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

This Man Thinks He Never Has to Eat Again

vice.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

491–500 of 516 posts

Re: This Man Thinks He Never Has to Eat Again

#491

Post by grecy »

elbear wrote: post #487
grecy wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's wrong with signing on as a full-time employee then quitting a few years later? My company has fired many loyal full-time employees in the last 18 months with very minimal notice, so I feel no compunction about doing the same.

There's nothing wrong with it per se, but I'm not thinking of spending years with a company, because I want to start travelling sooner. Last time the discussion came up with a company, they said they were looking for someone for at least 2 to 4 years, and I couldn't lie to them and tell them I would stay that long.

> and I couldn't lie to them and tell them I would stay that long.

That's a choice you have to make.

Keep in mind, even when they say they are looking for someone for at least 2 to 4 years, they'll fire you with zero notice if it makes sense to their bottom line.

If there is nothing in writing, you are not bound to them any more than they are to you. Circumstances change, and you need to do what's right for you.

Re: This Man Thinks He Never Has to Eat Again

#492

Post by commandar »

papsosouid wrote: post #483
commandar wrote: post #480

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you seriously citing Lyle McDonald as proof that low carb diets lead to muscle wasting? >If glucose requirements are high but glucose availability is low, as in the initial days of fasting, the body will break down its own protein stores to produce glucose. This is probably the origin of the concept that low carbohydrate diets are muscle wasting. As discussed in the next chapter, an adequate protein intake during…

>Are you seriously citing Lyle McDonald as proof that low carb diets lead to muscle wasting? I don't even know how to answer such a nonsensical question. Are you upset that a proponent of low carb diets actually knows what he is talking about and doesn't lie? >It's a surprisingly common topic of discussion for something that's supposedly not done. Your evidence of what bodybuilders did decades ago is that people have…

>Are you upset that a proponent of low carb diets actually knows what he is talking about and doesn't lie?

No, I'm saying that McDonald does not say what you're claiming he does. Low carb diets will not lead to muscle loss simply because they're low carb. McDonald even says as much in the article you linked.

>I’d also note that, as long as protein intake is sufficiently high (e.g. the diet is covering the increased breakdown of protein in the liver and elsewhere), the amount of carbohydrates which are truly required is still zero.

Low carb diets can lead to muscle wasting, but that's the case with any diet -- which is something else McDonald had said.

The only thing I'm taking issue with is the assertion that low carbohydrate intake necessarily causes muscle wasting.

>Your evidence of what bodybuilders did decades ago is that people have started talking about doing it in the last few years?

Again, if you're going to cite McDonald, this is something he covers in the first chapter of his book.

EDIT:

I hadn't even seen the handy chart he includes at the bottom of that article. He recommends 50-100g of carbs per day to avoid muscle loss with no additional intake required to maintain light exercise. Those values are firmly within the low carbohydrate intake range.

Seriously, it's rather uncouth to imply the person you're talking to is lying when you're completely misrepresenting the sources you've cited yourself.

Re: This Man Thinks He Never Has to Eat Again

#493

Post by papsosouid »

commandar wrote: post #492
papsosouid wrote: post #483

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Are you seriously citing Lyle McDonald as proof that low carb diets lead to muscle wasting? I don't even know how to answer such a nonsensical question. Are you upset that a proponent of low carb diets actually knows what he is talking about and doesn't lie? >It's a surprisingly common topic of discussion for something that's supposedly not done. Your evidence of what bodybuilders did decades ago is that people have…

>Are you upset that a proponent of low carb diets actually knows what he is talking about and doesn't lie? No, I'm saying that McDonald does not say what you're claiming he does. Low carb diets will not lead to muscle loss simply because they're low carb. McDonald even says as much in the article you linked. >I’d also note that, as long as protein intake is sufficiently high (e.g. the diet is covering the increased b…

You might want to go back and read the thread. Low carb diets used to lose weight and manage epilepsy are no where even remotely close to 50-100g of carbs a day. Many set limits as low as 10g a day.

Re: This Man Thinks He Never Has to Eat Again

#494

Post by gnaritas »

ellyagg wrote: post #89
thejsjunky wrote: post #29

> because "soylent" is the name of a wafer made out of human flesh and fed Bit of nerd pedantry: this is incorrect. "Soylent" is the name of a type of processed food. There are different kinds made from various things. "soylent green" is a new variety introduced in this category that is supposedly made from kelp (or something like that) but is famously made from something else entirely. It's actually a pretty apt nam…

It may be apt, but it's a stupid name from a marketing perspective because of the associations it brings to mind. I noticed how eager he was to correct the record about the term "soylent", demonstrating a common blind spot among technical people. He should be focused on persuasion but is wasting attentional resources on pedantry and ego stroking.

> It may be apt, but it's a stupid name from a marketing perspective

And? Should everything we do be filtered though the lens of marketing?

Re: This Man Thinks He Never Has to Eat Again

#495

Post by commandar »

papsosouid wrote: post #493
commandar wrote: post #492

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Are you upset that a proponent of low carb diets actually knows what he is talking about and doesn't lie? No, I'm saying that McDonald does not say what you're claiming he does. Low carb diets will not lead to muscle loss simply because they're low carb. McDonald even says as much in the article you linked. >I’d also note that, as long as protein intake is sufficiently high (e.g. the diet is covering the increased b…

You might want to go back and read the thread. Low carb diets used to lose weight and manage epilepsy are no where even remotely close to 50-100g of carbs a day. Many set limits as low as 10g a day.

50g is on the high end of maintaining ketosis for most people, and 100g is specifically for those who wish to avoid ketosis.

