Hacker News Reader

Comment by ericabiz | Hacker News Reader

It amazes me that this article still pushes the agenda that "fat makes us fat." If there's one thing that hasn't proven out at all, it's that fat makes us fat!

The NY Times has even run other articles saying as much: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/01/opinion/sunday/what-really... (by Gary Taubes, whose book "Why We Get Fat" is a must-read.)

The problem with "low-fat" processed food in particular is that the fat is often replaced with sugar to add taste, but sugars and other high-carb grains are more problematic than fat consumption. Hence skyrocketing obesity.

Eating a low-carb diet and easing off grains (particularly "white" grains) and sugars will help you lose weight. From the article I linked above: "On the very low-carbohydrate diet, Dr. Ludwig’s subjects expended 300 more calories a day than they did on the low-fat diet and 150 calories more than on the low-glycemic-index diet. As Dr. Ludwig explained, when the subjects were eating low-fat diets, they’d have to add an hour of moderate-intensity physical activity each day to expend as much energy as they would effortlessly on the very-low-carb diet. And this while consuming the same amount of calories."

I can also speak from personal experience: I went gluten-free after being diagnosed with gluten intolerance in 2009. In three weeks, I effortlessly shed 12 pounds--12 pounds that had refused to come off previously no matter how much exercise I was doing or how religiously I tracked my caloric intake. I wasn't doing gluten-free to lose weight; I got dragged into it by a diagnosis, so this was a wholly unexpected yet awesome side benefit.

I've since noticed that if I slide back into eating too many carbs and sugars (even gluten-free ones), I start to gain weight again, and I feel groggy and disoriented. As a side effect of this diet^Wlifestyle change, I've also completely been able to drop caffeine consumption--something I never expected. Put simply, I didn't feel like I had been hit by a train when I woke up. Caffeine and energy drink consumption has spiked right along with "low-fat", high-carb diets. Something to consider.

View on HN

Nitpick: Not exactly correct.

Once 30% of your total caloric intake is in the form of fat calories, genetics comes into play. Apparently, and for reasons no one yet understands, there is a gene marker APOC3 [0] and other apolipoproteins like it [1] [2] that will cause your body to no longer break down all consumed fats, and leading to part of that fat to be "absorbed" instead. However, this only affects around 5% of the population, for the other 95% your "calorie is a calorie" approach is correct, be it fat, carb, or protein.

0: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/12/health/research/12heart.ht...

1: http://jn.nutrition.org/content/134/10/2517.full

2: https://www.23andme.com/health/familial-hypercholesterolemia...

It amazes me that this article still pushes the agenda that "fat makes us fat." If there's one thing that hasn't proven out at all, it's that fat makes us fat!

Overeating makes us fat. Caloric surplus makes us fat. It's pretty trivial to consume a caloric surplus eating lots of fatty foods. In that sense: fat makes us fat and it's silly to try denying it. It doesn't mean a low-fat diet will make you lose weight, it just means that high-fat diets are going to make you fat.

Excellent refutation of Taubes hypothesis:

http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2011/08/carbohydrate-h...

Insulin does not regulate fat storage, leptin does. Obesity is a complex state and there are no simple answers. A diet that may be best for weight loss in one individual may not be the same diet that is best for another. This seems particularly likely if one of the two individuals is not obese.

The problem with "low-fat" processed food in particular is that the fat is often replaced with sugar to add taste, but sugars and other high-carb grains are more problematic than fat consumption.

They aren't more problematic. Aside from the relationship to cholesterol levels, they are the same problem.

The problems are:

    1.  High caloric density.
    2.  *Vanishing* caloric density-- foods that prevent satiation.
    3.  Addictive flavors and sensations that cause cravings.

Calorie surplus makes you gain weight, and unless you're building muscle it's going to be fat. All Ludwig's experiments suggest (as reported by Taubes, with lazy citation[1]) is that obese people who have just lost 10-15% of their weight tend to have a higher daily metabolism without conscious addition of physical exercise on a low-carb diet, compared to a low-fat diet or a low-GI diet. This in turn suggests it might be easier to maintain calorie balance on a low-carb diet than a low-fat diet (for formerly obese people who have just dieted to lose 10-15% of their body weight).

postcript:

I would also add that lifestyle changes are a factor as well as diet. Addictive foods are more dangerous to someone who has a snacking/forager mentality than someone who plans and eats fixed meals every day.

[1] This appears to be the study referenced in the NY Times article: http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1199154

I'm not too impressed by Stephan Guyenet's article. He is wrong about one of his main points that fat is completely regulated by the brain and that insulin does not cause fat gain. You can Google for photographs of people who have done insulin injections in a single place over many years (rather than moving the injection point around) and see huge fat deposits at the injection site. That has got to be tissue regulation. Further, lipodystrophy is hard to explain by only invoking brain regulation.

We know that artificial insulin is a great way to gain weight. But is that only for diabetics? Hardly. It works just as well on athletes. Stop by your local gym and ask any of the chemically-assisted bodybuilders there for details. Insulin injections are a very common way to put on weight while bulking.

The idea that the body is "confused" by food density, which seems to underlie many of your ideas, is simply unsupported. The brain is very good at measuring calorie intake irrespective of density. I could point you to rat studies to confirm this, but I'd rather propose the following experiment that you can try in your own kitchen: Try making cream of cauliflower soup tonight, one with skim milk and the other with heavy cream. Measure how many spoonfuls of each that you can eat before getting full. Your brain does not get fooled by food density.

I don't see how your example is related. Firstly, Stephan's description of the brain's role is that it regulates both appetite and metabolism. These mechanisms indirectly regulate fat storage.

Insulin of course would cause fat storage, but your example neither eliminates the other mechanisms, nor is a fault in the brain signalling system as it's an local injection. It's unrealistic to expect the system to have such a fine degree of control.

The role of insulin is to remove excess energy and funnel it into fat cells. That is of course why you see the weight gain. But that is only one part of the system.

As for your experiment, I can say it won't work on me - I typically eat until there is no food left, regardless of "fullness". In fact if I were at a buffet I would eat to actual physical fullness. Yet I do not have discomfort and I am still lean enough for me stomach muscles to show. I have stayed the same weight for the last 15 years. Thus, there has to be a regulation system, perhaps as proposed by Stephan.

Guyenet literally addresses the issue of fat gain around injection sites in the linked article.

Like you, I am generally not impressed with articles I have not read.

He addresses it (barely), but not in regards to brain versus tissue regulation, which is the context where I brought it up.

What he says (the injection site issue is "argument #4" in his article):

"cases where insulin levels and/or insulin sensitivity are changing independently of one another, [...] through drugs. This is why they're irrelevant..."

Try making cream of cauliflower soup tonight, one with skim milk and the other with heavy cream. Measure how many spoonfuls of each that you can eat before getting full.

The important question is not how many spoonfulls it's, how many calories?

