"After the diet change, we observed significant changes in measures of anxiety, well-being and happiness, and without changes in gut microbiome diversity. We found strong correlations between greater consumption of fat and protein to lower anxiety and depression, while consuming higher percentages of carbohydrates was associated with increased stress, anxiety, and depression."
I think most of us would agree that makes sense? Eat like crap, feel like crap?
"We also found strong negative correlations between total calories and total fiber intake with gut microbiome diversity without correlations to measures of mental health, mood or happiness.... inversely correlated with gut microbiome diversity."
I kept reading this second paragraph trying to understand the "without correlations" part. And also the negative correlations part. And then the full-text has this, which helped I think:
"Furthermore, total calories and fiber had a negative correlation with gut microbiome diversity, and anxiety and depression decrease as the gut diversity increases."
> I think most of us would agree that makes sense? Eat like crap, feel like crap?
I’m just an average joe trying to figure out how to improve a diet, but I haven’t found much of a consensus regarding fats vs proteins vs carbohydrates.
Minimize saturated fat (by replacing it with unsaturated fat). Get enough protein. Eat healthy carbs*.
* On HN and other social media, "carbs" is a euphemism for sugar and cake rather than beans and vegetables, so people will talk about how carbs made them fat when you know they're not talking about slamming back-to-back cans of garbanzos.
And don't take any nutrition advice seriously that doesn't break fat apart into saturated and unsaturated.
I think "healthy carbs" might be a bit too vague. There are simple and complex carbohydrates, and the latter can be further broken down between starchy carbohydrates like grains and fibrous carbohydrates like vegetables. There is nothing inherently unhealthy about any of these types of carbohydrates: simple carbs (e.g. fructose) are in fruit, complex carbs in whole grains, etc. I think it is probably more helpful to avoid processed foods rather than to try and label carbohydrates themselves as healthy or unhealthy.
I don't think it's vague considering my second paragraph. Eat whole foods. Avoid the Coca-Cola and cake and packaged goods that most people are referring to when they demonize carbs.
Fruit and vegetables, go ahead. I just lightly pan fried some potato cubes and tossed in random veg for breakfast.
I don't want to do a whole diet breakdown every time I scrawl something about nutrition on HN. But more HNers should subscribe to evidence-based reporters on the topic like Simon Hill and Gil Carvalho rather than evidence deniers like most of the low-carb space and quacks like Eric Berg.
Agreed. I have found it very helpful to not think about how "healthy" something is. Rather think about how the body will use that food as fuel. Andy Galpin has a good video going through the physiology of how the body processes carbohydrates. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LdMOsnILT00
Once I had an understanding of how macro nutrients are processed in the body and how they are used as fuel I could better match meals to intended outcomes.
There is a whole mountain of evidence that saturated fat increases LDL cholesterol and better markers like Apo B. Placebo controlled, double-blind interventions. You can even run the experiment on yourself with monthly blood panels.
Are you contesting that?
That's pretty settled science. Low-carb influencers don't even deny that, so they instead try to hand-wave that high LDL/ApoB aren't a problem. Usually with some quackery over how atherosclerosis works, usually claiming that lipids only pass through the arterial endothelium when it's inflamed (false, they pass through anyways).
The balance of evidence showing that LDL cholesterol and better markers like Apo B cause CVD and atherosclerosis is so huge I'm not sure where I'd start if I wanted to deny it.
What research do you think is so convincing that it supersedes this balance of evidence?
You have tapped into a logical fallacy. A is associated with B. B is associated with C. This in no way indicates that A causes C. It just doesn’t. You have to show that A and C are associated, then you have to determine causation. You can’t skip steps.
I see this all the time in nutrition “science”, and it is just bad science.
Do you think there is no research into saturated fat and heart disease (A->C)? I beg you to google it instead of washing your hands of it because one guy on HN doesn't have the time to walk you through the literature.
My understanding of the low carb argument here is that LDL isn't inherently bad, but oxidized LDL is and that LDL requires a high blood sugar environment for oxidation. I don't have any reason to know if that's right or wrong. I hope it's right, but I also have made efforts to avoid processed meats high in saturated fats (like salami, cold cuts) just in case.
Oxidation is what makes LDL recognizable to scavenger receptors. It's immediately eliminated from the blood.
We can actually wash our hands of LDL discussion because we have a better marker for atherosclerosis: Apolipoprotein B.
Even though LDL is a proxy for Apo B (you basically can't have high LDL and low Apo B nor vice versa), it's better to focus on Apo B which is carried by lipoproteins like LDL and is more causally linked in CVD.
I was going to ask what you think "LDL" cholesterol means with regard to its actual fractional measurement instead of calculated volumetric level, but then I decided you seemed content with your worldview and it wasn't really disturbing me personally.
As I get older, I find more enjoyment using my magnifying glass for discovery than burning
Well, I'll do you one better: I'll dismiss the whole conversation about LDL concentration and focus only on the better marker most causally linked to CVD that's carried by LDL and other lipoproteins. (LDL concentration is merely a proxy)
Did you confuse saturated and unsaturated fat? Saturated fat isn't bad for you and unsaturated fats have some serious issues in how your body uses them. This comment feels like it was posted by someone in 1997
I sound like I'm from 1997 because we've known this for decades.
Show me evidence that replacing unsaturated fat with saturated fat improves human health outcomes. If you can't, then I have to ask you how your epistemology works if you don't need a mountain of evidence to surmount the scientific consensus.
You'll find that this "debate" cashes out into two sides: one side points to the balance of scientific literature on human health outcomes, and the other side hand-waves over mechanistic speculation.
I think you might have them confused yourself. First result from google: "Saturated fats (including a type called trans fat) tend to stay solid and can cause fatty deposits in blood vessels, leading to atherosclerosis ("hardening of the arteries"). By contrast, unsaturated fats stay liquid at room temperature and are less likely to clog your arteries."
Lol. That's like the arguments used back in the 80's or 90's against saturated fat, where the biased literature funded by the sugar industry produced commercials of people running cold water over lard to show that it remained solid hence clogged arteries.
Saturated fat is only solid at room temperature, not biological temperature. Put a tablespoon of coconut oil or butter in your mouth and see how it melts.
More importantly, our body makes saturated fat. It's part of every cell's membrane. The science on which fats are good for us is still being debated, but I think the overall consensus so far is somewhat as follows: animal fats have more toxins (such as dioxins), and tend to come with cholesterol; non-animal fats are cleaner (whether saturated coconut oil or unsaturated types). Consuming too much fat blunts insulin sensitivity, but consuming too many carbs does likewise but in different ways. Carbs seem to be the bigger villain, but trans fats and low quality [rancid] oils are bad too. Having a good omega-3:6 ratio is anti-inflammatory and good for us. Eat lots of non-starchy vegetables, plenty of high quality protein, and reduce sugar consumption.
