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

No Bread, Beer or Biscuits: How I Lost 63lbs in 100 Days

chuff.it

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 123 posts

Re: No Bread, Beer or Biscuits: How I Lost 63lbs in 100 Days

#101

Post by grecy »

saurik wrote: post #96
grecy wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

See, you're doing it. You're making it too complicated, which makes people give up. It's physically impossible for a body to gain weight if it's burning more calories than it's using. That's like saying my gas tank will overflow if I burn 10 gallons a day and put in 9 gallons a day... that makes no sense. I'm using more than I'm putting in, so it must go down over time. Keep it simple, stick to the basics, play the l…

I think it's more like saying that "putting in fewer calories than you burn" is not actionable advice as the things you eat affect what is burned and what it does, and why you do anything at all. If you want to contribute to less air pollution: wear a jacket and a hat on cold days, and wear a thin t-shirt and shorts on warm ones; this is simple advice that will cause you to not keep messing with thermostats to feel c…

> I think it's more like saying that "putting in fewer calories than you burn" is not actionable advice

It's extremely actionable, and I've seen it work for hundreds and hundreds of people (I attended Weight Watchers to support my roommates. Both of them went on to become WW leaders, and I made so many good friends there I kept going back year after year. I have personally been involved in the lives of well over 500 people losing well over 100lbs each)

> as changing what you eat can be easier than insisting that you have to eat less and go without something your body is demanding.

I never said anything about eating less. You miss read.

Re: No Bread, Beer or Biscuits: How I Lost 63lbs in 100 Days

#102

Post by zem »

grecy wrote: post #3

After attending hundreds of weight watchers meetings, and being involved with hundreds and hundreds of people losing a ton of weight, I still genuinely believe too many people make weight loss too complicated, which leads them to give up. Keep it simple (as the article did) If you burn more calories (energy) than you eat, you will lose weight . Obviously, you have choices. You can cut down on all the really high calo…

"keep it simple" kind of glosses over the fact that he biked 30 miles a day. i really don't see myself being able to do that.

Re: No Bread, Beer or Biscuits: How I Lost 63lbs in 100 Days

#103

Post by angersock »

jaredsohn wrote: post #66

Reddit /r/loseit and /r/fitness have excellent FAQs for weight loss and becoming fit and they offer communities if you are looking to learn or for support. http://www.reddit.com/r/loseit/wiki/faq http://www.reddit.com/r/Fitness/wiki/faq

/fit/ on 4chan is an interesting place.

Re: No Bread, Beer or Biscuits: How I Lost 63lbs in 100 Days

#104

Post by glaugh »

grecy wrote: post #89
glaugh wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think this thinking is tempting and reasonable, but it misses the role of hormones. As an example, women gain weight during menopause because of hormones, not because they eat more.[1] So thinking of the body and losing weight as being purely calories in/out misses some important factors; namely, the hormone response to different kinds of foods. It's uncontroversial that the body responds to carbohydrates with insu…

See, you're doing it. You're making it too complicated, which makes people give up. It's physically impossible for a body to gain weight if it's burning more calories than it's using. That's like saying my gas tank will overflow if I burn 10 gallons a day and put in 9 gallons a day... that makes no sense. I'm using more than I'm putting in, so it must go down over time. Keep it simple, stick to the basics, play the l…

I'm sympathetic to that argument. It's tough to write one comment that addresses two audiences:

(1) person who wants some simple, clear guidance

(2) you and me who are debating at a slightly different level what advice we should give to #1.

So here's maybe a better way of making my argument:

1. Eat fewer carbs.

2. If you want evidence/science/logic, read the Taubes book.

[Addressed towards #2ers only:] I agree that too often people make great the enemy of the good. But I actually think it's just unhelpful to say "Eat less or exercise more" relative to "Eat fewer carbs". The amount of energy your body burns is dramatically influenced by hormones and the type of food you eat, that's by far the easiest lever to pull to lose weight. The Taubes book talks at length about the flaws in the thermodynamic metaphor. I confess I'm doing a poor job of communicating the argument.

Also thanks for the feedback, the good vs. great thing is a bit tricky.

Re: No Bread, Beer or Biscuits: How I Lost 63lbs in 100 Days

#105

Post by coldtea »

mattmanser wrote: post #82
gxs wrote: post #21

This is great and certainly don't want to discourage anyone. Some people need extreme transformations like this to be successful. Most people, however, don't. You'll have a much higher success rate if you're patient and change just one little thing at a time. Once you're comfortable, you move on to the next. I myself have lost over 30lbs and increased strength tremendously (power clean 250+). I went about it by doing…

Citations? At the moment you're simply relating a personal opinion against someone else's personal opinion. It seems you have been struggling for a few years of losing and gaining it (like I have I hasten to add), trying different things: https://www.hnsearch.com/search#request/all&q=by%3Agxs+calor... Note that 3 years ago you were actually recommending 100% wheat bread, now it's no wheat. Let's just agree that no-on…

>Citations? At the moment you're simply relating a personal opinion against someone else's personal opinion.