1 cup of skim milk is 86 calories. 1 cup of heavy cream is 821 calories.

Let's imagine something a little more simple than cauliflower soup: strawberries and cream. 50 calories of strawberries + 1/2 cup of heavy cream would be 460 calories. An easy, common dessert. You could also eat those 50 calories of strawberries along with 5 cups of skim milk. Or maybe eat a whole pound of strawberries (150 calories) and only need 3.6 cups of skim milk. Or maybe 50 cals of strawberries, 100 calories of shortcake, and 3.6 cups of skim milk.

Which eater is more likely to overshoot their ideal caloric intake by a bit? Which eater is more likely to stop eating the moment they get full?

The brain isn't fooled, but it doesn't have to be. The person who gorged on the shortcake knows they overate, but they still took on more calories than they're going to burn. And of course-- if the brain can be fooled, being fooled by high-calorie foods is going to be worse than being fooled by low-calorie foods, on average. Which is more likely to result in a calorie surplus: Salt on your mashed potatoes or salt on your buttered, cheese-smothered mashed potatoes?

That is why I listed calorie-dense foods as #1. Without understanding caloric density, it's very hard for anyone to know (without outside guidance) when or how they are being fooled.

Are you really putting a full cup of cream into a serving of cauliflower soup?

For your strawberries and cream example, I'm known to have blueberries with cream from time to time. Which ends up typically being a half cup or so of blueberries, and a tablespoon or two of cream. Much more than that is far too much (and that's from someone who's got an appetite).

Your appetite sounds much smaller than mine. But the examples are mostly a waste of time. Either you accept my premise or not, which is:

    You're more likely to get fat eating calorie-dense foods.

There are many mechanisms to regulate calorie intake. The fullness feeling is just one of them. If you are only relying the fullness mechanism to regulate calories and every meal is loaded with high-calorie foods like butter, olive oil, gravy, fatty meat, eggs and the like, odds are higher that you're going to be running a surplus more often than not. And thus: gaining weight.

Yes, not all weight gain is bad and there is more to body composition than weight. But weight was the topic under discussion for this thread.

I largely don't accept the premise in favor of: you're more likely to get fat eating foods that promote overeating,, and partitioning those calories into fat, while failing to burn off the excess calories.

That's a large part of the salt, sugar, fat trifecta. It stimulates overeating, it spikes insulin at the same time that you're dumping large quantities of fats directly (dietary fat) and indirectly (triglycerides from fructose) into the body, while depressing inclinations toward activity.a

As to my diet, intake typically ranges ~3500-4500 cal/day. I eat consciously and exercise portion control according to my goals.

I largely don't accept the premise in favor of: you're more likely to get fat eating foods that promote overeating

My argument is that the factors are not mutually exclusive.

Huh and yeah, 4000 calories per day would constitute an absolutely enormous intake, consistent with a professional athlete (marathon runner, NFL linebacker, etc).

Male, 6'2", 250#, athletic, weightlifting and rowing.

There are two things that come to mind when we ask if dietary fat causes obesity. First: fat and carbohydrates sum to literally all of food. The caloric value of protein is (essentially) negligible. What is certainly the case is that we can point to people who are fat (preferred term) on a low-fat diet. We can point to people who are fat on a fat-intermediate diet (rough balance of fat/carbs). Can we find many people who are fat on a low-carb diet?

I suggest that if we do, most such people will not be found eating fat in its natural form, but as rendered fat and pressed oil. It is almost certainly the case that the way in which fat is consumed affects satiety: the body cannot see a caloric benefit from fat until it is beta-oxidized in the liver, many hours after it is consumed. So in order to estimate how much you have eaten, the body assumes you have consumed fats in their natural form.

This is key to most low-carb diets: fat is usually consumed in its natural form, since nobody drinks oil (eww) and fatty snacks such as potato chips are banned. It is also an intrinsic feature of the "paleo" diets, which ban processed foods.

So, it might not be too much of a stretch to say that fat as a naturally occuring part of foods like almonds does not make us fat.

The second thing that comes to mind is the balance of omega-6 and omega-3 fatty acids in a healthy diet. When this is tilted excessively in favor of omega-6, the body produces an excess of certain endocannabinoids (arachidonic acid) which contribute to overeating:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/07/100726221737.ht...

[NB: the mechanism is up in the air. The effect is real.]

The additional, final consideration is the alleged link (as stated in the article) between consumption of land meats and obesity. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_meat#Obesity

I've been harping on "natural", and meat is natural, so what gives? Weirder yet, the correlation is with meat protein, not with fats. And we do know, though, that people on e.g. ketogenic diets lose weight while eating lots of meat: http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/82/1/1.short

The simplest way to assign blame is to cry confounding: while meat itself is natural, it is rarely consumed in a natural-food context. Instead, since meat is culturally considered unhealthy, it is often eaten on white bread or in a pack of Lunchables. Support for the confounding hypothesis would be a low r-value in studies that link meat consumption to body fat (i.e. total variation in body fat is only weakly related to variation in meat consumption); falsification might be a very high r-value, or a very well-controlled study.

[NB: I believe the confounding hypothesis.]

    The caloric value of protein is (essentially) negligible.

In what sense? Protein gets you about 4 cal/g like carbohydrates. I agree that the amount of protein we ingest is much smaller than the amount of carbs, but certainly not negligible.

Not the person making the claim, but it's more like 3g with TEF taken into effect, and combine that with the satiating effects of protein, it isn't very likely that people are going to eat 2000+ calories of protein. Even if you consume it in vast quantities like many bodybuilders, 300g of protein is only 1200 calories, ignoring TEF. Eat 1200 calories of protein and see how hungry you are for even more.

Not quite "negligible" but food for thought. (pun intended)

The main issue I have with the paleo example and banning of processed foods is that it neglects to explain people who can eat processed foods in moderate quantities without getting fat.

The big issue, addressed in part in the linked article, is that processed foods have been engineered to fool the body's natural hunger and satiety signaling. They've been relentlessly tested and optimized to maximize enjoyment and minimize fullness or desire to stop (this point on the curve being the so-called "bliss point" alluded to in the article).

It's possible, and perhaps likely, that the body treats processed fats very differently from natural fats. But the real crux of the issue is everything the fats come packaged in. In an almond, the fat comes packaged with a lot of fiber, a decent amount of protein, and a host of other nutrients. In a handful of Cheetos, the fat comes packaged with an array of chemicals designed to circumvent satiety signals, plus a lot of salt, sugar, and other goodies thrown in for good measure.

Dietitians like to draw comparisons between, say, the nutritional profile of a single serving of almonds vs. the nutritional profile of a single serving of Cheetos. But who eats just one serving of Cheetos? That's the real issue. It's pretty hard to eat natural foods to excess; it's exceedingly easy to eat artificial foods to excess.

