Hacker News Reader

Comment by henrik_w | Hacker News Reader

I just finished reading "Why We Get Fat" [1] and was really surprised by it. The research seems quite plausible to me, but the recommendations in terms of not getting fat are not what I have heard as the common advice.

The advice in short is: avoid all carbohydrates as much as possible, and eat protein and fat.

[1] http://www.amazon.com/Why-We-Get-Fat-About/dp/0307474259/

View on HN

Probably good advice for people that don't move much. But I wouldn't generalise it to everyone.

as someone who spends far too much time on his 'physique'... I have gotten extremely lean on a high carb and protein diet. Ultimately the key factor above and beyond everything else is calories in.

If you are in a caloric deficit you will lose weight.

_Unless_ you are a perpetual motion machine!

There are multiple fad diets that are popular in the US that boil down to 'low carb'.

I often wonder if it isn't anything subtle, just that processed carbohydrates are incredibly energy dense. 100 grams of sugar or flour has twice the calories of 100 grams of beef (prepared bread still has more calories per gram than beef). 100 grams of greens or non starchy vegetables almost doesn't have calories.

I have a tricky time talking to people who subscribe to fad diets. I don't want to discourage people from caring about their health. The fact that they have gone from eating whatever to trying to control their diet is a positive step and I want to encourage them for doing that in the first place.

But then there's garbage crap like paleo and "cleanses" that are ridiculous and can be actively harmful. So how do you tell someone their diet is stupid while not insulting them for caring about their diet? Mostly I settle for trying to give them well-written articles by scientists and nutritionists to read, but at the end of the day, I'm not their main source of information and good information gets drowned out in the hours spent on Pinterest.

It gets even trickier with diets like gluten-free. The vast majority of people on gluten-free diets do not have any gluten allergy. But, as you said, cutting down carbs would vastly improve the health of most Americans. So, cutting out gluten also cuts down on carbs which leads to a healthy outcome, even though there is actually no reason for them to cut down on gluten itself.

So their reason for cutting down on carbs is wrong, but the final effect is good. Is this misconception worth correcting? Can I tell them they don't actually have an allergy and it's OK to have a bagel or a beer if it fits their calorie requirements? Would that be defeating the ultimate goal of improving their health?

In the end, mostly I just butt out. Let people do whatever they feel is best to their bodies and I'll continue to do so to mine: "eat food; not too much; mostly plants."

Yeah. You can often boil most successful fad diets down to:

- Eat much less sugar.

- Eat some less bread/rolls/cake (or other flour based products)

It is almost impossible to over-eat on veggies, they are just too filling for their calorie content.

That's my opinion. I use low carb diets because I go around at a calorie deficit but I feel full all the time. Protein and fats are very filling.

Fat has more than twice the calories of carbohydrates.

By what measure? I assume you refer to mass whereas gp talked about the effect on satiety.

By the measure of calories.

> Carbohydrate provides 4 calories per gram, protein provides 4 calories per gram, and fat provides 9 calories per gram.

http://fnic.nal.usda.gov/how-many-calories-are-one-gram-fat-...

So that's calories per mass as I suspected. Now how much does 1g of carbs affect satiety in comparison to 1g of fat?

(I'm not aware of any useful studies in that regard, but I'd be very interested.)

Think of it this way - for the calorie price of a tablespoon of olive oil (all fat, nothing nutritious), you can have a huge, ~10 oz salad filled with veggies, fruit, whole grains and legumes. Have a look at PubMed for "low-fat vegan" clinical trials - people are put on plant-based diets with no calorie restriction and end up losing weight. Also, this recent video does a great job explaining energy density in foods: http://nutritionfacts.org/video/eating-more-to-weigh-less/

Ketosis itself has natural appetite-suppression effects

Given how little we know about digestion and the interaction between us and our gut flora I'd rather not limit the variety of my food based on the latest fad. From what I know, certain beneficial bacteria like to eat fibres and starches, a high protein diet can have negative effects on those.

you'd be hard pressed to find anyone who advocates for a high protein diet. And its the bad gut bacteria (or at least the ones found more in obese people) that thrive on sugars and starches.

