Is Fat Killing Us, or Is Sugar?(newyorker.com)
newyorker.com
Is Fat Killing Us, or Is Sugar?
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/04/03/is-fat-killing-you-or-is-sugar
152 comments
My intuition is that there is a small delta in impact between a 'reasonable' diet and a 'perfect' diet, and so playing in that margin is pointless. But I've always felt it notable that you can consume a whole day's worth of calories in about 5 minutes with a super happy value meal, and then be hungry again a few hours later. I'd say avoid doing that.
Actually, it's pretty hard to eat a whole day's worth of calories in a single meal. I know this because I've tried to, regularly, as part of a longer attempt to gain weight. If you're ordering at McDonald's, your best calorie/dollar ratio [edit: s/your best/my preferred] is the ~800 calorie double quarter pounder with cheese for ~6 dollars. My daily caloric requirements are estimated at 3000 calories based on my age and gender, which means I'd have to eat a little under four of these. The best I've managed is two, and that's even with smoking weed to increase my appetite.
I find it far easier to consume vast amounts of calories when I'm eating straight carbs as opposed to foods with more balanced macronutrient compositions, such as cheeseburgers. The fat and protein would fill me right up.
I find it pretty easy to eat a whole bag of chips (1500ish kcal) and a bottle of soda (250ish kcal) in one sitting, but I likely wouldn't feel too well an hour or two afterward. Same goes for candy, it's so easy to just eat hundreds of calories when you're at your desk and not thinking too hard about it.
If I were trying to maximize my caloric intake at McDonald's, I'd probably get the burger and also a large fries (500kcal) with the BBQ sauce (I could probably go through 3 or 4 packets at 50kcal each, so that's another 1-200) and a large soda (300kcal), for a total of 1800 kcal. Still not a fully day's worth, but close.
The really hard part is getting sufficient protein for gaining muscle mass, especially if you're lactose intolerant or vegan/vegetarian...
I find it pretty easy to eat a whole bag of chips (1500ish kcal) and a bottle of soda (250ish kcal) in one sitting, but I likely wouldn't feel too well an hour or two afterward. Same goes for candy, it's so easy to just eat hundreds of calories when you're at your desk and not thinking too hard about it.
If I were trying to maximize my caloric intake at McDonald's, I'd probably get the burger and also a large fries (500kcal) with the BBQ sauce (I could probably go through 3 or 4 packets at 50kcal each, so that's another 1-200) and a large soda (300kcal), for a total of 1800 kcal. Still not a fully day's worth, but close.
The really hard part is getting sufficient protein for gaining muscle mass, especially if you're lactose intolerant or vegan/vegetarian...
Can people please stop the myth of it being hard to get enough protein on a vegan diet? It's easy. Check out the protein values of beans, nuts and lentils. There are incredible athletes on a vegan diet.
Yup, I was trying to balance everything out and eat the right macros. I ended up settling on a DQPwC and a 10-piece chicken nuggets + 2 packets of ranch sauce + a small fries as my standard order.
Now add a 32oz coke (320 calories) and a large fry (510) and you're at 1,652 calories for what many people would consider a "small" meal. Throw in a 510 calorie McFlurry for dessert and you've just blown past 2k calories in a single sitting.
Sorry, but that's batshit insane. My stomach is literally not big enough to handle that much liquid/volume in a single meal.
A huge sandwich, 32 oz of liquid, tons of fries, and then another cup of liquid?
Somewhere about mid-way through that a normal human being should feel sick and stop eating. That's not a "small" meal by any measure.
A huge sandwich, 32 oz of liquid, tons of fries, and then another cup of liquid?
Somewhere about mid-way through that a normal human being should feel sick and stop eating. That's not a "small" meal by any measure.
>My stomach is literally not big enough to handle that much liquid/volume in a single meal.
You'd be surprised. It's also not about the volume. You can have the same amount of calories in much smaller volumes... -- heck, even in a salad with the right dressing.
You'd be surprised. It's also not about the volume. You can have the same amount of calories in much smaller volumes... -- heck, even in a salad with the right dressing.
Have you ever tried to eat that much? The whole point of my comment is that it's very difficult to "blow past 2k calories in a single sitting." Not that it's impossible – obviously McDonald's has a lot of high-calorie foods.
There was a time I could eat an entire KFC bucket family meal in a single sitting. That was a long time ago, though. I've found that as I've gotten older, I've also "slowed down" on my eating.
That isn't to say I couldn't stand to eat less, or eat better today.
Nor is it to say I am not overweight - I am. But I've kinda gotten to the point that I just don't want to always be "lookin' over my shoulder" at what I eat. Instead, I just eat what I want to eat, when I want it, and just try to eat less of it. That includes better food, too.
I also try to exercise more; lately I've been doing 3-5 mile hikes with a friend on a Saturday and Sunday (or I'll do them by myself if he doesn't feel like going). I've been thinking about increasing that to a daily regimen (after work).
I also don't drink as much soda as I used to, and when I do, I try to drink only diet sodas. Otherwise I'll drink water (or if I am having a meal at home, I typically drink milk - but not always).
But yeah - there was a time I could easily eat that much, and blow past 2k calories no problem in a single meal. I could probably do it today, if I wanted to (but I'd feel bad afterward).
Plus - while it's easier to do with fast food - it can be done with regular food, too. One good-sized 24oz well-marbled rib-eye, a baked potato with all the fixin's, some kind of vegetable on the side, a salad with dressing, plus a large glass of milk - that's all enough to get you close if not over 2k calories.
That isn't to say I couldn't stand to eat less, or eat better today.
Nor is it to say I am not overweight - I am. But I've kinda gotten to the point that I just don't want to always be "lookin' over my shoulder" at what I eat. Instead, I just eat what I want to eat, when I want it, and just try to eat less of it. That includes better food, too.
I also try to exercise more; lately I've been doing 3-5 mile hikes with a friend on a Saturday and Sunday (or I'll do them by myself if he doesn't feel like going). I've been thinking about increasing that to a daily regimen (after work).
I also don't drink as much soda as I used to, and when I do, I try to drink only diet sodas. Otherwise I'll drink water (or if I am having a meal at home, I typically drink milk - but not always).
But yeah - there was a time I could easily eat that much, and blow past 2k calories no problem in a single meal. I could probably do it today, if I wanted to (but I'd feel bad afterward).
Plus - while it's easier to do with fast food - it can be done with regular food, too. One good-sized 24oz well-marbled rib-eye, a baked potato with all the fixin's, some kind of vegetable on the side, a salad with dressing, plus a large glass of milk - that's all enough to get you close if not over 2k calories.
It's not as hard as you think, depending on the person. At age 17, I ordered a quadruple quarter pounder and ate it while out with friends. I don't remember if I had fries, but I certainly had a large coke with that.
Last time I was out with one of my good friends from high school, he ate two 8 ounce burgers in a sitting. He's probably 5'8" and no more than 150 lbs.
There's a huge variation in people's appetite.
Last time I was out with one of my good friends from high school, he ate two 8 ounce burgers in a sitting. He's probably 5'8" and no more than 150 lbs.
There's a huge variation in people's appetite.
In my early 20s, I once ate a 32 oz porterhouse plus all the trimmings of the meal, plus desert. My wife couldn't finish her prime rib, so I ate that, too - plus whatever else that was on the plate left over.
I kinda fancied myself as John Candy in the Great Outdoors.
Today - things are different; I try to be a little more selective in my meals.
I kinda fancied myself as John Candy in the Great Outdoors.
Today - things are different; I try to be a little more selective in my meals.
Yeah, in days gone past I would eat that much (and more) on a regular basis.
