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

Thoughts on the potato diet

dynomight.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 529 posts

Re: Thoughts on the potato diet

#211

Post by zeroxfe »

Pakdef wrote: post #175
csours wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think this is a good faith comment. It is very difficult and rare to add that much muscle.

I just don't know how much muscles steroid junkies can add, but either way it's not healthy... but yeah you are probably right that it isn't that much. Also, that parent comment was saying that you should trade fat for muscles, so my comment still stands.

> Also, that parent comment was saying that you should trade fat for muscles, so my comment still stands.

Great -- you win by technicality! For the vast majority of people, the parent made a very reasonable statement, so comments like this are not helpful.

Re: Thoughts on the potato diet

#212

Post by goodpoint »

seadan83 wrote: post #164
sph wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Obesity is not a disease of over-eating, it is a disease of managing hunger. Indeed it is, and the solution to managing hunger (i.e. returning your whole insulin and leptin system to a more optimal baseline) is NOT going for a 90% carbohydrate diet. That's exactly why we have a bloody obesity epidemic. It's a fun thought experiment, but reading the comments in here people actually think this is genius and sustainab…

My unsupported personal belief is that the human body processes different carbohydrates in very different ways. Carbs that come from starch are not equivalent to carbs from cane sugar, and yet again not equivalent to honey, and again not equivalent to high fructose corn sryup, and again different from breads & pasta. Ratio of fiber to carbohydrate and how that carbohydrate is processed by the body is also important a…

> personal belief is that the human body processes different carbohydrates in very different ways

This is nutritional science 101.

Slow-digesting carbohydrates like big-flake oats are really good.

Fast-digesting things like sugars, processed foods, fast food and meat products are bad as they create spikes in the glycemic index.

Re: Thoughts on the potato diet

#213

Post by maerF0x0 »

wtetzner wrote: post #206
maerF0x0 wrote: post #93

As I'm reading others' comments on here I'm shocked at the seemingly uneducated state of comments, I blame "influencers" and the fitness industry for spreading so much FUD + absolute nonsense. Most of them patterned like "I lost x lbs on Y diet, and you should too". I'm shocked at how few people realize that diets equated for protein + fiber are essentially identical. I highly recommend Layne Norton's book Fat loss f…

> They all only work if there is a caloric deficit I don't believe this is true. On keto for example, I lost weight when eating an excess of calories. > Calories in - calories out ("CICO") is absolutely backed by science when the researchers are smart enough to actually account for known things like caloric cost of digestion (changes the "CO" part) Not exactly. If you eat fewer calories than you burn, you'll obviousl…

> I lost weight when eating an excess of calories.

You're just misunderstanding your TDEE then. It's basic thermodynamics that is very accurate in human digestion too, save for extremes like bulemia, gastric distress (you shit out undigested food), or pills that simulate it w/ carb/fat blockers.

The most pedantic detail is CICO is actually on digested calories, not swallowed calories.

Your anecdata is likely accounted by:

1. Protein takes more calories to digest (many people unintentionally eat more protein on keto, though keto is actually about fat intake and protein can break ketosis through gluconeogensis)

2. Up regulation in things like thermogenesis (ie you lose more calories to the ambient air)

3. Inaccuracy in food tracking

4. Higher NEAT

5. Loss of water weight due to lower food mass in digestive tract, and lower glycogen(+bound water) weight.

Re: Thoughts on the potato diet

#215

Post by goodpoint »

devoutsalsa wrote: post #140
TrisMcC wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you really believe that the obesity epidemic was caused by people eating 90% carbohydrate diets? The "high carb meals" at McDonald's, Burger King, Pizza Hut... are all also (and more per calorie) high in fat. Add 2 tablespoons of olive oil to your mixed-green salad? That has turned into a high fat salad. Most people cannot avoid cheese or nuts on salad, either. Eating the potato diet with sour cream/butter/cheese:…

I'm overweight because I eat too much. Eat caloric surplus, gain weight. That part isn't complicated. Why I eat too much is another question...

No. A healthy diet is a diet that provides you with the right amount of nutrients without leaving you hungry or unsatisfied.

By not being hungry and unsatisfied you'll then stop overeating (surprise!).

"My diet is OK, I just eat too much" is all wrong: there is a complex relation between caloric intake, which foods are eaten, hunger, satisfaction, energy, mood etc.

Many fad diets "work" even if they are not grounded in any scientific fact and are even unhealthy in the long term (low fat, low carb, keto, gluten-free, all-meat).

They artificially restrict the variety of food one person can eat and this indirectly encourages people to eat less. And when people stop overeating they feel better and believe the fad diet is sound.

