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

What Does 200 Calories Look Like?

wisegeek.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 261 posts

Re: What Does 200 Calories Look Like?

#91

Post by analog »

TomGullen wrote: post #57
sneak wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ketogenic diets are more trouble than they're worth. There's nothing inherently wrong with carbohydrates.

You can't say it's more trouble than it's worth because it's a sweeping generalisation, and different diets work better for different people. Calorie restricted diet I have failed at many times before. Keto was difficult for the first month but now it's a doddle. There's nothing wrong with carbohydrates either. Never said that. Carbs in moderation is a diet that most people I know seem to exist healthily and happily…

Absolutely this. Everybody's body is different and respond in different ways. You have to work out what works for you.

Re: What Does 200 Calories Look Like?

#92

Post by _delirium »

c1u wrote: post #50
msluyter wrote: post #37

As someone who's successfully lost a lot of weight on a low carb / no grain diet, this chart irks me. That a handful of almonds has the same calories as a certain amount of Captain Crunch is irrelevant. The latter will quickly convert to glucose in your body, however, (unlike almonds) and that will make a huge difference in your satiety levels, insulin response (Hello, Metabolic Syndrome!), etc... [1] Some good resou…

Almonds are mostly fat, and not very satiating either. I've done the paleo/lowcarb fad diets too. They just trick you into eating fewer calories by forbidding most of the food you ate before the diet. Not to mention some versions of these diets are based on incorrect understanding of human physiology. For example, despite what the paleotards will tell you, carbs are very rarely converted into body fat. But when you e…

I found cutting out nuts to actually be one of the more effective ways of losing weight. I previously snacked on nuts way too much throughout the day, which ended up being as many calories in aggregate as some of my meals. That oil+salt combo is addictive, at least for me.

Re: What Does 200 Calories Look Like?

#93

Post by TomGullen »

c1u wrote: post #81
TomGullen wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What part of Paleo is a fad exactly? It's trying to replicate consumption of food we evolved off. A pretty simple idea. Sugar/carbs are not something readily available in human history in the vast quantities we eat them today.

"Sugar/carbs are not something readily available in human history..." This doesn't matter at all. "...in the vast quantities we eat them today." THIS is what matters. Net calories are king, regardless of diet macro composition.

What about the thermic effect of food? 100kcal of protein yields less final energy then 100kcal of carbs.

Calorie counting will probably have you losing weight, but reduction of carbs to protein for example will assist with weight loss better. Also protein is more useful to your body than carbohydrates.

Re: What Does 200 Calories Look Like?

#94

Post by TomGullen »

c1u wrote: post #52
TomGullen wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm down 14kg in 120 days on a keto based diet. Works brilliantly, sustainably and enjoyable. Carbs are also full of empty calories, better to eat more nutrients like fat! I'm healthier because of that. The chart isn't particularly useful, but it's still interesting imo Whatever works for you of course is the best. Regrettably I've been a bit preachy about keto diets before, but understand now that some people prefer…

Carbs are NOT "empty calories", there is no such thing.

I don't need carbs to be alive, be healthy and be energetic. The nutrition they give me is pretty much nill relative to other food groups such as fat and protein.

Re: What Does 200 Calories Look Like?

#95

Post by analog »

driverdan wrote: post #73
rubyrescue wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the recommendation if you're lifting to gain strength from a number of sources is 1g to 1.5g of protein per lb of body weight. for me that's 190 to 260g/day. it's A LOT...

Actually it's 1-2g of protein per kg of weight, not lb. Unless you're on anabolic steroids or are on a protein sparing modified fast (PSMF) 1.5g of protein per lb isn't going to help you gain or retain more muscle. Source: A week ago I read through all studies I could find on pubmed about optimal protein intake for muscle gain.

It's 1g per lb of lean weight. That would be for a beginner, trained athletes aren't going to be putting on so much muscle so won't need so much protein.

Correct on the steroids and fasting though.

Re: What Does 200 Calories Look Like?