I've noticed that when I'm used to overeating, it can take a lot of food to hit that point where my brain says "okay, I'm done". When I'm eating a more controlled diet, I hit that full point a lot faster.
I've noticed that when I'm used to overeating, it can take a lot of food to hit that point where my brain says "okay, I'm done". When I'm eating a more controlled diet, I hit that full point a lot faster.
I'm pretty good at the entire eating thing. I could easily see myself eating 2000 calories by eating a large burger, a plate of fries and a few cups of cola. I'm also 6'2" and eat fast.
>Have you ever tried to eat that much?
Oh, yes. And I'm not even that overweight.
Oh, yes. And I'm not even that overweight.
And if you add the fact that for a lot of people their intake should be more near 2000kcal and not 3000 you then already have consumed the recommended daily amount. I think 3000 is already on the high side for people of average size with average (low) physical activity.
>Actually, it's pretty hard to eat a whole day's worth of calories in a single meal
I find it effortless. Some IHOP menu items, for example, are like 2000 calories, and I can gulp them in one sitting -- and one 1-2 16oz cokes on top--, and I'm not even that overweight. My "maintain weight" caloric requirements are about 2300 calories.
>If you're ordering at McDonald's, your best calorie/dollar ratio [edit: s/your best/my preferred] is the ~800 calorie double quarter pounder with cheese for ~6 dollars. My daily caloric requirements are estimated at 3000 calories based on my age and gender, which means I'd have to eat a little under four of these.
Why stick it to the best calorie/dollar ratio? All the parent said is that it's easy to eat a whole day's worth of calories in one sitting.
McDonalds large fries: 510 calories. McDonalds Double quarter pounder with cheese: 800 McDonalds 2 packets of ketchup on said fries: 30 calories McDonalds Large Coke: 310 calories
That's 1650 right there.
The Chicken Piccata at Cheasecake factory for another example is 2,120 calories by itself. And that's without any appetiser. Then have a cheesecake after lunch for another 1000. Oh, and a coke for 100 more -- or a coffee with milk and sugar. Total tally? 3320.
Also not sure about this "3000 calories" estimation (unless you're very tall, exercising etc). The commonly cited figure is that the average man needs 2500 calories per day to maintain weight.
I find it effortless. Some IHOP menu items, for example, are like 2000 calories, and I can gulp them in one sitting -- and one 1-2 16oz cokes on top--, and I'm not even that overweight. My "maintain weight" caloric requirements are about 2300 calories.
>If you're ordering at McDonald's, your best calorie/dollar ratio [edit: s/your best/my preferred] is the ~800 calorie double quarter pounder with cheese for ~6 dollars. My daily caloric requirements are estimated at 3000 calories based on my age and gender, which means I'd have to eat a little under four of these.
Why stick it to the best calorie/dollar ratio? All the parent said is that it's easy to eat a whole day's worth of calories in one sitting.
McDonalds large fries: 510 calories. McDonalds Double quarter pounder with cheese: 800 McDonalds 2 packets of ketchup on said fries: 30 calories McDonalds Large Coke: 310 calories
That's 1650 right there.
The Chicken Piccata at Cheasecake factory for another example is 2,120 calories by itself. And that's without any appetiser. Then have a cheesecake after lunch for another 1000. Oh, and a coke for 100 more -- or a coffee with milk and sugar. Total tally? 3320.
Also not sure about this "3000 calories" estimation (unless you're very tall, exercising etc). The commonly cited figure is that the average man needs 2500 calories per day to maintain weight.
Yeah, I've found the McDonald's nutrition calculator to be fun to mess around with:
https://www.mcdonalds.com/us/en-us/about-our-food/nutrition-...
For example, if you eat a breakfast of a bacon, egg and cheese biscuit with a hashbrown; a lunch of a quarter pounder and cheese with medium fries, and a dinner of a double quarter pounder with cheese and medium fries, that ends up being 2,580 calories (2,500 is considered the norm for a man to keep his body weight).
https://www.mcdonalds.com/us/en-us/about-our-food/nutrition-...
For example, if you eat a breakfast of a bacon, egg and cheese biscuit with a hashbrown; a lunch of a quarter pounder and cheese with medium fries, and a dinner of a double quarter pounder with cheese and medium fries, that ends up being 2,580 calories (2,500 is considered the norm for a man to keep his body weight).
If you use that $6 to get 6 $1 McDoubles (are they still $1?) then you can get 2280 calories at 380 per burger.
There's a lot of food on the menu I refuse to eat because it's far too gross. McDoubles are one of them. Should have mentioned that in my earlier comment – some taste preferences are involved.
I think most sedentary people are in the 2000-2500 calorie daily range. When I formed my cached thoughts about this it was looking at a double whopper super-sized meal that would include large fry and large coke and I recall that coming out pretty close to 2000.
> that's even with smoking weed to increase my appetite.
All in the name of science, of course.
I read a large milkshake at McD's has 850 calories, and I cannot imagine it costs more then 6 bucks.
All in the name of science, of course.
I read a large milkshake at McD's has 850 calories, and I cannot imagine it costs more then 6 bucks.
The milkshakes are a ripoff, just buy protein powder and whole milk and make your own at home for much, much cheaper. I wasn't doing a supersize me experiment, I ate a lot of other calories in other ways.
A McDouble is 390 calories for $1.39 and I think you are also missing the fact that a "large" coke is around 310 and we haven't even gotten to the fries yet.
Yep. Anyone who has ever trained for a marathon or other endurance event understands that eating 4000+ calories a day is a chore. On top of the fact that you want these to be "good" calories... Let's just say I ate a lot of rice with veggies.
Which leads to the blunt advice I give most people seeking to lose weight. Sure, you might be genetically predisposed to have a slow metabolism, but at the end of the day "calories in / calories out" is as absolute a fact as it gets (of course, all things in moderation). So I say "You have two options: Eat less, work out more, pick the one you like."
Which leads to the blunt advice I give most people seeking to lose weight. Sure, you might be genetically predisposed to have a slow metabolism, but at the end of the day "calories in / calories out" is as absolute a fact as it gets (of course, all things in moderation). So I say "You have two options: Eat less, work out more, pick the one you like."
Eating 4k in a day is a chore if you are used to controlling your intake and eating clean. It's not hard if you eat poorly.
There was once a time that I could put down a Costco box of Goldfish crackers (7400 calories) in an evening of hacking, with a few cans of Coke (another 600) to wash it down with. A package of Oreo cookies is north of 2500 calories. A "single serving" pint of Ben & Jerry's ice cream is well over 1k calories.
Eating 4k calories well is hard - caloric density in good foods isn't nearly what it is in bad foods, and you're just going to physically fill up your stomach. Eating it poorly is, sadly, way too easy.
There was once a time that I could put down a Costco box of Goldfish crackers (7400 calories) in an evening of hacking, with a few cans of Coke (another 600) to wash it down with. A package of Oreo cookies is north of 2500 calories. A "single serving" pint of Ben & Jerry's ice cream is well over 1k calories.
Eating 4k calories well is hard - caloric density in good foods isn't nearly what it is in bad foods, and you're just going to physically fill up your stomach. Eating it poorly is, sadly, way too easy.
I'll take the walk of shame with you. The wrong mixed drinks can easily be ~300 calories. Down eight of those during a bachelor party and then get tacos from the 2am drunk taco stand - easily ~1600 there. Boom 4k. Then let's say you had a normal 3 meals that day @ 2k calories. You just consumed 6k by friend.
I think your advice is naive and does not solve anything. Its like saying "Money in / money out" is as absolute a fact as it gets. so I say "You have two options: Earn more, spend less, pick the one you like".
That advice might be true, bit its also totally useless in solving poverty.