Data has been coming out over the past decade on how all the unsaturated fat touted as healthy is actually harmful, as it disrupts our hormone balance and increases inflammation. On the other hand, saturated fats are good for hormone balance, but I definitely wouldn't go out of my way to eat bacon or other high-toxin saturated fat. I'll just stick to the basics as stated in the previous paragraph.
The solidness of saturated fats has nothing to do with whether it is healthy or harmful to humans. Fatty acids are not transported by having them enter the bloodstream unchanged.
The strong scientific consensus is that saturated fats are worse for you than unsaturated fats.
The idea that saturated fats are better than unsaturated fats is a small minority opinion. It's all the rage with wellness influencer types, but it is currently supported by far less evidence than the consensus.
> Minimize saturated fat (by replacing it with unsaturated fat).
No.
> * On HN and other social media, "carbs" is a euphemism for sugar and cake rather than beans and vegetables, so people will talk about how carbs made them fat when you know they're not talking about slamming back-to-back cans of garbanzos.
Maybe that's because nobody wants to slam down cans of garbanzo beans. Garbanzo beans suck unless they're made into something like hummus, and eating too much of that results in gas and gastrointestinal upset. That doesn't mean it's good for you or optimal in any way.
> And don't take any nutrition advice seriously that doesn't break fat apart into saturated and unsaturated.
Don't take any nutrition advice from somebody saying there are "healthy" carbs. There is no such thing, except degrees of contraindication. Only endogenous carbs can be considered healthy in a human being, so long as the body is properly regulating it.
>> Minimize saturated fat (by replacing it with unsaturated fat).
> No.
Let's make this simple: show me evidence that replacing unsaturated fat with saturated fat improves human health outcomes. Obviously we're not going to have this discussion in a dead HN thread, but you have to do better than that when challenging the scientific consensus.
It's trivial to find sources for the opposite. Just google "saturated vs unsaturated fat". Maybe consult the wiki entry for Saturated Fat.
You surely must at least be able to acknowledge that you're posting from a fringe position?
Can you elaborate on why choosing saturated vs unsaturated fats is not important?
Also: to your "garbanzo beans suck" point- I actually love them—but not those awful canned ones! I enjoy raw sprouted chickpeas from our local farmers market on salads, or simmering some dried ones with onion, tomato, a bay leaf and some yogurt until they are just "al dente".
Oh suddenly everything makes so much more sense as a non-native speaker ... I was always asking myself how people speaking about diet keep recommending to avoid rice, noodles and whole grains?
Garbanzo beans have the texture of old ear wax, is sort of my problem with them. I have never been able to tell if I even like how they taste, because the texture is just so very off-putting.
A different take in the same way an astrologist's blog gives us a different take on the planet Saturn.
If anything Ray Peat, a quack, says is true, then why do things like PUFAs improve human health outcomes in the literature? He says PUFAs cause atherosclerosis and SFA protects against it, so why does human outcome data show the opposite? And how many animal studies is he going to bring up?
Ray Peat is a good example of how far contrarianism will take you in the nutrition celeb space. Probably because we like to decide on what we want to eat first and then shop for claims that support it which is 10000x easier than deciding on what to eat based on the greatest evidence.
Great questions. I'm busy right now, but I promise to go through the article in the next few days and respond. I'm open to having my mind changed, though I must admit I started feeling better when I started following Ray Peat's advice. I wonder if it could be that different people respond differently to different diets. Have you tried sharing your article on raypeatforum? You say that he's a "quack", but I've never seen him arguing in bad faith and people there are usually friendly and try to be objective and open to new ideas.
Nutritional arguments usually turn into epistemological inquisition: how do we know anything about anything, and what do we purport to be our standard of evidence? Do our beliefs actually entail from evidence that reaches that standard? And if evidence isn't what matters, what does matter and why?
I improved mine significantly by just cutting out processed foods. Almost everything I eat is made from whole ingredients, and no artificial or "diet" anything. I'm in much better shape, both mentally and physically, because of it. It also helps with portion control, since I'm getting the maximum amount of nutrients from my food, so I don't "feel hungry later".
These are utterly meaningless terms. You "process" food by cutting and cooking it. Everything is processed. Everything is GMO -- have you seen what corn looked like before humans bred it? Everything is organic. Everything is "whole". Nutrition is too complicated and too individualized for these nonsense labels.
> I'm getting the maximum amount of nutrients from my food
This is utter nonsense. Some processing steps remove some nutrients from some foods. Other processing steps add nutrients that you need. Plenty of foods have nutrients that are completely unavailable for your body until you cook it (many veggies) -- PROCESSING! Other nutrients are destroyed by too much cooking (Vitamin C, I believe). You better be glad the salt you eat is "processed" by adding iodine to it. The water you drink is "processed" by adding fluoride to it. Those last 2 are some of the biggest public health successes in human history.
I'm glad you're feeling better, but it's 100% from paying attention to what you're eating, and 0% from this bullshit about "whole" or "unprocessed" foods with "maximum nutrients". Stop spreading this bullshit.
What a weird hill to die on. I think you might be reading more "woo" into the comment you're responding to than is necessary. It's fine if you keep eating your microwaveable factory slop and keep convincing yourself it's identical to cutting a carrot or cooking vegetables but I'm skeptical you'll convince many people of this
Looking at the entirety of your comment, you should really apply this advice to yourself.
Highly processed or ultra-processed food is absolutely a meaningful term. The United Nations published so-called NOVA food classification which divides food into four categories by the amount of processing it received.
Category 4 is what OP was talking about. Industrially processed stuff full of preservatives, artificial coloring, hydrogenated oils, protein isolate, maltodextrin, invert sugar etc. Unlike the other three categories, this sort of industrial processing is a relative newcomer, it wasn't even a thing 100 or 150 years ago, so it is entirely plausible that our guts and our gut biome may not be happy about it.
> Highly processed or ultra-processed food is absolutely a meaningful term.
And yet nobody said "avoid ultra-processed food as defined by NOVA". They said "avoid processed foods" and "eat whole foods". It's extremely generous to assume everyone reading the former translates that in their head to "avoid ultra-processed food as defined by NOVA". And the latter is meaningless.
Even if that is what they really mean, that's really surface-level advice. There are foods in Tier 4 that are just fine. There are foods in Tier 4 that are more nutritious than "whole foods" are. Note that if you add whey protein to your soy milk, you have just created an ultra-processed food!
It sounds like you're expecting others to provide complex-but-accurate advice when OP and most of the responders are happy with simple-and-implementable advice. A lot of the discourse around diets comes down to tension between these two.
Simple-and-implementable is something you can deploy in the moment without knowing things beforehand. If you're at a grocery store, you can ask yourself "is this really processed?" as a simple filter that will largely steer you right. Similarly, Michael Pollan's advice to "Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants" resonates with a huge number of people because it's a simple, actionable, not very fussy way to approach eating.
