Hacker News Reader

Comment by jstevens85 | Hacker News Reader

Can you link to any academic papers that dispute that?

No, but if you ask this question on Hacker News you will get a muddled and slightly paranoid sounding synopsis of Gary Taubes' book on this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Diet_Delusion

Probably best to go straight to the source. I'm hoping it's a bit more naunced than the "biology is hard, nutrition is complex, therefore theories proposed by science journalists from outwith the field are more likely to be true" type stuff that you see bandied about online.

a) known fact: insulin spikes cause more calories to be converted to fat, even when the same amounts of calories are consumed

b) even diet soda can cause insulin spikes, causing rats and calves to gain more weight on the same # of calories as rats/calves not consuming diet soda

There are links off the wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diet_soda

There have also been lots of books written about the insulin response and weight gain, all citing studies, all pointing out that insulin resistance/syndrome x play roles in making some people fatter even if they do not overeat. Gary Taubes' is especially good.

I don't know why nerds seem to want to persist in believing that a calorie is a calorie is a calorie, despite all the evidence.

In my mind, it's like a nasty twist on "tough love" -- people want to believe it because they want to believe that fat people are bad and weak, and therefore deserve what they get. By taking a hard line approach, they can feel... virtuous.

But the body is extremely complex, and a tightly-coupled system at that, with so many variables that it is vanishingly unlikely that we can categorically say that there is one simple, clear, clean fact that rules it all.

A calorie is a calorie is a calorie. Because a calorie is a measurement of the potential energy of a quantity of food.

The type of food is what makes a difference. Fatty foods are worse than the same caloric-quantity of fibrous foods (i.e., fruits and veggies).

And there's plenty of research to suggest that food in - food burned by activity (inc. exercise) - undigestable food = food stored as fat.

A calorie is a calorie in a beaker in a lab, but not in the human body.

You should read the things I've referenced.

There is so much contradicting evidence that it's not even funny. read Gary Taubes, Michel Cabanac, Seth Roberts.

Do you know how the magical "1g protein = 4kcal, 1g carbohydrate = 4kcal, 1g fat = 9kcal" numbers were reached? Hint: They were never measured in vivo, or in vitro cells -- the follow from a very fragile theory, which breaks in every way you look at it -- and yet, it's considered "science.

How does Seth Roberts tie into the "calories aren't the whole story" theme?

I thought his theory was about tricking the body with taste-free calories in order to dampen hunger pangs. If so it fits neatly within that theory since less hunger means less eating means less calories.

In fact since it's billed as an "eat anything" diet, doesn't it contradict Taubes who targets refined carbs as the real villain?

His diet as presented doesn't, but if you read his research notes (specifically, read through "what makes food fattening?") you'll see his own personal evidence/anecdote for this, and how it sits with other results. (But basically, beyond his own anecdote and theory which does not imply or contradict anything about calories, he mostly channels and enhances Cabanac and Israel)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com