151–160 of 221 posts
What happens to overweight people has NOTHING to do with lean people who exercise.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Oddly enough, I can share an anecdote too. After a health scare, I decided to change my diet. I didn't think that I was self disciplined enough to count calories, so I arbitrarily eliminated certain things from my diet, most notably butter. My exercise didn't change much: Cycling to work every day. I got a new bike, but it didn't make me go that much faster. Within a few months, I went from 175 to 150 pounds (about 7…
The new bike could've made your commute more efficient.
Now I'm riding single speed, so who knows.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, butter makes the other stuff more delicious, making you eat just a little more each time.
I find a great substitute is olive oil where I'd use butter for non-cooking (eg. instead of butter on pasta or instead of butter on bread). It's not quite as tasty but still a huge improvement over dry, and it's healthier. For cooking, I understand olive oil is unhealthy (I think you create carcinogens as a side-effect), as are many other oils, but that coconut oil doesn't do this because of its different melting tem…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The million dollar question is: "Did you (w/your N=1) try the exact same calories as your keto diet, but then with more carbs?" No, you did not, and because it is hard to eat foods which adhere to the keto formula you lose weight on a keto diet. What people also fail to mention with their anecdotal evidence is their age and gender. It is relevant because young bodies and brains are still growing, increasing calorie d…
Carbs increase insulin. Insulin increases the level of lipoprotein lipase (LPL) in your body. LPL dictates how much energy you store as white fat. No carbs --> low insulin --> low LPL. So FWIW @ericabiz is correct "It really is the carbs and sugar that do you in". You also responded to @kichuku regarding sugar being sugar: > The natural in sugar is irrelevant. Sugar is sugar; as in fructose is fructose, and glucose i…
Its not. The people who are obese mostly [1] consume too much, and often carbs are the culprit. If they reduce their calorie intake, they lose weight. It doesn't matter if they use a keto pseusoscience with that, go to a dietist to follow a raw food pseudoscience diet, or diet solo without a dietist limiting caloric intake on sheer willpower (a proven method based on decades of science). Even people who don't get into a "state of ketosis" because they diet on raw food or willpower lose weight. The thing they all have in common is: limiting the caloric intake.
[1] "Mostly" as there are some diseases which are exceptions, an example could be thyroid problems. I'm not gonna comment on this, not familiar with all the English terms on the exceptions.
> Not exactly. Fructose doesn't initiate an insulin response in the body... there are other problems with fructose but the 'natural' in the sugar is important.
Cane and beets are natural sugar as well. All sugar is natural, except artificial sugar, but then we call it artificial sugar. The term sugar doesn't tell us which sugar (e.g. glucose or fructose or lactose) but neither does the term natural sugar.
Its akin to denoting to stating "[..] fruit apple [..]". An apple is always a fruit. There is no need to underline that.
Taubes would be hard pressed to explain how you could lose weight on a diet of Twinkies or how those subsisting on high carb, low fat, low protein diets that fail to meet their caloric needs in famine-afflicted regions remain thin.
The way insulin works and the way the body requires a caloric surplus to gain weight are not remotely mutually exclusive ideas and to suggest otherwise requires cherry-picking the literature in a way that's scientifically irresponsible.
[0] https://examine.com/nutrition/what-should-i-eat-for-weight-l...
The CDC says 34% of US adults have pre-diabetes, and of those, 88% are undiagnosed[1]. Yes, about 29% of US adults have un-diagnosed pre-diabetes, or about 74 million people. I think a significant cause is that testing blood glucose is thought of as something that only diabetics do, and as a result, most people have no idea how their bodies respond to meals they'd consider normal. The feedback loop is completely open…
You can do an a1c test at home or in the doctor to identify chronically elevated glucose (prediabetes). It's insensitive to time of day or fasting status you can just take it every few years or so at your convenience. Continuous blood sugar monitoring is probably overkill given how easy and cheap a1c tests are now. Blood pressure, on the other hand, is still a nightmare. A good way of reliably and simply measuring re…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think this is important, and that the food industry has been progressively making food more and more yummy over the past few decades. So far I really don't have a good answer for how to reduce consumption without reducing pleasure, at least in the short term. Developing a taste for food that isn't designed to be addictive, probably requires a long term change of habits.
> So far I really don't have a good answer for how to reduce consumption without reducing pleasure Salt.
Restaurants like salt because customers won't order water (even though tap water is free here in NL it makes one look as too much of a cheapskate); they'll order a drink like wine which they can upsell and already has large profit margins.
Nephrologists won't be happy though (although it does generate them more customers, they probably got more than enough as it is).
My suggestion would be: less salt + umami + herbs.
Herbs is a bit vague, it really depends on the dish (and there's more than herbs; look at things like garlic, ginger, and turmeric you can buy these dried as well, in same tins or glasses as herbs are).
Personally, I'm a fan of the Italian spices as well as mixes like baharat and ras el hanout even though I don't have a background in any related culture (I'm Dutch).
You can achieve umami in various ways: yeast extract, Vetsin, E621, MSG, etc. In the end its all the same, but I put the one consumers fear the least first in the list wink
Not meaning to be rude or ignorant, but was anyone actually doubting this? I thought that the link of sugar to diabetes and obesity was common knowledge.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> In that sense, a calorie is a calorie. This has been thoroughly disproven for ages -- starting with the naive assumption that you can just eat X amounts of anything and it doesn't affect anything else in your health/apetite/metabolism.
I know we like to one up each other on HN, but you're just talking past the main point. Calories matter. If you eat too many, you get fat. Some calories might be "better" than others, but they are a standard of unit of energy for a reason. A calorie is a calorie. Would you like to try the butter diet? I can guarantee you you'll get fat.