Live data from Hacker News

The Obesity Era

aeonmagazine.com

81–90 of 96 posts

Re: The Obesity Era

#81
post #3

Interesting read; I've encountered many of the problems signaled out here. I'm overweight, and I've changed my life and my diet to try and fix it. When I took note of where I was, I was drinking between 4 and 8 mountain dews a day. I ate candy in prodigious amounts, and constantly ate until I was full. Since then, I altered my diet and eating habits to where I drink no pop, and rarely have any kind of sugary treat. I…

I mentioned upthread, I was overweight. Not incredibly so, but certainly overweight. I was 6'2, 210, without very much muscle mass.

I gained maybe a pound a month during 2010 and 2011. Finally 12/2011 I had enough. I didn't like how I felt. What worked for me is this:

1. No depravation. I ate dessert every day. Period.

2. A large dinner (followed by that dessert) every day. Large as in, feeling totally full but not like so-full-it-hurts full.

3. Three 90 minute visits to the Gym every week.

4. A dramatic reduction in what I eat during the day. Dramatic. I went from free startup catered lunch every day (which is essentially like eating 2 dinners a day) to eating only raw during the day. That was my commitment: Nothing processed or cooked until dinner. But gorge myself at dinner if I wanted.

I started this 12/2011 and eat like this to this very day. It's easy now. In fact I hate it when I have to eat a big lunch. Today my lunch is 1 large apple, grapes, 5 strawberries, 1 small "Babybel Light" cheese and 3 water crackers. (I only added the cheese and crackers once I got down to under 170 and needed to eat more to stabilize my weight). I ate more fruit and veg the first 6+ months after I started this, I've just acclimated now to the smaller intake.

I cannot stress how important the big dinner was to me. Because I tried dieting before. Deprevation is very very hard to make work I think. And most importantly, what I've done was change my diet, not go on a diet. I can literally eat like this for the rest of my life. But a more conventional "diet" diet? No way. I'd hit some goal, then drop that misery like a bad habit, and probably slowly go back to the gaining 1 pound a month.

For me, at the gym, I was 28 but I'd never really done much time in the Gym. All i did for the first 8-10 months was cardio. The Elliptical. I'd just get on there for a full hour. The computer attached (as unreliable as it is) would usually indicate 800+ calories burnt. I had a handfull of 1000+. In one hour at the gym.

i morphed that later to 35 mins cardio, the rest alternating between isolating muscles (the machines) and free weights.

I mention all this not because I think I've discovered "the way." But your comments reminded me of how I felt before I did this. And now I'm so so happy I did. And here's what I really would hope, if I could pick the best outcome of my spending this 10 mins writing this:

People would read this and realize that they can innovate their own solution, borrowing a little from one diet, a little from another, weaving together a solution that works for them. What I do -- no breakfast, small lunch, huge dinner -- is basically 180* from what the conventional wisdom is. But it works for me. I iterated and found what works for me. To hell with the "experts." What I learned reading Pollan, etc, is that the science of nutrition is hardly a science at all and is full of contradictions and confusions.

Re: The Obesity Era

#82
post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No one serious is saying it is uniquely responsible. Just that the more sugar and starch eaten, the less time the body can stay in fat-burning mode, which is well known. Perhaps the obese-hypercaloric would have lost more with less sugar. All the other variables and laws of physics still apply.

> Just that the more sugar and starch eaten, the less time the body can stay in fat-burning mode This is 100% bullshit.

Eagerly awaiting further erudite explanation...

Re: The Obesity Era

#83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No one serious is saying it is uniquely responsible. Just that the more sugar and starch eaten, the less time the body can stay in fat-burning mode, which is well known. Perhaps the obese-hypercaloric would have lost more with less sugar. All the other variables and laws of physics still apply.

The latest research I've read (I'll edit with a link once I get back to my desk) and my own personal experience suggests that: A calorie is a calorie is a calorie. All the fad diets that cut out a certain type of food all really just work because of calorie restriction. Look at the "cookie diet" for an example. For me, I'm 6'2, I went from 210 to 175 over 10 months (while adding significant muscle mass, suggesting fa…

True about calories at the lowest level. You can eat sugar and workout and feel hungry a lot of the time and stay trim, certainly not impossible... riding the blood-sugar roller-coaster every day, so to speak.

