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

211–220 of 261 posts

Re: What Does 200 Calories Look Like?

#211

Post by X-Istence »

kjackson2012 wrote: post #101
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…

Just came back from seeing a nutritionist, I had been eating less than 40 grams of carbs a day ... she told me that I need to ramp it up to about 200 grams a day, and need to increase my intake of fiber.

Carb free or low carb isn't entirely healthy either.

Re: What Does 200 Calories Look Like?

#212

Post by grecy »

Torrents wrote: post #205
grecy wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

I think you are ignoring the fact that many people are able to eat way more calories than they burn, yet those extra calories simply don't convert to fat. I am not excessively active yet I eat significantly more calories than many people I know, yet I don't gain weight. From things I've read [1] it seems that the vast majority of people consume more calories than they 'burn' but only in some people is it converted to…

> is akin to saying: "If you never get in a car your chances of dying in a car accident are significantly reduced."

Very bad analogy.

It's more like saying "If you burn more gas each day than you put in, you'll eventually start burning up your reserve tank, (until you run out)."

> but not really helpful or meaningful.

It's extremely helpful and meaningful. For the massive majority of people that are overweight, they simply need to eat less calories. Not less food. Less calories. The original article here is showing what 200 calories looks like, so it's extremely helpful for people trying to eat less of them.

You would be shocked how many people have no idea a mountain of apples is equal to a small amount of alcohol, etc. Once they learn this, they lose weight.

Source: I lived with two girls who lost over 100lbs each at Weight Watchers, one of them became a WW representative, and for years I went to meetings with her as moral support. Over the years I've personally seen at least 1000 people go from being completely helpless with weight loss to losing somewhere between 50-200lbs each. All they did was eat less calories than they were burning. Nothing else. (WW obfuscates that with their points system, but it's just calories/50)

Re: What Does 200 Calories Look Like?

#213

Post by SeanDav »

grecy wrote: post #142
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…

You're falling into the standard weight loss trap... "It's too hard, it's too complicated, I'll never lose weight". For the vast majority of people that need to lose weight, keeping it simple is the best thing. Goal: Eat less calories than you use each day. (fullstop!) Once they've lost a chunk of weight, they can start dialing it in with complicated stuff about carbs vs. fat vs. protein etc, etc, etc,

Easy to say, but as always, the devil is in the details. I can say to make money "buy low, sell high" but of course it is not that simple.

Dieting has all sorts of psychological and physical factors that vastly complicated the picture.

Re: What Does 200 Calories Look Like?

#214

Post by Aloisius »

TomGullen wrote: post #176
Aloisius wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 su…

Can you explain why you think fat is bad for you

There is a well-established link between fat intake and heart disease. [1] Both saturated fat and trans-fat contribute towards increased blood cholesterol and clogged arteries. That research didn't become invalid just because you can lose weight on a low-carb diet.

Now unsaturated fats at moderate levels? Absolutely necessary. A bit of saturated fat in your diet? No problem. But a diet that consists of upwards of 20% saturated fat? You might as well go on low dose aspirin while awaiting your heart attack.

(Note: there are conflicting studies, but meta-analysis seems still to side with this contention. Really the only desenting papers are funded by bigAg, on very high fiber diets or had testing flaws - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturated_fat_and_cardiovascula...)

Re: What Does 200 Calories Look Like?

#215

Post by kjackson2012 »

X-Istence wrote: post #211
kjackson2012 wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Just came back from seeing a nutritionist, I had been eating less than 40 grams of carbs a day ... she told me that I need to ramp it up to about 200 grams a day, and need to increase my intake of fiber. Carb free or low carb isn't entirely healthy either.

It depends on what your goals are, and what foods you eat. I eat A LOT of spinach, it basically replaced bread, pasta and rice for me. As well I eat bell peppers, broccoli and other veggies. They may have some carbs in them, but not a whole lot.

Re: What Does 200 Calories Look Like?

#216

Post by randomdata »

papsosouid wrote: post #184
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.

That doesn't mean it isn't a fad. And to be accurate, no it didn't actually happened. The cows you are eating did not exist. Neither did any of the fruits or vegetables. Almost everything you eat is much more modern than the grains you eat. Humans have been consuming grains for at least 100,000 years. There is no evidence to support the notion that grains are bad for us in any way.

