables, and that would reduce fiber in their diet even more.

If you haven't tried a low-carb diet, you should and see how it works for you. I never felt better than I did when I was eating pretty much just Chipotle salads (chicken+salad+guac) and doing a bit of weightlifting three times a week (https://stronglifts.com/5x5). Of course, I was in my mid-20s and had three fewer kids, so there's that...

I'll add--free office snacks are the devil's work.

My main issue with low carb is that humans have been eating carbs for thousands of years. The obesity epidemic is only decades old. I've seen enough evidence that low carb is working for people, so it would seem like something in the carbs we eat in particular is causing the problem... not carbs in general. We should significantly increase the science in this area in my opinion.

As someone who has lost significant weight on a keto diet (~80lbs) I can say it works in assisting someone who is overweight lose weight which can help with their health issues. It is easy to stall out by eating too much protein and fat, you still have to go hungry to cut down calorie intake. But it's overall a fad diet that ignores a lot of valuable nutrition that will be lacking essential healthy food.

My take on the diet you need is that it should have a good fiber to carb ratio (5:1 or less) and low in added salt, fat, and sugars (ideally none added). If you start looking at foods in this category they are all the so called superfoods. Soluble fiber slows down absorption of sugar, lowers cholesterol levels and increases satiety.

The unspoken truth here... The USDA doesn't represent the consumer. The USDA represents the agriculture industry.

Source: I worked on contract there for a couple of years.

The USDA only protects and represents producers: full corporate capture. They run interference for Puppy mills [1], organic food mislabeling [2], misdirected trade aid to large operations instead of family farms [3], and germane to OP, all kinds of lobbying and gigabuck price supports for dairy products which shouldn't even be recommended daily diet. Etc.

1, https://www.aspca.org/news/usda-letting-puppy-mills-operate-...

2. https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2021/11/15/the-great-orga...

3. https://www.agriculture.senate.gov/newsroom/dem/press/releas...

4. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_pyramid_(nutrition)#Contr...

Getting rid of the sugar and refined carbohydrates in my diet (as well as learning to cook my food from scratch) was the big lifestyle change that has kept the weight off of me for the past decade and a half.

I do eat a lot of legumes, which still have carbs, just not refined carbs.

Previously, I would yo-yo up and down.

the best diet is the one that works for you.

for some it’s low carb, for others it’s vegan.

what’s key is to focus on what you eat, that’s probably 80% of the battle.

Interesting reports of individuals turning their life upside down. Just don't understand how they account for confounders and seem to make carbs responsible for everything that went wrong before their transition. But since sometimes it's those individual reports that get people to take action, I don't judge, happy for everyone taking charge of their health.

There are many factors driving weigth loss or gain, the macronutrients per se seem to be irrelevant in the long term though: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19246357/

There are health risks involved in low/no carb diets and the article mentions none of those.

If you want to convince regulators, perhaps you should first try to convince serious nutritionists. Because very few of them really buy this keto narrative.

Simply put, any form of restriction diet tends to cause people to eat less. That can be restricted time or restricted options. People who eat less tend to lose weight, and some of that weight comes from fat.

People who lower their bodyfat have so many kinds of improved blood markers.

To make a point this guy lost 27lbs on twinkies : https://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor...

The only free lunch (pun intended) I think I've observed seems to be protein and unprocessed foods are harder to digest and thus cost some digestion calories (increase the out side of the equation).

When someone tells you that "people lost weight on Diet X" you need to think "Did they lose more or less than on a standard diet equated for how processed it is (fiber), calories, and protein?".

Source: This is all summarized well in the book Fat Loss Forever by Layne Norton and others

For me time restricted eating with high protein intake from beans and tofu and a lot of vegetables+seeds did the thing. I guess there are more ways to achieve the same goal. Some diets are healthier some are not, but i don't think there should be only one approved by fda or any other organization

We have forgotten how to eat. The trope is eat a well-rounded diet, which includes carbs, but being mindful that anything processed is likely going to put you over the limit of sugar intake for that day. That's because carbs are an easy substitute for a meal -- pasta, pizza, bread... then add on a few beers or a glass of wine, some candy, fruit, and not to mention sugar put into everything processed to stabilize it or make it more palatable. They fill us up but don't add a lot of nutrition.

Our bodies just aren't meant to digest this much sugar. It's starting to transcend food groups too. I swear certain meat products are replete with carbs because large-scale hog and cattle operations are feeding their animals almost exclusively with corn or other grains, and I'm not sure they can digest all those carbs either, so it is passed on via bioaccumulation to us when we eat it. (I might be totally off the mark here.)

The cynical part of me isn't surprised that the USDA doesn't care. Sugar is a huge business for American farms. To the extent that we subsidize billions of dollars in corn, wheat, and beets, it's not surprising that the cycle continues because the economy relies on the energy these staples condense into processed and cheap foods. It's an externality that we're taking out on our bodies and has profound implications for underserved communities.