I eat some junk on the weekends myself, that's how I get perspective on drastic changes in my energy levels.

Or, instead you can switch into fat-burning mode and have a constant blood sugar and not feel hungry nor have to skip meals. Lots of good stuff too, eggs, spinach, olive oil, flax, etc. Doc says my bloodtest numbers some of the best he's seen.

Fad diets are suspect, but this isn't one of them. When was the last time in the wild you saw a chimpanzee or early human eating a loaf of bread, pasta, or cookies? Never, because they are man-made creations. The fad diet is the empty-carb diet pushed by the modern world, the results of which are obvious.

Humans have evolved over millions of years eating veggies, fruit, nuts, meat, etc.

I'm forming an idea, that there is nothing wrong with these two approaches. Rather there is a choice. Perhaps some of us prefer trading off in favor of tasty sweets, while some of us prefer stable blood sugar. You can live much longer than our poor ancestors with either approach. So, let's not bash the A- students on the other side because they're not perfect.

Re: The Obesity Era

#84
post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you actually looked at the studies cited, and checked the fat—protein—carbohydrate ratios used? For example, this 2009 study used the following ratios to conclude "low-carb" diets aren't better than regular reduced-calorie diets: 20%—15%—65% 20%—25%—55% 40%—15%—45% 40%—25%—35% http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19246357 None of these are actually low-carb. The recommended ketogenic ratio is: 60%—35%—5% Try Peter…

You've missed the point, which is that body mass is directly predicted by total calories and is not statistically distinguished regardless of macronutrient composition. There are multiple studies listed, you just picked one. Review articles come to the same conclusion: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15351198

> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15351198

I don't think this citation supports your point of view.

Re: The Obesity Era

#85
post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cheap, tasty food.

Sure, that could be possible. However there are some issues: 1) Obesity isn't a disease of the rich. So the "cheapness" doesn't seem to be an obvious factor. This is in contrast to the 1600s and 1700s when obesity and gout were diseases of the rich in Europe. 2) In poor areas, especially the third world, we are starting to see a pattern obese mothers and malnourished children. This is bizarre. The usual pattern is to…

I know what you're saying, but consider the counterfactual (ie, almost all history to this point).

In the absence of cheap, tasty food, obesity is rare.

When cheap, tasty food is abundant, so too are overweight and obesity.

On a population level it looks very much like cheap, tasty food is both necessary and sufficient. Without an increase in per-capita calories, there can't be an increase in population BMI.

The reason we call all these other phenomena strange is because we've never had tens of millions of overweight and obese subjects before. Sample sizes of tens of millions throw up new and interesting outliers. It's only going to get weirder.

Re: The Obesity Era

#86
post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You've missed the point, which is that body mass is directly predicted by total calories and is not statistically distinguished regardless of macronutrient composition. There are multiple studies listed, you just picked one. Review articles come to the same conclusion: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15351198

> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15351198 I don't think this citation supports your point of view.

> A systematic review of low-carbohydrate diets found that the weight loss achieved is associated with the duration of the diet and restriction of energy intake, but not with restriction of carbohydrates.

Put another way: ketogenesis isn't a magic escape hatch from physics. If you eat foods rich in protein, you are satieted sooner and total calories consumed falls.

Total calories consumed falls.

That's what causes the weight loss. Not a particular hormonal-metabolic configuration.

Re: The Obesity Era

#87
post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Are you saying that chickens and monkeys got fatter over time due to "record-keeping errors"? Depending on the margin of error, yes. > Are you claiming the "fat virus" effect - that if you give chickens or monkeys or rats or mice a certain human cold viruse, they get fatter - is due to "record-keeping errors"? I'm claiming that getting fatter is completely explained by net caloric balance. Insofar as a virus depres…

One particularly interesting point Taubes makes is that there exist people (with various conditions) who are simultaneously emaciated and obese. Someone can be obese in the lower half of the body and emaciated in the top half or vice-versa. In this circumstance, your theory suggests they should simultaneously eat more AND eat less to fix it. > If energy or matter is being destroyed by viruses The viruses don't need t…

> Someone can be obese in the lower half of the body and emaciated in the top half or vice-versa. In this circumstance, your theory suggests they should simultaneously eat more AND eat less to fix it.

