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

191–200 of 261 posts

Re: What Does 200 Calories Look Like?

#191

Post by elijahtaylor »

grecy wrote: post #178
SoftwareMaven wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Eat less calories than you use each day. (fullstop!) While true, that statement is useless. It doesn't take into account the effect insulin has on the ability one has to actually take in those fewer calories. It also doesn't take into account metabolic pathways that allow one to eat more of certain kinds of foods than others. The scientific literature is pretty clear (once you filter out the government propaganda tha…

You're still making it way too complicated. If I put 10 gallons into my tank every day, but use 11 gallons daily.. I'm "using up" gas. That's all that matters. Of course, there are many, many, many tweaks to be made, but for the majority of people, who need to lose a massive amount of weight, if they eat less calories than they use, they will lose weight. End.

> You're still making it way too complicated.

Maybe it just is that complicated (not that I view the above as complicated, I just don't view it as simple as you make it).

> If I put 10 gallons into my tank every day, but use 11 gallons daily.. I'm "using up" gas. That's all that matters.

Imagine an engine that behaves differently depending on the type of fuel is put in it. One type of fuel causes the engine to move slower and burn less gas per unit time. So you may continue to put in your 10 gallons a day with this new fuel, but you'll notice a surplus building up because it only burns say 5 gallons a day because of this change. The output you get from the engine varies depending on what is put in it.

That's what the parent was describing. Calories in and calories out are not independent variables despite how they are treated in some research and most popular media. The type and amount of "calories in" affect your energy level (calories out) and hunger level (ability to limit your caloric intake).

Re: What Does 200 Calories Look Like?

#192

Post by whatusername »

grecy wrote: post #178
SoftwareMaven wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Eat less calories than you use each day. (fullstop!) While true, that statement is useless. It doesn't take into account the effect insulin has on the ability one has to actually take in those fewer calories. It also doesn't take into account metabolic pathways that allow one to eat more of certain kinds of foods than others. The scientific literature is pretty clear (once you filter out the government propaganda tha…

You're still making it way too complicated. If I put 10 gallons into my tank every day, but use 11 gallons daily.. I'm "using up" gas. That's all that matters. Of course, there are many, many, many tweaks to be made, but for the majority of people, who need to lose a massive amount of weight, if they eat less calories than they use, they will lose weight. End.

That's because it is more complicated. Feel tired and lethargic after a big carny meal? Guess what - your body is driving on econo-mode and burning less fuel.

Re: What Does 200 Calories Look Like?

#193

Post by tbrownaw »

muxxa wrote: post #117
driverdan wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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'.

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

It's the best, except when it doesn't agree with you. In which case it's rather annoying, since it's so very popular.

Re: What Does 200 Calories Look Like?

#194

Post by peterwwillis »

jessedhillon wrote: post #124
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,…

I've for a while now used Boku Super Protein brand powder supplement. It's completely plant-derived and very diverse, unlike most other plant-based proteins, which only source from soy.

Call me a luddite, but the idea of "supplements" in general is wacky to me (unless you have a health disorder). If I want protein I get it from food. If I want vitamins I get it from food (or other crazy things like sunlight). These things exist in nature for a reason; science didn't create the notion of a healthy body.

In fact, i'd propose that some people think about their health a little too much (myself included). Do something outside and don't eat a lot of crap. K.I.S.S.

Re: What Does 200 Calories Look Like?

#195

Post by khuey »

moggie wrote: post #31
voidlogic wrote: post #29

I'm guessing this list as the same pitfall as food labels and is showing quantities based on the amount of energy (calories) in the raw material rather than using the amount of energy the human digestive system can actually exploit. For example while you might get nearly 200 calories of from 200 of white bread, you would only actually get 150 calories from 200 calories of many meats. I think that if nutrition labels…

How is the exploitable amount of calories determined, exactly? Is there a layperson-readable resource somewhere that you might recommend?

It's not, for the most part.

Re: What Does 200 Calories Look Like?

#196

Post by jessedhillon »

peterwwillis wrote: post #194
jessedhillon wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've for a while now used Boku Super Protein brand powder supplement. It's completely plant-derived and very diverse, unlike most other plant-based proteins, which only source from soy.

