Hacker News Reader

> Going back to the vegetable example, you could eat several kg of green vegetables every day and continue to lose weight.

This is just not true. Anecdotally I know multiple obese vegans, but that aside at the end of the day it's calories burned vs calories consumed.

Generally speaking 1 lb = 3,500 calories[1]. What you're essentially arguing is that the caloric measurement of vegetables is wrong, that they're over-estimated, and you can secretly eat "kilograms" of extra vegetables and not get fat.

You gain weight from taking in more calories than you burn. You can take in too many calories from vegetables. It all depends on your lifestyle.

[edit: 3,500 calories, not 3,000. Sources: https://www.google.com/search?q=3500+calories+1+lb&oq=3500+c...]

> Anecdotally I know multiple obese vegans, but that aside at the end of the day it's calories burned vs calories consumed.

Anecdotes are not data, but 'obese vegans' don't suprise me at all. Carbs are very present in vegan diets, therefore it's easy to overeat.

Also, yes you can get fat from veggies, but honestly, most have so few calories per kg, you would need to feast on them the whole day.

Not necessarily. People have different lifestyles, metabolisms, biologies, health issues. It is very possible to overeat and get fat on vegetables without having to "feast on them the whole day."

Empirically speaking 4/4/9 calories per gram of carb/protein/fat. So generally speaking no, 1lb != 3,000 calories.

OP was referring to the amount of calories stored in a pound of adipose tissue, which is around 3500 kcals.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2376744/

>Generally speaking 1 lb = 3,000 calories. What you're essentially arguing is that the caloric measurement of vegetables is wrong

A pound of kale has around 227 calories. Spinach is similar. You are off by an order of magnitude.

“Kilograms” of green vegetables are absolutely below a typical 2000 calorie diet.

Pretty sure OP meant something along the lines of it take ~3500 kcal deficit to burn one pound of fat.

While there of course are some outliers if you take completely extreme examples generally it is true when it comes to weight loss.

Eating 2000 kcal of vegetables is the same as eating 2000 kcal of bread and meat.

No it isn't.

There are different effects on the gut microbiome, which affects how many of those calories are processed.

Why do you believe that makes a significant difference? And if so how big difference does it make?

Can I eat 2000 kcal with one diet and gain weight and 3000 kcal with another weight and lose weight?

The point you are missing is that with one diet you would out of control crave far more calories. While on a different diet you would have to force yourself to eat beyond feeling satisfied to reach the same number of calories.

I'm not missing that, it was just not something that was discussed. I was talking about weight gain and weight loss, not how easy or difficult it is in practice.

What you eat will of course matter when it comes to nutrition, muscle gain, satiety and many other factors but that in itself does not generally remove that a calorie is a calorie (unless extreme diets).

You asked why it makes a significant difference. And it looks like you answered your own question. A calorie being a calorie is one of the less interesting factors when it comes to actual practice. And yet it gets repeated ad nauseum every time the discussion comes up.

Not in the slightest. Check out glycemic index [0]. Sugar absorption rates affect how your body functions. There is massive negative effects when your body is working hard to balance your glucose levels due to sugar rich foods or high glycemic index.

0 - https://www.health.harvard.edu/diseases-and-conditions/glyce...

Your body does not work harder just because the food has high glycemic index, I would say it is the opposite. The body has a very easy time using glucose for example compared to fructose which needs to through the liver which in turn increases the risk of liver damage if you eat too much.

However I was obviously referring to the weight gain and loss I mentioned in my previous sentence. I.e. the long distance runners in your link that chooses high glycemic food are not getting fat anytime soon.

Over the long haul, no it's not. They all have different levels of nutrients, vitamins, minerals, carbs, fats, and proteins. Please try eating 2000 calories of sugar a day and nothing else for a while and see how long it is before you puke your guts out.

> No, calories vary massively. If someone ate 2000 calories of vegetables each day and someone else ate 2000 calories of sugar there would be a huge amount of difference between their nutrition.

What? Yes, but calorie wise it's the same. You mix up IIFYM-critique points with calories.

> Going back to the vegetable example, you could eat several kg of green vegetables every day and continue to lose weight.

Because they have close to no calories.

I read somewhere that eating raw cabbage means your body has to work extra hard to digest it. Point: don't eat cooked cabbage, eat raw cabbage.

In fact I read eating raw cabbage takes as much energy to digest as it gives you in calories. I don't have a link at hand but I remember clear as day that I read this somewhere.

I'm sorry, but that's simply not true. Technically, ice water consumes calories, but even raw celery only takes 8% of its caloric content to digest; you should research thermic effect if you're interested to know more.

So we agree that calories a dumb way to track the amount of food you eat in a day?

> No, calories vary massively. If someone ate 2000 calories of vegetables each day and someone else ate 2000 calories of sugar there would be a huge amount of difference between their nutrition.

As someone who lost 95kg within 2yrs And subsequently regained 40 over the next 10... That's not what it was for me.

Calories were always directly linked to me gaining or losing weight.

The difference was mainly in what happens after i've eaten the sugar calories. It's gonna take a few minutes or hours and I want to eat the next serving.

Sugar just... makes you eat more, both short and long term. If it's 2k today, it'll be 2.2k tomorrow and so on.

