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

Fat-fueled brain: unnatural or advantageous?

blogs.scientificamerican.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

281–290 of 319 posts

Re: Fat-fueled brain: unnatural or advantageous?

#281

Post by jtrtoo »

danielvinson wrote: post #232
rotwoof wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point of putting butter in your coffee is to extend your natural faste. The faste that you enter every night during sleep. It is done in tandem with also skipping breakfast on keto. The reason you put butter in your coffee instead of a spoonful of say, sugar, is that fat takes a long time to digest and even a fairly small amount of it (a table spoon of butter in your coffee) takes a while to digest. During that t…

> Even if you're getting calories from your coffee it doesn't impact your weight loss because you're still eating less calories than your body needs to maintain the weight. This is completely dependent on other factors. Weight loss is dependent on a hell of a lot of things in tandem. It is mathematically strictly better to say, drink only black coffee or sugar-free energy drinks in the morning. Caffeine is an appetit…

This assumes calories are all equal and the best measuring stick. Do we know this to be a fact?

Re: Fat-fueled brain: unnatural or advantageous?

#282

Post by bitstein »

rotwoof wrote: post #267
bitstein wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Research? Sort of. Experience? Yes. Owsley "The Bear" Stanley, the famous LSD manufacturer and Grateful Dead sound engineer, lived very healthily on an all-meat diet for over 50 years. (Note: he did have cancer, though likely due to HPV and years of secondhand cigarette smoke and firsthand marijuana smoke, and his diet probably helped him survive it, and he had a heart attack, but that was likely due to complications…

Holy shit, lyme disease! How could I forget posting about this! My friend had lyme disease and was told to look into keto by his doctor to help fight the disease. He's cured as of March this year.

That's so wonderful.

Re: Fat-fueled brain: unnatural or advantageous?

#283

Post by jsprogrammer »

schrodinger wrote: post #277
jsprogrammer wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where have those physics been documented? I want to see the same person: 'immobile 'sitting most of the time, with short commutes and shopping trips 'intensely exercising 1 hr a day 'actively working out throughout the day while maintaining their current diet and weight.

These aren't independent variables. The point is that a half an hour run only burns around 300-400 calories, a deficit which could more easily be accomplished by diet. Also, it's possible that the run would increase your appetite. The point isn't that exercise _can't_ work, it's that aiming for dietary changes has a higher average ROI than exercise.

"these"? I don't know what that refers to.

No one has argued that there is a lower than average ROI (you get paid for not eating?) from exercise.

Re: Fat-fueled brain: unnatural or advantageous?

#284

Post by Asooka »

danielvinson wrote: post #253
ars wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> proved to be absolutely false I'm perfectly willing to be shown that I'm wrong, but I'll need more than just a sentence from you saying so. You said "proved" - can you show me the proof?

A quick google search results in multiple well cited articles discussing it.

A quick Google search also shows several well cited articles supporting the flat earth theory.

Re: Fat-fueled brain: unnatural or advantageous?

#285

Post by DrScump »

BlackJack wrote: post #279
schrodinger wrote: post #276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sure it could also yield multiple well-cited articles on the other side as well. It would be much more helpful to actually provide some research that you stand behind.

Lyle McDonald: http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/research-review/meal-freque... Probably the best and most researched article on this. Bullet point 4 here: http://www.leangains.com/2010/10/top-ten-fasting-myths-debun... has an article reference. Basically, you can certainly go into starvation mode, but not in any reasonable amount of time. Skipping meals or even fasting for a whole day will not cause "starvation mode"…

Bear in mind that Lyle believed in "starvation mode" 10-17 years ago; I believe he mentions it in his first book. He was also a firm believer in strict caloric arithmetic and that microbiome didn't matter. His content is only as good as the current scientific literature is, and that has changed a lot in the past 20 years.

Re: Fat-fueled brain: unnatural or advantageous?

#286

Post by DrScump »

rayiner wrote: post #223
collyw wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Physics, years of evidence and common sense down voted on HN where solyent is seen as a good thing.