#96

Post by saddino »

TomGullen wrote: post #83
afterburner wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fad: An intense and widely shared enthusiasm for something, esp. one that is short-lived; a craze. Just because the idea came from the prehistoric doesn't mean it can't be a fad.

It's not an idea, it actually happened. People actually ate paleo style for millions of years from necessity.

It's a fad because you draw your "evolutionary diet" line at the Paleolithic for no reason at all. For 100 million years prior all your ancestors ate a pure vegetarian diet. Why isn't that diet more sensible from an "evolutionary" perspective?

Re: What Does 200 Calories Look Like?

#97

Post by muxxa »

Robin_Message wrote: post #65
muxxa wrote: post #39

The idea that eating healthily can be simplified to the reduction in a single number (a calorific value) really annoys me. Always remember that a calorie is a proxy metric, and a very poor one at that; it's the energy output of burning the food, which has very little correlation with what goes on in your body during consumption/digestion.

Assuming you are right here, which macronutrient (out of protein, fats and carbs) either: a) converts into ATP with significantly less or more than 40% efficiency; or b) is not absorbed in significant fractions by the human digestive system? Otherwise, bah to very little correlation .

I'm not a nutritionist but I'll back up my assertion of 'very little correlation' by drawing attention to the following which aren't taken into account by the calorific value:

- Glycemic Index: how quickly blood sugar levels spike after eating

- Proportional mix of the protein, fat and carbs that you mention (Maybe someone can help me out with a citation on the affect on health, both long and short term, of the different mixes of these).

- Micro-nutritional content: presence or absence of vitamins & minerals

- Poorly understood factors such as whether a requirement to chew (or suck) food prior to swallowing primes the digestive system and/or alters perception of 'fullness' (peanut butter vs. peanuts, sugar in a glass of coke vs. same amount of sugar in hard boiled sweets)

It's also important to remember that foods are not simply energy, but have direct effects on the levels of various neurotransmitters in the brain, leading to feedback loops (sugar addiction comes to mind).

I think you are better off to literally trust your gut over a calorific value.

Re: What Does 200 Calories Look Like?

#98

Post by stdbrouw »

Evbn wrote: post #86
stdbrouw wrote: post #15

The picture changes, though, if you decide not to steam your vegetables but sauté them with oil instead. Doesn't make vegetables any less healthy, just something to take into account.

Because of oil or because of cell wall collapse?

I can't say I know the biology, just that vegetables + oil come to calories than only vegetables – so #1 :-)

Re: What Does 200 Calories Look Like?

#99

Post by jtheory »

Uh, carbs as in "you burn it, you get X carbs", or carbs as in "when your body digests this, it uses A carbs to process, B carbs go out in waste, and the balance is C carbs"?

The former isn't nearly as useful (but of course is much easier to figure out with any accuracy).

Re: What Does 200 Calories Look Like?

#100

Post by rayiner »

c1u wrote: post #50
msluyter wrote: post #37

As someone who's successfully lost a lot of weight on a low carb / no grain diet, this chart irks me. That a handful of almonds has the same calories as a certain amount of Captain Crunch is irrelevant. The latter will quickly convert to glucose in your body, however, (unlike almonds) and that will make a huge difference in your satiety levels, insulin response (Hello, Metabolic Syndrome!), etc... [1] Some good resou…

Almonds are mostly fat, and not very satiating either. I've done the paleo/lowcarb fad diets too. They just trick you into eating fewer calories by forbidding most of the food you ate before the diet. Not to mention some versions of these diets are based on incorrect understanding of human physiology. For example, despite what the paleotards will tell you, carbs are very rarely converted into body fat. But when you e…

You can't underestimate the psychological importance of tricking yourself into eating fewer calories. Carbohydrates are very calorie dense, and high-carb foods are usually psychologically less satisfying than foods you would eat on a ketogenic diet. A plain bagel has about as many calories as a 7 oz new york strip. Which would you rather have for lunch?
Post reply on HN