In other words: it's not simply that artificial ingredients, in and of themselves, are bad. It's that artificial ingredients are intentionally combined in ways to increase caloric density and decrease the brain's recognition of said density.

the fat comes packaged with an array of chemicals designed to circumvent satiety signals, plus a lot of salt, sugar, and other goodies thrown in for good measure.

I think that, in many cases, no extra chemicals are even necessary. Salt, sugar, fat in the right ratios and right texture is all it takes. Moisture and fiber content may also make a difference.

The truth is, you guys are both right. The only people I know who think obesity is complex are the people who still believe in calories in = calories out. Calories DO matter, but only at a certain point. Fat only makes you fat if you are also consuming a huge amount of calories. But in that case, anything can make you fat, including carbs and protein.

If you stick to a paleo/primal diet, it's very hard to get fat because we feel satiated since leptin is being properly regulated. You can also lose weight with caloric restriction, but if your diet consists of pizza and other gluten-containing foods, you will constantly struggle with it due to the addictive nature of these foods. You'll probably be skinny fat (skinny everywhere yet have visceral around your waist). And you won't be precluded from getting diabetes or another disease of civilization.

Like anything, the devil is in the details and the truth is in the middle. But this stuff is not a mystery. Industrial food producers want health to be a mystery for us, so they can sell us their junk. It's actually very simple. Stick to foods that can be obtained by hunting or foraging, and don't eat anything that comes out of a package. My dad followed this advice for a year after getting heart surgery. He went from being pre-diabetic to having normal biomarkers. His doctors are amazed. I'm glad I didn't let him follow their advice of loading up on statins and drinking Ensure shakes.

The only people I know who think obesity is complex

Do you think obesity is not complex?

You'll probably be skinny fat

Probably? What if you are not? Do you just not count those people?

Let me clear that up. The biochemistry of obesity is not trivial, but knowing what to eat to control your weight is not hard. It just takes some research and self experimentation. It's empowering when you figure out how certain foods affect you. I'm at a point where if I want a six pack again, I know exactly what to eat and for how long. I understand the makeup of most of the foods I eat and understand the consequences of eating them, how they will affect my blood sugar, which ones trigger my asthma and eczema, etc. When you throw out all the bullshit spewed out by mainstream health media, and take human anthropology into account, it is amazing how quickly you realize how much we've been duped into thinking it's all about calories.

If you're on a Standard American Diet and don't get fat (or skinny fat), you'll most likely get some other disease caused by inflammation, like cancer, Parkinson's, or Alzheimer's. There are always exceptions though, like genetic outliers, people who produce high amounts of salivary amylase, and high level athletes who burn through all that sugar.

Paleo isn't the only other option to the "Standard American Diet."

Sure it's one answer, but the Paleo fear of agriculture can get a bit extreme. People in the US have been living to healthy ages for a long time despite eating lots of wheat, corn, rice, potatoes, and dairy products.

If you discovered a new species of ape, and wanted to put it in a zoo, what would you feed it? Would you try random things, or would you try to emulate what it ate in the wild? This is what paleo is attempting to do for humans. Agriculture is just a drop in the bucket compared to how long we've been eating an ancestral diet. Modern paleo folk don't fear agriculture. They just want to get back to a system of small, local, organic, sustainable farms, and away from GMO crops and factory farming. More Joe Salatin's Polyface farms, less Monsanto/ADM.

Sure you can sustain yourself on grains, but why would you do that when you can thrive on paleo? Hunter-gatheres were stronger and 4 inches taller than the farmers that followed. Keep in mind that modern wheat is nothing like our grandparents' wheat. Modern wheat is a dwarf variety 42-chromosome plant that cannot grow without human intervention. Ancient emmer wheat had 28 chromosomes and much less gluten than modern wheat. Cultures that traditionally ate lots of carbs also lived near the equator in warm climates and were way more active than us in the Western world. Potatoes are fine. Just eat them with plenty of fat/butter to blunt the resulting blood sugar spike, but it's traditionally eaten that way anyway. Dairy is a gray area. If you're of Eastern European descent and still produce the lactase enzyme to handle dairy, then you're fine. There's no cut and dry rules saying what is paleo and what isn't since it's impossible to perfectly emulate our ancestral diet. Modern fruits have been bread to contain much more fructose for example. This is why I believe Steve Jobs' pancreas problems were due to his fruitarian diet, but I'm getting way off topic now.

    small, local, sustainable

How do these relate to paleo?

    Modern wheat is a dwarf variety
    42-chromosome plant that cannot
    grow without human intervention.

Relevance? Why does the chromosome count matter?

And why does size matter? Do you think it's good that modern corn is much larger than ancient corn? Then why would it matter that modern wheat is half the height of the wheat people were growing a century ago? (Though probably still larger than the first domesticated wheat.)

    Hunter-gatheres were stronger and 4 inches
    taller than the farmers that followed.

This is misleading. You mean the farmers that immediately followed, not modern day people. While early farmers were malnourished in many ways your typical American is not.

    Ancient emmer wheat had 28 chromosomes and
    much less gluten than modern wheat.

Rephrased as "modern wheat has much more protein" it has a more positive sound. The pair of words gluten/protein is like calories/energy where you can choose whichever has the connotations you like.

    still produce the lactase enzyme to handle
    dairy, then you're fine.

Isn't that just a fancy way of saying that lactose intolerant people should avoid dairy?

    I believe Steve Jobs' pancreas problems
    were due to his fruitarian diet

You have nowhere near enough information on his health to conclude this.

Fresh raw milk (plain milk or cultured products) will have the enzymes intact, so everyone sould be able to tolerate it. Pasteurizing milk destroys the enzymes, making it difficult to digest.

Sure you can sustain yourself on grains, but why would you do that when you can thrive on paleo?

Grains are cheaper.

Grains are more efficient to eat, especially on a regular basis.

Grains taste good.

> Insulin does not regulate fat storage, leptin does. Obesity is a complex state and there are no simple answers. A diet that may be best for weight loss in one individual may not be the same diet that is best for another. This seems particularly likely if one of the two individuals is not obese.

You have this backwards. Insulin DOES help regulate fat storage (among other things). Leptin controls appetite and can act as an indication of overall adipose levels. It is conjectured that treating things like diabetes with both insulin and leptin together is better than insulin alone.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leptin and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insulin

And I'll jump in on this calories vs everything else. If, as I've said many times before in other posts, all you care about is weight, only track calories (you'll most likely end up skinny-fat...but at a certain weight. Horray! You are now unhealthy at a lower weight. Congratulations!) If you care about losing fat, track macros and reduce carb intake to lose fat (along with weight lifting, HIIT and some carb-refeeds to manage hormone levels).

This is a rather complex topic, though I'm going to try and frame it a different way. What is the most effective way to put on lean, pure muscle mass? Weight lifting? A caloric surplus? High protein? Yeah, sure, all of that. Do you know what is even more effective? Steroids, specifically some combination of test, deca (or dbol), maybe some sustanon. What is the most effective way to lose body fat, particularly get to a ridiciously low level of body fat (think, getting on stage in a thong)? Caloric deficit? Low-carb? HIIT? hours of cardio? How about steroids again. Clen+Tren+Test. Sure, in both cases, caloric excess or deficit will help, but the stacks ALONE will work.

