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

111–120 of 261 posts

Re: What Does 200 Calories Look Like?

#111

Post by c1u »

kjackson2012 wrote: post #103
c1u wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Here's the explanation from an expert - http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/how-we-get-fat.htm...

"Carbohydrates are rarely converted to fat (a process called de novo lipogenesis) under normal dietary conditions. There are exceptions when this occurs. One is with massive chronic overfeeding of carbs. I’m talking 700-900 grams of carbs per day for multiple days. Under those conditions, carbs max out glycogen stores, are in excess of total daily energy requirements and you see the conversion of carbohydrate to fat for storage. But this is not a normal dietary situation for most people."

Re: What Does 200 Calories Look Like?

#112

Post by driverdan »

c1u wrote: post #71
driverdan wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not entirely true. High protein diets allow you to eat more calories because the thermal effect of digesting protein results in a loss of 25% calories (of protein).

Yep. But even though almonds are ~20% protein, they are also ~50% fat. It's not the best protein source by a long shot. While the TEF of protein does reduce it's net caloric contribution by about 25%, that doesn't matter if you eat in excess of TDEE, which will result in weight gain regardless of the kind of foods eaten. Upping protein to reduce hunger works really well, but there are better foods than almonds to do…

Absolutely, but I wasn't talking about TDEE.

Re: What Does 200 Calories Look Like?

#113

Post by [deleted] »

c1u wrote: post #109
maxerickson wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

[deleted]

Re: What Does 200 Calories Look Like?

#114

Post by redidas »

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…

What is a paleotard? Genuinely interested.

Re: What Does 200 Calories Look Like?

#115

Post by fingerprinter »

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.

> Net calories are king, regardless of diet macro composition.

God, I hate hearing this.

Let me guess, you say "weight" as in "gain weight" and "lose weight"?

The problems is that nearly everyone...EVERYONE actually means "lose fat, maintain muscle" or "gain muscle, lose/maintain fat".

No one WANTS to gain fat. And when losing weight, no one wants to lose muscle. So talking about "weight" is stupid. And when you only talk about net calories, the only thing you can talk about is weight.

Macros matter when talking about "losing fat, maintaining muscle", "gaining lean muscle" or "recomposition". And the simple fact is that the ratio of macros greatly effects what you are going to do, regardless of total calories.

If you don't get that, you need to spend more time researching.

Re: What Does 200 Calories Look Like?

#116

Post by rayiner »

sneak wrote: post #46
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…

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

I'll chime in with the former posters in favor of ketogenic diets. YMMV, but I personally find it much easier to stay on a ketogenic diet.

Check out the Applebee's menu (fairly typical): http://www.applebees.com/~/media/docs/applebees_nutritional_...

A 12 oz NY Strip + seasonal veggies will run you about 520-540 calories. That's under half as many calories as any of the fajitas, pasta dishes, and most of the salads. It's also half as many calories as any of the sandwiches.

It's bread and pasta that isn't worth it (unless you're poor and need lots of calories per dollar). The food pyramid makes people think bread is good for you, so people dramatically underestimate how many calories they take in from bread. A typical American diet might have two slices of toast at breakfast, two pieces of sandwich bread or a bagel at lunch, and a baked potato for dinner. These are simple accompaniments, not the stars of the meal, yet they add up to a staggering 700 calories daily. You could replace that with two slices of bacon at each meal and still cut your calorie intake substantially.

Re: What Does 200 Calories Look Like?

#117

Post by muxxa »

driverdan wrote: post #66
qompiler wrote: post #10

Canola oil sounds frightening!

All oils are calorie dense, not just canola.

Also, Canola oil (aka Rapeseed oil) is possibly the best oil you can use.

If you eat a lot of good fats (good = monounsaturated, e.g. olive oil, avocados, peanuts), then it reduces cravings for bad fats (fried foods, butter, animal fat etc.).

A rule of thumb is that any fat that it is liquid at room temperature is 'good'.

Re: What Does 200 Calories Look Like?

#118

Post by c1u »

redidas wrote: post #114
c1u wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

What is a paleotard? Genuinely interested.

It's just a term one of the nutrition experts I follow, Alan Aragon has used to describe people who blindly follow the paleo diet. Not that paleo is all bad, but there a lot of people who get it very wrong.

Re: What Does 200 Calories Look Like?

#119

Post by mogrim »

analog wrote: post #88
c1u wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

There's a little more to it than that. When you're in a ketonic state your body burns stored fat rather than carbs. [1] For example for me, normally on a 2 hour bike ride (@ ~120bpm) I would need to drink ~2.5 bottles of glucose drink to keep my blood sugar levels high enough. When I'm on a keto diet I'll only need 0.5 bottles of glucose drink during the ride to stave off the knock. [2] [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wi…

I'm surprised you need to eat anything at all on a short ride like that, at such a low BPM, and certainly nothing like 2.5 bottles of glucose! Just water to avoid dehydration should be enough.

I doubt the diet has anything to do with it. (In this case anyhow... certainly nutrition is critical for harder efforts).

Re: What Does 200 Calories Look Like?

#120

Post by maxerickson »

c1u wrote: post #109
maxerickson wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yeah, sorry, a better phrase would be "energy calories without any other nutrients".

Which I thought was implied. But I forget that imprecise communication works less and less.

Post reply on HN