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

241–250 of 261 posts

Re: What Does 200 Calories Look Like?

#241

Post by grecy »

tadfisher wrote: post #232
grecy wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lets be perfectly honest here. A person that is 100lbs+ overweight is eating an enormous number of calories just to maintain that weight. I don't even care if the keep drinking coke and eating fries, as long as they cut their calorie intake somewhat, down to below what they are using, they will lose weight. Period. Losing weight at that point is the most important thing. Once they've done that for a while, their body…

> A person that is 100lbs+ overweight is eating an enormous number of calories just to maintain that weight. The point that you are missing is that this is not necessarily true. In fact, the converse may be true; that obese people require less calories to maintain their weight because they live a more sedentary lifestyle. > I don't even care if the keep drinking coke and eating fries, as long as they cut their calori…

> The point that you are missing is that this is not necessarily true.

A body burns more calories for every pound of fat it has to maintain, even if sitting on the couch all day.

> You seem to have made up your mind about a subject you know little about.

Read my other comments here. I've personally witnessed at least a thousand people lose 50-200lbs each over the years due to my involvement with Weight Watchers. I think I have a good idea of what is required for people to lose weight.

What's your experience?

Re: What Does 200 Calories Look Like?

#242

Post by rayiner »

grecy wrote: post #240
rayiner wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's conceptually simple, but pretends that the human animal is a lot more rational and a lot better at arithmetic than he really is. It's hard to start going through your day leaving 1/4 of your sandwich uneaten (and our restaurants, etc, are not set up to give you healthy portion sizes). People are bad at measuring their metabolic rate and bad at estimating their calorie intake. They also get hungry and it's really…

You seem to think I'm suggesting eating less food. I am not. I am saying people need to eat less calories . They are not the same thing. Also, anyone trying to lose weight does not need to be eating in restaurants. Obviously this is very difficult for many people, due to convenience, etc. but I suggest that if people can cut down their restaurant visits by 1 a week, they will likely lose weight. People here seem to t…

> You seem to think I'm suggesting eating less food. > I am saying people need to eat less calories.

Your satisfaction from food isn't simply proportional to the weight or calorie content of the food. Foods aren't created equally in terms of how satisfying they are per calorie. My point is that the conventional wisdom of eating lots of bread/pasta is counter-productive simply because they're not very satisfying. A cheesy omelet isn't more or less food than a plain bagel, but for a similar calorie count I'm a lot happier 2 hours later. That's the essence of my point.

> Also, anyone trying to lose weight does not need to be eating in restaurants.

I live in New York and so pretty much only eat in restaurants (nobody here cooks). On a keto diet it's no big deal. Restaurants make money by selling you tons of carbs to inflate entree sizes. If you don't eat carbs, there actually aren't all that many ways to blow your calorie budget. If I'm at a restaurant, I can easily order a big steak and steamed veggies and mushrooms, or fish/chicken with a fatty sauce and keep within ~600-700 calories. The restaurant has no financial incentive to give me a lot of these expensive ingredients, so they don't. Psychologically, it's a lot easier to feel satisfied cleaning your plate of those things than leaving half your huge plate of pasta uneaten.

Re: What Does 200 Calories Look Like?

#243

Post by davidtanner »

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...

Well numbers like that make sense when you take into account that the 1.5g figure applies readily to people like http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xdhOdJ_NVao

Better to eat too much protein than too little anyway.

Re: What Does 200 Calories Look Like?

#244

Post by TomGullen »

rdouble wrote: post #144
unreal37 wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the poster is referring to them as empty calories in the sense that they provide no nutritional value. They get processed into blood sugar very quickly but do not provide the body anything essential.

They provide the body with energy, which is pretty essential.

Then why am I more energetic now after starving my body of carbs, than I was before the diet when my diet existed entirely of carbs? Energy does not need to be taken from carbs to survive or be healthy.

Re: What Does 200 Calories Look Like?

#245

Post by [deleted] »

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.

[deleted]

Re: What Does 200 Calories Look Like?

