Obesity and Fitness Are Revolutionized By Reddit, Not Doctors • Hacker News Board

Re: Obesity and Fitness Are Revolutionized By Reddit, Not Doctors

#191

Post by mberning » Mon, Aug 13, 2012, 2:44 AM UTC

beloch wrote: post #99

mberning wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Couldn't disagree more. Motivation implies some sort of personal failing or personal weakness, which leads me to believe that you buy into the"eat less, exercise more" mantra. I would just like to point out a few things. You state that "most people know what they need to do in order to lose weight" as if there is some cut and dry method to getting thin. Well, I suppose starvation diets ARE that easy, but nobody stick…

Yes, I buy into the "eat less, move more" idea. But then, I'm a physicist and I believe in the laws of thermodynamics. I am in complete agreement with you that starvation diets, fad diets, and other cook-book regimens are likely to result in failure. The point I was trying to convey was that this failure comes from the fact that it takes willpower to follow these, while you're much more likely to succeed if you try t…

Nobody is disputing the first law of thermodynamics. I do question your interpretation though. Firstly because the human body is not a closed system, and secondly, because there are different ways to interpret the laws as they relate to nutrition.

Consider that x is the calories required to run your body at a given weight, and y is a surplus amount of calories.

Traditional view:

If you eat x + y calories your body will store y as fat.

Non-traditional view:

If your body needs x calories to function, but it's trying to store y calories as fat you need to eat x + y calories.

The non-traditional view is becoming more favorable amongst obesity researchers. If you have an obligate weight gain caused by a biochemical defect, then you better eat the calories to satisfy the needs of the body.

Re: Obesity and Fitness Are Revolutionized By Reddit, Not Doctors

#192

Post by kanzure » Mon, Aug 13, 2012, 6:58 AM UTC

jacques_chester wrote: post #189

kanzure wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> He's a registered dietitian, an amateur bodybuilder and is the co-founder of examine.com, for which he reads literally dozens of studies per month. I am not amused by this. So he reads a dozen papers per month? That's not good... that's just terrible. Is there anyone that reads a more healthy amount?

And you read more? Less? Your qualifications to opine are?

Well, yes, I do like to read more than that. But I am not selling myself off as an expert on nutrition or whatever? I'd rather find someone who reads more, so that I can avoid the garbage.

Re: Obesity and Fitness Are Revolutionized By Reddit, Not Doctors

#193

Post by creamyhorror » Mon, Aug 13, 2012, 8:16 AM UTC

beagle3 wrote: post #170

creamyhorror wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I went back and read the source paper carefully, and realised this was a mistake on my part. The relevant study: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10217054 ---- After adjustment for age, smoking, and other potential CHD risk factors, we found no evidence of an overall significant association between egg consumption and risk of CHD or stroke in either men or women. The relative risks (RRs) of CHD across categories of…

Thanks. It's amazing how many things we believe (and when I say "we", I mean society, including e.g. doctors whose job it is to know better) that have never been scientifically looked at properly -- or worse, were looked at and shown to be wrong. My current list: - dietary cholesterol is bad for you (truth: essentially irrelevant) - serum cholesterol is bad for you (truth: it's a marker, not a cause. apparently, the…

> - serum cholesterol is bad for you (truth: it's a marker, not a cause. apparently, the body makes more of it in an attempt to solve other problems, which will manifest faster if you use statins to reduce cholesterol)

That's an interesting (and good) point - if it's (mostly) a marker, actively reducing it without addressing the root cause makes no sense as a strategy. But the probability remains that a high reading indicates underlying problems. The uncertainty lies in whether it's only HDL or LDL that's a negative indicator, or the ratio of HDL to LDL, or a particular subtype, etc. My previous reading of bloggers on this topic only left me more confused.

> - butter is bad for you. (truth: some is bad, some is good. butter is so ill-defined to make general statements useless. grass-fed organic european style butter is good for you)

I guess it would be easier if it was specified that "high sat-fat butter" is bad for you, or the like. I don't know about the composition or nutritional analysis of grass-fed organic euro-style butter, but I do think it still makes sense to regard saturated fats with suspicion, at least under current studies. Do you have any studies to share on this?

> - weight change is equal to c*(calories in - calories out). (truth: only in the tautologically useless sense. generally wrong the way 99% of the people apply it. nutrition science is anything but)

I've been wondering if the composition of macronutrients affects the metabolic rate significantly, resulting in increased calories-out. Or if macronutrients are somehow wasted as excess heat, or excreted only half-used. That would clarify the apparent conflict, in my mind.