The hole argument for different diets is based on alternative theories of how different foods affect your body and/or mind.
To take absurd example, maybe carrots move energy from building fat cells into a process that converts your blood to carrot juice. You could eat the same amount (in calories) of carrots and something else, spend all the energy and still end up with a different body.
That's what the debate is about. Just telling people to run more or eat less will simply not work. Running (Sports) by it self, is essentially proven to not be effective for weight lost. You can actually train fat people to run marathons.
That advice might be true, bit its also totally useless in solving poverty.
The hole argument for different diets is based on alternative theories of how different foods affect your body and/or mind.
To take absurd example, maybe carrots move energy from building fat cells into a process that converts your blood to carrot juice. You could eat the same amount (in calories) of carrots and something else, spend all the energy and still end up with a different body.
That's what the debate is about. Just telling people to run more or eat less will simply not work. Running (Sports) by it self, is essentially proven to not be effective for weight lost. You can actually train fat people to run marathons.
So what? Fat people running a marathon does not change the fact that calories in/calories out is, not the most effective, but the only way how this works.
Any diets, workout routines, lifestyle changes, etc. will change in input/output ratio that will give different results.
Any diets, workout routines, lifestyle changes, etc. will change in input/output ratio that will give different results.
>Fat people running a marathon does not change the fact that calories in/calories out is, not the most effective, but the only way how this works.
No, it's actually not. From TFA: "Still, further research has shown that calories eaten are only part of what determines weight. Our metabolism reflects an interplay of things like genes, hormones, and the bacteria that populate the gut, so how much energy we absorb from what we eat varies from person to person."/
No, it's actually not. From TFA: "Still, further research has shown that calories eaten are only part of what determines weight. Our metabolism reflects an interplay of things like genes, hormones, and the bacteria that populate the gut, so how much energy we absorb from what we eat varies from person to person."/
I'm sorry, but the argument 'calories in' == 'calories out' is getting old and is based on incorrect facts and wilful thinking. Be careful with this advice!
First of all, due to a variety of reasons the caloric energy mentioned on the package or menu is a very rough estimate of the amount of ATP which can be generated from it. [1]
Second of all, the psychological effects of dieting, due to the strong habitual, cultural and social effects should certainly not be underestimated. Your statement 'to pick the one you like' already indicates the emotional undertones. Just keeping a tally with calories in vs. calories out ignores this fact, instead of tackling it head on. It is much better advice to talk about making a list of: "if this, then that". For example: "I will always do exercise two times a week, three if possible. On holidays, I will find alternative means." or: "Although with care, I will not obsess about caloric intake during dinner parties.". This kind of advice works long term and creates some easy rules to keep during difficult times.
Thirdly, and most importantly: certain molecules, such as fructose and alcohol, do not participate in the feedback loop to the brain to stop consuming. Although we can practice willpower, it is much easier and tenable to consume these products together with products that contain molecules that do, such as fibers. [2]
Lastly, when exercising, it is not unlikely to increase weight due to increased muscle mass and added fat due to cold water or wind.
[1] Scientific American, fwiw. With a bit more search you should be able to find better references: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/science-reveals-w... [2] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15181085
First of all, due to a variety of reasons the caloric energy mentioned on the package or menu is a very rough estimate of the amount of ATP which can be generated from it. [1]
Second of all, the psychological effects of dieting, due to the strong habitual, cultural and social effects should certainly not be underestimated. Your statement 'to pick the one you like' already indicates the emotional undertones. Just keeping a tally with calories in vs. calories out ignores this fact, instead of tackling it head on. It is much better advice to talk about making a list of: "if this, then that". For example: "I will always do exercise two times a week, three if possible. On holidays, I will find alternative means." or: "Although with care, I will not obsess about caloric intake during dinner parties.". This kind of advice works long term and creates some easy rules to keep during difficult times.
Thirdly, and most importantly: certain molecules, such as fructose and alcohol, do not participate in the feedback loop to the brain to stop consuming. Although we can practice willpower, it is much easier and tenable to consume these products together with products that contain molecules that do, such as fibers. [2]
Lastly, when exercising, it is not unlikely to increase weight due to increased muscle mass and added fat due to cold water or wind.
[1] Scientific American, fwiw. With a bit more search you should be able to find better references: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/science-reveals-w... [2] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15181085
I think it's quite defensible to say: "The average person will have have better outcomes if they simplify their strategy to counting calories and making decisions on that basis, rather than a more complicated approach, which are unlikely to actually maintain."
It's basically like "ignore air resistance" for most day-to-day physics problems.
It's basically like "ignore air resistance" for most day-to-day physics problems.
> The average person
The average person doesn't escape insulin responses. Counting carbs and preferring fatty foods is easier than counting calories and helps the person far more.
The average person doesn't escape insulin responses. Counting carbs and preferring fatty foods is easier than counting calories and helps the person far more.
I still think "eat less" is bad advice, because just "eating less" chips/soda/garbage is pretty difficult. I've tried. It requires an extreme and inhuman amount of willpower. Our natural drive is to vacuum up all the easy energy in front of us.
"Eat better" is probably better/more useful vague advice. You can eat a whole lot of salad/veggies and it wont end up being that many calories (so, in this case, you're eating MORE, but consuming less energy/fewer calories). Same with meat. It's hard not to lose weight if you're eating a lot of (leaner) meat, because you feel extremely full after a couple hundred calories worth. If you start modifying your diet, your cravings will change too. It's all about these weird feedback loops.
"Eat better" is probably better/more useful vague advice. You can eat a whole lot of salad/veggies and it wont end up being that many calories (so, in this case, you're eating MORE, but consuming less energy/fewer calories). Same with meat. It's hard not to lose weight if you're eating a lot of (leaner) meat, because you feel extremely full after a couple hundred calories worth. If you start modifying your diet, your cravings will change too. It's all about these weird feedback loops.
He never stated "eat less volume of food", so I take it he ment the general term "calories of food".
How you do it doesn't matter. (eat more volumetric food or stop drinking soda, doesn't matter)
How you do it doesn't matter. (eat more volumetric food or stop drinking soda, doesn't matter)
Except that it does matter how you do it. There is pretty much no human alive who has the willpower to eat exactly their daily caloric requirement in chips and soda and then stop every day.
> I still think "eat less" is bad advice, because just "eating less" chips/soda/garbage is pretty difficult. I've tried. It requires an extreme and inhuman amount of willpower. Our natural drive is to vacuum up all the easy energy in front of us.
Exactly, so don't have any of that stuff around you. Easy calories makes for easy pounds. If you had to actually go out and get that bag of chips you're craving, you're far less likely to do it. Within a week of abstinence, you're not even craving them anymore.
Exactly, so don't have any of that stuff around you. Easy calories makes for easy pounds. If you had to actually go out and get that bag of chips you're craving, you're far less likely to do it. Within a week of abstinence, you're not even craving them anymore.
You're just stating laws of physics though which isn't helpful. The idea behind diets is that your body processes different sources of energy differently. For example, it doesn't process antimatter at all despite its numerous calories. Maybe sugar kicks it into hibernation mode, desiring to engorge everything in site. Maybe ingesting mostly fat causes the body to efficiently start to be able to access excess fat reserves. Maybe it's different for everyone depending on genetics.
Stating the laws of thermodynamics to people who are struggling to lose weight or trying to understand how our biology works isnt helpful and just comes across as smug. It's like being a mathematician and looking down on all other fields as just being derived from math.
Stating the laws of thermodynamics to people who are struggling to lose weight or trying to understand how our biology works isnt helpful and just comes across as smug. It's like being a mathematician and looking down on all other fields as just being derived from math.
The thing is, you eat less, your body conserves energy when not working out. And the workouts are more challenging because you don't feel like doing them.