Complex-but-accurate advice is stuff like 'let me look up if this follows the definition of tier 3 or 4 processed', or 'I have to have 5g net carbs today and this is 1.2g so I have 3.8g left'. This has a much higher cognitive load, requires a lot of research and pre-planning, and is unlikely to be implemented in the moment nor sustained long term. It's also a place where people can develop unhealthy psychological relationships with food and eating by being hypervigilant about complex rules.
Most people find their lives work best with simple-and-implementable rules of thumb for food.
> ” You "process" food by cutting and cooking it. Everything is processed”
No one means that cutting a carrot make it into “processed food”. You are changing a mostly commonly understood definition to a new wanna-be-technically-correct one you just made up only to suit your argument.
There is a grey area in the definition of processed foods, but it’s not close as large as your definition maintains.
There is no commonly understood definition of processed foods. That is the problem. People throw the term around like it does mean something but they can't define it.
Please show me I'm wrong and give a concise definition of what makes some food processed. The internet needs a good definition as these conversations always just end up with hand waving as there is no consensus of what food is what.
My dictionary says ”industrially produced food”, i.e. frozen and ready to eat meals, snacks, confections, etc.
The issue is that the plastics and non-stick coatings leach off plasticizers and forever-chemicals which cause hormone and neurotransmitter disruption in humans, which cause obesity, diabetes, autoimmune disorders, cancer and other serious disease.
This is a first. I've never even heard of a definitions of processed foods that is based on their packaging. But what you're saying is that it is not the food or things added to the food but the packaging that makes it processed?
The UN has a well defined categorization of foods according to the amount and type of processing [1]. You can identify the processing level of many food item by using this search engine [2].
Thank you for these links. If nothing else, the UN document at least defines what it's talking about. It's 3rd tier, "processed food", is basically: watch out, they added oil, salt, or other preservatives. The same people worried about "processed foods" are adding their own oil to foods (rightly so, usually!). But when a factory does it, LOOK OUT!. I mean, yes: watch your salt intake if you eat a lot of canned foods. That's real advice.
It's not until you get to Tier 4 (ultra-processed foods) that you start to see anything legitimately concerning. And indeed if the advice everyone was parroting was "avoid ultra-processed foods as defined by the FAO", then I'd care a lot less about it. Even still, the FAO says that ingredients added to ultra-processed foods include:
> varieties of sugars (fructose, high-fructose corn syrup, ‘fruit juice concentrates’, invert sugar, maltodextrin, dextrose, lactose), modified oils (hydrogenated or interesterified oils) and sources of protein (hydrolysed proteins, soya protein isolate, gluten, casein, whey protein, and ‘mechanically separated meat’).
Avoid sugars and foods with high glycemic indices. Absolutely avoid high-fructose corn syrup. Avoid hydrogenated fats; there is clear evidence they are harmful. Those sources of protein? Health nuts add that stuff to their soy milk all the time! Details matter!
My point is that there are specific processing steps that affect specific foods. Advice on how to identify and avoid those foods is fine. But that's not what anyone is saying: they're saying "avoid processed foods" and "eat whole foods". Those terms are meaningless as they use them. It's non-advice. It's water-muddying bordering on misinformation.
Highly processed foods tend to have higher caloric value and lower values of fiber and simple sugars or adding excessive amounts of sugars and fats.
I'm with you most of the way, but a lot of the long life prepackaged foods that are marketed to us are maximizing the bad and minimizing the good for the purpose of efficiency and profit.
Being forced to prepare foods from "wholefoods" (i hate this classification/tag as well) tends to make us more mindful of what we're eating and how much of it we're consuming.
Except that the term "processed foods" is a colloquial term that is ubiquitously used to describe only those foods that are industrially processed, thus often being stripped of many nutrients that you get from non-processed foods. Context is important.
I appreciate your comment in that it has made me think about what a processed food actually is, and I think it's true that it's a bit of a gray area. Personally, I think my own definition of processed food would be things like Cheetos, Pizza from 7-11 or Pizza Hut, cookies, cakes, etc.
I did a quick google search and found that some countries use "NOVA" groups to classify how processed a food is, and I think it's a helpful guideline. https://world.openfoodfacts.org/nova
That's a little pedantic. Of course all foods that aren't fresh picked and shoved into your mouth are "processed". But clearly the term as used here is processed with chemicals and fillers and preservatives and anti-caking agents, and the like.
Since virtually all the food we get at our stores is processed in this way it is leading to serious widespread health problems.
There is so much debate and disagreement in nutrition that "eat no or very little processed foods; eat a lot of vegetables and fruits; and don't eat too much" is basically all you need to do or say. A lot of people wildly overcomplicate it, but if you don't have a metabolic disorder or a clearly defined dietary condition, then you can have a diverse and healthy diet pretty easily. A plus is you almost always end up learning to cook.
Just try stuff out, you have your whole life to figure out what works for you diet wise. You won't die if you cut out carbs or meat or only eat hard boiled eggs for a week or something.
It may feel like a huge sacrifice eating a hyper-restrictive diet for 2-3 weeks but you have thousands of weeks of life. Personally I feel pretty dialed in with a diet high in fatty meats (beef, salmon) fibrous carbs and cooked vegetables (raw vegetables mess my stomach up).
Currently I am playing around with my "default weight" and if it can be adjusted. There is a weight we all sit at if we eat a relatively healthy diet to satiety and I am wondering if it can be adjusted.
i.e. if someone sits at 170-180 for years and then goes through some intense shift that drops them to 150, will they bounce all the way back to their old "normal" range or is a new lower one established where they can consume the same number of calories to satiety but their weight remains in the lower range.
There are different types of carbs. Generally simple carbs (usually called "sugars") are more likely to get converted to fat if you do not use them for energy right away.
A few decades ago food companies came out with "low fat" versions of snacks that had a lot of sugar in them. They still made people fat because people are more of them, since they thought the low fat versions were better for them.
And now there are a lot of people pushing low-carb or no-carb diets saying all carbs are bad. Your body does not process whole wheat bread the same way as a ho-ho. I knew a dietician who said being on a ketosis diet is as good for you as being on a cirrhosis diet. On the other hand, there are some breads that have high fructose corn syrup added, so you need to look out for that.
The same principle applies to fats. Omega-3 fatty acids are good for you, and other types of fats are not. There are saturated fats (aka trans fats, generally bad), polyunsaturated, monounsaturated (not as bad). Your body does not process these in exactly the same ways, so saying you are eating more or less fat than before is not really as useful of a statement as it seems.
So you cannot say that all fats are equally bad or all carbs are equally good.
I do not think the same principle applies to the other two macros. I think you can say alcohol is bad and protein is good and leave it at that.