The physics is that exercise burns so few calories it's not worthwhile from a weight loss point of view.

It's not physics, it's biochemistry.

But it's more complicated than that. Genetics cause one's predisposition as to how responsive a person is to cardio; see the University of Bath study and/or Michael Mosley's "The Truth About Exercise".

Re: Fat-fueled brain: unnatural or advantageous?

#287

Post by ddmf »

DigitalJack wrote: post #147
rotwoof wrote: post #62

I've been doing Keto since Feb 25 2016. My primary goal when switching over was weight loss, which turned out to be easy. I'm 25, male and was experiencing growing health complications related to obesity. I've lost well over 60 lbs since making the switch despite the fact that I maintain a primarily sedentary lifestyle though I now work out weekly as well as take bi-daily walks. There are downsides though. It's not c…

I don't disagree with what you've said, with maybe the exception of the amount of salt... That's a lot. I'll periodically eat a pickle or have some garlic stuffed olives and that works for me. People should probably supplementing magnesium regardless, but in tablet form it can cause diarrhea. I'm replying mainly to raise the point that, in my experience, there are people who can moderate successfully, and there are p…

If there are bad snack items available, I will eat as many as I can stuff into my facehole as quickly as I can. I have no willpower.

The best way I've found to combat this is to not buy bad snack items.

Re: Fat-fueled brain: unnatural or advantageous?

#288

Post by collyw »

pramalin wrote: post #245
collyw wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But adding calories in whatever form still means more calories in than not eating them. Edit: I get the point that it stops hunger, but my point still stands, and the parent posters still doesn't make a great deal of sense.

Not all calories are the same. For example, body excretes excess dietary fat, but stores excess carbohydrates adding 4 times the amount of water to it. You can find the details in any Paleo Diet related site.

I prefer to stick to something published on pubmed.

Re: Fat-fueled brain: unnatural or advantageous?

#289

Post by esailija »

fatman2poh wrote: post #230
johnward wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"plenty of veggies and fruits" "cut out sugar" You can't do both.

checkout studies on fructose/glucose in a glass that is consumed, and the equivalent in fruits. good thing that the physical reaction isn't equivalent despite the fact that calorical intake of that sugar is the same. it's a huge shame not to consume fiber, or berries, or other fruits. fruits were made by plants to prolong the life of the consumer, it's absolutely impossible to overdose on bananas if you aren't delibe…

Every digestable carb will turn into glucose eventually, all that matters is how fast this happens because you want to minimize time spent at high blood glucose levels.

Sugars generally digest faster than starches but this is not always true. Oranges (as in the whole fruit with its structure and fiber intact) raise blood glucose more slowly than potatoes, even though oranges are mostly sugar and potatoes are mostly starch.

This also means that slowly eaten sugar is healthier than quickly devoured complex carbs (if dental health is ignored). E.g. eating 50g carbs worth of candy steadily over 4 hours will result in stabler blood glucose than devouring 50g carbs worth of rice in 5 mins.

Re: Fat-fueled brain: unnatural or advantageous?

#290

Post by esailija »

Nav_Panel wrote: post #24
rpazyaquian wrote: post #10

The main problem I have with ketogenic diets is that it's actually quite difficult and sometimes expensive to eat a 90-95% fat diet. I tried it for a while, and since I couldn't have carbs OR too much protein, I had several instances where my dinner in a pinch was melted down cheese and half-n-half. Your diet basically becomes cheese and avocados with some, but not too much, salmon or chicken. I'm not arguing that it…

> The main problem I have with ketogenic diets is that it's actually quite difficult and sometimes expensive to eat a 90-95% fat diet From what I've seen, your diet should be ~60-70% fat, 5% or less carbs, and ~25-35% protein. Definitely not 95% fat. > I had several instances where my dinner in a pinch was melted down cheese and half-n-half. Your diet basically becomes cheese and avocados with some, but not too much,…

That study is only for a very short duration of keto.
Post reply on HN