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

30 Days Without Sugar

jdbentley.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 58 posts

Re: 30 Days Without Sugar

#41

Post by cfn »

travisglines wrote: post #33

After noticing the percentage differences and the weight drop, I wanted to do the math to figure out how much muscle vs. fat he lost. He went from 219.2 at 35% body fat to 195.8 at 28.1%. If you do the back of the napkin math real quick that works out as follows: 219.2 * .35 = 76.72 lbs of initial fat 219.2 - 76.72 = 142.48 lbs of lean mass 195.8 * .281 = 55.02 lbs of final fat 195.8 - 55.02 = 140.78 lbs of lean mass…

I am not at all up to speed on these things but I guess there's more to the human body than fat and muscle. Those 1.7 lbs will certainly also include water, for example.

Re: 30 Days Without Sugar

#42

Post by terhechte »

risratorn wrote: post #31
terhechte wrote: post #23

Does anyone know whether it's OK to use Stevia as an alternative during such a sugar-free diet?

It probably is but to be honest, stevia is the grossest thing i've ever tasted in my coffee ... I used to put one sugar in my coffee, dropped added sugar all together 2 months ago and tried stevia one single time. I can't exactly pin the taste but it's way too sweet and tastes chemical even though it's a natural product. That being said, if you HAVE to add sweetener stevia is probably your best choice.

Yeah, I don't like it in coffee either, but it tastes pretty good in tea. There's also Stevia-Coke here that tastes pretty good. Thanks.

Re: 30 Days Without Sugar

#43

Post by tsahyt »

jdbentley wrote: post #37
travisglines wrote: post #33

After noticing the percentage differences and the weight drop, I wanted to do the math to figure out how much muscle vs. fat he lost. He went from 219.2 at 35% body fat to 195.8 at 28.1%. If you do the back of the napkin math real quick that works out as follows: 219.2 * .35 = 76.72 lbs of initial fat 219.2 - 76.72 = 142.48 lbs of lean mass 195.8 * .281 = 55.02 lbs of final fat 195.8 - 55.02 = 140.78 lbs of lean mass…

Math! What can't it do? Thanks for these numbers. It's interesting to see how it really breaks down.

> Math! What can't it do?

Real randomness, or actually explain what it is. And some other things. But it's pretty powerful :)

Re: 30 Days Without Sugar

#44

Post by [deleted] »

rprasad wrote: post #7

He's not in ketosis; he's in starvation mode. He's losing massive amounts of muscle as a result of this diet, which is why he is losing so much weight. He's also losing fat, but not as efficiently as he would in a normal diet. If he keeps this up, he'll be lucky if he has the strength to pick up a coffee mug.

[deleted]

Re: 30 Days Without Sugar

#45

Post by travisglines »

cfn wrote: post #41
travisglines wrote: post #33

After noticing the percentage differences and the weight drop, I wanted to do the math to figure out how much muscle vs. fat he lost. He went from 219.2 at 35% body fat to 195.8 at 28.1%. If you do the back of the napkin math real quick that works out as follows: 219.2 * .35 = 76.72 lbs of initial fat 219.2 - 76.72 = 142.48 lbs of lean mass 195.8 * .281 = 55.02 lbs of final fat 195.8 - 55.02 = 140.78 lbs of lean mass…

I am not at all up to speed on these things but I guess there's more to the human body than fat and muscle. Those 1.7 lbs will certainly also include water, for example.

Typically how these things are measured is body fat and lean mass. Lean mass is all the stuff other than fat (muscle, water, organs etc).

You're right, I did assume that the lean mass lost came out of muscle in retrospect. Given his weight loss ratios I'd guess that it has to be, but it may be all water.

One interesting point here is if he lost significant water weight then he could have actually gained muscle as he lost fat. (that one's hard to tell though)

Re: 30 Days Without Sugar

#46

Post by rmm »

rprasad wrote: post #10
jacques_chester wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You've overegged the case. http://examine.com/faq/how-do-i-stay-out-of-starvation-mode....

