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

Scotch as a Diet Hack

bradpilon.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 90 posts

Re: Scotch as a Diet Hack

#71

Post by hnal943 »

stoney wrote: post #50
gaius wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But no-one really wants weight loss, and that should be easy to prove: say you were offered a choice, drop 5lbs of fat or convert 5lbs of fat to 10lbs of muscle, what would you do?

That depends on my starting weight. If I weigh 120lbs then I'll take the muscle. If I weigh 220lbs then I'll take the weight loss.

It shouldn't. His point is that if you're 220, what you really want to lose is fat, not weight. Having more muscle will increase your caloric burn rate and actually help you to lose fat faster. This is why dieting must always be paired with exercise.

To take the argument to an absurd extreme, the fastest way to lose weight would be to cut off your leg.

Obviously "losing weight" is really a euphemism for "losing fat."

Re: Scotch as a Diet Hack

#73

Post by whyme »

stoney wrote: post #50
gaius wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But no-one really wants weight loss, and that should be easy to prove: say you were offered a choice, drop 5lbs of fat or convert 5lbs of fat to 10lbs of muscle, what would you do?

That depends on my starting weight. If I weigh 120lbs then I'll take the muscle. If I weigh 220lbs then I'll take the weight loss.

It's never that easy. If your 6 foot 4 inches, at 220lbs, your probably fairly thin and may want to add muscle.

In the end if you have very little muscle, regardless of weight, you should add it. It will help you lose fat (ie ripping muscles speeds up your metabolism - yes, but most importantly the burn effect lasts much, much longer than an equivalent amount of endurance work). Also you'll have more energy to do more activities allowing you to lose more fat.

Re: Scotch as a Diet Hack

#74

Post by jdietrich »

Retric wrote: post #63
gaius wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On the contrary, we do need strength - without it your form will go to pieces as soon as you tire and your gait will become much less efficient, and increase your risk of injury. 10lbs of muscle on your back, core and hips could make a massive difference. Obviously a Marathon runner wouldn't be interested in adding 100lbs of muscle the way a bodybuilder would.

I agree that core strenght tends to be undervalued, but you will not see a top marathoner with a leg that is quite this size: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Fabian_Cancellara_-_Tour_O... Form, effecency, and power are important for both sports. However, cyclists focus more on power output.

It should be noted that at 80kg, Fabian Cancellara is considered much too heavy to ever win a grand tour. He is spectacularly fast on the flat because he is only slightly less aerodynamic than a much smaller and less powerful man, but he is quickly overpowered on a mountain stage by lighter riders.

Re: Scotch as a Diet Hack

#76

Post by notahacker »

Confusion wrote: post #7
InfinityX0 wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pretty easy to say, harder to do. It's best to set up barriers like this to prevent overeating. Another barrier is eating foods with low calorie density. The barrier here is the harshness of the drink - it is very hard to chug scotch. It is not very hard to chug a beer. When I don't want to eat a lot, I set up barriers. I have literally no food in my apartment. 0. I am a former fat person, who has gotten into shape p…

Just ordering Scotch wouldn't work for me: I love the stuff and, corrected for the alcohol content, I will consume it faster than beer. If you have the same 'problem', what may work is ordering water on the side.

I find spirits much easier to drink in rapid quantities without realising I'm doing it. Quite apart from the lower volume, the lack of carbonation makes the onset of drunkenness less evident

Re: Scotch as a Diet Hack

#77

Post by Alex3917 »

mburney wrote: post #64
Alex3917 wrote: post #57

"Oh and you still get the anti-inflammatory actions of alcohol too, just without any of the extra calories." Alcohol causes inflammation, it's not an anti-inflammatory in any way. Maybe the author was confused because both alcohol and aspirin reduce your risks of heart attacks, and the latter is an NSAID. But taking alcohol if you have inflammatory problems is an extremely bad idea.