Why does that matter? Everyone always overlooks the hormones.

Why would it be any different if we don't talk about steroids? Hormones play a very important role in putting on muscle (think, stimulate the muscles by weight lifting, give them aminos (protein) to rebuild and spike insulin to make sure the muscles get the protein). And losing fat is no different (keeping fat high is vital to keeping testosterone high, protein to spare the muscles and lowerish carb to make the body look for an energy source (ie. fat) that you aren't providing. Throw in some weight training and HIIT to further deplete your glycogen stores. Viola, fat loss, muscle spared. Carb refeed once a week to reset your hormones (don't go into starvation mode) and you have a wash-rince-repeat cycle).

So, yes, calories matter, but only once you understand the broader picture. If you only talked calories, frankly, you can't be taken seriously.

Thinking about this stuff is a premature optimization. Portion control and being serious about exercise is easier to comply with than worrying about macros and dubious claims about leptin. Most elite athletes eat garbage, yet are still fit because they exercise most of the day. Usain Bolt's "power food" is Chicken McNuggets. One can get very far without worrying much about meal composition. It becomes more relevant if you are an advanced bodybuilder or extreme endurance athlete.

1. Most people aren't Usain Bolt or some other high level athlete. 2. Most of them are on some sort of steroid, hormone or peptide and 3. What is "portion control" if nothing other than an unscientific way of saying "hit/eat your macros"?

I do have a saying, if your only go is "not be a fatass", then sure, there are many, many suboptimal ways to approach this problem. However, if you care about more than just not being a fatass, there is more to think about. Not much more, just a little bit. Overall, though, it is REALLY easy to get this right if you just can articulate your actual real goal.

I'm just saying it's not necessary to think about "macros" until you get to an advanced level. Even then, it might still not be necessary, unless you have specific goals like competitive body building or marathon running.

heh "most likely end up skinny-fat"

I have visceral fat, though I have never been outside my target BMI range. The only time in my adult life that I did not have visceral fat was when I was on a low FAT diet (doctor prescribed) and exercising every day. I do not have pre-diabetes. Other than the visceral fat I show no other signs of metabolic syndrome.

But I don't go around telling people they should be eating more carbs. I don't tell people that eating carbs will make you skinny-fat.

Taubes has responded to the wholehealthsource critique (I have not read it, but it was referred to as a "thorough multi-part smack down"):

http://garytaubes.com/2011/09/catching-up-on-lost-time-ances...

I'll read it, but I'm unfortunately suspicious now. When a response to a piece as thorough and logical as Guyenet's gets called a "smack down," it's almost always full of rhetorical blustering which is highly satisfying to people predisposed to side with the smacker. But anyone with genuine interest in seeing the discussion advance and see where Guyenet's argument breaks down is likely to be disappointed.

Beginning the article with a lengthy, seemingly unrelated narrative (shaggy dog story) is precisely the sort of rhetorical distraction that I am disappointed to see.

Your point is great, but could you elaborate on how you read the article as pushing, "fat makes you fat"?

I read it much more as saying that large food companies have developed deep expertise in tuning the quantity of sugar, salt, fat, and texture to make their products bypass our body's natural mechanisms for feeling full.

I think if you're reading this through some kind of paleo/non-paleo lens, then you're missing the point of the article.

>>Your point is great, but could you elaborate on how you read the article as pushing, "fat makes you fat"?

Yeah, I didn't get that message either. I think the parent is reading too much into it (a.k.a. projecting).

Same here. I read this whole article a few days ago, and discussed it with friends. The main takeaway for me is the incredible complexity and subtlety that goes into researching the "perfect" junk food.

In particular, the term "bliss point" which seems to apply to a number of properties that food can have. For one example, a "bliss point" as applied to the "crunch" a food should have, ie the most satisfying amount of resistance for a cracker or chip to have is apparently 4 lbs of pressure.

But often there isn't just one single answer- sometimes there are multiple mutually exclusive, highly optimal combinations of preferences, as with spaghetti where you have plain, spicy and chunky. And sometimes, the most satisfying flavor preference is not the most optimal result for profitability- snacks with too strong a flavor will "oversaturate" the brain and you will not have a strong desire to keep eating them after a few samples. In these cases it's better to have a subtle taste that never leaves the consumer feeling quite fully satisfied.

So yeah. It's not really about "fat makes you fat" -- though perhaps there is an aside to that effect -- it's more about corporate junk food researchers foraging their way through a world of data on consumer preferences and designing the most efficient products.

It's amazing how much arguing and pontificating there is about subtle effects of dietary composition with little or no mention of massive increases in intake. For example:

http://www.usda.gov/factbook/chapter2.pdf

Says ~25% increase since the mid 1980s.

I do tend to accept the idea that it is better to get excess calories from fat than from simple carbohydrates and sugars, but I don't think any ongoing significant excess is a good idea, elaborate metabolic theory or not.

While that's a good point, things are a little bit more subtle than that. Changes in dietary composition have an effect on satiety and whether or not you experience hunger spikes, and thus can affect intake quite drastically. Two links in the chain of causality.

Sure, food choices can be used to make calorie reduction/control easier. My point is more that eating approximately the amount of calories your body will consume in a day is going to be effective with little regard to the exact percentage of macro nutrients. That doesn't make it any easier to correctly estimate the calories needed or the actual calories consumed.

Well, we were talking about the obesity epidemic, which you mentioned was caused by overeating. My point was that if our diets have changed over time (different protein/carbs/fat ratio), that in itself can explain overeating. (Rather than assuming that overeating is "something we just do".)

The article mentions in multiple places the saturated fat content of the junk food, often alongside sodium and sugar content, implying that these are the "bad numbers" to care about.

You are wrong. Too much energy dense food makes you fat. Fat will make you fat if you overeat (because the fatty acid molecules from your food will be stored in your fat cells). It's not as easy as "more carbs" = obesity epidemic. There are many more factors, most important being inactivity and overconsumption of food. The carbohydrate hypothesis is very clearly Bullshit: http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.de/2011/08/carbohydrate-hy...

When people go on a low carb diet they: a. restrict their food intake by restricing their choices (less processed foods if you exclude a massiv part of " b. increase protein intake (protein has a higher thermic effect than any other macronutrient and drastically cuts down total kcal consumption in ad lib feeding trials by reducing appetite)

You can do something similar with a low fat diet (on which another part of the population will feel better - skewed towards more active and leaner people).

Low carb (whatever that means - not clearly defined) isn't a better choice for your health than a mixed diet with a high(er) protein intake. If it works for you: great. But that doesn't mean calories don't count and carbohydrates/insulin cause obesity. Nor that it works for everyone.