I would be satisfied if the USDA recognized fructose as a toxin, and required labels to say how much fructose is in everything.

We might then start seeing the things pumped full of sugar having glucose/dextrose instead. And, the greatest health crisis the UK and its former colonies has ever seen might then start winding down.

If we can institute emergency measures for COVID-19, it seems like we ought to be able to do a little something about a cause of overwhelmingly worse mortality.

After going on a low carb diet, my skin has never been healthier. Acne, dry skin, dandruff, itchiness and random hives that I've experienced as long as I can remember have all dissapeared.

Also my mood and emotional balance have never been more stable.

I primarily eat whole, unprocessed foods: meat/fish, veggies, nuts and seeds, and occasionally some low sugar fruit after intense exercise.

It's been perhaps the most positive change Ive ever made for my mental and physical health

I'll know they're serious about health when they put a tax on added sugar and an additional tax on high fructose corn syrup.

Until then, they're just actors on a stage

A good start would be to remove food from FDA and task the USDA with inspections. Remove making of food consumption guidelines altogether.

We'll have a colony on Mars before we agree on what constitutes a healthy diet.

Another case of "trust the experts" and a corrupt centralised entity.

Of course it makes perfect sense: when you buy meat you're not buying highly processed, expensive, vegetarian/vegan food.

The meat and dairy industry vs vegetarian food. Guess who can lobby more?

If you want to try low-carb, note that the health effects of lower carbs usually aren't going to be binary. That is you aren't going to have no improvement until carbs go below some threshold and then you suddenly have the full possible improvement as soon as carbs cross that threshold.

In particular you don't have to go to one of the very very low carb diets like keto to get significant benefits. Much of the published research that finds benefits in low carb diets used diets of up to 30% of calories from carbs.

Personally I'd suggest starting off with a target of 40% or fewer calories from carbs. I suggest 40% for three reasons.

1. It's well below both the level of the USDA recommended diets and the even higher amount of carbs that most typical Americans eat. Even if you might achieve more benefit at some even lower level, many people will be able to achieve their goals at 40%, which is an easier target.

2. The math of 40% carbs fits in well with the information on nutrition labels, because 1g of carbs is on average about 4 calories. This means that if the label says some item has C calories, then the number of grams of carbs it can have without going over 40% is C cal x 40% x 1g/4cal = C/10 grams.

For example part of my breakfast today was a sausage, egg, and cheese croissant sandwich. 390 calories, 29 grams of carbs. 390/10 = 39, so this thing was under 40% calories from carbs.

3. 40% is not hard to achieve without giving up much of what you probably currently eat including fast food, pasta, bread, and sweet deserts. I think a lot of people fail at the very low carb diets because they can require major changes to what you eat and often require that you either do a lot more home cooking or eat at more expensive restaurants.

If you decide to try this here are some tips for executing. (Actually they should work for other percentages besides 40%).

1. Most meals consist of more than one thing, so you probably should be looking at the meal as a whole rather than the individual items. If one some items go over 40% and some are under, but total carbs for the mean is not over 40% of total calories it should be OK.

I'm not sure if that reasoning carries over to longer timeframes like days or weeks. When you eat a meal it is all going to get processed at about the same time. So a meal that consists of say one high carb item and one low carb item should be about equivalent to a meal that consists of a single item with the combined calories and carbs.

If you eat a high carb breakfast, say, and try to balance it with a low carb meal so the daily numbers look good, I'm not sure that would work because the breakfast was already processes before you had dinner. Whatever harmful effects high carbs have might have already taken place. Same of weekly or longer numbers.

Thus my current feeling is to aim for 40% max for every meal.

Anyway, there are a couple of ways to do the math for a meal. Let's say I'm thinking of ordering a cheeseburger (300 cal, 30 g carb) and medium fries (320 cal, 39 g carb) from McDonald's for lunch.

One way would be to add things up, giving 620 cal and 69 g carb. I can see that 620/10 = 62 g of carbs allowed, which is under the 69 g of carbs in the meal, so not good.

A simple way I think is to do each item separately, keeping track of a running net carb allowance. So cheeseburger is 300/10 = 30 g allowed carbs and has 30 g carbs, so we are net 0 g carbs. The the fries are 32 allowed 39 g actual, so 7 g over. That brings is to a net 7 g over.

2. If the numbers aren't quite working out for a particular meal, you might be able to fix them by modifying the items. Maybe switch condiments (go from light mayo to regular mayo) or add more meat.

For example, if I change my proposed McD's lunch to have a double cheeseburger (450 cal, 32 g carb) instead of a single cheeseburger, now the double cheeseburger starts us at 13 g carb below target. The fries add 7 g excess carbs, leaving us 6 g of carbs under target.

This is the key to doing 40% without having to totally change how you eat. But be careful with this because those mods usually involve adding calories. Don't let that get out of hand.

One way to address that is portions. For example lets say you were going to eat a whole medium pepperoni and sausage pizza but see that it is over on the carbs but doubling the pepperoni will bring it under. But then it is more calories than you want.

