Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

This Man Thinks He Never Has to Eat Again

vice.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

481–490 of 516 posts

Re: This Man Thinks He Never Has to Eat Again

#481

Post by wamatt »

papsosouid wrote: post #472
wamatt wrote: post #372

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>When in reality, the human GI evolved to support an extremely broad range of inputs as it's most significant factor. While we can agree that innovation should not be stifled, the idea that we can determine the processes by which the body utilizes nutrients and their interdependent effects, after a few months of research, is utterly hubristic. I often make the claim that the human body (other animals are close too) e…

>What exactly is 'Vitamin D'? Cholecalciferol (D3) [1] is quite different from Ergocalciferol (D2)[2] Not as far as nutrition is concerned. Some studies have indicated that D2 is slightly less potent, but the majority have shown equal efficacy. >Or take "Vitamin K" for example Same deal. You are confusing the notion that there are multiple chemical compounds that fulfill the role of a vitamin, that you need them all.…

Not as far as nutrition is concerned. Some studies have indicated that D2 is slightly less potent, but the majority have shown equal efficacy.

The evidence does not support that claim. If anything we don't know, and that's my point. [1][2]

>Your whole argument seems to be an attempt at pointless pedantry, when the pedantry presented doesn't even matter to the subject at hand.

No I'm saying similar to "Vitamin B". You body may be lacking in pyridoxine or cobalamin or one of the other B vitamins. They are not equivalent. The B group has been studied in far greater depth, compared to say the menaquiniones (K2 group), and there simply does not exist the same level of research. Similarly K and D are groups too, and treating them like it's a single chemical with a specific effect is just plain wrong.

If you want to continue to argue please backup your claims with studies indicating K2 (any form) is equivalent to K1.

A study of 11000+ men by a German cancer research center found this:

"Our results suggest an inverse association between the intake of menaquinones, but not that of phylloquinone, and prostate cancer. Further studies of dietary vitamin K and prostate cancer are warranted." [3]

In other words K2 intake was correlated with reduced levels of prostate cancer, and K1 was not.

They are NOT the same thing and it's arrogant to dismiss this them as being functionally equivalent or assume one's body will perfectly convert between various forms as needed.

[1] http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/84/4/694.full

[2] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21289249

[3] Dietary intake of vitamin K and risk of prostate cancer in the Heidelberg cohort of the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18400723

Re: This Man Thinks He Never Has to Eat Again

#482

Post by papsosouid »

wamatt wrote: post #481
papsosouid wrote: post #472

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>What exactly is 'Vitamin D'? Cholecalciferol (D3) [1] is quite different from Ergocalciferol (D2)[2] Not as far as nutrition is concerned. Some studies have indicated that D2 is slightly less potent, but the majority have shown equal efficacy. >Or take "Vitamin K" for example Same deal. You are confusing the notion that there are multiple chemical compounds that fulfill the role of a vitamin, that you need them all.…

Not as far as nutrition is concerned. Some studies have indicated that D2 is slightly less potent, but the majority have shown equal efficacy. The evidence does not support that claim. If anything we don't know, and that's my point. [1][2] >Your whole argument seems to be an attempt at pointless pedantry, when the pedantry presented doesn't even matter to the subject at hand. No I'm saying similar to "Vitamin B". You…

>The evidence does not support that claim

What claim?

>No I'm saying similar to "Vitamin B"

There is no vitamin B. You clearly know this, and are deliberately posting complete nonsense.

>In other words K2 intake was correlated with reduced levels of prostate cancer, and K1 was not

And in the studies that found no such correlation to begin with? Pretending a single study is evidence that there's an entire family of vitamins we know noting about is so incredibly stupid I refuse to believe you are actually doing that.

>it's arrogant to dismiss this them as being functionally equivalent

No, it is arrogant to claim that you know everything and this guy is a total moron because he did a great job of 100% completely and totally covering all vitamins, but you want him to worry about what form of vitamin D he uses based on absolutely no evidence that it matters at all.

Re: This Man Thinks He Never Has to Eat Again

#483

Post by papsosouid »

commandar wrote: post #480
papsosouid wrote: post #451

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>That's because low carb diets cause stored glycogen in muscles to be shed Uh huh. >That's not really true Yes it is. Bodybuilders cut with low fat, not low carb. http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/nutrition/how-many-carbohyd...

