The case for eating steak and cream • Hacker News Board

Re: The case for eating steak and cream

#81

Post by chaz72 » Sun, Jun 01, 2014, 5:44 PM UTC

DanBC wrote: post #80

jsdalton wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

6) Insulin response. Carbohydrates trigger insulin production, which causes cells to store more fat. See http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/18/opinion/sunday/always-hung...

Posting non medical sources, especially from the opinion section, is less likely to convince me.

Granted, a primary source would have been better, but the NY Times does link to several. Though you didn't cite a lot of primary sources in your own comment, I would still be interested in your real response to the referenced studies.

Re: The case for eating steak and cream

#82

Post by scottjad » Sun, Jun 01, 2014, 6:24 PM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #63

Borkdude wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That, and the fact that most natural high carb foods, like fruits, vegetables, legumes and whole grains have a low calorie density compared to high fat foods. It's much harder to overeat on them, because they have more volume and fiber.

Whole grains and legumes have tremendously high calorie density. An ounce of peanuts has as many calories as four slices of bacon.

When people recommend legumes, they're not normally talking about peanuts. It's like people recommending fruits aren't normally talking about tomatoes.

  | food (100g prepared) | cals | fat |
  |----------------------+------+-----|
  | peanuts              |  567 | 73% |
  | black beans          |   91 |  3% |
  | bacon                |  541 | 71% |
  | brown rice           |  110 |  7% |
  | oats                 |   63 | 13% |
  | chicken breast       |  195 | 37% |
  | provolone cheese     |  351 | 67% |
  | light string cheese  |  200 | 45% |
  | cantaloupe           |   34 |  5% |
  | carrots              |   41 |  5% |
  | corn                 |   86 | 11% |
  | whole wheat bread    |  259 | 14% |

Note how peanuts and bacon have similar caloric densities, yet black beans, brown rice, oats, and corn are much much lower? These are the legumes and whole grains parent is likely talking about, not peanuts and whole wheat bread.

Note how even chicken breast and light string cheese are twice as dense as than those whole grain products.

Note how high water content fruits and vegetables are king.

Re: The case for eating steak and cream

#83

Post by ja30278 » Sun, Jun 01, 2014, 6:28 PM UTC

I've been eating a low-carb diet for the past 2 years. In that time, I've lost roughly 20lbs, while my blood work has gotten dramatically better. (Cholesterol: 160 (92 HDL, 64 LDL), Triglycerides: 46, Blood glucose: 92). More importantly, my energy level has 'evened out', such that I no longer get sleepy in the afternoons or feel sluggish after dinner in the evenings. I don't take special care to count calories, or avoid fatty foods. I eat lots of salads and vegetables, but also eat steak dipped in melted butter, and eggs-and-bacon for breakfast.

After I stopped eating carbs, I couldn't help but notice how much sugar is in _everything_ that most people eat. Most brands of peanut butter, for example, have sugar as the second ingredient. Ditto for 'whole wheat' bread, which frequently has sugar added.

Before beginning this diet, I was a believer in the calories-in/calories-out model, because of it's appealing simplicity. The truth is, your body isn't a calorimeter, and metabolizes different calorie sources in different ways..simple carbs break down easily, early in your digestive process, while proteins are broken down more slowly. Some foods can't be broken down at all without the help of intestinal flora, or are excreted without being digested at all. Thus, it's much more useful to say that, in order to lose weight, you have to _metabolize_ fewer calories than you burn, regardless of how many calories you consume.

Re: The case for eating steak and cream

#84

Post by xherberta » Sun, Jun 01, 2014, 10:47 PM UTC

adrianN wrote: post #58

xherberta wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Evidence does not support this as "definitely true." One example: http://m.ajcn.nutrition.org/content/79/5/899S.full The human body is more complicated than that. Different foods cause different levels of insulin response. Insulin tells the body to "pack it away as fat." As mentioned in the article, it's likely insulin is more relevant to heart disease than saturated fat intake. The role of insulin also helps to expl…

You can't not lose weight if you burn more calories than you eat. Where does the extra energy come from? I'd like to see examples of overweight people that are malnourished in the sense that they don't eat enough calories. I fully support the claim that some foods make you more hungry than others, even if you eat the same amount of calories. It'd be pretty hard to consume 2000 calories of spinach without rupturing yo…

First, metabolic rate is not constant. If you feed your body few calories, your metabolism adjusts so as to use few calories. Fat cells that are stimulated to grow scream loud for their share of the energy, ensuring that they get their needs met even if the rest of you is weak, tired, and resorting to stealing energy from muscle and other tissues. This is not a zero sum game. Certain conditions may cause someone to retain water, which can add to weight independent of calorie consumption and use.

As for examples of obesity occurring concurrently with low caloric intake, take the Pima native Americans in 1905, where most of the obesity is in women, who were quite physically active, basically treated like beasts of burden. You can find the same trend in 1928 with Sioux on a South Dakota Crow Creek Reservation--very high levels of obesity in coincidence with extreme poverty. In the early 1960s, MIT nutritionists calculated that Trinidadians were getting no more than 2000 calories per day, yet they were seeing an extreme obesity problem among the females.

