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

A Massive New Harvard Study Shows Which Diet Burns the Most Calories

inc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 43 posts

Re: A Massive New Harvard Study Shows Which Diet Burns the Most Calories

#31

Post by beobab »

lhl wrote: post #29
sys_64738 wrote: post #22

This is all fluff. There are a few simple rules I followed for successful weight loss (15 lbs in the last 5 months. 1) Burn more calories than you consume. 2) Losing more than a pound per week means you'll gain it back again. 3) If you like the taste of the food item then it's unhealthy.

Sure #1 is what it all comes down to, but how much are you in control of the calories that you burn? You can find scientific studies as far back as the Minnesota Starvation Experiment that shows that your body tries to maintain homeostasis when calories are reduced via regular caloric restriction, or with extreme overfeeding. Weight, like much of the bodies processes is a strictly hormonally regulated, the the bioche…

I like the Hacker's Guide to weight (and hair) loss through stress and malnutrition.

https://www.fourmilab.ch/hackdiet/e4/

An engineer's take, and most entertaining.

Re: A Massive New Harvard Study Shows Which Diet Burns the Most Calories

#32

Post by AstralStorm »

bootsz wrote: post #19
darawk wrote: post #6

I've always found this aspect of the low carb debate to be mostly irrelevant. The benefit I get from eating a low carb diet isn't that I burn more calories (as in, i'm not expressing an opinion either way on that). It's that I have a desire to eat dramatically fewer calories on a low-carb diet, and the weight loss effects come from that, not higher metabolism. I don't understand why so many studies want to focus on m…

> It's that I have a desire to eat dramatically fewer calories on a low-carb diet Precisely my experience as well. While it’s true that really no one type of nutrient is universally bad or evil and technically weight loss comes down to calories in/out, there is a huge difference in how satisfied you feel after eating X amount of calories in various forms. I can eat an entire loaf of good bread or a big bag of chips w…

Unless you're carefully measuring you're probably fooling yourself.

Alternatively you're eating highly not satisfying foods on the other diets. Which most of the low fat foods are, especially ones marketed for dieting, which are laden with sugar - which means those calories come at the expense of carbs that are slower to absorb.

Then there's the effect of added protein uptake which is known to reduce appetite. It is easy to end up with a meaningful difference in this value, what with low carb diets increasing meat intake.

The difference is real though and about what I have noticed in burn rates. The actual question is, as always, whether the about 10% faster weight loss is worth any health consequences.

Additionally, whether the normocaloric variant is safe is still up in the air - with some big metastudy showing increased total mortality without CHD and stroke morbidity. No idea what's up with that, perhaps some sort of reserve missing or nutrient lacking...

Re: A Massive New Harvard Study Shows Which Diet Burns the Most Calories

#33

Post by AstralStorm »

masonic wrote: post #30
lucas_membrane wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Simple question is, "Where did the energy go?" First guess would be that the bodies of the fat eaters produced more heat, perhaps on account of a less efficient metabolism of fat. Couldn't that be measured directly with a thermometer? Other guess would be that the fat eaters were more active, producing more mechanical energy. That would be a very interesting possibility to explore. A few decades back, my reading led…

only about 1 kg per month That's 26 pounds in one year . For most people, that's a game-changer.

This means the diet likely had an appetite suppressing effect, not different burn efficiency. Alternatively their adjustment was not controlled for water intake or retention.

Note the calories were not controlled just energy adjusted based on weight loss. So the diets were not exactly same calories. A diet that causes more water retention would be adjusted less so could potentially get more loss in the end. (Or vice versa, it is tricky.)

This is all old hat but it is admirable someone reproduced earlier Cambridge studies which showed the same effect 10 years ago.

Now, go out there and figure out the difference that causes appetite suppression or burn increase. Or if your methodology was junk.

Re: A Massive New Harvard Study Shows Which Diet Burns the Most Calories

#34

Post by AstralStorm »

xiphias2 wrote: post #18
sjf wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because lettuce is filler whose main purpose seems to be to take up space on the plate. It doesn't provide an saity, and something like iceburg lettuce has very low nutritional content. It just a cop out for restaurants.

Why would it be just filler? You're probably not eating enough. It has high fiber content, just like most vegetables (and actually a very similar macro nutrient ratio)

Lettuce is mostly water. Romani lettuce is a bit better but still bad. Out of leafy greens: spinach, beet greens, nettle, rucola and cabbages (everything Brassica spp.)- are decent nutritionally, a few others in small doses too.