"Fat will make you fat if you overeat (because the fatty acid molecules from your food will be stored in your fat cells). It's not as easy as "more carbs" = obesity epidemic."

Insulin plays a role in regulating the patitioning of fatty acids in the body. The flawed thinking, that calories burned by the body is a fixed amount that doesn't vary based on calories consumed, is simply wrong. The key is that energy expenditures only rise when the calories consumed are not being partitioned for storage. Elevated insulin levels cause storage of fatty acids, and inhibit release of fatty acids from fat cells by triggering them to be bound up into triglyceride molecules.

I'm not some hardcore paleo/keto/Atkins dude, but reducing carbohydrate intake (particularly refined carbs) makes appetite control much easier, by virtue of several obvous and not so obvious reasons. The obvous is that proteins and fats fill you up more (satiety), and that could be accomplished with diets that aren't high in fat by simply upping protein intake, of course. However, the less obvious is the energy partitioning going on with low insulin levels. The fat cells are behaving as they naturally should, pulling in and releasing fatty acids in a balanced manner.

Fats and Carbs don't vary that much regarding satiety. Mostly protein and fiber, as I said.

How adipocytes "should" behave depends on circumstances... Insulin resistance is probably more a defensive mechanism against the deleterious effects of overeating.

"The flawed thinking, that calories burned by the body is a fixed amount that doesn't vary based on calories consumed, is simply wrong." Who believes that nonsense? Of course we have adaptive mechanisms that regulate energy output (especially NEAT) based on energy intake. The kcal in/out model is very much valid. You just have to account for fluctuating variables in the formula.

"The key is that energy expenditures only rise when the calories consumed are not being partitioned for storage. Elevated insulin levels cause storage of fatty acids, and inhibit release of fatty acids from fat cells by triggering them to be bound up into triglyceride molecules." But this does not happen in a vaccum. This does not matter if you undereat. And if you overeat on mostly fat we still have extremely significant mechanisms to store these TAGs independently of insulin : HSL / ASP.

The thermic effect of protein is pretty much negligible, and food restriction has also been shown to not be the obvious explanation in trials where they partitioned out exactly the same amount of food (2000 kcal, I believe) in different ratios to find that the lower-carb apportioning caused the greatest weight loss.

In short, whatever facts anyone wants to bring up, there will always be more that either disprove, or at least throw them into doubt. But your final point is absolutely spot on -- it is absolutely about what works for your health and your situation. I've found low carb, unprocessed (i.e. paleo) with a sprinkling of IF and cycling works great, but I don't intend to be a militant defender of this approach; rather, I absolutely advocate n=1 experimentation, figuring out what works for you, and doing something rather than nothing. Learning about paleo kicked off a huge revelation in terms of my personal health and I want others to discover this joy.

TEF: 20-30% is not negligible. There is even a group of scientist trying to change the default value to 3,2 kcal/g.

Yeah, weight loss is greater because of the bigger WATER loss. (1g Glycogen = 3g Water) Which results in greater intial weight loss. Besides the possibility of low carb being a better treatment for adipose patients/people suffering from Metabolic Syndrome.

"In short, whatever facts anyone wants to bring up, there will always be more that either disprove, or at least throw them into doubt." > Mostly, if you don't know what you are talking about and haven't dived into the actual primary literature. Most just lack some basic domain knowledge and read some Taubes. Now they think there must be some big controversy with carbohydrates and low carb going on. Meh.

Self experimentation is great if you use a non retarded approach. I find too many people trying to reinvent the wheel instead of focusing on some basics and then experimenting with how to integrate them into their life/habit.

I have the feeling that you misunderstood the article. It doesn't say that fat makes you fat, instead, it displays the lack of ethics and morality in the food industry when it comes to the obesity problem caused by overconsumption of processed food. Due to additional sugars, salts, fats, clever advertising and more, they managed to make people eat more of their processed and unhealthy food then necessary, thus causing a diabetes and obesity epedemic (not necessarily because of the contents of the junk food, but because of the amount of it being eaten).

I never understood this article as a cricicism of fat - that word doesn't even appear to often. Instead, it diligently describes the amount of money invested into making people eat more of this stuff even though more of it is not healthy for them. Moralics and ethics aside:

“How can we drive more ounces into more bodies more often?”

While you're right that fat in and of itself does not lead to weight gain, it's the combination with sugar that absolutely, 100% leads to weight gain. Sugar and other high glycemic index foods (eg white bread) causes an insulin spike and puts your body into an anabolic, "building" state in which it will assimilate whatever it has lying around. Usually, if you're eating something with high amounts of sugar, it will also have high amounts of fat (ice cream, cookies, etc). Thus you will have a large amount of fatty acids lying around which your body will go ahead and form into droplets to be stored in adipose tissue. That's how you build fat.

However, if you are in a state of muscular stress, such as after weight lifting, and you eat a ton of glucose - notice I said glucose, not sugar, which contains fructose - and you combine this with a moderate amount of protein and little to no fat, you'll have a bunch of amino acids floating around and this insulin spike will cause your muscles to soak up all that protein and become bigger/stronger/both depending on the type of weightlifting you did with no spillover into adipose fat tissue.

It's this very simple metabolic process that people don't get. Everyone gets all worked up on pointing the finger at fat or sugar or whatever, but this is the "secret".

Btw, for anyone looking to lose weight or put on muscle in a healthy way, check out intermittent fasting, specifically the leangains plan.

Source: I'm a biochem major with a six pack

Yeah, you are referring to insulin sensitivity and calorie partitioning. Still depends on genetic makeup (insulin sensitivity can vary 10-fold). P-ratio isn't the same for everyone. So not correct what you are saying (energy does not only go into muscle cells). You can still get fat(ter) with such a diet. Muscle and liver glycogen will be full at some point and more and more fatty acids will be stored in adipocytes. Berkhan got fatter when he overfed. Kcal still need to be controlled.

Also you can get fat on a very low carb diet if you eat too much fat/energy. As a lot of low carb "gurus" do (such a jimmy moore). As a biochem major you should be aware of other mechanisms besides insulin. (ASP & HSL) Insulin is so terribly overrated.

Then exercise with weights at high-speed on an empty stomach (empty glycogen supplies) and wait for a couple hours before enjoying your large amount of carbs and protein. Maybe consume some branched chain amino acids to signal to your body not to break down any muscle. You'll enjoy all the benefits of interval training and your body will tap directly into your fat for energy at this point to burn through whatever small amount of spillover you're speaking of.

Obviously if you eat far more than your body needs you will get fat because that's how your body's efficient machinery works. But it's quite hard to do when your stomach physically only has enough room for so much and you'll throw up before consuming that many calories.

Oh dear, intervall training. http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/stead-state-versus...

