The Hacker's Diet
fourmilab.ch
fourmilab.ch
I've also tried low-carb twice, the first time I lost a reasonable amount pretty quickly, but gained it back over a few years when I reverted to a normal diet, and the second time when I shifted to intermittent fasting as I went back to a more normal diet.
There's lots of good advice available if you search for intermittent fasting, but the key take away is that insulin is produced in response to excess carbohydrates, and not only promotes storage of carbohydrates as fat, but also inhibits burning existing fat. Of course, if you are at a calorie deficit, you'll probably still lose weight especially with regular small amounts, because the insulin effect will be low, but if you have few carb-heavy meals, your body will still create a lot of insulin to get rid of all the carbs, and then after you work through the hunger phase after that's happened, then you will start converting that fat back to energy, and in a calorie restriction situation hopefully burn more than you need.
Choice of macronutrient composition directly (and indirectly through hormones) affects satiety, and many find it easier to eat less calories by restricting carbs, but for weightloss at the end of the day a calorie is still a calorie.
(This is for people with normal metabolisms, ie not diabetics)
Every pound of extra fat on your body comes from a calorie surplus that at one time or another existed in your bloodstream. If that surplus came from bacon or carrots doesn't matter for the pound of fat (it might matter for your heart and health in other ways of course).
It's also true that in order to lose that pound of fat, you need to create a deficit of calories in your bloodstream.
The problem is that you can't know how many calories from various foods actually end up in your bloodstream in advance. Just like any given number of "calories per hour of running" is obviously just a rough estimate (varies by how heavy you are, how cold it is, if it's uphill, how good a runner you are and so on), the number of "calories per serving" on the box of food is also an estimate.
Your body could be particularly good at absorbing calories from rice, or particularly bad at absorbing calories from beans. This could also be temporary, or affected by what other things you eat, or when you eat during the day.
The hackers diet solves this complex thing by having you keep a record of what you eat and do over time, and /measuring the results/. Then you know what is true /for you/, personally, and you can adjust your habits and predict the results.
The best tip I got from it however was the idea that hunger is a signal telling your body to start burning fat. That made me able to endure the periods of hunger during the first few days without giving up. Once the body started to burn fat, all the discomforts of hunger went away permanently for the duration of the diet. I think a lot of dieters fail just because they think the discomfort is unbearable and will last forever.
Citation? My experience is consistent with yours. However, my understanding is that insulin is mainly a signal to cells to take on nutrients, and it is not exclusively a response to carbohydrates, much less "excess carbohydrates." Certain amino acids provoke an insulin response, for example. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2660133/
I still follow the plan to this day, albeit with more sophisticated logging. I use a combinatorial optimizer web app that tells me what to eat every day so that it completely takes the element of choice (and ability to screw up) out of the equation. I've developed it for the last five years and am hoping to release it as a product and/or open source eventually. If anyone's interested, shoot me an email (link on my website) and I'll share access.
My ideal system would be tied into a smart fridge capable of knowing what food is inside, how much if it there is, and how old it is.
Then it could recommend you meals and snacks based in what you have, and what nutrition you still need for the day.
https://www.chemistryworld.com/review/burn-the-misunderstood...
Isn't that part of CO?
Cheers ;)
I know others who have lost a lot of weight with it. And his “floater/sinker” graph has been copied in several applications.
https://through-the-interface.typepad.com/through_the_interf...
(just the first one that came up on a Google Search)
This doesn't look like a fit and healthy man and I don't some that isn't fit and healthy should dole out advice on how to control a chaotic system such as human physiology using engineering.
Perhaps - and this is a theory I subscribe to: less fat/weight loss isn't what we're trying to achieve as a goal. Perhaps just being fit is. And fit looks different for different people because genetics. And what I mean is, is there lean muscle mass on a person's body (irregardless of % of fat, to a large degree). If I look at this photo of Mr. Walker, to me he looks skinny fat, which I think is just as bad as being "fat".
Just as an idea - as one who has a BMI of 25.8 and who could also run a marathon, then pump out 10 or so pullups. I think fat % or weight in general is just the wrong metric to use.
Thinness is not the goal you want to achieve. It's a very easy goal to achieve when compared to being a fit individual. Starve yourself and you're done.
