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

Biohacking Lite

karpathy.github.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 370 posts

Re: Biohacking Lite

#221

Post by rsanek »

m0zg wrote: post #197
Xenograph wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your Larabar example is way off base: 1. The number of ingredients in something does not directly indicate how (un)healthy it is. The fact that Larabar contains 2-3 ingredients says nothing about its nutritional value. 2. In fact, many people would not consider Larabar to be a "processed" food to begin with because it literally is just 2-3 fruits and nuts mashed together. You could make something very similar in your…

Likewise, HFCS has about the same blend of sugars as honey, yet it is considered unhealthy and honey is considered healthy somehow. I'd like someone to explain how that works.

FWIW, I don't think honey is considered healthy. In any nutrition recommendation I'm familiar with, it is considered a part of added/free sugars, aka something to limit.

Re: Biohacking Lite

#222

Post by rsanek »

shawxe wrote: post #81
gdebel wrote: post #51

I'm French (and incidentally a doctor,and my post is not judgemental in any way, this is not the point). Everytime I travel to the USA, I'm puzzled by how difficult it is to "eat normally" (= by my own standards). You can find really good junk food everywhere, or pay a really high price to eat in high-level Italian restaurants for example, but it is very difficult to eat standard meat-with-vegetable-without-sugar-add…

In general, I agree with a lot of what you're saying here about eating more vegetables and way less sugar being the way to go health-wise, but I do want to respond to some specific things you've said. > You can find really good junk food everywhere, or pay a really high price to eat in high-level Italian restaurants for example, but it is very difficult to eat standard meat-with-vegetable-without-sugar-added, except…

> There is nothing inherently wrong with "processed" food

I don't know if I'd go as far as to say "wrong" but certainly the less processing a food has, the better, primarily because you get to retain more of the fiber content (and so the food is more filling).

Re: Biohacking Lite

#223

Post by ssijak »

I do not understand the obsession with keto/low carb diets. There are no long term studies showing the touted magical benefits. Even Gary Taubes, author who amassed wealth bashing carbs and touting keto diet, funded studies that he thought would confirm what he was saying, but then results came in slight favor of high carb diets against low carb high fat diets in terms of losing weight.

Yes, processed sugar is crap, but whole food carbs are not. People who eat mostly whole food plant based diets, in long term studies live the longest and are healthier. And why do people accept processed carbs to be bad but skip the same logic for oils (yeah, squeezed oil is processed food and also pretty much empty calories).

I experimented with a lot of things during my life, one of which was keto diet. I tried it several times for months, but always abandoned it for several reasons. Firstly, I feel like I loose 20+ IQ points on it, I can not think clearly, have brain fog, and after strenuous exercise, I start to forget things. And no, it was not a transitional period, it was the same after 1+ months and I tested ketosis with urine sticks. And it is understandable because brain is the largest consummator of glucose. Second, you do not have the same amount of energy, especially for burst activity. Third, you stink more, my sweat stink more, and breath also (which is kind of normal for keto). And lastly, it is harder to maintain which is not a problem for me if I found it to be beneficial, but it could be problem for many. And one more thing, each time I tried keto, I got sick during the period. It could be coincidence, but probably not.

Now I eat plant based whole food diet. And from all the things I have tried, it thicks all the good boxes. Eating plenty of very tasty foods, never hungry, never have sweets cravings, tons of energy (my libido went through the roof too), extremely easy to loose excess fat (while feeling good during the process), very good workouts and recovery and steady mental energy throughout the day, stool is regular and good, sleep better (and need less of it) and am much happier (yeah, carbs are precursor to serotonin, and fiber feed the gut microbiome which is extremely important for many things and most of serotonin is made in the gut also) etc. And tons of research which supports the benefits of it for longevity, health and sports.

Still it boggles my mind that we somehow managed to vilify foods like a sweet potato or brown rice or whichever carb containing food. I think Pollan summarised it the best : "Eat food (food=unprocessed whole food stuff). Not too much. Mostly plants." That would give 95% of benefits to most people. We get bogged down with details and minute optimisations while loosing the sight of the big picture.

Re: Biohacking Lite

#224

Post by Kuinox »

outworlder wrote: post #190
gdebel wrote: post #51

I'm French (and incidentally a doctor,and my post is not judgemental in any way, this is not the point). Everytime I travel to the USA, I'm puzzled by how difficult it is to "eat normally" (= by my own standards). You can find really good junk food everywhere, or pay a really high price to eat in high-level Italian restaurants for example, but it is very difficult to eat standard meat-with-vegetable-without-sugar-add…

> I'm puzzled by how difficult it is to "eat normally" That very much depends on your location. High tourism locations will often have lots of junk food places. If you can move larger distances (i.e. rent a car and the like) you'll find wonderful and cheap restaurants pretty much anywhere. Even in otherwise expensive places like SF or NY. Here's the problem though: portion sizes are _enormous_ . It took quite a bit o…

> If you can move larger distances (i.e. rent a car and the like) you'll find wonderful and cheap restaurants pretty much anywhere. Even in otherwise expensive places like SF or NY.

After doing a trip in America, I interpret "eat normally" for a French as not eating in the restaurants, but the food available in the supermarket that you cook at home. Finding vegetables, fruits is hard, if not impossible. You don't find it in every supermarket.

Eating normally, for me, is buying the vegetables, meat, etc, and cooking it myself.

Yesterday I made a ratatouille: Eggplant, courgette, poivron, tomatoes.

I remember finding these in USA was really hard.