Spillover can be very significant, regardless of training. It depends on the makeup of the trainee. The body doesn't work like that (first muscle, than fat) for most people. It's a constant flux in and out of the cells and the overall trend over weeks and months matters for your body composition. For that reason muscle gain (as a more advanced trainee) tends to require some with fat gain if you want progress at any decent speed (Leangainers often don't). Why wait for a couple hours btw? There is no magical switch flipped, which prevents fat gain after waiting a bit longer. You probably misunderstood how important some of the processes after a high intensity training session will be for body composition. Read the article above for an explanation.

Depends on caloric density. I have no problem overeating vastly on good ice cream or nuts& dried berries. Easy to get down an additional 3000kcal.

It seems us hacker news readers certainly love nitpicking. I'm not talking about traditional HIIT (spring, walk, sprint, walk, repeat until you're dead). I'm talking about very fast weight training (Vince Gironda ftw!) which gives gives you plenty of cardio. Done on an empty stomach this demolishes your fat reserves.

I read your article and this quote stuck out the most: "The simple fact is that, given that most people train like wimps, if you get them to work harder for a change, good things usually happen." Going to the gym and talking with your buddy is not exercise, but it's exactly what the average gym-goer does.

Between that article and the other one I read which it linked to, Steady State vs. Interval Training: Summing Up Part 2, it seems to prove my point, which is that you can train high-intensity like interval training provided you give yourself enough carbs.

I think you are mixing up high volume pump training with HIIT.

If I say I swim, but I actually bareknuckle fight with other guys. Would it be correct to call this "swimming"? Kind of weird to just rename an activity. Regarding empty stomach: http://examine.com/faq/is-it-better-to-do-aerobic-exercise-f...

This sounds like a terrible, shoot yourself in the foot idea for the vast majority of weight trainees. Why on earth would you want to make something hellishly hard(weight lifting) even harder with shitty nutrition?

What part of this sounds like shitty nutrition? Fasting is wonderful for your health. I used to do the whole preworkout meal, snack, post-workout shake, all that "bro" science. Now I won't train any other way. If there's one common thread among health enthusiasts, it's stubborn tendencies. Try it before you call it a terrible idea, I think you'd love it.

Well I can see it working for some people, but I think it's very dependent on what sort of workouts you're doing.

When I'm doing heavy squats and deads I drink a fuck ton of milk with ice in it during the workout. I find this helps me get through it and makes me feel better.

If I'm doing BJJ I'll have a medium/light meal and a glass of water or 2 before hand so I have nutrients but my stomach isn't all bloated.

I have heard some good things about fasting and I'm not against it per se. I just think it's a bad idea if you're doing heavy strength training for any purpose, especially fat loss.

If one is trying to loose fat, heavy compound movements + a slight calorie restriction seems like a very effective method. But lifting heavy is hard as hell on a calorie deficit so why not do yourself a favor and have nutrients in your blood during the time you're lifting the weights at the very least.

IMO fasting before lifting seems more likely than not to be counter indicated for the typical novice who is trying to loose fat/get fit.

Heavy strength training in the vain of powerlifting or something like that with a bunch of potentially dangerous heavy exercises is certainly something you'd want energy for and drinking milk or something like that is probably a good idea. Personally I like a gallon full of water mixed with BCAAs and pure dextrose, but then again I don't really do power lifting much anymore, mostly out of vanity. I tend to think powerlifters have a tendency to look like blobs, and I like Vince Gironda's style of training at least partially for aesthetic appeal, but that's all personal preference of course. So yeah, if you were doing something like starting strength or madcow 5x5 then I'm not sure training on an empty stomach is a great idea, but then again I'm not sure that it isn't. I don't have the necessary data to make such a conclusion.

But I do actually think the average novice would benefit greatly from intermittent fasting because, at the very least, it's far easier to get exactly the right amount of calories and fat/carb/protein distribution with 1-2 large meals than with 10 small meals.

Edit: btw, I misread your name and thought I was talking to the Doctor for a second. I was a little disappointed :P

IF is just the latest broscience fad.

Anything related to nutrition, exercise and sports performance is broscience to a degree.

There is just no way anyone CAN eat high fat diet the way high carb diet works.

The more carbs you eat, the more you carve, the more fats you eat, the less you want to eat. Of course if you do not combine them.

For me it has become once per 24h food intake sometimes and then it is more like a necessity than hunger.

I do eat once per week some chips with honey.

But now I cringe thinking about coke, cake, donuts, bread, cookies, chocolate.

Yes! The once-a-day meal plan (warrior diet). That's what I'm currently doing and my fitness gains have shot through the roof. I love binging on homemade fat-free pizza and cookies after my workout and being able to feel my abs on top of my bloated, satisfied stomach. Then I can go write software for 9 hours and not eat. It's truly remarkable really. I feel bad for those guys who are still driving themselves crazy eating 10 small meals a day. The body is more efficient than we give it credit for.

just curious, how long have you been on the warrior diet? been doing all the time? What sort of gains.

I did the warrior diet this summer and lost all sorts of bodyfat/weight. I stopped and forgot about it, then I had the revelation that the last time I made progress was with the warrior diet. Now I am including it two to three times/week with slow carb diet and a cheat day for the others. It is good stuff and not worrying about food has increased! my mental focus. There are points in the day where I literally have felt like I was on adderall. Anyways, just curious about the endorsement...

I've been doing the full-on warrior diet for the past two weeks or so along with the full-body workout on this page: http://www.muscleandstrength.com/articles/gironda-8x8-system.... I do that workout at least 3 times a week. I've gained about 5-6 pounds of muscle in the past two weeks and gotten leaner. It's been unreal. Like steroids unreal. But I also haven't been following the warrior diet to the t. I eat mostly high-gi carbs to spike my insulin along with about 1.5 grams of protein per pound of my body weight. I have a bucket of pure glucose that I substitute in for table sugar (sucrose, which includes fructose - bad) when I make things like pancakes or cookies. I also eat a lot of candy that contains zero fat and is made primarily from glucose-based corn syrup, such as gummy worms and candy corns. Brushing your teeth is crucial for this program ;). The end result is 70% of my calories coming from high-gi carbs, 25% protein, and < 5% fat. All consumed within a few hours of my weight training.

I'm not 100% convinced that my specific diet is very healthy, so I'm planning on checking in with my doctor to make sure I'm not killing myself. I doubt it's unhealthy because I feel and look fantastic, and, if this trend continues, I'll probably make a website or something to go public with this program.

Would you be so kind and elaborate a bit more on your resistance training, especially for 6-pack (repetitions, breathing, technique)? I am also doing great on IF and simply drinking natural goat milk whey before exercise instead of suggested BCAA intake. I can also second on avoiding fructose.

Certainly! First of all, the most important thing for having a visible six-pack is low bodyfat, around 8-9%. Having a strong, defined core is also important, so doing ab exercises such as hanging leg raises and ab wheel rollouts is a good idea. Avoid crunches though because those don't do anything.

