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

411–420 of 529 posts

Re: Thoughts on the potato diet

#411

Post by seadan83 »

goodpoint wrote: post #212
seadan83 wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I agree. I do wonder and was speaking a bit to other factors that I do not know but suspect, notably: - Do a high glycemic index food have a higher propensity to be stored on the body vs actually used? - Is the caloric absorption rate of high fructose corn sryup higher than say honey?

Speaking to this, the body makes different choices on whether a food passes through you, is absorbed and used, or whether it is stored. It makes different choices in where and how to store that energy, all in all which makes me think that not all carbohydrates (or calories, or foods) are equal when actually consumed. That is not even getting started with on gut fauna and the effects of different foods on the microbial environments in our guts.

Re: Thoughts on the potato diet

#412

Post by nikkwong »

trentgreene wrote: post #408
nikkwong wrote: post #404

Earlier quoted context omitted.

CICO may be scientifically valid but it's useless in practical terms. People who tend to be constipated absorb much more energy from their food and those with fast digestive tracts absorb much less. Everyone is somewhere on that spectrum, so, from person to person, you would never have a practical way to assess what the CI or the CO is in the CICO model.

Au contraire, it's very useful. If you want someone to lose weight, calculate their BMR + their rough activity based cal burn, and give 'em a 15% deficit. They'll lose weight. Not just water and glycogen. They will burn fat. If you want someone to gain weight, do the same calc, tell 'em to eat 100 more calories. Not gaining? 200. Really not gaining? Wow, fast metabolism, shock 'em with 500 extra. Anecdata, but the on…

Mark Pimentel's lab which studies disorders of the gut has hypothesized that people with extremely slow transit times can absorb 2-3x the amount of energy from food in comparison to people with regular transit times. I think there is a high amount of variability; and importantly in the context of losing weight, people who are overweight often have slow intestinal transit due to their dysregulated gut microflora.

I'm sort of with you, but it sounds more to me like: start eating less, and you'll lose weight; eat more, and you'll gain weight. There's just too many variables here that change how food is metabolized and digested; including the microbiome which CICO ignores.

Re: Thoughts on the potato diet

#413

Post by kart23 »

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…

best comment here. losing half your muscle is not healthy.

Re: Thoughts on the potato diet

#414

Post by trentgreene »

nikkwong wrote: post #412
trentgreene wrote: post #408

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Au contraire, it's very useful. If you want someone to lose weight, calculate their BMR + their rough activity based cal burn, and give 'em a 15% deficit. They'll lose weight. Not just water and glycogen. They will burn fat. If you want someone to gain weight, do the same calc, tell 'em to eat 100 more calories. Not gaining? 200. Really not gaining? Wow, fast metabolism, shock 'em with 500 extra. Anecdata, but the on…

Mark Pimentel's lab which studies disorders of the gut has hypothesized that people with extremely slow transit times can absorb 2-3x the amount of energy from food in comparison to people with regular transit times. I think there is a high amount of variability; and importantly in the context of losing weight, people who are overweight often have slow intestinal transit due to their dysregulated gut microflora. I'm…

You got a source for that study? A cursory google didn’t reveal anything and 2-3x is suspect. To your second point, wouldn’t the microbiome (and slow digestion) just be another input into CICO?

Re: Thoughts on the potato diet

#415

Post by gautamcgoel »

CobaltFire wrote: post #273

My son is in treatment for Leukemia, and most patients lose large amounts of weight. He's also autistic and has food texture issues. Somehow he's good with potatoes (generally baked "fries") and milk with some infant formula mixed in. He's the only young ( Anecdotal, but it's my experience.

Hope your son makes a full recovery.

Re: Thoughts on the potato diet

#416

Post by meowtimemania »

OrangeMonkey wrote: post #166
meowtimemania wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Totally agree with what you say OrangeMonkey however I think I understood GP's comment differently. I thought GP was saying once you stick to an IF schedule for 2 weeks (for example only eating 12pm to 8pm), after 2 weeks it becomes easy to only eat within those windows. I don't think they were suggesting prolonged fasting >24 hours.

