The Sugar Conspiracy • Hacker News Board

Re: The Sugar Conspiracy

#241

Post by louprado » Thu, Apr 07, 2016, 4:46 PM UTC

asadkn wrote: post #190

It's typical how most people really want to immediately buy into the simple fixes and religiously believe them without knowing why it worked. Overweight? Must be the fructose (recently) / carbs (a while back) / fats (further back). Same old story. Somebody makes rounds in media and makes a lot of money after publishing a book with something "new" - a simple fix. Fortunately we have people like Lyle McDonald, Alan Ara…

Simple fixes can work at the onset of a problem, before things get complex -- before your endocrine system gets imbalanced. Unfortunately too many have no clear obesity threshold or apply comparative analysis against cohorts who are also gaining weight.

While it seems unimaginable today, in the 80's a breakfast cereal commercial begins, "Can you pinch an inch ?". This commercial ran so often that it forced a lifelong association: more than 1 inch of belly fat means you are out of shape.

I have probably pinched myself once a day, every day, for decades. When I am "out of shape" I stop drinking my calories (juice, soda, milk). It's effortless and only takes a few days to recover.

Wait too long with any problem and there will be no easy fix.

Re: The Sugar Conspiracy

#242

Post by beachstartup » Thu, Apr 07, 2016, 4:48 PM UTC

funkyy wrote: post #194

asadkn wrote: post #190

It's typical how most people really want to immediately buy into the simple fixes and religiously believe them without knowing why it worked. Overweight? Must be the fructose (recently) / carbs (a while back) / fats (further back). Same old story. Somebody makes rounds in media and makes a lot of money after publishing a book with something "new" - a simple fix. Fortunately we have people like Lyle McDonald, Alan Ara…

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.

you're just plain wrong on your first point. most fitness instructors/trainers tell their clients to eat less and eat better, and to count calories. i don't even know where you got this idea. you're conflating the bullshit commercials you see on tv with actual, real life trainers at actual real life gyms.

second, and more importantly, this advise is nearly useless. this is like telling an alcoholic to just drink less, or a heroin addict to just stop using. yes, great. eat less, thanks bro. what a revelation.

obese people are addicted to food. they are killing themselves and it's a psychosomatic issue, not a math problem. it requires education, a real desire to change, sometimes special diets to break mental barriers, and a lot more work than just a simple statement like "eat less calories". i guess you must think everyone else is just stupid, right? so simple! just eat less calories. silly addicts, if they only knew about physics...

Re: The Sugar Conspiracy

#243

Post by rayiner » Thu, Apr 07, 2016, 4:52 PM UTC

funkyy wrote: post #194

asadkn wrote: post #190

It's typical how most people really want to immediately buy into the simple fixes and religiously believe them without knowing why it worked. Overweight? Must be the fructose (recently) / carbs (a while back) / fats (further back). Same old story. Somebody makes rounds in media and makes a lot of money after publishing a book with something "new" - a simple fix. Fortunately we have people like Lyle McDonald, Alan Ara…

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.

On a website where we talk about smartphone apps to do the most trivial things, it seems weird to glorify any method of losing weight other than the easiest and shortcut-iest.

Re: The Sugar Conspiracy

#244

Post by louprado » Thu, Apr 07, 2016, 4:55 PM UTC

louprado wrote: post #241

asadkn wrote: post #190

It's typical how most people really want to immediately buy into the simple fixes and religiously believe them without knowing why it worked. Overweight? Must be the fructose (recently) / carbs (a while back) / fats (further back). Same old story. Somebody makes rounds in media and makes a lot of money after publishing a book with something "new" - a simple fix. Fortunately we have people like Lyle McDonald, Alan Ara…

Simple fixes can work at the onset of a problem, before things get complex -- before your endocrine system gets imbalanced. Unfortunately too many have no clear obesity threshold or apply comparative analysis against cohorts who are also gaining weight. While it seems unimaginable today, in the 80's a breakfast cereal commercial begins, "Can you pinch an inch ?". This commercial ran so often that it forced a lifelong…

Sorry, I have to share the commercial: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SWUBIbsSB2c

I think if anyone did this to their wife today, it would be grounds for immediate divorce and instant social-media shaming.

