Comment by joelrunyon | Hacker News Reader

Comment by joelrunyon | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

I think we're arguing semantics.

Most people when they say they want to lose "weight" meant they want to lose "fat" and improve body composition.

Focusing solely on calories in / calories out omits any effects hormones have on fat burning / storage.

In your scenario - yes - if someone drank 2000 calories of coke and that's it, they might not get "fatter", but that's not how real life works.

99/100 times, that person who drank 2000 calories of coke is going to be starving shortly afterwards and isn't going to simply "fast" and let lipolysis take place. Instead, because sugar causes ridiculous cravings - they're probably going to crack and down another 1,000 calories of another carb intensive, sugary food ('cause cravings) until their calorie intake exceeds their calories used and their hormone levels are thoroughly trashed.

I like hypothetical scenarios as much as the next guy, but focusing strictly on calories in / calories out and ignoring hormone imbalances, cravings and other real-life factors are typically symptoms of someone who reads lots of books, but hasn't has too many real life case studies to work with.

No, we aren't arguing semantics. You're arguing semantics now that you have a lot of qualifiers on the statement you made earlier.

Your initial assertion was that high insulin levels cause fat storage (really, insulin causes blood glucose to drop, either through glycogen uptake in muscle tissue or lipogenesis and glucagon causes it to rise via the opposite mechanisms) in response to the prompt:

> Would you lose more weight drinking two liters of coca-cola a day or eating the equivalent total calories in a high-fat protein rich food?

I'm sorry that my made-up scenario isn't the same as your made-up scenario, which now has a ton of conditions and it suddenly "real life".

Yes, in real life, someone who consumes 2000 liquid calories is going to be hungry. As is someone who consumes 2000 calories of bread. Or donuts. Or anything else which is digested rapidly (and this is exactly why I brought up satiation).

But this isn't a "hormone imbalance." This is, in fact, absolutely typical and ideal action from hormones doing their job, unless your made-up-real-world scenario now also involves people with insulin resistance. Because 2000 calories is 2000 calories, and while studies show that the normal metabolic range is +/- 200kcal from calculated bmr, "hormones" are not some wild card. Men eat more (higher bmr, testosterone promotes liposysis and better nutrient partitioning), but a man or a woman doesn't go through massive hormonal changes on a regular basis, and consumption of an equivalent number of calories from different macronutrient groups can be expected to have about the same effects on composition (unless it's all protein, in which case you get to worry about dying).

If you want to discuss hypothetical scenarios (2000 calories of sugar vs equivalent total calories in a high-fat protein rich food), discuss them. But don't change your stance when someone questions you.

You are indeed both correct.

The problem with people who do things like drink 2 litres of coke, is that they become insulin resistant. Meaning they produce a lot more insulin than required, as thier bodies ability to gauge how much insulin is thrown out of wack (by the spikes in sugar).

Now when you have something that only requires 2units of insulin, your body outputs 4 (because of insulin resistance) and now fat cells are being created when they shouldn't be. (Because insulin is what regulates fat storage, i.e insulin takes the sugar out of your blood by shoving it in a fat cell).

Keep this up, and you eventually end up diabetic.

You are both saying the two different sides to the same coin.

EDIT: To be clear - If you have regulated insulin (by controlling carbs and suger) you will gain less fat (but lose it normally). If you starve your body of those sugars in the first place you will lose more than you gain (regardless of insulin). This is why WeightWatchers works, and why Excercising your arse off works, and also why Paleo/Atkins/Low-carb works.

I can't reply to your comment & don't want this to turn into a flamewar, but we're essentially saying the same thing.

Calories in > calories out can "work", but it's not an efficient way to address body composition - especially with people new to nutrition because of the hunger / craving factor that invariably comes up.

Also - continually drinking 2000 calories of coke is going to lead to chronically high blood sugar / insulin levels and will degrade their insulin sensitivity over time.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com