Or, you work out more, but then you get a lot more hungry. So you end up eating more. If you try to fight both these conditions, then you end up miserable (i.e., constantly hungry, or miserable when trying to do more exercise).
What is really needed is lifestyle tweaks. For example, if it is a habit to grab a donut or two from the box that someone brings into the office, you need to figure out how to not do that (i.e., relate that donut to doing an additional workout) -- eventually you may be able to convince yourself that the donut is poison, and therefore avoid it.
For the exercise part -- first get in shape (takes about a month or two of daily 1-hour aerobic exercise such brisk walking or using an elliptical). Then, if you are close enough to work, at the start of spring start riding a bicycle to work at least once a week. Then 2 - 3 times a week. A 15-mile ride takes about an hour, and burns enough calories that you don't really have to worry about what you eat.
You can also make a habit out of going for a walk at night for an hour or so -- that should burn around 500 calories. And increase your metabolism. Also, if you typically eat fast food for lunch, change to a sandwich shop, or pack a lunch.
Or, you work out more, but then you get a lot more hungry. So you end up eating more. If you try to fight both these conditions, then you end up miserable (i.e., constantly hungry, or miserable when trying to do more exercise).
What is really needed is lifestyle tweaks. For example, if it is a habit to grab a donut or two from the box that someone brings into the office, you need to figure out how to not do that (i.e., relate that donut to doing an additional workout) -- eventually you may be able to convince yourself that the donut is poison, and therefore avoid it.
For the exercise part -- first get in shape (takes about a month or two of daily 1-hour aerobic exercise such brisk walking or using an elliptical). Then, if you are close enough to work, at the start of spring start riding a bicycle to work at least once a week. Then 2 - 3 times a week. A 15-mile ride takes about an hour, and burns enough calories that you don't really have to worry about what you eat.
You can also make a habit out of going for a walk at night for an hour or so -- that should burn around 500 calories. And increase your metabolism. Also, if you typically eat fast food for lunch, change to a sandwich shop, or pack a lunch.
This is valid advice, as long as they pick "Eat less". Generically, you can't outrun a donut.
Well, some people can - I remember a period in my life when I was training about 10 times a week (4 BJJ sessions, 3 endurance sessions, 3 weights sessions) and having trouble maintaining my bodyweight. I was also living rent-free on a grad student stipend and nominally working on my thesis with very few other obligations and about zero social life. I was also in my 20s.
As a 'normal person' the only way I have ever lost weight is by eating less. The idea that you can exercise your way out of Fatfuckistan is absurd once you hit maturity or middle age. If I tried to train 10 times a week (the way I did) now my joints would disintegrate. Conversely, even running a small but consistent calorie deficit allowed me to lose 70 grams a day for a 15kg weight loss (mostly fat), with the same moderate training schedule that I had previously been getting fat on.
Well, some people can - I remember a period in my life when I was training about 10 times a week (4 BJJ sessions, 3 endurance sessions, 3 weights sessions) and having trouble maintaining my bodyweight. I was also living rent-free on a grad student stipend and nominally working on my thesis with very few other obligations and about zero social life. I was also in my 20s.
As a 'normal person' the only way I have ever lost weight is by eating less. The idea that you can exercise your way out of Fatfuckistan is absurd once you hit maturity or middle age. If I tried to train 10 times a week (the way I did) now my joints would disintegrate. Conversely, even running a small but consistent calorie deficit allowed me to lose 70 grams a day for a 15kg weight loss (mostly fat), with the same moderate training schedule that I had previously been getting fat on.
Yeah. I was eating ~1500 calories every day for lunch from McDonald's, plus two big protein shakes (another ~1400 calories), plus a 4-egg scramble with vegetables every morning and a rice/beans/veggies/chicken dinner. That's only a little over 4000 calories and I felt fucking disgusting. It turns out one of the tricks is timing, without a regular schedule I simply could not eat enough because I wouldn't be hungry.
Given the obesity rates in the US, I think you'll find that, for the average person, this is easier than it is for you.
Try raw cookie dough. Hardly healthy, but far less volume to consume
[deleted]
the $6 range includes the 'meal' with drink and fries - add at least 400 more calories.
If you consider a "perfect" diet to be an platonic/asymptotic ideal, then striving for it is meaningful, using the "shoot for the moon" concept - aiming for "balance" when you're unbalanced in one way, will give you suboptimal long-term results. Better aim for the ideal and settle for balance.
A lot of nutritional studies have a common flaw:
1. Various health outcomes and indicators are caused by a food or combination of foods that you regularly eat.
2. A diet is studied where these foods get removed from your diet, to be replaced with whatever the diet under study is.
3. The participants in the diet study have poorer than average health outcomes and indicators (otherwise, why would they try changing their diet?)
4. Regression to the mean happens, and all sorts of dietary changes appear to be good for your health.
Basically, if you're fatter than average, and it's caused by the foods you eat, you can fix that by making a list of everything you eat and not eating those foods. "Whatever you don't eat" is a more average diet than what you're currently eating, so you'll get more average results.
(This idea shamelessly stolen from HN user jimrandomh. Hopefully I didn't butcher the details too badly.)
1. Various health outcomes and indicators are caused by a food or combination of foods that you regularly eat.
2. A diet is studied where these foods get removed from your diet, to be replaced with whatever the diet under study is.
3. The participants in the diet study have poorer than average health outcomes and indicators (otherwise, why would they try changing their diet?)
4. Regression to the mean happens, and all sorts of dietary changes appear to be good for your health.
Basically, if you're fatter than average, and it's caused by the foods you eat, you can fix that by making a list of everything you eat and not eating those foods. "Whatever you don't eat" is a more average diet than what you're currently eating, so you'll get more average results.
(This idea shamelessly stolen from HN user jimrandomh. Hopefully I didn't butcher the details too badly.)
>3. The participants in the diet study have poorer than average health outcomes and indicators (otherwise, why would they try changing their diet?)
Because they're asked to, as part of the experiment?
>4. Regression to the mean happens, and all sorts of dietary changes appear to be good for your health
Why would the mean be better, since in (3) you mentioned that those people had "poorer than average health outcomes and indicators" to begin with? For regression to the mean, they should have started the diet after some extreme readings. But who said those are what prompted them to the diet? People don't start on a diet when they get extremely heavy, they start and stop diets all the time, while being continuously obese.
>Basically, if you're fatter than average, and it's caused by the foods you eat, you can fix that by making a list of everything you eat and not eating those foods. "Whatever you don't eat" is a more average diet than what you're currently eating, so you'll get more average results.
Well, if you eat the same calories from your new "Whatever you don't eat", then you'll get as fat.
Because they're asked to, as part of the experiment?
>4. Regression to the mean happens, and all sorts of dietary changes appear to be good for your health
Why would the mean be better, since in (3) you mentioned that those people had "poorer than average health outcomes and indicators" to begin with? For regression to the mean, they should have started the diet after some extreme readings. But who said those are what prompted them to the diet? People don't start on a diet when they get extremely heavy, they start and stop diets all the time, while being continuously obese.
>Basically, if you're fatter than average, and it's caused by the foods you eat, you can fix that by making a list of everything you eat and not eating those foods. "Whatever you don't eat" is a more average diet than what you're currently eating, so you'll get more average results.
Well, if you eat the same calories from your new "Whatever you don't eat", then you'll get as fat.
>Because they're asked to, as part of the experiment?
Let me try another way to word the same concept: why would an actor in the best shape of their life with a personal chef and nutritionist participate in the experiment? Similar logic goes for less extreme examples on this end of the curve.
>For regression to the mean, they should have started the diet after some extreme readings.
