The Hacker's Diet
fourmilab.ch
The Hacker's Diet
1–10 of 34 posts
Re: The Hacker's Diet
#2Except that human bodies are not engines. Calories in != calories out + stored energies. A healthy body will store just enough and discard the rest of the eaten food.
For a much more accurate and interesting read, check out Good Calories, Bad Calories.
Re: The Hacker's Diet
#3Except that human bodies are not engines. Calories in != calories out + stored energies. A healthy body will store just enough and discard the rest of the eaten food. For a much more accurate and interesting read, check out Good Calories, Bad Calories.
You are not just wrong, but obviously totally wrong. Obesity is up worldwide. Why would this happen if human bodies just discarded unnecessary calories?
Re: The Hacker's Diet
#4an oldie, but a goodie. A good way to keep track of your progress online here:
http://www.fourmilab.ch/hackdiet/online/hdo.html
It will calculate everything for you and even provide the pretty little weighted graphs just like in the book.
Re: The Hacker's Diet
#5Except that human bodies are not engines. Calories in != calories out + stored energies. A healthy body will store just enough and discard the rest of the eaten food. For a much more accurate and interesting read, check out Good Calories, Bad Calories.
You are not just wrong, but obviously totally wrong. Obesity is up worldwide. Why would this happen if human bodies just discarded unnecessary calories?
please, at least hear the quackjob out: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4362041487661765149
science mag and a lot of others thought he was worth listening to...
the argument is that it's not something simple like calorie in, calorie out (seen this argument on hn a few times), but rather how certain calories trigger certain behavior with insulin in our bodies.
After all, if he's right - it quite changes how we approach the problem, and considering the backing this research has from other reputable sources - it's quite foolish to just ignore such a paradigm shifting idea like that. perhaps it was worth ignoring before the guy wrote a giant book looking at one study after the next....before he presented such a good case for the argument...but at this point, obviously wrong is not true.
if you've got a good reference, a link to an article perhaps, to why Gary Taubes is wrong -- I'd love to see it.
Re: The Hacker's Diet
#6Except that human bodies are not engines. Calories in != calories out + stored energies. A healthy body will store just enough and discard the rest of the eaten food. For a much more accurate and interesting read, check out Good Calories, Bad Calories.
So what is the third option? What happens to the calories that are neither calories out or stored energy?
Re: The Hacker's Diet
#7Except that human bodies are not engines. Calories in != calories out + stored energies. A healthy body will store just enough and discard the rest of the eaten food. For a much more accurate and interesting read, check out Good Calories, Bad Calories.
So what is the third option? What happens to the calories that are neither calories out or stored energy?
Oh, they're calories out alright, just not "out via being burned and doing work". Out another way.
(Though I think this effect is dominated by the manipulation of the satiety set point by other mechanisms, which the naive (in the math sense) calorie-in-calorie-out rhetoric ignores.)
Re: The Hacker's Diet
#8Except that human bodies are not engines. Calories in != calories out + stored energies. A healthy body will store just enough and discard the rest of the eaten food. For a much more accurate and interesting read, check out Good Calories, Bad Calories.
You are not just wrong, but obviously totally wrong. Obesity is up worldwide. Why would this happen if human bodies just discarded unnecessary calories?
ΔWeight = Energy in (food) - Energy out (exercise plus metabolism)
The flaw in the understanding of this equation as written in "The Hackers Diet" and many other sources is that the components on the right side of the equal sign are not independent variables. They are dependent variables. If one eats less, the rate of metabolism falls to compensate. If one exercises more, the appetite increases, and one eats more to compensate. http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/weight-loss/more-braying-...
Here's another article that explains this: http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/metabolism/thermodynamics...
Re: The Hacker's Diet
#9I read "The 150 Healthiest Foods on Earth" (Jonny Bowden) recently and took from it this extremely condensed diet advice: "Avoid grains and industrial processing." Grains have near-zero nutrition, and industrial processing is the source of a lot of questionable practices.
On this diet, which I've followed just a few weeks, I cheat all the time, but I feel and perform better in ways that I can quantify at the gym: more strength, better endurance. Noticeable improvements every time I've gone, so far.
Re: The Hacker's Diet
#10If research about "diets" has found anything it's that they don't work. Any calorie counting approach is doomed to fail for most people.
This diet is straight out of the Stalinist four year plan school. Normal people have zero chance of tolerating this. The bondage and discipline rigid planning approach doesn't work in any field. People aren't machines.