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

Always Hungry? Here’s Why

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 134 posts

Re: Always Hungry? Here’s Why

#71

Post by jasallen »

SatoshiPacioli wrote: post #10
Udo wrote: post #3

There seems to be a pervasive unwillingness to understand the nature of positive feedback cycles, and instead we're just continually hearing "fat because of intake" and "intake because of fat" arguments that try to fall on an extreme interpretation of simplified causality. This article belongs to the very few that actually do a job of describing a feedback cycle, but then it falls short and does the popular simplific…

There's a wealth of information on ketogenic (low to no carb) diets: http://www.reddit.com/r/keto Everyone serious about this understands that carbs are the problem.

ultra-low to no carb on a daily basis has severe issues with it as well. Things like carb-cycling, or low (but not ultra-low) attempt to address those issues.

The main points being (1) brain needs glucose, can't fuel any other way (2) glucose is needed for maximum muscle response so if you are fit/athletic in any way you can be short-changing your performance if you have no glycogen stores to tap for "burst fuel"

Re: Always Hungry? Here’s Why

#72

Post by hollerith »

jasallen wrote: post #71
SatoshiPacioli wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a wealth of information on ketogenic (low to no carb) diets: http://www.reddit.com/r/keto Everyone serious about this understands that carbs are the problem.

ultra-low to no carb on a daily basis has severe issues with it as well. Things like carb-cycling, or low (but not ultra-low) attempt to address those issues. The main points being (1) brain needs glucose, can't fuel any other way (2) glucose is needed for maximum muscle response so if you are fit/athletic in any way you can be short-changing your performance if you have no glycogen stores to tap for "burst fuel"

>brain needs glucose, can't fuel any other way

Not so: the brain can be fueled by ketone bodies, which the liver can create from fat.

P.S. I agree with your larger point that avoiding all carbs for many days at a time should only be done by people who have informed themselves of the risks (acidosis and kidney stones).

Re: Always Hungry? Here’s Why

#73

Post by ddebernardy »

kome wrote: post #16

Obesity rates in Europe (2008): http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/50326000/gif/_50326564... Why Italians, that eat pasta (carbohydrates) almost every day are so thin? Goddammit.

Because carbs are not created equal.

Fructose is much more of a problem than glucose. Here's a video from one of the authors referenced in the article that explains the two metabolisms in depth:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM

Besides whether they eat processed food or not, look into what they drink and what they have for desert in particular. In e.g. Italy or France, consumption of soda or fruit juice is low, and deserts are small and refined when it's not a simple fruit.

It's a completely different story in e.g. the UK where they binge on soda, candy, and sugary chocolate, Malta where they binge on a local soft drink so sweet your entire body is sweating with sugar from merely tasting it or Hungary where they frequently eat sweet bread and enormous sugary cakes.

Re: Always Hungry? Here’s Why

#74

Post by charlieflowers »

Lustig has his critics[1]. In fact, seems the mainstream almost thinks of him as a quack (almost). Myself, I can't discern who's right and wrong. I can see that a lot of people are overstating their level of certainty.

[1] http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/01/29/the-bitter-truth-ab...

Re: Always Hungry? Here’s Why

#75

Post by stinos »

SatoshiPacioli wrote: post #10
Udo wrote: post #3

There seems to be a pervasive unwillingness to understand the nature of positive feedback cycles, and instead we're just continually hearing "fat because of intake" and "intake because of fat" arguments that try to fall on an extreme interpretation of simplified causality. This article belongs to the very few that actually do a job of describing a feedback cycle, but then it falls short and does the popular simplific…

There's a wealth of information on ketogenic (low to no carb) diets: http://www.reddit.com/r/keto Everyone serious about this understands that carbs are the problem.

Care to also post links to scientific evidence next to the reddit? Sure it has information, but from a quick glance it's information without much science/proof to back it up, from people who are already convinced. I think way more is needed to convince the rather critical spirits on HN :)

Re: Always Hungry? Here’s Why

#76

Post by tpeng »

dlp211 wrote: post #63
tpeng wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I haven't changed my exercise routine, so my total energy expenditure has not changed. Cutting calories is just as difficult for me as it is for anyone else I am not sure how common insulin resistance is, but given that it is a metabolic disorder, I don't think you can draw general conclusions about metabolism from those individuals.

I never claimed that you did change your exercise routine but that has nothing to do with anything that I said. Again, most people don't have 1500 calories that they can cut from their diet. If they did cut that much, it is more likely to put their body in starvation mode, which is bad. For people that are overweight, what we want is the body to be in ketogenesis, that is, breaking down fat in order to provide calori…

“most people don't have the time to go throw 45's around a gym for an hour a few times a week”

“For people that are overweight, what we want “

“cutting out the extra calories won't help once insulin resistance happens.”

It sounds like you are overweight, sedentary, and insulin-resistant.