Re: The Sugar Conspiracy

#245

Post by eigenvalue » Thu, Apr 07, 2016, 4:56 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…

You might be a good candidate for some newer devices for non-invasive fat removal. Take a look at CoolSculpting, which freezes fat cells (leading to apoptosis), or Vanquish, which uses deep RF stimulation to heat fat cells and kill them. CoolSculpting has been around for about 5 years and has already been used for over 3 million treatments and seems to be pretty safe and effective. Vanquish and SculpSure (uses lasers) are much newer.

Re: The Sugar Conspiracy

#246

Post by ZeroFries » Thu, Apr 07, 2016, 5:00 PM UTC

funkyy wrote: post #194

asadkn wrote: post #190

It's typical how most people really want to immediately buy into the simple fixes and religiously believe them without knowing why it worked. Overweight? Must be the fructose (recently) / carbs (a while back) / fats (further back). Same old story. Somebody makes rounds in media and makes a lot of money after publishing a book with something "new" - a simple fix. Fortunately we have people like Lyle McDonald, Alan Ara…

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 going to be an unpopular opinion, but you don't even need to track calories. Just have a mindful sense when you eat, slow down, and ask "do I need to eat this? Will it make me healthier and stronger?" before most meals, and try to answer "yes" 90% of the time you actually eat.

Re: The Sugar Conspiracy

#247

Post by drumdance » Thu, Apr 07, 2016, 5:01 PM UTC

JustSomeNobody wrote: post #178

slacka wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>If man made it, don't eat it I think a better heuristic, is "Just eat what your great-grandma ate". Or avoid the middle of the supermarket as much as possible. Simply eating more fat and less sugar/carbs, I have lost 10+ pounds and feel much better. These nutrition fads have done more harm than good. My mother switched from butter to Crisco when I was a kid, then she banned salt from the house, and bought (high suga…

Mmmm... Deep fat fried chicken with the skin on. Collards cooked low and slow with a ham hock. Mashed potatoes and gravy. Apple pie with a Crisco crust. Oh, wow. Now I'm starving.

Same here. Though my grandmother lived to 93 on that diet so...

Re: The Sugar Conspiracy

#248

Post by ZeroFries » Thu, Apr 07, 2016, 5:03 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…

At what body fat percentage does your weight loss stall at? Are you insulin sensitive? Do you have good testosterone levels? Do you have a high stress lifestyle or chronic anxiety, or consistent sleep deprivation? You can get these things tested, and they may give you clues as to what's going on. Your body won't burn the fat you'd like it to if it's not in a good hormonal state.

Re: The Sugar Conspiracy

#249

Post by clentaminator » Thu, Apr 07, 2016, 5:08 PM UTC

scott_s wrote: post #116

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/

That sounds like a typical fad diet. What differentiates it, and what evidence do they have for their claims?

One of the problems with the word "diet" is the implicit connotations with fad-y short-term weight management strategies that never last. The same thing happens with the word "fast", but the implications are often religious. It's very easy to dismiss 5:2 for these reasons.

Looking at 5:2 simply as a "pattern of eating", however, makes it easier to consider not only the apparent health changes but also other potential benefits, including:

- Reduction of IGF-1 - Prolonged period of not eating as a means to promote cell repair - Shining a light on the cultural norms around eating three square meals a day with/without snacks in between.

After watching the documentary it seems like 5:2 may be more than just another "fad" diet.

Re: The Sugar Conspiracy

#250

Post by darkclarity » Thu, Apr 07, 2016, 5:08 PM UTC

Floegipoky wrote: post #229

leonroy wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

It got to a point where governments had to mandate that certain processed foods (e.g. bread, breakfast cereals) must contain extra vitamins and minerals - just to keep the population from damaging themselves.