There were even a diet where you can only eat foods in a given meal from the same group... by color. Same trick.

Bracing for all the downvotes...

Re: Thoughts on the potato diet

#216

Post by dmix »

fknorangesite wrote: post #138
dmix wrote: post #116

Aren't potatoes high starch which is generally avoided with keto-type diets?

Yes, but this isn't keto.

So it's basically going to spike insulin and do much for weight loss... besides not eating the other bad stuff they planned to eat.

So it doesnt really matter they are eating potatoes. Unless they want to do it cheap then it makes sense. Which is good but there's so much more variety in the keto approach then boring potatoes.

Re: Thoughts on the potato diet

#217

Post by alanthonyc »

I came to this exact conclusion a long time ago, except using intermittent fasting (i.e. “stop eating so much”):

    1. Use a fad diet (e.g. potato) to get down to 80 kg.

    2. Weigh yourself every morning

    3. If your average weight over a week ever exceeds 81 kg, spend the next week on the potato diet.

    4. Repeat forever.

Re: Thoughts on the potato diet

#218

Post by TrisMcC »

sph wrote: post #194
nvahalik wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the short term? Probably not a lot. You’ll lose “weight” but what are you actually losing? What you eat is very important. Fat stores aren’t the first thing your body will turn to. After the carbs, your body will turn to breaking down muscle tissue which is not what you usually want.

That's what I meant with my comment. Of all the things you need the most to LIVE, it's protein and fats, not carbohydrates. Energy is the least of one's problem on a super restrictive diet like this one, but having the building blocks for muscles and cells and hormones is the literally vital. There are trace amounts of fats and proteins in potatoes, not enough to sustain life long term. Enjoy having boundless energy,…

Potatoes have protein and fats. Enough protein and fats for fat-soluble vitamins and preventing dying of protein malnutrition. Potatoes are not just carbs.

No libido? I'd like to see the source of that claim.

The western world has become "addicted" to protein and the claims on how much is necessary and recommended are extremely exaggerated.

Re: Thoughts on the potato diet

#219

Post by bumby »

mrguyorama wrote: post #207
bumby wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Satiety is a mental construct. Are you implying that there aren't physical manifestations that cause hunger? In other words, I could inject you with a suprahuman amount of ghrelin and you wouldn't feel hungry?

There are physical situations that can nudge your brain's choice to make you feel hungry or not, IME. For example, I stopped eating breakfast and lunch for two years (because, I am a colossal idiot, and knew it was stupid when I did it) and it took very little time for my body to realize "feeling hungry" at noon was a fools errand, so it quickly stopped happening. I was absolutely physically hungry, seeing as I wasn'…

That fits with my current understanding. Your body's hunger response (driven in part by hormones) is complicated, and for lack of a better word it can be "habituated" to a routine. But I believe there are still very real mechanisms (like said hormones) rather than being a psychological construct. I would be willing to bet if you had blood samples, you would see very real distinctions in blood markers associated with hunger as your response changed.

Re: Thoughts on the potato diet

#220

Post by rubicon33 »

jaggederest wrote: post #170
GordonS wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This seems highly unlikely to me. I have reactive hypoglycemia, and can say that potatoes spike my blood glucose levels more than table sugar - they have a really high glycemic index, and anyone with blood sugar issues should totally avoid them IMO. And the thing about foods with a high glycemic index is that they cause you to feel hungry when your blood sugar rapidly drops back to baseline. I find protein and fat wa…

I also have reactive hypoglycemia and I tried the potato diet out and had zero crashes the entire time. It's just not possible (for me) to eat enough calories, quickly enough, to cause a crash. I was only on it for a few days (~5), precisely for the logistic issues that the article and the original diet post discuss - I couldn't cook and eat enough calories to not be absolutely starving after the first couple days. B…

Is a food coma / crash always the result of a blood sugar spike? I've never seen any literature supporting that the feeling of tiredness and fatigue after a meal is the direct result of blood sugar levels. Mostly what I've seen is just conjecture online, and correlational anecdotes about eating high glycemic index foods and feeling tired.

Not discounting people's experiences, but trying to suss out the science here. If you were, for example, to inject sugar directly into someone's blood stream would the result be fatigue every time?

It seems to me that there's more involved in this. In my experience (more anecdata!) I'm able to eat anything in the morning. Giant bolus of carbs and sugar, and I feel great. That same meal in the afternoon will give me such a fatigue that I need to lay down.

Clearly there's some other factor at play for me in the function whos result is fatigue.

FATIGUE_LEVEL = CARB_GRAMS * (HOUR_OF_DAY / 24)

Post reply on HN