Live data from Hacker News

Complete Notes to Good Calories, Bad Calories by Gary Taubes | Higher Thought

higher-thought.net

41–42 of 42 posts

Re: Complete Notes to Good Calories, Bad Calories by Gary Taubes | Higher Thought

#41
post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The funny thing is that Taubes book basically recommends you do away with those things anyway: who likes burgers without the bun? fries are out, shakes are out, tacos without the shell? no thanks, etc, etc. Where he differs, he has a lot more science to back it up.

I'm not so sure about the science. This quote is taken from the wiki article on Gary Taubes "Although Taubes has no formal training in nutrition or medicine, his book was praised as "raising interesting and valuable points" by Dr. Andrew Weil, while Dr. Mehmet Oz and trainer Jillian Michaels who appeared on the same program disagreed with Taubes on many questions. [6]" I think we have to question the science when he…

I think we have to question the science when he states that exercise is an inefficient tool for weight loss.

The science of the book is sound. And he is right about exercise: it's good for fitness (as in muscle) and other health reasons, but for weight loss is almost useless by itself. The reason is insulin, which signal the body to store, not use, energy.

Of course you could calorie-count people on a high carb diet and whip them to exercise and they will probably lose weight. But you will also destroy their health and they will regain all of its former weight (and then some) later. This is documented and is all in the book too.

Re: Complete Notes to Good Calories, Bad Calories by Gary Taubes | Higher Thought

#42
post #40
post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm confused by the application of this law to food. My reason: excrement. You put some mass that contains chemical energy into your body. Then that mass comes out of your body, minus SOME of the chemical energy. How much of it is extracted? What determines this? I have no idea. That said, I think it is funny to treat it as if the only way to get rid of energy is expenditure. How about: Energy intake - Energy Ependit…

Yes you can decompose it further but it doesn't matter. Just consider that "energy intake" is the energy actually absorbed by your body, not what you put in your mouth. (Try eating grass. It has energy, but we can't use it) My point is that a lot of people misinterpret conservation of energy assigning it a direction of causality it doesn't have. It's a constraint between variables (not an assignation as in programmin…

Right. I didn't mean to take away from your point at all, which I do think is fascinating.

I've just noticed that people generally do equate "energy intake" with calories that go into your mouth, and find that interesting.

Post reply on HN