Calories in, calories out • Hacker News Board

Re: Calories in, calories out

#171

Post by Mvandenbergh » Fri, Oct 24, 2014, 2:16 PM UTC

Keats wrote: post #86

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…

The main mistake people do is thinking of it as a diet, instead of changing a lifestyle. If you are dieting for 3 months and then going back to how you were eating before, you're just losing your time. I've never been fat so can't comment for that part but when I'm cutting/bulking I eat the same things but in different quantities. It's not about fighting your body, it's about having discipline.

>It's not about fighting your body, it's about having discipline.

The whole reason for the lifestyle change is so that you don't need discipline. Forcing yourself to go to the gym against your desire is only going to last so long.

What helps is to realise that "things I enjoy doing" is a flexible category and that by getting good at activities you can move them into that category. This may also mean giving up or doing less of existing hobbies.

I used to play a lot of computer games, now my default activity on a Saturday is to play tennis, go swimming, or climb. There's friends who still structure their free time around gaming, I don't see those friends as much any more because the degree to which we share a hobby has changed.

A lifestyle change is inherently disruptive - almost by definition it will change how you socialise and with whom.

Frequently people want to change their lives without changing who they are (which I understand) but that's inherently a tricky proposition. If old-you was that great, you wouldn't be where you are now.

Re: Calories in, calories out

#172

Post by pygy_ » Fri, Oct 24, 2014, 2:18 PM UTC

refurb wrote: post #167

pja wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did you read the paper? They studied women with and without diagnosed eating disorders as part of the research. From a cursory read, it looks pretty damning to me - I'm not qualified to do a deep dive in the research methodology, but the conclusions look sound.

The did the tests in mice. Where do you see the studies with humans?

From the abstract:

Finally, we show that plasma levels of anti-ClpB IgG crossreactive with α-MSH are increased in patients with AN, bulimia and [binge eating disorder], and that the [eating disorders] Inventory-2 scores in [eating disorders] patients correlate with anti-ClpB IgG and IgM, which is similar to our previous findings for α-MSH auto-Abs.

Search in text for "Anti-ClpB antibodies in ED patients" for the details.

Re: Calories in, calories out

#173

Post by ghshephard » Fri, Oct 24, 2014, 2:20 PM UTC

weego wrote: post #144

ghshephard wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 i…

going to the Gym is also a great way to put on weight given a calorie surplus.

I think the first law of thermodynamics has us covered there.

Re: Calories in, calories out

#174

Post by DanBC » Fri, Oct 24, 2014, 2:29 PM UTC

pja wrote: post #129

DanBC wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is fascinating, thank you. It's surprising to see a causal link between ED and gut flora. Anorexia is, when we adjust for factors, the most fatal mental illness. Has anyone tested people who have a reliable diagnosis of either anorexia or bulimia? That would seem ethically easy enough. Especially since current treatment sometimes involves detention against the patient's ill in hospital, and forced naso-gastric f…

Did you read the paper? They studied women with and without diagnosed eating disorders as part of the research. From a cursory read, it looks pretty damning to me - I'm not qualified to do a deep dive in the research methodology, but the conclusions look sound.

Yes, sorry. The stuff about humans was a bit obs urred but I should have read it more carefully.

I'm still trying to work out how many humans were used. It's a frustratingly dense read on mobile.

EDIT: 65 control; 27 anorexia; 14 binge eating disorder.

It's interesting, but I want to see very many more samples taken from women at different hospitals and the community.

Re: Calories in, calories out

#175

Post by spmurrayzzz » Fri, Oct 24, 2014, 2:30 PM UTC

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…

Your liver may only be able to store about 400-600 kCals of glycogen, but your skeletal muscle tissue scan store a great deal more. The catch here is that only those muscle tissues can use that glycogen (and are very resistant to using ketones and/or free fatty acids).

This is why nutritional ketosis is driven primarily by hepatic glyocgen depletion.

Many cyclical ketogenic diets use this hack to replete glycogen in their muscle tissue (in the form of a once per week carb refeed) in order to fuel glycolytic workouts during the week. While it's hard to completely avoid filling your hepatic glycogen stores during the refeed, they can be burned through pretty quickly by the brain in the course of a day or two provided you restrict dietary carbohydrate to < 20g/day. It's also worth noting that glycogen repletion is generally preferential to muscle tissue first, then the liver second.