Read up on hypertrophy as this is how your muscles get bigger. German volume training, vince gironda's 8x8, chad waterbury high frequency training are good plans to look into (all of chad waterbury's workout plans are "cutting edge" imho). I've recently been doing very high number of reps with very low intensity and not going to muscle failure so that I can target the same muscle groups several times a week. Such a workout plan focuses more on muscles getting larger rather than stronger.

Also, if you're looking to cut down on bodyfat in order to see your abs, I would actually use bcaas instead of the whey simply because the goat milk whey likely has calories that your body will use for fuel (ignore that sentence if it doesn't have calories), whereas bcaa's take a different metabolic pathway and go right to your muscles. The point of exercising on an empty stomach is that you're working out with a depleted glycogen supply, which your body will always use up before touching fat storage. If you take in calories before working out then your body will burn through those first before reaching into the fat storage.

After you've finished working out - hopefully your workout was done quickly so you should be very sweaty and have burned a ton of fat calories - wait for a couple hours (at least 2-3) before eating anything. During this time I generally drink almost a gallon of water containing a bunch of bcaas. Your body will continue to burn a shit-ton more fat and will still be primed for building muscle once you spike it with carbs and protein. Be careful to avoid fat though!

Good luck on attaining your fitness goals ;)

Thank you for your tips! Legs and top was kind of easy for me, but the six-pack had been a mystery. I might look conservative, but I try to avoid "artificial" or unnatural proportions of amino acids that might kick me out of metabolic balance. Possible issues to consider: capillary and tendons getting behind the muscle tissue growth.

Good stuff man. I am with you 100%.

My only tip for you is that I have a ganja induced munchies addiction and I think that at one point I was eating too much of the shit and not enough of the good stuff. Resulted in terrible stomach pains that landed me in the doctors office with pills to stop my stomach muscles from spasms. Anyways, good luck with your fitness as well.

badapada I'm loving it.

Funny you mention that, it seems to help with some of my less-appetizing zero fat pig-out sessions ;)

'Carbohydrate' is a fine chemical term, but it is not a useful nutritional category. A plate of steamed vegetables and a can of Coke both contain carbohydrate, but they are at opposite poles in nutritional terms. The most useful nutritional term is 'junk food', and the most useful advice for most people is, instead of trying to fine tune the amount of this or that chemical substance, just stop eating/drinking junk food of any kind.

> 'Carbohydrate' is a fine chemical term, but it is not a useful nutritional category

That's why we have simple carbohydrates (sugars) and complex carbohydrates (starches).

> The most useful nutritional term is 'junk food',

That's not a useful term. Most people wouldn't think freshly squeezed orange juice is junk food, yet it contains a lot of sugar.

Again there's a distinction between a chemical analysis perspective and a practical nutritional perspective. Freshly squeezed orange juice contains sugar to be sure, but in practice very few people guzzle the stuff to the point of destroying their health, whereas lots of people do precisely that with Coke.

"If it comes in a package, it's candy" is probably the correct rule. It's not that eating candy will kill you, but if you eat a bag of chips, drink some soda, and eat a packaged snack, the reality is that you have almost certainly just had a meal consisting entirely of what is best described as "candy." So don't do that regularly. :-)

Carbs are one of the three macronutrients. The two examples of carb sources you mention differ in that one offers a great deal of bulk fiber, as well as copious micronutrients, while the other doesn't.

This doesn't make either any less a source of carbohydrates.

> 12 pounds that had refused to come off previously no matter how much exercise I was doing or how religiously I tracked my caloric intake

This, aside from other potentially valid points you may make, is utter nonsense. The concept of "stubborn weight" simply doesn't make sense.

Your comment as a whole reeks of the pseudoscience that plagues the nutrition field and makes it incredibly difficult to determine fact from fiction when trying to get healthy.

> The concept of "stubborn weight" simply doesn't make sense.

Except, you know, in practice. There are many potential explanations for why this could happen, but "pretend it doesn't happen" is not one.

It's a false implication that it's the body's set of physiological processes that are to blame for the inability of a person to lose weight, when in reality it's a myriad of psychological issues which are really to blame.

So yes, in practice, it doesn't make sense.

Are you arguing that losing weight is purely a psychological process with no physiological component?

No?

Taubes actually started the mainstream reexamination of fat over 10 years ago with his New York Times Magazine article "What if It's All Been a Big Fat Lie?":

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/07/07/magazine/what-if-it-s-all-...

The key point is that it is only very specific varieties of fat that matter for heart disease. It goes in to much more detail than his opinion piece for those looking for more info.

http://examine.com/faq/is-saturated-fat-bad-for-me.html

>Meta-analysis of effect of saturated fat intake on cardiovascular disease: overadjustment obscures true associations http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/92/2/458.long

I find it hard to take that site seriously when they call fish oil a "brain booster" next to a great big affiliate link to buy fish oil supplements on Amazon [1]. Also they don't seem to have a page about trans fats at all. Are they pushing an agenda through cherry picking and deliberate omission of contrary information? I don't have the time or energy to investigate. (Note: I'm not trying to defend Taubes here, as far as I can tell he is a hack).

[1] http://examine.com/supplements/Fish+Oil/

Is Glen Beck a rapist? I'm just asking questions.

That is the exact equivalent of what you did. They clearly say "Why the buy link" right next to that link.

And if you actually tried reading it, right here: http://examine.com/supplements/Fish+Oil/#summary7-1 - "brain boosting"

So no time or energy for anything but wild accusations.

If I see claims using bullshit non-scientific language next to a link selling the product then yes I'm going to question the scientific credentials of the site. I make no apology for that.

Question credentials without spending a single moment looking more in-depth.

A+, would read your scientific literature.

Fish oil, via EPA or DHA, has been implicated in acting as [1]:

An anti-inflammatory An anxiolytic A brain booster A heart health compound A liver health compound

How is this misleading? See: http://examine.com/about/#support

Trans fat page is in the works AFAIK. Also it's mainly a supplement site. (wiki for the evidence on supps) FAQ is just a useful addition.

My issue was that "brain booster" is a bullshit term that means nothing. I put it in the same category as "super food" and other such meaningless terms. If they want to be taken more seriously they should use more precise language.

You should be skeptical, however language can be used for its gestalt. Coming to conclusions without evaluating the rest of the situation (in this case, evaluating the quality of Examine) is pretty meaningless.

In my personal opinion the content that has showed up on Examine has been pretty stellar. It has grown considerably in a short amount of time and is one of the few sites that hosts this sort of content and isn't riddled with ads.

Taubes is a dogmatic cherry-picker.

Not sure why your comment is being upvoted, since it offers no evidence whatsoever to support your claim that Taubes is a cherry-picker.

Perhaps you could provide some, I don't know, facts or reasoning or something?

May as well provide evidence on the earth revolving around the sun.

But here you go: http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/12edbj/im_gary_taubes_...

Yes, the opinions of one pop-sci writer are just as well-studied and well-understood as something that has been carefully examined since 1543.