Re: A Massive New Harvard Study Shows Which Diet Burns the Most Calories

#35

Post by ConceptJunkie »

tropo wrote: post #24
mjevans wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was actually just lamenting how difficult it is to get a "real" (no lettuce) salad this evening. Making them at home isn't /really/ an option for me, not unless I want to eat it literally every day. The greens would go bad in about half a week; the other semi-perishable things would need to go shortly after. It's so much easier to go out and get something fresh and variety from a common kitchen (restaurant) that se…

You can get single-serve fruit salad cups without any lettuce.

Yes, I'm sure bits of pineapple, grape and cherry floating in sugary syrup works just fine compared to a good salad.

I like fruit salad just fine, but I would consider it more of a dessert.

Re: A Massive New Harvard Study Shows Which Diet Burns the Most Calories

#36

Post by lucas_membrane »

masonic wrote: post #30
lucas_membrane wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Simple question is, "Where did the energy go?" First guess would be that the bodies of the fat eaters produced more heat, perhaps on account of a less efficient metabolism of fat. Couldn't that be measured directly with a thermometer? Other guess would be that the fat eaters were more active, producing more mechanical energy. That would be a very interesting possibility to explore. A few decades back, my reading led…

only about 1 kg per month That's 26 pounds in one year . For most people, that's a game-changer.

Ask someone starting a diet how long they think it will take to lose the weight they want to lose. Not many will say that it's a year or more. More common is to try to lose some weight between the end-of-year holidays and the beach season.

Re: A Massive New Harvard Study Shows Which Diet Burns the Most Calories

#37

Post by gremlinsinc »

darawk wrote: post #6

I've always found this aspect of the low carb debate to be mostly irrelevant. The benefit I get from eating a low carb diet isn't that I burn more calories (as in, i'm not expressing an opinion either way on that). It's that I have a desire to eat dramatically fewer calories on a low-carb diet, and the weight loss effects come from that, not higher metabolism. I don't understand why so many studies want to focus on m…

you also feel more energy, less tired, less depression...I've lost 60 pounds on keto since September...

Re: A Massive New Harvard Study Shows Which Diet Burns the Most Calories

#38

Post by gremlinsinc »

lucas_membrane wrote: post #13
arkades wrote: post #4

Summary: Diets that replaced carbs with fat burned an average of 250 calories a day more, in a study whose methodology wasn’t described or skeptically analyzed whatsoever. Author then goes on to repeat “not all calories are identical” repeatedly.

Simple question is, "Where did the energy go?" First guess would be that the bodies of the fat eaters produced more heat, perhaps on account of a less efficient metabolism of fat. Couldn't that be measured directly with a thermometer? Other guess would be that the fat eaters were more active, producing more mechanical energy. That would be a very interesting possibility to explore. A few decades back, my reading led…

Keto's easier to stick to though than other diets...it's the only diet that's ever worked for me... and there's a whole subreddit of success stories... So, it's definitely not 'just' a fad diet.

Pick what works for you, but I've lost 60 pounds since September 15th on a combination keto+intermittent fasting+crossfit regimen .. but I was over 500 to start...now I'm 452.

Re: A Massive New Harvard Study Shows Which Diet Burns the Most Calories

#39

Post by jml7c5 »

akeck wrote: post #21

I want to see a massive diet study that's pure math analysis: start with calories going in and calculate all the different ways the energy leaves the body or gets stored in each case.

Unfortunately "calories going in" is not easily obtainable, as absorption is affected by cooking, what foods are in the gut together, individual variation, and how the foods are physically composed together (mashed, whole, blended, etc.). Unfortunately protein and carbs = 4kcal/g, fats = 9kcal/g is only useful as a rough guide in practice.

Look up studies on the accuracy of the Atwater method for more detail.

Re: A Massive New Harvard Study Shows Which Diet Burns the Most Calories

#40

Post by moltar »

jml7c5 wrote: post #39
akeck wrote: post #21

I want to see a massive diet study that's pure math analysis: start with calories going in and calculate all the different ways the energy leaves the body or gets stored in each case.

Unfortunately "calories going in" is not easily obtainable, as absorption is affected by cooking, what foods are in the gut together, individual variation, and how the foods are physically composed together (mashed, whole, blended, etc.). Unfortunately protein and carbs = 4kcal/g, fats = 9kcal/g is only useful as a rough guide in practice. Look up studies on the accuracy of the Atwater method for more detail.

Plus caloric content is measured by incineration. Which our bodies aren’t doing.
Post reply on HN