Hacker News Reader

Comment by teen | Hacker News Reader

Running on a treadmill for an hour is about 600 calories. Eating an extra snack before bed can easily be that. To be calorie deficient and lose weight, it is so much easier to eat less than to exercise more. On top of that, exercising more can stimulate your appetite... leading to over eating. Basically you just have to be vigilant with not eating too much. I don't think counting calories is important, but 3 small meals (by american standards) or 2 regular meals a day, with low carbs, no sugar, and low dairy, will drop you to normal proportions very quickly.

View on HN

> Basically you just have to be vigilant with not eating too much.

No. There's no consistent evidence of large groups of people who started reducing calories and in return lost pounds predictably. Subjects lose energy, become irritable, get headaches and migraines, have hunger pangs, every now and then just fall off the wagon and over-indulge, or just plain simple gain weight on reduced calorie diet in a controlled experiment.

The book "Good Calories, Bad Calories" contains in-depth research on the topic http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_Calories,_Bad_Calories

> with low carbs, no sugar

Now you're onto something. Sugar and carbs stimulate insulin production, which then stimulates fat storage.

> There's no consistent evidence of large groups of people who started reducing calories and in return lost pounds predictably.

The only inconsistencies come from inaccurate self reporting of caloric intake by study participants. There's been several meta-studies on this. Eating carbs/sugars is indeed a problem because of GI issues - you will feel hungry again soon after consuming sugar which makes it harder to stick to your calorie target.

Medicare has commissioned a research of calorie-restricted diets back in 2007, seeing how obesity was prevalent in the society and Medicare was on the hook to pay for consequences. The full study is available (among other sources) here http://motivatedandfit.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/Diets_...

But in a nutshell, from intro paragraph, "there is little support for the notion that diets lead to lasting weight loss or health benefits."

You misrepresent the study. The paper you link to is very clear that people who diet lose weight while dieting, but gain weight when they stop dieting.

We've known that for a while which is why people now talk about "lifestyle change" instead of "dieting". We know dieting is harmful.

Ethics prevent a real study where you lock the fatties in a cage and accurately measure the calories eaten.

Fatties lie like a pro when it comes to dieting.

And yet when calorie restriction is done through restricting carbohydrates, the results are much more convincing http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2716748/

And if PubMed isn't your cup of tea, just head over to https://www.reddit.com/r/keto, unless you think those ~125K subreddit members are just lying.

Not all calories are the same. I myself lost almost 40lbs on the keto diet (~200 to start, now around 160lbs). 31, male, sedentary IT worker. NO EXERCISE. I eat everything except carbs (fruit, beer, anything with sugars).

Beer and alcohol has quite a lot of sugar.

Alcohol doesn't contain sugar. Rather, it replaces glucose in the blood and can be used directly as a fuel without any conversion.

This is unlike in low-carb diets, where fat must be converted to a fuel (via gluconeogenesis) before cells can use it as energy, and this conversion itself takes energy.

Effectively, alcohol reduces the benefit of low-carb diets but doesn't necessarily increase the insulin response as would a high-sugar diet.

My typing mistake. Those items I listed were what I don't eat.

Beer has quite a bit of sugar, but hard alcohols do not.

http://www.thespartanwarrior.com/post/6355061720/lowcarbvsal...

I made massive changes to my diet a few months ago, after being diagnosed with Type 2 Diabetes. The doctor said diet and exercise needed. Trying to keep it simple I didn't worry about the exercise, just changed the diet, the weight started falling off easily, as long as I ate regularly and kept my carbs to what was required.

I started riding to work this week. I am so god damn hungry right now.

I think if you are really needing weight loss you need your doctor involved. There is so much I have learned through having blood test results etc to work from.

My tips if you are interested:

* Cut out any added sugar. No sugar in coffee or whatever. Easy way to reduce energy intake. No more soft drink. * Have enough carbs each meal so your body hormones etc are getting stuff to work with. * Stay away from processed foods, keep out of those aisles. * Make exercise a normal part of life and skip the gym. Gyms are demotivational hell holes of despair. Climb the stairs at work, ride the bike, park further away, just go for a walk around the block, walk randomly around the city to explore.

> * Have enough carbs each meal so your body hormones etc are getting stuff to work with.

Your body doesn't actually need any carbs to function. It can run off of ketones rather than glucose. You might be interested to look into the keto diet, which works beautifully for people with diabetes. You eat low carb, but high fat. The FAQ of /r/keto on reddit is a good place to start.

This is also a good guide to keto: http://josepharcita.blogspot.co.uk/2011/03/guide-to-ketosis....

Keto In A Nutshell: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1gZfJejOM8fJsX1iCilmnpp1q...

/r/keto FAQ: https://www.reddit.com/r/keto/wiki/faq

I disagree. Going to the gym and building strength and muscle by lifting weights, is the best way to get your body fat low. You might actually gain weight, but it would be muscle.

Muscle requires more energy at rest, so you actually end up burning more calories on the long term.

going to the gym by yourself - kind of boring and would rather do the things you suggested (walking around, ride bike, etc), however going to the gym with a buddy/significant other is fun and often more productive than your original suggestions

I think your comment shows part of the problem, which isn't mean as a dig.

carbs, sugar, low dairy, small portions? What does this leave you to eat? The average person will go crazy following these rules.