Your jerkiness aside, his reply to that seems clear and cogent. In particular, this seems like a reasonable criticism: http://nusi.org/the-science/review-of-the-literature/

It's not even clear to me that the post you link and his reply are necessarily at odds. A calorie-metering approach and a shift in diet could both be effective weight-loss strategies in that they would be acting at different points in the process and using different resources.

I'm sorry, I didn't realize I needed to put a disclaimer to hyperbole.

Besides his general criticism (which is valid), he doesn't actually address any of the findings of the studies.

Aka, cherry-picking.

The hyperbole wasn't the problem. Which you surely know.

Cherry-picking is where you pick the sources that support your case while ignoring the rest. What he did was a sweeping dismissal.

He may be right or wrong; I have no idea. But if you're going to accuse somebody of being an intellectual fraud, you should probably know what you're talking about.

If "a colorie is a calorie", then why do you single out "eating too many carbs and sugars" as the cause of your occasional weight gain?

Please read the entire link I posted above. He's rebutting the "calorie is a calorie" thesis, not endorsing it.

A colorie is a calorie (in the sense that a unit of energy is a unit of energy); however, there are some (I don't have science to cite, so I won't say it is factual) people that say fructose is worse for you than glucose (the two monosaccharides). Here's an interesting article you can read: http://www.eatingrules.com/2011/05/introduction-to-sugar/

In this sense, a calorie is not a calorie - but to be precise it's more that different sources of calories have different side-effects on the body when converted INTO energy/calorie.

Now to grains (specifically wheat-based products): gluten. The single reason why people in my athletic sphere (CrossFit) avoid wheat products as a source of calories when training is because of gluten (and sometimes yeast - as it does stimulate candida growth).

Gluten can cause all sorts of problems that aren't related to the calorie intake - diseases, obesity, inflammation, etc...

(I won't cite anything here for that because the information is widely available and in many books - although there are still "studies" that would say this information is bunk)

I consume around 4-5k calories per-day as part of my training. As long as you use it, the calories aren't bad for you but the source of the calories must be clean.

Oh god. What the hell does "clean" mean. That's orthorexic nonsense. Unprocessed foods can be very helpful, but they aren't magically different kcal, If you eat too much potatoes and nuts (instead of cake) you'll still gain the same amount of fat (controlling for fiber and protein energy loss). http://www.wannabebig.com/diet-and-nutrition/the-dirt-on-cle...

Regarding fructose: http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/01/29/the-bitter-truth-ab... http://weightology.net/?p=434

Gluten is extremism overhyped, but sensitivity to it can be a problem.

>> If you eat too much potatoes and nuts (instead of cake) you'll still gain the same amount of fat

I think the point of the article is that it is easier to overeat processed foods (such as cake) than unprocessed ones (such as potatoes and nuts) because the former are engineered to not trigger your brain's sense of satiety.

Aside from that, I'm a bodybuilder and I hold CrossFitters in very low regard - but the comment you are responding to is correct in the sense that "clean" foods make it easier to manage one's weight, even though "a calorie is just a calorie."

Why the need to jab at people who do CrossFit? Sure, there are people in the mix that coach in ways that damage the body but there are plenty of people/coaches/gyms who focus on building sustainable athleticism (read: not breaking people's bodies).

You're welcome to your own opinion, of course, I can't change that; but what you wrote is just as silly as someone saying that they hold "black/white/asian" people in very low regard.

There is needless damaging going on. No screening and a retarded or no progression at all. With bad technique. If it would be just useless training, that would be ok. Most Fads are like this. But this actively harms people : see high rep box jumps and Achilles tendon ruptures, kipping pull-ups and SLAP lesions and high rep Olympic lifts and broken bodies. Short term results by pushing hard and resistance training for the first time in their lives. Then long term failure.

@enraged_camel: Yes, agree. Ad lib it's far easier to not overeat. My point being, that "clean" is too vague and misleading. Why not say unprocessed.

Agree on the crossfit comment.

Because "unprocessed" means - nothing that's been processed by humans. That means no salt. No ground pepper. Which is obviously silly BUT there are purists in the primal/paleo community that do follow the guidelines of eating unprocessed food.

Is the word "clean" slightly ambiguous? Sure. Is English as a natural language ambiguous? Definitely. I'm not going to go write an entire article about what "clean" means to me then reference said article every time I try to talk about "eating clean".

Your agreement with the above poster about "holding CrossFitters in very low regard" is just as childish as the statement you're agreeing with. How would you feel if I decided to belt out saying (or agreeing) that something you do which can't possibly be represented by any one generalization is something I hold in very low regard?

I'm not about to get my feelings hurt across the internet - but I promise if you do go about your life acting like that you will hurt someone's feelings.

People just call clean, whatever they like/think is beneficial. Everything they deem harmful is unclean.

So it's useless. Regarding Crossfit: There are some very valid reasons I think very badly about CF. It has amazing marketing and can offer a great community (though cult-like). But harms a lot of people long term > see comment above.

Because the term "unprocessed" carries its own ambiguities. Is cooking a steak a form of processing? I would say so. What about the mashing of potatoes? Ultimately, processed and clean are largely subjective.

Meh, the degree of processing can be hard to measure. Yes, I agree. But it's far more useful than clean and unclean. Because these are fantasy.

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/should-you-be-...

People just call clean, whatever they like/think is beneficial. Everything they deem harmful is unclean.

It didn't bother me, though. Most of the article is about attitudes about healthy food in the processed foods industry, and about how that industry is trying to get you to eat more. One or two little mentions about how fat is bad detract very little from the story. It'll take a while to root out 50 years of erronous dietary advice and conventional wisdom.

I think we all share the frustration of research being unable to give us conclusive answers about what works and what doesn't. Seems like good portions of nutritional studies over the past 100 years were either misinterpreted or even influenced by interested parties. We, the consumers, are paying the price.

Oh we do have answers on many questions. Just not 100% sure, because detailed experiments on humans are kind of hard to get through the ethic committee. Reading the available Pop science books/articles on nutrition however will probably just confuse people than help them.

What kind of questions do you have?

Well, as someone who has read some of the intermittent fasting, paleo and low-carb literature (including all of Taubes' monster tome GCBC) over the years, I continuously run into people pointing to articles (and perhaps studies?) of how all of the conclusions of these authors are incorrect and so we shouldn't believe the hype despite the dozens of pages of scientific references that some of these text propose.

I basically don't know who's right and who's wrong anymore, because everybody claims that everybody else has an agenda or is being intentionally misleading.

Having eaten paleo for several years and done low carb, keto, zig-zag and all that jazz under expert supervision, I still don't know if at the end of the day I'm killing myself. The chain of events that leads to atherosclerosis seems to be very poorly and inconsistently understood by mainstream medicine, and you hear vastly different interpretations of what your lipid panel numbers actually signify for your long-term health.

That's where my frustration is coming from.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com