In Dieting, Magic Isn’t a Substitute for Science • Hacker News Board

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

#31

Post by alan_cx » Sat, Jul 14, 2012, 12:17 PM UTC

Forgive my sense of humour, but just on the title alone....

....When is magic a substitute for science?

I mean, I read the title, and my response was, "Yeah, I know. And why is it prefaced with 'in dieting'?" Does it need further reading?

To be serious, from what I can tell, the problem is people in general will always look for the easy out. No matter the science or logic, if some one presents a "cure pill", they want it. Deep down they know its more hope than anything else, but because it looks easy, they are only too willing to part with cash. This article wont change that, it just reinforces those who already agree.

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

#32

Post by Newky » Sat, Jul 14, 2012, 12:38 PM UTC

I may be old-fashioned, but the idea of any of these "extreme" diets scares me. I have always found that an approach with regular ( 2-3 times a week ) exercise and an conservative approach to eating is better.

My usual diet plans for eating is breakfast (some cereal), a big lunch at about 1 o clock (this is my dinner effectively), and perhaps something light, like pasta, rice when I get home, followed by a bowl of cereal for bedtime.

This with some running or other exercise leaves me at a desirable place without causing me too much pain.

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

#33

Post by danmaz74 » Sat, Jul 14, 2012, 12:39 PM UTC

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

He isn't saying that losing water is a bad thing, he says that how you lose it could explain the measured increased levels of calories burned from this new study, even if his own evidence says that you don't lose more weight from a hig fat diet.

"There is not an advantage from the calorie balancing point": what he says is that there are no advantages from a weight loss point, as the calories balance IS what creates long-term weight loss (according to him).

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

#34

Post by ktizo » Sat, Jul 14, 2012, 12:44 PM UTC

ry0ohki wrote: post #29

"Dr. Rudolph Leibel, now an obesity researcher at Columbia University, and I took people who were of normal weight and had them live in the hospital, where we diddled with the number of calories we fed them so we could keep their weights absolutely constant, which is no easy thing. This was done with liquid diets of exactly known calorie content." Wow, how much does one get paid for agreeing to take part in something…

You get paid by the fruits of progress and enlightenment, for which to nurture your soul. Or alternatively in dollars, if that doesn't cut it. To be honest, it sounds like what a lot of people seem to eat anyway, I know loads of people who appear to exist solely on vitamin milkshakes.

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

#35

Post by jessedhillon » Sat, Jul 14, 2012, 12:47 PM UTC

einhverfr wrote: post #30

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).

I think the snarky response would be that "in dieting unproven criticism of published scientific studies is no substitute for research." I think it's fine to come up with such criticism as long as it leads to looking at and questioning the result and defining further studies, but...... One of my hobbies is history and archaeology. It's what I studied mostly in college (computing was just a hobby). One of the fascinat…

Has anyone researched this and documented a correlation? I'm doubtful of your claims, and given your opening line, it's ironic that you go on to compare observations from your hobby against statements made by a doctor with 60 years of research behind him. His criticism is not unproven, there's no substantiation for that claim at all.

But you also make an interesting observation, if it has a basis in fact. It would seem to contradict the research of the Okinawan diet, which is almost exclusively plant-based, and 85% of calories are carb-derived.

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

#36

Post by ktizo » Sat, Jul 14, 2012, 12:47 PM UTC

lukifer wrote: post #18

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…

Surely on that argument, the body of almost any animal that is bigger than us is actually a more complex piece of machinery. Blue whales are massive, for instance and are made of far more cells than we are.

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

#37

Post by lukifer » Sat, Jul 14, 2012, 12:48 PM UTC

div wrote: post #26

lukifer wrote: post #18

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…

This particular article doesn't try to tell you "X good, Y bad", it's saying eat less, exercise more, or more specifically, if you want weight loss, as long as your diet leads to a caloric deficit, it doesn't matter _what_ you eat.

I should have been broader: I'm saying a simple narrative can't possibly tell the whole story of such complex chemical processes, whether it fits that particular snoclone or not, which includes "a calorie is a calorie". It's a leaky abstraction.

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

#38

Post by itmag » Sat, Jul 14, 2012, 1:05 PM UTC

xiaoma wrote: post #27

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…

My great-grandfather ate white bread regularly from before 1910 and stayed thin all the way into his 90's. He spent his last ten years or so living with my family starting about when I was in middle school, so I remember it well. AFIK, he'd been eating the same kinds of stuff for 50 years -- cornflakes and whole milk for breakfast, sandwiches for lunch and meat and potatoes with a few veggies for dinner. Especially w…

I suspect that taste has a lot to do with weight gain.

See for instance the Shangri La Diet: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Shangri-La_Diet

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

#39

Post by disgruntledphd2 » Sat, Jul 14, 2012, 1:13 PM UTC

itmag wrote: post #38

xiaoma wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My great-grandfather ate white bread regularly from before 1910 and stayed thin all the way into his 90's. He spent his last ten years or so living with my family starting about when I was in middle school, so I remember it well. AFIK, he'd been eating the same kinds of stuff for 50 years -- cornflakes and whole milk for breakfast, sandwiches for lunch and meat and potatoes with a few veggies for dinner. Especially w…

I suspect that taste has a lot to do with weight gain. See for instance the Shangri La Diet: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Shangri-La_Diet

Seth's blog is pretty awesome, also. The man is extremely inventive and clear thinking. That being said, I personally believe that most of what he's found can be accounted for by the placebo effect, but his ideas and reports from other people always make me think.

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

#40

Post by masto » Sat, Jul 14, 2012, 1:21 PM UTC

Since this is Hacker News, no discussion of diets can be complete without a reference to The Hacker's Diet " rel="nofollow">https://www.fourmilab.ch/hackdiet/>. Especially in this context, since it's basically calorie restriction designed to appeal to an engineer.

Personally, I lost 50 pounds using this approach, and my diet consisted mainly of Hot Pockets, microwaved White Castle cheeseburgers, and frozen pizza. Because they print the number of calories on the back of the box, it made it easier to control calories in. I didn't exercise and as a programmer spent most of my day sitting in a chair. Yet it was relatively straightforward to lose weight by simply eating less, with no particular regard to the composition of what was eaten.

My personal opinion is that all diets "work". Regardless of the magic or science involved, people on diets who have actually adopted the "I'm seriously trying to lose weight" mindset will eat fewer calories. Especially when it starts working: The Hacker's Diet involves a daily weight log and some math to extract the trend line from the noise. Now that we have WiFi scales and fit-tracking web sites, it's very easy to monitor the effect of cutting out soda, skipping dessert, and not having seconds at the dragon buffet.

Our brains are wired to make connections, and to some extent, to evangelize. So if you lose weight on the Tofu Diet, you're likely to go around telling everyone about the miracle benefits of tofu. Much like I'm convinced a simple calories-in/calories-out approach is all you need.