Hacker News Reader

Comment by thelittleone | Hacker News Reader

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.

View on HN

I have been following my version of low carb\keto for 17 months. I'm down 80 lbs from 325 lbs.

I eat lots of eggs, meat and leafy greens. I use a breathalyzer to track ketones and blood test strips for glucose.

My lab results at 3, 6 and 14 months show improvement. My A1C is back below diabetic levels.

My father died at 68. I'm almost 67, so I want to find what works for me.

Similarly, with ageing, I started having tons of small health issues + diarrhoea and blood in my faeces.

I tried removing milk (I was eating milk with cereals in the morning) - which appeared to improve the situation (becoming less frequent) - but it turned out it worked only because I got rid of eating cereals in the morning and I can drink milk just fine.

The doctor said nothing was wrong and that it was just stress and other BS. They told me my cholesterol was high and told me to avoid meat (I was basically on a pasta, meat and vegetables diet) and prescribed me statins to drop cholesterol.

I ignored the advice and switched to a only meat diet; diarrhoea and blood disappeared completely in around 3 days and I started feeling way better. A lot of the small pains disappeared as well.

The only cons I've experienced is that I have less energy for workouts (during the day I feel fine) and I switched from doing sets of 5 reps to set of 3. I should be eating roughly the same amount of calories but no carbs means no immediate energy to use. I'll be on this diet until I drop a few more kgs and then I'll try to up the calories (still only meat) and see if I can go back to 5 reps. If not I'll consider reintroducing some carbs before workouts (from fruit / vegetables, in moderation).

Were you tested for coeliac disease? Diagnosis can be difficult, and the standard blood tests don't always pick it up.

It might be a good idea to avoid wheat, barley, rye, and oats to test for gluten sensitivity.

Oats don't contain gluten (Celiac disease), though they can have trace amounts if processed on the same equipment as wheat. That's the difference between regular oats and gluten-free oats.

Only meat diet has some very serious downsides, though. It’s very environmentally unfriendly and because of the high cost it’s available to a very few people. That makes it rather hard to recommend, regardless of potential health upsides.

Any health-related downsides?

Not enough fibre.

If you do keto, you are allowed to eat many vegetables that are rich in fibre. But if you follow a meat-only diet will make it really difficult to poop. I wonder how carnivorous animals do it. Are they constipated all the time?

> But if you follow a meat-only diet will make it really difficult to poop. I wonder how carnivorous animals do it. Are they constipated all the time?

Easiest poop was when I was carnivore(you poop very little amount). Being constipated means you didn't get enough fat. Having diarrhea means you got too much fat that your body couldn't absorb fast enough.

At start of carnivore you'll probably have diarrhea since your body/colon isn't yet used to so much fat/meat. But then you get get used to it (1-4 week).

I believe their stomach acids are far stronger, their bowels are a faster path to exit, and they often eat adjuncts which I assume help move things along.

Here’s a brief explanation from a member of Cornell faculty: http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/2004-10/1096814276.Zo.r...

That's true. When I've had a lot of meat, I take a tablespoon of psyllium husk in a cup of water.

Red meat consumption has been linked to colon cancers in some studies. I guess you could always limit yourself to chicken etc.

If the diet is high in (processed) red meat: higher cancer risk. If the diet is (too) high in saturated fat, increased cardio vascular risk.

> If the diet is (too) high in saturated fat, increased cardio vascular risk.

You may want to take a look at this meta-study [0].

> “A meta-analysis of prospective epidemiologic studies showed that there is no significant evidence for concluding that dietary saturated fat is associated with an increased risk of CHD or CVD.”

[0] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20071648/

The authors of that meta-analysis adjusted for serum cholesterol, which defeats the entire point. Saturated fat intake above a certain threshold is associated with CVD because it causes an uptake in serum cholesterol, eventually leading to atherosclerosis.

Saying saturated fat intake doesn't correlate with CVD when ignoring serum cholesterol is entirely uninteresting, and not what anyone's claiming.

See also this[0] comment on that flawed meta-analysis.

