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

Why We Get Fat

sciencebasedmedicine.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 77 posts

Re: Why We Get Fat

#41

Post by funkwyrm »

The big mistake begins here:

"Simple physics requires that to lose weight, we must burn more calories than we ingest"

THAT fallacy is how the author leads the reader in to HIS strawman argument, that somehow Taubes is unaware of, or disregards, the laws of thermodynamics.

1) Ingesting calories is not relevant, digesting is.

2) We don't "burn" any calories whatsoever. We use various components of food as raw materials for various biological processes. One conceptual example: when you ingest some sort of protein, your body might break it down in to amino acid chains and then repair a muscle fiber using those raw materials.

Talking about the human body as if it is a closed system that burns food is just silly. We're accidentally taking our metaphors as literal. Yes, if we literally burned all the calories we ingest, the thermodynamics argument would be correct. However, that just a metaphor, don't mistake the map for the territory.

Re: Why We Get Fat

#42

Post by grannyg00se »

derleth wrote: post #36
jdminhbg wrote: post #2

"So, why does it get warmer in the summer?" "Because our hemisphere takes in more calories than it gives off, causing it to get warmer." "Well, I mean I suppose that's true in the strictest sense, but is there a reason we can come up with tha--" "What, you don't believe in thermodynamics? What a crackpot!"

> "What, you don't believe in thermodynamics? What a crackpot!" Come back to me when you've heard a few people say that it is physically impossible for them to lose weight regardless of what they do. They think they could be eating nothing but celery and water and still maintain an upwards trend. Thermodynamics works. That means it is always possible to lose weight, not that it is always easy. A weight-loss plan that…

>Ultimately, no food is bad in itself

I think that may have been true at some point. But I believe that we are now manufacturing foods that are legitimately bad. Unless you are not counting those things as "food", which I would totally agree with.

I like Michael Pollans's advice: "Eat food, not too much, mostly plants." And "food" here is defined as you would expect (hint: Twinkies don't qualify) In the Michael Pollan definition of food, there is no such thing as bad food.

Re: Why We Get Fat

#43

Post by rickdale »

shortandsweaty wrote: post #28
hunvreus wrote: post #20

Too many times have physicians, from my point of view, fall short of common agreement with regards to my health, especially when it comes to nutrition. I tend to be skeptical of their opinion on the matter, more even so since I switched to a paleo diet and literally dropped the weight that I was supposed to be "genetically" stuck with. So have several of my friends around me. I doubt the answer is as easy as some wou…

Doctor here. I agree with you about being skeptical of physicians' nutritional advice; we generally aren't nutrition experts and internists, especially, are jaded by the vast number of hospitalized patients we see who have simply abused their bodies with food and drink for decades. That said, you echo an argument that's as useless as me telling patients "calories in What I tell my fat patients who are starting out is…

I lost about 50lbs this year. If someone told me to cut the shit I was eating in half, no way in the world a "diet plan" would have worked. Explain to your fat patients that a diet isn't eating less, its eating differently. And three words to end this: slow carb diet.

Re: Why We Get Fat

#44

Post by spindritf »

super_mario wrote: post #14

I challenge the author to load himself on steak and saturated fats and no carbs and come race me 100 miles on a road bike. I burn in excess of 4000 Calories on a 80 mile bike ride. That's a kilogram of rice on a single ride. And honestly I find it incredibly hard to eat enough just to satisfy the energy requirements of racing. Not eating carbs and attempting an endurance race event is just suicidal and guaranteed way…

> come race me 100 miles on a road bike

Because that's exactly what people do every day and what they should always be prepared for. I keep my racing bike and a bag of rice right next to the emergency kit.

Some people are into thousands of miles on a bike, or marathons, great for you, but most aren't. And, beyond enjoyment, there's no reason to be into that, there are better, cheaper and less time-consuming ways to maintain your physical fitness[1].

Instead of 100 miles on a bike, you could do 20 pull-ups, 50 push-ups, some leg rises, followed by an inferno omelete[2], save two hours to do something else, and still likely get better results if you're so worried about that coronary disease.

[1] http://medicalxpress.com/news/2012-09-short-intense-health-l...

[2] http://chefinjeans.com/2012/05/31/cooking-for-single-men-inf...

