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

91–100 of 219 posts

Re: Calories in, calories out

#91

Post by iopq »

nkozyra wrote: post #48
trustfundbaby wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

fructose does not lead to an insulin spike and goes directly to the liver

Re: Calories in, calories out

#92

Post by hueving »

beloch wrote: post #67

"I learned that it is really hard to accurately measure calories consumed, even if you are trying. " I'd just like to highlight this, because it is profoundly true. There are probably very few people who have the patience to log everything they eat, diet or no diet, unless they have some kind of payoff close at hand! Even if you do log everything you eat, it's still not easy. Here are just a few reasons why: 1. The b…

>Packaged food often does not have anywhere near the same calories as the label claims. Food manufacturers often aren't very precise and they have an incentive to underestimate.

Source? If they aren't within 20% they can be shut down by the FDA. Not exactly something you would want to risk.

Re: Calories in, calories out

#93

Post by bdaw11 »

Conversely, if you're done with losing fat and wish to add some muscle I would recommend the High Intensity Training technique, described in e.g. the book High-Intensity Training the Mike Mentzer Way. The basic idea is to train once or twice a week for around 30 minutes, send as big a signal as possible to your body that your muscles are inadequate, and then recover until the next session.

Re: Calories in, calories out

#94

Post by raverbashing »

He didn't consider two things:

- Water. This is either in your digestive system, your bladder or "your body" (blood plasma and also water in tissues and glycogen in muscles - http://8fit.com/blog/glycogen-gluconeogenesis-and-water-weig... )

- Food. You eat food, not calories. Yes, some parts are not digestible, and some are staying in your digestive system right now

Re: Calories in, calories out

#95

Post by koobz »

throwaway283719 wrote: post #76

There's a fun piece of math you can do with this model. Given the relation w[t+1] = w[t] + (c[t] - alpha * w[t] - beta * d[t] * w[t]) / 3500 and assuming c, d are both constant (i.e. assume they are your long-run average of calories consumed and exercise done) you can solve to get w[t] = c / (alpha + beta * d) + const * (phi ** t) where phi is a number smaller than 1, and const is some constant that depends on your i…

As you gain weight, you burn more calories passively. I'm 155lbs and could imagine it being difficult walking around with what amounts to nearly a barbell and two 35lb plates should I be in the extremely obese range for a man my size.

Assuming no lifestyle changes - I might be less excited to ride my bike with a 115 lb bag on my back - you should reach some sort of thickquilibrium.

Re: Calories in, calories out

#96

Post by x0x0 »

hueving wrote: post #92
beloch wrote: post #67

"I learned that it is really hard to accurately measure calories consumed, even if you are trying. " I'd just like to highlight this, because it is profoundly true. There are probably very few people who have the patience to log everything they eat, diet or no diet, unless they have some kind of payoff close at hand! Even if you do log everything you eat, it's still not easy. Here are just a few reasons why: 1. The b…

>Packaged food often does not have anywhere near the same calories as the label claims. Food manufacturers often aren't very precise and they have an incentive to underestimate. Source? If they aren't within 20% they can be shut down by the FDA. Not exactly something you would want to risk.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/13/opinion/calorie-detective....

* bodega muffin. 640 claimed, 735 actual

* starbucks pretend coffee. 370 claimed, 393 actual

* chipotle burrito. 1175 claimed, 10% over

* some veggie sandwich. 228 claimed, 100% over

* subway sandwich. came in under

4/5 of tested food underestimated, some wildly

Re: Calories in, calories out

#97

Post by pygy_ »

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…

Gut bacteria (specifically e. coli) have recently been identified as the root cause of both anorexia and bulimia [0]. I submited that paper here with no luck when it came out two weeks ago.

——

[0] Bacterial ClpB heat-shock protein, an antigen-mimetic of the anorexigenic peptide α-MSH, at the origin of eating disorders http://www.nature.com/tp/journal/v4/n10/full/tp201498a.html

Re: Calories in, calories out

#98

Post by narag »

iopq wrote: post #82
narag wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry but this is complete bullshit. I don't do Atkins any more. I can lose weight other ways more easily now. But when I did, twice many years ago in my twenties and my thirties, there's no way I could lose 20 kg of just water. It was very obviously fat. Anyone could see and touch. I don't know where this absurdity of water losing came from, but It's utterly ridiculous.

It's about 5kg of water loss that will mess up your statistics if you just measure weight. So if you are looking at weight, a low carb diet loses you more weight. If you look at fat, it performs the same as a medium or high carb diet. That doesn't mean you can't lose fat on a low carb diet, of course.

Except I would have been unable to do low calories at the time because I felt it like starving, while low carbs was pleasant, sustainable (last time for two years) and worked like a charm.

So if I lost 5 kg of water and "only" 15 kg of fat, so be it... as opposed to 0 kg of anything with low calories.

In 30 years I've read a lot against low-carbs, but nothing that can reconcile the fact that it works.

Re: Calories in, calories out

#99

Post by tfgg »

beloch wrote: post #67

"I learned that it is really hard to accurately measure calories consumed, even if you are trying. " I'd just like to highlight this, because it is profoundly true. There are probably very few people who have the patience to log everything they eat, diet or no diet, unless they have some kind of payoff close at hand! Even if you do log everything you eat, it's still not easy. Here are just a few reasons why: 1. The b…

> One other thing worth pointing out is that weighing yourself daily and plotting it on a graph like this is a fantastic way to observe progress and stay motivated to stick to your new routine.

This is absolutely the most important "diet" that I've done - having a mobile phone app, I use "Libra" on Android, that prompts me every morning for my weight and shows the trend curve. I can easily see now that my weight consistently goes down when I'm exercising and watching my diet, which is a slow process of experimentation in lifestyle, and it stalls if I'm only doing one of those or neither. Previously monitoring my day-to-day weight was ineffective due to the fluctuations you mentioned.

Re: Calories in, calories out

#100

Post by ghshephard »

iopq wrote: post #72
hrktb wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> actually, almost ANY diet works. if you are over weight and reduce your calorie intake: you.will.loose.weight.period. What we are saying here is that you reduce your calorie intake within the range where gut bacteria can act, it might not have any effect, or even negative effect. If you reduce your calorie intake below the level gut bacteria activity matters, you will lose weight, but only if you can sustain the di…

Oh please. I was 230+ lbs six years ago (30% bf or so), and now I'm 194lbs at around 15% bf. I lost 15% of my weight and kept it off. It's not that hard. It's not punishing myself, it's going to the gym and taking protein supplements. The "diet that works" is eating a lot of protein because it's the most filling.

Note, going to the Gym is also a great way to put on weight, so, I wouldn't correlate "going to the gym" and adding/losing weight. There's good research that shows even high-metabolic activity like running 5 miles/day isn't correlated with losing weight (though it is well correlated with increased aerobic capacity).

Basically, any diet whatsoever will result in you losing weight. Just measuring/charting your weight is effective too. Chewing 7 times with every bite will do it.

High protein diets are particularly awesome for a number of reasons though - in the first couple months you drop a ton of water, which makes the scale drop quickly, which is emotionally rewarding. And, eating a lot of protein tends to result in more rapid satiation. (Water and Dietary Fiber are good here too - so a simple diet trick is, four glasses of water with every meal).

Protein is also good when you are lifting, so is an important component in building muscle mass...

Post reply on HN