The Fats You Don’t Need to Fear, and the Carbs That You Do • Hacker News Board

Re: The Fats You Don’t Need to Fear, and the Carbs That You Do

#31

Post by JoeAltmaier » Wed, Oct 21, 2015, 1:59 PM UTC

mathgeek wrote: post #28

sageabilly wrote: post #13

I am particularly excited for the rise of easier genome sequencing and the role that will play in nutritional advice for individuals. The more we learn about genes and how people react differently to different foods the more intrigued I am by the idea of an "optimal" diet only being achieved on a person-by-person level.

"The more we learn about genes and how people react differently to different foods the more intrigued I am by the idea of an "optimal" diet only being achieved on a person-by-person level." For me, it's implicit that optimizing diet can only be done on an individual basis. It's pretty obvious, at least to me, that taking maternal twins and having one be active while the other remains inactive for most of their lives…

Ok I was going to say something about genetic clustering and how there're probably just a few diets needed to cover most people. Then, behavior. Right, it also depends on where you are in your life (age, exercise, previous diet, health issues). It's fair to say an optimal diet is an individual thing.

Re: The Fats You Don’t Need to Fear, and the Carbs That You Do

#32

Post by wlesieutre » Wed, Oct 21, 2015, 2:00 PM UTC

CuriouslyC wrote: post #23

wlesieutre wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You probably saw the compelling story on CNN that a nutrition professor ate only Twinkies for 10 weeks and lost 27 pounds! Except they didn’t disclose one important fact — he got paid by Coca-Cola. Perhaps “Coke-Funded Nutrition Professor Tries to Prove Junk Food Healthy” is now a more appropriate title. And his surprising finding that junk food can be eaten without consequence: perfectly on message for Coca-Cola.…

A lot of the issues with unhealthy food are mitigated by a caloric deficit. Additionally, almost regardless of diet if you lose a significant amount of fat your markers are going to improve. Better demonstrations would be: * Compare people eating the same number of calories below requirements, but one on the twinkie diet and one on a healthy diet to see comparative changes in markers * Perform the same experiment as…

Certainly agreed that eating things that aren't twinkies is healthier in the big picture. I doubt Coke wanted to prove that wrong, they just want the "IF YOU EAT ANY JUNK FOOD YOU'RE GOING TO GET FAT" crowd to shut up for a few minutes. And frankly, so do I.

A twinkie has 135 calories (or 270 for a pair). It isn't a hard thing to fit into your diet if you aren't constantly snacking on things.

Re: The Fats You Don’t Need to Fear, and the Carbs That You Do

#33

Post by mathgeek » Wed, Oct 21, 2015, 2:00 PM UTC

mdpopescu wrote: post #4

mirsadm wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is poor advice and doesn't work for most people.

Yes. My issue is not losing weight - that's easy, I'll just not eat anything for a week. (I've lost weight before, usually when being violently sick.) My issue is keeping the weight down. I've been in Dublin for three months and lost about 10 kgs (nasty commute, stressful job and so on). I've been back for two weeks and gained back two kgs. Wife's a great cook :)

"Wife's a great cook "

I think you've succinctly expressed one of the core issues that we have as individuals and as a society: we love tasty food more than we love healthy food. We generally consider meals that derive flavor from fats and sugars as great/tasty/enjoyable while we relegate more healthy options as that which we only eat to either make up for or "save calories for" the meals that we really enjoy.

Re: The Fats You Don’t Need to Fear, and the Carbs That You Do

#34

Post by mvanvoorden » Wed, Oct 21, 2015, 2:03 PM UTC

wlesieutre wrote: post #21

code_sterling wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd suggest a conflict of interest makes his results suspect.

I'd be more inclined to agree if it were a complicated subject with a lot of data to be cherry-picked and "interpreted." In this case, "lost 27 pounds" and "only ate twinkies" would be pretty hard to play games with. But hey, maybe 20 different scientists ran the same experiment and only the one time when it was successful got published. No way to know for sure.

If you lose weight but end up with diabetes, or a serious vitamin deficiency, would you still think this research is legit?

Eating only one type of food for weeks will almost always result in losing weight, because it would disrupt the gut flora, as well as deprive one of necessary vitamins/minerals.

Re: The Fats You Don’t Need to Fear, and the Carbs That You Do

#35

Post by bagacrap » Wed, Oct 21, 2015, 2:08 PM UTC

zappo2938 wrote: post #12

The role of liver function and glycogen should be included in this conversation.[1] There might be a lot more at work than just elevated blood sugar levels. In most normal people, meaning without diabetes and other metabolism problems, the liver doesn't immediately convert sugar to fat. Rather extra sugar is converted to glycogen which can be easily accessed for energy. What happens when a runner carbo loads the nigh…

Perhaps the strategy should be to eat when hungry and abstain when not hungry. (Americans tend to be good at the former but not the latter.) A one-size-fits-all approach to meal timing is not practical or effective.

> There is no reason to have readily available sugars while sleeping

Night time is when humans are most hormonally active, and going to bed with an energy surplus will help engender a more anabolic state.

