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

491–500 of 529 posts

Re: Thoughts on the potato diet

#491

Post by ska »

zwaps wrote: post #371
ska wrote: post #328

Earlier quoted context omitted.

iirc, that's not quite right. All dietary B12 originates in/on plant sources, you just have to avoid processing that removes it, and include plant sources with good sources. If you try and eat vegan from a typical north american grocery store though, you may have trouble and need to supplement it. On the other hand, selections are pretty good these days, and if you incorporate some nori or legume sprouts (from memory…

Please check your sources. Such advice can be, and in fact is, dangerous to vegans. Legumes or sprouts are not an adequate source of B12 and neither are other plant sources. Your assertion that Nori has B12 is downright wrong. B12 is only synthesized by microorganisms. There are plenty of vegetarian options, but if you are vegan, you have to rely on fortified products and supplements. This has nothing do to with wher…

> you have to rely on fortified products and supplements.

I appreciate your input, but this level of categorical statement seems to fly in the face of historic and current diets which are vegan or vegan-like and have not relied on supplements, or at least not the type we are talking about here.

At any rate I'd review other dietitians/scientists as well; while it's been a long time since I read the literature on this (when a family member went vegan) your quote certainly wasn't consensus view at that time.

Absolutely agree if you were to eat such a restrictive diet, you have to pay attention to vitamin sources, or you can get sick. B12 particularly problematic because you don't need much at all and can go months/years in a deficit situation before showing any symptoms, which can make it hard to pin down.

(To be clear, when said family member did do this for a while, I suggested supplementing but the nutritional science types I was reading weren't nearly as categorical as your above quote)

Re: Thoughts on the potato diet

#492

Post by BizarroLand »

bergenty wrote: post #363
danielheath wrote: post #360

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Satiety index is per calorie. Needing a large volume per day indicates it’s low calorie per volume, which would support that claim.

That seems… counter intuitive. I would say something has a high satiety index if something small can fill you up.

I think you may be confusing satiety with being "full".

You can eat 500 calories of butter and not feel even slightly full, but 500 calories of raw potato would have you full to bursting.

Re: Thoughts on the potato diet

#493

Post by BizarroLand »

billjings wrote: post #148
exolymph wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/7iAABhWpcGeP5e6SB/it-s-proba...

Thanks! I'm not completely sold on the lithium hypothesis, either. But I find their arguments for some kind of environmental contaminant compelling, especially for the ways in which they refute some of the other major hypotheses for the increase in body weights (e.g. food variety, processed food, etc) Note that the SMTM folks recently published an article responding to the TDS data referred to by "It's Probably Not L…

I wonder if PCBs play a part in it. I was reading that thanks to Monsanto pushing PCBs like they are candy has resulted in basically the whole world being exposed to them.

They're hormone disruptors that cause a lot of side effects like decrease of intelligence, weight gain, early/late puberty and it is impossible to escape them completely since even though they're no longer manufactured (at least not in the USA legally) they take a long time to break down in the environment.

https://www.clearwater.org/news/pcbhealth.html

Re: Thoughts on the potato diet

#494

Post by mixmastamyk »

com2kid wrote: post #409
mixmastamyk wrote: post #388

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The quantity given was in calories, about 1/2 of what you need in a day. Yes PB is heavy, yes that amount should register.

Drink a glug of olive oil. You'll probably be very regular on the toilet the next day, but your body will still ask for more calories, despite the 500+ you just consumed. 4 spoon fulls of peanut butter may or may not register. That many calories in a very short time frame often does not.

I take shots of OO regularly. Stops hunger but slowly, because it takes a while for body to convert to fat metabolism.

Re: Thoughts on the potato diet

#495

Post by jasonwatkinspdx »

linsomniac wrote: post #336
jasonwatkinspdx wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A couple years back I tried making colecanon due to a random suggestion from a friend. It's just mashed potatoes mixed with cabbage or kale or such, seasoned as you like. I do a version where I brown the cabbage in butter first. I was surprised just how satisfying a plate of it as a meal, and thought exactly the same thing: I'm pretty sure you could live on that stuff indefinitely and be in great shape.

I used to fry up a kielbasa and then add in sauerkraut and serve that with mashed potatoes. The Sauerkraut and potato combination was delicious, so I'd buy your cabbage and mash idea. Going to have to give that a try.

Oh for sure. I usually add just a dash of vinegar to the cabbage to balance it out with some acidity.

Re: Thoughts on the potato diet

#496

Post by goodpoint »

devoutsalsa wrote: post #463
goodpoint wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did you just repeated the previous point without understanding anything of what I wrote?

