Calories, fat or carbohydrates? Why diets work (when they do) | Hacker News Reader

Calories, fat or carbohydrates? Why diets work (when they do)

garytaubes.com

97 pointskareemm53 comments

What I find most frustrating about online comments on Taubes work is the amount of people who assume that this is just another crank peddling nonsense.

Instead, Taubes has spent the better part of a decade reviewing the state of research and putting forth a compelling, detailed argument in favor of his position, that the high-carbohydrate diets associated with civilization are also the cause of the cluster of diseases known as diseases of civilization.

His latest book lays out the argument in a more reader-friendly way than his earlier tome (Good Calories, Bad Calories), but it's hardly junk science, and Taubes is hardly a junk scientist. He has been a very good science journalist for decades, and has won the the Science in Society Award of the National Association of Science Writers three times. He does his homework.

Again, I recommend that those whose gut reaction is to be skeptical of Taubes' thesis read at least his latest book, which addresses, very carefully, virtually all of the common reactions people have in these kinds of online fora. There are certainly areas still open to debate, as Taubes himself says repeatedly in his writing, but they are not about the knee-jerk topics most people think they will be about.

If you're curious, feel free to take a look at the wikipedia post summarizing the results of low-carb diet trials at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_research_related_to_low.... You'll find, at the very least, some cognitive dissonance. And that's really what Taubes' writings (in book and blog form) are about.

What I find most frustrating about online comments on Taubes work is the amount of people who assume that this is just another crank peddling nonsense.

I don't think he can complain about that. He takes his case straight to the public, and he uses rhetoric that is likely to be effectively with the public. That's what cranks peddling nonsense do, so by convergent evolution he sounds exactly like them, which makes it much less likely that people will take his ideas seriously enough to find out if he really is a crank.

To be fair, I was the one complaining about it, not him. That said, I don't think it's fair to compare his research, rigorous report of that research, and various academic lectures to be the equivalent of what the snake-oil-salesmen do.

He presents a very strong hypothesis for a very important subject, and his public statements are mostly focused on demonstrating that what most people believe on the subject isn't exactly right. In my mind, the cognitive dissonance that he creates with his blog isn't intended to be the argument. Instead, it's designed to get people past their initial preconception so they might be willing to read the more rigorous version(s) of his argument.

In general, I don't think it's fair to say that an article in the New Yorker, followed by 5 years of literature review, followed by a (dense, by all accounts) report represents the kind of quackery you are cavalierly comparing his work to.

I think it's fair to say he talks like a quack. Maybe not in the New Yorker article -- I assume he had to be a bit more respectable there. Every time I've seen him linked on Hacker News, however, he's been extremely derogatory of other nutritional researchers. In this particular post, he compares some researchers unfavorably to schoolchildren, calls others lazy, and adopts a generally belittling tone. By speaking directly to the public and taking a dismissive attitude toward what he calls the "authorities," he gives the impression that he has given up on convincing other nutritional researchers of the validity of his views. He then makes a case that his views are quite obviously right if you look at the data a certain way. They're so obviously true that lay people such as myself should be persuaded, yet the nutritional "authorities" refuse to acknowledge them. That's his most glaring warning signal. Personally, I think it's reasonable to assume that nutritional researchers are mostly intelligent and honest people. When experts are blinded, they're blinded by knowledge or by powerful ideas. Whether Taube is right or not, if he is able to convince me but not able to convince other nutritional researchers, it's because of something they know that I don't know.

Maybe this is a paradigm shift in nutrition, and maybe lay folks like us are better equipped to understand this breakthrough than people who have been studying nutrition professionally for years, but that's unlikely. It isn't just unlikely because such paradigm shifts are rare: his ideas just aren't that inaccessible or revolutionary. So for me it's a red flag that he's so derogatory toward nutrition researchers who disagree with him, instead of treating them as an important audience for his ideas.

Or maybe -- and I think this is the most likely explanation if he's really a reasonable fellow -- he's not so much an outsider as he pretends. Maybe his ideas are part of a spectrum of respectable opinion in the nutritional community and accorded some consideration by other researchers. Maybe his defiance of the "authorities" is just a rock star act. If so, can you blame me for believing it?

I would assume he has given up on convincing other researchers of the validity of his views. And if you were actually familiar with how that system works (as opposed to how you think it should ideally work, or some approximation thereof), you would not appeal to the authority of those who practice "nutrition science", because it is anything but.

