The Sugar Conspiracy • Hacker News Board

Re: The Sugar Conspiracy

#221

Post by Floegipoky » Thu, Apr 07, 2016, 4:16 PM UTC

wnevets wrote: post #214

funkyy wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Very few public, true fitness instructors and dietitians are following the simplest rule ever - decrease calories to lose weight. This method is not that popular, its to tricky since it requires for person to calculate foods, which makes it unpopular for lazy. But it is absolutely the best method to lose weight fast, decrease calorie intake and create shortage.

This is the qualitative to saying drug addiction can be cured by just stop doing drugs. While technically true, it's much easier said than done.

It's tricky though because you can't quit food cold-turkey. You have to overcome the addiction while still partaking in it.

Re: The Sugar Conspiracy

#222

Post by cableshaft » Thu, Apr 07, 2016, 4:18 PM UTC

buserror wrote: post #86

cies wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

With most 5:2 diets, you are not supposed to fast two consecutive days. Non the less 2:5 sounds cool; please come back to report your experience! :)

Oh I've been doing it for years! As soon as I notice the waistline expanding, or I feel like a bit of 'detox', I try to schedule myself on a week where the fridge isn't too full of nice and/or perishable things, and I have a good mean on sunday night. Then it's occasional fruit juice in the morning (bit of an energy boost) and coffee only until the friday. It's a lot easier than it sounds, the 'key' thing is preparat…

This isn't for everyone. I had a period when I got really into fasting (I loved the challenge), often doing 24 hour and 48 hour fasts.

However, one time I tried to go for three days, and on the third day I got suddenly extremely lightheaded while hanging out with friends, and it was a scary enough that they insisted I end the fast right there (I agreed). My enthusiasm for fasting was tempered quite a bit after that.

Maybe that wouldn't happen the next time I tried going 3+ days, but I don't want to risk it.

Also, I've noticed that driving any serious distance while even on the second day of a two day fast, or concentrating on hard programming problems, can be pretty difficult. That's the main reason I don't do it much anymore (I was in high school and had nothing better to do when I was fasting before).

Re: The Sugar Conspiracy

#223

Post by geoka9 » Thu, Apr 07, 2016, 4:19 PM UTC

glaberficken wrote: post #204

geoka9 wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Disclaimer: I'm not an expert on this, just describing my own experience (which may be subjective/biased/completely misinterpreted by me). If you're mostly sedentary in a first-world country, going off sugar/carbs-dominated diet brings your insulin sensitivity to its natural levels (which, very probably, it hasn't been since the moment you started eating adult food). For me this had the amazing effect of becoming mor…

I had a similar experience when I removed sugar and almost all carbs for 5 months. Switched to mostly protein and fat (meat/tuna/eggs/cheese/vegetables) One major change was much higher "energy"/"alertness levels after lunch and after dinner. No more sleepy low energy "food coma" feeling after meals. Where I would usually feel like laying on the sofa after a long day's work and dinner, now I had the urge to go out on…

I feel carbs in general can be my best friend if I use them wisely. But yes, pure sugar is just too potent. Sort of like taking pure heroin instead of an ibuprofen to treat a headache.

Re: The Sugar Conspiracy

#224

Post by atomical » Thu, Apr 07, 2016, 4:24 PM UTC

pixl97 wrote: post #143

eli_gottlieb wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>But the problem to me is when people think chocolate bar, cake, pizza or milk shake.. these are food items with 75% calories from fat. Those are all junk food. Use sparingly. Try eating a piece of fruit instead. I mean, FFS, I really like chocolate, but of course it's unhealthy . Salads and fish are healthy. Everyone knows that.

Modern fruit is junk food. It has a much larger sugar content than wild varieties of the same plant, and was purposely cultured that way because people like large sweet fruits. Eat sparingly.

I eat a lot of fruit. Sometimes I eat over 600 grams of carbohydrate a day.

