30 Days Without Sugar | Hacker News Reader

30 Days Without Sugar

jdbentley.com

44 pointsjdbentley56 comments

After noticing the percentage differences and the weight drop, I wanted to do the math to figure out how much muscle vs. fat he lost.

He went from 219.2 at 35% body fat to 195.8 at 28.1%. If you do the back of the napkin math real quick that works out as follows:

    219.2 * .35 = 76.72 lbs of initial fat
    219.2 - 76.72 = 142.48 lbs of lean mass

    195.8 * .281 = 55.02 lbs of final fat
    195.8 - 55.02 = 140.78 lbs of lean mass

That means he lost ...

    1.7 lbs of muscle
    21.7 lbs of fat

Normally I say that these diets are often bad, and end up putting you back further where you started because you lose so much muscle and therefore regain it all much quicker.

However in this case 92% of his weight loss was fat, which is awesome.

Math! What can't it do?

Thanks for these numbers. It's interesting to see how it really breaks down.

> Math! What can't it do?

Real randomness, or actually explain what it is. And some other things. But it's pretty powerful :)

I am not at all up to speed on these things but I guess there's more to the human body than fat and muscle. Those 1.7 lbs will certainly also include water, for example.

Typically how these things are measured is body fat and lean mass. Lean mass is all the stuff other than fat (muscle, water, organs etc).

You're right, I did assume that the lean mass lost came out of muscle in retrospect. Given his weight loss ratios I'd guess that it has to be, but it may be all water.

One interesting point here is if he lost significant water weight then he could have actually gained muscle as he lost fat. (that one's hard to tell though)

You would be surprised how much better you can feel by just staying away from conventional sweets and sugars. It's a pretty low hanging fruit (sorry) in making your self healthier. Just don't eat ice cream, candy, desserts, or soda. You will look and feel excellent without putting yourself through some crazy diet that may end up killing you.

I've been doing this since 30th March, as I worried I was potentially becoming pre-diabetic. Biggest learning point was: yep, sugar is addictive. I've lost quite a lot of weight in that time, and feel like I have a lot more control over my eating in general. I've not been being too precious about fruit, I just don't eat much.

This NYTimes article as probably the other big motivator:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/17/magazine/mag-17Sugar-t.htm...

For the past month, I've done something similar, just following Atkins. I've monitored my calories using myfitness.com so I know my daily caloric intake has varied between 900 and 1400 calories. I've monitored whether I am in ketogenesis with some nice pee strips.

Following Atkins first phase, I am maintaining about 20 carbs per day, mostly from interesting salad elements and some yummy cheeses. I've been drinking 0 calorie flavored seltzer water and regular water and coffee (with cream.)

And mostly cooking/reheating Costco and Trader Joe like foods that are about 50/50 fat/protein with zero or few carbohydrates. (Burgers, steak, pot roast, shredded beef, chicken with skin.)

There are definitely some days I am hungrier than others, no big deal, I eat what I want. But many days after 15 - 18 hours I am pretty full at 1200 calories.

I have noticed that on days when I eat very little, even though I was not hungry that day, I get a pretty nasty headache the next day -- so I try to ensure I get at least 1000 - 1200 calories each day.

Saw my MD last week, and got my blood tests back today, and I'm doing just fine. Before doing any diet, or shortly into that diet, you probably should see your doctor.

So I'm 5'8" and lost 14 pounds in 30 days -- would like to lose another 20 -- that would be great.

What are the goals of you ketogenesis monitoring? Staying in the specific zone? Does the strip tell you if you are going too much into it?

Yes. The first phase of Atkins is this "induction" ketogenesis phase. My guess is if you follow the diet rigorously, you don't need the strips at all, but for me at least, it is nice to have a external confirmation that I am in the ketogenesis zone. They turn a shade of colors and the side of the vial has a scale.

The strips (Ketone Care) are really targeted towards diabetics and so which color on the scale they are may be more important to diabetics. I've been hitting "moderate" to "large" and I am happy with that place and level of precision.

Also, they make great little bookmarks even after they've been used.

"I have noticed that on days when I eat very little, even though I was not hungry that day, I get a pretty nasty headache the next day"

Well, the most common reason is lack of water. Practically every food contains a lot of water and burning fat is a more inefficient process. So if you don't consume enough calories then you must drink more water/salt than usual.

Thanks, that's very likely and I have been much more conscious of drinking water in the past few days, and my doc called this morning to tell me I was dehydrated on the blood test from last week (although I put that down to a 10 hour fast before the test.)

Awesome job! I did this last year and lost almost exactly ~100lbs (along with exercise).

Would you mind editing your post and adding in some resources for other people interested in the scientific information? I'm assuming that others will be really interested in your sources (I know I found r/keto very helpful) so they can have background information.

Anyhow, congrats on the awesome loss!

That's a great idea. I visit r/keto all the time. I'll list out some resources now and tack them onto the bottom of the post.

Cutting out Diet Coke (and artificial sweeteners) has been key for me. I feel much healthier, and my head is clearer. Sugar is next.

