In Dieting, Magic Isn’t a Substitute for Science • Hacker News Board

Re: In Dieting, Magic Isn’t a Substitute for Science

#51

Post by KingMob » Sat, Jul 14, 2012, 5:16 PM UTC

damianpeckett wrote: post #11

What these ridiculous study cherry picking groups overlook is the satiating effects of high protein consumption. An attempt at a high protein body building diet ended with me losing 10kg of fat. Eat lot's of protein and your appetite just dies, fat/carbs a lot of the time make no difference. It's just easy on the high fat diet to avoid high glycemic response carbs and fructose. Plus palatability, sugar makes you over…

Definitely. I, personally, can eat half a box of pasta and be extremely hungry again in a few hours. If I eat a bowl of lentils, I sometimes have difficulty finishing it.

Re: In Dieting, Magic Isn’t a Substitute for Science

#52

Post by readme » Sat, Jul 14, 2012, 5:18 PM UTC

div wrote: post #28

readme wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

by "low carb diet" I am specifically referring to carb-restriction type diets like atkins that advocate eating an extraordinarily low amount of carbohydrates. carbohydrates are an important macronutrient. the problem is not with carbs, but with bad carbs. go visit some third world countries where they eat primarily carbs and find me the obese people. (hint: you won't find any)

The problem isn't with carbs, protein, fat or subcategories of those, the problem is with more calories being eaten than calories being burned. caloric intake > caloric burn -> weight gain caloric intake = caloric burn -> weight stabilises caloric intake weight loss You can alter your caloric intake by changing the amount and type of food you eat. You can alter your caloric burn by changing the amount of exercise / l…

I absolutely agree that weight is regulated by calories consumed vs calories burned.

In practice though, trying to say that is the only important aspect is complete bull. Try getting all your calories from wood chips and let me know how that work.

In order for consistent weight loss to occur, we need to eat healthy foods so that we feel good. Feeling lousy will cause you to overeat. Eating bad foods could also make you sick.

Re: In Dieting, Magic Isn’t a Substitute for Science

#53

Post by rprasad » Sat, Jul 14, 2012, 5:23 PM UTC

sixbrx wrote: post #46

matwood wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So eating mostly meat just makes it easier to consume fewer calories by default. This is probably the most important statement in the entire thread. All of these fad diets basically trick the dieter into eating less calories. When Lustig, etc... cite various studies those studies never seem to account for overall caloric intake. Person A cut carbs, person B didn't, person A lost weight ergo carbs are bad. Yeah, it do…

No it's a jump to a conclusion at least, and according to a recent study may be false. http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1199154 . The study seems to indicate that low carb diets actually do trigger more calories to be burned for the same level of activity, about 430 additional calories per day. It's too early to tell if this affect is real (larger study needed), but the results are interesting.

Low carb diets also increase metabolic stress (specifically ketosis), which is one of the suspected reasons for the additional calorie burn. Ketosis over short periods is good, but scientists differ on whether it is safe in the long-term. For diabetics (Type I or II), ketosis is not safe, as the body does not have the proper insulin response to maintain safe levels of ketosis.

Re: In Dieting, Magic Isn’t a Substitute for Science

#54

Post by terio » Sat, Jul 14, 2012, 5:31 PM UTC

Of course a calorie is a calorie, but this is more than often used as a simplistic view of how the body processes food. Now it is clear that both the type and amount of food one consumes influences the hormonal system and gene expression. It is naive to keep thinking just in terms of calories.

Re: In Dieting, Magic Isn’t a Substitute for Science

#55

Post by KingMob » Sat, Jul 14, 2012, 5:32 PM UTC

div wrote: post #28

readme wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

by "low carb diet" I am specifically referring to carb-restriction type diets like atkins that advocate eating an extraordinarily low amount of carbohydrates. carbohydrates are an important macronutrient. the problem is not with carbs, but with bad carbs. go visit some third world countries where they eat primarily carbs and find me the obese people. (hint: you won't find any)

The problem isn't with carbs, protein, fat or subcategories of those, the problem is with more calories being eaten than calories being burned. caloric intake > caloric burn -> weight gain caloric intake = caloric burn -> weight stabilises caloric intake weight loss You can alter your caloric intake by changing the amount and type of food you eat. You can alter your caloric burn by changing the amount of exercise / l…

Those formulas have the appeal of simplicity, but it's more complicated than that. For starters, caloric burn is highly correlated with caloric intake. They're not independent variables by a long shot. Consume less and your metabolism will actually shift down to burn less. Burn more by exercise and your appetite will increase to partially compensate.

Also, exercise is actually a low load on our body calorically (for most types of exercise). The overwhelming majority of calories burnt are for maintaining homeostasis, and have nothing to do with aerobic exercise.