The way science works, in general, is not the so-called "scientific method" - most funding is controlled by people in the field who have a vested interest (ego, monetary or otherwise) in maintaining the status-quo and beliefs. While it's easy enough to practice "the scientific method" on new frontiers, it is a quixotic endeavour to challenge a prevailing concept.

In many cases, it should be -- when the prevailing concept has actually been rigorously studied and proved. This is NOT the case with nutrition (nor many specific corners of medicine and health).

I don't know what faith you subscribe to, so this example might fall on deaf ears, but PZ Myers and Richard Dawkins don't need to convince the pope of anything -- they need to appeal to the masses. Much of nutrition recommendations are based on faith (and politics) rather than evidence, and in that sense, Taubes is not wrong in the attempt to appeal to the masses. And while he might not be an established research scientist like Dawkins, he has a better grasp of science and burden of proof than those he criticizes, and at least "Good Calories, Bad Calories" is meticulously researched with hundreds of references -- which is much more than you can say about your average (and even "cream of the crop") nutritional science research.

Your argument is essentially an appeal to authority -- and to the wrong authority at that.

Well, thoughtful people at least. There's enough people who take actual cranks at face value that it's not, overall, a social maladaptation to do those things.

I assume he is a crank because his blog seems deceptive (at least the one article I read).

In the article that hit the front page yesterday, he discussed a possible scenario (a 30 year old becoming obese by age 50), and devoted 3000 words to the extra "sip of milk/beer" (above maintenance) that this person consumed.

He devoted 0 words to other 7 strips of bacon/day that this person consumed over a hypothetical non-obese 50 year old. I made some graphs which illustrate his fallacy:

http://crazybear.posterous.com/how-1-graph-reveals-what-3000...

If he wants us to assume he isn't a crank, he shouldn't be deliberately deceptive.

Taubes is referring to the 20 grams above maintenance of current weight (difference between red and green lines in your graph), not the grams above what ideal weight would require. The 7 strips of bacon are needed to maintain the excess weight, not to put on more (according to conventional wisdom). His point is that weight control can't be explained by counting calories so precisely for decades - there must be something else going on. He's not being deceptive.

The only reason it's precisely 20 cals above maintenance for 20 years is because he asserted it to be this.

The mainstream theory predicts similar weight gain with 20 cals above maintenance for 10 years, or a random walk with mu=20 cals and sigma=250. It also doesn't predict that a 50 year old should be precisely 40 lbs overweight - the people who only hit a mean of 15 cals above maintenance were only 30 lbs overweight and are simply excluded from his hypothetical by the premise.

The precision you seem to be describing doesn't exist in the real world and no theory needs to explain it. It's purely an artifact of his assumptions.

Wait, I thought your point was that the 20 cals (10, whatever, a small number) was a straw man and it's 7 strips of bacon that causes overweight.

My point is you're misinterpreting Taubes, because he is saying 1) the mainstream believes such as small number of calories matters, and 2) that is absurd.

Do you agree with #1 now?

When I said precision, I don't mean 20 cals leads to 40 pounds. I mean the precision of someone eating an average calorie count with a margin of error so small. Consider the other side of that - for me to have maintained my own weight for the last 20 years, I would have to have been extremely precise in my eating, which I'm sure I wasn't.

My point is you're misinterpreting Taubes, because he is saying 1) the mainstream believes such as small number of calories matters, and 2) that is absurd.

The mainstream says that 7 strips of bacon will make you 37.5 lbs overweight and tacking on an extra half strip will add 2.5lbs more. In order to make this seem absurd, Taubes never mentions the first 7 strips of bacon.

Whether or not I agree with (1) depends on how low we set the threshold for what matters. If we care about the difference between "six pack" and "thin but no six pack", we care about the first half strip of bacon. (Fun fact: bodybuilders and boxers do stress about 20 cals/day.) For the purposes of Taubes example (thin 50 year old vs obese 50 year old), mainstream nutrition and calorie counting says 20 extra calories doesn't matter.

It's exceedingly unlikely that you maintained your weight with a margin of error of 2lbs - my daily variation can be as large as 6-7lbs. I'm also fairly "stable" in my weight - it never leaves [215,230] (unfortunately I'm a hard gainer).

Further, if you want to stay roughly stable in weight, the target is not your maintenance needs. If you instead target the maintenance needs of a person of ideal weight (rather than a person of your weight), you don't need much precision at all to avoid becoming overweight. If you are off by 100 cals, you might be 5lbs too heavy, but you won't get anywhere near 40lbs - your maintenance needs will increase and consume the excess.

