Hacker News Reader

Comment by djacobs | Hacker News Reader

I like that Leo has a "best of" page, it works well for him (and with the site's aesthetic).

I'm not always a fan of his suggestions, though. Browsing some of his archives, I see advice against eating grains [0]:

  They’re also packed full of carbs, which should 
  also be minimized in a cutting, leaning-out phase. 
  (Note: There is no requirement in human nutrition 
  for carbs.)

That last bit is blatantly false, and I can't help but think he's overstepping his bounds a little bit.

That said, in general his advice is strikingly enlightening.

[0] http://zenhabits.net/lean-tips/

View on HN

Are you sure that's false? The Wikipedia article on carbohydrates[1] says: "Carbohydrates are a common source of energy in living organisms, however, no carbohydrate is an essential nutrient in humans."

It cites a letter to the editor in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition by Dr Eric C. Westman[2].

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbohydrate#Nutrition

[2] http://www.ajcn.org/content/75/5/951.2.full

you don't need carbs to live, but they certainly help when you're doing heavy exercise and the like.

on the flip side of that coin, its my understanding that grains in particular as a source of carbohydrates are particularly bad for you. moreso than something like a potato. i'm looking for a source to edit in.

Technically you are right, however only very few exercise that heavy, that they would have to re-feed on carb heavy food. Marathon runners come to mind.

The human body is pretty good at transforming fat into glucose, so the average exerciser won't have problems on a low-medium carb diet. It's a nice excuse for an occasional pizza though. ;)

And yes, grains like wheat are worse than potatoes or grains like rice because additionally to the insulin issues they share with all carbs, they are also rich at anti-nutrients like gluten, phytatic acid or lectins. There is really absolutely no reason to eat grains (thus men didn't do so until like 10k years ago).

i re-carb on light food after my 2-3 hour workouts. it just leaves me less run-down the next day.

but heavy grain diets are a stable of the modern way of life because its really cheap and easy to produce huge volumes of food for it.

I agree that it's a staple however the general health (especially MS and diabetes) are a strong indicator that I don't want to take part in that.

we have that choice. not everyone does. thats my point, i suppose.

Yes, I agree at that. And I also agree, that the world it overcrowded so it has to eat grains in majority.

> men didn't do so until like 10k years ago

This get quoted quite a bit here, so let me point out that in itself it is not a supporting argument.

We adults were not able to metabolise lactose either until we evolved the ability about 8,000 years ago. Evolution is still ongoing, thank goodness.

Yes, all you lactose-intolerant people (including me) are throwbacks.

Look at every single diabetic and gluten intolerant person out there and you'll see, it pretty much makes sense. :) Look at the pancreas, it's still much too small and overwhelmed but our "staples". And men still suffer from the anti-nutrients I mentioned (in contrast to rats which are used to it). So obviously the evolution didn't do much good in the short time.

I agree, that the evolutionary approach is no proof. However, it's a nice logical backing to scientific results. Men got shorter and more short-lived when switching from hunter-gatherer to farmer...doesn't sound like good stuff to me.

Yeah, it's false. We don't have to consume any one carbohydrate to survive, but in the end, the body's core processes use glucose (and others) to produce the energy we use to do work. Fat can be metabolized into carbohydrates, too. But one way or the other, we need carbs.

Mark clearly wrote "There is no requirement in human _nutrition_ for carbs" (emphasize by me) and you said it's "blatantly wrong."

Carbs are the only macro-nutrient your body doesn't need. It's true though that a very low carb diet is detrimental to the health insofar, that it forbids certain nutrient-dense foods (which grains absolutely aren't). Repeating wrong convential wisdom doesn't make it correct.

Seriously, Marks knows his stuff and you'd do good to yourself to listen to him (or any other of the primal/paleo folk) without prejudices.

"That last bit is blatantly false, and I can't help but think he's overstepping his bounds a little bit."

I'm pretty sure you meant to reference your sources here. Otherwise I'll be tempted to think you're overstepping your bounds a little bit. :)

Just because a belief is widely accepted, doesn't mean you're exempt from proving it's validity.

To be fair, he didn't write that. But by copy+pasting someone else's advice, he is advocating it which is a bit irresponsible. In any case, he makes up for it with his other zen habit advice.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com