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

New report on the cellular effects of a calorie-restricted diet in rats

salk.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 102 posts

Re: New report on the cellular effects of a calorie-restricted diet in rats

#61

Post by bkovacev »

zackmorris wrote: post #48

I wish that it was possible to do a caloric restriction study on people who work out. I spent most of my 20s eating roughly twice as much as average and hitting the gym 3-4 times per week and I never felt better, especially after 20 rep squat sessions that naturally raise hormones like testosterone and HGH. I occasionally cut calories to lose weight or train my metabolism to be "ready" for emergency situations (which…

While I agreed on everything you said - I simply cannot get over the fact you mentioned Mike O'Hearn as someone who is natty. While this definitely is not a place for arguing about someone's physique or what's attainable naturally, I do not think duck eggs make you get and maintain that much muscle with height of 190cms and sub 10% body fat year around. Do not get me wrong, I have nothing against someone using steroids, but lying about is a bit unethical.

Re: New report on the cellular effects of a calorie-restricted diet in rats

#62

Post by pen2l »

adamgluck wrote: post #58
silviogutierrez wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To echo other replies, ketogenic and other diets diets with specific protocols (IF) do work, but primarily for behavioral reasons. That is, you’re just not that hungry. Or if you eliminate an entire meal (IF), you ”save” a ton of calories. Yes there are subtleties around actual macronutrient composition and gut flora, but the effect appears to be minimal. Find a keto person eating 5000 calories of bacon per day and I…

This actually isn’t entirely true. You’re operating under the “energy in-energy out” theory of weight loss, but human regulation of body fat is more complicated than that. Specifically, we store energy in adipose tissue in the form of body fat after a meal (think of it like storing data on disk) and then when we are low on energy we burn that fat (load that data “in-memory”). However, a lot regulates when we burn fat…

> You’re operating under the “energy in-energy out” theory of weight loss, but human regulation of body fat is more complicated than that.

I hear the "energy in-energy out" being dismissed like this often, and while I do agree with you that our bodies are more complex than that, I want to say that in practice this adage more or less just works, indeed to the degree that it's valuable to have in common knowledge to inspire folks to lose fat.

Particularly, if you want to lose fat, you reduce your caloric intake (and what you are consuming, shoot for higher protein intake and lower carb intake). In addition to this, do some aerobic exercises. This is really it. If you do this you're nearly guaranteed to lose fat. I did this, my peers did this, it's really simple, the only hard part is finding the motivation to start and having faithful long-term committal to a routine.

Re: New report on the cellular effects of a calorie-restricted diet in rats

#63

Post by fearface »

overgard wrote: post #52
fearface wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s a bit of BS. You don’t loose weight magically because of macronutrients. Bollocks. You loose weight, because you burn your excess fat. Without restricting your intake, there is no reason for your body to burn your fat reserves and that’s why you won’t loose weight just with low carb and same total calories. (You may loose some water, but not fat). On a ketogenic diet, your body is constantly using fat as fuel,…

I don't think you can really dismiss macro-nutrient allocation as a factor. The metabolic pathways for fats and carbohydrates are just way different. For some reason people think that this stuff works like a gas tank, where all that matters is how much fuel you pour in, but the evidence clearly shows that what kind of fuel you pour in is incredibly important. If you think about how incredibly complicated things like…

Science says you're wrong: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28765272

"risk for obesity is primarily determined by total calorie intake"

The macro nutrients certainly matter in the details, but not so much in the overall picture. It does mostly work like a gas tank, and the energy content in good is literally measured in [kJ].

Fat has a lot of stored energy, why on the planet, do people believe the body is able to create and store energy out of thin air?

And it exactly works the opposite way, the body will use the stored energy in the fat if there's not alternative.