I doubt any such consensus exists, but for me the number one rule is this: eat more protein. You can eat somewhat high carb diet and still be fine if you're getting enough protein.
Protein: Good, eat as much as you can
Fats: Some good (unsaturated), others less good (saturated), but mostly NBD. Eat whatever you want without regard to fat contents, but do make choices with less saturated. Your brain (aka your moods) will thank you.
Carbs: Some good, some bad. try to keep it under 35 grams per meal and 100 per day. Try to eat low glycemic/complex carbs. Avoid sugar and sugar equivalents.
I don't think there's a silver bullet. The % for each macro - if it's a low carb or high fat or high protein really depend on the individual and the specific needs. My wife for example can't go on low carb or she'll have major headaches even after the "adaptation period", while I don't even get minor headaches. Also the amount of fat may vary, high fat diets tend to be better for overweight people while healthy people are OK with more balanced diets. The most important things are defining an objective and understanding how your own body works.
My current diet was made for slowly losing body fat (mild caloric deficit) and it's like this:
Breakfast: whole milk, oats, whey protein, flaxseed and chia seeds.
Lunch: brown rice, vegetables, meat (steak twice a week, chicken or fish the other days)
Afternoon snack: 2 boiled eggs
Dinner: lunch without rice. It works for me but the whole milk and the steaks are really bad for some people.
You may be right about processed food, but I have a more boring speculation: most people lose weight by starting any diet simply because they begin to think more carefully about the food they are ingesting.
I have simple rule to start with that helps with so much. If it has a processed sugar, I don't buy it. (I have an exception for organic sugar because, how bad can the processing be?) This includes maltodextrin, artificial sweeteners, etc... (also no artificial colors or flavoring, also great indicators of how toxic the product is)
Why? Because if it has that one ingredient (group) it's almost always a low quality product that will make me sick.
Nutritionists will tell you what really matters is what type of fat/protein/carbohydrate. It's not one or the other. You need to eat plant based whole foods protein, fat and carbs too. For the most part, humans are carbohydrate processing machines (good carbs: like beans, whole grains, fruits, vegetables), these should be your staples.
That diet is good for weight loss it’s not good for overall health. Search on google scholar about “Whole food plant based diet” you will find many studies on this diet especially focusing on cardiovascular health improvements.
This might be considered an implementation detail, but I know that eating 2 or 3 eggs in the morning keeps me satisfied longer than carbs, and that that feeling of satiety keeps me away from grazing on more carbs. So, a win.
> Really? Are you reading articles sponsored by Big Ag or something?
> Edit: downvoters really need to open up Wikipedia and read "Essential Nutrients"
> This is a comical set of people downvoting me while literally stating facts, because Big Ag propaganda worked on them
Regardless of your facts, I’d say the downvotes are from your tone here.
See the guidelines[1], particularly the first two paragraphs under “In Comments”:
> Be kind. Don't be snarky. Converse curiously; don't cross-examine. Edit out swipes.
> Please don't fulminate. Please don't sneer, including at the rest of the community.
Fats are not universally healthy. Saturated fats (above a threshold) and Trans fats are bad for you, the latter being very unhealthy and basically the worst thing you can eat.
Conversely, the right carbohydrates can be very healthy when consumed correctly.
"Essential" means just that, essential. It doesn't say anything about how much you should eat, how often, when, or anything else. Plenty of unessential things are good to consume, like non-essential amino acids.
The leading cause of death for the developed world is heart disease, and a diet high in saturated fat and low in fiber is a great way to get it.
> I, like anyone with any knowledge of nutrition, am saying "it's obviously protein and fat, the stuff that helps you grow"
Every major study comparing keto and other more balanced diets disagrees with you. Carbs aren't just good for what they are mixed with, but also because they can displace more harmful sources of energy, like saturated fats. Most things that are 0 carb, have lots of saturated fat and cholesterol. Note: Dietary cholesterol can have a disproportionate affect on blood lipids depending on your genetics, despite all the people clamoring that it doesn't matter.
It's not nit-picking if you're giving blanket advice that's misleading.
Necessary does not mean sufficient. In biology, necessary doesn't even mean harmless. It is often best to get small, or even minimal, amounts of needed things, like salt or iron.
> Necessary does not mean sufficient. In biology, necessary doesn't even mean harmless
Has anyone even used the word "necessary" in the entire thread? What are you on about?
> It's not nit-picking if you're giving blanket advice that's misleading
What advice am I giving that's misleading?
I am stating: in general, carbs are unnecessary for your health, and the goal behind consuming them should be to acquire nutrients, not calories from carbohydrate sources. Carbohydrate sources can help with energy, but little else. Eating healthy proteins and fats should be prioritized.
Thoughts of eating processed bullshit with full of saturated and trans fats is only coming out of your side of this conversation.
Except you need carbohydrates. Many people consider "carbs" as bread, sugar and other "bad" things but many things you consider "good" are also carbs, like veggies.
Your usage of need is directly contrary to the dictionary definition of need. Have you heard of ketosis?
> many things you consider "good" are also carbs, like veggies
Veggies are not good for the carbs they contain (Fiber has some value of course, but not really as a carbohydrate), but instead for the nutrients (commonly known as "vitamins/minerals") they contain in edible forms for our bodies.
There is no purpose to carbohydrates in and of themselves, they provide one energy-burning source and certain classes of carbohydrates are consumed to provide important nutrients, but the carbohydrate itself is never a high value intake.
"Never" is a bit extreme. It's almost never high value for the average programmer Joe, but super high value for athletes, physically taxing jobs, amateur runners and so on.
Both carbs value and dread come from their quick, easily convertible energy, which used to be a big plus when we were all working the land or building stuff, but indeed has very little value when we sit on our assets all day.
It was a 2 week study, and diet was only changed for a week. The time period was probably long enough for existing microbes to decline due to environmental changes, but not long enough for new microbes that favor the new conditions to move in.
If you've ever dramatically changed your diet, you'll know a week is not long enough for the resulting GI upset to subside. It often takes a month or longer.
I wonder if it's a case of soluble vs insoluble fiber. Insoluble fiber is often described as speeding up transit through the intestines, which might leave microbes less food to eat, or increase the microbes being driven out before they can establish.
I had a laugh years ago when I realized that jam and jellies are full of soluble fiber and my entire childhood my parents were sneaking fiber into my diet. My whole childhood was a lie!
Carbs from whole grains and things like fruit are different from processed carbs where the supporting parts of the food are removed. That's why Keto bread will look at fiber compared to total carbs. It depends on the form of carb.
I wish the overview touched on the different types of carbs and their impact. Not all carbs are alike.
Better, but still carbs. It's just harder to eat a lot of those. I would challenge "whole grains" actually being any better at all.
Honestly, I think the whole fiber intake stuff is bs. Anecdotally, I feel much better on a low fiber high protein diet than anything else. So does the rest of my family.