> I'm looking for a rigorous study that shows toothpasts are helpful (indeed, that brushing is helpful). Some studies by Weston Price (and his successors) imply that cavities correlate with grain and sugar consumption, and that brushing is not helpful against cavities if the diet is bad.

Not heard anything about this, but such studies would be interesting to read. I've heard doubts and disparagement expressed about the advice given on the Weston Price foundation's website (not about the views of the man himself), though.

Re: Obesity and Fitness Are Revolutionized By Reddit, Not Doctors

#194

Post by vl » Mon, Aug 13, 2012, 10:28 AM UTC

yummyfajitas wrote: post #133

vl wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Found that men who ran two or more marathons per year were 41 percent less likely to suffer from high blood pressure, 32 percent less likely to have high cholesterol, and 87 percent less likely to be diabetic than non-marathoners. Isn't it obvious selection bias? People with high blood pressure, high cholesterol and with diabets do not run marathones. >Americans are more into protein and more into weightlifting than…

If you walk into non high-end supermarket a-la Whole Foods or PPC it's just hard, and in some categories impossible, to buy healthy food. What supermarket are you referring to? I've had no difficulty finding healthy food at Pathmark, C-Town, Supremo, or any other low end supermarket.

Well, if you need some healthy food, then yes, but not healthy food of a specific kind. For example, buying whole wheat bread in Safeway or QFC goes like this: ok, this bread is called whole wheat, it contains regular wheat as well, and HFCS, move on. Next one has regular wheat in it as well and more sugar than cookies, move on. Next one has list of ingredients so long, that by the time you finish reading it, you don't remember if you saw whole wheat, yeast, and salt in the list. Oh, that was the last bread called "whole wheat" in this store, no bread for you today.

Believe it or not, in Whole Foods there is a bread labeled with exactly three required ingredients - whole wheat, yeast and salt.

Re: Obesity and Fitness Are Revolutionized By Reddit, Not Doctors

#195

Post by peterwwillis » Mon, Aug 13, 2012, 1:30 PM UTC

jc4p wrote: post #173

BrandonM wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This sounds like a pretty good approach. Why must it be "in the future"? Why don't you work on it yourself? This is Hacker News, after all.

His description is exactly what the site founded by the author of the post (and where I work) is :)

Your marketing might need some work. All I know about Fitocracy is that it's a forum, with some kind of "show people how many hours you've exercised" thingie. I don't remember any kind of questionnaire thing, or being given any kind of tailored workout program or dietary regimen.

Re: Obesity and Fitness Are Revolutionized By Reddit, Not Doctors

#196

Post by jacques_chester » Mon, Aug 13, 2012, 2:15 PM UTC

kanzure wrote: post #192

jacques_chester wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And you read more? Less? Your qualifications to opine are?

Well, yes, I do like to read more than that. But I am not selling myself off as an expert on nutrition or whatever? I'd rather find someone who reads more, so that I can avoid the garbage.

Mate.

He's not "selling himself" as an expert in nutrition.

He is an expert in nutrition.

Re: Obesity and Fitness Are Revolutionized By Reddit, Not Doctors

#197

Post by beagle3 » Mon, Aug 13, 2012, 3:46 PM UTC

creamyhorror wrote: post #193

beagle3 wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks. It's amazing how many things we believe (and when I say "we", I mean society, including e.g. doctors whose job it is to know better) that have never been scientifically looked at properly -- or worse, were looked at and shown to be wrong. My current list: - dietary cholesterol is bad for you (truth: essentially irrelevant) - serum cholesterol is bad for you (truth: it's a marker, not a cause. apparently, the…

> - serum cholesterol is bad for you (truth: it's a marker, not a cause. apparently, the body makes more of it in an attempt to solve other problems, which will manifest faster if you use statins to reduce cholesterol) That's an interesting (and good) point - if it's (mostly) a marker, actively reducing it without addressing the root cause makes no sense as a strategy. But the probability remains that a high reading…

> I guess it would be easier if it was specified that "high sat-fat butter" is bad for you, or the like. I don't know about the composition or nutritional analysis of grass-fed organic euro-style butter, but I do think it still makes sense to regard saturated fats with suspicion, at least under current studies. Do you have any studies to share on this?

