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

In Dieting, Magic Isn’t a Substitute for Science

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 72 posts

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

#61

Post by merlincorey »

raverbashing wrote: post #3

Oh come on Yes, a calorie is a calorie (as long as dietary: macro/micro nutrients needs are supplied), still there may be advantages to the diet, as it is pointed in the article "They report that people on the Atkins diet were burning off more calories. Ergo, the diet is a good thing." (it's not necessarily all good especially if you think low-carb diet==eating bacon at will, still) Also, there may be other advantage…

I eat bacon at will and am steadily losing weight. Paleo, which is similar to Atkins in that you much reduce grains (as well as sugars), plus light exercise is working great for me because I am human.

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

#62

Post by raverbashing »

merlincorey wrote: post #61
raverbashing wrote: post #3

Oh come on Yes, a calorie is a calorie (as long as dietary: macro/micro nutrients needs are supplied), still there may be advantages to the diet, as it is pointed in the article "They report that people on the Atkins diet were burning off more calories. Ergo, the diet is a good thing." (it's not necessarily all good especially if you think low-carb diet==eating bacon at will, still) Also, there may be other advantage…

I eat bacon at will and am steadily losing weight . Paleo, which is similar to Atkins in that you much reduce grains (as well as sugars), plus light exercise is working great for me because I am human .

Yes

But you won't lose weight (meaning fat or muscle) unless there is a caloric deficit. Period

What happens is that high-protein diet changes the fullness sensation/hunger, so that's why it shows results and is easier to keep.

Of course: less grains == less fiber meaning "you may have a hard time"

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

#63

Post by raverbashing »

danmaz74 wrote: post #33
raverbashing wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

""when carbohydrate levels are low in a diet and fat content is high, people lose water" This is not a bad thing, but it is a thing that has to be compensated. And there is loss of water in all weight loss diets. "the measurements were mistaken and there is not advantage from a low-carbs diet" There is not an advantage from the calorie balancing point but there are several other aspects that are important in diets

He isn't saying that losing water is a bad thing, he says that how you lose it could explain the measured increased levels of calories burned from this new study, even if his own evidence says that you don't lose more weight from a hig fat diet. "There is not an advantage from the calorie balancing point": what he says is that there are no advantages from a weight loss point, as the calories balance IS what creates l…

"what he says is that there are no advantages from a weight loss point"

A diet is much more than counting calories. It's about managing to maintain a set amount of food for your objective.

Here's an experiment you can do. Replace all your food (lunch/dinner) with chicken fillets (for the daily need of protein), top up calories with sweet potatoes and olive oil for fat needs.

See how long you can keep up with this diet. This is a nutritionally sound diet (except for micronutrients), and if you calculate your daily needs you will maintain your weight (or you can adjust for weight loss or gain)

But a regular person will probably lose weight because (s)he will get sick of it fast and eat less!

The calories matter, but two things can have an equal number of calories and one may make people feel hungry after 1h and the other may make people feel full for the whole day. Guess who's more likely to lose weight?!

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

#64

Post by Heinleinian »

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.

This is what drives me crazy about the dieting issue. People will cite a study that involves 21 people. 21! Think of all the pain caused by people being overweight, and the insane costs imposed on our healthcare systems. With all that pain and cost, we can't come up with studies with larger sample sizes? Show me a double-blind study with 10,000 people and I'll start to take it seriously.

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

#65

Post by Heinleinian »

ktizo wrote: post #36
lukifer wrote: post #18

The human body is the most complex piece of machinery in the history of the known universe, and is highly variable from one person to the next, with all sorts of evolutionary cruft and random aberrations. I understand we all need actionable information to maximize our odds at life, but any attempt at science journalism that doesn't start from that premise and instead tries to tell you "X good, Y bad" can probably be…

Surely on that argument, the body of almost any animal that is bigger than us is actually a more complex piece of machinery. Blue whales are massive, for instance and are made of far more cells than we are.

It's not about size. Human brains produce consciousness. Can't argue with that.

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

#66

Post by ktizo »

Heinleinian wrote: post #65
ktizo wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Surely on that argument, the body of almost any animal that is bigger than us is actually a more complex piece of machinery. Blue whales are massive, for instance and are made of far more cells than we are.

It's not about size. Human brains produce consciousness. Can't argue with that.

a. How do you know that other brains don't.

b. How do you know that consciousness is primarily a function of complexity.

c. Complexity need not give recognisable output.

d. The weather.

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

#67

Post by codex »

A consulted expert disses new research with a conjured, speculative flaw, because it contradicts his own research.

This is illogical, but not just because the expert has a conflict of interest; the studies measure different things.

The old study put people on appropriate maintenance diets of varying compositions and found that everybody maintained their weights regardless of what they ate. As it turns out, humans are very good at maintaining their weights; feed them more, within reason, and their bodies burn more; feed them less and the trim is adjusted to burn less.

The new study measures how easily people regain weight on various diets after their bodies have been kicked out of this mode by extreme calorie deflicts (resulting in weight loss). Not the same thing, at all.

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

#69

Post by masto »

vitno wrote: post #43
masto wrote: post #40

Since this is Hacker News, no discussion of diets can be complete without a reference to The Hacker's Diet " rel="nofollow">https://www.fourmilab.ch/hackdiet/> . Especially in this context, since it's basically calorie restriction designed to appeal to an engineer. Personally, I lost 50 pounds using this approach, and my diet consisted mainly of Hot Pockets, microwaved White Castle cheeseburgers, and frozen pizza. Be…

He has actually started the paleo diet. http://www.fourmilab.ch/fourmilog/archives/2011-12/001344.ht...

Though as he says, not to lose weight.

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

#70

Post by beagle3 »

KingMob wrote: post #56
disgruntledphd2 wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

He isn't arguing against climate change. He is arguing that the people who do argue climate change are making arguments from religion, rather than science. And I tend to agree.
Post reply on HN