A lot of naturally skinny people don't get that. I'm glad someone here has some common sense. Calories aren't all the same if some do not satiate you or provide you with nutrition. I'm sorry but weight gain is as much mental well being as thermodynamics. We aren't just a chemical reaction like this dude is claiming. I agree with you completely. Good on you for losing weight and I hope you can hit whatever your goal weight is.

Yea, but the calories in a kg of vegetables is different than the calories in a kilogram of meat right? Or put another way, a hamburger might be the same weight as a plate of veggies and they're calorically quite different.

From all I've seen, the only scientific assumptions derived from current experimental data are:

1. Calories in/out control weight

2. Not everyone's digestive system is exactly the same, thus some small variance exists in how many calories we each absorb from various foods. This variance is very small, but maybe some exceptional outliers exist with very strange conditions here that could dramatically affect digestion. Don't justify your weight on this, you are most likely not the outlier and are just eating too much :p

3. Insulin levels and other hormonal conditions could affect the ability to lose fat. Again, this assumes major imbalance, most likely due to medical conditions like diabetes or hashimoto, etc.

4. The body needs what it needs. So a diet is more than just weight loss. You need a balanced diet, not necessarily balanced in foods, but you do in nutrients. It doesn't take much of anything though.

5. Certain foods have extra curricular effects that can be good or bad. It really depends in the food and your body. Intolerance, allergies, carcinogens, antioxidants, and many others. You can think of food as medication that is micro dosed, and with possibly immeasurable long term effects.

Also, it does seem that trans fat affect heart disease, as well as sugars. And it is the interaction between both which creates a high risk scenario. That's why both diets work. Ideally, you even cut out both, which is what Keto often does, it favour healthy fats and cut out sugars.

P.S.: Sorry, I wish I could put down my sources, but I wasn't keeping track. This is the current synthesis from memory of the many studies I read over time for fun in the last 3/4 years.

You are correct. HN is strangely disappointing when it comes to health and nutrition. Somehow science and evidence isn't as important as anecdotes and guru-talk. Here's a link backing up your claims, including how metabolism and the thyroid affects weight gain in the Related Links

https://examine.com/nutrition/low-fat-vs-low-carb-for-weight...

Please take my upvote. I don't understand why some on HN keep trying to equate "a calorie is a calorie" with nutrition and satiety. The first is a unit of energy and the other two are not. It is that simple.

I do 16:8 Intermittent Fasting. Are there health benefits to it? Maybe. But I know for sure that if I want to drop a bit of weight, this style of eating makes it a lot easier for me for reasons of hunger more than anything: I'm not that hungry until I eat. I also know for sure that I like eating big. If I have a couple small meals early on, I can have a great big meal near the end of my window as if I were a lion taking down a zebra.

Who's equating caloric intake with nutrition and satiety?

My point is people who have successfully adopted a particular technique for reducing their caloric intake (fasting, kale, smoothies, veganism, omega 3 acids, etc) are disguising the underlying process that's conferring most of the health benefits they're seeing: which is weight loss.

How many stories have you read out there about Secret Diet X that does all sorts of allegedly amazing things for you? Paleo diet. Veganism. Atkins diet. The Zone diet. The Dukan diet. And on and on.

There are many strategies for reducing caloric intake and if 16:8 fasting works for you: fantastic. But at the end of the day most people will improve their health through weight loss, not some special ritual or ingredient, and I think we should be cautious before crowning specific calorie reduction techniques as having special or more beneficial properties unless there is clear scientific evidence for them.

> There are many strategies for reducing caloric intake and if 16:8 fasting works for you: fantastic. But at the end of the day most people will improve their health through weight loss, not some special ritual or ingredient, and I think we should be cautious before crowning specific calorie reduction techniques as having special or more beneficial properties unless there is clear scientific evidence for them.

Fasting when you are obese is different too. On average, you will burn more fat than muscle. Mainly because your body composition is primarily fat (i.e. 38% body fat).

> Who's equating caloric intake with nutrition and satiety?

Well, jonwinstanley above, for one. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

> No, calories vary massively. If someone ate 2000 calories of vegetables each day and someone else ate 2000 calories of sugar there would be a huge amount of difference between their nutrition.

I think one thing we can take from this discussion is that people's opinions on diet, calories, fat, carbs, health etc varies wildly!

They aren't disguising the underlying process. The underlying process involves psychology, gut bacteria, insulin sensitivity, and a long list of many other factors. Focusing on one biological process and excluding others is not accurate or helpful.

You are likely underestimating the effect food has on the digestive system. Especially wrt to what lives there. Add fecal transplants to your research. If what bacteria live in the gut can sometimes cure depression, we should be paying far more attention to what we feed our gut bacteria. It's our second brain and science is just now starting to discover how it all works.

2000 calories of green veggies (eg broccoli, green beans, lettuce) is about 6-10kg of food. That is such an absurdly huge amount of food for most people they would not be able to eat it even for one day. The veggie group would be constantly full while still not getting enough calories.

Absolutely wrong. Over eating is an issue of conditioning. Yes different foods digest at a different rate, but Americans eat like they’re strength training their stomachs, and always seem to have room for dessert.

The body doesn’t negate over eating when it’s a lifestyle.

Yes, over-eating burgers, fries, sugary drinks etc - you are going to have some serious health issues.

What I am saying is that portion size is not a big issue if you eat very healthy, low carb food. You could eat a mountain of steamed broccoli, mushrooms, carrots, cabbage every day and you wouldn't gain weight. You'd just need the to visit the loo a lot.