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

In Dieting, Magic Isn’t a Substitute for Science

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 72 posts

Re: In Dieting, Magic Isn’t a Substitute for Science

#11

Post by damianpeckett »

What these ridiculous study cherry picking groups overlook is the satiating effects of high protein consumption. An attempt at a high protein body building diet ended with me losing 10kg of fat.

Eat lot's of protein and your appetite just dies, fat/carbs a lot of the time make no difference. It's just easy on the high fat diet to avoid high glycemic response carbs and fructose.

Plus palatability, sugar makes you over eat. Plain and simple, High levels of protein cause one to undereat. Take your pick.

Re: In Dieting, Magic Isn’t a Substitute for Science

#12

Post by raverbashing »

danmaz74 wrote: post #10
raverbashing wrote: post #3

Oh come on Yes, a calorie is a calorie (as long as dietary: macro/micro nutrients needs are supplied), still there may be advantages to the diet, as it is pointed in the article "They report that people on the Atkins diet were burning off more calories. Ergo, the diet is a good thing." (it's not necessarily all good especially if you think low-carb diet==eating bacon at will, still) Also, there may be other advantage…

"Ergo, the diet is a good thing" is what the proposers of that diet say. On the contrary , Dr. Hirsch says that "when carbohydrate levels are low in a diet and fat content is high, people lose water. That can confuse attempts to measure energy output" ergo, the measurements were mistaken and there is not advantage from a low-carbs diet (as proved from Dr. Hirschs's experiments in a controlled environment).

""when carbohydrate levels are low in a diet and fat content is high, people lose water"

This is not a bad thing, but it is a thing that has to be compensated.

And there is loss of water in all weight loss diets.

"the measurements were mistaken and there is not advantage from a low-carbs diet"

There is not an advantage from the calorie balancing point but there are several other aspects that are important in diets

Re: In Dieting, Magic Isn’t a Substitute for Science

#13

Post by raverbashing »

rogerbraun wrote: post #9
raverbashing wrote: post #3

Oh come on Yes, a calorie is a calorie (as long as dietary: macro/micro nutrients needs are supplied), still there may be advantages to the diet, as it is pointed in the article "They report that people on the Atkins diet were burning off more calories. Ergo, the diet is a good thing." (it's not necessarily all good especially if you think low-carb diet==eating bacon at will, still) Also, there may be other advantage…

He says that he can explain away the difference in calorie burning as an effect of the measuring method later in the article.

One thing is calorie burning (metabolism) and the other is weight loss (weight measurement), I don't think he would mix up the two naively

Re: In Dieting, Magic Isn’t a Substitute for Science

#14

Post by pella »

#classic #Ornish diet / #lifestyle #Radical Change

Change or Die /

"All leadership comes down to this: changing people's behavior. Why is that so damn hard? Science offers some surprising new answers -- and ways to do better."

BY ALAN DEUTSCHMAN | MAY 1, 2005

http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/94/open_change-or-die.ht...

Re: In Dieting, Magic Isn’t a Substitute for Science

#15

Post by pella »

pella wrote: post #14

#classic #Ornish diet / #lifestyle #Radical Change Change or Die / "All leadership comes down to this: changing people's behavior. Why is that so damn hard? Science offers some surprising new answers -- and ways to do better." BY ALAN DEUTSCHMAN | MAY 1, 2005 http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/94/open_change-or-die.ht...

"Reframing alone isn't enough, of course. That's where Dr. Ornish's other astonishing insight comes in. Paradoxically, he found that radical, sweeping, comprehensive changes are often easier for people than small, incremental ones. For example, he says that people who make moderate changes in their diets get the worst of both worlds: They feel deprived and hungry because they aren't eating everything they want, but they aren't making big enough changes to quickly see an improvement in how they feel, or in measurements such as weight, blood pressure, and cholesterol. But the heart patients who went on Ornish's tough, radical program saw quick, dramatic results, reporting a 91% decrease in frequency of chest pain in the first month. "These rapid improvements are a powerful motivator," he says. "When people who have had so much chest pain that they can't work, or make love, or even walk across the street without intense suffering find that they are able to do all of those things without pain in only a few weeks, then they often say, 'These are choices worth making.' ""

http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/94/open_change-or-die.ht...

Re: In Dieting, Magic Isn’t a Substitute for Science

#16

Post by n00kie »

Heinleinian wrote: post #8

I have always wondered why the Adkins diet seems to work. The article basically says it is both more successful and yet has no physiological reason for being more successful. So why? My first guess would be: carbs/bread is cheap and usually comes in large quantities, like unlimited bread baskets. Meat is expensive and comes in smaller quantities. So eating mostly meat just makes it easier to consume fewer calories by…

Probably true too, but:

1) fat takes much longer to digest

2) refined sugar/wheat is like a drug. Basically you get withdrawal symptoms that force you to eat more sugar soon. I bet that the food companies love it

3) ... and technically your body can't process over certain amount of protein per day (i think it was 300g). If you eat more than that for some reason, then you just pee it out.

I'm on "paleo diet" + cheese and have lost a lot of weight so far. I don't count carbs and I need to remind myself to eat (lack of hunger).

Re: In Dieting, Magic Isn’t a Substitute for Science

#17

Post by ralfd »

raverbashing wrote: post #13
rogerbraun wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He says that he can explain away the difference in calorie burning as an effect of the measuring method later in the article.

One thing is calorie burning (metabolism) and the other is weight loss (weight measurement), I don't think he would mix up the two naively

I seriously don't know how you come to that conclusion when the gist of the whole article is that there is no difference between a fat calorie and a carbonhydrate calorie.

He says the same amount of calories are burnt. Only the relation to lean body mass (because of less water) is higher. But notice that it is just an educated guess by him, as he criticizes another study.

Re: In Dieting, Magic Isn’t a Substitute for Science

#18

Post by lukifer »

The human body is the most complex piece of machinery in the history of the known universe, and is highly variable from one person to the next, with all sorts of evolutionary cruft and random aberrations.

I understand we all need actionable information to maximize our odds at life, but any attempt at science journalism that doesn't start from that premise and instead tries to tell you "X good, Y bad" can probably be ignored, or at least taken with a grain of salt.

Re: In Dieting, Magic Isn’t a Substitute for Science

#19

Post by apl »

readme wrote: post #5

We should eat well balanced diets that are tailored to each of us as individuals. I tried high fat high protein before and it didn't work very well with my metabolism, to spare you some details. Listen to your body, and give it what it needs. Experiment a bit. That's what I learned after trying fad diets. The realization is we are individuals each with our own metabolism that is slightly different. What I found is th…

  > We should eat well balanced diets that are tailored to
  > each of us as individuals.
vs.

  > What I found is that low carb diets are a big sham.

?

Re: In Dieting, Magic Isn’t a Substitute for Science

#20

Post by [deleted] »

raverbashing wrote: post #12
danmaz74 wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Ergo, the diet is a good thing" is what the proposers of that diet say. On the contrary , Dr. Hirsch says that "when carbohydrate levels are low in a diet and fat content is high, people lose water. That can confuse attempts to measure energy output" ergo, the measurements were mistaken and there is not advantage from a low-carbs diet (as proved from Dr. Hirschs's experiments in a controlled environment).

""when carbohydrate levels are low in a diet and fat content is high, people lose water" This is not a bad thing, but it is a thing that has to be compensated. And there is loss of water in all weight loss diets. "the measurements were mistaken and there is not advantage from a low-carbs diet" There is not an advantage from the calorie balancing point but there are several other aspects that are important in diets

[deleted]
Post reply on HN