[0] https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/92/2/458/4597393

Meta-analyses are not a panacea, that's clear. As I suspect you know well, two further meta-analysis came to the same conclusion: Chowdhury 2014 [0], De Souza 2015 [1]. More recently, Kang in 2018 [2] and Zhu in 2019 are also stating that they fail to find evidence of a clear association between SFA consumption and risk of CVD.

Obviously, as science is what it is (and that's a good thing), those study are debatable and do have weak spots.

[0] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24723079/ [1] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26268692/ [2] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31791641/ [3] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30954077/

Why are you relying on meta-analysis of observational studies when we have meta-analysis of RCT's?

I’m all ear actually, if you could kindly point me to the relevant material.

https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/jo...

It may result in Gout. https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/diseases/4755-gout

Gout mainly becomes an issue when high consumption of animal products is combined with high consumption of sugar (especially fructose).

https://peterattiamd.com/rickjohnson/

"meet" isn't environmentally unfriendly

some methods of meat production are

but you can focus on environmentally friendly methods instead

don't hate the product, hate the process

Totally agree, this is a misconception. If you look at the numbers you get different results based on how you calculate it. Meat also comes out a lot better if you compare protein instead of calories.

Greenhouse gas emissions per 100g protein https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/ghg-per-protein-poore?tab... Dark Chocolate 93.30 kg Beef (beef herd) 49.89 kg Coffee 35.66 kg Lamb & Mutton 19.85 kg Tomatoes 19.00 kg Oatmeal 1.91 kg

When the tomato is grown in an open field, the production emits an average of 80 kg CO2 per ton. If the tomatoes are grown in a greenhouse, they emit up to 700 kg CO2 per ton. In tomatoes there is 1.31% protein https://www.sdu.dk/en/om_sdu/fakulteterne/teknik/nyt_fra_det...

At least for us in Northern Europe, all tomatoes are grown in green houses.

> Greenhouse gas emissions per 100g protein https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/ghg-per-protein-poore?tab...

Doesn't this link confirm that meat is indeed bad with respect to emissions?

With respect, focusing on tomatoes is a bit odd. I don't think anyone is eating tomatoes for their protein source, as it would take a lot of tomatoes to get to 100g of protein (and yes, that would create a lot of emissions).

If we're talking about non-meat protein, it's best to focus on vegetarian protein-dense sources like legumes, grains such as oats or quinoa, nuts, etc. All of these are much lower than the meat examples here, sometimes by a factor of 10 or more. Poultry and fish are the closest, with poultry being 2x "grains" (a broad category), and almost 3x tofu.

I don't understand this list at all. Who is eating dark chocolate, coffee, and tomatoes as a source of protein??

On the other hand, you don't mention it, but greenhouse emissions for 100g of beef protein are 25x the emissions for 100g of oatmeal protein. That's astounding if you care about CO2 from your food production.

To address the tomatoes way more than they deserve, tomatoes have 4 protein per pound, and locally here cost perhaps USD$2 (maybe half that in season on sale). So 100g tomato protein is $50 and requires you to consume 25 lb (!!!) tomatoes.

[Edit: sister comment posted while writing.]

You also have to factor in protein quality as well as quantity. Protein in animal products is generally higher quality because it has the right proportions of amino acids and is easier to digest.

Those claims seem questionable. Even if true, is having the "right proportions of amino acids" at all desirable? Human digestive systems are pretty good at extracting what they want from our diet; we don't need to measure out precise proportions.

What evidence have you got that animal products are "easier to digest"?

It’s wildly known that animal protein is easier to digest.

Vegetables have anti nutrients, a class of chemicals designed to make them less edible. It’s one of the main reasons you can’t eat the vegetation around you.

Things like gluten are perfect examples of anti nutrients.

Meat on the other hand has no anti nutrients.

https://doi.org/10.3390/nu11081825

That's great. Curious, do you eat your meats before or after the gym or both?

I had ulcerative colitis from I was 18 until 46 which is a chronic inflammation with blood in the faeces. I switched to the carnivore diet and within some months all my symptoms disappeared. This was also confirmed with a colonoscopy in a hospital. My brain fog is also gone.