Re: The case for eating steak and cream

#85

Post by hysteresisloop » Mon, Jun 02, 2014, 4:37 AM UTC

mason55 wrote: post #78

Andys wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it's as simple as calories in, calories out I recently saw a study that was a great example of why it isn't this simple: Intermittent fasting, with the same average daily calories consumed, resulted in more rapid weight loss than no fasting.

What gets lost in these discussions is the intricacies of calories in vs. calories out. Bodyweight should always vary based on calories in vs. calories out. You can't create mass from nothing and if you're burning more calories than you take in then you have to lose mass or else your body is a perpetual motion machine. What people ignore is that: 1. Certain things change calories out. In some women (for example those…

Personal anecdotal evidence: I disagree. It's simple.

I met a former USMC drill instructor who at 45 was 4% bf and could bench several times his weight. He told me he exercised 5 minutes a week (one for another discussion) and ate at McDonald's every day.

I grew up in France eating "organic" and plenty of veggies and so on and I was intrigued by the idea that "what" didn't matter, only "how much". I thought I'd give it a shot, and ate McDonald's for one or more meals a day, keeping the total around 1300 kcal/day, and each meal below 400 kcal. I still remember the look a friend gave me as I ate 1/3 of an avocado bacon thickburger from CJ and chucked the other 2/3 into the bin.

I lost 7kg in 8 weeks starting at 35% bf. I also increased the weights on big machines (leg press, bench, weighted pull up) by around 20% during that time. Felt perfectly healthy throughout, and mostly not hungry. I also exercised around 10 minutes once a week, walked around 100m a day to and from work and otherwise spent the time sitting. I might do it again this time with a health checkup before and after to get some hard data.

Looking back at the papers, books and other "evidence" I read, I found it very hard to find any that controlled for calorific consumption. I want to see a study that goes, for example, paleo vs McDonald's, at equal kcal/day, hydration and meal timing. I want to see the variance not explained away by simple calories in/out.

Re: The case for eating steak and cream

#86

Post by scarygliders » Mon, Jun 02, 2014, 7:24 AM UTC

Evgeny wrote: post #11

maroonblazer wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not to mention these two: Why We Get Fat: And What to Do About It http://www.amazon.com/Why-We-Get-Fat-About/dp/0307474259 Good Calories, Bad Calories: Fats, Carbs, and the Controversial Science of Diet and Health http://www.amazon.com/Good-Calories-Bad-Controversial-Scienc...

Sure, but these two, I believe, include the subject of cholesterol, but also cover much broader area of subjects.

This, although written many years ago (and shows, but it adds to the charm), is what I consider to be something which should be read by everyone.

http://www.ourcivilisation.com/fat/index.htm

Re: The case for eating steak and cream

#87

Post by naveen99 » Mon, Jun 02, 2014, 12:39 PM UTC

icantthinkofone wrote: post #60

About 10 years ago, my two sons and I worked out with George Turner as our coach. George was a gruff, ex-Marine in his 60s known all over the world and had many weight lifting awards to his name and wrote for magazines. His nutritional advice used to scare my wife. Essentially, it was a high-protein, low-carb diet. He told us not to fear fat cause it was good for us. Nor eggs if you worked out cause cholesterol would…

This is common knowledge now it seems on http://reddit.com/r/fitness also look at stronglifts.com Wish I knew this 20 years ago... Basically: squats, barbell exercises is key. Starting strength recommends a gallon of milk a day...

Re: The case for eating steak and cream

#88

Post by hueving » Tue, Jun 03, 2014, 3:12 PM UTC

randallsquared wrote: post #75

Evgeny wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't forget that your basal metabolic rate is not constant in different circumstances and over the duration of your life. It actually goes up if the calories consumed go up. I guess in some lucky individuals it may go up high enough to offset all extra calories - but, surely, to a certain limit. Also, this BMR varies between different people - even if their bodies are very similar. So that is probably the source of…

> So that is probably the source of the confusion "i know this guy who eats all the time and is skinny, therefore the calorie theory is wrong". If we have evidence that something isn't true, and we even have theoretical reasons why it wouldn't be true, why continue calling it "confusion" when someone points out that it doesn't seem true? (By the way, no one, anywhere , is disputing the laws of thermodynamics when the…

>If we have evidence that something isn't true

Except you don't. A guy who eats all of the time and is skinny has a high metabolism. That's still 'calories in' >By the way, no one, anywhere, is disputing the laws of thermodynamics when they say that "calories in / calories out" isn't the whole story

That's precisely what they are doing. Metabolism, poor calorie absorption, exercise, etc all fall under 'calories out'. It is the whole story, it just doesn't provide a lot of useful details about how to boost the 'calories out' category.