Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

well.blogs.nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 112 posts

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

#81

Post by omarchowdhury »

wdewind wrote: post #80
omarchowdhury wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please elaborate further. Sources et al.

Do you have any specific questions? I don't feel like a source is necessary here because this is generally accepted as fact and has been reproduced countless times. There is no science showing caloric timing being significant (physically) in terms of weight management. Mentally (as your sibling comment points out) sure, but physically absolutely not. You don't get fat from eating late, you get fat from eating an extr…

The specific question I have is regarding what the liver does if very large meals are eaten within a short window (hence the relevancy of caloric/meal timing). Can't the liver only hold a certain amount of glycogen before having to transport the excess matter to the fat cells?

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

#82

Post by hga »

visakanv wrote: post #48
debacle wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a massive amount of politics and bias involved in "what to eat."

Correct. Big sugar in particular is the major influence to watch out for. They used to literally have ads suggesting that people eat sugar as a pick-me-up: http://cf.collectorsweekly.com/uploads/2012/08/sugar-ads1.jp...

That's a total misrepresentation of those advertisements.

The concept, which on its face is worthy of consideration, and is explained in the ads, is to consume a small amount of sugar an hour or so before your main meal to trick your body into feeling satiated before you reach for "those extra helpings at mealtime". Judging by the items they show being consumed, they're talking about ~100 calories.

And when they came out, I found them useful to put the calorie content of sugar into context, "18 calories per teaspoon". Given the insane anti-sugar propaganda of the time (and ever since), the ads provided some real value.

Now, I don't know if the theory is correct, it doesn't address my eating issues, but it's very much not "eat sugar as a pick-me-up".

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

#83

Post by CuriouslyC »

wlesieutre wrote: post #32
CuriouslyC wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Certainly, if you're not eating for performance, flexible dieting is absolutely a viable strategy.

On the other hand, if you're riding the razor's edge and trying to do something crazy like get into lower single digit bodyfat while gaining muscle and strength, even a little junk food can make a noticeable difference. I recognize that isn't the typical case though.

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

#84

Post by wdewind »

omarchowdhury wrote: post #81
wdewind wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you have any specific questions? I don't feel like a source is necessary here because this is generally accepted as fact and has been reproduced countless times. There is no science showing caloric timing being significant (physically) in terms of weight management. Mentally (as your sibling comment points out) sure, but physically absolutely not. You don't get fat from eating late, you get fat from eating an extr…

The specific question I have is regarding what the liver does if very large meals are eaten within a short window (hence the relevancy of caloric/meal timing). Can't the liver only hold a certain amount of glycogen before having to transport the excess matter to the fat cells?

Sure, but since you've packed such a large percentage of your calories into this one meal, what happens to that fat at the later time when you would otherwise be eating again?

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

#85

Post by CuriouslyC »

visakanv wrote: post #72
CuriouslyC wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe for you. I could easily put down 6000 calories worth of peanut butter in one shot, but if I tried that with pasta I probably wouldn't break 4000, and with veggies I probably wouldn't break 1500.

> 6000 calories worth of peanut butter in one shot WHAT?! Please make a YouTube video. I will show all my friends and family. The amazing Peanut Butter Eating Hero.

I bodybuild and I'm trying to get contest lean currently. If that wasn't a concern I would certainly have a furious-pete level youtube channel; even among powerlifters and football players I've always been notorious for my appetite.

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

#86

Post by doublerebel »

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…

You've brought up good points about carbs. However, It's arguably better and more realistic to skip breakfast than to have a small dinner at 5pm. Typical breakfast foods are full of carbs and can be more easily avoided. This is how I and many others use Intermittent Fasting to avoid carb overload.

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

#87

Post by omarchowdhury »

wdewind wrote: post #84
omarchowdhury wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The specific question I have is regarding what the liver does if very large meals are eaten within a short window (hence the relevancy of caloric/meal timing). Can't the liver only hold a certain amount of glycogen before having to transport the excess matter to the fat cells?

Sure, but since you've packed such a large percentage of your calories into this one meal, what happens to that fat at the later time when you would otherwise be eating again?

Then all things being equal would it not be better to space out short meals to prevent fat generation at all?

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

#89

Post by gabemart »

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…

This seems like a huge premature optimisation. Reduced-calorie diets result in clinically meaningful weight loss regardless of which macronutrients they emphasise [1]. For someone who wants to lose weight or maintain their current weight, eating a calorie controlled diet is the first (and often only) thing they need to do.

Eating a calorie-controlled diet is primarily a psychological challenge. They should therefore eat with whatever frequency and quantity they personally find makes sticking to a calorie-controlled diet easiest, whether that's eating 2 meals a day at 07:00 and 13:00, or eating 5 meals a day, or eating 1 meal a day at 21:00, or whatever works for them.

[1] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19246357

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

#90

Post by CuriouslyC »

visakanv wrote: post #46
joekim29 wrote: post #2

How about we stop "fearing" certain foods and just eat a reasonably varied diet that is calorie restricted? Or if you want to simply lose weight, just calorie restricted. Or do I have to bring up the people who have lived on nothing but twinkies or McD for a month and stil lost weight?

Very often, broad calorie restriction leads to constant hunger and even malnutrition, and isn't sustainable over a lifetime. It makes a lot more sense usually to restrict sugary/refined carbs– soda, donuts, bread, buns, etc.

If you are smart about what you eat, you can run a large calorie deficit and still feel just fine. My typical day has me eating about 2400 calories and burning anywhere from 3400-3700, and I feel absolutely fine (even though I'm quite lean). I never get hunger-related cravings, when I go off my diet it's more about desire for variety.

My diet is primarily comprised of vegetables, beans, eggs and whey protein with a moderate amount of lean meat. I easily clear 225g/protein/day and ~120g/fiber/day, and I consume a lot of fermented vegetables (which definitely have a strong satiating effect).

Post reply on HN