Paleo, Atkins, Primal, Ketogenic

All fads whose promoters have a vested interest in selling merchandise rather than the truth.

I mean...so is every diet. That's sorta the point of the 538 article, no? Diet science is trash. I was just pointing out that you would not at all "be hard pressed to find anyone who advocates for a high protein diet".

And honestly, I could have just said "anyone strong, ever" and been done with it. You can dismiss the diets I named as fads, but I have never met anyone with any appreciable muscle who doesn't have protein intake a few standard deviations above the norm. There's all kinds of disagreement about how to get that protein - there are vegan bodybuilders, strongman competitors who eat five pounds of chicken a day, the GOMAD folks chugging their milk - but there's no substantial disagreement that you need protein, and lots of it.

You don't need more than 10-15% of your calories to come from protein. Maybe a little more if you are a professional body-builder.

Most of those are actually high-fat, moderate protein diets.

> Given how little we know about digestion and the interaction between us and our gut flora I'd rather not limit the variety of my food based on the latest fad.

Some folks are saying that what we eat these days in western countries is indeed "the latest fad" - compared to at least what mankind ate 100'000-20'000 years ago. So, don't eat the latest fad - go back what your genome is used to. High protein?

That's a bunch of pseudo-historic non-sense with basically no scientific foundation to it.

The fact remains that eating less calories than you burn resulting in weight loss. There isn't any magic to this. There is nothing to indicate otherwise.

There is no strong evidence of what people ate dozens of millennia ago, and there is even less evidence that they were healthier than people who follow modern diets recommended by nutritionists.

Billions of thin asians primarily subsist on rice, which is a major source of carbohydrates. Does it explain that apparent contradiction?

Just stop. You are giving dangerously wrong advice. Avoid all carbohydrates? So you mean, don't eat any fruit or vegetables, instead eat excessive protein and fat which are known to cause cancer, diabetes and heart disease? No, thanks!

Go ask the Innuit about "excessive protein and fat". That's all they've had in their diet for eons: vegetables don't grow on tundra.

The simple fact is: people are not the same, and have significant genetic differences. What may work great for an Innuit may not work too well for you, and vice-versa.

Innuit are incredibly unhealthy, and serve as a poor example when discussing optimal human nutrition. While it's true vegetables don't grow everywhere, for the vast majority of HN readers and beyond, there is no problem shopping for fresh produce.

Did you read the article? These are not "known" to cause these illnesses.

The Atkins diet, as it's frequently called, does often work. But, it's really unhealthy. You shouldn't do this forever, only in limited bursts.

Humans have a physiological aversion to the very idea of eating less, evolution baked it into our bones. Because of this, there's a lot of money in books, articles, and videos that offer weight loss alternatives that don't involve consuming fewer calories.

But, what makes us fat is eating more calories than we use. You can get fat on a high carb diet. You can also get fat on an all protein diet, though not as easily.

Exactly this - except, you shouldn't do it ever - see http://www.atkinsfacts.org/

I'm trying to be charitable here, but I want to let you know that linking to sites that are basically giant collections of logical fallacies doesn't really make it seem like you have a strong argument.

It may be interesting to note I have no stake in the low-carb game, in case you think you need to attack me on that front in response.

Please explain how they are logical fallacies. Most of the site's content is literal quotes from leading medical and science professionals.

No stake in the low-carb game? You are kidding, right? Atkins is a for-profit, multi-million dollar corporation, akin to anyone else promoting a diet based on excessive animal product consumption.

The site is a giant appeal to authority. On the 'Atkins Facts' page I didn't manage to find a single fact about why Atkins is bad, only a bunch of quotes saying that it is.

