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

261–270 of 370 posts

Re: Biohacking Lite

#261

Post by selimthegrim »

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…

In New Orleans I have had trouble finding it (non-Greek yogurt without sugar) at local chains and places like Save-a-Lot.

Re: Biohacking Lite

#262

Post by DoreenMichele »

Water factor. Another fun thing I noticed is that my observed weight can fluctuate and rise a lot, even while my expected weight calculation expects a loss. I found that this discrepancy grows with the amount of carbohydrates in my diet (dessert, bread/pasta, potatoes, etc.). Eating these likely increases glycogen levels, which as I already mentioned briefly, acts as a sponge and soaks up water. I noticed that my weight can rise multiple pounds, but when I revert back to my typical low-carbohydrate pasketerianish diet these “fake” pounds evaporate in a matter of a few days. The final outcome are wild swings in my body weight depending mostly on how much candy I’ve succumbed to, or if I squeezed in some pizza at a party.

Can anyone point me to more info on this? Yes, I can google it, but the immediate results are things like this:

https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/320603

I would like to have something with a little more info about how this works at the molecular level or something.

Re: Biohacking Lite

#263

Post by balnaphone »

ryeguy wrote: post #257
balnaphone wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The linked-to discussion of insulin has a major error logical error. The title is "Insulin: An Undeserved Bad Reputation", but then the body of the article says for example "Carbs are not alone in being responsible for insulin secretion. Protein can cause just as much, if not more, insulin secretion as carbs". This is a straw man, because the point that is trying to be refused is that "insulin is bad", not "carbs are…

> This is a straw man, because the point that is trying to be refused is that "insulin is bad", not "carbs are bad". I don't see how this is a strawman. Click through to the source article, that bullet point in particular is refuting the common belief that carbs alone are what spike insulin. Most insulin-centric discussion on fitness forums (which is where this was posted) tends to mention insulin spikes in the conte…

The linked-to "Part 1" includes the "myth" that his discussion is referring to, and so is much less misleading. However, personally, I'm not aware of anyone interested in this kind of thing who holds those myths to be true; it's very common knowledge that if you ingest any calories, or taste something sweet, etc, it will trigger the release of insulin. (However, I'm confident that you and the Part 1 author know your target audience, and these myths perhaps make perfect sense to address to them).

Likewise for his comments on glucagon, it does not "cancel" the effects of insulin, it rather has the opposite effect at the same time. Also, in a natural system (i.e. without intervention), secretion of insulin typically suppresses secretion of glucagon, with some rare exceptions. He's stating a supposed myth and then taking it down with another one.

The two papers cited for his interpretation of the role of glucagon are quite old, from 2001. There have been dozens of studies since then, confirming the role of glucagon in lipid metabolism, from many different perspectives.

Here is one published last year

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31068828/

"Collectively, emerging data support an essential role of glucagon for lipid metabolism."

There are dozens of others -- you can get a start on this reading by seeing who has cited the two papers he referred to.

I didn't understand that the main point was "debunking the idea that insulin is what makes us fat", since I don't know anyone who believes that. Chronic poor nutrition can make you fat, sure, and rising basal insulin levels tend to occur as a result of that, but saying "insulin is what makes us fat" sounds a lot like "yellow fingertips cause lung cancer". Nobody I know believes that is true. I have to keep up on these things for my work, in drug development.

Regarding "being 2 steps removed", yes, it seems like some "broken telephone" is going on.

Be well!

Re: Biohacking Lite

#264

Post by dishoom »

I must say coming from a medical perspective (1/2 doctor),it's always interesting hearing peoples views about metabolism. Although the opinions are "valid", the bottom line to this discussion is that we need to simply eat less sugar, with the whole fruit as a notable exception to this rule. Ideally, our diets should be low in sugar and high in fiber, consisting primarily of fruits, vegetables and whole grains. By paying attention to the sugar in prepackaged foods, adding less sugar to our tea or coffee, limiting desserts, and drinking water instead of sugary beverages, it’s easy to reduce our sugar consumption.

A change that I would want to see in the food industry is traffic light labeling. This is popular in Europe and in limited use in the US. In this system, food and beverages are labeled by color, with green indicating the healthiest options, and yellow and red less healthy ones. In the UK, total sugar content is used to determine a beverage’s rating, placing juice on par with soda. These simple systems help consumers especially in the western world make better choices, even when they don’t have the time to peruse a nutrition facts label.

Re: Biohacking Lite

#265

Post by a_d »

“ As a result I’ve improved a number of biomarkers (e.g. resting heart rate, resting blood glucose, strength, endurance, nutritional deficiencies, etc)” — how does one measure / track these things? ESP resting heart rate, blood glucose and nutritional deficiencies.

Re: Biohacking Lite

#266

Post by manmal »

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.

Maybe, if HFCS were consumed in equal amounts as honey, it would also be considered healthy. Hormesis is a strange thing - too much of a good thing will turn it into a bad thing.

Re: Biohacking Lite

#267

Post by komali2 »

gdebel wrote: post #216
dialamac wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We did not evolved to eat processed sugar, which is not easily found naturally in the environment The flour you make French bread with is not found any more or less naturally in the environment than the sugar you get from cane or beet. This whole thing about evolution and nutrition is entirely pseudoscientific woo. If humans had to eat the same way as our ancestors (ie actual paleo, not some hipster fad diet) human…

I respectfully disagree. Flour is basically crushed wheat. Refined sugar is not crushed beet, and you would have to eat a lot of beet to eat the same amount of sugar that you eat in a typical "industrial food" diet. I would not take paleo food as a reference, but rather look toward what our grandparents had for lunch when they were kids. I don't think they were doing so badly. And I don't cook like Bocuse everyday, t…

My grandparents ate Oscar Meyer hot dogs on bleached buns for lunch so not sure it's the best choice

Re: Biohacking Lite

#268

Post by 127 »

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; it is entirely possible to use industrial processes to make a perfectly healthy and wholesome food product.

Given how profit in the food industry and addiction is so closely tied together, I don't see how this is possible.

Re: Biohacking Lite

#269

Post by milleramp »

drewg123 wrote: post #150

I've lost about 60lbs over the last few years in 2 stages. (210lbs->150lbs) In the first stage, I lost about 30lbs. I did not modify my terrible diet, and mostly did cardio (running ~4-5 miles every other day). My health markers (heart rate, blood sugar, blood pressure, cholesterol) improved, but not a lot. I plateaued at 180 for a few years. Last year, I made some changes and cleaned up my diet. I avoided deserts an…

Yep there is a saying in cycling; ounces on the bike, pounds in the kitchen.

Re: Biohacking Lite

#270

Post by balnaphone »

tupac_speedrap wrote: post #13
Swizec wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My biggest concern about focus on weight loss as the metric instead of "healthy lifestyle" is that losing weight is easiest when you do it in an unhealthy way. Crash diets are a good example of unhealthy weight loss. Another funfact is that you can literally go to bed for a few weeks, let muscle atrophy kick in, and lose more weight than any diet+exercise regime. Won't make you healthier, but you'll lose the weight.…

It doesn't help that BMI is still used even though it is such a crude measure as to be useless. Stuff like body fat% measurements and waist measurements are more direct indicators of losing fat.

We use PI/CI (Ponderal Index AKA Corpulence Index) in my lab and it's a huge improvement over BMI. Especially for modern heights in men and women. Still crude, but easy to apply. Wide margins.
Post reply on HN