#246

Post by TomGullen »

Aloisius wrote: post #214
TomGullen wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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%…

msluyter correctly points to the Inuits as a good case against what you've said. Their diet consists pretty much entirely fat and meat yet they have lower heart disease and rates of cancer.

http://www.theiflife.com/the-inuit-paradox-high-fat-lower-he...

Pretty strange how their not keeling over from heart disease! Perhaps the traditional view of fat is wrong.

Highly recommend you watch this amazing lecture by Garry Taubes at Google: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M6vpFV6Wkl4

He also brings a lot of other eye opening case studies to light such as obesity in Pima Indians during a famine.

Re: What Does 200 Calories Look Like?

#247

Post by voze »

TomGullen wrote: post #102
saddino wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 he…

Your stupidity is absolutely mind-boggling.

Re: What Does 200 Calories Look Like?

#248

Post by SoftwareMaven »

ohashi wrote: post #225
SoftwareMaven wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 p…

Good for you. I haven't had as dramatic a change in weight, but it's been substantial (and on-going). You really hit the nail on the head, and it's hard to describe unless you've been there. I don't honestly believe it was a willpower issue, but a lack of information/advice. The generic eat less, exercise more didn't do anything for me. On a side note, I'd love to hear what sort of issues you have with maintaining?

Thank you, and congrats to you as well.

All the problems can be summed up with "crappy carbs". It's actually a long story about what started me down that path (dealing with health issues), but I've actually put back on some weight (around 40 pounds...it's easy to be blind to oneself :().

What I've found is that when I start eating carb-rich food, my ability to stop snacking on carb-rich foods goes to zero. So I've cycled between maintaining where I eat a low-glycemic diet and not doing that and gaining. When I spoke of "biological imperative", I mean me: when I eat carbs, I can't stop. I never get full. I'm sure I'd be a Type 2 diabetic in about 5 years if I didn't make this change.

A few weeks ago, I dumped the crappy carbs again. I'm back full-on low-carb and have lost about half of that[1]. This time, I'm going to learn from my mistakes. :) I'm going to follow the Atkins notion of gradually increasing carbs until you find your "critical carbohydrate level". Since I've bounced back and forth, I figure realizing that fact will be helpful in my long-term maintenance.

1. Yes, a very large percentage of this is water. I'm OK with that. :)

Re: What Does 200 Calories Look Like?

#249

Post by mogrim »

analog wrote: post #127
mogrim wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

A short bike ride that burns about 1250 kcal, which is another 50% on top of my normal daily requirements. So not that surprising that I'd need to take in 450 kcal really.

Certainly burns calories which you'll need to make up at some point, but it's a fairly short ride and I doubt you'd hit the wall if you didn't eat anything. I'm not saying you shouldn't eat it, everyone's body is different, and if I were in a 2hr race I'd probably be eating gels etc to guarantee maximal energy availability at all times. I just don't think you need it to be able to get round without running into trouble.

Anecdotal reference point: I go out every weekend with 3 friends, we do minimum 3.5 hours riding time in the local mountains, and the most any of us eat is something like a cereal bar and a banana. I can count on the fingers of one hand the amount of times any of us have bonked in the past 5 years...

Re: What Does 200 Calories Look Like?

#250

Post by Aloisius »

TomGullen wrote: post #246
Aloisius wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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%…

msluyter correctly points to the Inuits as a good case against what you've said. Their diet consists pretty much entirely fat and meat yet they have lower heart disease and rates of cancer. http://www.theiflife.com/the-inuit-paradox-high-fat-lower-he... Pretty strange how their not keeling over from heart disease! Perhaps the traditional view of fat is wrong. Highly recommend you watch this amazing lecture by Garry T…

Oh not those studies again. Those studies are wonderful until you get to the fact that the Inuit have the shortest life expectancy of any other Canadian group - upwards of 15 years shorter.

So of course you find less heart disease in that group. They're dying of TB, diabetes (of all things) and suicide long before they get heart disease.

Post reply on HN