Re: Calories in, calories out

#176

Post by spmurrayzzz » Fri, Oct 24, 2014, 2:33 PM UTC

nkozyra wrote: post #122

iopq wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Fructose spikes insulin, most macronutrients do. Even protein spikes insulin. Fructose has produced less of a spike than other simple sugars.

Fructose is shunted directly to the liver. It does have a glycemic index of 19, but that's on par with some sugar alcohols (which generally speaking are thought to not have an effect on blood sugar).

> Even protein spikes insulin

Can you explain this mechanism? From my research, this is a demand-driven process via gluconeogenesis. The effect on blood sugar is so minimal here as to suggest that insulin secretion is nominal at best.

Re: Calories in, calories out

#177

Post by pessimizer » Fri, Oct 24, 2014, 2:35 PM UTC

domdip wrote: post #47

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...

I don't think that anyone understands that sentence in the way that this is trying to debunk. Are there people who read that sentence and think that there's a larger amount of gut bacteria than human body in the human body by weight or volume?

That would require that there be people that think that the human gut itself weighs more than the rest of the body.

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

In what sense is Vin Diesel not outnumbered by a bag of crickets? Combat skill?

Re: Calories in, calories out

#178

Post by pygy_ » Fri, Oct 24, 2014, 2:35 PM UTC

DanBC wrote: post #174

pja wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did you read the paper? They studied women with and without diagnosed eating disorders as part of the research. From a cursory read, it looks pretty damning to me - I'm not qualified to do a deep dive in the research methodology, but the conclusions look sound.

Yes, sorry. The stuff about humans was a bit obs urred but I should have read it more carefully. I'm still trying to work out how many humans were used. It's a frustratingly dense read on mobile. EDIT: 65 control; 27 anorexia; 14 binge eating disorder. It's interesting, but I want to see very many more samples taken from women at different hospitals and the community.

The paper is very dense, overall. It is detailed in the legend of the 4th figure:

... Ctr, n=65, AN, n=27 BN, n=32 and BED, n=14

Crt = controls, AN = anorexia, BN = bulimia, BED = binge eating disorder.

http://www.nature.com/tp/journal/v4/n10/fig_tab/tp201498f4.h...

Re: Calories in, calories out

#179

Post by illegalsmile » Fri, Oct 24, 2014, 2:37 PM UTC

randomsearch wrote: post #119

thomaskcr wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're totally right, and even over some long period of time your losses from extra muscle will be dwarfed your losses due to lifestyle changes. My philosophy is that if you don't enjoy your health regime, whether its a diet, running, lifting, crossfit (I know, booooo) or some combination -- you're going to give it up as soon as possible. Lifting is something that I think a lot of people find enjoyable because it rea…

> crossfit (I know, booooo) Why the "boo"? Just interested to know. I don't do crossfit!

because it's a popular circlejerk. nothing to see, move along.

Re: Calories in, calories out

#180

Post by randlet » Fri, Oct 24, 2014, 2:37 PM UTC

nanoman wrote: post #120

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…

> 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! After trying a few apps, I have found MyFitnessPal and tracking what I eat has become my daily routine. The app makes it very easy, has a great database of foods and in my case, I can almost always choose from my food history with 1 tap. I'm in the 9th week of my…

The MyFitnessPal app is great and includes a barcode scanner which makes it super easy to find the calories/macros for a big chunk of your food. It also allows you to set your goals for your macros (fat/protein/carbs) which is very handy. I'm able to hit my macro goals within +/- 5% a day which seems quite good.

I weigh and log virtually everyting (not coffee/tea/water though) but as you said, measuring calories is imprecise at best. I'm currently targeting ~3400kcal a day and I would estimate a healthy error margin of +/- 400kcal a day on that figure.

The biggest benefit is that it makes me totally conscious of what's going into my body and developing a feel for the caloric content of various foods (e.g. wow I had no idea 2 cups of spinach was only ~10 calories!).