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

121–130 of 153 posts

Re: Is Fat Killing Us, or Is Sugar?

#121

Post by coldtea »

ThrustVectoring wrote: post #67

A lot of nutritional studies have a common flaw: 1. Various health outcomes and indicators are caused by a food or combination of foods that you regularly eat. 2. A diet is studied where these foods get removed from your diet, to be replaced with whatever the diet under study is. 3. The participants in the diet study have poorer than average health outcomes and indicators (otherwise, why would they try changing their…

>3. The participants in the diet study have poorer than average health outcomes and indicators (otherwise, why would they try changing their diet?)

Because they're asked to, as part of the experiment?

>4. Regression to the mean happens, and all sorts of dietary changes appear to be good for your health

Why would the mean be better, since in (3) you mentioned that those people had "poorer than average health outcomes and indicators" to begin with? For regression to the mean, they should have started the diet after some extreme readings. But who said those are what prompted them to the diet? People don't start on a diet when they get extremely heavy, they start and stop diets all the time, while being continuously obese.

>Basically, if you're fatter than average, and it's caused by the foods you eat, you can fix that by making a list of everything you eat and not eating those foods. "Whatever you don't eat" is a more average diet than what you're currently eating, so you'll get more average results.

Well, if you eat the same calories from your new "Whatever you don't eat", then you'll get as fat.

Re: Is Fat Killing Us, or Is Sugar?

#122

Post by coldtea »

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…

>Actually, it's pretty hard to eat a whole day's worth of calories in a single meal

I find it effortless. Some IHOP menu items, for example, are like 2000 calories, and I can gulp them in one sitting -- and one 1-2 16oz cokes on top--, and I'm not even that overweight. My "maintain weight" caloric requirements are about 2300 calories.

>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 and gender, which means I'd have to eat a little under four of these.

Why stick it to the best calorie/dollar ratio? All the parent said is that it's easy to eat a whole day's worth of calories in one sitting.

McDonalds large fries: 510 calories. McDonalds Double quarter pounder with cheese: 800 McDonalds 2 packets of ketchup on said fries: 30 calories McDonalds Large Coke: 310 calories

That's 1650 right there.

The Chicken Piccata at Cheasecake factory for another example is 2,120 calories by itself. And that's without any appetiser. Then have a cheesecake after lunch for another 1000. Oh, and a coke for 100 more -- or a coffee with milk and sugar. Total tally? 3320.

Also not sure about this "3000 calories" estimation (unless you're very tall, exercising etc). The commonly cited figure is that the average man needs 2500 calories per day to maintain weight.

Re: Is Fat Killing Us, or Is Sugar?

#123

Post by coldtea »

kough wrote: post #69
cheald wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Now add a 32oz coke (320 calories) and a large fry (510) and you're at 1,652 calories for what many people would consider a "small" meal. Throw in a 510 calorie McFlurry for dessert and you've just blown past 2k calories in a single sitting.

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.

>Have you ever tried to eat that much?

Oh, yes. And I'm not even that overweight.

Re: Is Fat Killing Us, or Is Sugar?

#124

Post by coldtea »

antisthenes wrote: post #81
cheald wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Now add a 32oz coke (320 calories) and a large fry (510) and you're at 1,652 calories for what many people would consider a "small" meal. Throw in a 510 calorie McFlurry for dessert and you've just blown past 2k calories in a single sitting.

Sorry, but that's batshit insane. My stomach is literally not big enough to handle that much liquid/volume in a single meal. A huge sandwich, 32 oz of liquid, tons of fries, and then another cup of liquid? Somewhere about mid-way through that a normal human being should feel sick and stop eating. That's not a "small" meal by any measure.

>My stomach is literally not big enough to handle that much liquid/volume in a single meal.

You'd be surprised. It's also not about the volume. You can have the same amount of calories in much smaller volumes... -- heck, even in a salad with the right dressing.

Re: Is Fat Killing Us, or Is Sugar?

#125

Post by coldtea »

solidr53 wrote: post #114
nickik wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ab…

So what? Fat people running a marathon does not change the fact that calories in/calories out is, not the most effective, but the only way how this works. Any diets, workout routines, lifestyle changes, etc. will change in input/output ratio that will give different results.

>Fat people running a marathon does not change the fact that calories in/calories out is, not the most effective, but the only way how this works.

No, it's actually not. From TFA: "Still, further research has shown that calories eaten are only part of what determines weight. Our metabolism reflects an interplay of things like genes, hormones, and the bacteria that populate the gut, so how much energy we absorb from what we eat varies from person to person."/

Re: Is Fat Killing Us, or Is Sugar?