Re: New report on the cellular effects of a calorie-restricted diet in rats

#64

Post by JMTQp8lwXL »

adamgluck wrote: post #58
silviogutierrez wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To echo other replies, ketogenic and other diets diets with specific protocols (IF) do work, but primarily for behavioral reasons. That is, you’re just not that hungry. Or if you eliminate an entire meal (IF), you ”save” a ton of calories. Yes there are subtleties around actual macronutrient composition and gut flora, but the effect appears to be minimal. Find a keto person eating 5000 calories of bacon per day and I…

This actually isn’t entirely true. You’re operating under the “energy in-energy out” theory of weight loss, but human regulation of body fat is more complicated than that. Specifically, we store energy in adipose tissue in the form of body fat after a meal (think of it like storing data on disk) and then when we are low on energy we burn that fat (load that data “in-memory”). However, a lot regulates when we burn fat…

One other practical aspect of this: it is largely unpalatable to eat exclusively protein and fats in large quantities. It is easy to load up on carbs.

Re: New report on the cellular effects of a calorie-restricted diet in rats

#65

Post by adamgluck »

superpermutat0r wrote: post #59
adamgluck wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This actually isn’t entirely true. You’re operating under the “energy in-energy out” theory of weight loss, but human regulation of body fat is more complicated than that. Specifically, we store energy in adipose tissue in the form of body fat after a meal (think of it like storing data on disk) and then when we are low on energy we burn that fat (load that data “in-memory”). However, a lot regulates when we burn fat…

How can the body, given 5000 kcal in fat not store any of that fat in the adipose tissue?

Your body responds to the intake of carbohydrates by creating insulin which regulates the storage of carbohydrates as “body fat” (see: glycogen). Overall, your body is 70% fat (cell membranes, for example). In other words, dietary fat != body fat and there is no reason that your body would store it as such (in adipose tissue), it actually, mechanistically, as far as I know, cannot.

Re: New report on the cellular effects of a calorie-restricted diet in rats

#66

Post by johnkpaul »

jjallen wrote: post #26
soneca wrote: post #4

Somewhat tangential. I often see people treating different diet restrictions that make you healthier as if they were competitors. Low carb/high fat, versus low calories, versus intermittent fasting. They imagine the different orientations as startups in a winner-takes-all market and pump their preferred one against the others. I think a better way to frame a healthy diet is that you should aim to follow all three and…

Totally agree. Each diet may affect different pathways; we probably want to engage in all of them to a degree. Recently I have been pondering how we should eat if higher protein increases all-cause mortality and higher carb diets increase all-cause mortality, so I've come up with my seasonality hypothesis: basically we would experience periods of lower carb or lower protein diets historically, which would engage each…

Fat. Why not consider the third macronutrient?

Re: New report on the cellular effects of a calorie-restricted diet in rats

#67

Post by thrwawayNutri »

adamgluck wrote: post #58
silviogutierrez wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To echo other replies, ketogenic and other diets diets with specific protocols (IF) do work, but primarily for behavioral reasons. That is, you’re just not that hungry. Or if you eliminate an entire meal (IF), you ”save” a ton of calories. Yes there are subtleties around actual macronutrient composition and gut flora, but the effect appears to be minimal. Find a keto person eating 5000 calories of bacon per day and I…

This actually isn’t entirely true. You’re operating under the “energy in-energy out” theory of weight loss, but human regulation of body fat is more complicated than that. Specifically, we store energy in adipose tissue in the form of body fat after a meal (think of it like storing data on disk) and then when we are low on energy we burn that fat (load that data “in-memory”). However, a lot regulates when we burn fat…

>So, actually, even with a 5000 calorie diet you might see some weight loss... because your body has literally nothing (no carbs) to store as fat.

I usually just lurk HN but I had to make a throwaway to respond to this unsubstantiated claim.

Show me someone--who isn't a 300lb (136.1kg), 6'11" (2.11m) professional athlete who works out 3hr everyday, a morbidly obese, 600lb person at a normal height, or someone with a genetic/hormonal disorder--that loses weight on a 5000 calorie diet and I will personally send you $100 right now.

I have lost weight on keto, so I understand the appeal of the diet. But that was more because I was in a calorie deficit. This idea that no carbs leads to no fat gain is a bit ridiculous.

The body has multiple biological processes to create carbs, fat, and substitutes for carbs and fat. One of those processes is ketosis itself.