Are you seriously citing Lyle McDonald as proof that low carb diets lead to muscle wasting? >If glucose requirements are high but glucose availability is low, as in the initial days of fasting, the body will break down its own protein stores to produce glucose. This is probably the origin of the concept that low carbohydrate diets are muscle wasting. As discussed in the next chapter, an adequate protein intake during…

>Are you seriously citing Lyle McDonald as proof that low carb diets lead to muscle wasting?

I don't even know how to answer such a nonsensical question. Are you upset that a proponent of low carb diets actually knows what he is talking about and doesn't lie?

>It's a surprisingly common topic of discussion for something that's supposedly not done.

Your evidence of what bodybuilders did decades ago is that people have started talking about doing it in the last few years? Seriously?

Re: This Man Thinks He Never Has to Eat Again

#484

Post by ufmace »

What makes me a bit skeptical about this is that this guy is apparently 24 and was in generally good health before he did all of this. I think most of us have experienced that when you're that young, you can eat pretty much whatever you want without much adverse consequences. There's plenty of college students only a little younger in basically good health whose diet is mostly alcohol and fast food. What happens when you feed this stuff to an overweight 45-year old?

Re: This Man Thinks He Never Has to Eat Again

#485

Post by wamatt »

papsosouid wrote: post #482
wamatt wrote: post #481

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not as far as nutrition is concerned. Some studies have indicated that D2 is slightly less potent, but the majority have shown equal efficacy. The evidence does not support that claim. If anything we don't know, and that's my point. [1][2] >Your whole argument seems to be an attempt at pointless pedantry, when the pedantry presented doesn't even matter to the subject at hand. No I'm saying similar to "Vitamin B". You…

>The evidence does not support that claim What claim? >No I'm saying similar to "Vitamin B" There is no vitamin B. You clearly know this, and are deliberately posting complete nonsense. >In other words K2 intake was correlated with reduced levels of prostate cancer, and K1 was not And in the studies that found no such correlation to begin with? Pretending a single study is evidence that there's an entire family of vi…

>"No, it is arrogant to claim that you know everything and this guy is a total moron because he did a great job of 100% completely and totally covering all vitamins "

Emotionally charged strawman. He's done some homework. My argument is that it's simply not enough. IE it's possible to be ignorant of how much one is ignorant of. There are also unknown unknowns that exist.

>Pretending a single study is evidence that there's an entire family of vitamins we know noting about is so incredibly stupid I refuse to believe you are actually doing that.

Another misrepresentation. I'm saying that the Vitamin K2 group is not widely understood and only recently gaining more attention in the last few years. [1]

Also there is no pretending going on, simply advocating skepticism and that it's an extremely complex topic with ongoing studies often refuting "obviousness" of a prior generation of thought.

I haven't even started on the role the microbiome plays in our health. The fact that there are 10x more non-human cells (100 trillion cells) in our bodies should be pause for concern and a little humbleness. We literally carry around thousands of different strands of bacteria and are only now in this decade starting to map the genetic material to figure out new advances and how these interact with the food we ingest and their systemic effects. [2][3][4]

[1] http://www.amazon.com/Vitamin-K2-Calcium-Paradox-Little-Know...

[2] http://www.indiegogo.com/projects/ubiome-sequencing-your-mic...

[3] http://www.indiegogo.com/projects/american-gut-what-s-in-you...

[4] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Microbiome_Project

Re: This Man Thinks He Never Has to Eat Again

#486

Post by orclev »

lyudmil wrote: post #438
criley wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "Extraordinary claims, extraordinary proof, or GTFO." > "I see this guy's protocol as nothing but poisonous in the long run." You place a burden of evidence on him that you yourself in this very post violated on a number of occasions. You CANNOT call his diet poisonous simply because you disagree with it. You admitted it yourself: > "Current research is showing that we are only just beginning to gain understanding…

I'm not a person whose opinion on the subject matter should matter to anyone, so I'm not commenting because of a vested interest in this argument. I'm commenting because I think you're misapplying the principles of the scientific method, which makes your criticism unfair. > You place a burden of evidence on him... It isn't saidajigumi placing the burden of proof on him, it's the scientific method. Everything we know…

The problem was in how the argument was stated. The post essentially claimed that his diet is dangerous until proven otherwise and therefore everyone should follow a "natural" diet of whole foods instead. It's a false dichotomy, even if his diet proves to be lacking or unhealthy in some way that does not make a "natural" diet automatically healthy.

Furthermore he makes the mistake of assuming correlation is causation. I.E. he claims the recent rise of processed foods and the increased incidence of poor health are a cause and effect relationship when in fact no evidence to such a connection exists other than the very weak correlation between them. He then goes on to extrapolate from this false causation that what he perceives as the opposite of processed foods, I.E. whole foods, are therefore inherently healthy.