#126

Post by emmanuel_1234 »

tchock23 wrote: post #105

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…

Totally. He comments on well documented pieces of work (at least Taubes', I'm not familiar with the other one) and discard huge part of them without bringing any evidence whatsoever (he even seems to admit that his wife is the expert on the topic of understanding statistics!).

I like Taubes work because he's thorough and refutable (notably in refuting a lot of other studies). Doesn't mean he's always right, but I've yet to see arguments against his work that are as sound as the one he brought to the table.

Re: Is Fat Killing Us, or Is Sugar?

#127

Post by dlwdlw »

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…

You're just stating laws of physics though which isn't helpful. The idea behind diets is that your body processes different sources of energy differently. For example, it doesn't process antimatter at all despite its numerous calories. Maybe sugar kicks it into hibernation mode, desiring to engorge everything in site. Maybe ingesting mostly fat causes the body to efficiently start to be able to access excess fat reserves. Maybe it's different for everyone depending on genetics.

Stating the laws of thermodynamics to people who are struggling to lose weight or trying to understand how our biology works isnt helpful and just comes across as smug. It's like being a mathematician and looking down on all other fields as just being derived from math.

Re: Is Fat Killing Us, or Is Sugar?

#128

Post by newbear »

Nav_Panel wrote: post #88
kough wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yup, I was trying to balance everything out and eat the right macros. I ended up settling on a DQPwC and a 10-piece chicken nuggets + 2 packets of ranch sauce + a small fries as my standard order.

That sounds about right. I seem to recall just ordering a 20 piece chicken nuggets and calling it a day, but my struggle is typically weight loss as opposed to weight gain.

Tortured Chicken

Re: Is Fat Killing Us, or Is Sugar?

#129

Post by ThrustVectoring »

coldtea wrote: post #121
ThrustVectoring wrote: post #67

A lot of nutritional studies have a common flaw: 1. Various health outcomes and indicators are caused by a food or combination of foods that you regularly eat. 2. A diet is studied where these foods get removed from your diet, to be replaced with whatever the diet under study is. 3. The participants in the diet study have poorer than average health outcomes and indicators (otherwise, why would they try changing their…

> 3. The participants in the diet study have poorer than average health outcomes and indicators (otherwise, why would they try changing their diet?) Because they're asked to, as part of the experiment? > 4. Regression to the mean happens, and all sorts of dietary changes appear to be good for your health Why would the mean be better, since in (3) you mentioned that those people had "poorer than average health outcome…

>Because they're asked to, as part of the experiment?

Let me try another way to word the same concept: why would an actor in the best shape of their life with a personal chef and nutritionist participate in the experiment? Similar logic goes for less extreme examples on this end of the curve.

>For regression to the mean, they should have started the diet after some extreme readings.

They're obese, their diet is an extreme reading from the space of possible diets. They're choosing foods that only satisfies their various needs at a caloric quantity that causes weight gain.

>But who said those are what prompted them to the diet? People don't start on a diet when they get extremely heavy, they start and stop diets all the time, while being continuously obese.

Caloric restriction diets and food choice diets aren't the same thing here. People usually start and stop diets all the time because caloric restriction diets have huge user experience issues. Specifically, the very common yoyo dieting; you feel bad about being fat so you decide to do something about it, then you do caloric restriction in a way that fails to meet many of your other needs, then you abandon the diet because the stress of not meeting your needs starts to outweigh the negative feelings from being fat.

>Well, if you eat the same calories from your new "Whatever you don't eat", then you'll get as fat.

If your current diet meets your needs at an above-average number of calories, you won't eat the same number of calories (unless you try to manually control caloric intake through some variant of calorie counting).

Re: Is Fat Killing Us, or Is Sugar?

#130

Post by jlebrech »

pnw_hazor wrote: post #117
jlebrech wrote: post #31

Fat is for survival, if you're don't spend the night outdoors you wont burn it. Sugar is for energy to use immediately, if you don't use it it's turns into fat, 30% of it is wasted in that process though. Overeating carbs is better than overeating fat.

Not really. Excess fats do not convert to body fat. They just pass through. Excess glucose (from sugar and carbs) triggers insulin production which causes glucose to be converted to body fat and your muscles to stop consuming fat. (Which also causes your muscles to be nutrient depleted leading to being hungry soon after...) The insulin flood caused by sugar and bad carbs is your body trying not to die of glucose pois…

excess fat causes insulin resistance which causes sugar to stay in the blood stream.
Post reply on HN