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

The Sugar Conspiracy

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 362 posts

Re: The Sugar Conspiracy

#231

Post by scholia »

st4ck3r wrote: post #144

It will take a solid 5 years minimum for the 'main stream dietitians' to start believing this and promoting it. My mom with all the information I have shared, still refuses to give up milk and thinks I may be reading too much into a 'FAD DIET' to say things like milk can be bad for health. Either she is too entrenched/doesn't care or I am not providing enough evidence or need to provide an alternative way of making h…

> still refuses to give up milk

Good for her! Milk is one of the most nutritious foods you can get. Lots of protein, vitamin B12, calcium, riboflavin etc. It reduces the risk of osteoporosis -- important for ageing people -- and tends to reduce blood pressure.

And the downside that it may increase the risk of prostate cancer in men is one that your mother doesn't have to worry about ;-)

Re: The Sugar Conspiracy

#232

Post by asadkn »

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…

It's frustrating for sure. And it's not as simple as everyone makes it to be.

The calorie in / calorie out has a lot of variables that need adjustment. It's very important not to go on an aggressive diet but requires working down from what you consume right now where the weight is stable (maintenance calories). Unfortunately, what most people don't talk about is the effect of LBM loss and its effect on the RMR/BMR [1]. Your energy expenditure decreases further as you lose the LBM. It will be further worsened if you went for a very aggressive weight loss strategy with very low calories as your body will adjust to that and your hormones might be temporarily imbalanced [2].

Weight lifting and a full strategy for fat loss is essential for long-term success.

I personally do believe metabolic damage (or the better term metabolic slowdown) does happen, but it can be fixed by gradually going back to the correct maintenance calories with a solid weight lifting program (3x per week works) to back it up for a few months. This will result in some gains in the short-term (hopefully more of it being LBM). And you can go back to the fat loss phase again from there.

To add to it, the course the calorie in / calorie out model isn't as simple since macros still need some thought. You definitely need about 0.6-0.8g of protein / lb of bodyweight to gain muscle or about 0.8-0.9g / lb to maintain it at times of calorie deficit. [3]

[1]: http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/lean-body-mass-mai... [2]: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12609816/ [3]: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22150425

Re: The Sugar Conspiracy

#233

Post by fasteo »

notthegov wrote: post #81
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/

What is real food? I disagree strongly. Eating shouldn't make you tired. I could eat 2 1/3 pound greasy cheeseburgers with toppings but if I skip the buns, I feel like I ate nothing. There is something legitimate to intermittent fasting, ketogenic diets, avoiding refined carbs, avoiding bread etc. I have a serious disease that is thought to prevented by ketogenic diets. And I think there's an equal chance I got the d…

>>> I disagree strongly.

Do not see why. In fact, I agree with you 100%.

>>> I have a serious disease that is thought to prevented by ketogenic diets

Are you epileptic ? Know a couple of kids with secondary epilepsia that are doing great with a keto diet

Re: The Sugar Conspiracy

#234

Post by fasteo »

MicroBerto wrote: post #64
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/

Macro tracking is the best way to fine tune your body composition and measure what actually works for you. Collecting data is never a bad thing and is always worth doing.

I did macro tracking a couple of years. At the end, "listening to your body" is just a unconscious way to track macros.

Re: The Sugar Conspiracy

#235

Post by fasteo »

wutbrodo wrote: post #141
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/

> Eat real food, ignore the macros, listen to your body and adapt your food intake accordingly The middle two pieces of advice seem somewhat contradictory. I usually get a pretty strong sense for which macro I'm primarily hungry for. "listening to my body" is intimately tied to picking the macros that make up my meal[1]. Or did you mean something more like "avoid planning macros contrary to your appetite signals"? [1…

>>> avoid planning macros contrary to your appetite signals

This. Same for planning ahead gym workouts.

Re: The Sugar Conspiracy

#236

Post by danmaz74 »

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,…

> As close to its natural form as possible is invariably best.

The problem is that these simplifications and generalizations are invariably broken. According to this, for example, raw meat should be better than cooked meat.

Re: The Sugar Conspiracy

#237

Post by simook »

Sugar free for almost two years now and I avoid it like the plague. Really glad to see more and more articles like these.

All the naysayers should continue to eat sugar, and let nature do it's "thing".

Re: The Sugar Conspiracy

#238

Post by fasteo »

leshow wrote: post #177
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/

this is terrible advice. 'real food' is a term that means nothing. you're simplifying to the point where you aren't any help at all.

>>> 'real food' is a term that means nothing.

Please see my post above.

>>> you're simplifying to the point where you aren't any help at all.

Completely possible. It has helped me tremendously though.

Re: The Sugar Conspiracy

#239

Post by pascalxus »

buserror wrote: post #76
tomaskazemekas wrote: post #67

One diet that reflects these findings and is tested personally is "5:2 fast diet, proposed by M. Mosley. This method really is effective in reducing the ill effects of modern food and lifestyle and is easy to turn into normal weekly behavior pattern. https://thefastdiet.co.uk/

Funny, I do the other way around! 5 days fast, 2 days eating. I think a 2 day fast is a bit harsh; you 'pay' the price of hunder the first day, but only have one day really of 'benefiting' from it... In my case if I have to do it, I'd rather pay the price the first day, then keep the momentum. Also the third/fourth day there is a payout as you get a nice 'mental high'... And blimey, the friday evening you can eat any…

That's a great way to do it. There's so many benefits to intermittent fasting. Research shows it can: reduce oxidive stress on DNA, thus reducing Cancer. Plus it helps you eat fewer calories in a day. It reduces inflamation. It reduces the chance of type 2 diabetes. It even helps you produce BDNF which reduces the chance of mental disorders like parkinsons! Plus many more benefits, too many to list here...

Right now, alot of dieticiens are still behind the research, but they're slowly getting caught up.

Even the new york times published an article admitting that breakfast was not the most important meal of the day. they showed metastudies that showed there was absolutely NO evidence that showed breakfast was better for your health (other than some correlation based studies). It's time to jetison breakfast and live as our ancestors lived - the way we evolved to live. Nobody back then ate 3 meals a day - this is a new phenomenon started recently within the last several hundred years. the roman army conquered all of europe on just 1 meal a day: called lunch, and they got more excercise than any of us. And before that, people ate infrequently because the food supply was so unstable, often going for days without food.

Re: The Sugar Conspiracy

#240

Post by scholia »

geoka9 wrote: post #213
tblt wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you go into more detail about what a regular western diet is and how your new diet differs?

By western diet I meant the gratuitous consumption of highly potent energy sources in the form of white bread/soda/cake/sugar/etc., which is common in North America (can't speak about the rest of the Western world, I hear that Europeans are lean compared to North Americans). Anyway, my approach is simple and unscientific, but it seems to work for me. I just treat any carb-rich food as fuel (there is a difference as t…

> I hear that Europeans are lean compared to North Americans)

A lot of them [us] are catching up, especially in the UK, where the diet has been Americanized.

Post reply on HN