Comment by rayiner | Hacker News Reader

Comment by rayiner | Hacker News Reader

This stuff gets a little conspiracy theorist. I think the most basic problem is that carbs are cheap and it's easy to eat a lot of them because they're not filling. Losing weight is about calories in versus calories out, but calories in is about hunger management.

Where I get breakfast, they sell these pretzels. 300 calories for something that'll leave you feeling hungry immediately. Meanwhile a small container of 2% Greek yogurt will fill you up till lunch for half the calories.

My favorite lunch is a salad at chipotle: lettuce, chicken guacamole, cheese. At 450 calories, it's ridiculously filling and has about as many calories as a small sandwich that'll leave you hungry by the afternoon. Or a twelve piece nuggets at chick fil a. 400 calories for a tasty lunch that is so filling it's even a bit hard to eat in a sitting.

But have a cup of coffee and a scone at Starbucks? Same number of calories as the twelve piece nuggets, except people don't feel like fat asses having that before going home for dinner.

If you have trouble losing weight because you can't stay on the wagon, at least try a low carb diet. Realize that a bagel at 200 calories = 5-7 strips of bacon and the latter will fill you up and the former won't. Also eat lots of vegetables to add volume with low calories. If you have a sweet tooth, put a teaspoon of sugar in some FAGE. It's only 15 extra calories.

> Losing weight is about calories in versus calories out

[citation needed]. I know that's the common wisdom, but I also know of countless anecdotes (see e.g. http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/sam-feltham/weight-loss-advi... and his previous 6K-calorie diet, and some real data - a few of the references in http://media.sethroberts.net/about/whatmakesfoodfattening.pd... , don't remember which ones) where that simply does not work. And I've actually been looking for papers establishing the science behind "calorie counting", and came up mostly with contrary results -

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC506782/

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22760558

http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/86/6/1649.full

I would not advise anyone trying to lose weight to go on a 'low carb' diet. While its true that most people need to consume less carbs, a good balance of fats, proteins, and carbs are a part of most healthy diets.

Satiation has less to do with the absence of carbs as it does the glycemic index of the carbs. Foods like oatmeal have a low glycemic index and thus raise your blood sugar much slower than a candy bar which might cause a sudden spike. So its advisable to eat slow burning low glycemic index carbs in the morning to feel fuller during the day.

Also there are a lot of mixed views about dairy as well as the high sodium content of chipotle in the weightlifting and weight loss world.

Satiation has a lot to do with responses that vary between individuals, too; there's no one-size-fits-all weight loss recipe (much less a one-size-fits-all ideal diet recipe.)

Note I qualified my advice as being aimed at people who are having trouble losing weight because they can't easily control their eating (which encompasses many or even most people). For those people, I think trying to have a "good balance of fats, proteins, and carbs" (whatever that means--most nutrition advice is handwaving) is an additional constraint that makes it too hard to stick to a diet that limits calorie intake. I think its actually ultimately unhealthy to advise people to try and maintain a "balanced" diet (again, whatever that means), because clearly people don't have the willpower to to begin with (or else they wouldn't all be fat).

This is particularly true if you're a typical busy, stressed person who doesn't have the time to prepare and plan his or her own meals. Restaurants make it very difficult to eat limited calories while balancing fats, protein, and carbs, because their dishes come with an overabundance of cheap carbs. To use Applebee's as a reference for a typical American suburban restaurant, the 12 oz new york strip has 480 calories, while the seasonable vegetables adds another 40-60. Almost all of the pasta dishes have 1100+ calories. If you're trying to stay under 600 calories for dinner, you're going to have much more success ordering the steak than you will ordering the pasta and willing yourself to eat only half the portion.

Fun fact: the glycemic index of oatmeal isn't that low. See: http://www.amsa.org/healingthehealer/GlycemicIndex.pdf. Oatmeal has a glycemic index of 61. Table sugar is 65. Whole milk is 27. Peanuts are 14. Low fat yogurt is 33. Oatmeal is better than say white bread or a bagel, but what isn't?

Not disagreeing with anything you say, but I generally eat a 100% carbs lunch and also feel full and not hungry later. Usually it's 2 apples or 1 apple and another serving of fruit, and a cup of tea with no refined sugar. (Usually a bit of honey).

I feel like all the simple answers in nutrition are BS and the only short answer is "it's complex."

But I definitely do agree with the calorie-is-a-calorie line of thought. Gaining weight is an I/O issue.

Pin not talking about high fiber carbs like apples. They have very low calories because they're mostly fiber and water. I'm talking about the staples of American diet: bread, pasta, etc.

Also, two apples have 200 calories. That's basically a slice and a half of bread. Very few people would find either filling. But at 270 calories a lot of people would find an 8 piece nuggets at Chick Fil a pretty filling.

While that was evident and clear -- and I upvoted you for your cogent analysis -- it also goes with what I'm saying, that the only short answer is "it's complex."

There's a major difference between how your body reacts to complex carbs (fruits, vegetables, etc.) versus simple, processed carbs (cookies, soda, etc.). The former is packed with fiber which moderates the intake of the carbs into your bloodstream. The latter is a direct injection...which causes a spike versus the slow release that you experience.

I agree. I saw this recent piece on Doritos and was amazed at how much attention goes into EVERY sensory experience you have with the chip to maximize your intake (ie, calories consumed):

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/10/01/dining/nacho-g...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com