They're obese, their diet is an extreme reading from the space of possible diets. They're choosing foods that only satisfies their various needs at a caloric quantity that causes weight gain.
>But who said those are what prompted them to the diet? People don't start on a diet when they get extremely heavy, they start and stop diets all the time, while being continuously obese.
Caloric restriction diets and food choice diets aren't the same thing here. People usually start and stop diets all the time because caloric restriction diets have huge user experience issues. Specifically, the very common yoyo dieting; you feel bad about being fat so you decide to do something about it, then you do caloric restriction in a way that fails to meet many of your other needs, then you abandon the diet because the stress of not meeting your needs starts to outweigh the negative feelings from being fat.
>Well, if you eat the same calories from your new "Whatever you don't eat", then you'll get as fat.
If your current diet meets your needs at an above-average number of calories, you won't eat the same number of calories (unless you try to manually control caloric intake through some variant of calorie counting).
Let me try another way to word the same concept: why would an actor in the best shape of their life with a personal chef and nutritionist participate in the experiment? Similar logic goes for less extreme examples on this end of the curve.
>For regression to the mean, they should have started the diet after some extreme readings.
They're obese, their diet is an extreme reading from the space of possible diets. They're choosing foods that only satisfies their various needs at a caloric quantity that causes weight gain.
>But who said those are what prompted them to the diet? People don't start on a diet when they get extremely heavy, they start and stop diets all the time, while being continuously obese.
Caloric restriction diets and food choice diets aren't the same thing here. People usually start and stop diets all the time because caloric restriction diets have huge user experience issues. Specifically, the very common yoyo dieting; you feel bad about being fat so you decide to do something about it, then you do caloric restriction in a way that fails to meet many of your other needs, then you abandon the diet because the stress of not meeting your needs starts to outweigh the negative feelings from being fat.
>Well, if you eat the same calories from your new "Whatever you don't eat", then you'll get as fat.
If your current diet meets your needs at an above-average number of calories, you won't eat the same number of calories (unless you try to manually control caloric intake through some variant of calorie counting).
There's a BBC Horizon episodes with two identical twins, one goes for the low fat diet and the other for low carb diet to test which one is worse.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b03t8r4h http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x1amh2t_bbc-horizon-sugar-v...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b03t8r4h http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x1amh2t_bbc-horizon-sugar-v...
Do you have a quick synopsis of what happens?
At time mark 57:20 in the DailyMotion video they say that it is neither of them individually but the combination of fat and sugar that is the problem.
How does that follow? If you have a below-average diet and replace foods from it, you're likely to do better simply due to regression to the mean. You could replace a shitty diet with one with different foods but the same macronutrient distribution and likely end up improving things.
Spoil it for me, I don't have time to watch at work..
Also, what kind of fat? Saturated fats are very stable and easily used by the body -- in my opinion they have very very different health effects compared to cheap, polyunsaturated fats.
Also, what kind of fat? Saturated fats are very stable and easily used by the body -- in my opinion they have very very different health effects compared to cheap, polyunsaturated fats.
Eat a balanced diet, exercise is important and the brain has a very hard time resisting or stopping eating when fat and sugar are combined, 50/50 ratio being the most effective combination. So better eat sugar and fat separated.
[deleted]
I skipped to the last few minutes of that, they seem to do a nice summary...
"avoid processed foods"
"All faddish diets are wrong and exercise is important"
"the combination of fat and sugar is bad" (not just one or the other but foods full of both like donuts are bad)
"avoid processed foods"
"All faddish diets are wrong and exercise is important"
"the combination of fat and sugar is bad" (not just one or the other but foods full of both like donuts are bad)
I thought eating fat with sugar was better than eating sugar alone since the fat slowed down the absorption of the sugar, thus dampening the insulin response.
"When people eat a diet that is high in calories and high in fructose, the liver gets overloaded and starts turning the fructose into fat.
Lustig and other scientists believe that excess fructose consumption may be a key driver of many of the most serious diseases of today. These include obesity, type II diabetes, heart disease and even cancer."
https://authoritynutrition.com/why-is-fructose-bad-for-you/
Lustig and other scientists believe that excess fructose consumption may be a key driver of many of the most serious diseases of today. These include obesity, type II diabetes, heart disease and even cancer."
https://authoritynutrition.com/why-is-fructose-bad-for-you/
Lustig is a paid shill of the meat and dairy industries. In reality, it's the animal products most strongly linked to disease, not sugar.
See many, many studies about this on http://nutritionfacts.org
See many, many studies about this on http://nutritionfacts.org
Thanks I'll check it out!
Wrong, it's exactly the opposite: sugar keeps fat from being metabolized, hence it's incorrectly scapegoated for weight gain.
The program goes into the why: in nature fat and sugar can not be found in combination so there is no natural inhibition.
They tested this with mice, one set would have unlimited fat, another unlimited sugar, and the third set the combination of sugar and fat. Surprisingly, the first two sets of mice would stop eating when they were full. Only the third set of mice would go on eating and eating..
They tested this with mice, one set would have unlimited fat, another unlimited sugar, and the third set the combination of sugar and fat. Surprisingly, the first two sets of mice would stop eating when they were full. Only the third set of mice would go on eating and eating..
> in nature fat and sugar can not be found in combination
What? What about avocados, coconuts, olives, artichokes, soybeans…
I'd more buy the argument that our body tries to maintain a certain ratio of fats to sugar (which is usually mediated by fiber), rather than that humans historically haven't "experienced" foods with both fat and sugar…
What? What about avocados, coconuts, olives, artichokes, soybeans…
I'd more buy the argument that our body tries to maintain a certain ratio of fats to sugar (which is usually mediated by fiber), rather than that humans historically haven't "experienced" foods with both fat and sugar…
Aren't soy beans poisoness when uncooked? And I doubt people ate large volumes of those others without the fiber.
My point exactly. I think the claim that "sugar + fat is not found in nature" is incomplete without mentioning fiber.
Yeah, I'm not sure how to model the fat+sugar problem I keep hearing whispers of. I know from the research I did with my wife's gestational diabetes is that the glycemic index of a food went down if you added just about any other food volume that with a lower glycemic index. The best example I found was that toast is like the worst possible food you can eat in terms of GI, it was higher than anything but pure glucose . But toast with jam, actually had a lower GI, since sucrose has ~half the GI of glucose (makes sense since sucrose is glucose+fructose, and fructose requires time for the liver to process). Toast with butter was even better, since butter fat has 0 GI.
I still don't know how much I trust the claims that fat+sugar is particularly bad, but I suspect it may have to do with some kind of second order insulin response. Like, the presence of triglycerides in the blood cause fat cells to be more likely to respond to insulin, storing fat, instead of releasing it. I dunno.
Also keep in mind GI is falling out of fashion as a key indicator. Glycemic Load seems to be more indicative of poor health indicators. That is to say, that the area under the curve is potentially more important than the max height of the curve. I'd say limiting both is probably important as well. I also highly suspect that the slope of the curve is very important in how we perceive hunger, which is why we tend to feel hungry shortly after eating foods with fast carbs...
FWIW, at the end of the day, in order to keep my wife healthy, we ended up giving up fast carbs, and she had to keep her carb count low in general. Her basic formula for a snack was to add the grams of fat+ grams of protein, and if that was bigger than the grams of carbs it was safe to eat.
Sorry I don't have links to this stuff, this was like 5 years ago, and I'm not sure if I ever saved those bookmarks. I can say it was really hard to find credible data sets. There didn't seem to be anything from America (draw your own conclusions :) ), most of everything I found was published datasets from Australia and New Zealand. Also, don't take this for anything other than anecdata, do your own research. You'll find very quickly a lot of really bad nutrition information. I had to plow through most of it, and might have given up if it wasn't for my pregnant wife, coupled with a friend with a digital signal processing background pointing out engineering problems with most of the current thoughts on controlling diabetic blood sugar levels.