Isn't that how conversations work?

Re: No Bread, Beer or Biscuits: How I Lost 63lbs in 100 Days

#106

Post by readme »

legitsource wrote: post #67
127001brewer wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Instead, it would burn other things ... your own muscle, then fat, etc. That's the first I've ever heard that a human body would burn muscle before fat. Also, a beer each day would be out of your system relatively fast, so it should have no lasting affects on your body's metabolism. Also, if you're drinking a beer a day, then be sure it's at least bottle-conditioned craft beer since the suspended yeast has many nutri…

The only circumstances where you will burn a significant portion of muscle before fat is if you are eating a high fat diet with less than 30 grams of carbohydrates or protein per day. If you are fasting or in nutritional ketosis, your brain still needs about 120 grams of glucose (or as low as 20 grams after it adapts to producing and using ketones for fuel). If you aren't getting the glucose it needs or ingesting car…

I might not be right on the money that the body would burn muscle first, but I can say with certainty that drinking causes your muscles to degenerate: http://ajpendo.physiology.org/content/277/2/E268

RE: the only circumstance -- I think sleep deprivation would do the trick, too.

Re: No Bread, Beer or Biscuits: How I Lost 63lbs in 100 Days

#107

Post by jaggederest »

Scene_Cast2 wrote: post #80
jaggederest wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you're at 12% body fat, the ratio will be about 3:1 lean to fat loss[1] unless you're working out very, very hard and eating a ridiculous amount of protein (1+g/kg) You'll need to work out a lot and be very careful with how much of a deficit you're running if you want to isolate fat instead of just reducing total body mass. [1] http://www.nature.com/ijo/journal/v32/n3/full/0803720a.html

I just want to point out that (1g protein / 1kg body mass) is high, but not a ridiculous amount for someone doing lifting. The rule-of-thumb number I've seen quoted a lot is (1g proten / 1 lb body mass), or in metric, (2.2g protein / 1kg body mass), as the maximum useful intake.

1g/kg is at least double what most people eat :) it's ridiculous from a general population standpoint. Personally I aim for more than that, but I'm not sure it's indicated for people who don't work out.

Re: No Bread, Beer or Biscuits: How I Lost 63lbs in 100 Days

#108

Post by jamesnvc1 »

quadlock wrote: post #97
grecy wrote: post #3

After attending hundreds of weight watchers meetings, and being involved with hundreds and hundreds of people losing a ton of weight, I still genuinely believe too many people make weight loss too complicated, which leads them to give up. Keep it simple (as the article did) If you burn more calories (energy) than you eat, you will lose weight . Obviously, you have choices. You can cut down on all the really high calo…

All calories are not translated to weight equally, the efficiency your body uses them matters greatly. Sure dieting couch-potatoes will lose weight, but it will include losing a lot of muscle. I believe the most well researched book on fat control is Carb-Back Loading by John Kiefer, the references chapter is 50 pages, it's terribly fascinating.

Kiefer's stuff is very well cited, but many of the citations are kind of specious - he has a history of citing studies that, upon perusal, are unrelated or contradictory to what he claims.

Re: No Bread, Beer or Biscuits: How I Lost 63lbs in 100 Days

#109

Post by grecy »

zem wrote: post #102
grecy wrote: post #3

After attending hundreds of weight watchers meetings, and being involved with hundreds and hundreds of people losing a ton of weight, I still genuinely believe too many people make weight loss too complicated, which leads them to give up. Keep it simple (as the article did) If you burn more calories (energy) than you eat, you will lose weight . Obviously, you have choices. You can cut down on all the really high calo…

"keep it simple" kind of glosses over the fact that he biked 30 miles a day. i really don't see myself being able to do that.

and you don't have to. You just have to eat less calories than you burn.

Re: No Bread, Beer or Biscuits: How I Lost 63lbs in 100 Days

#110

Post by grecy »

quadlock wrote: post #97
grecy wrote: post #3

After attending hundreds of weight watchers meetings, and being involved with hundreds and hundreds of people losing a ton of weight, I still genuinely believe too many people make weight loss too complicated, which leads them to give up. Keep it simple (as the article did) If you burn more calories (energy) than you eat, you will lose weight . Obviously, you have choices. You can cut down on all the really high calo…

All calories are not translated to weight equally, the efficiency your body uses them matters greatly. Sure dieting couch-potatoes will lose weight, but it will include losing a lot of muscle. I believe the most well researched book on fat control is Carb-Back Loading by John Kiefer, the references chapter is 50 pages, it's terribly fascinating.

> All calories are not translated to weight equally, the efficiency your body uses them matters greatly.

Who cares. A beginner doesn't need to know that.

It's like telling a first time driver to worry about double-clutching the gear changes.

Stick to the basics, as the person picks everything up, they can worry about the complicated stuff that builds on.

Post reply on HN