Calories surplus equals weight gain. Are you saying you disagree with that? Because it sounds like you don't believe that.

Try reading what I wrote instead.

Re: Thoughts on the potato diet

#497

Post by csours »

TameAntelope wrote: post #448
csours wrote: post #377

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Then why does my source use it as a measurement? Why wouldn’t they be more specific, if being more specific were very important? I’m very familiar with the “BMI is not good!” argument, but if it’s good enough for Harvard’s School of Public Health, it’s good enough for me.

My conjecture is that "Changing Body Composition" is a better goal than "Lose Weight" for individuals who are trying to become healthier. As a long term aim or as a population measure, "Lose Weight" or "Lower BMI" fine; however, as a personal goal "Lose Weight" can be demotivating and flat out counterproductive, especially in the short term. It just doesn't work for many many people.

If you had a magic wand and changed all of an obese person's fat mass into muscle mass, that would not produce a healthy person. But that doesn't happen in the real world.

Here's what happens in the real world - when you start a workout program you gain a little weight. That small weight gain is not bad, but it can be demotivating if your goal is "lose weight". It can stop people from exercising, which is good for long term health.

Weight fluctuations are also confounding to the goal of "Lose Weight". I've often heard that a good goal is to lose 2 pounds a week. I have several problems with that. I can lose up to 4 pounds on a long walk. I can gain up to 5 pounds overnight. Neither of those reflect body fat loss (the walk may represent a few ounces). You may say "That's just water weight!" - Ok. How does my scale know that?

Being specific is very important in the personal experience of weight loss ahem change of body composition.

Re: Thoughts on the potato diet

#498

Post by nostrebored »

code_duck wrote: post #165
jrvarela56 wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I did and would recommend. It shows you the impact of foods in your blood glucose and made it easier to convince myself and change my behavior. Some lessons I got from using it for 2 months (these are personal, some should apply to most people): - Plantains cause a BIG glucose spike (I thought they didnt; in my case even more than pasta or rice) - Walking ~10min after a meal removes the glucose spike of even pretty l…

Why do you feel you need to change your food intake, and how do you interpret your CGM results? If you don't have a form of diabetes it doesn't really make a difference. Your glucose will go back down to 85 fairly soon.

I’ve put on weight and I find the cgm to be a way more objective and practical metric than calorie counting. It’s simply hard to consume enough low GI foods to put on weight.

There are certain foods that my body seems to process poorly. My blood glucose spikes as much from crackers and rice as it does from more traditional sweets. My heuristics for other foods that I assumed were sweet (often fatty foods with mild sweetener) were also wrong. And I’m not weighing everything, counting calories, etc. I just tap my phone onto the device a few times a day.

Other things have also been surprising. I smoke hookah fairly regularly and found that it raises my fasting blood glucose by almost ten points (80 -> 90).

I find it’s an easy North Star metric with a single exception being intense physical activity which releases glycogen stores.

There are other factions within the community that believe that blood glucose spikes are responsible for things like abdominal fat storage and you’ll see that they continually try to game the number with things like nut consumption and drinking vinegar. This seems less useful to me.

Re: Thoughts on the potato diet

#499

Post by nostrebored »

dubswithus wrote: post #145
nostrebored wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

CGMs should disillusion people of this pretty quickly. I really wish more people would try them for a month just to see how they respond to certain foods.

So I think this is an attempt to link a random result to a metabolic disease? This goes against the advice of pretty much every health doctor, nutritionist, and scientist.

I would be shocked if there aren’t more studies using CGMs to track diet adherence and health in the next few years.

If your doctor is telling you that prolonged periods of high blood sugar sustained over time are good for you, I would suggest that they review a bit of the literature.

Re: Thoughts on the potato diet

#500

Post by dubswithus »

nostrebored wrote: post #499
dubswithus wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So I think this is an attempt to link a random result to a metabolic disease? This goes against the advice of pretty much every health doctor, nutritionist, and scientist.

I would be shocked if there aren’t more studies using CGMs to track diet adherence and health in the next few years. If your doctor is telling you that prolonged periods of high blood sugar sustained over time are good for you, I would suggest that they review a bit of the literature.

If I asked my doctor about using a CGM as a runner that likes to eat fruits and vegetables he would look at me like I'm an idiot.

I imagine he would say, "So you aren't having any health issues and bought this $100 device anyway?"

People who get pre-diabetes or diabetes (type 2), well, it's usually because they are overweight or obese. There's just not a lot of people getting diabetes in a mysterious way.

Also, saturated fat is linked to diabetes. And cutting that out improves heart health anyway.

Post reply on HN