Hacker News Reader

Comment by ejb999 | Hacker News Reader

Did the writer lose weight because they only ate potatoes? or because they only at 500 calories a day of potatoes - I suspect you could eat only 500 calories of almost anything and still lose weight.

View on HN

Some studies show potatoes are the most satiating food, so one theory is eating them makes it more pleasant to stop eating generally and keep calories low (exact opposite of sugar, which makes one crave more food).

"Susanna Holt of the University of Sydney Australia did a research experiment in 1995 to compare the effects of different foods on short-term satiety and appetite levels. She prepared 240 cals portions of 38 different foods...The satiety index score she assigned to the potato was 323. No other food was even close. The second closest food was “ling fish” which scored 225." https://scottabelfitness.com/potato-and-the-satiety-index/

The article addresses that 323 number:

  But separately from that, there has been frequent speculation that the outlier potato results in this study were at least partly because of their unappetizing preparation method -- boiled, cooled overnight and then microwaved before serving - which, coincidentally, would've raised their resistant starch levels, which we already suspect increases satiety.

Eating 500 calories per day is the challenge. It’s extremely hard for most people. The thing about eating potatoes (and I tried it for a week before I couldn’t stand things anymore) is that it basically kills your appetite. The very idea of eating becomes uninteresting. And it seems to go beyond the boredom: even adding seasonings and fried potatoes didn’t make much of a difference.

I found it easier to waterfast than to eat 0<N<1200 kcal.

That's why the potato is superior. Eating 500 calories of hyperpalatable junk will leave you ravenous and wanting more (ever seen someone eat an entire large bag of chips?). With plain potatoes you reach satiety much quicker and you don't WANT to keep eating more.

They make that point in the article. Potatoes are very filling. That's part of the allure. Try doing a diet of 500 calories of lettuce and you'll regret it.

When dieting, satiety is key and potatoes have that in spades.

> Try doing a diet of 500 calories of lettuce and you'll regret it.

Not sure this particular counter example is accurate. The volume of 500 calories of lettuce would be enormous and lead to satiety for other reasons (stretching of stomach).

I don't think you could pay anyone to eat that much lettuce but it would be easy to pull off with potatoes is more my point.

potatoes have that in spuds

“Did the writer lose weight because [he] only ate potatoes? or because [he] only at[e] 500 calories a day of potatoes”

He’s quite clear that it was the calorie limitation, aided by the satiety effects of potatoes, and possibly the resistant starch factor. He considers other weird non-caloric theories (potassium, etc.) and finds them unlikely.

Yeah potatoes are just great because they have a very complete nutrient profile and pretty low in calories compared to weight.

Try eating 1.5 kilos of potatoes that will fill you up, still only about 1500 kilos (unless you go wild with the butter)

There’s that professor who ate only McDonald’s, but added a daily walk to his routine. He lost weight.

https://www.al.com/entertainment/2015/08/meet_the_science_te...

Caveat: Losing weight is not necessarily the same as being healthier in this case

As for potatoes – I love using them as the carb in lunch. High volume, low calories, great combo. Makes you feel full but isn’t actually that much food. As a small person it’s easy to overeat in America so gotta be careful.

Your suspicions are right! Calories are king. You can eat pretty much any junk food and your body will figure out how to get energy out of it. Eventually you adapt to whatever you have around you, and it that's all fast food, you're body will figure it out. Not getting fat is all about calories.

Though, there's no question you'll feel like shit doing it.

Enter the Twinkie diet: https://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor...

Yeah even assuming you're burning anywhere near 2000 calories a day, there's no way you aren't going to lose weight at a 1:4 calorie deficit. Even burning 1000 calories you're still at two times deficit...

I think the idea is that it's easy to eat only 500 calories, if the only food available is potatoes. Which should surprise absolutely no one.

"People will eat more food if its tastier!"

Just eat bad-tasting foods for weeks and you'll lose the appetite! And you'll lose weight!

This may be sarcastic, but I do think that modern obesity is partially driven by the availability of convenient "good tasting" foods. If you eat like typical Americans ate in 1960, then everyday meals are serviceable but don't tempt you to overeat from sheer deliciousness. Making delicious foods that you were tempted to overeat was more work, and often associated with holidays or other special occasions. But now we have foods that have been co-optimized for low cost and palatability that you can eat after heating for 3 minutes in the microwave oven. Overeating has never been more accessible or tempting.

Yes, this is the reason. It is repeatedly supported by the science of fad diets. See my other comment.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com