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

The Hacker's Diet

fourmilab.ch

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 34 posts

Re: The Hacker's Diet

#11

Post by dangrover »

notsosimple wrote: post #9

I 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: mor…

This is the annoying thing about diet/nutrition advice, and why "The Hacker Diet" is really appealing to me, even if it's a little simplistic -- it's at least logically consistent and has some rationale behind it, even if it's a flawed one.

Most diet advice is vague and full of generalizations and never backed up. It makes sense, but you hear often opposing viewpoints made in the same hand-wavy fashion. For instance:

Okay, why avoid grains? Are some grains worse than others, or are they all magically bad? Either way, why, and what evidence supports it? Does this apply to any carbohydrate, or just strictly grains? What's wrong with industrial processing, and is there evidence to prove it? Does it apply to everything that could possibly be considered industrial processing, or just certain types of industrial processing that are particularly bad? Is it possible to make up for whatever negative effects it (anything one is advised not to eat) has, and does it apply to 100% of people, or a set of people that you make a set of assumptions about?

I'm not attacking your viewpoint specifically -- I think you're most likely right -- but this is just why I have a hard time believing most diet advice. It's always so wishy washy, and it always brings up more questions.

Another example: advice around drinking soda. There are many types of sweeteners used in diet sodas, and lots of studies done on their effects on humans and other mammals -- none particularly damning. But no one giving nutrition advice will say "avoid ingredient X because Y", they'll say "avoid (vague category of food which may or may not contain ingredient X)". And then someone else will come along and say the opposite. And then there's always some link to some study done in the 1940's that's since been discredited or something.

Re: The Hacker's Diet

#12

Post by blhack »

llopis wrote: post #2

Except 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.

This is something that really irks me about people when they talk about diets.

It takes a species more than 100 odd years or so to get rid of that "eat whatever the frak you can and store as much of it as you can because there is a good chance that you're not going to find much other than grass for a WHILE".

Your body is NOT going to just "discard" (poop out) "un-needed" calories.

The other thing that bothers me is people talking about "starvation mode". That just sounds like a buzzword (because it is). If you stop eating, you're going to start getting tired. THIS is the mythical "starvation mode". If you tell your body to just fuck off, and go jogging or whatever anyway (omg free will!) you are going to lose weight really really quickly.

Re: The Hacker's Diet

#13

Post by vinutheraj »

wvl wrote: post #8
sp332 wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I think he does explain about it in the book, or that's what I understood when I read it, that metabolism does adjust if you eat less or more - http://www.fourmilab.ch/hackdiet/www/subsubsection1_2_3_0_7_...

Re: The Hacker's Diet

#14

Post by pbhj »

kingkongrevenge wrote: post #10

If 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.

How does calorie counting not work. You put in less energy than is being used and the body makes up the rest from reserves. Or is the body somehow generating energy without burning fat?

Re: The Hacker's Diet

#15

Post by antiismist »

pbhj wrote: post #14
kingkongrevenge wrote: post #10

If 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.

How does calorie counting not work. You put in less energy than is being used and the body makes up the rest from reserves. Or is the body somehow generating energy without burning fat?

The point is that it is difficult for people to follow the diet consistently.

Re: The Hacker's Diet

#16

Post by antiismist »

dangrover wrote: post #11
notsosimple wrote: post #9

I 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: mor…

This is the annoying thing about diet/nutrition advice, and why "The Hacker Diet" is really appealing to me, even if it's a little simplistic -- it's at least logically consistent and has some rationale behind it, even if it's a flawed one. Most diet advice is vague and full of generalizations and never backed up. It makes sense, but you hear often opposing viewpoints made in the same hand-wavy fashion. For instance:…

It is like a safe harbor provision. If you exclude processed foods and grains, then you are in a relatively safe place food-wise, though not perfectly safe of course.

If you do eat processed foods, then you take your chances or you must spend a lot of time educating yourself about various ingredients and the studies about them.

Re: The Hacker's Diet

#17

Post by sp332 »

embeddedradical wrote: post #5
sp332 wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Actually, that sounds OK. I know my body reacts very differently to HFCS vs sucrose, for example. My problem with GP is that Calories In == Calories Expended + Calories Stored, always (unless you have diarrhea or something). The differences in the way your body responds only changes the ratio of energy stored to energy expended, by making you hyper or relaxed.

Re: The Hacker's Diet

#18

Post by biotech »

llopis wrote: post #2

Except 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.

It's thermodynamics: Calories In = Calories Excreted + Calories Burned + Calories Stored

so:

Change in Calories Stored = Calories In - (Calories Excreted + Calories Burned)

As someone else said, though: these variables are not independent.

If you eat less and exercise more and still aren't losing weight, I guess that means you are excreting less.

Re: The Hacker's Diet

#19

Post by leahculver »

kingkongrevenge wrote: post #10

If 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.

Supermodels seem okay with it, so it can't be that difficult. Just kidding (sort of)! It just takes A LOT of time and discipline which yeah, not many people have.

Re: The Hacker's Diet

#20

Post by stonemetal »

dangrover wrote: post #11
notsosimple wrote: post #9

I 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: mor…

This is the annoying thing about diet/nutrition advice, and why "The Hacker Diet" is really appealing to me, even if it's a little simplistic -- it's at least logically consistent and has some rationale behind it, even if it's a flawed one. Most diet advice is vague and full of generalizations and never backed up. It makes sense, but you hear often opposing viewpoints made in the same hand-wavy fashion. For instance:…

carbohydrates are all nothing but sugar, they do nothing for you. Grains are particularly bad because they not only don't provide anything but sugar but they also prevent the absorption of minerals(in the link he explicitly calls out oat meal but others do it as well). Studies show that cutting out grain(note some grains are ok mostly freshly processed grains are bad. Sour dough is OK) will make your teeth immune to tooth decay and any cavities you have will heal themselves.

http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2009/03/reversing-toot...

Post reply on HN