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

Obesity: Drink till you drop

economist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 106 posts

Re: Obesity: Drink till you drop

#61

Post by rdtsc »

petercooper wrote: post #55
wwortiz wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it uncommon for European restaurants to bring out another plate/silverware if asked, or just considered bad manners? I'm genuinely curious, but perhaps I misunderstood what you were saying. Also I'm curious if doggy bags imply the same connotations where you are from, as here they imply simply bringing leftovers home, although it has been a very long time since I've heard the term doggy bag and am more accustomed…

Frequent US traveller here from the UK. as here they imply simply bringing leftovers home, although it has been a very long time since I've heard the term doggy bag and am more accustomed to people asking if anyone wants a box or their leftovers wrapped up. It took a while for me to get used to the US phenomenon of asking for leftovers to be "boxed up" and I've noticed a similar level of surprise with less travelled…

> though I still wouldn't ever do it myself)

Why do you think that is?

Is it that Europeans see eating out as a signal of luxury and asking to take the rest of the food home somehow diminishes that perception ("oh look they must be poor if they are taking that left-over steak home..." kind of attitude). In other words are Europeans just afraid of looking bad, poor or stingy in front of others in a restaurant and Americans just don't care?

What if portion size wasn't a problem? Image that Europeans served same sized portions as Americans, would you take your leftovers home to be heated up for lunch then?

Re: Obesity: Drink till you drop

#62

Post by rdtsc »

evanchen wrote: post #34

The problem with "solutions" like this is that they don't really fix the problem where it lies. Weight gain is attributed to caloric surplus, there's no two ways about it. Drinking water before a meal will help you feel a little fuller and ultimately, eat less. People ignorant to nutrition will begin to use this as a free pass to eating even more poorly. If you really take a step back and look at this, what they are…

> People ignorant to nutrition will begin to use this as a free pass to eating even more poorly.

One danger would be that they would wash out too many useful substances out of their body by drinking to much liquid.

I would also imagine so much liquid dilutes the stomach juices and the food doesn't digest properly. I don't have any scientific basis for this btw, just a hunch.

> ... what they are suggesting is filling up with less calorie dense foods

Another way to accomplish the same thing (for me at least) is to eat spicier, more flavorful foods.

Re: Obesity: Drink till you drop

#63

Post by SoftwareMaven »

I was wondering if it altered the quality of calories taken in. The article mentioned that it wasn't just dropping calories from drinks, since they were counted as part of the allocated amount.

On the other hand, if people were eating (for instance) more proteins in place of the simple sugars of fizzy drinks, they would drastically alter how their body was interacting with those 1800 calories.

I was disappointed by the apparent attitude in the article that every calorie was equal, regardless of source. I really believe calories are to the nutrition industry what counting lines of code is to software: a number that is just too easy to calculate but absolutely meaningless in measuring anything.

Re: Obesity: Drink till you drop

#64

Post by flatulent1 »

WilliamLP wrote: post #38
tommizzle wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would say it's pretty common knowledge in the fitness world. I think this quote explains the concept nicely: "The second rule of fat loss is that healthy fat does not make you fat. Excess calories, in particular excess from the wrong calories makes you fat. This is a very hard concept to get across. People still believe that fat makes you fat and will argue without you to the grave while they eat a gallon of low fa…

You're preaching to the choir here. What you're not going to be able to demonstrate is that, in laboratory controlled conditions where literally every calorie is counted by a scientist, and all variables are taken into account (e.g. hyrdation levels) that one kind of calorie leads to a "metabolic advantage" over another and lead to more or less fat loss or gain given adequate protein . This would be a kind of holy gr…

"What you're not going to be able to demonstrate is that, in laboratory controlled conditions where literally every calorie is counted by a scientist, and all variables are taken into account (e.g. hyrdation levels) that one kind of calorie leads to a "metabolic advantage" over another..."

There doesn't have to be a metabolic advantage for there to be a difference between calorie sources.