One other body hack: my knuckles were starting to ache like I had arthritis. At first I thought it was from programming too much, but then I discovered that peanuts can cause inflammation -- I was eating peanuts all the time as my go-to snack -- I eliminated those and my arthritis symptoms went away within a few days.

Aspartame has been proven to be safe. The worst thing about Diet Coke is probably effect of the acid on your enamel.

What study are you referring to? There are studies that show diet soda and/or Aspartame are linked to metabolic syndrome (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/05/health/nutrition/05symp.ht...) and other studies regarding its excitotoxicity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Excitotoxicity).

If you'd like to try a 30-day challenge with your diet, I heartily recommend Whole30: http://whole9life.com/2012/01/whole-30-v2012/

In short, you remove:

  * Grains/legumes
  * Dairy
  * Sugar
  * Alcohol
  * Weird additives (sulfates/MSG/etc)

If you eat the standard American diet, this is probably a lot of your food! Which begs the question--what can you eat? The guy who runs my gym also runs The Foodee Project, a recipe collection site. Here's the Whole30 tag: http://www.thefoodee.com/tag/whole30/

P.S. And if you're too busy/lazy to do a Whole30, the best thing you can possibly do with your diet is cut sugar. Not reduce; cut. Remove it, 100%, no fucking around. Sugar is a really easy-to-use energy source for your body, which actually screws you up if you constantly intake it. More info here: http://www.marksdailyapple.com/what-does-it-mean-to-be-fat-a...

According to his graph, he lost almost a pound a day for a full month. He didn't just cut out the sweets. He effectively went on a starvation diet!

That is not safe.

He is not to be congratulated, he is to be ushered into a doctor's office so some sense can be talked into him before he does himself permanent damage. When you go on a starvation diet your body breaks down muscle as well as fat, and some of that muscle is rather important not to lose. Heart damage is just one major risk of starvation diets.

Additionally, when you throw the yo-yo that hard it is going to be exceedingly difficult to keep it from coming right back up. My money's on him being back at 230 or higher within a year.

This most certainly wasn't a starvation diet. I didn't starve myself at any point. I'm not at all convinced my body has broken down any muscle. I'm not in any danger whatsoever.

It sounds exactly like a starvation diet; you can't lose 1 lb/day without losing massive amounts of muscle.

You haven't noticed the muscle loss yet b/c the body prioritizes the breakdown of unused/minimally used muscles. But if you keep this up much longer it will start to effect your ability to perform basic feats of strength.

That rate of weight loss you appear to be achieving also causes massive stress on the cardiovascular system.

You need to talk to a doctor, b/c you may be causing long-lasting, serious damage to your body.

> It sounds exactly like a starvation diet; you can't lose 1 lb/day without losing massive amounts of muscle.

Yes. Yes you can.

Gluconeogenesis is difficult and wasteful. Lipolysis is by comparison a doddle. The body will gleefully favour liberating energy from fat stores for a long time before turning to lean tissue.

The idea of "starvation mode" comes from the Minnesota Starvation Study, where subjects had their intake reduced by 25-50% for six months. They were so completely starved that they exhausted their fat stores and broke down lean tissue for energy.

Don't take my word for it. Certainly don't take the internet's word for it. Just go see your doctor.

If we're seeing medical professionals, a registered dietitian would be the right person to see.

That said, I'll bet folding money that his blood panel has improved.

You've overegged the case.

http://examine.com/faq/how-do-i-stay-out-of-starvation-mode....

Really?

The posted link contains all of 3 studies. One of those studies involves a single individual and the other study is a meta-study which contains no actual data at all.

("Meta-study" is a fancy scientific word meaning "find studies that fit our thesis and massage the data as necesary until it says what we want." Did you know that meta-studies suggest that most hackers (actually, any male who has not lived with a sexual partner prior to the age of 24) are 70% likely to be sex offenders? Did you know that this study is the landmark study that nearly every state uses to justify indefinite commitment of sex offenders?)

And your peer-reviewed sources are ...?

The benefits of fasting are well documented.

http://www.ajcn.org/content/81/1/69.short

http://www.ajcn.org/content/90/5/1138.short

http://www.nature.com/ijo/journal/v35/n5/full/ijo2010171a.ht...

How exactly is eating no sugar or fruit a starvation diet? You're way off on this one.

Assuming you aren't a nutritional expert (or doctor or biologist), did you bother to do _any_ research? I'm no expect, so I looked up "starvation diet". It brought me to the main wiki pain on dieting. This is what it says about "Very low-calorie diets":

"They subject the body to starvation and produce an average weekly weight loss of 3.3–5.5 lb."

If 5.5lb a week is the result of starvation, what might 7lbs/week be? It continues by cautioning about the dangers of such diets.

Just because you eat, doesn't mean you can't starve. Consider protein poisoning (aka, rabbit starvation).

Biochemically speaking, ketosis is starvation. Once you exhaust your livers supply of glycogen (within 24 hrs usually) you begin the metabolic changes to gear up to burn muscle for ketogenesis. This involves secretion of enzymes that will break muscles down.