I still don't know how much I trust the claims that fat+sugar is particularly bad, but I suspect it may have to do with some kind of second order insulin response. Like, the presence of triglycerides in the blood cause fat cells to be more likely to respond to insulin, storing fat, instead of releasing it. I dunno.
Also keep in mind GI is falling out of fashion as a key indicator. Glycemic Load seems to be more indicative of poor health indicators. That is to say, that the area under the curve is potentially more important than the max height of the curve. I'd say limiting both is probably important as well. I also highly suspect that the slope of the curve is very important in how we perceive hunger, which is why we tend to feel hungry shortly after eating foods with fast carbs...
FWIW, at the end of the day, in order to keep my wife healthy, we ended up giving up fast carbs, and she had to keep her carb count low in general. Her basic formula for a snack was to add the grams of fat+ grams of protein, and if that was bigger than the grams of carbs it was safe to eat.
Sorry I don't have links to this stuff, this was like 5 years ago, and I'm not sure if I ever saved those bookmarks. I can say it was really hard to find credible data sets. There didn't seem to be anything from America (draw your own conclusions :) ), most of everything I found was published datasets from Australia and New Zealand. Also, don't take this for anything other than anecdata, do your own research. You'll find very quickly a lot of really bad nutrition information. I had to plow through most of it, and might have given up if it wasn't for my pregnant wife, coupled with a friend with a digital signal processing background pointing out engineering problems with most of the current thoughts on controlling diabetic blood sugar levels.
Well, whatever we go with, we have to square it with the fact that fructose is worse than glucose in terms of causing diabetes.
Not really. Common sugars begin to be broken down in the mouth by enzymes in saliva. Insulin (a hormone that promotes storage of energy!), is the last thing you want to stimulate while consuming high fat, energy dense foods.
You should eat sugar with fiber i.e. fruits.
These twins also did one on Alcohol (Casual but Consistent vs Binging) which was pretty interesting: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b05wdfhk
The episode isn't currently available, do you know what was the outcome of the experiment?
There's always this method: https://thepiratebay.org/torrent/11952358/BBC.Horizon.2015.I...
I found this: http://www.bbc.com/news/health-32798569
I found this[1], which summarizes nicely. Basically, they are almost equally as bad for your liver, and that was with one of them taking 21 shots of vodka[2] once a week, which left him insensible, and actually in a dangerous medical state.
1: http://www.bbc.com/news/health-32798569
2: I assume measured to 25ml which is the low end of single shot size, to be in line with the standard units of alcohol they mentioned.
1: http://www.bbc.com/news/health-32798569
2: I assume measured to 25ml which is the low end of single shot size, to be in line with the standard units of alcohol they mentioned.
Do they take cholesterol tests at the start and end? I skimmed a little but didn't see it.
That's the only thing I'd really be interested in.
That's the only thing I'd really be interested in.
Finally, I have something worth watching with my soda can.
That episode is no longer available, but I remember it when it was first released.
I wasn't at all impressed with the depth of the research they did before starting their experiment, their ability to stick to their diets, and their general understanding and approach to the potential science they could have been doing.
The whole thing was a superficial puff piece that you can't take seriously when evaluating something as important as health.
I wasn't at all impressed with the depth of the research they did before starting their experiment, their ability to stick to their diets, and their general understanding and approach to the potential science they could have been doing.
The whole thing was a superficial puff piece that you can't take seriously when evaluating something as important as health.
The author lost me when it left out the mention of Ancel Keys cherry picking data to support his hypothesis that fat is bad, and then noting off-hand that he lived to be 100 (somehow validating his hypothesis?)
Poorly written article that felt more like a defensive hit piece (e.g., dedicating eight paragraphs to destroying the credibility of Sylvia Tara) than something that sought to answer the question posed by its title.
Poorly written article that felt more like a defensive hit piece (e.g., dedicating eight paragraphs to destroying the credibility of Sylvia Tara) than something that sought to answer the question posed by its title.
> and then noting off-hand that he lived to be 100 (somehow validating his hypothesis?)
Longevity like this is virtually all genetics, so it wouldn't validate any such hypothesis.
Longevity like this is virtually all genetics, so it wouldn't validate any such hypothesis.
Totally. He comments on well documented pieces of work (at least Taubes', I'm not familiar with the other one) and discard huge part of them without bringing any evidence whatsoever (he even seems to admit that his wife is the expert on the topic of understanding statistics!).
I like Taubes work because he's thorough and refutable (notably in refuting a lot of other studies). Doesn't mean he's always right, but I've yet to see arguments against his work that are as sound as the one he brought to the table.
I like Taubes work because he's thorough and refutable (notably in refuting a lot of other studies). Doesn't mean he's always right, but I've yet to see arguments against his work that are as sound as the one he brought to the table.
I think that it's a deadly combination of both. We tend to consume way to much sugar, and usually sugar without the associated natural fiber. The fats typically consumed are cheap, low quality fats and oils.
Following a paleo-keto diet has been working wonders for me, I never felt or looked better in my 30+ years. So I think fats, when they are high quality, are the best source of fuel for the body.
Following a paleo-keto diet has been working wonders for me, I never felt or looked better in my 30+ years. So I think fats, when they are high quality, are the best source of fuel for the body.
So true, the one thing that people leave out is the human factor. It doesn't matter how "perfect" a diet is if the person can't follow it. Switching to vegetables, lean proteins and good fats (olives, almonds) is not complicated, just hard and hard to sustain for most people.
Neither by themselves, but when combined...
I read somewhere that when they want to fatten up lab mice they feed them a mixture of 70% sugar and 30% fat or something similar. When you make something much more delicious and available than what appears in nature, it screws with an animal's energy balance signals.
I read somewhere that when they want to fatten up lab mice they feed them a mixture of 70% sugar and 30% fat or something similar. When you make something much more delicious and available than what appears in nature, it screws with an animal's energy balance signals.
Mice aren't people. Sugar affects them way differently than us. That's how the whole sugar phobia started and the myth is still being repeated, day after day. Sad.
I generally agree with you but sugar also tends to make you crave more sugar as it does more crazy things with insulin.
Very true, when combined they are horrible. But disagree with "neither". Sugar is really bad by itself, it isn't an "empty calorie" at all, it spikes insulin and will rot your teeth.
Beef spikes insulin more than table sugar.
This.
Sugar and simple or highly processed carbs cause your body to release insulin in order to regulate blood sugar. Insulin switches off any fat burning and tells the body to store fat.
Whenever your diet consists of carbs and fat nutrients, the fat is going to be immediately stored in your fatty tissues, and any excess carbs that you can't burn quickly will go there also.
Whenever your diet consists of carbs and fat nutrients, the fat is going to be immediately stored in your fatty tissues, and any excess carbs that you can't burn quickly will go there also.
Nope, totally wrong. Sugar does NOT easily metabolized into fat in humans. It does in animals, which is why we feed them lots of carbs. Please learn how de novo lipogenesis works in humans, because you're just repeating a falsehood now. The sugar doesn't get stored, but it does keep fat from being burned, hence the false blame.
The catch though is that you need fat to live. That is, without fat in your diet you're not able to digest plants.
And if for whatever reason you're not eating enough fat, your body will crave sugar.
So basically eat healthy fats. If you don't eat enough healthy fat (e.g. from walnuts), your body will start craving unhealthy fats. And if you don't eat either then your body will crazy sugar as a last resort.