You can not starve yourself into being a fit individual.
Yes, being fit, strong, and lean is harder than not being extremely overweight. But not everyone cares about that.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c5ywwZlESOU
Chiseled abs and a penchant for energy drinks isn't needed. If I was to be critical, I'd say that low of a body fat % for long periods of time is counter productive to overall fitness and ugh: the shit you find in some energy drinks.
No diet builds muscle.
My primary take-away in all this - even to this day: You are what you eat and (thank you, John) your only limit is your imagination!
Soylent was introduced in 2014 after a crowdfunding campaign...In January 2013, American software engineer Rob Rhinehart purchased 35 chemical ingredients—including potassium gluconate, calcium carbonate, monosodium phosphate, maltodextrin, olive oil—all of which he deemed to be necessary for survival, based on his readings of biochemistry textbooks and U.S. government websites. Rhinehart used to view food as a time-consuming hassle and had resolved to treat it as an engineering problem.
Once your weight has stabilized and you have a baseline, go to iifym.com and develop a weight gain / bulking plan. This will be what you currently eat daily calorie wise + 200-300 calories with prescribed macros. Try to hit your newly prescribed calories and macros each day with a focus on healthy eating (track and record your food intake to monitor this) and keep track of your weight. You should aim for 1-2 lbs per week of weight gain. If you are not achieving that, increase calories by 100-200 per day until you do.
In hindsight I think it’s not a good goal to gain weight if your body doesn’t respond. I would focus on eating right and being strong, flexible and coordinated and let the weight settle wherever it wants.
Eat more and lift heavy weights.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Stronglifts5x5/comments/37bxer/hard...
The one I had was cheap and consists of fasting the night before then breathing in to a machine for 15 minutes. It measures the amount of oxygen your body burns in your breast to calculate your resting metabolic rate which then gives you the base number of calories your body burns a day if you did absolutely nothing.
They should then give you a recommended reasonably accurate number of calories to eat depending on your goal and lifestyle. This means you can calculate a reasonable surplus without going overboard and just getting fat.
Also if progress is slow gaining muscle, remember for the majority of people it’s is a long slow process. A lot of the rapid transformations/strength gains we see have help from synthetic testosterone which is a completely different ball game.
It may not be what you’re looking for since hockey players aren’t trying to bulk up. But perhaps it can give you a good introduction to the basics.
The amount of horseshit around the diet is unbelievable. Its not fun, its not catchy, do the work and results will happen.
However, starting with the idea of doing things "quickly" is the worst possible approach. In the fitness, quick improvements are also lost very quickly; plus, staying fit requires permanent, lifelong changes, and in this perspective, quick or slow don't matter.
Some people are skinnier. If you are one of these people it is a very lucky thing, as you are much less likely to experience health issues due to your weight over the course of your life.
Gaining weight is harder for you, but i think you know that already? So you can skip the bizarre indoctrination of a relatively useless word like hardgainer. Anyone who insists otherwise is either drinking the cool-aid themselves or trying to take your money.
And at the end of the day what’s the point? All the fundamentals are relatively the same. If you want to gain weight you will just have to eat more food? How much is literally as personal as something gets. So start with counting what you eat, be empirical about it, and slowly raise/lower accordingly. This is the same advice as anyone, regardless of what category of marketing speak and I securities they have.
For this reason, by looking the term up, one will find different approaches, and try a few, to see what works.
> If you want to gain weight you will just have to eat more food?
This is imprecise/wrong for several reasons, the first being that the parent assumes already a correct diet:
> I'm an otherwise healthy young male but even with proper diet my weight gain rate is way too slow
Now:
> All the fundamentals are relatively the same
Even assuming that fundamentals are "relatively the same", each body responds differently, and there are lots of ways to structure a plan, even if the same exercises are performed.
It's ultimately a matter of finding what works effectively for a given body. I actually write as somebody who does only fundamentals (as in "multi-joint exercises" for the main muscle groups) with a nonconventional schedule.
That is not correct. Food either gets digested or you just poop more. When I was younger I could eat as or train as much I wanted but I had a pretty hard weight limit I couldn't get above. Thank god I realized that gaining weight for its own sake is a stupid goal so I focused on general fitness.