There's a difference between how people interested in public health read this research and how people such as us who are interested in our own individual health read it. People interested in public health wonder, "What happens when you tell people to follow diet X?" That's what studies like this test.

People like us wonder, "What happens when an individual actually follows diet X?" Questions like this are never studied at all, because it's difficult and expensive. Almost everybody lies about their level of compliance, and when people aren't actually lying, they're still underreporting because most people remember eating less than they actually do.

Those facts about underreporting are not controversial. I don't know where the misrepresentation happens, whether in the science itself or in the science journalism, but the studies most people read about in the newspaper or on the web are not about diet from an individual point of view. They don't study what happens when somebody actually follows a certain diet. That would require keeping people in an institutional setting and controlling or monitoring their food intake around the clock. That's really expensive, and if you're interested in improving public health, it isn't useful to know what the results of following a particular diet are, because you don't have control over what people eat. You only have influence over the public health message: what people are told they should eat.

So that's what is studied. The scientific debate over diet is not about what you should eat to improve your health, but what we should tell the public to eat to improve their health. If 50% of people on a low-fat diet stay up all night eating low-fat cookies and big bowls of pasta with low-fat margarine, then from a public health perspective, low-fat diets make you fat.

It's certainly true that dietary studies suffer from problems of underreporting. So it is possible that the the results of most recent studies (summarized well in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_research_related_to_low...) all suffer from a reporting bias that leads people consuming low-fat diets to more significantly underreport their consumption than those on low-carb diets.

However, that in itself would be a significant finding. If the level of reporting compliance varies widely between different diets, it may also mean that compliance with the diet itself varies. I'd personally be interested in evidence on this point.

Also interestingly, studies using animal models of obesity tend to back up the findings using the (admittedly flawed) studies using human reporting. Taubes' most recent book goes into some detail about findings using rat obesity models (such as experiments involving ovary removal and experiments involving Zucker rats, which are genetically prone to obesity).

One very interesting result from those studies is that rats prone to obesity (for whatever reason) will often die of starvation while retaining some subcutaneous fat. Obese-prone rats also very clearly exhibit sedentary behavior when the food supply is low, and more active behavior when the food supply is high. They also have more fat when given identical amounts of food as lean-prone rats.

In short, while we cannot be certain about the recent experimental results, because of reporting bias, it's hard to believe that the experiments all have no validity, and that animal models of obesity are flawed. Additionally, if there was significant reporting bias, it would likely be the result of compliance problems, which would be extremely relevant to the discussion at hand.

It's one thing believe that the jury is still out on some of this; it's quite another to stick to preexisting beliefs on the grounds that virtually all recent studies have some flaw or other.

Compliance levels in studies aren't relevant to our individual choice of diet, though, because we can observe our own compliance for ourselves by recording our intake. Observing our own bodies' response to a diet takes a much bigger commitment, so it's nice to have some generalizations from science. For the public health debate, there's no reason to separate the two, but from an individual perspective it is unnatural not to.

It's one thing believe that the jury is still out on some of this; it's quite another to stick to preexisting beliefs on the grounds that virtually all recent studies have some flaw or other.

Interesting that you assume I have some particular opinion :-) I don't necessarily disagree with Taube, though I don't think it signifies much that he can persuasively make a point and disparage those who disagree with him when he's talking to lay people. I'm just tired of seeing studies discussed as if the results reflect what happens when people actually follow some particular diet, when that's not what researchers are really interested in. (I.e., researchers take compliance as part of the phenomenon being studied, but journalists and lay people reading and discussing the results assume that compliance is uniformly good or has been factored out somehow.)

Edit/PS: If you interpret studies as showing what happens when people actually eat a certain diet, then compliance _is_ a flaw -- a really big one! We don't know what people are actually eating, only that on average it's significantly more than they report. And there's no questions researchers would _like_ to know how actual intake relates to weight gain or loss. It's just rather inconvenient and expensive to find out, and it's arguably less important than the public health question of how instruction/exhortation relates to weight gain or loss.

Compliance problems in studies may be relevant to our individual choice of diet, since they are likely to predict our own personal compliance. In general (as Taubes points out), most people can lose significant weight by reducing their daily caloric intake to starvation levels. However, compliance is so poor that it's not a viable solution. And it wouldn't be correct to say that this problem is irrelevant to those who are looking to start a new diet.