Really? The posted link contains all of 3 studies. One of those studies involves a single individual and the other study is a meta-study which contains no actual data at all. ("Meta-study" is a fancy scientific word meaning "find studies that fit our thesis and massage the data as necesary until it says what we want." Did you know that meta-studies suggest that most hackers (actually, any male who has not lived with…

The benefits of fasting are well documented.

http://www.ajcn.org/content/81/1/69.short

http://www.ajcn.org/content/90/5/1138.short

http://www.nature.com/ijo/journal/v35/n5/full/ijo2010171a.ht...

Re: 30 Days Without Sugar

#47

Post by lobster_johnson »

risratorn wrote: post #31
terhechte wrote: post #23

Does anyone know whether it's OK to use Stevia as an alternative during such a sugar-free diet?

It probably is but to be honest, stevia is the grossest thing i've ever tasted in my coffee ... I used to put one sugar in my coffee, dropped added sugar all together 2 months ago and tried stevia one single time. I can't exactly pin the taste but it's way too sweet and tastes chemical even though it's a natural product. That being said, if you HAVE to add sweetener stevia is probably your best choice.

Stevia alone is pretty awful, very bitter aftertaste. But there are some new stevia derivates that aim to remove the bitterness and turn it into an acceptable sugar substitute. Pepsi has developed one, and the Coca-Cola Company, with Cargill, have recently developed Truvia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truvia), which is already being used in some of Coca-Cola's beverages. You can buy it in packets for home use. So far, TruVia is the best-tasting artificial sweetener I have come across. Much better than aspartame, sucralose etc. No bitterness to speak of.

Another natural sweetener called erythritol (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erythritol) is also very good. Unlike stevia, I believe it works on its own, with no modifications required to remove bitterness etc.

Re: 30 Days Without Sugar

#48

Post by robbiep »

latch wrote: post #30
elktea wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How exactly is eating no sugar or fruit a starvation diet? You're way off on this one.

Assuming you aren't a nutritional expert (or doctor or biologist), did you bother to do _any_ research? I'm no expect, so I looked up "starvation diet". It brought me to the main wiki pain on dieting. This is what it says about "Very low-calorie diets": "They subject the body to starvation and produce an average weekly weight loss of 3.3–5.5 lb." If 5.5lb a week is the result of starvation, what might 7lbs/week be? I…

Biochemically speaking, ketosis is starvation. Once you exhaust your livers supply of glycogen (within 24 hrs usually) you begin the metabolic changes to gear up to burn muscle for ketogenesis. This involves secretion of enzymes that will break muscles down.

I would presume, however, that when adequate (or some) caloric intake is maintained, esp in the form of amino acids, that this liberation of aa's from muscle is somewhat inhibited

Re: 30 Days Without Sugar

#49

Post by robbiep »

mistermann wrote: post #20
rprasad wrote: post #7

He's not in ketosis; he's in starvation mode. He's losing massive amounts of muscle as a result of this diet, which is why he is losing so much weight. He's also losing fat, but not as efficiently as he would in a normal diet. If he keeps this up, he'll be lucky if he has the strength to pick up a coffee mug.

Who put this idea into so many heads? I'm really very curious to know, where did you learn of this starvation mode idea?

It's a biochemistry term. Any first year biochem textbook will contain the information you want, would be happy to post Dropbox to my notes if you are interested

Re: 30 Days Without Sugar

#50

Post by julesallen »

chris_wot wrote: post #15

Getting a database connection error :-(

Add '.nyud.net' on the end of the URL. So, like this:

http://joelrunyon.com.nyud.net/two3/an-unexpected-ass-kickin...

It's the wickedly useful Coral CDN in action:

http://coralcdn.org/

Great for reading sites that are slashdott..., um, fireball..., erm, 'News'd. Doesn't always work, doesn't work for POSTing anything, but this time we got lucky.

Post reply on HN