You might drop the size down to a small, and then bring the calories up to what you want by also doubling the cheese and the sausage.

You might not have to worry as much about extra calories as you might think. What I found is that adding low-carb or carb-free calories (extra meat, mayo, butter for example) to get the percent of carbs down to 40% also made the food more satisfying. I actually started the 40% carbs diet just to see what it would do to blood sugar, expecting to maybe gain some weight during the experiment, but found that I actually started losing weight because my total calories had gone down due to the food being more satisfying.

But be careful if you try this. I may be a fluke and purposefully adding fat/protein calories to your food might just make you gain weight.

I wish the article was framed in terms of what the author really wants instead of burying it. The author is framing the issue as something mostly non-political, simply acknowledging the existing body of research, but actually wants something very political which is changing the USDA guidelines (which have far reaching effects) to recommend low-carb as essentially the go to default diet. So while the aim is noble the author doesn’t really care about the science except as a useful tool to drive a particular political outcome. And same with the accusation of ignoring science except as a way to make the board look bad because the author would clearly not be satisfied with “we each read in full literally every paper on the subject of low-carb diets but as a group remain unconvinced in its merits for a general recommendation.”

tl;dr the author is probably right about low-carb diets but made sure to frame it in such a way that makes enemies out of the people with actual power who now can’t actually do what she wants without making themselves look uneducated. Shame has never made people dig their heels in /j

A few years ago I was quite overweight. I switched to a keto diet and dropped a quarter of my weight in a year to enter a healthy weight range. I remained on a keto diet for two years and can share my personal experience.

I found long-distance running and cycling rather easy but sprinting and weightlifting caused me to nearly faint. Eventually I had to stop a low-carb diet because it was interfering with my exercise. During this period I also began taking ADHD medication again because I really couldn't focus and complete tasks.

What I think helped with my drastic weight loss was that I had a greater focus on the food and number of calories I was putting into my body. I also partook in intermittent fasting, which prevented me from snacking during periods when I clearly was not hungry. Further, I focused on eating satiating foods, which informed my body that it was full at a much quicker rate. Finally, I fully cut out processed foods and limited my alcohol consumption to moderately on the weekends.

I am skeptical of the low-carb diet itself being the trigger that caused weight-loss. I believe it indirectly taught me good dieting habits because I grew up without those being taught in my household. Ultimately, I came to the conclusion that a keto diet was not sustainable long-term.

After some time, I stopped eating low-carb. As a response to the pandemic, I switched to a pescetarian diet and quickly switched to a vegetarian diet as I don't care for the taste of fish. After a year, I switched to an entirely plant-based diet, which I still follow.

My doctor's visits during this process show incredibly improved blood work. I am as healthy as can be. I am able to exercise with tennis, weightlifting, and cycling without feeling like I am going to faint. I stopped taking my ADHD medication awhile back and haven't felt the need to take it at all; sometimes I exhibit classic symptoms of ADHD that leave my family scratching their heads since I still do have ADHD, but it has not interfered with getting my work done like it used to. My symptoms have been largely reduced for the first time in my life.

Perhaps supplementing B12 while eating plant-based helped. All I can say is I have never felt better in my life. My ADHD is severely less pervasive, and my sleep paralysis has vanished. My level of energy is incredible and has made me a better athlete that can execute bursts of speed impossible a few years ago.

I think switching to eating whole foods, getting more nutrients such as fiber in my diet, and eating more fruits and vegetables has led to a healthier life. I never made extraordinary changes overnight. I slowly transitioned from one diet to the next and ultimately arrived at plant-based after discovering how great I felt and seeing how strong my blood work was. If I could go back and tell myself something, it would be: don't skip the fruit. Carbs are fine. Focus on whole foods with nutrients you need. Eating food is an activity to fuel other activities. Not something you do purely for fun. The key to losing weight and remaining healthy is diligence. Being consistent in rejecting your family member that keeps pushing dessert on you is necessary. You have to accept that you learned to eat food incorrectly, but you can correct your bad habits. It is never too late.

There may be some merit to low-carb diets, but I found I had less than stellar blood work and a scattered mind. I was also consuming meat and dairy at this time, so I never dabbled in a low-carb plant-based diet. That sounds pretty tough though. Adding carbs back into my diet resulted in stronger blood-work and better mental and physical energy.

If anyone is interested in how I initially made the transition to plant-based, I found myself interested in the Mediterranean diet and somehow discovered the Greek Orthodox Lenten fasting schedule (nistisima). I decided to follow it for a few months and other than keeping oil and not eating fish, I continued to follow it full-time. I primarily eat Asian food at home, but I eat a lot of Greek food too.

> This amount of carbohydrates may seem quite low to the average person, but remember that for the most part, people turn to this way of eating because they’ve been diagnosed with a serious health problem, such as diabetes, which usually means that they can no longer tolerate high levels of sugars or starches.

This is disingenuous, right?