I used to be really strict but now I am more like 90-95% carnivore, but I try to get the carbs from potatoes, carrots and Nuts. I aim for under 50-100 grams on carbs a day since I lifts weights and do some CrossFit.

Info: Ulcerative colitis (UL-sur-uh-tiv koe-LIE-tis) is an inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) that causes inflammation and ulcers (sores) in your digestive tract.

I was having the same (different age range, early 30's) symptoms, and I was able to eliminate my problems by cutting out coffee entirely. I can still drink caffeinated tea without issue. When I first quit coffee, I cut out all spicy foods and beans. Now I eat spicy foods and beans occasionally without issue.

Naturally, the doctor that did my colonoscopy didn't recommend trying any of this, just wanted to slap me on some new drug that messes with the immune system, no thanks.

Can you drink decaf coffee or is it something else in the coffee?

IDK. I cut out all coffee. I had been drinking some decaf previously because I limit my caffeine intake.

I think its generally the acidity. Low-acid coffee exists for people that have issues with normal coffee.

Some people make coffee with eggshells to help reduce the acidity. I started an experiment recently with my girlfriend to keep eggshells to see if it helps her. I hadn't looked for low acid coffee, thanks. That's probably also worth trying.

What is the PH of Coffee that it is causing this damage or is it a different molecule in coffee?

How does keto work for you doing exercise? Do you have a routine or adaptation that works for you?

I ask because I’ve tried keto a couple of times and usually gave up within a few weeks because it was incompatible with (energetic) cycling. The difference with huge - I was crawling up hills that usually I’d barely notice.

I assume it’s because I’m very carb-adapted and/or my level of exercise intensity is too high for fat-burning anyway, but I’ve not found much about this online. (And here and there, I’ve found mention, even on the most vehemently anti-carb websites, of athletes needing supplemental carbs to exercise efficiently.)

No first-hand experience, but maybe the Ketogains [0] subreddit will have relevant information?

[0]: https://old.reddit.com/r/ketogains/

You might find Dr. Dominic D'Agostino's websites or podcasts with various people instructive. He gained prominence after being amplified on an episode of The Joe Rogan Experience, but long before that, he was developing ketogenic solutions for the ONF (Office of Naval Research), specifically using ketones and the ketogenic diet to allow SEALs to remain submerged for longer periods due to a synergistic effect with ketones and oxygen metabolism in the brain.

His websites:

https://health.usf.edu/medicine/mpp/faculty/ddagosti

https://ketonutrition.org/

He has specifically discussed how to solve the problem you had, but it's buried in one of his podcasts somewhere, and I haven't listened to them in ages.

I’ve done marathon training while on keto. Obviously a much different power output need to cycling so take this with a grain of salt… it took me about a month to adjust. That first month had me really struggling to even do 50% of the training distance I was used to. And then it all just clicked suddenly. Not like I started improving again, literally went from struggling to straight back to race performance. One day I was struggling to do a slow 10km. A few days later I ran 35km near race pace. It was a very weird experience.

I’ve been out of keto and training habit for a few months now (recovering from surgery) but I also seem to recall having a different sense of energy awareness while running. Like somewhere between the 30-40min range of a run I’d suddenly feel more awake and like I’d just had a coffee.

As someone who both runs and bikes, I don't think Marathon vs Cycling is that different. You just need to compare similar efforts, are you pushing a marathon to hit 2:30 or whatever? Then compare to biking a shorter crit. Or if you are doing a 5:00 marathon, compare to a century.

Marathon running is typically at a steady pace with only minor variations in the energy output needed. Except for time trials, cycling power is a lot more variable. A cyclist in a road race might be cruising along in the peloton for most of the race but then have to sprint near maximum power to attack or chase several times at unpredictable intervals. So training plans focused on one sport or the other end up looking significantly different in terms of target heart rate zones or perceived exertion, even when training for races of similar duration.

More like a low 3:00 time for me these days (to answer OP). Which as you’ve said is mostly a product of a very steady pace. Hopefully only a 3% variance of my cadence over the distance. Pace may change a little based on the gradient. But it’s a pretty consistent power output for 3hrs.