As far as I can tell that's basically the secret to staying healthy, just make sure to get enough walnuts and avocado or whatever, and once you have your RDI of healthy fats then craving unhealthy fats or sugar won't be an issue.
And if for whatever reason you're not eating enough fat, your body will crave sugar.
So basically eat healthy fats. If you don't eat enough healthy fat (e.g. from walnuts), your body will start craving unhealthy fats. And if you don't eat either then your body will crazy sugar as a last resort.
As far as I can tell that's basically the secret to staying healthy, just make sure to get enough walnuts and avocado or whatever, and once you have your RDI of healthy fats then craving unhealthy fats or sugar won't be an issue.
And if for whatever reason you're not eating enough fat, your body will crave sugar.
That's in contra to how my system responds - it craves fat when I'm not eating enough of it. Since I gave up eating (refined) sugar, I don't even think about it.
That's in contra to how my system responds - it craves fat when I'm not eating enough of it. Since I gave up eating (refined) sugar, I don't even think about it.
Fats are also a primary component in hormone synthesis. It's very important to get enough - they're just also 9 cal/g, compared to 4 cal/g for protein/carbohydrate, so they can be easy to overconsume if you're trying to manage your caloric intake.
When I started doing intermittent fasting I also started eating lots of walnuts, and I can say my craving for sugar went way, way down. I haven't had sugar once since I started IF (> 30 days).
I haven't had sugar once since I started IF
Does that mean you haven't included sugar in your foods yourself, or you've managed to avoid eating any prepared food since you started?
Practically all prepared foods contain sugar, though they might not call it that in the ingredients list. When next you go boy chicken or turkey, read the list of ingredients. I'm talking about the raw forms, not the already cooked ones. It's shocking.
Does that mean you haven't included sugar in your foods yourself, or you've managed to avoid eating any prepared food since you started?
Practically all prepared foods contain sugar, though they might not call it that in the ingredients list. When next you go boy chicken or turkey, read the list of ingredients. I'm talking about the raw forms, not the already cooked ones. It's shocking.
I eat mostly food prepared by my SO. You're right, a lot of packaged foods contain sugar. When I eat those, I look at the label and usually avoid them.
For me, the big change was desserts. I was a fiend for those. I've tried a lot of things to ween myself from eating and binging on sugary treats. I wasn't expecting IF to be the thing that worked. That was totally unexpected.
For me, the big change was desserts. I was a fiend for those. I've tried a lot of things to ween myself from eating and binging on sugary treats. I wasn't expecting IF to be the thing that worked. That was totally unexpected.
> Neither by themselves, but when combined...
I buy that argument with high-fat zero-sugar diet, but is there a reasonable evidence that eating a high-sugar but low-fat diet is healthy?
I buy that argument with high-fat zero-sugar diet, but is there a reasonable evidence that eating a high-sugar but low-fat diet is healthy?
No
There are essential fatty acids, there are essential amino acids (protein), but there are no essential carbohydrates.
The "need" for sugar is completely manufactured, literally and figuratively.
There are essential fatty acids, there are essential amino acids (protein), but there are no essential carbohydrates.
The "need" for sugar is completely manufactured, literally and figuratively.
At this point I am quite cynical about any claim that you can get healthier with a specific diet. I can guarantee you that my cyanide and toxic metal diet will make you less healthy but knowing that one thing is true does not automatically mean that you know that another thing is true.
Exercise will make most people healthier in general, particularly stuff associated with your cardiovascular system. We know that. That doesn't mean exercise will make you anything else associated with good health. It might not make you thinner, it might not change any sort of index based on medical tests normally done on inactive people. It might not even make you better looking or hotter in any way. We don't actually know any of that other stuff for sure.
This all simplifies things a lot. The advice should be: "get some exercise every once in a while. Don't worry so much about stuff that we don't actually know."
Exercise will make most people healthier in general, particularly stuff associated with your cardiovascular system. We know that. That doesn't mean exercise will make you anything else associated with good health. It might not make you thinner, it might not change any sort of index based on medical tests normally done on inactive people. It might not even make you better looking or hotter in any way. We don't actually know any of that other stuff for sure.
This all simplifies things a lot. The advice should be: "get some exercise every once in a while. Don't worry so much about stuff that we don't actually know."
As a single guy that checks out girls a lot, I can verify that exercise makes you hotter, if not better looking.
Yes, it may be true that healthier people are more likely to exercise exactly because they are already healthy, but I would imagine that is true in less that 1% of the population.
Yes, it may be true that healthier people are more likely to exercise exactly because they are already healthy, but I would imagine that is true in less that 1% of the population.
I don't know, man. If you're trying to make a serious point about health, do you have to cite your expertise as an ogler of women? It sounds like you're trying to allude to something we're all supposed to know, that people past a certain percentage of body fat are all inactive and lazy.
Maybe what you meant was that, all things being equal, someone who is strong and healthy is more attractive. That's probably true.
But as upofadown pointed out, there are lots of people who are very healthy and strong, and exercise a lot, but their body shape or fat percentage doesn't conform to the desires of the average voyeur.
Maybe what you meant was that, all things being equal, someone who is strong and healthy is more attractive. That's probably true.
But as upofadown pointed out, there are lots of people who are very healthy and strong, and exercise a lot, but their body shape or fat percentage doesn't conform to the desires of the average voyeur.
> If you're trying to make a serious point about health
Not trying to make a serious point about health.
> do you have to cite your expertise as an ogler of women
You are misappropriating my comment.
Not trying to make a serious point about health.
> do you have to cite your expertise as an ogler of women
You are misappropriating my comment.
I think I am misunderstanding the 30% claim. Is it over time or is it just that 4.4 is ~30% greater than 3.4? I think the latter makes sense without "the complex statistical way that the study’s results were projected over time" but then again I haven't read the actual study.
It’s one of many cautionary tales about assessing dietary data. Everyone wants to be healthy, and most of us like eating, so we’re easily swayed by any new finding, no matter how dubious.
That's why I ignore the headlines and read the paper of any study that I'm interested in.
That's why I ignore the headlines and read the paper of any study that I'm interested in.
Yes.
For me, probably most is the highly sedentary office lifestyle.
Compounding this problem, I more or less live alone and thus 'community food' (eating out) is my best access to non-frozen pre-prepared meals. I refuse to do leftovers (this is not negotiable).
The main problem with eating out is the portion size. Everything is insanely large.
For me, probably most is the highly sedentary office lifestyle.
Compounding this problem, I more or less live alone and thus 'community food' (eating out) is my best access to non-frozen pre-prepared meals. I refuse to do leftovers (this is not negotiable).
The main problem with eating out is the portion size. Everything is insanely large.
Read into meal prep, a number of friends in a similar situation have tried it and reported great success.
It is "insanely large" because leftovers are built into the meal. You're meant to take some home and have it for lunch.
I don't really know what your post is about. It starts with the word "Yes" (???) and then gives a ton of incoherent excuses for something which isn't specified.
I don't really know what your post is about. It starts with the word "Yes" (???) and then gives a ton of incoherent excuses for something which isn't specified.
Of course it's specified. It's an excuse for being fat.
> I refuse to do leftovers (this is not negotiable).
Do you see a difference between eating leftovers and preparing a future meal? For example, I may cook extra chicken for dinner, chop up the extra pieces and put them in a salad for the next day's lunch.
Do you see a difference between eating leftovers and preparing a future meal? For example, I may cook extra chicken for dinner, chop up the extra pieces and put them in a salad for the next day's lunch.
What do you mean leftovers are not negotioable? Are you saying you never cook because you don't want to eat the food the next day? Or are you saying you never take food you don't finish at restaurants to go?
