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

101–110 of 261 posts

Re: What Does 200 Calories Look Like?

#101

Post by kjackson2012 »

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…

I'm currently on a low-carb diet.

Since June 2012, I've been tracking my weight almost daily, the food I ate, and the amount of times I've worked out. I drastically increased my workouts from October to December, working out almost 4-5 times per week, and I gained 10 lbs. This was accompanied by a change in diet, since my company started offering free lunches.

In January, I went with low-carb (less than 30g of carbs per day), and besides cutting out most carbs like bread, pasta and rice, I increased the amount of meat and vegetables I ate. I actually eat more after being on this diet than before. As well, I cut my workouts down to 2-3x per day. Since then, I've lost 15 lbs. So, with less workouts, more food, and within 8 weeks, I've lost more weight than any period in the last 8 months. When you look at the graph of my weight over time, you can see that the only significant factor in weight reduction was my low-carb diet.

Re: What Does 200 Calories Look Like?

#102

Post by TomGullen »

saddino wrote: post #96
TomGullen wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I don't know much about the history of nutrition. However, I will assume that prior to Paleolithic time we did eat a pure vegetarian diet.

So what? Vegetation diet 100 million years ago I'll guess that obesity is nill comparatively to today.

I'll also guess that there was comparatively virtually no obesity in the Paleolithic period.

Nowadays we live in a period where we're told pasta is healthy, or orange juice is healthy (a lot of brands have more sugar in the juice than coca cola). We all eat lots of bred, refined carbs. Sugar has never been so readily available. Parents buy their children sweets all the time.

And guess what? We're turning into a developed world of obese people and higher levels of heart disease.

So yes, a modern vegetarian diet probably is healthier and safer than sandwiches, crisps and orange juice.

Paleo diets are not fads. Our bodies are tuned to metabolise those sorts of foods. People relentlessly defend carbohydrates when they are the most likely candidate for the epic levels of obesity and other related diseases.

Re: What Does 200 Calories Look Like?

#103

Post by kjackson2012 »

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…

"carbs are very rarely converted into body fat".

Yeah, you probably need to brush up on your biochemistry before you make statements like this.

Re: What Does 200 Calories Look Like?

#104

Post by eevilspock »

rubyrescue wrote: post #43
peterwwillis wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

to get enough protein if you're even moderately active, you have to eat A LOT - eggs, milk, meat, tuna Any time someone specifies "A LOT" as a nutritional guide I get a little skeptical. Keep in mind when you're eating these foods the whole nutritional profile to determine if you're over-eating something (or filling yourself with LDLs). Try to balance the eggs, milk and meat with alternatives like quinoa, spirulina,…

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...

Who's recommendation? I've seen recommendations all over the map.

The ones I often see are somewhere between .6g and 1g per lb of body weight, with 1g being the most common recommended on body building forums.

This article (http://mennohenselmans.com/the-myth-of-1glb-optimal-protein-...) calls the 1g/lb recommendation a total myth.

Another important question is whether the ratio is against total or lean body weight? If you've got a lot of fat, you may be over-calculating your protein needs.

Eating too much protein may or may not hurt. Some say excess protein taxes the kidneys (which filter it out into your piss). Some say your body ends up converting it to fat. (http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/maki1.htm)

Also following recommendations from people who's goal it is to look like Lou Ferrigno may not make sense for most people.

So you don't think I'm attacking you, here's a pro-protein link: http://www.livestrong.com/article/556322-how-much-protein-is...

Who's right? Who knows?

Re: What Does 200 Calories Look Like?

#105

Post by pcorsaro »

sneak wrote: post #44
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…

lol paleo I've been losing weight lately without any fad diet. I just cut my caloric intake by 20% and boosted my caloric output by 20-30% with regular exercise.

I feel like any "diet" that is named is instantly called a fad, and that really bothers me. Paleo is more or less eating whole, unprocessed foods, with an emphasis on low sugar intake. What's so faddish about that?

Re: What Does 200 Calories Look Like?

#106

Post by joemaller1 »

Evbn wrote: post #70
peterwwillis wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

to get enough protein if you're even moderately active, you have to eat A LOT - eggs, milk, meat, tuna Any time someone specifies "A LOT" as a nutritional guide I get a little skeptical. Keep in mind when you're eating these foods the whole nutritional profile to determine if you're over-eating something (or filling yourself with LDLs). Try to balance the eggs, milk and meat with alternatives like quinoa, spirulina,…

Pubmet doesn't agree that whole milk has good fats http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/PMH0001224/ But wikipedia claims that recent research blames artificial trans fats, not natural cis fats, for artery disease. And skim milk tastes better than the fatty stuff. It turns out that taste is subjective and modifiable based on life experience. (That is why coffee is tolerable to adults)

Fat composition is affected by the diet of the cow. Grain fed dairy cows yield milk that's lacking in Vitamin K2. K2 is essential for regulating delivery of calcium in the body. Free calcium without K2 contributes to atherosclerosis (and other mis-placed calcium issues) without necessarily contributing to bone and dental health.

Also, most of the vitamins in milk are in the fat, which people usually remove.

Re: What Does 200 Calories Look Like?

#107

Post by Aloisius »

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…

As someone who has lost a lot of weight on a diet that is actually healthy as opposed to a hack, I protest your protest. I eat mostly the things at the top of the chart (though not the soda/milk/meat) and lost about 4 lbs a week until I leveled out at a normal weight without compromising my nutrition. [1]

Some good resources: http://www.drfuhrman.com/shop/ETLBook.aspx

[1] That said, we both agree that that kind of sugar won't fill you up. I only disagree that eating large quantities of meat or fat is in any way healthy.

Re: What Does 200 Calories Look Like?

#108

Post by mistercow »

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…

The main thing that's useful about low-carb diets is that foods high in protein and fat are filling. You don't need ketosis (which is probably a harmful medical condition) to lose weight, but if you get most of your calories from carbohydrates, you'll tend to have trouble feeling satisfied without going overboard on calories.

So you're partially right about satiety levels, but in my experience eating something high in carbs won't make you more hungry; it just won't do much to make you less hungry.

When I'm doing caloric restriction, I try to eat just enough carbs to stave off ketosis, and it works pretty well.

Re: What Does 200 Calories Look Like?

#109

Post by c1u »

maxerickson wrote: post #90
c1u wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

The traditional definition of empty calories would be something like a spoonful of sugar. That's an extreme example, but the idea is that the food in question provides calories without nutrients. So there is such a thing and it makes plenty of sense. (USDA takes my side: http://www.choosemyplate.gov/weight-management-calories/calo... )

"calories without nutrients" does not makes sense at all.

A spoonful of sugar contains 100% nutrients.

That link is total nonsense. For example it claims pizza is empty calories, but bread, cheese, tomatoes, meat & veggies are not? It's ridiculous.

Re: What Does 200 Calories Look Like?

#110

Post by [deleted] »

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.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN