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

Is Fat Killing Us, or Is Sugar?

newyorker.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 153 posts

Re: Is Fat Killing Us, or Is Sugar?

#101

Post by edejong »

sushisource wrote: post #64
kough wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually, it's pretty hard to eat a whole day's worth of calories in a single meal. I know this because I've tried to, regularly, as part of a longer attempt to gain weight. If you're ordering at McDonald's, your best calorie/dollar ratio [edit: s/your best/my preferred] is the ~800 calorie double quarter pounder with cheese for ~6 dollars. My daily caloric requirements are estimated at 3000 calories based on my age…

Yep. Anyone who has ever trained for a marathon or other endurance event understands that eating 4000+ calories a day is a chore. On top of the fact that you want these to be "good" calories... Let's just say I ate a lot of rice with veggies. Which leads to the blunt advice I give most people seeking to lose weight. Sure, you might be genetically predisposed to have a slow metabolism, but at the end of the day "calor…

I'm sorry, but the argument 'calories in' == 'calories out' is getting old and is based on incorrect facts and wilful thinking. Be careful with this advice!

First of all, due to a variety of reasons the caloric energy mentioned on the package or menu is a very rough estimate of the amount of ATP which can be generated from it. [1]

Second of all, the psychological effects of dieting, due to the strong habitual, cultural and social effects should certainly not be underestimated. Your statement 'to pick the one you like' already indicates the emotional undertones. Just keeping a tally with calories in vs. calories out ignores this fact, instead of tackling it head on. It is much better advice to talk about making a list of: "if this, then that". For example: "I will always do exercise two times a week, three if possible. On holidays, I will find alternative means." or: "Although with care, I will not obsess about caloric intake during dinner parties.". This kind of advice works long term and creates some easy rules to keep during difficult times.

Thirdly, and most importantly: certain molecules, such as fructose and alcohol, do not participate in the feedback loop to the brain to stop consuming. Although we can practice willpower, it is much easier and tenable to consume these products together with products that contain molecules that do, such as fibers. [2]

Lastly, when exercising, it is not unlikely to increase weight due to increased muscle mass and added fat due to cold water or wind.

[1] Scientific American, fwiw. With a bit more search you should be able to find better references: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/science-reveals-w... [2] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15181085

Re: Is Fat Killing Us, or Is Sugar?

#102

Post by cr0sh »

hyperpape wrote: post #84
kough wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you ever tried to eat that much? The whole point of my comment is that it's very difficult to "blow past 2k calories in a single sitting." Not that it's impossible – obviously McDonald's has a lot of high-calorie foods.

It's not as hard as you think, depending on the person. At age 17, I ordered a quadruple quarter pounder and ate it while out with friends. I don't remember if I had fries, but I certainly had a large coke with that. Last time I was out with one of my good friends from high school, he ate two 8 ounce burgers in a sitting. He's probably 5'8" and no more than 150 lbs. There's a huge variation in people's appetite.

In my early 20s, I once ate a 32 oz porterhouse plus all the trimmings of the meal, plus desert. My wife couldn't finish her prime rib, so I ate that, too - plus whatever else that was on the plate left over.

I kinda fancied myself as John Candy in the Great Outdoors.

Today - things are different; I try to be a little more selective in my meals.

Re: Is Fat Killing Us, or Is Sugar?

#103

Post by shirro »

It is neither and both. The problem is overconsumption. People eat too much and the food they eat has far too much energy for their daily demands. People just need to eat smaller portions, less energy dense refined foods and eat less often.

Re: Is Fat Killing Us, or Is Sugar?

#104

Post by colanderman »

wernerb wrote: post #32
tiglionabbit wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I thought eating fat with sugar was better than eating sugar alone since the fat slowed down the absorption of the sugar, thus dampening the insulin response.

The program goes into the why: in nature fat and sugar can not be found in combination so there is no natural inhibition. They tested this with mice, one set would have unlimited fat, another unlimited sugar, and the third set the combination of sugar and fat. Surprisingly, the first two sets of mice would stop eating when they were full. Only the third set of mice would go on eating and eating..

> in nature fat and sugar can not be found in combination

What? What about avocados, coconuts, olives, artichokes, soybeans…

I'd more buy the argument that our body tries to maintain a certain ratio of fats to sugar (which is usually mediated by fiber), rather than that humans historically haven't "experienced" foods with both fat and sugar…

Re: Is Fat Killing Us, or Is Sugar?

#105

Post by tchock23 »

The author lost me when it left out the mention of Ancel Keys cherry picking data to support his hypothesis that fat is bad, and then noting off-hand that he lived to be 100 (somehow validating his hypothesis?)

Poorly written article that felt more like a defensive hit piece (e.g., dedicating eight paragraphs to destroying the credibility of Sylvia Tara) than something that sought to answer the question posed by its title.

Re: Is Fat Killing Us, or Is Sugar?

#107

Post by Terr_ »

edejong wrote: post #101
sushisource wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yep. Anyone who has ever trained for a marathon or other endurance event understands that eating 4000+ calories a day is a chore. On top of the fact that you want these to be "good" calories... Let's just say I ate a lot of rice with veggies. Which leads to the blunt advice I give most people seeking to lose weight. Sure, you might be genetically predisposed to have a slow metabolism, but at the end of the day "calor…

I'm sorry, but the argument 'calories in' == 'calories out' is getting old and is based on incorrect facts and wilful thinking. Be careful with this advice! First of all, due to a variety of reasons the caloric energy mentioned on the package or menu is a very rough estimate of the amount of ATP which can be generated from it. [1] Second of all, the psychological effects of dieting, due to the strong habitual, cultur…

I think it's quite defensible to say: "The average person will have have better outcomes if they simplify their strategy to counting calories and making decisions on that basis, rather than a more complicated approach, which are unlikely to actually maintain."

It's basically like "ignore air resistance" for most day-to-day physics problems.

Re: Is Fat Killing Us, or Is Sugar?

#108

Post by glangdale »

sushisource wrote: post #64
kough wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually, it's pretty hard to eat a whole day's worth of calories in a single meal. I know this because I've tried to, regularly, as part of a longer attempt to gain weight. If you're ordering at McDonald's, your best calorie/dollar ratio [edit: s/your best/my preferred] is the ~800 calorie double quarter pounder with cheese for ~6 dollars. My daily caloric requirements are estimated at 3000 calories based on my age…

Yep. Anyone who has ever trained for a marathon or other endurance event understands that eating 4000+ calories a day is a chore. On top of the fact that you want these to be "good" calories... Let's just say I ate a lot of rice with veggies. Which leads to the blunt advice I give most people seeking to lose weight. Sure, you might be genetically predisposed to have a slow metabolism, but at the end of the day "calor…

This is valid advice, as long as they pick "Eat less". Generically, you can't outrun a donut.

Well, some people can - I remember a period in my life when I was training about 10 times a week (4 BJJ sessions, 3 endurance sessions, 3 weights sessions) and having trouble maintaining my bodyweight. I was also living rent-free on a grad student stipend and nominally working on my thesis with very few other obligations and about zero social life. I was also in my 20s.

As a 'normal person' the only way I have ever lost weight is by eating less. The idea that you can exercise your way out of Fatfuckistan is absurd once you hit maturity or middle age. If I tried to train 10 times a week (the way I did) now my joints would disintegrate. Conversely, even running a small but consistent calorie deficit allowed me to lose 70 grams a day for a 15kg weight loss (mostly fat), with the same moderate training schedule that I had previously been getting fat on.

Re: Is Fat Killing Us, or Is Sugar?

#109

Post by nickik »

sushisource wrote: post #64
kough wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually, it's pretty hard to eat a whole day's worth of calories in a single meal. I know this because I've tried to, regularly, as part of a longer attempt to gain weight. If you're ordering at McDonald's, your best calorie/dollar ratio [edit: s/your best/my preferred] is the ~800 calorie double quarter pounder with cheese for ~6 dollars. My daily caloric requirements are estimated at 3000 calories based on my age…

Yep. Anyone who has ever trained for a marathon or other endurance event understands that eating 4000+ calories a day is a chore. On top of the fact that you want these to be "good" calories... Let's just say I ate a lot of rice with veggies. Which leads to the blunt advice I give most people seeking to lose weight. Sure, you might be genetically predisposed to have a slow metabolism, but at the end of the day "calor…

I think your advice is naive and does not solve anything. Its like saying "Money in / money out" is as absolute a fact as it gets. so I say "You have two options: Earn more, spend less, pick the one you like".

That advice might be true, bit its also totally useless in solving poverty.

The hole argument for different diets is based on alternative theories of how different foods affect your body and/or mind.

To take absurd example, maybe carrots move energy from building fat cells into a process that converts your blood to carrot juice. You could eat the same amount (in calories) of carrots and something else, spend all the energy and still end up with a different body.

That's what the debate is about. Just telling people to run more or eat less will simply not work. Running (Sports) by it self, is essentially proven to not be effective for weight lost. You can actually train fat people to run marathons.

Re: Is Fat Killing Us, or Is Sugar?

#110

Post by justanotherbody »

kough wrote: post #54
Aron wrote: post #40

My intuition is that there is a small delta in impact between a 'reasonable' diet and a 'perfect' diet, and so playing in that margin is pointless. But I've always felt it notable that you can consume a whole day's worth of calories in about 5 minutes with a super happy value meal, and then be hungry again a few hours later. I'd say avoid doing that.

Actually, it's pretty hard to eat a whole day's worth of calories in a single meal. I know this because I've tried to, regularly, as part of a longer attempt to gain weight. If you're ordering at McDonald's, your best calorie/dollar ratio [edit: s/your best/my preferred] is the ~800 calorie double quarter pounder with cheese for ~6 dollars. My daily caloric requirements are estimated at 3000 calories based on my age…

Try raw cookie dough. Hardly healthy, but far less volume to consume
Post reply on HN