Call me a luddite, but the idea of "supplements" in general is wacky to me (unless you have a health disorder). If I want protein I get it from food. If I want vitamins I get it from food (or other crazy things like sunlight). These things exist in nature for a reason; science didn't create the notion of a healthy body. In fact, i'd propose that some people think about their health a little too much (myself included)…

Sure, there's nothing wrong with that approach. But, for the same reason that you might put shoes on your feet when you go do something outside, you might find employing certain other technological advances useful in achieving your goals. We don't, after all, burn wood in our cars, we use gasoline -- even though the fundamental principle underlying both is the release of energy stored in hydrocarbon-based fuel. The difference is a step-function in refinement.

It depends on how goal-directed you are in this domain. Others may have higher, more specific, or more urgent health/fitness goals.

Re: What Does 200 Calories Look Like?

#197

Post by allwein »

grecy wrote: post #178
SoftwareMaven wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Eat less calories than you use each day. (fullstop!) While true, that statement is useless. It doesn't take into account the effect insulin has on the ability one has to actually take in those fewer calories. It also doesn't take into account metabolic pathways that allow one to eat more of certain kinds of foods than others. The scientific literature is pretty clear (once you filter out the government propaganda tha…

You're still making it way too complicated. If I put 10 gallons into my tank every day, but use 11 gallons daily.. I'm "using up" gas. That's all that matters. Of course, there are many, many, many tweaks to be made, but for the majority of people, who need to lose a massive amount of weight, if they eat less calories than they use, they will lose weight. End.

The problem here is that many people make the mistake thinking that all of the calories "used" are calories expended as energy. For people with insulin issues, some of those calories are preferentially stored as fat and are never available to be used as energy, thus requiring them to eat more in order to make up the energy imbalance.

Re: What Does 200 Calories Look Like?

#198

Post by kareemm »

aplusbi wrote: post #128
TomGullen wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 he…

The question is why do you choose the Paleolithic era as your cut off? We evolved the ability to consume dairy and grains about 10,000 years ago. If you are basing diet on what we evolved to eat, why do you exclude foods that we evolved to eat?

Evolutionarily speaking, 10k years is a drop in the bucket. The paleo diet postulates that while we can eat daily and grains, we haven't evolved to do so b/c 10,000 years is too small a period in which to do so.

Re: What Does 200 Calories Look Like?

#199

Post by rubyrescue »

peterwwillis wrote: post #194
jessedhillon wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've for a while now used Boku Super Protein brand powder supplement. It's completely plant-derived and very diverse, unlike most other plant-based proteins, which only source from soy.

Call me a luddite, but the idea of "supplements" in general is wacky to me (unless you have a health disorder). If I want protein I get it from food. If I want vitamins I get it from food (or other crazy things like sunlight). These things exist in nature for a reason; science didn't create the notion of a healthy body. In fact, i'd propose that some people think about their health a little too much (myself included)…

whey protein is really just the leftovers from cheese production ... it's not that unusual of a substance.

Re: What Does 200 Calories Look Like?

#200

Post by grecy »

elijahtaylor wrote: post #191
grecy wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're still making it way too complicated. If I put 10 gallons into my tank every day, but use 11 gallons daily.. I'm "using up" gas. That's all that matters. Of course, there are many, many, many tweaks to be made, but for the majority of people, who need to lose a massive amount of weight, if they eat less calories than they use, they will lose weight. End.

> You're still making it way too complicated. Maybe it just is that complicated (not that I view the above as complicated, I just don't view it as simple as you make it). > If I put 10 gallons into my tank every day, but use 11 gallons daily.. I'm "using up" gas. That's all that matters. Imagine an engine that behaves differently depending on the type of fuel is put in it. One type of fuel causes the engine to move s…

> The output you get from the engine varies depending on what is put in it.

Of course, that's why you have to constantly Analyze how much fuel your body is burning, and reduce the rate accordingly.

> The type and amount of "calories in" affect your energy level (calories out) and hunger level (ability to limit your caloric intake).

Indeed, though again, that doesn't impact the basic statement:

If you eat less energy less than you burn, you will lose weight.

Post reply on HN