I would presume, however, that when adequate (or some) caloric intake is maintained, esp in the form of amino acids, that this liberation of aa's from muscle is somewhat inhibited

Ketogenesis is actually one of the metabolic pathways involved with the breakdown of fats.

You may be thinking of gluconeogenesis.

You are right. Brainfart. thanks

He didn't go on a starvation diet; he went on a ketogenic diet. While there are still risks associated with this kind of weight loss, its rapidity can be attributed to a few things:

1. As water retention is significantly diminished while in ketosis. 10-15 pounds of initial loss can be sometimes be attributed to water weight coming off.

2. As jacques_chester put it below, "Gluconeogenesis is difficult and wasteful. Lipolysis is by comparison a doddle." The standard benchmarks around rate-of-loss are simply inaccurate for this metabolism.

Just as a point of reference, I've been on an MD-supervised ketogenic diet for roughly 7 months now. My blood pressure is perfect (down from stage-2 hypertension levels) and my weightloss has been phenomenal: http://i.imgur.com/nghqf.png

Nice try, Monsanto representative.

Does anyone know whether it's OK to use Stevia as an alternative during such a sugar-free diet?

As far as I know, it is. I'd look to this article for more in-depth info: http://www.marksdailyapple.com/stevia/

It probably is but to be honest, stevia is the grossest thing i've ever tasted in my coffee ... I used to put one sugar in my coffee, dropped added sugar all together 2 months ago and tried stevia one single time. I can't exactly pin the taste but it's way too sweet and tastes chemical even though it's a natural product.

That being said, if you HAVE to add sweetener stevia is probably your best choice.

When I tried stevia it had an okay taste, but the aftertaste was awful. I could never use it.

Yeah, I don't like it in coffee either, but it tastes pretty good in tea. There's also Stevia-Coke here that tastes pretty good. Thanks.

Stevia alone is pretty awful, very bitter aftertaste. But there are some new stevia derivates that aim to remove the bitterness and turn it into an acceptable sugar substitute. Pepsi has developed one, and the Coca-Cola Company, with Cargill, have recently developed Truvia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truvia), which is already being used in some of Coca-Cola's beverages. You can buy it in packets for home use. So far, TruVia is the best-tasting artificial sweetener I have come across. Much better than aspartame, sucralose etc. No bitterness to speak of.

Another natural sweetener called erythritol (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erythritol) is also very good. Unlike stevia, I believe it works on its own, with no modifications required to remove bitterness etc.

It's not sugar, so yes.

To clarify, were you on a Paleo and no-sugar diet at the same time, or am I misinterpreting something?

Yes. I've been eating paleo for about a year. I cut back on sweets to beat the sugar addiction and further along my weight loss.

Getting a database connection error :-(

Wordpress strikes again, by the looks of things.

OP, if you haven't already, install WP-Supercache or W3 Total Cache ASAP.

Will do.

We're back - thanks!

Add '.nyud.net' on the end of the URL. So, like this:

http://joelrunyon.com.nyud.net/two3/an-unexpected-ass-kickin...

It's the wickedly useful Coral CDN in action:

http://coralcdn.org/

Great for reading sites that are slashdott..., um, fireball..., erm, 'News'd. Doesn't always work, doesn't work for POSTing anything, but this time we got lucky.

He's not in ketosis; he's in starvation mode. He's losing massive amounts of muscle as a result of this diet, which is why he is losing so much weight. He's also losing fat, but not as efficiently as he would in a normal diet.

If he keeps this up, he'll be lucky if he has the strength to pick up a coffee mug.

> He's losing massive amounts of muscle as a result of this diet, which is why he is losing so much weight.

You're conflating two different things.

The first is gluconeogensis, the breakdown of amino acids to create blood sugar. This is the main mechanism whereby energy is liberated from lean tissue. But it doesn't happen easily -- the body will go to fat stores first because they are highly accessible and very dense sources of energy.

The second is catabolism or protein degradation, which is a constant cellular process. Catabolism is affected by cortisol, a hormone which amongst other things increases under conditions of metabolic stress.

But here's the kicker: if you do weight bearing exercises and consume enough protein, you create offsetting pressure for anabolism that the "protein balance" will come out neutral or even positive.

Who put this idea into so many heads? I'm really very curious to know, where did you learn of this starvation mode idea?

It's a biochemistry term. Any first year biochem textbook will contain the information you want, would be happy to post Dropbox to my notes if you are interested

It's the same as 'lactic acid is poison', some day the good science will win and the textbooks will be updated.

> He's also losing fat, but not as efficiently as he would in a normal diet.

Keto diets are faster in all reports I have read than 'normal' diets.

Keto diets are faster than normal diets and prevent muscle distrophy. He's not following a keto diet.

Note that both keto diets and starvation mode diets cause cardiovascular stress (though for keto diets, this is only an issue if you have other risk conditions for cardiovascular disease, such as diabetes).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com