My opinion on carbs is that you should only eat them when you're going to burn them quickly. That's what they're for, to give you a big energy boost. They're not for consuming and then sitting on your ass.
Low fiber can leave you feeling good in the short term but it has long term health implications, I've read. The book Fiber Fueled [1] talks about what happens with fiber in our gut and the impact on our bodies at a high level. The author (an MD GI doctor) provides the scientific background for his claims for those that want it.
The feelings I associate with eating like crap are brief malaise in the form of a tummy ache. The article is talking about more significant changes, such as overall happiness versus depression.
Anecdote time: I've recently discovered that a food intolerance makes me surprisingly grumpy for at least a couple of days. I'll find myself (fortunately in my internal monologue) arguing with people over trivial stuff. Completely avoiding the ingredient, however, pretty much nukes that behavior.
I think there is a diminish of return on such foods. Fries are now pimped with bacon, cheese and all kinds of stuff. Sweet itmes are so over sweatened that if you eat a strawberry afterwards it tastes bland.
If we reduced the sweatiness of items we could enjoy them just as much as our senses adapt quite quickly. If I stop sugar for just 2 days and then eat something somewhat sweet it tastes very sweat.
It's a big issue with the food industry trying to outsweet each other because people are so used to the taste of sugar. Artificial sweeteners are also to blame for setting a hight expectation of sweetness in products.
Potatoes produce the highest level of satiety compared to other carbs. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6267283/ Combined with fats via frying or baking, and it's not a joke that they would make you feel the most full compared to a similar amount of rice or refined wheat bread/pasta.
A slightly healthier but equally delicious replacement for fries are oven-roasted or grilled duck fat potatoes with the skin on.
Fucking love oven roasted fat potatoes with the skin on. I never make fries at home, exactly for the health reasons (also I don't have a fryer). But still, sometimes fries and a beer are a great combo, especially if you get excellent fries.
It's not. It's only controversial if you follow FDA recommendations. Any athlete knows this. Fat and protein are REQUIRED to build muscle and endurance. Carbs are great pre/post workout for energy and recovery.
Our society has a massive excess of carbs in our diets that don't get used for energy production and just turn into fat.
Nor does muscle and endurance in your youth equal longevity.
"Health" means different things to different people. An athlete might define health as physical strength, but another person might define health as the successful avoidance of illness and disease.
The longest living people who are super healthy in their 90s are not very muscular nor do they really partake in vigorous exercise. They're thinner people who didn't their lives eating little-to-zero meat and doing light physical activities like hiking.
Health and recovery/avoidance of illnesses is DIRECTLY related to physical fitness. This isn't even debatable. You're just making excuses for not needing to be physically fit.
Longevity is a silly game to play but on average physically fit people have more longevity as well. The people you're mentioning are genetic outliers. It's more about being able to actually do things late into life.
There's no connection between eating "little meat" and living longer, this is pure propaganda.
Aren’t we just supposed to have a healthy mix of fats, proteins, carbs and fibre in a sensible portion size related to how much energy you usually expend over a given period?
That statement is much too reductive to be true. Yet it might still be closer to the truth than the old belief that it's best to avoid fats and eat loads of grains.
Did you talk to anyone who successfully lost weight and kept it off? I have, and from my own experience and talking to others who did the same _every_ single person succeeded via low card high protein/fat. Would be super interested in meeting someone who lost weight with a high carb diet and how they pulled it off. It's really hard for a lot of psychological and hunger based reasons which is why basically nobody can do it
Interesting. Note this has not yet been peer-reviewed, so findings must be taken with an especially large pinch of salt even compared to your average paper. In this case, they only looked at 20 adults over 2 weeks, so I feel that any conclusions drawn here are circumstancial at best.
Apparently the reseach was funded by NIH and therefore at least partly the taxpayer. Seems like a bit of a strange study to fund, in my opinion nothing useful can possibly result from such a tiny study. I tried tracking down the specific grant they were given (they mention NIH award UL1 TR-002378 in the disclosure section of the paper but I can't find anything from that)
> Some limitations to this study beyond the subjective nature of the term “mood,” are compliance with following the study protocol, lack of exact control over the first and final diets, and uBiome’s bankruptcy that limited sample size further than expected.
This is what you're looking for: it's a pilot study seeded by now-disgraced/bankrupt uBiome.
This was going to be my comment too. N = 20 is atrocious and that too only over 2 weeks. Think any significant, measurable changes to mental health outcomes would probably take a lot longer than that to manifest. I further find results from any kind of "food recall" surveys (or just surveys in general) hard to believe. Stated vs. revealed preferences/outcomes should be a bigger debate imo.
Any major changes to gut biome will definitely take more than two weeks. Anyone who has ever had to do an elimination diet will tell you that it can take 4 to 6 weeks for things to normalize when making dietary changes.
I lost about 70lbs in about 10 months by cutting out processed foods, cutting out foods with added sugar, eating foods having a low glycemic index, eating a lot of chicken, whole vegetables, whole fruit. And by not juicing, and not drinking smoothies.
I also did a lot of strength training so as to lose fat and not muscle.
I didn't try to reduce the amount of calories I was eating, just change where those calories were coming from.
Weight went poof. Energy went way up and my mood improved.
The thing with losing weight is that it doesn't differentiate between fat and muscle. So unless the body has a reason to keep the muscle around (the weight training) the body will absorb it (because of the calorie deficit).
The weight training helps limit the weight loss to the fat. This will also help to keep the body from looking like a deflated balloon when all that weight is lost.
> cutting out foods with added sugar, eating foods having a low glycemic index, eating a lot of chicken, whole vegetables, whole fruit
This is great advice for most people, depending on what "whole" means. Am I allowed to cut and cook my vegetables? Stick them in a food processor? Are they still "whole" then? I've never understood why people even bother to throw this word "whole" into anything. You just mean you didn't drink smoothies and concentrated fruit juice?
> cutting out processed foods
This is utterly meaningless bullshit.
> I also did a lot of strength training so as to lose fat and not muscle.
This may be the main reason you lost weight and feel better. If nothing else, it may be the reason you were able to stick to your dietary changes. I think everyone I know who lost a significant amount of weight was into strength training while they did it.
When people refer to "processed foods", they're talking about things like frozen dinners and industrially prepared fried foods. Similarly, when people talk about "whole vegetables", I assume they're referring to buying the ingredient in the produce section and eating it without a bunch of fats and sugars.
> This is utterly meaningless bullshit.
This is unnecessarily combative. Unless you just want to score internet points by insulting people, everyone (including you) will get a lot more out of discussions if you steelman the other person's argument.
> cutting out foods with added sugar, eating foods having a low glycemic index, eating a lot of chicken, whole vegetables, whole fruit
>> This is great advice for most people, depending on what "whole" means. Am I allowed to cut and cook my vegetables?