Here's an example that shows how people are deceived. If you're an average male, and you start using a high-tech treadmill, the calories/hour measure might say something like "120 calories/hour". Sounds great, right? Well, what it doesn't say is that 100 calories of that measurement are just due to your basal metabolic rate, the amount you would burn just sitting in a chair. Running (possibly the most efficient exercise) itself only burnt 20 calories an hour. A carrot is sufficient to cover that.

Plus, exercise is not the only output. Heat production is an even better one. The amount of calories expended in maintaining body temperature is way higher than exercise. There's also excretion, but luckily, nobody's advocating laxatives as a weight-loss regimen yet. :)

Re: In Dieting, Magic Isn’t a Substitute for Science

#56

Post by KingMob » Sat, Jul 14, 2012, 5:37 PM UTC

disgruntledphd2 wrote: post #39

itmag wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I suspect that taste has a lot to do with weight gain. See for instance the Shangri La Diet: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Shangri-La_Diet

Seth's blog is pretty awesome, also. The man is extremely inventive and clear thinking. That being said, I personally believe that most of what he's found can be accounted for by the placebo effect, but his ideas and reports from other people always make me think.

Seth is a very interesting fellow with some fascinating ideas (butter improves mental reasoning, standing on one leg can improve sleep, flavorless calories interfere with weight setpoints), but I think he's made a mistake in arguing against man-made climate change.

Re: In Dieting, Magic Isn’t a Substitute for Science

#57

Post by HyprMusic » Sat, Jul 14, 2012, 5:38 PM UTC

phren0logy wrote: post #22

HyprMusic wrote: post #4

This is taking dieting completely out of context. It's akin to saying that 1 gallon of fuel will result in the same amount of distance driven no matter how you drive. There are advantages to cutting out high GI carbs, since they lead to a spike in insulin which results in food cravings, tiredness and hunger. Switch the sugary cereal for the oats in the morning and you'll experience this first hand.

Citation needed.

Just look up the affects of insulin, or why a low GI diet is good. Here you go: http://health.ninemsn.com.au/dietandnutrition/nutrition/6938...

Re: In Dieting, Magic Isn’t a Substitute for Science

#58

Post by KingMob » Sat, Jul 14, 2012, 5:40 PM UTC

Newky wrote: post #32

I may be old-fashioned, but the idea of any of these "extreme" diets scares me. I have always found that an approach with regular ( 2-3 times a week ) exercise and an conservative approach to eating is better. My usual diet plans for eating is breakfast (some cereal), a big lunch at about 1 o clock (this is my dinner effectively), and perhaps something light, like pasta, rice when I get home, followed by a bowl of ce…

Interesting. You realize though, that prior to agriculture, not a single human ate anything like what you describe, right? You list a lot of grains, and those are a relatively recent addition to the human diet.

"Extreme" is a function of time and place. What seems normal for modern America might be very abnormal relative to the historical record.

Re: In Dieting, Magic Isn’t a Substitute for Science

#59

Post by KingMob » Sat, Jul 14, 2012, 5:48 PM UTC

rprasad wrote: post #53

sixbrx wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No it's a jump to a conclusion at least, and according to a recent study may be false. http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1199154 . The study seems to indicate that low carb diets actually do trigger more calories to be burned for the same level of activity, about 430 additional calories per day. It's too early to tell if this affect is real (larger study needed), but the results are interesting.

Low carb diets also increase metabolic stress (specifically ketosis), which is one of the suspected reasons for the additional calorie burn. Ketosis over short periods is good, but scientists differ on whether it is safe in the long-term. For diabetics (Type I or II), ketosis is not safe, as the body does not have the proper insulin response to maintain safe levels of ketosis.

Are there any studies on ketosis and diabetes? Because one of the primary drivers of insulin resistance in type 2 diabetes is being overweight. So, even if ketosis were bad, if losing weight improved your insulin sensitivity, it might still be worth it. Obviously, this shouldn't apply to type 1 diabetics, though.

Re: In Dieting, Magic Isn’t a Substitute for Science

#60

Post by Heinleinian » Sat, Jul 14, 2012, 6:18 PM UTC

rprasad wrote: post #53

sixbrx wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No it's a jump to a conclusion at least, and according to a recent study may be false. http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1199154 . The study seems to indicate that low carb diets actually do trigger more calories to be burned for the same level of activity, about 430 additional calories per day. It's too early to tell if this affect is real (larger study needed), but the results are interesting.

Low carb diets also increase metabolic stress (specifically ketosis), which is one of the suspected reasons for the additional calorie burn. Ketosis over short periods is good, but scientists differ on whether it is safe in the long-term. For diabetics (Type I or II), ketosis is not safe, as the body does not have the proper insulin response to maintain safe levels of ketosis.

I'm sorry, this needs a citation. I'm not trying to be a jerk, it's just that with a subject this controversial you can't simply assert claims like this.