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

The Diet Fix

sciencebasedmedicine.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 63 posts

Re: The Diet Fix

#51

Post by 0xdeadbeefbabe »

jp555 wrote: post #49
soneca wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly! What is calorie? Is is something? No! It is a unity of measuring heat. That's it! Doesn't matter at all. Anything can become fat on your body, but what decides it is the hormones saying to your body "this will become fat, this will become muscle or blood or etc, and this is pee or poo" . Counting calories is a proxy at most . But people started to treat the proxy as thing in itself, which it isn't.

What is a foot? is it something? No! It is a unit of measuring distance, That's it. Doesn't matter at all.

calories * X is proportional to weight loss, but X seems more important than calories in all but the most silly edge cases.

Re: The Diet Fix

#53

Post by soneca »

soneca wrote: post #37

"In this book we obey the laws of thermodynamics" Repeating a comment I made below, this makes no sense at all to me!! His argument in his post saying Taubes is wrong is "The laws of physics are unavoidable". That makes no sense at all! There is no logical reason to believe that calories (a thermodinamic unity) is transformed in fat in our body - and no science to prove it either. This is the same as saying that all…

Ok, people are downvoting my comment because I am not convinced by their arguments (or worse, just have a different opinion on a polemic topic). That's it, I quit, no more nutrition debate on HN for me.

Re: The Diet Fix

#54

Post by TrainedMonkey »

Dewie wrote: post #38
TrainedMonkey wrote: post #6

There is claim that exercise contributing to significant weight loss is a myth. I beg to disagree, while exercise itself might not be significant contributor to weight loss, no exercise means lower metabolism and overall health. As always there is no silver bullet, you need to have a balanced lifestyle to be healthy.

Is a high metabolism necessarily healthy?

I am not aware of any drawbacks aside from requiring more energy intake to maintain weight.

Re: The Diet Fix

#55

Post by contravert »

tfigueroa wrote: post #39
soneca wrote: post #37

"In this book we obey the laws of thermodynamics" Repeating a comment I made below, this makes no sense at all to me!! His argument in his post saying Taubes is wrong is "The laws of physics are unavoidable". That makes no sense at all! There is no logical reason to believe that calories (a thermodinamic unity) is transformed in fat in our body - and no science to prove it either. This is the same as saying that all…

Come now. It's a matter of physics that you can't make stuff from nothing, and you can't do things without energy. That's not to say that body fat is strictly dependent on caloric intake, but to certain extremes, there's no way around that fact.

But can't you use the same argument for mass? Why focus on calories and not kilograms?

Re: The Diet Fix

#56

Post by tfigueroa »

contravert wrote: post #55
tfigueroa wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Come now. It's a matter of physics that you can't make stuff from nothing, and you can't do things without energy. That's not to say that body fat is strictly dependent on caloric intake, but to certain extremes, there's no way around that fact.

But can't you use the same argument for mass? Why focus on calories and not kilograms?

Mass isn't very useful, because our bodies aren't powered by mass-to-energy reactions. Different foods have different energy densities with respect to what our bodies can digest and use. Calories seem to be the best measurement in that respect.

Re: The Diet Fix

#57

Post by minikomi »

jp555 wrote: post #48
cab_codespring wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Gluten Free nonsense drives me the most crazy. Of course they don't have Celiac disease, but they are "Sensitive" to it, which there is no way to refute. There is so much pseudoscience crap floating around I'm glad there's one book out there refuting it, I just wish he was a nutrition researcher doctor or something instead of a pharmacist, which doesn't sound very impressive for a diet book.

It's frustrating. But I've been there. First coupe years slow-carb, low-carb, plaeo, grain-is-poison. All diets work. But it was only after I got the fundamentals really down, and just did the work required that my body snapped into amazing shape, remarkably quickly. And it's possible for virtually everyone, at nearly any age.

I'm interested in what you mean by "fundamentals"?

Re: The Diet Fix

#58

Post by jp555 »

0xdeadbeefbabe wrote: post #51
jp555 wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is a foot? is it something? No! It is a unit of measuring distance, That's it. Doesn't matter at all.

calories * X is proportional to weight loss, but X seems more important than calories in all but the most silly edge cases.

Nope. As far as having an effect on weight loss, net-energy balance (energy added - energy used) is several magnitudes more important than anything else, and the "energy added" side of this equation is entirely calories. Hormones are driven by your environment, and food is a huge environmental stimulus, especially when we're limiting our discussion to weight-loss. But don't conflate that with the idea that hormones are more important; they are subject to your environment (the food you eat), not the other way around.

Over 100 years of hospital-ward, double-blind, clinical trial weight-loss research have ALL shown the exact same thing; Nothing comes remotely close to the effect calorie intake has on weight. The macronutrient content of diet (ie. low-carb, mostly sugar, or high protein) and meal timing has NO significant effect and is completely drowned out by the influence of calorie intake.

But of course that's boring and difficult. What sells books and adverts on Dr. Oz is "calories don't matter".

Re: The Diet Fix

#59

Post by jp555 »

minikomi wrote: post #57
jp555 wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's frustrating. But I've been there. First coupe years slow-carb, low-carb, plaeo, grain-is-poison. All diets work. But it was only after I got the fundamentals really down, and just did the work required that my body snapped into amazing shape, remarkably quickly. And it's possible for virtually everyone, at nearly any age.

I'm interested in what you mean by "fundamentals"?

I wish there was a way to answer that appropriately in the space of a comment. Regarding nutrition, this is what I tell people to start with: http://www.amazon.ca/Advanced-Nutrition-Metabolism-Sareen-Gr...

It's a great book, and more accessible than you might think.

Re: The Diet Fix

#60

Post by 0xdeadbeefbabe »

jp555 wrote: post #58
0xdeadbeefbabe wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

calories * X is proportional to weight loss, but X seems more important than calories in all but the most silly edge cases.

Nope. As far as having an effect on weight loss, net-energy balance (energy added - energy used) is several magnitudes more important than anything else, and the "energy added" side of this equation is entirely calories. Hormones are driven by your environment, and food is a huge environmental stimulus, especially when we're limiting our discussion to weight-loss. But don't conflate that with the idea that hormones a…

Except for silly edge cases?

Okay then eat your recommended calories worth of cocopuffs for breakfast, since it's all about energy. Calorie counting oversimplifies the problem. Sure it might describe what is going on, but it can be a poor guide for a dieter trying to decide what to eat next.

Post reply on HN