I’m basing my incredibly limited cycling knowledge on listening to my friends talk about their weekend rides. Certainly seems like a lot more variance with power demands for the climbs, slip streaming on the descents, and then the variance from peloton positioning when they’re in the long flat sections along the coast.

Here's a good example from when Sepp Kuss won Stage 15 of the 2021 Tour de France. It was a massive effort over 5 hours but his power output varied a lot at various points.

https://www.strava.com/activities/5612150086/power-distribut...

I do intense exercise at least 120 mins / day including running, HIIT, calisthenics but no heavy weights. No cycling here unfortunately as the roads are terrible, drivers are nuts, just not safe, but I used to ride centuries when living elsewhere so have some idea of how demanding that can be. I used to take gels and nuuns in bottle etc. Not sure how you'd go with hitting carbs before a ride but you can always try and then do a ketone urine test after the ride to see if you're still in ketosis. Maybe it works.

The main issue I encountered along the way where resolved by:

1) Supplementing basic electrolytes (sugar free). This helped with cramps and pains that I got once starting out.

2) Getting the right number of calories per day (how much I burn in the day +/- 150 calories). I check in on this with data from fitness band connected to a nutrition app. A deficit over 150 calories and I definitely have noticeable side effects, mood, focus etc. But for me it's not as severe once in ketosis as it is on regular diet.

3) Ensuring the right macros I was shocked how much fat I had to eat at first. I'd always thought keto was closer to a high protein diet. Getting quality fats was key. Tallow, Ghee, MCT oil, avocado, olives etc. For snack sometimes I take a tablespoon of feta marinated in olive oil and herbs.

My goal in switching was about freeing myself from sugar addiction. But the side benefit is I now exercise less (120 mins down from 160 mins). Yet in these last ~3 months I went from 90kg (198lbs) to 85kg (187lbs), the lightest and most energetic I've been for over a decade.

It's been great for me so far, but recognize it's not for everyone.

nothing wrong with sugar or carbs if you are going to completely wear yourself out.

on any other day it just kills you.

>Even without the science... for me personally at 47 and a life long sugar addict

This is the tricky thing with a lot of health science., mainly diets or supplementation. In a random sample, and in aggregate, a lot of these things have little to no effect on the population studied, so we dismiss them. And yet, on an individual level people claim huge benefits. I fall into that latter group for some things myself.

Our biology is complex. How do we reconcile this? Doctors don't want to be recommending snake-oil, and yet it's possible some of these things could work for "you".

Good for you. Strictly speaking, poop is not your body's output, it's your body's waste, and as such is indeed a good indicator of your body's efficiency in pulling out what it needs from the input. I guess your body's output is energy?

Good point. Similar to a car. Fuel is necessary to create power (output) and the exhaust is the waste. Putting bad fuel in reduces power and bad exhaust can be a symptom.

It's not the exhaust, that's what you exhale. It's more like disposable packaging. There isn't really a good analogy to fueling up a car; being fed by IV maybe?

I would say there is no strictly speaking there without a strict context. Bear in mind the characteristics of different animals excrement is not designed to any specification, it evolves in the context of it altering the animals habitat to some extents. We specify 'waste' should alter our habitat to a minimal degree, but we cant say for sure it evolves to that effect. It can fertilize, it can create apparent immediate problems, but such apparent problems can have significant systematic roles. To me the term 'output' then is less potentially misleading than 'waste'. A bit like the distinction between a crop and a weed. Our naming of things encapsulates presumptions and intentions, which is fitting for design, but things that are not designed are liable to exceed expectations.

> Strictly speaking, poop is not your body's output

A significant fraction of poop is bacteria. Sources vary a bit, but for example, this study gives the fraction as ~55% of solid matter: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7359576/

To the extent that your body contains a large bioreactor in the gut to maintain a population of beneficial microflora, you could argue poop thus is one of your bodies outputs (and yes, it contains waste products as well).

> eat tablespoons of white sugar from pantry), a low carb (keto) diet

You jumped from an extreme diet to the opposite. Some societies (mostly US) have a very unhealthy sugar addiction and it should be avoided.

