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

Calories in, calories out

possiblywrong.wordpress.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 219 posts

Re: Calories in, calories out

#41

Post by spo81rty »

I think it is amazing how little we really know about our bodies and how they work.

I also think it is amazing how much we do know and people simply don't give a shit about!

Smoking is terrible for you. Sugar is terrible for you on a daily basis. Highly processed foods are terrible for you.

Everybody knows these things... but nobody gives a shit and the obesity and diabetes epidemic rages on.

I personally think calories are what you track when you eat processed crappy food. Eat real raw foods, which usually have no nutrition labels, and calories don't really matter.

Re: Calories in, calories out

#42

Post by trustfundbaby »

nkozyra wrote: post #27
Cacti wrote: post #18

It's calories in, calories out, only if you stick to specific foods. It's well proven that raw foods, despite being slightly higher calorie content than their cooked version, contribute significantly less calories because FAR less is digested and absorbed. And it's equally well proven that weight gain is significantly due to the consumption of processed sugars (most carbohydrates that people eat these days), as they…

> And it's equally well proven that weight gain is significantly due to the consumption of processed sugars (most carbohydrates that people eat these days), as they contribute far more sugar far quicker to the blood (and hence kick off an insulin reaction to lower the blood sugar by storing the sugar as fat). 1000 calories of white rice will contribute far more to weight gain than 1000 calories of, say, plain chicken…

> Not to get into a pissing match, but I think "well proven" needs some citation here.

It just has to do with the way the body deals with sugar. Sugar produced from the digestive process goes straight to your bloodstream as glucose if your body needs it, but if you already have enough ... it is sent to your liver where it is converted to glycogen. The rub is, your liver can only store so much glycogen (about 100mg of it I think), after that ... any sugar that hits your liver is converted to straight fat.

Re: Calories in, calories out

#43

Post by jdminhbg »

hspak wrote: post #37
jdminhbg wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A calorie = a calorie is as true and as useless as answering the question "Why are there so many people inside the Super Bowl stadium during the game" by saying "Because more people entered it than who left, if only people didn't get in, it would be empty". "Why is it warmer in the summer than the winter?" "Because your hemisphere took in more calories than it gave off." True! And anyone who denies it is just argui…

There's been work and research that state gaining weight is not a simple matter of calorie in = calorie out. Gary Taubes has written a lot about it.

I agree. I'm demonstrating how saying that calories in = calories out is both absolutely true and completely meaningless.

Re: Calories in, calories out

#44

Post by dllthomas »

letstryagain wrote: post #30
Cacti wrote: post #18

It's calories in, calories out, only if you stick to specific foods. It's well proven that raw foods, despite being slightly higher calorie content than their cooked version, contribute significantly less calories because FAR less is digested and absorbed. And it's equally well proven that weight gain is significantly due to the consumption of processed sugars (most carbohydrates that people eat these days), as they…

Calorie counting already takes this into consideration. When we say '100g of raw tomato has X calories' we are talking of what your body gets out of it when you eat it, not the calories theoretically in the tomato.

"not the calories theoretically in the tomato."

There goes my plan to weigh the tomato and multiply by the c^2.

Re: Calories in, calories out

#45

Post by spudlyo »

bluecalm wrote: post #34
nkozyra wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And it's equally well proven that weight gain is significantly due to the consumption of processed sugars (most carbohydrates that people eat these days), as they contribute far more sugar far quicker to the blood (and hence kick off an insulin reaction to lower the blood sugar by storing the sugar as fat). 1000 calories of white rice will contribute far more to weight gain than 1000 calories of, say, plain chicken…

Thermodynamics have nothing to do with it. Human bodies can vary when it comes to efficiency of converting food to energy. It may also depend on hormonal situation or genetics or w/e else. It may also well be that "calorie out" part depends to some extent of what is eaten. It's not like human bodies are perfect 100% efficient engines of converting food to energy and that rest of the body doesn't take into account wha…

Human bodies can vary when it comes to efficiency of converting food to energy.