The number of calories eaten does not equal the number absorbed. Some things will be absorbed more readily than others. Foods are not all equal. People differ in significant ways both longer and short term. We don't all have the same mix of intestinal floura to help with digestion. Some foods may help/hinder getting calories/nutrients from others. Efficiency no doubt is higher when the food is taken in throughout the day instead of mostly at once. Even chewing better makes some difference. And other aspects of body chemistry, such as stomach acidity level no doubt have an influence.

I read of a U.N. worker working to help people with serious health problems in very poor nations. To get a fast inexpensive benefit a comparison was made of healthy/unhealthy people with similar (limited) food access and exposure to environmental hazards. The conclusion was that those who spread a given amount of food out through the day got more nutrition that those who ate it all at once. Of course some things are absorbed very easily (like our corn syrup), but it's easier to disrupt absorption of fats and heavier things.

I'd been taught that it was better to delay most liquids to the end of a meal, so that stomach acids would be more effective for breaking things down. Eat most of the heavier items first, shifting towards veggies and fruit then liquids.

Doing the opposite may cause weight loss (seems better to say less gain), but I think most consuming a significant amount of liquid first are apt to feel uncomfortable, especially with higher fat meals, as they're not handled as well. Eating a patty melt or other greasy food after a lot of water or coffee always had me feeling much worse on the road afterward than the same amount of everything in the reverse order. It's better to eat less than to make digestion less efficient.

My summary: It's the water reducing the acidity that made the difference with constant calorie input, but it's better to eat less than to make digestion less efficient like that.

Re: Obesity: Drink till you drop

#65

Post by petercooper »

rdtsc wrote: post #61
petercooper wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Frequent US traveller here from the UK. as here they imply simply bringing leftovers home, although it has been a very long time since I've heard the term doggy bag and am more accustomed to people asking if anyone wants a box or their leftovers wrapped up. It took a while for me to get used to the US phenomenon of asking for leftovers to be "boxed up" and I've noticed a similar level of surprise with less travelled…

> though I still wouldn't ever do it myself) Why do you think that is? Is it that Europeans see eating out as a signal of luxury and asking to take the rest of the food home somehow diminishes that perception ("oh look they must be poor if they are taking that left-over steak home..." kind of attitude). In other words are Europeans just afraid of looking bad, poor or stingy in front of others in a restaurant and Amer…

Why do you think that is?

A handful of reasons, I think.

Fatigue with the particular dish (I don't want to eat the same thing within a day or two anyway), a mostly irrational "ick" hygiene factor, not wanting to carry food around (it's less common to be parked close to where you're eating in the UK), a lingering (though lessened) elitist attitude to the practice, and a fear of it being considered an unusual request.

Different cultures engage in slightly odd behaviors (such as the prevalence of stick shift cars in the UK) often because people are, en masse, afraid of being unusual and making a change. If restaurants made taking stuff home an obvious and acceptable policy, I'd probably deliberately eat only half the meal and do it from time to time.

Re: Obesity: Drink till you drop

#66

Post by hugh3 »

rdtsc wrote: post #62
evanchen wrote: post #34

The problem with "solutions" like this is that they don't really fix the problem where it lies. Weight gain is attributed to caloric surplus, there's no two ways about it. Drinking water before a meal will help you feel a little fuller and ultimately, eat less. People ignorant to nutrition will begin to use this as a free pass to eating even more poorly. If you really take a step back and look at this, what they are…

> People ignorant to nutrition will begin to use this as a free pass to eating even more poorly. One danger would be that they would wash out too many useful substances out of their body by drinking to much liquid. I would also imagine so much liquid dilutes the stomach juices and the food doesn't digest properly. I don't have any scientific basis for this btw, just a hunch. > ... what they are suggesting is filling…

I would also imagine so much liquid dilutes the stomach juices and the food doesn't digest properly. I don't have any scientific basis for this btw, just a hunch.

I've never heard of that happening, or anything like it. There is such a thing, supposedly, as water intoxication though: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_intoxication

It's not a serious concern for anyone not running marathon distances or taking part in a water-drinking competition, though.