You couldn't find a single fact? That's odd, because this was written right on the front page:

> In fact there does not seem to be a single major governmental or nonprofit medical, nutrition, or science-based organization in the world that supports the Atkins Diet. As a 2004 medical journal review concluded, the Atkins Diet "runs counter to all the current evidence-based dietary recommendations.

funny how so many statements on that page are marked with footnote numbering, yet no actual footnotes or references are provided.

No? What do you suppose this is, then?

http://www.atkinsfacts.org/printer_friendly.html#8

I "suppose" it's a separate page that is not directed to by any of the footnote indicators or visible from the page with the footnote indicators.

> Humans have a physiological aversion to the very idea of eating less, evolution baked it into our bones.

I'm not so sure about this. I recall reading (but can't find right now) about some Asian cultures (IIRC) that find eating too much to be unpleasant, as it makes you feel sluggish bodily and slows your thinking down. "Too much" for them being something like what Westerners would consider "satisfied".

Pretty much what you said is true. What I find interesting is the question of why humans evolved to be able to switch into ketosis, though. I think it's odd since plant matter would be more abundant even during the last Ice Age than say animal proteins would it not? And the fat content of insects I assume isn't very high comparably to other animals. So, why did we get it or rather what was the environmental factor that selected for it is what I'm asking (I guess).

is ketosis something other apes dont perform? naturally i just assumed ketosis preceded humanity and was something we inherited.

I have no idea. It just seems odd to me that assuming a relatively low protein/fat intake is easily done then why have a metabolic pathway for it? My guess it's to work with fat stores over long periods of starvation (get fat in Spring/Summer/Autumn, 'starve' in winter).

(Other) Great Apes are primarily carnivores, with some being vegetarian.

  What I find interesting is the question of why humans
  evolved to be able to switch into ketosis, though

Well, organs and muscles have to run on something... most of them can run fine on ketone bodies, and it's more efficient to produce them from animal foods than to force gluconeogenesis on everything to run on glucose.

I can't take advice seriously if it is to "avoid all carbohydrates" since one of the healthiest things you can do for your heart, intestines, and waistline is to increase your dietary fibre intake. Protein is certainly important too, and fat isn't as scary as it was made out to be in the 90s, but carbs are fine in smaller doses, and especially in the presence of water soluble fibre (to lower the GL).

If you want to be skinny eat cottage cheese with carrots and hummus.

Fibre is carbohydrate. Protein isn't that important - WHO recommends just 10% of calories be protein. Fat isn't as scary? I assume you meat saturated and trans fat found in almost all processed and animal foods - avoid them at all costs for optimal health.

Actually, saturated fats aren't all that bad at least from what I've read as long as you don't go overboard with them. You can't survive w/o them as they make up quite a bit of your brain, skin, muscle, and the like. What I think is the problem with the US/EU diet situation is the fact we just over eat. Fast/Junk food being easily accessible and made to be savory just makes it easier to over eat. I know for me at least that's the case. The worse part is when going back to eating whatever I can cook (even chili or some other semi-spicy dish) it just doesn't feel as satisfying as just munching on a Chipotle burrito. So, I think there's some psychology (picking up food feels more fun than having to prep and cook it yourself) and probably other tricks (flavor combinations?) at work here.

You can't survive without saturated fat? I'm going to ask for you to provide a citation for that. I eat ~0g saturated and trans fat and have never been more healthy.

You're getting your fat sources from unsaturated fats then? I believe the body converts those sources into the fatty acids found in saturated fats when needed and vice versa (same w/ Omega 6 to Omega 3). You literally cannot survive on 0% fat intake it just doesn't work. You'll get vitamin deficiencies in short order. It's why I'm leery of any diet that prescribes an extremely low fat content (sub-10% daily intake).

Yes, sir/ma'am! I mix nuts, seeds, avocado, or similar plant-foods into almost every meal because you're right - unsaturated fats are essential, and conduce vitamin absorption. I also have a daily smoothie with a generous helping of ground flaxseed, chia seed, or hemp seed to get my tasty omega's. My own experience and research has led me to conclude the optimal amount of fat in my diet is less than 10%. Oh, and my acne is gone completely.