I personally find the combination of the (potentially flawed) human studies and the (more scientifically rigorous) animal studies to be fairly persuasive. You can find fault with either of the two, but in sum, the two pieces of evidence seem quite solid.

"If you interpret studies as showing what happens when people actually eat a certain diet, then compliance _is_ a flaw -- a really big one!"

To me, the studies likely skew in that direction, while also providing stronger evidence when interpreted as showing what happens when people try to eat a certain diet.

"I don't necessarily disagree with Taube, though I don't think it signifies much that he can persuasively make a point and disparage those who disagree with him when he's talking to lay people."

Sure. On the other hand, he's a researcher who's been investigating this issue for around a decade, and has published a very rigorous (by most accounts) book on the subject. Given the stakes, I suspect that most people would eventually take to the streets in an attempt to improve the situation.

Overall, I think we likely agree here :)

I think we do mostly agree, but I think compliance is a very different factor for each individual. Looking back through different fads and various swings in nutritional orthodoxy, many people have succeeded in building strong, lean bodies whether they believed in eggs, tofu, wheat grass, or protein shakes. That's a fact that simply disappears and is forgotten when we focus on aggregate results from mostly non-compliant subjects. I am pleased and heartened by the conclusion of the study Taube criticizes: "It appears that substantial differences in proportions of dietary macronutrients play only a modest role in weight loss success, and that success is possible on any of these diets provided there is adequate adherence. Getting individuals to adhere to whatever diet they choose to follow deserves more emphasis." That is excellent common sense.

I am about finished with "Why We Get Fat" by Gary Taubes. The main idea of the book is that carbs are what makes us fat and causes heart disease - not meat and fat as the medical establishment tells us. I know this same message is all over the place right now, one thing that makes the book unique is that he goes into the history of how the medical establishment came to the current viewpoint. According to Gary Taubes the European medical establishment was figuring out the carb/obesity link back in the 30s. WWII disrupted all that and when the Americans picked the question back up in the late 50s it was fat that was made the villain.

He goes into a lot of the biochemistry as well. As I was reading the book I kept coming back to this notion that carbs are pushed down our throats and the main reason why is that they are cheap. Not only cheap but they are easy to transport and store. It made me wonder if the common people of ancient Rome developed some of the health problems that modern people face. After all, they were kept on a state sponsored diet of grain and bread.

Sugar: The Bitter Truth

http://www.uctv.tv/search-details.aspx?showID=16717

So the crux of the argument is:

1. In this one particular study, caloric restriction diets were explicitly calorically restricted.

2. In this one particular study, low-carbohydrate diets were not explicitly calorically restricted.

3. Weight loss was similar for both groups, but we assume that the Atkins fatties were gorging themselves on meat while the other people were not.

But, the data from this study was self-reported. To me, this is an immediate red-flag. It's two large waving red-flags for the inference the author is trying to engage in. He's basing a huge article on an assumption which is absent from data. This is anomaly hunting, plain and simple. The author obviously has a preconceived desire to support carb-limiting as the Deep Secret of weight loss, and so any anomaly is cast into evidence for this desire.

This is not to say the author is wrong, I'm simply saying his logic doesn't hold and analysis falls apart as a result. It's at least as basic a concept to science as the notion of control that the article leads with: "You cannot draw strong conclusions in an absence of data."

P.S., I'm not inclined to believe this good-calories-bad-calories stuff. I lost 100lbs over the course of 13 months, and I didn't do it by carb cutting.

Data from almost all diet studies is self-reported (see comment by dkarl) and inherently unreliable, but it's the best we have. And his argument in this article isn't that carb cutting is the source of the weight loss, just that because we don't isolate the variables, we can't know for sure what the source is.

How did you lose that much weight over 13 months?

> his argument ... we can't know for sure what the source is

This author's tone and content, in addition to other articles posted, leads me to believe he has a preconceived notion. The text is litered with example of this, like: “And if they’re trying to cut calories, they’ll be removing some number of total carbohydrates as well. And if these people lose fat on these diets, this is a very likely reason why.”

> How did you lose that much weight over 13 months?

Aggressively cut my calories and started going to the gym 5-7 nights a week. My exercise regimen focuses heavily on cardio, but I've gradually been increasing my resistance training. The bulk of the weight was lost in 6 months, about 40 lbs between Feb and July. The rest was a gradually lost before and after.