Junk science like your claim leads to situations like a thread a few days ago in /r/fitnesscirclejerk where they found out that one of the mods in /r/keto is 400lbs.

Re: New report on the cellular effects of a calorie-restricted diet in rats

#68

Post by dang »

fearface wrote: post #63
overgard wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think you can really dismiss macro-nutrient allocation as a factor. The metabolic pathways for fats and carbohydrates are just way different. For some reason people think that this stuff works like a gas tank, where all that matters is how much fuel you pour in, but the evidence clearly shows that what kind of fuel you pour in is incredibly important. If you think about how incredibly complicated things like…

Science says you're wrong: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28765272 "risk for obesity is primarily determined by total calorie intake" The macro nutrients certainly matter in the details, but not so much in the overall picture. It does mostly work like a gas tank, and the energy content in good is literally measured in [kJ]. Fat has a lot of stored energy, why on the planet, do people believe the body is able to…

> "Science says you're wrong"

Please don't use dismissive internet tropes like that on HN. It's of course fine to cite a study, but no single study is "Science".

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Re: New report on the cellular effects of a calorie-restricted diet in rats

#69

Post by rapind »

silviogutierrez wrote: post #44
adamgluck wrote: post #36

The only reason a study like this works is because it takes place in a controlled environment where they can actually starve the rats (or sometimes make genetic changes that reduce the rats hunger.) Study after study and clinical experience shows that low calorie diets are really hard for humans “in the wild” to maintain in practice. People who are on them constantly complain of hunger (in the mid-20th century these…

To echo other replies, ketogenic and other diets diets with specific protocols (IF) do work, but primarily for behavioral reasons. That is, you’re just not that hungry. Or if you eliminate an entire meal (IF), you ”save” a ton of calories. Yes there are subtleties around actual macronutrient composition and gut flora, but the effect appears to be minimal. Find a keto person eating 5000 calories of bacon per day and I…

I remember reading about a guy who did just this (eat bacon every day and only bacon) and lost a bunch of weight. I can't vouch for the truth, safety, or context of this though. Googling turns it up, fwiw.

Re: New report on the cellular effects of a calorie-restricted diet in rats

#70

Post by tzs »

calvinmorrison wrote: post #50
silviogutierrez wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To echo other replies, ketogenic and other diets diets with specific protocols (IF) do work, but primarily for behavioral reasons. That is, you’re just not that hungry. Or if you eliminate an entire meal (IF), you ”save” a ton of calories. Yes there are subtleties around actual macronutrient composition and gut flora, but the effect appears to be minimal. Find a keto person eating 5000 calories of bacon per day and I…

Keto works well in my opinion because of the way humans self negotiate. It's far easier to have a list of yes/no items. No fries, bread, burgers versus calorie counting every food (even in simplified systems like weight watchers). Sure eat all the bacon you want, but it works to limit eating out and limits unhealthy fried foods and take out. Personal anecdote: my bread tolerance dropped dramatically on a 6 month keto…

You may be on to something there. I lowered carbs to well below the typical American diet, but nowhere near were the popular low carb diets go. I aimed for at most 40% of calories from carbs, and actually came in at 30-35%.

It's perhaps not as easy as a yes/no list, but 40% is very easy to figure out from the nutrition label:

max_carbs = calories x 1 g carbs / 10 calories

For example, a Sausage McMuffin w/Egg at McD is 480 calories, so as long as it has no more than 48 g of carbs, it's OK. (It has 28 g).

Make every item on your meal satisfy the 40% criteria, and the meal as a whole will.

Slightly up the effort scale, you can keep a running total of how much you are over or under for the day. Say you are going to get the Sausage McMuffin w/Egg for breakfast. That puts you 20 g of carb ahead. How about adding some McD Donut Sticks to the meal? 280 calories, 33 g of carb. That's 5 g too many carbs for the item to be 40%. But the McMuffin is putting you 20 g ahead, so losing 5 g won't mess up your overall meal. Go ahead and have those Donut Sticks if you like them.

Post reply on HN