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

91–100 of 101 posts

Re: The diet that really works

#91

Post by gojomo »

ars wrote: post #50
gojomo wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except why do I care that the reporter was early to the interview? Why would anyone care? It's personalizing color, and it also lets the author explain how he's seen DeVany "half-naked". You must really hate novels. Not everything is written for an audience with ADD, nor should it be.

I love novels - except I wasn't reading a novel. At least I thought I wasn't - this was billed as "The diet that really works". And that's what I was here to read, and then I didn't. You want to write "personal insights about the man who made the diet that really works" no problem. I might even like to read it - but that's not what I was expecting. You say you are writing about a diet, then do so, or change the title…

Headlines are the last thing written, typically by someone other than the article author. Headlines are space-constrained and compete for attention by pushing a 'hook', rather than providing a perfect summary of what follows.

So if you feel misled by an attention-stealing headline, blame the headline, not the article.

Re: The diet that really works

#92

Post by mattmaroon »

scott_s wrote: post #88
mattmaroon wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 concl…

Science seems to be showing that your longevity is largely based on your metabolism. It's perhaps less accurate to think of a human's average lifespan in terms of years rather than in terms of calories burned.

Eating and then burning 10k calories a day probably ages you significantly faster than eating and burning 2k calories, possibly even 5x.

Also, most people, including elite athletes, are very poor at listening to their bodies and eating accordingly. There's a lot more to eating than simply being hungry. It's very much a habit. Google around for the psychology of eating, it's actually mind-boggling how complex and deeply rooted in our psyche it is. (Actually, most bodily functions go a lot deeper than we think.)

Ex-athletes are often very overweight specifically for that reason. They stop the exercise but not the eating.

Re: The diet that really works

#93

Post by scott_s »

mattmaroon wrote: post #92
scott_s wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 concl…

Science seems to be showing that your longevity is largely based on your metabolism. It's perhaps less accurate to think of a human's average lifespan in terms of years rather than in terms of calories burned. Eating and then burning 10k calories a day probably ages you significantly faster than eating and burning 2k calories, possibly even 5x. Also, most people, including elite athletes, are very poor at listening t…

The science I've read on metabolism is based on lab rats/mice, and it's still an open question about if that applies to humans.

I'm very aware that eating has a significant pyschological component, but, again, if you're going to say "ex-atheletes are often very overweight," I'd like to see studies.

Re: The diet that really works

#94

Post by maximilian »

unexpected wrote: post #67
gaius wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Heh, you see plenty of fat people at marathons, if you've ever run one, and plenty of 'em finish too.

I've read every article on t-nation, I work out >20 hours a week, and I train for triathlons and marathons. That being said, your statement is unfounded. If you're LIFTING, and lifting HEAVY, then yes, it doesn't make sense to go for more than 45 minutes, for exactly the reasons you stated. However, cardio? People will see huge cardio benefits if they run for a long time. There's no "negative fitness effect." Yes, yo…

You don't "Switch" burning modes when you run out of glycogen stores. Your blood sugar drops because you can't process fat into sugar fast enough. You are always burning fat, and when you are running you are burning it pretty much as fast as you can. Thats why cyclists and long distance runners have to eat while they train longer than 1.5hrs to supplement their fat burning because the glycogen stores are out.

Re: The diet that really works

#95

Post by weegee »

this is a classic Atkins diet, and it will work, but it's a diet you need to stay on for the rest of your life if you want to remain lean. I'm currently addicted to carbs at the moment, and would have a real difficult time giving up beer.

Re: The diet that really works

#96

Post by gaius »

maximilian wrote: post #94
unexpected wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've read every article on t-nation, I work out >20 hours a week, and I train for triathlons and marathons. That being said, your statement is unfounded. If you're LIFTING, and lifting HEAVY, then yes, it doesn't make sense to go for more than 45 minutes, for exactly the reasons you stated. However, cardio? People will see huge cardio benefits if they run for a long time. There's no "negative fitness effect." Yes, yo…

You don't "Switch" burning modes when you run out of glycogen stores. Your blood sugar drops because you can't process fat into sugar fast enough. You are always burning fat, and when you are running you are burning it pretty much as fast as you can. Thats why cyclists and long distance runners have to eat while they train longer than 1.5hrs to supplement their fat burning because the glycogen stores are out.

But you are not always burning fat, that's the problem. If the body needs energy like right now and it doesn't have glycogen on hand and cortisol levels are elevated, then it will cannibalize muscle. This is the point I was trying to make earlier. Powerade is strictly for amateurs; serious cyclists (et al) are drinking Perpetuum or Spiz, both of which contain BCAAs and other proteins to offset gluconeogenesis.

Re: The diet that really works

#97

Post by Goronmon »

fgimenez wrote: post #79
Goronmon wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why did you need to waste all that time writing out that reply? Couldn't you have just said "Article sucks."?

This isn't digg? :)

I made my point badly. I was playing off the fact that the comment I was replying too didn't have much substance other than "This article sucks." yet the author felt it necessary to fluff it up with some vacuous text for a few lines. Which is even more humorous when his main contention with the article is that supposedly it could have been 90% shorter.

Re: The diet that really works

#98

Post by william42 »

scott_s wrote: post #93
mattmaroon wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Science seems to be showing that your longevity is largely based on your metabolism. It's perhaps less accurate to think of a human's average lifespan in terms of years rather than in terms of calories burned. Eating and then burning 10k calories a day probably ages you significantly faster than eating and burning 2k calories, possibly even 5x. Also, most people, including elite athletes, are very poor at listening t…

The science I've read on metabolism is based on lab rats/mice, and it's still an open question about if that applies to humans. I'm very aware that eating has a significant pyschological component, but, again, if you're going to say "ex-atheletes are often very overweight," I'd like to see studies.

Most animals have something like half a billion heartbeats of life. This can be extended to a billion through limiting diet and sex, or basically asceticism.

Humans, on the other hand, have three billion.

Re: The diet that really works

#99

Post by mattmaroon »

william42 wrote: post #98
scott_s wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The science I've read on metabolism is based on lab rats/mice, and it's still an open question about if that applies to humans. I'm very aware that eating has a significant pyschological component, but, again, if you're going to say "ex-atheletes are often very overweight," I'd like to see studies.

Most animals have something like half a billion heartbeats of life. This can be extended to a billion through limiting diet and sex, or basically asceticism. Humans, on the other hand, have three billion.

It's commonly cited that while athletes' hearts beat faster while exercising, they beat lower the rest of the day, thus giving them fewer beats per year. I'm assuming, though, that most athletes don't swim 6 hours a day + weight train.

Re: The diet that really works

#100

Post by scott_s »

william42 wrote: post #98
scott_s wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The science I've read on metabolism is based on lab rats/mice, and it's still an open question about if that applies to humans. I'm very aware that eating has a significant pyschological component, but, again, if you're going to say "ex-atheletes are often very overweight," I'd like to see studies.

Most animals have something like half a billion heartbeats of life. This can be extended to a billion through limiting diet and sex, or basically asceticism. Humans, on the other hand, have three billion.

You're assuming what I just said is still an open question.
Post reply on HN