I've met these people myself. They call themselves "women".

> The viruses don't need to destroy or create energy, they just need modify the set point.

"Set points" assumes that we are dealing with an automatic system. This is true only if people do not pay attention to what they are eating.

Given that the first and indeed only step in dieting is to observe and control your eating ...

Re: The Obesity Era

#88
post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Just that the more sugar and starch eaten, the less time the body can stay in fat-burning mode This is 100% bullshit.

Eagerly awaiting further erudite explanation...

Firstly, the body is not a finite state machine. All the mechanisms of metabolism and there are a lot of them are, basically, active all the time. A great deal of complicated chemistry is underway, simultaneously, day and night. Including reactions whose effects cancel out, meaning that it is the balance of reactions that determines the system configuration.

(Yes! It's multivariate integral calculus, back from your youth to haunt you!)

Anyway, the second problem is that blood sugar in healthy individuals is very well regulated anyway. The blood sugar pathologies you see in obese individuals are usually pathologies of obesity, not the other way around.

The third problem is that carbohydrates, even simple ones, don't have a monopoly on short-term blood sugar effects. Insulin is usually identified as the primary regulator of blood sugar, but insulin is affected very strongly by protein as well as by carbohydrates. This is because insulin actually has a whole bunch of functions, only one of which is blood sugar regulation.

Biology is really complicated. It's the worst spaghetti code ever. It works, but there's no modularity, no information hiding, no clean APIs, everything is a global variable and there's not even the most basic concurrency controls. It's very hard to reason about.

But because it is so robust, it is easy to do thing A, get result B and attribute the results to factually incorrect theory Z9-gamma-pink-battleship.

Re: The Obesity Era

#89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Eagerly awaiting further erudite explanation...

Firstly, the body is not a finite state machine. All the mechanisms of metabolism and there are a lot of them are, basically, active all the time. A great deal of complicated chemistry is underway, simultaneously, day and night. Including reactions whose effects cancel out, meaning that it is the balance of reactions that determines the system configuration. (Yes! It's multivariate integral calculus, back from your y…

[deleted]

Re: The Obesity Era

#90
post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One particularly interesting point Taubes makes is that there exist people (with various conditions) who are simultaneously emaciated and obese. Someone can be obese in the lower half of the body and emaciated in the top half or vice-versa. In this circumstance, your theory suggests they should simultaneously eat more AND eat less to fix it. > If energy or matter is being destroyed by viruses The viruses don't need t…

> Someone can be obese in the lower half of the body and emaciated in the top half or vice-versa. In this circumstance, your theory suggests they should simultaneously eat more AND eat less to fix it. I've met these people myself. They call themselves "women". > The viruses don't need to destroy or create energy, they just need modify the set point. "Set points" assumes that we are dealing with an automatic system. T…

> "Set points" assumes that we are dealing with an automatic system.

We are dealing with an automatic system. If we weren't, people would starve or become morbidly obese whenever they moved or changed jobs such that they were walking a different amount. Or when the restaurant down the street closed and they switched to a different one. Most people's weight stays remarkably consistent over the years despite significant changes in calorie consumption and energy expenditure. The reason that happens is (a) your resting metabolism speeds up if you eat more or slows down if you eat less, (b) your subjective sense of "being hungry" - your inclination to eat - adapts to your metabolic needs, (c) your inclination to be active adapts too.

People who are obese tend to be in the situation that their automatic system wants to keep them that way. Whether they "pay attention" or not, fighting that system is HARD. It's hard enough that we don't have reliable advice on how to do it. We have crappy advice that mostly doesn't work. People can lose some weight for a limited period of time, but they generally can't lose all the weight they want to (ever) or keep off the weight they do lose for as long as three years.

Most weight-loss studies don't follow people for long enough - 6-month studies tend to show just about every diet "working". But the studies that run long enough do see the weight come back. Almost everyone gets the weight back, from every diet.

Remember the "thin" version of Oprah Winfrey? Oprah is worth 2.8 billion dollars. She was hugely motivated to lose weight. She has a dedicated staff - a personal trainer, a private chef, access to every type of medical advice and equipment and treatment imaginable. If SHE can't keep weight off for more than 6 months at a time, what chance do ordinary shmucks have?

Post reply on HN