Re: The Fats You Don’t Need to Fear, and the Carbs That You Do

#36

Post by JoeAltmaier » Wed, Oct 21, 2015, 2:08 PM UTC

mathgeek wrote: post #33

mdpopescu wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. My issue is not losing weight - that's easy, I'll just not eat anything for a week. (I've lost weight before, usually when being violently sick.) My issue is keeping the weight down. I've been in Dublin for three months and lost about 10 kgs (nasty commute, stressful job and so on). I've been back for two weeks and gained back two kgs. Wife's a great cook :)

"Wife's a great cook " I think you've succinctly expressed one of the core issues that we have as individuals and as a society: we love tasty food more than we love healthy food. We generally consider meals that derive flavor from fats and sugars as great/tasty/enjoyable while we relegate more healthy options as that which we only eat to either make up for or "save calories for" the meals that we really enjoy.

Not necessarily - overeating is the real issue. Wife may cook those alfalfa sprouts to perfection. He just eats a bushel.

Re: The Fats You Don’t Need to Fear, and the Carbs That You Do

#37

Post by zappo2938 » Wed, Oct 21, 2015, 2:08 PM UTC

bad_user wrote: post #26

> It’s really important to distinguish between healthy fats and bad fats, healthy carbs and bad carbs What a bunch of crap. They said the same thing about cholesterol after fucking up monumentally and the history repeats itself over and over again. Just man up, recognize how incompetent you are, how your non-scientific advice has been hurting people over the past 50 years and switch jobs because the science you're pr…

> What actually changed is making food an industrial process whose output is processed/synthetic food

I wanted to include another note about the glycemic index. Processed white rice has .6 grams of dietary fiber while unprocessed brown rice has 3.5 grams of dietary fiber per serving. Often the glycemic index is a function of fiber because the fiber slows down absorption of sugar so it happens slower over a longer period of time; white rice has a glycemic index of 50 and brown rice has lower index of 38.

High fiber foods are more satiating per calorie because of the fiber. It's possible that low glycemic foods which are unprocessed lead to weight loss because of they are higher in fiber which just passes through the digestive system but feel just a filling. But I still disagree with the article that blood sugar spikes lead to weight gain in most normal people because the liver can absorb the sugar and release it later without converting it to fat.

Re: The Fats You Don’t Need to Fear, and the Carbs That You Do

#38

Post by astine » Wed, Oct 21, 2015, 2:09 PM UTC

CuriouslyC wrote: post #23

wlesieutre wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You probably saw the compelling story on CNN that a nutrition professor ate only Twinkies for 10 weeks and lost 27 pounds! Except they didn’t disclose one important fact — he got paid by Coca-Cola. Perhaps “Coke-Funded Nutrition Professor Tries to Prove Junk Food Healthy” is now a more appropriate title. And his surprising finding that junk food can be eaten without consequence: perfectly on message for Coca-Cola.…

A lot of the issues with unhealthy food are mitigated by a caloric deficit. Additionally, almost regardless of diet if you lose a significant amount of fat your markers are going to improve. Better demonstrations would be: * Compare people eating the same number of calories below requirements, but one on the twinkie diet and one on a healthy diet to see comparative changes in markers * Perform the same experiment as…

"A lot of the issues with unhealthy food are mitigated by a caloric deficit."

Which, if I understand correctly, is the whole point of the demonstration. You'll lose weight on a calorie restricted diet almost no matter what you eat. So long as people understand that weight loss should not be the sole measure of health, I don't see what the problem is.

Re: The Fats You Don’t Need to Fear, and the Carbs That You Do

#39

Post by tldrlol » Wed, Oct 21, 2015, 2:09 PM UTC

mathgeek wrote: post #29

bad_user wrote: post #26

> It’s really important to distinguish between healthy fats and bad fats, healthy carbs and bad carbs What a bunch of crap. They said the same thing about cholesterol after fucking up monumentally and the history repeats itself over and over again. Just man up, recognize how incompetent you are, how your non-scientific advice has been hurting people over the past 50 years and switch jobs because the science you're pr…

Can you link the sources for your claims? I'm asking sincerely, as I'm sure people interested in the topic will want to see the research.

I can't find a link for that now, especially since most sources on the internet claim otherwise. But I do recall reading something like that.

The gist of it was, that there is no observable correlation between the intake of saturated fats consumed, and heart disease. There is however correlation between consumption of meat products and heart disease. A point was made specifically that balancing the diet with vegetables specifically counteracts these negative effects.

Re: The Fats You Don’t Need to Fear, and the Carbs That You Do

#40

Post by CyberDildonics » Wed, Oct 21, 2015, 2:10 PM UTC

bad_user wrote: post #26

> It’s really important to distinguish between healthy fats and bad fats, healthy carbs and bad carbs What a bunch of crap. They said the same thing about cholesterol after fucking up monumentally and the history repeats itself over and over again. Just man up, recognize how incompetent you are, how your non-scientific advice has been hurting people over the past 50 years and switch jobs because the science you're pr…

So what specifically is it about processed and synthetic food that makes them unhealthy, because saying 'processed' alone doesn't give an indication of a fundamental problem.

Some would say it is the lack of fiber.