Most people find it very hard to cut significant amounts of calories and keep the number of calories lower over as long as 13 months.

Can you share what kinds of foods you cut out that were part of your aggressive calorie-cutting program?

How many calories of fat, protein, and carbs did you eat before and during your weight loss program?

I don't know. The only notable carb-cutting effort I took was removing most forms of soda from my diet. But obviously, this is not an isolated action as I've replaced it with water, tea, and coffee. All of those have substantially less calories.

They also have substantially fewer carbs--which is Taubes' point. By reducing your caloric intake you also reduced your carbohydrate intake, and so you don't know which was responsible for your weight loss.

That logic works both ways, though. If you cut soda to kill carbs, couldn't someone say, "Ahh, but you also cut calories! So it could have been that and not the carbs that did it!"

This is is what we call a non-argument. There is insufficient data to make a call either way. The author mentions this, but as I pointed out in other comments on this thread his agenda was clearly to push one hypothesis.

I still don't think that's the case. Ditching soda was one of the first things I did, and I only saw a bit of weight loss. It didn't really start until I started exercising. Which is far more plausible than some sort of miracle diet.

> There is insufficient data to make a call either way. The author mentions this, but as I pointed out in other comments on this thread his agenda was clearly to push one hypothesis.

I think that's actually Taube's main point - the data is insufficient, and the variables aren't being properly controlled. His suggestion that it was in fact the carb-cutting that was the most effective seemed secondary to me.

For the record, I lost 37 pounds in the span of roughly two months by cutting carbs. I ate more than 2000 calories per day (a fairly constant diet of bacon, eggs, cheese, steak, chicken, and broccoli), but kept my carb consumption under 40g of daily carbs for the entire two-month period, and still managed to lose what I consider to be a shocking amount of weight.

> Aggressively cut my calories and started going to the gym 5-7 nights a week... about 40 lbs between Feb and July

You consider this a success?

Considering the weight has not returned and I've drastically increased my physical fitness in the process, with an overall 100lbs over a longer term?

Yes. On a statistical and personal level, I am happy with my performance. I didn't think I had it in me, to be brutally honest.

And what was your starting weight? It's a lot more challenging to go from, say, 250 lbs. to 150 lbs. than it is from 350 lbs. to 250 lbs. (not that either is easy).

FWIW, I am down about 80 lbs. from my peak weight of 260+, but it took years, not months.

280 to 180. For the full 100 it might be closer to 14 months, I wasn't terribly careful with my recording at the beginning of my efforts.

Another diet article that's very, very long, low on facts, and repetitive on the few facts they have. Are these showing up just because people have New Year's Resolutions?

Another diet blog post. If you want facts, buy the Good Calories, Bad Calories book, or presumably his recent book which I can't recommend either way as I have not read it. If Gary Taubes does not have enough facts, regardless of how you like his interpretation of them, you may give up all hope of ever understanding diet issues yourself now.

So as to avoid a redundant post, I make this point to KirinDave as well. This is not Taubes' argument, it's one particular small point, a marketing teaser. If you really want to dismiss him you're going to have to do a lot better that poking apart one blog post, you've got a book (or two, though I don't know what the overlap is) to dismantle.

I've read both Good Calories, Bad Calories and Why We Get Fat. There is significant overlap, and it is most notable in the less technical areas, where he lays out the arguments against the conventional wisdom.

That said (and I say this as a very technical reader), there were aspects of Good Calories, Bad Calories that went over my head because of their presentation and placement in the (very long) book. Why We Get Fat's treatment of LPL (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lipoprotein_lipase) and HSL (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hormone-sensitive_lipase), in particular, were described more clearly in the latest book, and the concepts related to them really make a difference in understanding the larger point.

Probably the most important thing that I got out of Why We Get Fat is a better technical understanding for one of his core arguments (that the arrow of causation in calories in, calories out may be the reverse of what we expect). Specifically, he clearly describes the mechanism by which fat cells may pull in energy from the bloodstream, resulting in additional hunger and lethargy (ad infinitum). His new treatment of this subject, which starts with animal models of obesity, is extremely helpful and worth the price of the new book, in my opinion.

Why bother reading the book when the blog is either flawed (as this post is) or dishonest (as the one from yesterday is)?

If the blog is junk science, it's unlikely that the book is better.

