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

The diet that really works

women.timesonline.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 101 posts

Re: The diet that really works

#81

Post by mattmaroon »

unexpected wrote: post #68
mattmaroon wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let's check back in on Phelps in 20 years. If he's lucky, his current lifestyle won't have lasting effects.

On a related note, I met someone who swam for the US team in 1996. I won't name him or his event b/c it'd be mean to identify him, but let's just say the ensuing 12 years have done absolutely horrifying things to his waistline. When I met him, I thought that there was no way he could be a swimmer!

Ha, yeah. That happens to a lot of athletes. It's a lot easier to stop swimming for 6 hours a day than it is to stop eating whatever the hell you want 6 meals a day.

Also there's a lot of evidence that all of that drastically increased metabolism basically burns years off of their lives.

Re: The diet that really works

#83

Post by mattmaroon »

scott_s wrote: post #49
brm wrote: post #3

why is food always the culprit? what ever happened to just increasing the amount of exercise you do? Michael Phelps seems to be doing ok on 10,000+ calories a day This also bothers me: "But what’s different about Arthur is, first, he is not selling anything, except for subscriptions to his website."

Michael Phelps also swims 120 miles a week. He eats 10,000+ calories a day because that's how much energy he needs to maintain weight and muscle mass.

And it's not healthy long-term. His diet is designed to make him win Olympic gold in his early 20's, not to achieve a long, healthy life. The only reason any swimmers ever live past 40 is that they stop doing this well before 30.

Re: The diet that really works

#85

Post by softbuilder »

jksmith wrote: post #40
eugenejen wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with you on that his article requires editing. But is this method a modified Atkins one? It requires dieters to experience not only the food that paleolithic human ates, but also the frequency of insecurity of hunger and periodic exposure to unaware danger in life. I had an old boss before who stuck to Atkins after coronary artery bypass to lose 40 lbs, but he still ate a lot, ate frequently and he hated the…

Even more obvious, if you want to relive the native experience, then you've got to simulate the hunt before eating. In modern terms, get your cardio in the morning before eating breakfast. Many believe as I do that this keeps your meta rate kicked up a bit for several hours afterwards. It is great for dropping weight, at least until Kurzweil has developed v1.0 of an evolved diet technology.

Don't forget to occasionally under-cook your meat or forget to wash your vegetables so you get diarrhea from time to time.

Re: The diet that really works

#86

Post by demallien »

vaksel wrote: post #35
swombat wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wait until you hit your mid-thirties and let's talk again.

As long as your calories out => calories in, it shouldn't matter. Should it?

Well, not entirely, although I'm fairly sympathetic to this way of looking at things.

For balance you should be ideally looking at calories absorbed = calories burned.

Why use different words? Well, firstly we absorb calories differently for different food types - we certainly do not absorb the full 100% of all calories available in any food. So measuring 'calories in' becomes 'caloric intake * %absorbtion'. It'll actually be some sort of integral of this products for each foodtype that you consume.

And then there is the question of calories burned. If you really want to stay slim, the best way to do so is to burn more energy when at rest. Of course, the easiest way to achieve this is by training your body to burn energy by doing exercise. But it is important to note that the calories burned just to keep you alive generally exceed the amount you burn during exercise by a decent factor.

But all of this is really nit-picking. Your basic premise remains true, you just can't beat physics. Anyone that is depending on this sort of information to optimise their weight-loss program has missed the point. Your lifestyle should not be so close to making you gain weight that these factors play an important role.

Re: The diet that really works

#87

Post by jordiculous »

Tichy wrote: post #54
swombat wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hardly. "Slow down on the unhealthiest foods," perhaps. I love fruit. Should I slow down on fruit?

I've actually read one book about "sugar addiction" where one candidate allegedly got their sugar fix from eating lots of fruit. Not sure how credible the book is, though, but I thought it was interesting. It did not say that fruits in general are bad.

Fruits aren't bad. Yes, fruits have sugar, but many fruits have a decent amount of fiber, as well. Fiber helps slow down sugar absorption. It's not that shouldn't have any sugar in their diet, ever. Natural sugars, eaten at the right time, in the right combination are better than processed garbage which will spike your blood sugars instantly. A good rule of thumb is whenever you're having anything that has fruit in it, it's a good idea to have protein right along with it. Even if it's just a few almonds or walnuts alongside that piece of fruit.

Re: The diet that really works

#88

Post by scott_s »

mattmaroon wrote: post #83
scott_s wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Michael Phelps also swims 120 miles a week. He eats 10,000+ calories a day because that's how much energy he needs to maintain weight and muscle mass.

And it's not healthy long-term. His diet is designed to make him win Olympic gold in his early 20's, not to achieve a long, healthy life. The only reason any swimmers ever live past 40 is that they stop doing this well before 30.

Clearly, when he stops swimming 120 miles a week, he needs to eat less. I doubt that's too much of a problem; some people can listen to what their bodies are telling them and eat accordingly. I can, so I bet an elite athlete can.

But I'm unclear on what you think is terrible for him, long term. His diet or the training? Keep in mind his diet is what his body needs right now. I don't know what you're basing your conclusions on.

Re: The diet that really works

#89

Post by gaius »

scott_s wrote: post #71
gaius wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's the same on any site tho'. If you read crossfit.com you'd be struck by how smug they are about being smarter than everyone else about training.

And, say, at technology sites about their methods. (Irony intended.) I have seen the elitism at Crossfit, but I read the t-nation forums for a few months. They were much more negative than, say, Crossfit.

I rarely look at the forums actually. There is some great content on t-nation once you know what to look for. Their Physique Clinic stuff is brilliant, for example.

Re: The diet that really works

#90

Post by cujo »

streety wrote: post #44
gojomo wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's easy to criticize 'blah blah blah'. But the style of the article is personal testimonial plus character study. It's going to include discursive storytelling, and it's not trying to boil down a diet/lifestyle/person to the fewest possible words. The cheapest form of criticism is to skewer a work for not meeting some ideal it wasn't even aiming for. DeVany is a very interesting and credible guy with a different sp…

I've got to give the guy respect for giving references with his arguments but I don't think his sources are sufficient to suggest that marathon running is bad for you. It's a shame he loses much of that respect as we near reason #1 and they get increasingly 'silly'. Let's take #2: "At least four particiants of the Boston Marathon have died of brain cancer in the past 10 years. Purely anecdotal, but consistent with th…

The obvious problem wiht your retort is, of course, you're assuming that every year, the runners in the BM are new to the race. This isn't true.

I'm not saying his reasoning is sound, but your rebuttle isn't either.

Post reply on HN