Thanks for the information, but I'm going to say that your sarcasm isn't necessary if you want to discuss the matter. This isn't a subject that requires it as I never came to it with such (as I see it).

Edit: after seeing the way you behave in other comment threads, I'm retracting my apology. You have the characteristic of a zealot which makes all discussion impossible (personal experience of myself being a zealot in the past, so I'm going to tell you to take a chill pill, the universe is fine if I/others eat saturated fats and meats). Have fun promoting your diet onto others with such zealotry. Also, take the misgendering and stuff it.

Hey - I'm sorry about that, no sarcasm was intended, nor implied. I just explained how I get my fats and in what amount. If you want to get technical, yes - the universe is fine with others eating saturated fats and meat, but the planet definitely is not. Animal agriculture is an unsustainable practice and is the leading cause of climate change, for instance. So, if you want to go there, it's important to recognize these facts first.

Everything in the long run unsustainable. You're not going to magically undo centuries worth of socialization on millions of people. So, I think it's best to work on what you can change (which it seems you did with your diet).

Also, I'm sorry if I snapped at you. I intend no malice.

  I assume you meat saturated and trans fat found
  in almost all processed and animal foods

For the umpteenth time, transfats do not occur in meaningful amounts "almost all" animal products. There are small amounts in dairy, and those naturally-occurring animal transfats have been found to be neutral or beneficial!

See, for example: Effects of Ruminant trans Fatty Acids on Cardiovascular Disease and Cancer: A Comprehensive Review of Epidemiological, Clinical, and Mechanistic Studies (Adv Nutr July 2011 Adv Nutr vol. 2: 332-354, 2011)

Noondip made this exact same false claim in a December thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10673687

Your evidence is, once again, fraught with bias and cherry-picking.

> Supported by the Global Dairy Platform

> Although data from experimental models suggest that rTFA may beneficially affect risk of CVD and cancer, further research is needed to determine the effects of VA and c9,t11-CLA in humans. Data from existing human studies do not consistently support the findings from experimental studies.

> thus, it is difficult to draw conclusions regarding VA and c9,t11-CLA and various cancers.

You're never going to convince me trans fat is good for you.

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMra054035

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22059639

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22403632

> 'The National Academy of Sciences’ report is the first attempt by a panel of experts to set a safe intake level for trans fat. The panel found that, like saturated fat, trans fat promotes heart disease. Furthermore, the panel concluded that the only safe intake of trans fat is ‘zero.’ However, because it would be impractical to eliminate all trans fat from the diet, the panel recommended that people consume as little trans fat as possible. Yet it is currently impossible for consumers to follow the panel’s advice because the Food and Drug Administration does not require trans fat to be listed on Nutrition Facts food labels.

http://www.cspinet.org/new/200207101.html

Please, don't recommend people eat animal products for beneficial properties of trans fat. It's just scientifically untenable.

Almost always those "avoid carbohydrate" statements refer to "avoid NET carbohydrates". Fiber (basically) doesn't count as a carbohydrate in terms of caloric effect, even though it is.

fiber is the indigestible portion of a plant. "avoid all carbohydrates" means avoid sugar and starch.

I've heard very similar advice from a number of sources. Though I've also heard an argument that you should only avoid sugars as avoiding more complex carbohydrates will only slow your metabolic rate.

Just out of interest:

- Does the book claim that you can't get fat when you don't eat carbs?

- Is there a main reason for calories-in-calories-out being "damaging" as it says on the back?

Haven't read the book but an argument is that sugars (carbohydrates) = insulin response which results in 'damage' to the body. I am not a doctor, this is only an argument I have read put forth by others.

I try to avoid eating biodiesel. If an oil requires the petroleum distillate hexane for its production, I figure it's not appropriate for human consumption.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com