And the only fruits we found was already cuts pineapply/mango/apples/etc...

Re: Biohacking Lite

#226

Post by WorldMaker »

an_opabinia wrote: post #4

> Clearly, my actual weight loss (red) turned out to be slower than expected one based on our simple deficit math (blue). So this is where things get interesting... so we don’t get to fully resolve the mystery of the slower-than-expected weight loss. Weight loss is difficult and I think everyone, no matter how smart, dumb, famous or obscure they are, has trouble with it. It's always a surprise how difficult it is.

I'd argue that it almost quite clearly indicates that focusing on calorie deficit is too simplistic a model to accurately predict/forecast weight loss. Just look at that subway map at the top of the article, there's no way that calorie deficit is an adequate model for the complex interaction of macro-nutrients and how different parts of that "subway" interact.

Maybe you don't have to entirely agree with me that Nutrition science's idea of a calorie is the last bastion of phlogiston theory in any science, but surely you can admit that all of the evidence suggests the model isn't accurate enough, continues to give surprising results that do not match reality, (and arguably causes more harm than good in the way some diet plans use calorie deficits as a bludgeon to make people feel bad). The models need to be refined, the human body is not an ideal furnace nor a "spherical cow".

(But yeah, I wish the Apple Watch would let me change all the displays that read "calorie" to just read "phlogiston" as useful as they "are" to me.)

Re: Biohacking Lite

#227

Post by [deleted] »

ssijak wrote: post #223

I do not understand the obsession with keto/low carb diets. There are no long term studies showing the touted magical benefits. Even Gary Taubes, author who amassed wealth bashing carbs and touting keto diet, funded studies that he thought would confirm what he was saying, but then results came in slight favor of high carb diets against low carb high fat diets in terms of losing weight. Yes, processed sugar is crap,…

[deleted]

Re: Biohacking Lite

#228

Post by OJFord »

cbsks wrote: post #193
frosted-flakes wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So, this mean that McDonalds is as healthy as the burgers I make at home? Sure, as long as you use similar ingredients. > I was under the impression that their food is loaded with sugar and strange additives. It's not. The beef patty really is just beef. The bun is white bread, just like you can buy at the grocery store. And the condiments are self-evident. It's just that that they've nailed the production process…

McDonalds lists the ingredients in their foods here: https://www.mcdonalds.com/us/en-us/about-our-food/nutrition-... Their hamburger doesn't look any different than what I would make at home. I don't have any grocery store bought buns in front of me, but I assume it would have similar ingredients. The pickles are not the most natural, but once again, it's not much different than what I would buy in a grocery store. T…

> The bun is white bread, just like you can buy at the grocery store

> Regular Bun: Enriched Flour (Wheat Flour, Malted Barley Flour, Niacin, Iron, Thiamine Mononitrate, Riboflavin, Folic Acid), Water, Sugar, Yeast, Soybean Oil, Contains 2% or Less: Salt, Wheat Gluten, Potato Flour, May Contain One or More Dough Conditioners (DATEM, Ascorbic Acid, Mono and Diglycerides, Enzymes), Vinegar.

Each to their own!

> You can get reasonably healthy food at McDonald's

... Seriously? Do they even sell vegetables beyond the burger dressing?

Re: Biohacking Lite

#229

Post by tcgv »

fudged71 wrote: post #162
gdebel wrote: post #51

I'm French (and incidentally a doctor,and my post is not judgemental in any way, this is not the point). Everytime I travel to the USA, I'm puzzled by how difficult it is to "eat normally" (= by my own standards). You can find really good junk food everywhere, or pay a really high price to eat in high-level Italian restaurants for example, but it is very difficult to eat standard meat-with-vegetable-without-sugar-add…

The problem with restaurants (globally!) is they have zero responsibility or incentive to serve food that fits the nutritional needs of their customers. • Restaurants don't sell food, they sell satiation, taste, brand, ambiance, customer experience. • You rarely can ask for an ingredient list, you often can't see who made your food, it is a black box in a black box. • All we really care about are omissions: the list…

> The problem with restaurants (globally!) is they have zero responsibility or incentive to serve food that fits the nutritional needs of their customers.

I will have to disagree. Maybe this is a cultural thing (I'm from Brazil) but on business days I mostly refuse to have lunch in restaurants that don't offer nutritional food options, and I'm not alone in this matter, the majority of my team mates also care about their diet. Those who don't care about it and eat junk food at work every day are the exception.

Hence, restaurants have the incentive to serve healthier food in order to attract customers like me and my team mates.

That's not to say that I don't like junky food. I love to grab a beer and a burger, but I grant myself that treat at most once a week, not more than that.

Re: Biohacking Lite

#230

Post by ilaksh »

I wonder if anyone has any studies handy about "natural sugars" versus "processed sugars"?

That is my biggest pet peeve in terms of dietary discussions. Many people seem to believe that there is a magical property of "natural sugar" (such as honey or the sugar in fruit) that means it doesn't affect your calorie intake or something and so is okay to add to things, whereas table sugar is processed and therefore somehow totally different.

I believe this myth derives from the fact that high-fructose corn syrup does in fact concentrate sugar. But that doesn't mean it isn't metabolized the same way as other types of sugar, it just means you get the same amount of sweetness in less volume. So that is measured on labels and in the sweetness.

The common thing I hear is something like people saying they had a really delicious mango smoothie but it was totally healthy because they did not add any sugar. Or they switched from putting sugar in their tea to using honey and so now they think they don't get calories from the sweetener in their tea.

Post reply on HN