Re: The Sugar Conspiracy

#225

Post by soundwave106 » Thu, Apr 07, 2016, 4:25 PM UTC

sirtastic wrote: post #205

funkyy wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Very few public, true fitness instructors and dietitians are following the simplest rule ever - decrease calories to lose weight. This method is not that popular, its to tricky since it requires for person to calculate foods, which makes it unpopular for lazy. But it is absolutely the best method to lose weight fast, decrease calorie intake and create shortage.

This doesn't always work. Many people, myself included can fail to lose weight on a restricted calorie diet. I spent 12 months eating below 1200 while working out religiously (4-6 days a week with 30sh mins of cardio followed by 45sh mins of weight lifting). In the beginning I lost weight and fast. At 5'9 I went from 240 down to 148 lbs in 7 months. At 148 I still had excess fat on my body and no matter how hard I wo…

One problem with calories is it definitely is not a simple mathematical "calories in / calories out" formula. Roughly it is a good guideline. But the body also is able to adapt to changes in calorie consumption and mass. (See myth #1.)

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMsa1208051#t=article...

Most advice I've heard suggests that going way below your basal metabolic rate calorie consumption isn't that great of an idea, because your body adapts to that reduced calorie range (some people call this "starvation mode"). I would hazard a guess (though this is just a postulate without any data I could find) that this especially applies when you are at a more "normal" weight already.

There's a reason why weight loss is often described as a "lifestyle change".

Re: The Sugar Conspiracy

#226

Post by nashequilibrium » Thu, Apr 07, 2016, 4:29 PM UTC

sirtastic wrote: post #205

funkyy wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Very few public, true fitness instructors and dietitians are following the simplest rule ever - decrease calories to lose weight. This method is not that popular, its to tricky since it requires for person to calculate foods, which makes it unpopular for lazy. But it is absolutely the best method to lose weight fast, decrease calorie intake and create shortage.

This doesn't always work. Many people, myself included can fail to lose weight on a restricted calorie diet. I spent 12 months eating below 1200 while working out religiously (4-6 days a week with 30sh mins of cardio followed by 45sh mins of weight lifting). In the beginning I lost weight and fast. At 5'9 I went from 240 down to 148 lbs in 7 months. At 148 I still had excess fat on my body and no matter how hard I wo…

Have you considered that it's excess skin because your weight was pretty high for your height and you were losing over 10lbs a month?

Re: The Sugar Conspiracy

#227

Post by chillingeffect » Thu, Apr 07, 2016, 4:29 PM UTC

sirtastic wrote: post #205

funkyy wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Very few public, true fitness instructors and dietitians are following the simplest rule ever - decrease calories to lose weight. This method is not that popular, its to tricky since it requires for person to calculate foods, which makes it unpopular for lazy. But it is absolutely the best method to lose weight fast, decrease calorie intake and create shortage.

This doesn't always work. Many people, myself included can fail to lose weight on a restricted calorie diet. I spent 12 months eating below 1200 while working out religiously (4-6 days a week with 30sh mins of cardio followed by 45sh mins of weight lifting). In the beginning I lost weight and fast. At 5'9 I went from 240 down to 148 lbs in 7 months. At 148 I still had excess fat on my body and no matter how hard I wo…

How tall are you? What's your build? Yours sounds like a pretty damn successful story, congrats!

Calorie in vs. calorie out is a simplistic way of looking at it. It is certainly true for a first-order approach, though. There is much more to it, such as timing, consumption of fiber with sugar, metabolism, etc. etc. However, the most important factor which should be taken on first for the largest immediate changes is calorie in/out.

I'm curious how much fat you have now? In my experience: With effort I was able to get to about 90% of my goals, but the last 10% is extremely stubborn and I haven't been able to get past it. From what I understand, it would require extreme tactics, such as 10 hours of sleep nightly, eliminating all stress and amino acid accounting to eliminate.