Cooked, steamed, cut. Yes. Basically just don't "juice" or smoothie anything. The idea is to have your digestive system do as much of the "processing" as possible, and not outsource this to some external system. The longer it takes the food to digest, the longer you stay feeling "full". And feeling full really helps when it comes to weight loss. It's also harder to eat a dozen large whole oranges and bananas than it is to drink them.
> cutting out processed foods
>> This is utterly meaningless bullshit.
Keeping the glycemic index low means you automatically avoid foods like TV dinners, McDonalds burgers, highly processed white bread, etc.
Processed foods are a vaguely defined and somewhat arbitrary category of foods, but that does not mean the correlation between foods being highly processed and unhealthy is BS. Things that have ingredients like brominated vegetable oil or various other preservatives and stabilizers for texture and shelf life, artificial colors and lots of HFCS, meat slurries that have been pumped through tubes and formed into precise shapes, the "simulated yogurt" that wrapped the raisins in my trail mix... None of that stuff is a favor to your health.
Food optimized for mass market scale and profitability is practically never optimized for nutritional value, except as a hollow gimmick, e.g. Vitamin Water.
Lots of things have context specific meanings. If someone says “my cell phone,” you do not yell at them for not clarifying it’s actually a general purpose computer.
Similarly, in nutrition, “processed foods” have a pretty well established definition. There’s room to debate the term, but it’s still well understood.
Generally speaking, though, one should try to not make the mistake of assuming that others are confused when in fact they are.
If you’d like clarification as to what counts as processed foods, you can ask.
To answer your question, processed foods in this context usually means foods with chemicals in them, hydrogenized oils, etc.
The actual preparation doesn’t matter. It’s okay to eat food that has been chopped and frozen, for instance. Your digestive system tears food up anyway.
Whole foods is just a common way to say you're buying ingredients then making them yourself. I think you're just arguing semantics for meanings that are fairly commonly used.
I'm glad to see more studies on this, as it's long been misunderstood how strong of a connection there is between the gut microbiome and mental health. Some go as far to referring to the gut as our second-brain, due to its critical role.
It started with the idea of eating as cheaply as possible with nutrient dense foods, but I started off with an elimination diet.
I chose 2-3 "meals" that I could easily prep and only cost $2-4 each. Mostly eggs, ground beef, white rice, potatoes. I quickly added bell peppers and onions.
I tracked macros, and filled in the micros with new additions. Calories as well of course.
The result was fantastic.
1. I got really fast at cooking, and even now that I cook more complex meals, I'm much faster than before. Probably because I introduced new ingredients gradually and maintained efficiency in the kitchen.
2. My ability to eyeball macros on a plate is pretty good now. It's much easier to regulate my energy levels because of this. I can also guess my bodyweight within ~5lbs before checking the scale.
3. I figured out what I digest most easily. As an athlete, I can't really afford to have days where I'm "bathroom dependent".
The consistency in all these aspects has greatly improved my life.
If you want to get better at cooking, understand your body better, save time, and eat a healthier diet, this method might work well for you.
Disclaimer: after the first 2-3 weeks, I switched from 100% compliance to ~80% compliance. That way I get the benefits of regimented eating without going crazy. Even if you eat healthy, it's not good to obsess over calories and food options.
> I chose 2-3 "meals" that I could easily prep and only cost $2-4 each. Mostly eggs, ground beef, white rice, potatoes. I quickly added bell peppers and onions
I do this for home lunches. The gustatory and health benefits of a varied diet are too much to ignore. But the efficiency gains, and comfort in the familiar, are also appealing.
So one of eggs or salmon; brown rice or farro; and combinations of bell peppers, alliums (usually onions, scallions and garlic), cherry tomatoes and any other junk I have in the vegetable drawer. Bonus points for cooked in a wok, because cook time is like thirty seconds and you keep crisp yet still sweetened veggies.
> figured out what I digest most easily. As an athlete, I can't really afford to have days where I'm "bathroom dependent"
Would note that most of our guts are super adaptable. Avoiding foods that upset your stomach is reasonable. But doing this too much can sensitize the gut.
I make a salad most days for lunch. Some variation in ingredients, but I can have a healthy meal in < 5 minutes that I actually crave and I have good energy through out the afternoon. If you had told me when I was younger that I do this and it's not a punishment, I would not have believed you, but highly recommend.
I love sweetgreen for this reason. It really showed me how salad and healthy western food in general can be tasty.
I grew up with a few strict options:
1. very flavorful Indian food of varying healthiness made by mom,
2. rich western foods made in a factory,
3. badly seasoned healthy western foods made by mom.
My mom never learned how to make healthy western food that tasted good because things like balsamic or the right balance of ingredients are what determines flavor (oversimplifying) in western cooking.
As a result, it took meeting my American partner and eating healthy food she or her family made. That helped me understand that tasty healthy food does exist.
Sadly this has left me with a strange attitude about food which is wrong. When I want tasty food, I am not quick to think of healthy foods.
Trying to change it but I thought maybe other immigrants landing in the western world had the same experience.
I’ll confess that I’ve only read the abstract, but was totally confused by this apparent contradiction…
> We found strong correlations between greater consumption of fat and protein to lower anxiety and depression
vs
> We have shown that changing diet affects mood and happiness, that greater fat and carbohydrate intake is directly associated with anxiety and depression
The first says fat reduces anxiety and depression. The second seems to imply it reduces it- unless “directly associated” actually means “negatively correlated”??
Also, are they saying that increased fiber reduces gut biome diversity?
I guess directly associated doesn’t indicate the direction of the correlation. The paper could use another round of edits, there are several confusing phrases.
Looks like they didn't find significant effects when you eat fat, carb, protein independently (maybe they didn't look at it independently, idk). But if you eat fat along with protein, or if you eat fat along with carb, they find significant effects.
Has anyone researched the opposite? Like the role of mood and happiness on the gut microbiome.
I was diagnosed with Celiac 5 years ago, could never gain weight and had my share of struggles with anxiety etc.
I recently found a counsellor who told me to stop overthinking, seeking knowledge and a few other things which after following I gained 5 kilos and became a happier person.
I always thought my gut was to blame but a few simple practices seem to be fixing my gut too.
> [...] told me to stop overthinking, seeking knowledge and a few other [...]
That's something people are always telling you, might as well have been chance that things improved and you've linked it with life events, as humans do- we're a storytelling species, we always seek to explain things in our lives through the prism of our decisions and thoughts.
It does seem like I've read a couple studies that suggest it's not one or the other. Diet can influence the microbiome/mood and mood can influence the microbiome. Reducing my anxiety has definitely helped my ibs/mild crohn's.
Can you clarify on “seeking knowledge”? Is this something you were supposed to stop along with overthinking, or things you were supposed to learn that would help- if the latter, what were those bits of knowledge?
