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

A Mathematical Challenge to Obesity

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 100 posts

Re: A Mathematical Challenge to Obesity

#61

Post by zkirill »

lukifer wrote: post #20

Math alone is the wrong tool to solve a problem that is biochemical and behavioral in nature. On an individual level, the fix is straight-forward: eat more "good" fats, and little or no grains and sugars. I have yet to encounter someone who has done this and not seen dramatic results. It's a trickier problem on a broad sociological level, though. The sugar peddlers have an incentive to create and maintain the addicti…

>> eat more "good" fats, and little or no grains and sugars.

Grains, specifically cereal grains, may serve as a limited dietary source of fiber, essential amino acids, vitamins, and minerals. As with everything, it is best to exercise moderation but I wouldn't recommend fully removing grains from the diet.

Refined (table) sugar is a common offender but small dosages of fructose and sucrose from a daily serving of fresh fruits and vegetables are justifiable.

Re: A Mathematical Challenge to Obesity

#62

Post by jrockway »

nazgulnarsil wrote: post #59
nopassrecover wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah likewise. I almost never have a sugary drink (maybe a softdrink can once every 3 months) and it's made zero difference to weight. Stress on the other hand is highly correlated personally with weight (I've lost ~10kg in 3 months every time I've quit a job).

wtf guys obviously if you didn't drink a lot of this stuff before then losing it will have a correspondingly small effect. Calories in calories out.

You're the one who made the hasty generalization, not us.

Re: A Mathematical Challenge to Obesity

#63

Post by derleth »

nazgulnarsil wrote: post #59
nopassrecover wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah likewise. I almost never have a sugary drink (maybe a softdrink can once every 3 months) and it's made zero difference to weight. Stress on the other hand is highly correlated personally with weight (I've lost ~10kg in 3 months every time I've quit a job).

wtf guys obviously if you didn't drink a lot of this stuff before then losing it will have a correspondingly small effect. Calories in calories out.

> Calories in calories out.

Every time someone says that, the people with a hobby-horse to ride come out and beat on the person for a bit. Especially if they imply that honey (no, sorry, the correct term now is HFCS) isn't the Devil's own temptation sent to corrupt and impurify our precious bodily fluids.

Re: A Mathematical Challenge to Obesity

#64

Post by sliverstorm »

zkirill wrote: post #61
lukifer wrote: post #20

Math alone is the wrong tool to solve a problem that is biochemical and behavioral in nature. On an individual level, the fix is straight-forward: eat more "good" fats, and little or no grains and sugars. I have yet to encounter someone who has done this and not seen dramatic results. It's a trickier problem on a broad sociological level, though. The sugar peddlers have an incentive to create and maintain the addicti…

>> eat more "good" fats, and little or no grains and sugars. Grains, specifically cereal grains, may serve as a limited dietary source of fiber, essential amino acids, vitamins, and minerals. As with everything, it is best to exercise moderation but I wouldn't recommend fully removing grains from the diet. Refined (table) sugar is a common offender but small dosages of fructose and sucrose from a daily serving of fre…

Oats are a grain, and I've never heard anything but praise for oats, from anyone.

Such things as russet potatoes are probably more questionable than oats, for example, as I believe they are almost entirely starch.

Re: A Mathematical Challenge to Obesity

#65

Post by codebaobab »

Mz wrote: post #60
codebaobab wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've heard that too. Would you mind sharing more details of what you did to promote gut health/chemistry/flora?

Really short version: I worked on correcting the extreme acidity my genetic disorder promotes and I consumed a combo of high brine sea salt, coconut oil, glyconutrients and organic yogurt. I did a lot more than that but that is a good place to start, assuming you are hoping to act on the info. Organic yogurt has more varieties of flora than other yogurts and coconut oil does good things for gut flora.

By "extreme acidity" do you mean in your gastrointestinal system or elsewhere? (I've heard people talk about blood-level acidity before.) Was there a test that let you track/monitor acidity as you made changes?

Re: A Mathematical Challenge to Obesity

#66

Post by mikeash »

DanBC wrote: post #53
mhartl wrote: post #13

You are an M.I.T.-trained mathematician and physicist. How did you come to work on obesity? ...I didn’t even know what a calorie was. I call bullshit.

We tell lies to children because the truth is too hard for them to understand at their level of knowledge. (See, for example, models of atoms that have a nucleus and protons and electrons buzzing round it.) So, with that in mind, children learn that one calorie is the amount of energy needed to raise 1 g of water by 1 degree c. But what does that actually mean for a human body? How is a calorie in fat worked out? How…

> So, with that in mind, children learn that one calorie is the amount of energy needed to raise 1 g of water by 1 degree c.

I find this to be wonderfully ironic, because the nutritional calorie is 1000x larger than the physics calorie. In nutrition, one calorie is the amount of energy needed to raise 1kg of water by 1 degree C. So yes, it's entirely possible that this fellow didn't know what a "calorie" was in the realm of nutrition.

Re: A Mathematical Challenge to Obesity

#67

Post by zkirill »

sliverstorm wrote: post #64
zkirill wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> eat more "good" fats, and little or no grains and sugars. Grains, specifically cereal grains, may serve as a limited dietary source of fiber, essential amino acids, vitamins, and minerals. As with everything, it is best to exercise moderation but I wouldn't recommend fully removing grains from the diet. Refined (table) sugar is a common offender but small dosages of fructose and sucrose from a daily serving of fre…

Oats are a grain, and I've never heard anything but praise for oats, from anyone. Such things as russet potatoes are probably more questionable than oats, for example, as I believe they are almost entirely starch.

Yes, it is indeed quite difficult to go wrong with having oats in your diet. :)

Hulled rice and quinoa are wonderful too.

Russet potatoes are typically unnecessary.

Re: A Mathematical Challenge to Obesity

#68

Post by DanBC »

mikeash wrote: post #66
DanBC wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We tell lies to children because the truth is too hard for them to understand at their level of knowledge. (See, for example, models of atoms that have a nucleus and protons and electrons buzzing round it.) So, with that in mind, children learn that one calorie is the amount of energy needed to raise 1 g of water by 1 degree c. But what does that actually mean for a human body? How is a calorie in fat worked out? How…

> So, with that in mind, children learn that one calorie is the amount of energy needed to raise 1 g of water by 1 degree c. I find this to be wonderfully ironic, because the nutritional calorie is 1000x larger than the physics calorie. In nutrition, one calorie is the amount of energy needed to raise 1kg of water by 1 degree C. So yes, it's entirely possible that this fellow didn't know what a "calorie" was in the r…

Wait, what? That would be one kilocalorie. And that's what's listed on most food?

Re: A Mathematical Challenge to Obesity

#70

Post by getsat »

paul-woolcock wrote: post #27

The "calories in/calories out" argument is based on the assumption that the human body is a closed system. This is simply not the case, and touting it as a diet strategy is irresponsible. You might lose weight if you lower your caloric intake by only eating 1 McDonalds cheeseburger a day instead of 2, but in the end you are still eating crap food "product", and you won't be as healthy as you could be by focusing on t…

There's a few National Institute of Health studies that back the calories in vs calories out argument. Keep your calorie intake below your BMR (basal metabolic rate) + what you burn during the day if you want to lose weight. Very simple. You don't have to "balance saturated and unsatured fats", get ten hours of sleep per day, or whatever other ridiculous microoptimisations people come up with.

Eat 500 calories below your MBR + burn rate and you lose one pound per week.

You can do it while eating garbage food (fast food, heavily processed food products) or you could do it while eating a totally vegan diet. It doesn't matter for weight loss.

Post reply on HN