I mean this in all sincerity and without any mean spirit:

Please find a way to get healthy. If what you are doing is working, great. If not, reconsider your approach. Please do not give nutrition advice to others until you are actually healthy.

Re: Always Hungry? Here’s Why

#77

Post by rdtsc »

DanBC wrote: post #65
jusben1369 wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This argument can really be filed under the "I want to wash my hands of the whole affair by stating fat people simply should eat less and it's all their fault" Obesity rates have soared. Inquisitive minds want to know what is driving that change? It appears to be more than simply "oh a whole new generation just doesn't have the will power of people as recently as 20 or 25 years ago" As this article points out people…

The reason that Americans are fat include never walking anywhere but always using their cars; and drinking huge amounts of sugared water. http://imgur.com/9Xa92tr http://imgur.com/mUJsbPu http://imgur.com/GxgrGWg Experts have never said "eat bread" or "eat pasta" to people dieting. Are you mistaking "expert advice" for "populist nonsense"? You wouldn't be alone. Every single HN thread about nutrition contains fucking…

Given how little calories exercise burn per hour or per mile and I don't see blame on walking or not being a big factor. It surely is in the popular culture.

Most importantly this idea is dangerous because it is used often in the PR campaigns of processed food manufacturers. "Drink the 1L soda bottle, it is ok, because then you can walk around the block to burn it off!" kind of idea.

Re: Always Hungry? Here’s Why

#78

Post by jasallen »

Udo wrote: post #3

There seems to be a pervasive unwillingness to understand the nature of positive feedback cycles, and instead we're just continually hearing "fat because of intake" and "intake because of fat" arguments that try to fall on an extreme interpretation of simplified causality. This article belongs to the very few that actually do a job of describing a feedback cycle, but then it falls short and does the popular simplific…

I really did enjoy this article. I don't think there is anything new here, but it's presented in a very "mass media friendly" way, which is important for finally defeating the "just eat less" mentality.

Of course, it is still calorie in, calorie out, but we need to understand what effects metabolic changes in our body if we want to understand what calories are going out. Furthermore, quality of life generally indicates most people don't want to shut their metabolism down even if it did mean weight loss -- we want to be energy using machines that are motivated to "get up and do stuff", so just blindly reducing calories is not the path to that.

Calorie counting is an important part, but knowing what macro-nutrients ratio is just as important. More protein, more fat, more fiber, less carbs will help that a lot. Why is calorie tracking still so important? because fat takes forever to metabolize and is denser than carbs, so (a) You will need to break the psychological programming of expecting food to provide instant fuel, fat will take an hour(ish) to energize you; if you just are "still hungry" and eat more in 30 minutes you're losing the battle. (b) Most of us are used to eating a volume of food that equates to the calories we want from carbs. Eating that much in fat will obviously not help weight loss goals, so when eating fat dense foods we must eat much smaller portions.

There are really two separate feedback loops we use to feel sated. Fat is good

Re: Always Hungry? Here’s Why

#79

Post by sgt101 »

jasallen wrote: post #71
SatoshiPacioli wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a wealth of information on ketogenic (low to no carb) diets: http://www.reddit.com/r/keto Everyone serious about this understands that carbs are the problem.

ultra-low to no carb on a daily basis has severe issues with it as well. Things like carb-cycling, or low (but not ultra-low) attempt to address those issues. The main points being (1) brain needs glucose, can't fuel any other way (2) glucose is needed for maximum muscle response so if you are fit/athletic in any way you can be short-changing your performance if you have no glycogen stores to tap for "burst fuel"

If you are "tapping for burst fuel" why are you worrying about your diet (apart from the sensible am I having good things enough worry...) Surely these diets are aimed at people who need to loose >10% of body weight ?

Re: Always Hungry? Here’s Why

#80

Post by morgante »

igravious wrote: post #60
morgante wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> How is it ridiculous? Because you're taking a correlation and eliminating the lower data point. Yes, people with better educations tend to eat better, but not by much. In fact, for adult males there is no correlation between education and obesity prevalence. [1] I, and the many other overweight NYT readers, certainly exist. We could also benefit from this article. Should we not get access to it because of your faul…

I know you didn't say that. Which is _why_ I said, "I'm just contesting the following comment elsewhere here (I should have made a separate comment)" and then I posted the link to the comment which said it. I'm not arguing with you, I'm arguing with that comment so you need to go read it if you want to debate that. I probably shouldn't have rolled two viewpoints into the one post as it seems to have totally confused…

Mixing replies and quotes from two different comments completely muddles the waters and confuses the issue of authorship. Please don't do that.

If you looked a little closer at the report I linked to, you would find that "obesity prevalence among adult males did not vary consistently with level of education." Which is in fact exactly what I stated.

Sure, NYT non-readers might on average be fitter than NYT readers. But that's hardly a reason for it not being beneficial to or interesting to NYT readers. By that logic, we should never post intro coding tutorials to HN because on average they'd be more helpful to the general public than HN readers.

Post reply on HN