What Does 200 Calories Look Like? • Hacker News Board

Re: What Does 200 Calories Look Like?

#251

Post by dredmorbius » Wed, Feb 20, 2013, 11:11 AM UTC

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.

Your car doesn't partition its energy. Your body does. Gary Taubs has some interesting things to say. It's not just calories, and there are absolutely individual variances. That said, macronitrient ratios and glycemic load likely play at least some role.

This still doesn't make things terribly complex, and getting the basics down will help a lot.

Re: What Does 200 Calories Look Like?

#252

Post by dredmorbius » Wed, Feb 20, 2013, 11:14 AM UTC

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 visualization is what it is. It's not the whole story. I can't help thinking of the nutritional value and insulinic response of most of the foodlike substances presented (some are more equal than others).

Re: What Does 200 Calories Look Like?

#253

Post by TomGullen » Wed, Feb 20, 2013, 12:27 PM UTC

Aloisius wrote: post #250

TomGullen wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

"Analysis of the 2001 Census data revealed lower levels of education and income and poorer housing conditions for the Inuit-inhabited areas compared with Canada as a whole. Any or all of these, in addition to lifestyle risk factors and environmental conditions, could be at least partly responsible for the lower life expectancy in those areas.

In the three five-year periods studied, from 1989 through 2003, the infant mortality rate was approximately four times higher in the Inuit-inhabited areas, compared with all of Canada."

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidien/080123/dq080123d-en...

Re: What Does 200 Calories Look Like?

#254

Post by analog » Wed, Feb 20, 2013, 12:37 PM UTC

mogrim wrote: post #249

analog wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 troub…

I cycled competitively in my teens, and got a few ok results in my speciality (hill climb) at a national level, but not good enough to want to take it any further. Some of the friends I trained with went pro.

I trained 400 - 500 miles per week, riding anywhere from 10 to 140 miles per session. I'm 40 now and still cycle but just for pleasure and getting around now, slower than I was before but riding centuries is still no problem.

In short, I know exactly what the knock feels like.

I expect you are carb loading either the day before or in the morning before your rides, and that could easily give you enough stored glycogen to see you through a 2 hour ride.

I however was cycling to burn off fat that I'd built up during a few months of strength training, so the last thing I'm going to do is gorge on pasta the night before.

Re: What Does 200 Calories Look Like?

#255

Post by papsosouid » Wed, Feb 20, 2013, 3:02 PM UTC

rb2k_ wrote: post #226

papsosouid wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I eat more calories than before judging by the amounts of meat/butter/nuts that I eat. So, judging by guessing. That is not how you judge. Measure your food and see how many calories you actually consume. It is fewer. >An interesting article backing the low-carb high-fat diets that has links to the matching double blind studies Which confirm that the people who successfully lose weight on low carb diets do so by cal…

I can't find any of the points saying that low-carb diets restrict calories. The points mentioning calories are those: "Every randomized controlled trial on low-carb diets shows that they: - Reduce body fat more than calorie-restricted low-fat diets, even though the low-carb dieters are allowed to eat as much as they want (41, 42). [...] - Low carb diets are also easier to stick to, probably because they don’t requir…

Read the studies, not the random guy summarizing them as misleadingly as possible to suit his agenda.

Re: What Does 200 Calories Look Like?

#256

Post by papsosouid » Wed, Feb 20, 2013, 3:05 PM UTC

randomdata wrote: post #216

papsosouid wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

>Wheat is thought to be only be around 10,000 years old or so.

Which is older than all of the vegetables that exist today, and older than cattle or chicken. "This food has evolved over time" is not support for a claim that the food is unhealthy or dangerous.

>It gets the blame for quite a number of ailments.

No, it doesn't? Alcohol does, but that's neither unique to beer nor does it have anything to do with grain.

Re: What Does 200 Calories Look Like?

#257

Post by Shorel » Wed, Feb 20, 2013, 3:53 PM UTC

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,

No, the goal is to have a long term, healthy, sustainable diet.

Simply reducing calories but eating mostly carbohydrates will cause the body to lose more muscle than fatty tissue. People will lose total weight, but they will not improve their health.

My sister (an M.D.) did an autopsy of a very skinny girl, who ate nothing but redbull sodas and similar stuff, who died of starvation, who looked VERY skinny, but her inner body was full of fatty tissue, with small organs and weak muscles, all because she wanted to be thin and only did calorie counting.

So please stop disseminating that harmful information, so we can save other girls like her from her fate.

Re: What Does 200 Calories Look Like?

#258

Post by peterwwillis » Wed, Feb 20, 2013, 3:59 PM UTC

analog wrote: post #208

Dirlewanger wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even 1/g per pound is too much. A perfectly optimal level for bodybuilders is around .82g per pound. One can extrapolate from there for those not seeking hypertrophy. - http://mennohenselmans.com/the-myth-of-1glb-optimal-protein-...

Those studies all focus on trained individuals. As a novice you would be putting on more muscle than a trained bodybuilder or strength athlete. It's worth pointing out as well that there is no disadvantage to consuming too much protein. Strength standards for beginners. http://www.exrx.net/Testing/WeightLifting/StrengthStandards....

there is no disadvantage to consuming too much protein.

Uh... there are many sources that cite problems with eating too much protein. Dehydration, kidney stress, calcium deficiency, heart disease, and other side-effects of increased fat or cholesterol levels of foods with large amounts of protein.

http://www.livestrong.com/article/468026-physiological-conse... http://breakingmuscle.com/nutrition/put-down-steak-youre-eat... http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=50...

Re: What Does 200 Calories Look Like?

#259

Post by ohashi » Wed, Feb 20, 2013, 4:15 PM UTC

SoftwareMaven wrote: post #248

ohashi wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 cy…

That sounds very familiar from personal experience. Weight loss wasn't/hasn't been a straight down affair. Holidays, life, things get in the way and my experience mirrors yours quite closely from the sound of it. Even a couple days of bad carbs in a row I can see a scale jump 5, 8, 10 pounds (it seems insane, mostly water I am sure, but still insane to see that in a few days). I've been trying to learn and balance myself out and watch for those things. I do enjoy some of those bad carbs every once in a while. Figuring out how to have them occasionally and not ruin my health was/continues to be an interesting (and I feel life long) experience. It's nice to know I am not alone with those issues. Thanks for taking the time to talk about it so candidly, I really appreciate it. If you ever feel the need to reach out to someone and talk about it feel free, I would be happy to talk, learn and share.

Re: What Does 200 Calories Look Like?

#260

Post by grecy » Wed, Feb 20, 2013, 4:37 PM UTC

waterlesscloud wrote: post #233

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…

The use of sentences like "Period." and "Fullstop." really has become a giant red flag. I guess that's handy, actually.

Point taken.

I do want to point out I'm not using them to indicate "end of conversion" or "shutup" or anything like that, I'm using them to indicate that is the end of my solution/problem... as in there are no if/buts or maybes.