And elaborate, specifically, on “a few other things”?
Mental health issues have been associated with changes in appetite. It’s a simpler relation, though, and is more a function of hormones and nervous system activity than microbiome.
For the 30 years I have walked this Earth, I have never been able to find a "healthy" way to manage stress.
In fact, I have had such bad problems with stress that it basically assisted in the emergence and continuation of an autoimmune disorder. So, I am quite aware of the damage stress can cause.
I have used plenty of unhealthy methods of managing stress, but the sad fact of the matter is that -- unlike yoga, warm baths, etc. -- the unhealthy methods actually work, and they tend to work really well.
Not trying to create a pity-party or be all woeful, but to answer your question:
My source of stress is highly contextual, but fundamentally the common denominator would be a sense of insecurity.
I feel a sense of financial stress due to not being financially secure. I have taken proper measures to ensure I am on the proper path to financial security, but it seems like one job loss, one major medical emergency, major market crash, etc., is all it takes to wipe it all out. Not to mention all the rising costs of everything too.
I have occupational stresses (software engineer) due to my incompetence, lack of useful/meaningful skills, poor knowledge of fundamentals (my comp sci program was so poor that we almost lost our accreditation), etc.. I've basically been a junior developer for the last 7 years.
Couple all that with my various issues, and yeah, I live in a perpetual state of stress and anxiety which creates a not so wonderful negative-feedback loop.
I've tried therapy, psychiatry, etc., but any solution is like trying to put out a forest fire with a garden hose. So, when nothing else works, all I have left is escapism. Luckily, I do not have an issue with any hard substances.
However, one of my biggest crutches and forms of escapism are video games. The sad reality of why they are so appealing to me is that these games create a world that is more appealing than the current one I live. In the real world, I have no meaningful accomplishments, nothing to be proud of, etc.. In games, goals and objectives are clearly laid out, easily obtainable, and if I fail to achieve something I know that I am the sole reason -- not some variable out of my control (no office politics or BS).
I have a chance to not be below-average for once, and when I manage to accomplish something, it creates a sense of fulfillment and accomplishment that I cannot find in the "real world." When playing competitive games, my contributions actually matter, and if I do well, my teammates express a genuine sense of appreciation and gratitude. They relied on me, and I pulled my weight/extra-weight. It sometimes feels so good.
I know it is all just a false sense of well-being, for any sense of accomplishment I feel is quickly fleeting. At the end of the day, when I turn the games off, what am I left with? I didn't really accomplish anything tangible -- no real skills -- and in the real world, none of it matters one bit.
It seems that I have managed to lose the ability to put forth any effort in bettering myself, and I am just in some kind of going with motions and distracting myself anyway I can.
So yeah, sorry for my long ramblings, but it felt good to get it out.
Sounds a lot like me. Its a cycle that only you can break. medication might be needed, exercise is mandatory. Computers are overstimulating and you feel empty after because the people you tried to connect with and build things with are gone and were never really there. You sound desperate for someone else to validate you just like I was. Do whatever it takes, don't end up like me and ruin a bunch of your health and relationship with it.
I am not completely opposed to medication, for I am already medicated for ADHD, which like most substances, has diminishing returns the longer one uses it. Treatment has never really worked great for me, and I do not have hopes for anything else psychiatry has to offer at this point. I tried some kind of SNRI prior to ADHD treatment, and I swore I would never touch anything S*RI ever again.
If anything, I think I would benefit from a change in environments. A new job, new hobbies, etc.. It's just so difficult trying to do anything to better myself. I've tried exercising, hell there is a gym walking distance from me, and I cannot seem to maintain any kind of routine.
Needing validation is probably spot on. I think a lot of it stems from growing up with untreated ADHD. I wasn't diagnosed until I was 22 to put things into perspective. My whole life I have had to second-guess everything I did because I learned I could not trust myself to do things correctly. That and the treatment from others basically eroded all sense of self-esteem I ever had.
> We found strong correlations between greater consumption of fat and protein to lower anxiety and depression...
> ...that greater fat and carbohydrate intake is directly associated with anxiety and depression and inversely correlated with gut microbiome diversity.
So which is it when it comes to fat? My experience says fat and fiber make me feel good. Carbohydrates bad. Protein, neither good nor bad.
The last paragraph of the Discussion section makes it clear that fat on its own isn't to blame:
> This pilot study examined correlations between diet composition, mental health, mood and happiness, and the gut microbiome to find that fat and protein reduce anxiety and depression while carbohydrates have the opposite effect.
As I'm understanding it, this is funded by a public health institution in the USA. Health institutions all around the world have been especially sensible to the idea that cholesterol and saturated fat are absolutely bad, even if we know now that it's probably not the case. I guess they kept it politically correct in the Abstract to save face, even though their study says the opposite.
Now it should be noted, as others' have, that it's just a n=22 study.
I didn't see how to get the actual paper off this website. I got it off of ResearchGate, though. Maybe this inconsistency can be figured out there (I ran out of the time I was able to allocate towards figuring this out just now).
I don't know much about the gut microbiome, but it is pretty well established now that the ketones produced by fasting (or diet mimicking it like keto) have a powerful effect on the brain : as an alternative to glucose for fuelling neurone, and a signaling molecule to mitochondria for mitophagy (the cleaning up of the damaged ones) and mitogenesis. These processes can reactivate and repair group of neurones compromised by oxydative stress or insuline resistance and thus heal the mind.
See Chris Palmer book : "Brain Energy" or Bikman's : "What makes Us Sick" or Gundry the "Keto Code"... All saying the same thing although with different perspectives. Yes the Brain is just another organ and we're starting to discover ways to trigger self healing processes which can leverage and/or take over the common chemical oriented cures mimicking neurotransmitters...
It started 100 years ago at the Mayo clinic were they cured epileptic children with strict keto diet. Quit fascinating !
The consumption of a carbohydrate-rich, protein-poor meal or snack can increase the synthesis of the brain neurotransmitter serotonin; proteins block this effect.
I think science is moving in this direction, but it's taking time. I've seen arguments in favor of fecal infusions (where they take fecal matter from someone with a healthy gut microbiome to someone with an unhealthy one). It has shown some promise in helping some rather stubborn illnesses. But still, these things take a long time.
Bacteroides is predominant in people eating large amounts of protein (e.g. Western diet)
Human studies have shown an increase in gut bacterial translocation in mood disorders.6,7 For example, in major depressive disorder there are significant increases in Bacteroidetes, Proteobacteria, and Actinobacteria and decreases in Firmicutes compared to controls.
The benefits of ketogenic diets for controlling severe epilepsy may be mediated by the gut microbiome, as the effects can be reproduced in animal models by direct manipulation of gut bacterial enterotypes without changing diet.
My wife has to eat protein (in her case meat) with carbs. If she eats carbs with no protein she has anxiety. It's so awesome that we are finally studying things like this.