Wheat is thought to be only be around 10,000 years old or so. If they were eating grains 100,000 years ago, it certainly wasn't what we are used to eating today.

Additionally, beer is considered by many to be the first significantly consumed product of grain. I don't think you could say modern day beer is completely free of any health side-effects. It gets the blame for quite a number of ailments.

Re: What Does 200 Calories Look Like?

#217

Post by grecy »

SeanDav wrote: post #213
grecy wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're falling into the standard weight loss trap... "It's too hard, it's too complicated, I'll never lose weight". For the vast majority of people that need to lose weight, keeping it simple is the best thing. Goal: Eat less calories than you use each day. (fullstop!) Once they've lost a chunk of weight, they can start dialing it in with complicated stuff about carbs vs. fat vs. protein etc, etc, etc,

Easy to say, but as always, the devil is in the details. I can say to make money "buy low, sell high" but of course it is not that simple. Dieting has all sorts of psychological and physical factors that vastly complicated the picture.

> I can say to make money "buy low, sell high" but of course it is not that simple.

It is exactly that simple, it's just not easy.

> Dieting has all sorts of psychological and physical factors that vastly complicated the picture.

They make the task more difficult, they don't make the task more complicated.

I'm not saying that eating less calories than you burn is easy for people with weight issues, but it is a very simple concept to understand and work towards.

Re: What Does 200 Calories Look Like?

#218

Post by tsmarsh »

enraged_camel wrote: post #203
kareemm wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This is incorrect, and there are many examples to prove it. For example, alleles conferring lactose tolerance increased to high frequencies in Europe just a few thousand years after animal husbandry was invented. Similarly, recent increases in the number of copies of the gene for salivary amylase, which digests starch, are related to agriculture. Basically, the response to the change of the environment of a species d…

Whilst I'm sure that is true, it certainly won't be true for the entire human population.

I strongly suspect that my excellent reaction to low carb diets is because I haven't evolved the ability to consume them as well as other humans. Clues include oral allergy to birch pollen and my 'output' when I eat dairy and grains is less than optimal.

I don't believe low carb works for everyone. It doesn't work for my wife. But it is a useful tool, that I'm very glad I found.

Re: What Does 200 Calories Look Like?

#219

Post by SoftwareMaven »

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.

I've lost a massive amount of weight (170 pounds). It isn't that easy. If it was that easy, I would never have had to go to the lengths I went to in order to lose it and what I have to do to maintain that loss.

What the basic calorie-in-calorie-out equation doesn't take into account is that it is a biological imperative to eat. That means you have to find the way to balance those calories that overcomes that.

Some people (usually the people espousing "it's just a calorie") have a metabolism that, for whatever reason, either doesn't cause them to be hungry or allows them to eat whatever. Great for them.

For those of us who struggle daily with this issue, "willpower" isn't enough. We need to find the way that overcomes the biological, hormonal imperative that drives people to eat.

And just saying "cut calories" does not work. Three percent of obese people will manage to lose weight by dieting. Do you think they are just "too ignorant" to "get" the equation? Or are they just "too lazy" to do what needs to be done? Because I know that neither is the case.

Edit: The other component, which really screws up an "engine" analogy, is that your "engine" becomes more efficient the less you feed it. If you need 1500 calories a day today and so start eating 1300 calories a day, soon, your engine will only take 1300 calories a day to run. Great, bump up the exercise so you burn 200 calories a day. Soon, your engine only needs 1100 calories a day and you feel lethargic all the time.

Your body is not an car motor.

Re: What Does 200 Calories Look Like?

#220

Post by onlyup »

fingerprinter wrote: post #152

Whenever I see a thread like this pop up on HN, I feel a need to reply and dispel some myths. I'm going to do my best to provide a quick, yet thorough summary. I hope this helps. Who am I? I'm a techie and a fitness nut. I've played high level basketball, amateur football, rugby, aussie rules football. I've done some triathlons (not my forte), a couple ultra races (hate them, learned a lot about myself). My current a…

Can I spike my insulin with a can of coke after lifting heavy?
Post reply on HN