Apparently, grass fed vs. grain fed does NOT culminate in "high sat-fat" or "low sat fat". There's a lot more, to the point that no one seems to have a better characterization than "healthy cows, grass fed, organic, european style (ver high fat content)".

refs: don't have any peer reviewed off hand, but Seth Roberts and Dave Asprey have quite a bit (nothing as high caliber as NEJM or BMJ or nature -- but convincing data nevertheless)

> I've been wondering if the composition of macronutrients affects the metabolic rate significantly, resulting in increased calories-out.

There are well known thermo-generating nutrients, I'd be surprised if that wasn't the case. But there's also a lot to be said about the biome composition (recently shown to control type 2 diabetes in rats, as in cause and cure by replacing gut cultures).

> Or if macronutrients are somehow wasted as excess heat, or excreted only half-used

Oxidation is the dominant energy conversion mode, but it by no means the only one. Glycolysis is about 20-50 times less efficient, and is used under some circumstances (most notably, but thankfully not commonly, cancer); So assumptions about energy availability are kind of flaky.

Not to mention, paper (cellulose) is a carbohydrate - if you assume 4kc/1gr of carbs, you should be able to live well on paper.

> I've heard doubts and disparagement expressed about the advice given on the Weston Price foundation's website (not about the views of the man himself), though.

I've heard them too - but when they had any specifics, and I tried to verify them, it seemed those doubts were FUD rather than genuine scientific inquiry.

Re: Obesity and Fitness Are Revolutionized By Reddit, Not Doctors

#198

Post by Dove » Mon, Aug 13, 2012, 5:09 PM UTC

btilly wrote: post #183

Dove wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Calisthenics can work well while watching kids. With no setup or teardown time, they work nicely for opportunistic, "hmm, looks like he's going to be occupied for a few minutes" holes in the day. We also went running with a jogging stroller when the weather was nice. Our son usually loved the ride, and was asleep by the time we got home (bonus!). That might not work on its own with kid s , but one of the places we we…

I have done plenty of calisthenics. What I've found for myself is that while I am engaged in a workout routine, I'm really NOT available for child care, nor is it a good idea if unsupervised small children are near. Curious small children walking up trying to figure out what you're doing when you're about to, say, go into jumping jacks can be bad... Families are different. I'm glad that calisthenics work for you in t…

I understand. I'm not being critical of you -- just trying to help with what's worked for me in a similar situation. I mostly did squats and push ups, and the extent of my son's involvement was to add a little bit of . . . resistance . . . to the latter exercise. ;)

I understand the difficulty; when you're a sole caretaker, focused time to do things tends to be limited to naps and schooldays, and then it tends to be used for more system-critical things like taking showers. I hope your situation improves in time. :)

Re: Obesity and Fitness Are Revolutionized By Reddit, Not Doctors

#199

Post by johnchristopher » Mon, Aug 13, 2012, 5:15 PM UTC

konstruktor wrote: post #119

johnchristopher wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the 4chan/reddit there is a weird distortion field that makes those communities associate fitness with aesthetics. Running and jogging are widely and overtly depreciated in favour of only "cold iron and do you even lift ?" memes. Bodybuilders are there models.

You are confusing bodybuilding, which has an aesthetic goal, with weightlifting/powerlifting, which has functional goals, hence the names. There is, of course, somewhat of a continuum. Just look at pictures of olympic weightlifters in the lightest weight groups and what they lift. This is pure explosive power and coordination, as those lifts are very complex. Then you have powerlifters, who still aren't very bulky an…

I assure you /fit/ is all about aesthetics.

Re: Obesity and Fitness Are Revolutionized By Reddit, Not Doctors

#200

Post by peterwwillis » Mon, Aug 13, 2012, 9:29 PM UTC

fingerprinter wrote: post #74

peterwwillis wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Same for fats. This is why nobody should be taking fitness advice from random non-professionals on the internet

Does anyone think there is a place for bad fats in their diet today? I mean, do we really need to be explicit there? I'll give you carbs, but fats? If you are reading this and it is unclear...do not eat bad fats. Good fats are fine. So to be explicit on carbs (if someone is unclear): There is actually a place for all carbs. If you are lifting heavy weights, post workout you can eat simple carbs. I personally put dext…

Bad fats still do good things for you. It's weird, but you actually need some saturated fats in your diet. But more of the 'good' fats is safer. The only fat you should never eat is trans fats [anything listing 'hydrogenated' or 'shortening'] because they negatively affect both HDL and LDL.

Fucking dieticians, how do they work?