Re: Why We Get Fat

#45

Post by rcthompson »

miked wrote: post #23

>> Rather than jumping on the low-carb bandwagon before his ideas are properly tested, the precautionary principle suggests that it might be more reasonable to follow a moderate diet like the Mediterranean diet (or to follow Michael Pollan‘s stunningly simple advice to “Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants.”), to limit “empty calories” from simple carbohydrates like sugar, to eat a variety of vegetables and fruits,…

The Mediterranean, Inuit, and vegetarian diets (and presumably also the Pollan diet) are empirically well tested, because many people already live by those diets. This makes them conservative choices. There's no guarantee that they will work, but there is a high probability based on empirical evidence.

Re: Why We Get Fat

#46

Post by joelrunyon »

funkwyrm wrote: post #41

The big mistake begins here: "Simple physics requires that to lose weight, we must burn more calories than we ingest" THAT fallacy is how the author leads the reader in to HIS strawman argument, that somehow Taubes is unaware of, or disregards, the laws of thermodynamics. 1) Ingesting calories is not relevant, digesting is. 2) We don't "burn" any calories whatsoever. We use various components of food as raw materials…

There's also the distinction between "losing weight" and "losing fat."

The calorie in vs. calorie out method is great if you're simply focused on losing weight, but if you're interested in losing fat, changing your body composition, or gaining muscle definition, you're going to have to dig a little deeper than just calorie counting – you'll need to look at the quality & types of foods you're eating.

Re: Why We Get Fat

#47

Post by joelrunyon »

derleth wrote: post #36
jdminhbg wrote: post #2

"So, why does it get warmer in the summer?" "Because our hemisphere takes in more calories than it gives off, causing it to get warmer." "Well, I mean I suppose that's true in the strictest sense, but is there a reason we can come up with tha--" "What, you don't believe in thermodynamics? What a crackpot!"

> "What, you don't believe in thermodynamics? What a crackpot!" Come back to me when you've heard a few people say that it is physically impossible for them to lose weight regardless of what they do. They think they could be eating nothing but celery and water and still maintain an upwards trend. Thermodynamics works. That means it is always possible to lose weight, not that it is always easy. A weight-loss plan that…

> Ultimately, no food is bad in itself.

Unfortunately, this completely depends on what your definition of "food" is.

Re: Why We Get Fat

#48

Post by spindritf »

travisp wrote: post #17
polyfractal wrote: post #3

Tangentially, I don't understand why so many articles/diets get written about weight loss. At the end of the day, everything boils down to "eat fewer calories than you expend". Given enough time, this regimen will reduce your weight. Period. End of story. Why must people continually try to create new weight-loss fads all the time?

>At the end of the day, everything boils down to "eat fewer calories than you expend". Sure, if you stop eating you will lose some weight, but, you can die of starvation while obese. In animal studies, that Taubes cites in one of his books, it is possible to reduce calories and the animals won't lose weight and it is also possible to add a lot of extra calories and not become obese. Calories have something to do with…

> Sure, if you stop eating you will lose some weight, but, you can die of starvation while obese.

This guy[1] went for over a year on vitamins and water. He didn't die, and he did drop a lot of weight. Actually, "prolonged fasting in this patient had no ill-effects." Though it's probably one of those things you really shouldn't try at home.

[1] http://pmj.bmj.com/content/49/569/203.abstract

Re: Why We Get Fat

#50

Post by papa_bear »

As I understand it, one of the largest factors in low carb dieting is that carbs are less satiating per calorie than fats and proteins. Also that simple/highly processed carbs are even less satiating, largely because they lack any fiber. So if you aren't counting calories, you're much more likely to eat less on a low carb and high fiber diet.

Regardless of what you do, counting calories will probably be the most effective method for losing weight. And even then, calorie estimations are rough, change based on how the foods are prepared, and highly dependent on biological factors unique to each person.

I'm working on Eat This Much (http://www.eatthismuch.com/) as a way to automate my own diet. It still needs some work to get to the point where I'm never thinking about what to eat, but I've been using it to gain weight very successfully over the past few months. Gaining weight can be a lot simpler than losing it, but it still helps to pay attention to what you eat to avoid putting on fat as opposed to muscle.

Post reply on HN