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

The Diet Fix

sciencebasedmedicine.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 63 posts

Re: The Diet Fix

#41

Post by ratscabies »

fingerprinter wrote: post #36
fatman wrote: post #2

Sounds promising. Calories in, calories out - the rest is just noise.

The forest is calories, so don't lose that. However, the trees are macros. Macros are important for goals. If your goal is simply "lose weight", sure, just care about calories. But if you have a more refined goal (recomp, spare muscle, lose bodyfat, athletic performance, build muscle etc), the macros are vital. I do think people lose the forest from the trees. However, I find that people lose sight of the path throug…

Was a bit concerned with weight until I plateaued. Now I realize I am in a lot better shape, including blood sugar and lipids, even though I am stuck at this weight. I keep up the exercise and don't worry about the waistline so much. It is funny when I workout though. All these skinny people around the gym not sweating at all. If you don't sweat, I don't see why they bother.

Re: The Diet Fix

#42

Post by antidaily »

jonheller wrote: post #14
antidaily wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I dunno. I know people who've lost 100lbs and kept it off doing keto.

I lost 50 pounds eating ~500 calories more on keto than I did before. Unfortunately I wasn't completely comfortable with the types of meals I ate with that lifestyle. But it did make me feel as though the whole calories in - calories out was nonsense. Especially after trying (and failing) diets based around that (weight watchers) multiple times.

Have you tried slow carb? Avoids dairy and adds legumes. I've found it easier to do and it's (probably) healthier.

Re: The Diet Fix

#43

Post by soneca »

pvnick wrote: post #40
soneca wrote: post #37

"In this book we obey the laws of thermodynamics" Repeating a comment I made below, this makes no sense at all to me!! His argument in his post saying Taubes is wrong is "The laws of physics are unavoidable". That makes no sense at all! There is no logical reason to believe that calories (a thermodinamic unity) is transformed in fat in our body - and no science to prove it either. This is the same as saying that all…

This article explains everything you need to know: http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/how-we-get-fat.htm...

He claims that Excess dietary fat is directly stored as fat, which is opposite of what Taubes claim, that when you eat things as bacon, the fat you eat isn't stored as fat in your body.

I read all related articles about fat and didn't find where he defends this claim (only general explanations about different types of fat and its relation to heart diseases).

Also I am no expert at this topic at all, and I wouldn't understand all the scientific study both sides claim to have. But make sense to me that the fat I eat isn't stored as the fat in my belly, as cow milk doesn't become milk for mothers, and as osteosporis (the lack of calcium on your food) isn't easily fixed by eating more calcium on your food.

Re: The Diet Fix

#44

Post by soneca »

tfigueroa wrote: post #39
soneca wrote: post #37

"In this book we obey the laws of thermodynamics" Repeating a comment I made below, this makes no sense at all to me!! His argument in his post saying Taubes is wrong is "The laws of physics are unavoidable". That makes no sense at all! There is no logical reason to believe that calories (a thermodinamic unity) is transformed in fat in our body - and no science to prove it either. This is the same as saying that all…

Come now. It's a matter of physics that you can't make stuff from nothing, and you can't do things without energy. That's not to say that body fat is strictly dependent on caloric intake, but to certain extremes, there's no way around that fact.

Exactly!

What is calorie? Is is something? No! It is a unity of measuring heat. That's it! Doesn't matter at all.

Anything can become fat on your body, but what decides it is the hormones saying to your body "this will become fat, this will become muscle or blood or etc, and this is pee or poo".

Counting calories is a proxy at most. But people started to treat the proxy as thing in itself, which it isn't.

Re: The Diet Fix

#45

Post by mrfusion »

antidaily wrote: post #42
jonheller wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I lost 50 pounds eating ~500 calories more on keto than I did before. Unfortunately I wasn't completely comfortable with the types of meals I ate with that lifestyle. But it did make me feel as though the whole calories in - calories out was nonsense. Especially after trying (and failing) diets based around that (weight watchers) multiple times.

Have you tried slow carb? Avoids dairy and adds legumes. I've found it easier to do and it's (probably) healthier.

Slow carb worked great for me for 6 months, lost 25 lbs!

But alas I got so sick of chicken for dinner and eggs for breakfast, and I guess just got too bored with the meals. Gained it all back :-(

(I actually haven't eaten an egg since then. And I avoid chicken now. I'm wondering if some people develop an aversion to foods they eat too regularly?)

Re: The Diet Fix

#46

Post by tbirdz »

The book sounds interesting, but unfortunately it won't be published and available for purchase until March 4th. I don't understand the point of reviews and marketing like this when you can't actually buy the book. I suppose 5 days isn't that much time, but after reading this article I am interested in the book right now. Are they really still changing parts of the book right now, this close to the publishing date? If not, why not just release it now? Perhaps it takes more time to get all the physical books ready at bookstore points of sale, but surely the e-book version is good to go.

I am also interested in how many people read the article, get interested in the book, find they cannot purchase it, and then never bother coming back to check it.

Re: The Diet Fix

#47

Post by furyofantares »

fatman wrote: post #2

Sounds promising. Calories in, calories out - the rest is just noise.

To me this is like telling someone that wants to grow carrots that carrots are just atoms arranged in a certain way. It may be true, but it's not helpful. There are a ton of factors that influence both calories in and calories out, they aren't just noise.

(This is just a response to your comment, I didn't come away from the post thinking the book treats everything else as just noise.)

Re: The Diet Fix

#48

Post by jp555 »

cab_codespring wrote: post #13
jp555 wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exercise can stimulate profoundly positive physiological changes, and that alone is a good enough reason to do it. But people forget that they burn more calories during a single night of sleep than they do doing 3 hours of cardio a week. Balance is important, but shedding nutrition & health mythology is even more so.

The Gluten Free nonsense drives me the most crazy. Of course they don't have Celiac disease, but they are "Sensitive" to it, which there is no way to refute. There is so much pseudoscience crap floating around I'm glad there's one book out there refuting it, I just wish he was a nutrition researcher doctor or something instead of a pharmacist, which doesn't sound very impressive for a diet book.

It's frustrating. But I've been there. First coupe years slow-carb, low-carb, plaeo, grain-is-poison. All diets work. But it was only after I got the fundamentals really down, and just did the work required that my body snapped into amazing shape, remarkably quickly. And it's possible for virtually everyone, at nearly any age.

Re: The Diet Fix

#49

Post by jp555 »

soneca wrote: post #44
tfigueroa wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Come now. It's a matter of physics that you can't make stuff from nothing, and you can't do things without energy. That's not to say that body fat is strictly dependent on caloric intake, but to certain extremes, there's no way around that fact.

Exactly! What is calorie? Is is something? No! It is a unity of measuring heat. That's it! Doesn't matter at all. Anything can become fat on your body, but what decides it is the hormones saying to your body "this will become fat, this will become muscle or blood or etc, and this is pee or poo" . Counting calories is a proxy at most . But people started to treat the proxy as thing in itself, which it isn't.

What is a foot? is it something? No! It is a unit of measuring distance, That's it. Doesn't matter at all.

Re: The Diet Fix

#50

Post by [deleted] »

soneca wrote: post #43
pvnick wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This article explains everything you need to know: http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/how-we-get-fat.htm...

He claims that Excess dietary fat is directly stored as fat , which is opposite of what Taubes claim, that when you eat things as bacon, the fat you eat isn't stored as fat in your body. I read all related articles about fat and didn't find where he defends this claim (only general explanations about different types of fat and its relation to heart diseases). Also I am no expert at this topic at all, and I wouldn't u…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN