Hacker News Reader

Comment by bollockitis | Hacker News Reader

> I don't care if you eat raw sugar or fat, as long as you eat slightly less calories than your body is using for a prolonged period of time.

Well, you might not care, but your body sure does. Your body responds very differently to sugar than it does to fat. And for some people—I would say anyone struggling to lose weight—this difference is the key to success.

Yes, some people can lose weight eating nothing but carbs. There's a lot we don't know, and proponents of this theory will admit this. But one of the primary prinicples of this theory is that genetics plays a large role in human fat metabolism. Some people can eat whatever they want and remain thin, while others eat whatever they want and become obese. There is no such thing as a one size fits all diet.

View on HN

Yet somehow people weren't widely obese in the 60s. I have this fascination with random pictures: it's really interesting to look not at the focus but an the background. You see the stuff in houses, the items in shop windows, etc. The relevance here is look at pictures of the 60s and people's sizes. Skim eg these [1] and look at the older relatives in the wedding pictures. You'll see people who can stand to lose 25 pounds, but (I just got back from the midwest) you don't see people who could stand to lose 100+.

Undoubtedly food has changed wildly in 55 years, but so also has the quantity. Not to mention all the estrogens from plastics.

[1] http://www.buzzfeed.com/summeranne/adorable-real-vintage-wed...

My guess is the folks smoked more cigarettes.

Sure they did, but not everybody.

There have always been adamant non-smokers just as there have always been convinced smokers.

Consumption has increased substantially:

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

That lists a 25% increase in calories consumed between 1970 and 2000.

And all of those calories have been carbohydrates. So the question remains open: is it the calories or the carbs. And that is what the research in TFA is trying to answer.

If the hormonal food-partitioning theory is correct, had we increased calories 25% using fat instead of carbs, we wouldn't have an diabesity epidemic today. Instead, people would have perhaps gained a little weight and burned off a lot more using non-exercise activity thermogenesis.

Did you look at the file?

It does include an annual increase in grain consumption of about 50 pounds and an increase of sugar consumption of about 45 pounds.

But it also includes an increase of meat consumption of about 50 pounds, an increase of fat consumption of about 30 pounds and an increase in fruit and vegetable consumption of more than 100 pounds.

There are reductions of about 15 pounds of eggs and 100 pounds of milk products (people drink less of it, much of that weight is water).

There is certainly an increase in carb consumption, but it's clear enough that "all" is an overstatement, people are consuming an additional 85 pounds a year of meat+fats.

People were also shorter then as well, and shorter still as you go further back. Old clothes, houses, beds, cars... all based around a smaller frame. I'm 198cm/6'6", and while some modern cars are uncomfortable, some old cars I physically cannot fit into the driver's seat.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com