The fact is whole foods are not special in any regard, being unprocessed does not magically confer health benefits on them. There are plenty of unprocessed substances, including various plants that are unhealthy or in many cases poisonous.

What the man in the article is attempting is a vital first step in better understanding human nutritional requirements. By breaking down nutritional inputs to carefully controlled individual compounds and then monitoring the results we can gain a much better understanding of what the real nutritional requirements of the human body are.

Re: This Man Thinks He Never Has to Eat Again

#487

Post by elbear »

grecy wrote: post #204
elbear wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nice. I'm more or less in the same boat in that I'm trying to save some money but don't want to spend so much time working to do it. The problem is that most companies are looking for long-term employees, so it's more difficult to find something on a shorter term.

What's wrong with signing on as a full-time employee then quitting a few years later? My company has fired many loyal full-time employees in the last 18 months with very minimal notice, so I feel no compunction about doing the same.

There's nothing wrong with it per se, but I'm not thinking of spending years with a company, because I want to start travelling sooner. Last time the discussion came up with a company, they said they were looking for someone for at least 2 to 4 years, and I couldn't lie to them and tell them I would stay that long.

Re: This Man Thinks He Never Has to Eat Again

#488

Post by papsosouid »

wamatt wrote: post #485
papsosouid wrote: post #482

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The evidence does not support that claim What claim? >No I'm saying similar to "Vitamin B" There is no vitamin B. You clearly know this, and are deliberately posting complete nonsense. >In other words K2 intake was correlated with reduced levels of prostate cancer, and K1 was not And in the studies that found no such correlation to begin with? Pretending a single study is evidence that there's an entire family of vi…

>"No, it is arrogant to claim that you know everything and this guy is a total moron because he did a great job of 100% completely and totally covering all vitamins " Emotionally charged strawman. He's done some homework. My argument is that it's simply not enough. IE it's possible to be ignorant of how much one is ignorant of. There are also unknown unknowns that exist. >Pretending a single study is evidence that th…

>My argument is that it's simply not enough

An argument that you did not support, as I said.

>I'm saying that the Vitamin K2 group is not widely understood and only recently gaining more attention in the last few years.

And I am saying that just because you want to pretend there's magic pixie dust that we need to live, doesn't mean it is actually true.

Re: This Man Thinks He Never Has to Eat Again

#489

Post by wamatt »

papsosouid wrote: post #488
wamatt wrote: post #485

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>"No, it is arrogant to claim that you know everything and this guy is a total moron because he did a great job of 100% completely and totally covering all vitamins " Emotionally charged strawman. He's done some homework. My argument is that it's simply not enough. IE it's possible to be ignorant of how much one is ignorant of. There are also unknown unknowns that exist. >Pretending a single study is evidence that th…

>My argument is that it's simply not enough An argument that you did not support, as I said. >I'm saying that the Vitamin K2 group is not widely understood and only recently gaining more attention in the last few years. And I am saying that just because you want to pretend there's magic pixie dust that we need to live, doesn't mean it is actually true.

>And I am saying that just because you want to pretend there's magic pixie dust that we need to live, doesn't mean it is actually true.

Another misrepresentation. I started the thread by saying that the human body can take a lot of abuse for many years without apparent ill-effects. That said, many would argue the difference between "living" (or surviving over a certain time period) and optimal health, is not an insignificant consideration.

It's quite possible to develop chronic conditions, that are not apparent at first, and only manifest themselves after years of nutritional deficiency.

Re: This Man Thinks He Never Has to Eat Again

#490

Post by papsosouid »

wamatt wrote: post #489
papsosouid wrote: post #488

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>My argument is that it's simply not enough An argument that you did not support, as I said. >I'm saying that the Vitamin K2 group is not widely understood and only recently gaining more attention in the last few years. And I am saying that just because you want to pretend there's magic pixie dust that we need to live, doesn't mean it is actually true.

>And I am saying that just because you want to pretend there's magic pixie dust that we need to live, doesn't mean it is actually true. Another misrepresentation. I started the thread by saying that the human body can take a lot of abuse for many years without apparent ill-effects. That said, many would argue the difference between "living" (or surviving over a certain time period) and optimal health, is not an insig…

>It's quite possible to develop chronic conditions, that are not apparent at first, and only manifest themselves after years of nutritional deficiency.

Oh, well that is certainly a reasonable basis to pretend a very complete diet is dangerous and lacking. Oh wait, no that is a completely nonsensical basis.

Post reply on HN