I might suggest reducing the cardio greatly and replacing it with briefer, higher-intensity cardio, btw. The body seems to adjust intake demands very well in response to cardio. Also, what supplements do you use? Finally, I'm a little concerned when you say the fat you have is not normal - you may be straying into the unrealistic psychological zone, but obviously I can't tell much from here. I just don't want you to be obsessing over a physique that is already quite acceptable. Congrats again, your discipline should be inspiring to lots of people... hope you comment doesn't stay gray long.

Re: The Sugar Conspiracy

#228

Post by fasteo » Thu, Apr 07, 2016, 4:30 PM UTC

fasteo wrote: post #62

It is sad to see how we are going from fat phobia to carb phobia, repeating the same mistakes 50 years later. I have genetic metabolic disease and I have thought about this many times. My conclusion is simple enough: Eat real food, ignore the macros, listen to your body and adapt your food intake accordingly. Paul Jaminet's diet [1] is the closest I have found to fit this idea. [1] http://perfecthealthdiet.com/

OP here. I have read all the replies and the "What the hell is real food ?" appears several times.

In this context, "real food" means anything that you would find in nature in the same form - excluding changes due to cooking - as you would eat it. Some examples:

- Potato, orange, nuts, milk, eggs, meat: Real food

- Bread, Pasta, Chocolate (no cocoa): Nope

I know that this leaves lots of grey zones (butter, coffee, ...), but you get the idea.

I cannot help but recognize that my approach is very simple; some would say simplistic, and I would partially agree, but it has been working great for me. Bear in mind that my metabolism is completely broken, so you mileage may vary.

Re: The Sugar Conspiracy

#229

Post by Floegipoky » Thu, Apr 07, 2016, 4:31 PM UTC

leonroy wrote: post #148

torgoguys wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not overthinking it. I gave that as an example of people not thinking about food. The heuristic, even applied as you would prefer, is a poor one. I don't buy into the philosophy at all. Quick example, my mother-in-law (who is into all kinds of weird "food woo" (she's a drink-raw-milk-only, avoid-adrenal-stressing-foods, etc. kind of person) once handed me a some sort of baked good--a bread perhaps--and mentioned,…

I think some folk here are misinterpreting my original post (perhaps I wasn't clear enough). Neither I, nor I imagine Jack Lalanne were advocating we return to hunter gatherer foraging. Whilst Jack Lalanne's quote 'if man made it don't eat it' is simplistic it's basically saying go for the steak or the bag of salad leaves rather than the corn dog and powdered mash potato. This isn't about 'weird' foods like raw milk,…

>> It's just common sense advice that humans seldom make a food healthier by tinkering with it

While true, this isn't because humans are incapable of improving food. It's because the ways our species has been improving food recently have been driven by capitalism; we've been making it easier to grow and giving it more appealing taste so that it's easier to mass produce and sell. These qualities, especially the taste 'improvements', often result in significant reductions in nutritional quality. If Big Aggro were instead focusing on making our veggies more nutritious, I'm confident that they would succeed.

Re: The Sugar Conspiracy

#230

Post by npsimons » Thu, Apr 07, 2016, 4:31 PM UTC

Floegipoky wrote: post #218

npsimons wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A million times this. People think that the second law of thermodynamics doesn't apply to them because "biology is complex!", which sounds an awful lot like the creationists. You can't outrun your fork. Even if you want to create a caloric deficit through increased activity level, you'll need to hold intake constant, therefore you most likely have to track it to begin with. These days with things like MyFitnessPal th…

People tend to overlook the pervasiveness of food addiction

> People tend to overlook the pervasiveness of food addiction

People have this misconception that "addiction" can only be to something that you can live without (such as drugs, alcohol, gambling, the Internet or gaming), when in truth you can be addicted to anything. If there's anything I'd demonize refined sugar for, it would be that it's easy to get addicted to, especially as it's put into far too many foodstuffs. Otherwise, it's just calories, and if you want it, fit it into your daily caloric budget.