I do not doubt this, but is there any evidence that these variances are significant? Treating human bodies as 100% efficient food to energy converters is useful for practical reasoning about weight loss; unless these factors are significant, focusing on macronutrients, genetics, or the "hormonal situation" is just getting lost in the weeds.

Re: Calories in, calories out

#47

Post by domdip »

wfjackson wrote: post #12

Gut bacteria are a big confounder among a bunch of other things. Different types can do a lot of things differently, like extract more calories from the same food. http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2012-09/ci-gbi091012.... They can even mess with your mind to make you crave junk food. http://www.ucsf.edu/news/2014/08/116526/do-gut-bacteria-rule... Transplanting them from a thin human to an obese mice slimmed the…

> There are more gut bacteria than human cells in our body

"[That] is technically true, in the sense that Vin Diesel is outnumbered by a small bag of crickets."

http://carcinisation.com/2014/08/14/science-journalism-march...

Re: Calories in, calories out

#48

Post by nkozyra »

trustfundbaby wrote: post #42
nkozyra wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And it's equally well proven that weight gain is significantly due to the consumption of processed sugars (most carbohydrates that people eat these days), as they contribute far more sugar far quicker to the blood (and hence kick off an insulin reaction to lower the blood sugar by storing the sugar as fat). 1000 calories of white rice will contribute far more to weight gain than 1000 calories of, say, plain chicken…

> Not to get into a pissing match, but I think "well proven" needs some citation here. It just has to do with the way the body deals with sugar. Sugar produced from the digestive process goes straight to your bloodstream as glucose if your body needs it, but if you already have enough ... it is sent to your liver where it is converted to glycogen. The rub is, your liver can only store so much glycogen (about 100mg of…

I've heard all of this before and frankly a lot of it seems anecdotal and poorly supported.

First, we do know that simple sugars lead to insulin spikes, that's measurable and repeatable. All carbohydrates (save cellulose) are processed into the monosaccharide glucose at some point.

And the finite amount of glycogen the liver can store probably also could use some attribution or citation. I haven't heard of that and I'm always very leery about these hard-and-fast #s in terms of measurements that kick off some process that we should expect in all humans.

Re: Calories in, calories out

#49

Post by minikomi »

bokonist wrote: post #36
MicroBerto wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's actually a great point, and something I've told friends in a "broscience" fashion: There is nearly nothing in nature that combines fats and carbs. It's almost like you need to choose one or the other - balance is how you get into trouble, because then you think everything is legal. Take, for instance, potato chips -- and not the low-fat Baked Lay's or Quest Chips kind. If you're on a "balanced diet", they're l…

My diet was partly portion control, but I also weighed food and used myfitnesspal. It did require greatly simplifying my diet. I would make five pounds of food at a time in a slower cooker, and have my meals all portioned out for the next few days. It was somewhat monotonous but that is actually a benefit. What made the diet stick and work, was that I knew with absolute scientific certainty that if I 1) counted calor…

Any favorite recipes?

Re: Calories in, calories out

#50

Post by autokad »

wfjackson wrote: post #12

Gut bacteria are a big confounder among a bunch of other things. Different types can do a lot of things differently, like extract more calories from the same food. http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2012-09/ci-gbi091012.... They can even mess with your mind to make you crave junk food. http://www.ucsf.edu/news/2014/08/116526/do-gut-bacteria-rule... Transplanting them from a thin human to an obese mice slimmed the…

actually, almost ANY diet works. if you are over weight and reduce your calorie intake: you.will.loose.weight.period.

people have a tendency to either not adhere to the diet over time or not partake in the diet at all by listening to people say: all these other magical factors effect your weight, why bother? negative platitudes if you will. 'its not that 4000 calorie a day diet that is making you fat, its genetics!' etc etc

while its true gut bacteria makes a difference, it is also true and proven that gut bacteria adjusts to your food intake. it is more likely that a persons weight problems can be moderated by diet and exercise than anything else. diet is most easily moderated by good eating habits.

Post reply on HN