The Sugar Conspiracy • Hacker News Board

Re: The Sugar Conspiracy

#251

Post by kristiandupont » Thu, Apr 07, 2016, 5:10 PM UTC

npsimons wrote: post #201

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.

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…

I used to have this viewpoint but now I'm ashamed of it. I'm athletic, and my body weight tends to stay the same no matter what I eat and how much I exercise. I've gone on serious binges just for the fun of it and not gained a pound. I've also gone through days of food poisoning without noticing any significant drop in weight. I now make an effort to eat healthy, not because of weight but because I think it's the best thing to do for my body and future even if I don't see any difference at the moment.

Sure, calories in and out matter, but it's very clear to me that the human body is complex, and if someone else has a body that reacts similar to mine, only with a significantly higher normal, I feel very sorry for them.

Re: The Sugar Conspiracy

#252

Post by mohaine » Thu, Apr 07, 2016, 5:14 PM UTC

leonroy wrote: post #94

Jack Lalanne (American fitness guru) stated "If man made it, don't eat it". I recall reading that and scratching my head at the sheer number of food products that encompassed. I thought it a rather presumptuous statement. Five years later and after many books and articles on nutrition I now fully agree with him. When I hit the grocery store I skip the middle aisles and head straight for the fish and meat counter or t…

You are skipping the fact that most meat and produce products for sale ARE man made was well. Cows as they currently exist never roamed the wilds. Most fruit and veggies are so different form the wild forms that we wouldn't even identify them as the same fruit.

Not saying these are not better for you then Fruit Loops, but it good to keep some prospective as how man made or man "designed" ALL our food is.

Re: The Sugar Conspiracy

#253

Post by sirtastic » Thu, Apr 07, 2016, 5:15 PM UTC

soundwave106 wrote: post #225

sirtastic wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 a…

I've considered "starvation mode" and for a while I tried cycling my caloric needs (high week, vs low week or two) in fruitless attempts to game my body. I attempted this in larger cycles as well, several months normal vs several weeks of intense dieting. Same issues. The fat wouldn't budge, I'd drop all the water my cells held onto during carb up periods and the fat would sit there. Gives the impression I've lost weight but it was really just water.

My theory from my research is that the fat in question is the oldest (fat I've had since youth) and do to it's age has poor vascularity which inhibits the bodies ability to mobilize it. I've read somewhere that your body will over time reduce blood flow to fat (the veins will over time diminish in size and density those areas) which reduces the flow of hormones into that fat and subsequently your bodies ability to break it down and expel it when needed.

I'm no anatomy expert and this is something I read many years ago so I can't argue it's accurate.

Re: The Sugar Conspiracy

#254

Post by sirtastic » Thu, Apr 07, 2016, 5:18 PM UTC

ZeroFries wrote: post #248

sirtastic wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I can't comment on bodyfat percentages since I've yet to do an accurate (float) test. I've used the electronic method before and it was at around 17-21% at the lowest). I can't comment on insulin sensitivity, never been tested. Testosterone levels were normal. Stress and anxiety comes and goes, would say it's regularly above average but over 5 years there has to have been times where it was normal during very cardiovascular heightened periods (backpacked the pacific crest trail), same goes for sleep. I sleep well 80% of the time I feel.

Re: The Sugar Conspiracy

#255

Post by xiaoma » Thu, Apr 07, 2016, 5:18 PM UTC

leonroy wrote: post #94

Jack Lalanne (American fitness guru) stated "If man made it, don't eat it". I recall reading that and scratching my head at the sheer number of food products that encompassed. I thought it a rather presumptuous statement. Five years later and after many books and articles on nutrition I now fully agree with him. When I hit the grocery store I skip the middle aisles and head straight for the fish and meat counter or t…

>Grains and milk are relatively recent to our diet (past 10000 years)

People have been eating wild wheat for at least 50,000 years and archeologists published a paper in the December, 2009, issue of Science on their discovery in Mozambique of stone tools with wild grain residues dating some 105,000 years ago.

Also keep in mind that most of humanity is lactose tolerant now while less than 1% was even 10k years ago and the prevalence of blue eyes has increase from a rounding error to over 6% of the human race. Human evolution is 100 times the rate it was in prehistoric times according to some estimates.

Re: The Sugar Conspiracy

#256

Post by Goronmon » Thu, Apr 07, 2016, 5:18 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…

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.

You just described an example showing that a restricted calorie diet can be wildly successful. The former quote seems provably false using the latter.

Honestly, this is what I just read from your post.

I can't lose weight on a restricted calorie diet. Here is an example of how I lost a huge amount of weight on a restricted calorie diet.

Re: The Sugar Conspiracy

#257

Post by sirtastic » Thu, Apr 07, 2016, 5:19 PM UTC

nashequilibrium wrote: post #226

sirtastic wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Absolutely. Definitely not excess skin.

Re: The Sugar Conspiracy

#258

Post by xiaoma » Thu, Apr 07, 2016, 5:20 PM UTC

jzwinck wrote: post #115

wtbob wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> My only (dietary) vices are coffee and the odd glass of wine (both very much man made). I don't think I'd consider either of those man-made in the sense of being heavily processed: coffee is simply roasted coffee beans with hot water poured over, and wine is pressed grape juice allowed to ferment.

If wine is just grapes, it must be vegan-compatible, right? But it isn't! Not only is wine sometimes made with products like nuts and milk, it can even be made using fish guts! https://www.organicwine.com.au/what-makes-a-wine-vegan A French wine maker told me this. I had no idea...these "extras" are not on the label.

Wow! Do you know of any specific labels made using fish guts? This sounds interesting.

Re: The Sugar Conspiracy

#259

Post by johnward » Thu, Apr 07, 2016, 5:23 PM UTC

npsimons wrote: post #201

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.

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…

>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.

Well there are ways that make hitting a calorie deficit easier for some people. For me that tends to come from low carbs and lots of fat. I'm still losing weight because I'm at a deficit but I'm able to maintain that because I don't feel hungry like I do when I eat carbs.

Re: The Sugar Conspiracy

#260

Post by mikeash » Thu, Apr 07, 2016, 5:25 PM UTC

xlm1717 wrote: post #169

torgoguys wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>If man made it, don't eat it That's way too simple. It's a kind of naturalistic fallacy as applied to food. If you think your produce area is where you should be getting your calories (not disagreeing), it fails the "if man made it, don't eat it" test spectacularly. Basically everything you see there has been shaped by man. A (stunning) example: one species of plant, brassica oleracea, has been selectively (i.e., ar…

>If man made it, don't eat it Yeah it does come across as too simple. I've heard a variation of it, also attributed to Lalane, that says, "If it comes in a wrapper, don't eat it." The idea is that if it's in a wrapper, it has preservatives added, and also sugar added to make it taste good. In any case, it seems people love attributing quotes to Lalane!

Meat is usually wrapped. Some places wrap fruit and vegetables.

I think people trying to give nutritional advice should just list the actual categories of food they're referring to, rather than trying to get cute. If you want to say "eat unprocessed fruit, vegetables, and meat, and avoid the rest" then just say that. To me, whenever I see somebody trying to get clever with their wording, it just comes off as moralizing. It feels like either "you should know this man-made stuff is bad for you, you idiot" or "I'm better than you because my food is 'natural.'"