Not the most healthful path you're on :/
Not the most healthful path you're on :/
Depending where you're located, it's possible to find options for eating out that aren't massive. At my favorite spot in Brooklyn, I get a salad with feta and kale plus some salmon on top, and it's about the perfect amount for one meal. There's also the "hot buffet" style meals where you can take as much as you want and pay by weight; there are some good businessperson-oriented ones in NYC.
What? Why can't you just cook a meal for one? Chicken breast and veggies takes like 15 minutes.
It is neither and both. The problem is overconsumption. People eat too much and the food they eat has far too much energy for their daily demands. People just need to eat smaller portions, less energy dense refined foods and eat less often.
all things in moderation.
not too much sugar.
not too much fat.
not too much food.
eat more green veges.
not too much carbon/charcoal.
avoid processed stuff.
but most important: don't tell anyone else. If everybody does it then the food industry will insidiously alter itself to pull people back in while finding a way to make good things bad.
not too much sugar.
not too much fat.
not too much food.
eat more green veges.
not too much carbon/charcoal.
avoid processed stuff.
but most important: don't tell anyone else. If everybody does it then the food industry will insidiously alter itself to pull people back in while finding a way to make good things bad.
This is such vague, banal advice that it is useless. Suggest looking at peer reviewed papers when deciding what to eat. See http://nutritionfacts.org
I see a lot of suggestions for diets in the comments here, but not a lot of citations. It's good that others have recommendations to share, but at least back it up from something.
Previous discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13980272
It's both. Eat whole plant foods, I.e. a vegan unprocessed diet, and you'll be fine. Just like your ancestors did and were.
Bah, why do people write such painfully long posts without an executive summary at the top?
It's the New Yorker.
I often start with the last paragraph and work my way up until I get the gist of it. Works remarkably well!
The entire gist of the article is that nutrition cannot be executive-summarized and that it is likely the confluence of many many factors that determine how our diet affects our health.
But that's provably wrong, so the article is incorrect in its entirety then?
Here's the executive summary:
1. Do not eat more calories than you need. 2. Exercise 3 times a week (or more if you have time and enjoy it), with moderate intensity 3. Ensure that most of your meals follow a good macro nutrient profile (but if you have to cut something, do it in carbs --> fat --> protein order)
Not sure why people have such difficulty grasping those concepts and will come up with statistically irrelevant anecdotes in futile attempts to prove the main concepts wrong.
Here's the executive summary:
1. Do not eat more calories than you need. 2. Exercise 3 times a week (or more if you have time and enjoy it), with moderate intensity 3. Ensure that most of your meals follow a good macro nutrient profile (but if you have to cut something, do it in carbs --> fat --> protein order)
Not sure why people have such difficulty grasping those concepts and will come up with statistically irrelevant anecdotes in futile attempts to prove the main concepts wrong.
[deleted]
Obesity is killing you.
[deleted]
None of the above.
Neither. Calories.
Why not both? Why not neither?
Welp
You can be at a healthy weight and still develop diabetes. I think the whole health discussion is about more than just weight.
Yes. Weight is a symptom, not a cause.
Eat too many carbs/sugars -> more insulin which yields more body fat.
Eat too many carbs/sugars -> more insulin which yields more body fat.
Ah, good to know the first law of thermodynamics is still in effect, thanks!
It matters in weight loss, without a doubt and weight often matters in a lot of these arguments about what is killing you. I don't think you can equate weight and cholesterol though.
With regards to weight-gain, yes. Not overall health. You'll get yourself diabetes maintaining that kind of sugar consumption.
Sugar. Hands down. Dr. Atkins is right.
After years reading about what is right or not for me. I just gave up and began eating what felt good to me.
After awhile, I begin to notice that my body's constantly telling me what feels good or not. Sometimes good health is nothing more than a bit of awareness and experimentation.
After awhile, I begin to notice that my body's constantly telling me what feels good or not. Sometimes good health is nothing more than a bit of awareness and experimentation.
The problem is that your body is highly adapted for survival, and it frickin' loves calories, and we have a food industry that has perfected the process of putting as many calories into as small a package as possible, with a composition that sends your brain hormones into overdrive and tells you to shove as much of it into your face as you can.
Obesity is epidemic in our society because the food available to us presses all the "this feels good" buttons. Most people eat what feels good to them; the healthiest are the ones who intentionally restrict themselves from eating what their brains tell them they should be eating.
Obesity is epidemic in our society because the food available to us presses all the "this feels good" buttons. Most people eat what feels good to them; the healthiest are the ones who intentionally restrict themselves from eating what their brains tell them they should be eating.
Perhaps. That's one story.
Another possible angle, we're so out of touch with our bodies, our emotions, our very selves. That we've essentially numbed ourselves to the signals that our body's constantly sending us.
Sitting children down in neat little rows for 16 years, while hammering them into preconceived form; no play, no socialization, no getting to know self, this seems to have a deleterious effect on their awareness.
Funny thing is that I subscribed to that often-repeated theory, and it may not be wrong, after all, that story does make sense. However, when I started to be mindful, I began to notice that sugar doesn't feel that great and it's kinda gross same goes when I ate too much meat. Just the simple act of noticing has led me to a healthier diet. The hardest part was relearning how to be present and aware, the rest is gravy.
Makes me wonder how much bullshit we've been fed over the years about ourselves.
Another possible angle, we're so out of touch with our bodies, our emotions, our very selves. That we've essentially numbed ourselves to the signals that our body's constantly sending us.
Sitting children down in neat little rows for 16 years, while hammering them into preconceived form; no play, no socialization, no getting to know self, this seems to have a deleterious effect on their awareness.
Funny thing is that I subscribed to that often-repeated theory, and it may not be wrong, after all, that story does make sense. However, when I started to be mindful, I began to notice that sugar doesn't feel that great and it's kinda gross same goes when I ate too much meat. Just the simple act of noticing has led me to a healthier diet. The hardest part was relearning how to be present and aware, the rest is gravy.
Makes me wonder how much bullshit we've been fed over the years about ourselves.
Fat is for survival, if you're don't spend the night outdoors you wont burn it.
Sugar is for energy to use immediately, if you don't use it it's turns into fat, 30% of it is wasted in that process though.
Overeating carbs is better than overeating fat.
Sugar is for energy to use immediately, if you don't use it it's turns into fat, 30% of it is wasted in that process though.
Overeating carbs is better than overeating fat.
Not really. Excess fats do not convert to body fat. They just pass through.
Excess glucose (from sugar and carbs) triggers insulin production which causes glucose to be converted to body fat and your muscles to stop consuming fat. (Which also causes your muscles to be nutrient depleted leading to being hungry soon after...)
The insulin flood caused by sugar and bad carbs is your body trying not to die of glucose poisoning.
Excess glucose (from sugar and carbs) triggers insulin production which causes glucose to be converted to body fat and your muscles to stop consuming fat. (Which also causes your muscles to be nutrient depleted leading to being hungry soon after...)
The insulin flood caused by sugar and bad carbs is your body trying not to die of glucose poisoning.
excess fat causes insulin resistance which causes sugar to stay in the blood stream.
Kind of crazy that you guys don't understand this yet. I may not know how to hack, but I know how the body operates. Most people would do well to read Volek & Phinney, both 'the art and science of low carbohydrate living' and 'the art and science of low carbohydrate performance'
In turn, I recommend you read How Not to Die by Dr. Michael Greger. http://nutritionfacts.org/book/
This is the single best advice in this whole thread. I read it: it covers so much ground. You need to be a bit of a nerd (the text is loaded with refs to papers) and makes use of jargon where no simple alternative exists -- but it is by no means a hard read.
Srsly this book can add 15 healthy years to your life!
Srsly this book can add 15 healthy years to your life!