From another post by the author: "it is interesting to note that small amounts of alcohol (the occasional drink) is associated with reduced levels of markers of chronic inflamamtion like IL-6, CRP and leptin." Don't have any sources of the research, but it seems like he may post it soon.

I'd be interested to see this research. It's obviously no surprise that drinking would be associated with lower levels of inflammation, considering how much physcial/emotional discomfort alcohol causes to people prone to inflammation. I just have a really hard time believing there could be causation without seeing the research.

Re: Scotch as a Diet Hack

#78

Post by khafra »

_b8r0 wrote: post #32
geuis wrote: post #14

I have to agree 100% with this story. I have recently taken up a taste for scotch. Not only do I drink less, I save money because I'm drinking less. Here in SF a beer or non-scotch drink might range from $5-$10. I can get one scotch for usually $8-$11 dollars, drink it for 2-3x longer than other folks with their beer and cocktails, and in the end save money even if I have a second. I had some Blue label on Saturday.…

I'm surprised as to how you can talk about Scotch and Johnnie Walker in the same breadth. Sure it's technically Scotch Whisky, but it's a disgustingly promoted chain brand that convinces people they're drinking real Whisky instead of overpriced mass-manufactured tat, like Ginsters Cornish Pasties (made on the Cornish border next to the main road leading into Devon). I'm not attacking you, and I apologise if this has…

It's hard to drink Scotch in America without lining Diageo's pockets--I mean, they own Glenkinchie, Lagavulin, Knockando, Oban, Royal Lochnagar, and Talisker, among others. If you're claiming Talisker is mass-manufactured tat, I don't know if we can be friends anymore. And do bear in mind that Talisker is the largest component of the Red Label blend.

Re: Scotch as a Diet Hack

#79

Post by Retric »

jdietrich wrote: post #74
Retric wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree that core strenght tends to be undervalued, but you will not see a top marathoner with a leg that is quite this size: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Fabian_Cancellara_-_Tour_O... Form, effecency, and power are important for both sports. However, cyclists focus more on power output.

It should be noted that at 80kg, Fabian Cancellara is considered much too heavy to ever win a grand tour. He is spectacularly fast on the flat because he is only slightly less aerodynamic than a much smaller and less powerful man, but he is quickly overpowered on a mountain stage by lighter riders.

You are correct that different courses favor different body styles, but comparing someone like Paula Radcliffe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Paula_Brooklyn_NYCM_2007_c...) with a top cyclist shows max power is less important in distance running.

Relative to the average American they do have similar thin and muscular body types. And, I think it's easy to underestimate how strong these people are because they have so much less fat than the average person. But, as you say the relative cost of drag for increased body size helps support a more bulky cyclist.

Re: Scotch as a Diet Hack

#80

Post by jules »

Retric wrote: post #79
jdietrich wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It should be noted that at 80kg, Fabian Cancellara is considered much too heavy to ever win a grand tour. He is spectacularly fast on the flat because he is only slightly less aerodynamic than a much smaller and less powerful man, but he is quickly overpowered on a mountain stage by lighter riders.

You are correct that different courses favor different body styles, but comparing someone like Paula Radcliffe ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Paula_Brooklyn_NYCM_2007_c... ) with a top cyclist shows max power is less important in distance running. Relative to the average American they do have similar thin and muscular body types. And, I think it's easy to underestimate how strong these people are because they ha…

Just FYI Paula Radcliffe weighs 54 kg the cyclist Leonardo Piepoli who is a man and the same height as Radcliffe weighs 52 kg. I do think that cyclists are on average heavier than marathon runners, but the top climber cyclists are not. The advantage Cancellara has on flat terrain is much smaller than the advantage a climber has in the mountains.

In my personal experience with cycling and running I'd say that carrying 1kg of fat running is a smaller disadvantage than carrying 1kg of fat cycling in mountain terrain. This is reversed when you consider cycling on flat terrain.

Post reply on HN