Diet is established among the most important influences on health in modern societies. Injudicious diet figures among the leading causes of premature death and chronic disease. Optimal eating is associated with increased life expectancy, dramatic reduction in lifetime risk of all chronic disease, and amelioration of gene expression. In this context, claims abound for the competitive merits of various diets relative to one another. Whereas such claims, particularly when attached to commercial interests, emphasize distinctions, the fundamentals of virtually all eating patterns associated with meaningful evidence of health benefit overlap substantially. There have been no rigorous, long-term studies comparing contenders for best diet laurels using methodology that precludes bias and confounding, and for many reasons such studies are unlikely. In the absence of such direct comparisons, claims for the established superiority of any one specific diet over others are exaggerated. The weight of evidence strongly supports a theme of healthful eating while allowing for variations on that theme. A diet of minimally processed foods close to nature, predominantly plants, is decisively associated with health promotion and disease prevention and is consistent with the salient components of seemingly distinct dietary approaches. Efforts to improve public health through diet are forestalled not for want of knowledge about the optimal feeding of Homo sapiens but for distractions associated with exaggerated claims, and our failure to convert what we reliably know into what we routinely do. Knowledge in this case is not, as of yet, power; would that it were so.
"Can we say what diet is best for health? If diet denotes a very specific set of rigid principles, then even this necessarily limited representation of a vast literature is more than sufficient to answer with a decisive no. If, however, by diet we mean a more general dietary pattern, a less rigid set of guiding principles, the answer reverts to an equally decisive yes.
"The aggregation of evidence in support of (a) diets comprising preferentially minimally processed foods direct from nature and food made up of such ingredients, (b) diets comprising mostly plants, and (c) diets in which animal foods are themselves the products, directly or ultimately, of pure plant foods—the composition of animal flesh and milk is as much influenced by diet as we are (31)—is noteworthy for its breadth, depth, diversity of methods, and consistency of findings. The case that we should, indeed, eat true food, mostly plants, is all but incontrovertible. Perhaps fortuitously, this same dietary theme offers considerable advantages to other species, the environment around us, and even the ecology within us (136)."
It's amazing how you can shift your own baseline and preferences, like going from craving donuts to craving a bowl of frozen strawberries as your only vice.
Sure, it comes at the expense of short-term happiness. But I'd also wager that the average dough-body on HN isn't the key to long-term happiness either.
People almost always are referring to added sugar when they talk about dietary sugar. If anybody told me they were weening themselves off sugar, I would expect them to continue eating fruit unless stated otherwise. In fact I'd probably expect them to eat more of it as they're trying to make more healthy choices, and I wouldn't consider them inconsistent with their stated goals given what we tend to refer to when we say "sugar."
I get HN/reddit's obsession with haha-gotcha snickering, but c'mon.
It's very interesting and surprising. For example: "Adding berries can actually blunt the insulin spike from high glycemic foods. For example, white bread creates a big insulin spike within two hours after eating it. Eat that same white bread with some berries, though, and we’re able to blunt the spike. So, even though we’ve effectively added more sugars in the form of berries, there’s less of an insulin spike, which has a variety of potential short and long-term benefits."
The usage doesn't seem very confusing to me. How are you going to understand and communicate with anyone if you don't know what they mean, refuse to understand, yet insist on something they didn't? And what's the upside to you beyond patting yourself on the back while missing the message?
I can say that it certainly doesn't elevate the discourse on this forum.
to be fair to the author she gave up fruit juice, which would be fruit sugar without fiber. So its some improvement, if fruit was substituted instead. Still a bad headline.
Unless one has coeliac disease, cutting off gluten is very much not recommended for one's health(on a scientific level, that is; reaching for Instagram likes is another matter) Gluten is not nefarious, for Hypocrate's sake!
Also, there's no such thing as a "detox", and fasting does not do your body any good.
That sounds like pseudo/armchair/forum science as well. Why would you need grains much less gluten in your diet?
I bet most people would see an improvement in their waistline if they removed them or replaced them with, say, more vegetables. Breads are a vice for most of us and I have a hard time believing they're contributing much to the diet unless your diet is just bread and soda pop.
Threads that deviate from tech on HN tend to be filled with armchair science. It's the effect of being extremely knowledgeable in one area, and thinking it translates to other fields.
"The GFD continues to trend in popular culture and the media, and more people are restricting gluten from their diet. The medical community must seek to provide an evidence-based approach delineating both the benefits and potential harms of a GFD. Although convincing evidence is available to support the benefits of a GFD for certain patient populations without a gluten-related disease (especially patients with IBS and NCGS), the data are conflicting and not definitive. It appears that most individuals who participate in a GFD do not have a physiologic requirement for the diet and likely do not derive substantial benefit. Existing evidence for potential harms of a GFD include possible nutritional deficiencies, financial costs, and negative psychosocial implications. As with other dietary interventions, a GFD is a rapidly evolving topic, and additional insight is needed to guide a complete discussion between patients considering a GFD and their health care providers."
My suspicion is that people who think they are gluten intolerant have been eating too much of products with grains. Reduce the grains and the resulting glucose in their system will reduce sufficiently to eliminate the inflammation issues they were having.
Plus, when the scientist who "discovered" gluten sensitivity went back to verify his results, he recanted, and said gluten wasnt to blame. He and his team now attribute it to FODMAPs, fermentable sugars. There's some overlap in the diet where foods have both, but any time someone still cites gluten, a protein, and not FODMAPs as their choice in food to avoid, I automatically mentally categorize it as diet driven by fad.