I have eliminated all plants from my diet, and it is indescribable how positively it affects your mental and physical health. It is like accessing an entirely new dimension of well-being. You can't even imagine how good it is possible to feel until you've ditched all plant-based calories.
Well, you save money by not buying anything other than beef, and you save money by eliminating all chronic diseases from your life. Also, you save ridiculous amounts of time grocery shopping and cooking. You also spend about 80% less time in the bathroom. If I were to buy two ribeye steaks per day from Wegman's, that would run about $30. You could probably get them cheaper at Costco. If you go for just eggs and ground beef, then you could eat for $10/day, probably.
I'm the same. I assume it's spiking my glucose levels too much when I don't include protein. She may have a bit of reactive hypoglycemia going on. Wonky sugar spikes can really mess with people mentally.
I've read some studies that suggest that the gut microbiome can influence mood and behavior through the vagus nerve, which connects the gut and the brain. For example, this[1] study showed that mice fed with a probiotic bacteria had lower depressive and anxious behaviors than mice whose vagus nerve was cut. Another study[2] showed that oral treatment with antidepressants altered the gut microbiome and increased vagal activity in rats, and that blocking the vagus nerve abolished the antidepressive effects. These studies imply that the gut-brain axis is more complex than just diet and microbiome diversity. Maybe there are other factors that mediate the effects of fat, protein and carbohydrates on mood and mental health. What do you think?
Does this mean the all knowing FDA is wrong? They told me Frosted mini-wheats, Lucky Charms, cheerios are better than ground beef, cheddar, eggs, and butter.
Perhaps, in the second sentence, they meant total calories. More fat with protein is good, more fat with carbs - bad. According to this paper. But, yes, the abstract section could be greatly improved.
> For this pilot study, we enrolled 20 adults to follow this protocol
Is that even a large enough of a sample size to draw a conclusion from? Probably a big enough sample size to get funding for a larger study, but not big enough to draw general conclusions from.
Since this study only explored a 2 week change, does anyone have any info on more permanent changes? I’m uninterested in temporarily having less anxiety for 2 weeks. I would like to know what’s my anxiety after 2 years!
Look at the plots, there is one huge outlier in the small number of overall samples which is driving a lot of the results. I don’t even disagree with the conclusions, but this is not strong evidence for it.
I believe the study is onto something pretty conclusive. Speaking anecdotally, ive never eaten anything from Chipotle that didnt leave me with a haunting sensation of fear and remorse.
I'm so disappointed at the state of HN. Instead of good faith discussion we have a bunch of keto anti-carb people pushing their narrative. Did you forget that a large number of people are Asian, eat large servings of carbs (rice) every day and live longer and are healthier overall than western people?
Wasn't the standard bodybuilder diet chicken, rice, and broccoli?
All of a sudden carbs are now "crap" and everyone tries to be in ketosis 24/7.
I was disappointed how vague carbs were defined, but I suspect we can all agree the best diet for an omnivore is the least processed food is the best choice. Anything that comes in a box or can should be suspect. Soup is best when the broth is made from leftover chicken bones and the rest of it with chicken meat and raw veggies. Fruit is better than candy, fish is better than bacon. YMMV
Anecdotally, I agree with the conclusions the researchers propose.
From an academic perspective, this study is poorly done, with an abstract that fails to fully encapsulate their findings.
While this is a topic that is very important and deserves the attention,people shouldn’t be mislead into taking this paper at face value.
> We found strong correlations between greater consumption of fat and protein to lower anxiety and depression
> We have shown that changing diet affects mood and happiness, that greater fat and carbohydrate intake is directly associated with anxiety and depression
"We found strong correlations between greater consumption of fat and protein to lower anxiety and depression while consuming higher percentages of carbohydrates was associated with increased stress, anxiety, and depression."
Interesting general topic but this is a tiny short term unreviewed study that is getting way more attention than deserved. Twenty subjects over a few week is not a serious effort.
that's literally me... I've observed that it takes about 4 days between carb consumption and mental breakdown. Also before the mental breakdown appears, the smell changes from nice to sour. The sour smell seems to be connected to high stress, it's really hard to remove from clothes.
Dr. Georgia Ede, a Harvard psychiatrist, has found that eliminating plants entirely from your diet leads to phenomenal mental health outcomes. Her findings jive well with the results reported in this paper. Her website is https://www.diagnosisdiet.com/
You are getting downvoted because conventional wisdom is wrong. No one needs to eat plants (although many are nutritious). You can be very healthy eating eggs, fish, shellfish, meat, organ meats, and broth. Animals are made of the same things that we are, so they are very nutritious.
the available evidence from observational studies suggests that diets higher in plant foods, such as vegetables, fruits, legumes and whole grains, and lean proteins, including fish, are associated with a reduced risk for depression
and
ModiMedDiet diet:
The primary focus was on increasing diet quality by supporting the consumption of the following 12 key food groups (recommended servings in brackets): whole grains (5–8 servings per day); vegetables (6 per day); fruit (3 per day), legumes (3–4 per week); low-fat and unsweetened dairy foods (2–3 per day); raw and unsalted nuts (1 per day); fish (at least 2 per week); lean red meats (3–4 per week) [32], chicken (2–3 per week); eggs (up to 6 per week); and olive oil (3 tablespoons per day), whilst reducing intake of ‘extras’ foods, such as sweets, refined cereals, fried food, fast-food, processed meats and sugary drinks (no more than 3 per week). Red or white wine consumption beyond 2 standard drinks per day and all other alcohol (e.g. spirits, beer) were included within the ‘extras’ food group. Individuals were advised to select red wine preferably and only drink with meals. The dietary composition of the ModiMedDiet was as follows: protein 18% of total energy (E); fat 40% of E; carbohydrates 37% of E; alcohol 2% of E; fibre/other 3% of E.
Note that we don't directly get energy from most fibers, so 3% energy does not mean 3% of the volume of food.
Getting rid of plant/fiber from your diet is probably a terrible idea, unless you have a specific reason to do so. That's because if you don't give your microbiota something to eat, then it will eat you (starting with your mucus).
A dietary fiber-deprived gut microbiota degrades the colonic mucus barrier and enhances pathogen susceptibility
In people who have trouble digesting plants, they may have already lost the part of their microbiota which would digest the plants. So when re-introducing plants into your diet, you should do it gradually so that it doesn't overload your biota.
Tl;dr is that while the gut microbiome varies by diet, it's largely stable after around 3 years of age, and even extreme dietary changes only result in impermanent shifts in relative abundances and function of your bacteria.
Last year, I went on a diet of only strawberry flavored candy peeps. I lost 50 lbs, my skin cleared up, and I feel like I have more energy. Clearly an all candy diet is something we need more research on, as it seems the status quo is to undersell the advantages of this high sucrose diet.