Neither are junk science. People's junk science detectors and the competition to be the first to declare that something is "fatally flawed" are going off excessively quickly. (See also the rush to be the first that some show or something has 'jumped the shark'.) If there's junk science afoot it's unfortunately in the "mainstream".

Cached copy: http://www.garytaubes.com.nyud.net/2010/12/calories-fat-or-c...

Eat better and exercise more.

Haven't read the new book, but Taubes' previous work 'Good Calories, Bad Calories' makes a strong case that there's shockingly little experimental evidence in favor of the conventional wisdom that "eating better" means a low fat, low calorie diet.

Yes, but what is "better"? And what is the best way to make both life changes enduring? (E.g. if someone is constantly hungry, their change in diet is probably not sustainable.)

I'm a layman, but I'm highly skeptical at the amount and complexity of information in this field with respect to your average person (which is not the same as scientific and medical research into the subject of nutrition, chemistry, etc.)

What's better? 5 servings of fruits and vegetable. Unrefined, whole foods. Water. Legumes and grains. Fish.

Combine such a "diet" with 1 hour of light exercise (for example walking) a day and I bet most people would be considerably healthier (all the better if they can do aerobic exercise a couple times a week, say on the weekend). Most impressive this is also normally a cheaper way to eat and doesn't have to taste bad.

We should be skeptical. Taubes' books show most of the conventional nutrition information is based on flawed studies that eventually became dogma. GCBC was aimed at medical professionals, and his new book tries to present it for average people, but he still has to present enough to counter 50 years of bad advice.

"What's better? 5 servings of fruits and vegetable. Unrefined, whole foods. Water. Legumes and grains. Fish."

Cut out legumes and grains - those are not whole foods, but they are modern (in evolutionary terms) and processed, and detract from nutritional advantages of of real food: fish, meat, eggs, and vegetables.

Legumes are the dried fruit of a certain type of plant. I'm not sure how that's modern or processed.

This. I don't understand how people can ignore how sedentary society has become when discussing the obesity problem.

You can easily get away with eating a lot of carbs; being physically active not only allows it, but often requires it.

Taubes actually addresses this point very carefully in both Good Calories, Bad Calories and Why We Get Fat. He cites quite a few cases of communities with high rates of obesity, and varying rates of nourishment and sedentary behavior.

One very interesting result is that some of the communities lived in incredible poverty and with significant physical exertion.

I'd recommend that you read the book (Why We Get Fat: And What to Do About It) and see whether he addresses your concern. Far from ignoring our sedentary society, Taubes makes a strong case for other factors.

According to the article, just eat fewer carbs (and/or higher quality carbs) because even if they don't realize they're doing it, the people who "eat better" or "exercise more" also cut carbs which is what truly leads to the weight loss they experience.

I don't agree with the premise, for one thing there's a line or two about the science of metabolism as it relates to carbs and naught else to actually support the theory in the article, but alas the point of the article wasn't to prove, rather it was to disprove the methods of comparing diets typically used. That part it did well.

That is overstating the thesis. The article is saying only that it is possible carb restriction is the sole cause of weight loss. While the writing suggests that the author believes that, the explicit point is that until we control for all variables, we can't know.

Gary Taubes is so incredibly wrong that it makes me sad.

If you want to read some intelligent analysis of dieting/nutrition, I suggest reading Lyle McDonald (http://www.bodyrecomposition.com) and Alan Aragon (http://www.alanaragonblog.com).

Why are your preferred sources better than someone else's?

Not saying that they can't be but you've provided nothing more than hyperbolic hand waving to explain why two other random guys on the Internet are more reliable.

Taubes may be wrong, but he has a very devoted following that apparently includes HN. It's popular to sell magic bullet ideas, like carb-cutting, and the anti-carb brigades have made an entire industry around this. It is far less popular to tell people that they need to get off their rears, and get active, since they'd rather stay on their rears and find a magic bullet that will let them remain sedentary, and still lose weight.

The body is constantly fighting you to maintain current weight. That's why you get really hungry after a hard workout or want to go to sleep after severely cutting your caloric intake. Your body will respond.

You're giving exercise way too much credit.

http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1914857,00.ht...

You're giving sedentary lifestyles way too much credit. If you want teenagers with the fitness levels of elderly smokers, you've already got it happening out there.

Quit driving to work, and start biking to work, and you'll see results. It really has to be about lifestyle, and spending too much time on one's behind, combined with eating badly, is slowly killing millions.

why is he wrong?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com