Hacker News Reader

Your comment seems unnecessarily antagonistic.

I'm a bit sorry to come across as rude, but this advice and then your later dismissal of ketogenic diets reflects the extraordinary ignorance that inflicted us with the food pyramid and war on fat 40 years ago.

I'm not sure how I dismissed ketogenic diets (I was on one for a year!) besides calling them a 'fad', which they certainly are.

Understanding and controlling the insulin cycle is key to understanding nutrition and its role in weight control. I tried "eating less" for years before I gave a low carb diet a try and permanently changed the way I ate and thought about food.

This is definitely important! But it might not be necessary, as proven by the fact that people have lost significant amounts of weight without doing so.

If you had actually read the article about which you added a comment, then you would have read a process of discovery paralleled by myself and an extraordinary number of others.

I did read the article, and I'm not sure why you assumed otherwise. Most of my comment runs in parallel with the post (particularly being conscientious about what you do with your body.), though I don't think a process of discovery which leads one to assume multivitamins are 'snake oil' is particularly flawless.

I think what I objected to most was that you decried the signal to noise on this issue then your #1 point was one of the noisiest statements made in the last 50 years.

That level of antagonism requires evidence to support your point. Otherwise your words just come off as unacceptably rude.

Another user already posted this link. Here's tons of evidence and someone wondering why we've ignored that evidence for so long.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M6vpFV6Wkl4

Not even Gary Taubes denies thermodynamics, and a link to a youtube video does not justify vitriol.

I didn't say that I or Taubes denied thermodynamics. You're spinning. I said that the caloric intake explanation of weight gain is "noise" in this discussion. It's useless. Taube even covers why it's a useless statement in the provided link.

Secondly, I disagree with your assessment of anything I said as "vitriol". If it's vitriol to call someone's statement ignorant or point out that they're committing the very act they're complaining about through that ignorance, then I would claim that you're confusing "vitriol" with "directness".

It is NOT useless. There are a plethora of factors influencing energy intake. Which you can work on. His unsubstantiated pet theory that carbs are to blame lacks evidence.

I think your post wins the "worst analogy in this discussion" award.

There is so much pseudo-science on every side of this debate that I'm against just about anybody who takes an absolutist position in the way you have.

Personally, from my own research and experimentation in my own diet, I firmly believe that weight is an I/O issue though good health is more complex than that.

While Atkins never specifically advocated for calorie restriction, it strikes me as common sense that some portion of new Atkins dieters experience positive results due to calorie restriction. It can be difficult to replace the number of calories in pastas, pizza, etc, in part just based on caloric density.

It's also confused by the fact that Atkins and other (if not "fad" then "theme" might be a better word?) diets have to change both physical, calorie I/O issues, and mental issues to truly be effective long term. While I truly believe that for weight loss, 2000 calories of fast food is the same as 2000 calories of lean protein, fruits and veg, after the period of strict control (the "diet") the person eating 2000 calories of fast food has not done much to truly change their habits and mindset.

I, personally, have accomplished a lot by intermittent fasting (didn't know it had a name until later, to me it was just about not eating as much during the day in favor of a bigger dinner) and learning that it's OK to feel not-full. And to learn the difference between hunger and feeling not-full. I went from 210 to 170 and lost 55 pounds!! of fat during the process. I have a big dinner (usually 50% of my daily caloric intake) and dessert every night (another 20%). That's complimented by a lunch of around 25% of my daily intake. Very infrequent snacking. No breakfast, even on Gym days, and no soft drinks only water, aside from alcoholic beverages.

You stand behind the I/O issue and then later admit to benefitting from fasting techniques which are most likely affecting your insulin cycle, which is the purpose of a low carb diet.

Atkins dieters experience positive results due to calorie restriction

When you're on a low carb diet, your carb cravings are reduced or go away. You tend to eat less.

It seems like you wanted to be snarky about the analogy I made but you didn't really understand it.

Maybe I didn't understand it, you tell me. You're suggesting (with scoff) that driving fewer miles will naturally reduce risk of accident, so by putting less gas in the car you'll force yourself to drive fewer miles. So you tell me what I'm missing there. Because as interpreted that's a pretty poor analogy.

More importantly, I'm not trying to be a critic on your writing style, which is why I have 1 sentence about the analogy followed by paragraphs about your larger point.

Looking at the mental portion of this, the learning to eat less and better, your comments about atkins..."tend to eat less" reminds me of exactly what I say about my strategy of "intermittent fasting." (Which is a phrase I didn't learn until recently, well after I've lost the weight). What I mean is, in both cases, behavioral changes lead to eating less.

And I firmly, 100% believe that THAT is the primary mechanism that worked for me. Not changes to insulin levels effecting metabolism. But specifically: I eat far less than I used to. Far less. And THAT is why I've lost weight. And intermittent fasting helps me to accomplish that the way Atkins does to followers of that diet, ditto Paleo, ditto the Cookie Diet, etc.

Most importantly: I hope everybody acknowledges that there's mountains of contradictory research and a lot of complicated science here that nobody really understands. All we know for sure is what has worked for us, not even always why, and we are on very thin ice advocating to others what they should do.

From what you've posted in this thread, I gather that you have not taken the time to understand insulin, what it is, and how low carb diets affect insulin, carbohydrate cravings and cell metabolism.