I agree - it wasn't what they were saying. I was just stating my own experience without exposing too much personal history. For me, mild intermittent fasting led to deep intermittent fasting, multi day fasting, then week, then half a month. At that point it was anorexia not fasting. I meant no disrespect to him at all nor the implication he was suggesting it - just wanted to throw a caution out. For some, it could le…

That totally makes sense. I didn't think you were disrespectful or anything and I appreciate you sharing your experience.

Re: Thoughts on the potato diet

#417

Post by namecheapTA »

GordonS wrote: post #125
safety1st wrote: post #30

There's actually some science behind this diet. Potatoes are the highest scoring food on the satiety index. https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/15-incredibly-filling-f... Basically they're the most filling food per calorie. So if you subscribe to the idea that losing weight is mainly about how many calories you consume, a potato heavy diet should be effective. And an all potato diet, while monomaniacal, even more ef…

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…

Ive had six egg scrambles for breakfast many times. I then can eat a lunch at a reasonable time very easily. Most of this food stuff is in everyone's head. I think everyone should try a 3 day fast once in their life to see what it all feels like and realize nothing bad will happen. If anything it quickly makes you realize why people stress eat. Being actually pretty hungry feels a lot like anxiety to me.

Re: Thoughts on the potato diet

#418

Post by stjohnswarts »

csours wrote: post #325
stjohnswarts wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Eggs are definitely my goto on a calorie controlled keto diet. Obviously potatoes are out of the question :) . They are simply awful for people who prediabetic or think they have metabolic syndrome; not as bad as white bread or sugar but bad.

My understanding of the current science is that many cycles of excess carbs (especially processed carbs) while you are not in a calorie deficit, alongside a sedentary lifestyle, are bad for metabolic syndrome and insulin resistance. White flour pancakes ALWAYS give me a blood sugar crash, and often cause a mild to moderate hypoglycemic episode; but I can eat whole grain pancakes without too much trouble. If you're no…

One of the main reasons I've switched from a Mediterranean type diet (lost about 20 lbs there) to low carb was sort of about this as well. When I eat bread and other flour based things my energy through the day is much more variable. Low carb seems to give me a much steadier supply of energy through the day after I got over that initial two week hump where your body adjusts to a new way of eating.

Re: Thoughts on the potato diet

#419

Post by rubicon33 »

LegitShady wrote: post #369
rubicon33 wrote: post #366

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oooo I'm going to do this! Saves time in the AM. EDIT: Wait... uncooked!?

100%. overnight oats - google it. Equal volume of oats and mils, and the oats just absorb the milk overnight and soften. Very convenient for breakfast, minimal dishwashing, good for 2-3 days in the fridge. substitute yogurt instead of milk for big increase in protein!

I feel like I've learned an excellent life hack. Thanks!

Re: Thoughts on the potato diet

#420

Post by BoorishBears »

csours wrote: post #377
TameAntelope wrote: post #373

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Excess body weight can put stress on your joints, but doesn't generally have any other negative effects. That seems to contradict the Harvard School of Public Health's article[0] that says: > The results showed that participants with BMI of 22.5- These findings don't seem to discriminate on the source of the BMI, only on its existence. [0] https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/press-releases/overweight-...

If they didn't control for the ratio of lean body mass to fat, then it doesn't actually contradict my point. If the findings don't discriminate on the source of the BMI, then you just don't know. It's not evidence. > "They looked at participants’ body mass index (BMI)—an indicator of body fat calculated by dividing a person’s weight in kilograms by their height in meters squared (kg/m2)." BMI is the WORST indicator o…

> BMI is the WORST indicator of body fat precisely because it does not account for muscle mass. BMI is only suitable for population level studies, it is not suitable for individual health decisions.

It works for the people who need it most.

Sure you might just be some 5% body-fat tren cycling bodybuilder with an "obese" BMI... but in reality for most people the higher up you go, the more urgent of an indicator it is that someone should lose weight for their health.

Post reply on HN