And he says, multiple times, in that article that carb number can be lower without ill effect with sufficient protein intake. He's just saying it's easier for most people to just eat 50g of carbs a day than jack up their protein intake.

e.g.,

>However, strictly speaking, any diet with less than 100 g/day of carbohydrate will cause ketosis to develop to some degree (more ketones will be generated as carbs are lowered).

[...]

>In any case, an intake of 15-50 grams per day of carbohydrate will still allow ketosis to develop and those ketogenic dieters attempting to ‘eat as few carbs as possible’ might want to consider that in the context of not only providing much needed food variety (at 50 g/day, even a small amount of fruit can often be fit in) but also in the context of the protein sparing issues I discussed above. Getting to the point, although the physiological requirement for dietary carbohydrates is zero, we might set a practical minimum (in terms of preventing excessive body protein loss) at 50 grams per day. I’d note again that, within the context of The Rapid Fat Loss Handbook approach, carbs are limited to essentially trace amounts; however protein (which makes up the majority of the diet) is set high enough to limit muscle loss.

[...]

>So, summing up mid-article, the absolute requirement for carbohydrates is zero grams per day. However, depending on protein intake, a practical minimum for carbs lies between 50 grams/day (if someone functions well in ketosis) to 100-120 grams per day (if they don’t function well in ketosis). Let me mention very specifically that I’m not suggesting those numbers are a recommended level, I’m simply using them to represent a practical minimum value.

Re: This Man Thinks He Never Has to Eat Again

#496

Post by wamatt »

papsosouid wrote: post #490
wamatt wrote: post #489

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>And I am saying that just because you want to pretend there's magic pixie dust that we need to live, doesn't mean it is actually true. Another misrepresentation. I started the thread by saying that the human body can take a lot of abuse for many years without apparent ill-effects. That said, many would argue the difference between "living" (or surviving over a certain time period) and optimal health, is not an insig…

>It's quite possible to develop chronic conditions, that are not apparent at first, and only manifest themselves after years of nutritional deficiency. Oh, well that is certainly a reasonable basis to pretend a very complete diet is dangerous and lacking. Oh wait, no that is a completely nonsensical basis.

The author himself shows a little more humility: "You’re exactly right. This is a risk, an experiment. " -rob [1].

I find it incredible that you will not concede any significant difference between D3 and D2 or between K1 and K2 groups. When the facts show the opposite. [2] Have you actually read the book on K2 and the evidence that it reduces arterial calcification?

You act like it's perfectly reasonable to dismiss studies and because of your preconceived notion that this diet is a perfect and "very complete" and "100% completely and totally covering all vitamins" (your words) and therefore any counterclaims means .

I like this Rob fellow. I'm a huge supporter of ground up approaches, but this is simply not a black and white issue, and no amount of bullying from your quarter is going to change that.

[1] http://robrhinehart.com/?p=424#comments

[2] http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/05/120531102338.ht...

Re: This Man Thinks He Never Has to Eat Again

#497

Post by Evgeny »

papsosouid wrote: post #469
Evgeny wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

and cause muscle wasting Low carb diets do not cause muscle wasting - at least if one continues to exercise. I.e: Very-low-carbohydrate diets and preservation of muscle mass http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1373635/

>Low carb diets do not cause muscle wasting - at least if one continues to exercise. Which you can't do because your muscles have no glycogen stores.

My understanding is that when carbohydrates are in short supply, then gluconeogenesis kicks in and liver starts producing glucose from lactate, glycerol and amino acids.

I.e. some information can be found here: Low-Carbohydrate Diet Burns More Excess Liver Fat Than Low-Calorie Diet, Clinical Study Finds

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/01/090120074631.ht...

I personally did not follow a low carb diet for more than 12 weeks, but I kept my regular 3 times per week workouts and maintained my strength while losing about 8kg bodyweight from ~83 to ~75 kg. My workouts were fairly short (40 to 50 min), but quite intensive.

Re: This Man Thinks He Never Has to Eat Again

#498

Post by derleth »

papsosouid wrote: post #452
derleth wrote: post #374

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sadly, this is not the case: http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2012/07/02/dietary-supplem... > While on its surface this would appear to be a reasonable distinction, given that it doesn’t make sense from a policy or scientific standpoint to hold food to the standards as rigorous as the standards to which drugs are held, as implemented by the DSHEA this distinction has the pernicious effect of allowing manufacturers t…

Did you even read that link? That does not apply to things like protein powder, or meal replacement drinks like this discussion is about. >Others make their supplements in unsanitary factories That's equally true of all sorts of food.

> That's equally true of all sorts of food.

No, it isn't, thanks to the FDA.

Re: This Man Thinks He Never Has to Eat Again

#500

Post by zwass »

grecy wrote: post #146
mathteacher1729 wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> For anyone that doesn't understand that statement, I recommend taking a few years off work, where you spend your time getting up early every day, doing something all day (hiking, walking, gardening, building, whatever) and go to bed late in the evening (i.e. Full days of activities you want to be doing). I spent 2 years doing this [...] How did you afford this, financially? What was the before/during/after story of…

I saved for ~18 months, then spent two years driving from Alaska to Argentina, because I wanted to. I blogged the whole time at http://theroadchoseme.com All the financial details are at http://theroadchoseme.com/the-price-of-adventure You'll be interested to note I only spent $1200/mo on the road, which is almost exactly what I was spending month-to-month to go to work every day. I'm currently back working as a Soft…

Hey Dan, I couldn't find any contact info here or on your blog. I have some specific questions I'd like to ask about your trip and the aftermath. Could you please contact me?

zachwass2000@gmail.com

Thanks!

Post reply on HN