Hacker News Reader

Comment by joedev | Hacker News Reader

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?

View on HN

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.

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.

@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.

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

Reply on news.ycombinator.com