So its not fair to say that avoiding gluten might not make you feel better, but its at best an indirect effect caused by also avoiding other parts of food, not gluten itself.
Yes. I've worked in the advertising industry for almost ten years. As soon as I see the word "Detox" it raises enough red flags to wonder why my DNS-BL didn't already block the entire site.
6 pounds in 10 days may be dominated by e.g. water retention levels changing due to changes in sodium intake. Unsafe to maintain that rate of weight loss long-term but it might just be safer, short-term effects.
Like you said, N=1 and short-term study, basically worthless.
6 lbs in 10 days is trivial if the person is retaining water due to systemic inflammation. Cutting out the sugars often immediately reduces inflammation.
Actually, once you're over the addiction to sugar....
* Sugar tastes rotten. Seriously, it's tastes like somebody put something that's gone off in your coffee.
* Fat tastes sweet. I use cream in my coffee, don't miss sugar anymore.
* The supermarket sugar aisle smells like a gas station. Seriously.
I don't miss sugar, it wasn't really adding joy to my life. It was mostly adding dentists bills.
My brother once lived in a very hot dry climate and had access to unlimited Coca cola sugary drinks.... within in weeks he had fattened like a bloody pig. It was amazing.
He now has type 2 diabetes. :-(
I don't miss gluten either, pizza's used to cause excruciating pain.... I now just eat the topping and throw the base away.
37 comments
[ 3.5 ms ] story [ 36.8 ms ] threadDiet is established among the most important influences on health in modern societies. Injudicious diet figures among the leading causes of premature death and chronic disease. Optimal eating is associated with increased life expectancy, dramatic reduction in lifetime risk of all chronic disease, and amelioration of gene expression. In this context, claims abound for the competitive merits of various diets relative to one another. Whereas such claims, particularly when attached to commercial interests, emphasize distinctions, the fundamentals of virtually all eating patterns associated with meaningful evidence of health benefit overlap substantially. There have been no rigorous, long-term studies comparing contenders for best diet laurels using methodology that precludes bias and confounding, and for many reasons such studies are unlikely. In the absence of such direct comparisons, claims for the established superiority of any one specific diet over others are exaggerated. The weight of evidence strongly supports a theme of healthful eating while allowing for variations on that theme. A diet of minimally processed foods close to nature, predominantly plants, is decisively associated with health promotion and disease prevention and is consistent with the salient components of seemingly distinct dietary approaches. Efforts to improve public health through diet are forestalled not for want of knowledge about the optimal feeding of Homo sapiens but for distractions associated with exaggerated claims, and our failure to convert what we reliably know into what we routinely do. Knowledge in this case is not, as of yet, power; would that it were so.
"The aggregation of evidence in support of (a) diets comprising preferentially minimally processed foods direct from nature and food made up of such ingredients, (b) diets comprising mostly plants, and (c) diets in which animal foods are themselves the products, directly or ultimately, of pure plant foods—the composition of animal flesh and milk is as much influenced by diet as we are (31)—is noteworthy for its breadth, depth, diversity of methods, and consistency of findings. The case that we should, indeed, eat true food, mostly plants, is all but incontrovertible. Perhaps fortuitously, this same dietary theme offers considerable advantages to other species, the environment around us, and even the ecology within us (136)."
Sure, it comes at the expense of short-term happiness. But I'd also wager that the average dough-body on HN isn't the key to long-term happiness either.
and b: the article title and opening paragraphs specifically say she gave up sugar
I get HN/reddit's obsession with haha-gotcha snickering, but c'mon.
Also, consider googling "sugar in fruit" to find info about fruit vs sugar: https://nutritionfacts.org/2016/08/09/what-about-all-the-sug...
It's very interesting and surprising. For example: "Adding berries can actually blunt the insulin spike from high glycemic foods. For example, white bread creates a big insulin spike within two hours after eating it. Eat that same white bread with some berries, though, and we’re able to blunt the spike. So, even though we’ve effectively added more sugars in the form of berries, there’s less of an insulin spike, which has a variety of potential short and long-term benefits."
I can say that it certainly doesn't elevate the discourse on this forum.
I bet most people would see an improvement in their waistline if they removed them or replaced them with, say, more vegetables. Breads are a vice for most of us and I have a hard time believing they're contributing much to the diet unless your diet is just bread and soda pop.
https://www.gastroenterologyandhepatology.net/archives/febru...
Wasn't there a study that showed that at least mice live longer if they fast?
So its not fair to say that avoiding gluten might not make you feel better, but its at best an indirect effect caused by also avoiding other parts of food, not gluten itself.
Losing 6 pounds in 10 days is roughly double the maximum rate of weight loss recommended by the CDC: https://www.cdc.gov/healthyweight/losing_weight/index.html
Like you said, N=1 and short-term study, basically worthless.
* Sugar tastes rotten. Seriously, it's tastes like somebody put something that's gone off in your coffee.
* Fat tastes sweet. I use cream in my coffee, don't miss sugar anymore.
* The supermarket sugar aisle smells like a gas station. Seriously.
I don't miss sugar, it wasn't really adding joy to my life. It was mostly adding dentists bills.
My brother once lived in a very hot dry climate and had access to unlimited Coca cola sugary drinks.... within in weeks he had fattened like a bloody pig. It was amazing.
He now has type 2 diabetes. :-(
I don't miss gluten either, pizza's used to cause excruciating pain.... I now just eat the topping and throw the base away.
All the taste, none of the pain.