First link briefly covers the insulin response second link is general information regarding insulin.

http://www.spinalhealth.net/insulin.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insulin

See the Gary Taube youtube link elsewhere in this thread for a great deal more information.

mountains of contradictory research

Not really. There's mountains of research and then public policy officials and non-scientist nutritionists that have let the food industry provide guidelines and cheap foods that aren't really good for us.

As Gary Taube points out in the video link, the science is old news. The puzzling thing is why the science has been ignored for so long.

And from what you've posted in the thread, I gather you believe nutrition and weight gain or loss can be explained in the micro sense by individual things like insulin. Most of what I know about sugar, simple carbs in general, and insulin is what I learned from the just-OK book http://www.amazon.com/Sugar-Blues-William-Dufty/dp/044634312...

But most of what I've learned about weight gain/loss and nutrition I've learned from books and research that look at the subject from a macro level.

The summation of everything I've read on the subject -- and I read a lot through my year long experience of losing weigh and changing almost entirely how I thought about food -- and my own experiences make me believe firmly that this is primarily an I/O issue.

And as much as you say "the science is settled and I am right" it's contradicted by a lot of smart people who study this and admit essentially 'the science of nutrition is immature and in many times conclusions are contradictory.' The most recent time I heard that was just last week in the same Pollan NPR interview I mentioned elsewhere. (Though i think this was a re-broadcast, not sure the original broadcast date)

To be clear, here's my take:

1. Primarily an I/O issue. Everything else is a distant 2nd place.

2. How much of the equation is I/O? I don't know. 75%? 50%? It's not the whole story, though, I don't think. Our bodies are adaptive and complex.

3. There are no silver bullets and anybody peddling one is probably wrong (not to say they are entirely without merit.)

4. Nutrition is a science that is not nearly as well understood as most people think.

Actually, we know a great deal about weight gain in the micro sense that is explained by insulin. Jeez, point after point you've made are answered in that Taube youtube link in this thread. You could have your answers if you just clicked the link, opened your mind, and thought about what the guy said.

At the end of the day, here's what I know from going on and off low-carb eating for the last ten years.

I eat carbs, I crave carbs, I binge eat, I gain lots of weight. Contrarily: I stop eating carbs, I lose the cravings, I eat moderately, salads even look satisfying, I lose weight.

Oh, for those of you who are fans of the Security Now podcast, Steve Gibson went into geeky detail in his switch to a low carb diet: https://www.grc.com/health/lowcarb-podcasts.htm

Ok, I'm not one for internet debates and I think this has run it's course fairly. Feel free to take the last word after this if you'd like.

Maybe we've been talking past each other or maybe you just see this differently than I do.

I see a difference between the physical mechanism of weight gain and the mental part of hunger and eating.

Your comment here is something I can totally agree with: When you eat carbs, you crave them and binge eat and over eat and gain weight.

For you, eating carbs leads you to increase your input too much. Now this could be insulin like you insist, or it could just be bad habit. Either way, it's what I consider "mental." Because even if blood sugar issues with carbs triggers the hunger, you're still choosing to satisfy it by eating.

But there's some basic science behind the thermodynamics of weight gain and weight loss that cannot be waved away IMO.

Also, worth noting that carbs do not trigger me to over eat. They are and have been a staple in my diet and I cut them from my lunch meal entirely for reasons of caloric restriction and eat them liberally at my dinner meal. I load UP on carbs at dinner. And still, I don't eat again for at least 18 hours.

For how long have you maintained your weight? Personally, I lost 40 pounds and since then have got about 35 of them back over 8 years. I'm not going to follow any diet advice from someone who hasn't maintained their weight for at least 10 years.

It's seen as a fad because of the large initial water weight loss and the numerous myths about it, e.g.:

1) it's impossible to gain weight while in ketosis

2) the first time you go into ketosis, it has magical fat-burning effects that are lost after you go out of ketosis and back in

3) that ketosis is in fact magical in any way, and in any way better than simply -moderating- carb intake (as opposed to cutting it to 50g or under, and giving up delicious things that you enjoy).

Fact is, plenty of people have tried it as a magic bullet and eaten copious amounts of cheese and bacon only to find that, surprise, fats are insanely calorie-dense and things like salt can still happily make you hungry enough to overeat.

On the positive side, trying keto also permanently changed the way I felt about food - I permanently reduced my carb intake, increased protein and fat, and have a much better understanding of how high-carb foods create 'hunger'. And it happens to work very well for some people, which is awesome.

People misunderstand General Relativity too... doesn't make it a fad.

A fad is a short-lived craze. Generally it's something that's done for fashion/popularity sake, but has little underlying benefit or scientific basis. Atkins published in the 1970's. Low carb diets have been popular for almost a decade now - and the evidence for their efficacy appears to be mounting. It's no longer a fad.

Regarding your points:

1) I've never heard that claim and I've been on some form or other of a low carb diet for the last ten years. 2) Magical? Hardly. The first time I forced my body into ketosis was the most difficult, though. When my metabolism switched to burning fat, I woke up that day feeling very different. That difference was a bit euphoric. 3) Being in ketosis isn't like being pregnant. There are varying degrees - hence the spectrum of colors on the ketostix. That said, there is a slippery slope where indulging "delicious things" can quickly lead to carb cravings that wreck your low carb eating regimen. Some people are better off just avoiding the treats because it makes sticking with their eating plan easier.