Equally, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ketogenic_diet is meant to ameliorate epilepsy and it's not a safe diet to be adopted without medical supervision or without a real need.

It had been turned into an internet fad, like no-gluten diets and so on.

Also, just because you feel better it does not mean something is healthy.

EDIT: silent downvotes for saying this. Some cargoculting here...

100% agree with you. If you listen to what food scientists are actually saying, they're almost always espousing fractional improvements with small tweaks to diets and the media runs with "You should stop eating X because Y" or "You should only eat Z" stories.

Any dietitian will tell you, the key to a healthy diet is moderation and variety.

>If you listen to what food scientists are actually saying

"The science" again.

Food scientists say all kinds of things, including promoting vegetarian or ketogenic diets. Which ones are the true scientists here?

>Any dietitian will tell you, the key to a healthy diet is moderation and variety.

What does "moderation" and "variety" mean in scientific terms? Global nutritional availability varies drastically across the globe, and I'm not just talking about poor versus rich countries.

>Food scientists say all kinds of things, including promoting vegetarian or ketogenic diets. Which ones are the true scientists here?

Sure, but look at what they publish professionally in journals. It's never black or white. Ignore what they talk about from a personal perspective to journalists or on TV, that stuff isn't peer reviewed.

>What does "moderation" and "variety" mean in scientific terms? Global nutritional availability varies drastically across the globe, and I'm not just talking about poor versus rich countries.

Come on dude, being obtuse isn't helpful. I'm not going to argue semantics with an internet stranger. If you can't figure out what moderation and variety mean in this context, I'm not sure you're worth arguing with.

>Equally, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ketogenic_diet is meant to ameliorate epilepsy and it's not a safe diet to be adopted without medical supervision or without a real need.

So a ketogenic diet can affect a human body as drastically as controlling a specific debilitating disease, but has no other benefits (or, of course costs)? I find those sorts of claims really hard to believe.

What are you going on about? I believe GP was specifically saying that there were costs associated with e ketogenic diet and that it shouldn't be done willynilly.

And there are tons of things that control diseases that do jack shit for healthy people, or are even harmful. Antibiotics will control an infection, but if used in healthy people it'll kill your gut flora, stimulants that might help ADHD will absolutely fuck up a normal person, consistent use of PPIs without an underlying issue will unbalance your gut's acidity, cocaine is a great numbing agent and vasoconstrictor for nasal surgery, but we all know what happens to people using cocaine. All these examples ignore things like cancer drugs that control a disease, but will absolutely wreck your body.

It's not like GP is saying the keto diet will help with epilespy and is side effect free. GP said it will help epilespy, and it might.

> 3 months in, no sugar, no cravings

I did keto for a year and the sugar cravings never stopped. :-\

I let myself have a donut 3 months in, and everyone on keto always tells me that after a few months, if you eat something sweet, you'll find it disgustingly sweet. Nope. As I ate that apple fritter, I was like "Oh my god this is so delicious, I've missed sugar so bad"

In about 9 months, I had gone from 260 lbs to 205 lbs, but then COVID hit, I fell off the bandwagon, stopped going to the gym (I went to the one at the office), and very slowly rose back to the 250 lbs I am today. :-(

I still generally avoid high-carb foods like pasta and bread, rarely eat sweets, and will use low-carb alternatives when possible, but I'm certainly not keto anymore.

The "fall off the bandwagon" effect is huge. I find Keto to be one of the most tolerable long-term diets, but it is a long term diet. It's an unnatural restriction diet, and there is nothing at all durable about its effects.

Mine went away at three months and came back three months later. Plus my dentist said the acid reflux was damaging my teeth. So gave up keto and binged for a few months. Now trying going dairy-free, which feels more sustainable and eliminates most of the things I'd binge on but leaves a couple options for when cravings start. So far so good, but I'm only at the three months mark so....

Thoughts on artificial sugars like Splenda or natural alternatives like Stevia that don’t spike blood sugar? What about Agave or lower glycemic index sweeteners.

Finally, what about fruit? Isn’t Fructose really bad for your body, the science tells us?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com