Re: Obesity: Drink till you drop

#67

Post by gnaritas »

hugh3 wrote: post #60
shrikant wrote: post #20

Me and the significant other have known this for quite a while. Frankly, I'm REALLY surprised that this wasn't an established scientific result. The way it works IMHO is not too obscure - water fills you up and gives you the impression of being 'full' earlier, so you tend to reduce your regular food intake. Feeling 'fuller' equates to being satiated for a lot of people (including me), so the tendency to chow out at r…

Frankly, I'm REALLY surprised that this wasn't an established scientific result. There must be an awful lot of things which are very hard to prove in a proper controlled study, but which are totally obvious to anyone who tries them. To prove something about diet to everybody's satisfaction I'd have to get dozens of volunteers, compensate them properly for their time, carefully monitor what they eat, and worry about a…

> There must be an awful lot of things which are very hard to prove in a proper controlled study, but which are totally obvious to anyone who tries them.

The problem is lots of stuff that people think they know and is totally obvious is completely wrong and completely subjective. Science has a harder job, it has to prove things objectively.

Re: Obesity: Drink till you drop

#68

Post by whatusername »

carbocation wrote: post #12
rmanocha wrote: post #8

Not sure about the "science" behind this, but this technique has definitely worked for me. I've been drinking ~3 litres of water daily for the last year - and along with other changes in my lifestyle, have lost ~65lbs in that time. If for no other reason, drinking that water reduces my urges for fizzy drinks - which helps a lot. Additionally, as others have said - reducing the amount you eat, in whatever way that wor…

The "science" behind this is a randomized, controlled trial. Why the scare quotes?

because controlled trials that involve large groups of people are very difficult to actually control.

Re: Obesity: Drink till you drop

#69

Post by Luc »

rdtsc wrote: post #61
petercooper wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Frequent US traveller here from the UK. as here they imply simply bringing leftovers home, although it has been a very long time since I've heard the term doggy bag and am more accustomed to people asking if anyone wants a box or their leftovers wrapped up. It took a while for me to get used to the US phenomenon of asking for leftovers to be "boxed up" and I've noticed a similar level of surprise with less travelled…

> though I still wouldn't ever do it myself) Why do you think that is? Is it that Europeans see eating out as a signal of luxury and asking to take the rest of the food home somehow diminishes that perception ("oh look they must be poor if they are taking that left-over steak home..." kind of attitude). In other words are Europeans just afraid of looking bad, poor or stingy in front of others in a restaurant and Amer…

> In other words are Europeans just afraid of looking bad, poor or stingy in front of others in a restaurant and Americans just don't care?

I don't care what people think, but restaurants that don't do takeaway simply don't have containers to take food home. I've been to 10 restaurants this month, and none did takeaway.

Besides, a half-eaten reheated meal doesn't sound very appetizing. The sauce will have congealed or soaked up by the food, the pastry gotten soggy, etc. etc.

Re: Obesity: Drink till you drop

#70

Post by pfedor »

davidw wrote: post #22
jacquesm wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Plenty of it, but that's also because typically people will prepare (or expect to be prepared for them in restaurants) unbelievable amounts of food. I weigh about 70 Kg and a half portion in any US restaurant is more than enough for me. I always feel bad about sending food back to the kitchen but I'd feel even worse for overeating.

Yeah, my wife and I always have to remember to split an entree at US restaurants. Once we split an appetizer, and, not having been that hungry in the first place, were basically good for the evening. The portions there really are huge.

Well I can name one place where portions are exactly the right size and it's McDonald's. E.g., cheeseburger plus the Caesar salad w/o chicken, plus french fries plus two apple pies plus a coke is about half the size of a meal in a regular restaurant. Which of course doesn't stop people like my girlfriend from bashing McDonald's as non-healthy and preferring places where "gourmet" burgers range from 1/3 to 1lb, i.e., the smallest one is bigger than the quarter-pounder.
Post reply on HN