It's not just how many calories, but what kind, study finds • Hacker News Board

Re: It's not just how many calories, but what kind, study finds

#41

Post by rprasad » Thu, Jun 28, 2012, 8:51 PM UTC

dnlhoust wrote: post #4

It should be noted that a kcal /is/ still a kcal; The adaption your body takes after being given different levels of macronutrients doesn't change that if you eat more than you expend, you will put on weight. Also, I'm surprised that they didn't trial a 60% protein, 20% fat and 20% carb diet!

The point of the original study was: 1) For weight loss, how many calories you eat (or don't eat) matters more than any other factor. 2) Once the weight loss period has ended, the type of diet (i.e., the balance of calorie types consumed) matters more for maintaining the new weight and overall health.

Re: It's not just how many calories, but what kind, study finds

#42

Post by kyberias » Fri, Jun 29, 2012, 6:27 AM UTC

travisp wrote: post #20

kyberias wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand how this quote from Taubes proves anything. If I stop eating, I will lose weight and eventually die. Also, if I eat more, I will gain weight. Thus calories must have SOMETHING to do with weight, right? I think Taubes is fighting a straw man here: I haven't heard anyone argue that eaten calories are stored in 1:1 ratio. But they have some causal relationship.

Sure, if you stop eating you will lose some weight and die. But, you can die of starvation while obese. In animal studies, it is possible to reduce calories and the animals won't lose weight or to add a lot of extra calories and not become obese. Calories have something to do with it because they are one part of the equation. Calories in does equal calories out. Calories In = Calories Stored + Calories Expended. But,…

BTW, could you refer to some of these animal studies that show that reducing calories does not impact the weight? I hope the animals in question are not for example ants but more like primates or something resembling humans.

Re: It's not just how many calories, but what kind, study finds

#43

Post by kyberias » Fri, Jun 29, 2012, 6:30 AM UTC

mast wrote: post #32

Marion Nestle of the Politics of Food, wrote about this study early this week ( http://www.foodpolitics.com/2012/06/does-where-calories-come... ) She's skeptical. Basically, she says you cannot really draw any reliable conclusions becuase of the short, highly controlled conditions of the study.

See: this is such a hot topic that Taubes-fans actually down-vote you without bothering to discuss or present some arguments. You brought some valuable information to the discussion and you got downvoted for that. Hurray, HN!

Re: It's not just how many calories, but what kind, study finds

#44

Post by mertd » Fri, Jun 29, 2012, 2:35 PM UTC

scdc wrote: post #30

mertd wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It is definitely not common knowledge amongst the general population. For a good reason. First and foremost, general population just needs to eat less, a lot less. Once we get past that point, macro-nutrient composition can be the next level of diet optimization.

But why do they eat too much? Two things to consider: higher fat meals can make you feel sated sooner, so you eat fewer calories. Also, there is evidence that carbohydrates trigger an insulin release which activates a hunger response.

I never understood the satiety argument. Fat also packs more than twice the calories of carbs. It needs to fill you up twice as fast or keep you full twice as long for this argument to work.

Besides, the body takes about 20 minutes to send the first "I am full" signal anyway. I can go through the majority of a large pizza within that time with my "normal" eating pace.