The problem is people aren't realistic about what they are eating and their activity level. It is okay to eat poptarts, icecream, whatever it is you like. But do so in moderation. It's not okay to develop a habit of gluttony while on the couch.

There are countless great options you can derive from meat, vegetables, eggs and fruit.

The problem with moderation of extremely sweet/carb-heavy foods, is that it is incredibly difficult to actually moderate, since they actually stimulate more hunger and cravings for similar foods. More difficult than actually cutting them out cold turkey I'd say.

Of course there's often times a stubborn emotional component to eating carb-laden food, so 'moderation' may help as an introduction to a healthy diet, but it's very difficult to pull off successfully without first being low-carb and just adding them in every now and then after the fact.

There's no clear-cut good way to approach it unfortunately as both methods obviously have their flaws, hence obesity is such a tough nut to crack.

Exactly. The real problem with fat gain/loss isn't sedentary vs. active lifestyles, it's calorie consumption. This is why smokers who never work out are usually extremely thin- they typically eat very little. That isn't of course to suggest that that is healthier than being a non-smoker who is overweight, but rather to show in an extreme case that for fat loss exercise is extremely overrated while simple calorie restriction is not given nearly enough attention.

The formula that I know works for me is calorie restriction and limiting carb/sugar intake as much as possible. This requires rethinking what is pretty much considered gospel in the U.S. Pretty much all breakfast foods other than eggs are just sugar and carbs and extremely fattening. Additionally, most meals in U.S. restaurants are about three times the size of what is actually needed to sufficiently sustain you until your next meal. If you want to lose weight and keep it off, increase your protein intake and cut your overall calorie and sugar intake.

> The formula that I know works for me is calorie restriction and limiting carb/sugar intake as much as possible.

The latter might be more effective than the former. Dr. Atkins adopters have challenged people to gain weight on the high fat / high protein diet, and those who took up the challenge simply could not "fatten up" - after a while they could consume only so much meat, cheese, fish and green veggies before feeling completely satiated. So there is a hard practical limit on number of calories consumed on a protein/fat diet.

Compare that to carbohydrate-related cravings, where people talk about having just another [calorie-laden] scone, cookie, or piece of candy, and seemingly losing track of consumption.

> Dr. Atkins has challenged people to gain weight

Where can I read about this?

This should open up the same book I linked up above http://books.google.com/books?id=Xdm40JUD9HwC&pg=PA310&lpg=P...

I've read Gary Taubes and I do have that book but I can't find this section. Which page is it on?

Hmmm, I'm on Kindle, so that's no help. It's towards the end of "Fattening Diets" chapter, if you scroll dow a bit through Google Books preview.

> Pretty much all breakfast foods other than eggs are just sugar and carbs and extremely fattening.

I never understood that. I came from another country and live here now for many years. I don't get it how breakfast is a completely acceptable time to eat just dessert food -- pancakes and syrop, waffles, oatmeal smothered in sugar honey and cinnamon, cereal, even "healthy" yogurt with sugar in it, toast with jam on it. Not saying I don't do it, I eat those things to once in a while without thinking much about it, but in general looking at it, it just seem so strange.

There is the whole "breakfast is the main meal of the day" mantra. Is that really true? Not sure anymore. Maybe it is something created by cereal and bacon producers out there...

For the curious, for breakfast, I am used to eating porridge -- buckweat, wheat, oatmeal with butter and salt. Or just rye (I call it "black") bread and butter (yeah I know bread is sugar too to some degree). Coldcuts, cheese, smoked fish. Not all healthy and good but most are not sweet.

Something that is hard to give up is fatty foods, I like bacon, olive oil on my things, even eat whole cured and spiced pork fat. I would cut slices of it and eat it as a snak. But I am almost underweight for my height.

There is no credible evidence that breakfast, as eaten as the morning meal before, say, lunch, has any special significance. There is credible evidence that intermittent fasting, which often includes skipping breakfast, has benefits.

A hypothesis about what was causing heart disease coupled with the marketing might of the sugar and grain industries replaced bacon and eggs with Lucky Charms, and American health has gone downhill since (and the hypothesis was wrong, but the dietetic world still has trouble admitting it because it would have to admit it has actively harmed people's health. Cognitive dissonance at its best).

Don't give up the fatty foods. They are the foundation of a good diet.

Exercise and diet combined is more effective than either alone. You get the health benefits from exercise, not from calorie reduction.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD003817...

> The 43 studies included 3476 participants. Although significant heterogeneity in some of the main effects' analyses limited ability to pool effect sizes across some studies, a number of pooled effect sizes were calculated. When compared with no treatment, exercise resulted in small weight losses across studies. Exercise combined with diet resulted in a greater weight reduction than diet alone (WMD - 1.0 kg; 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.3 to -0.7). Increasing exercise intensity increased the magnitude of weight loss (WMD - 1.5 kg; 95% CI -2.3 to -0.7). There were significant differences in other outcome measures such as serum lipids, blood pressure and fasting plasma glucose. Exercise as a sole weight loss intervention resulted in significant reductions in diastolic blood pressure (WMD - 2 mmHg; 95% CI -4 to -1), triglycerides (WMD - 0.2 mmol/L; 95% CI -0.3 to -0.1) and fasting glucose (WMD - 0.2 mmol/L; 95% CI -0.3 to -0.1). Higher intensity exercise resulted in greater reduction in fasting serum glucose than lower intensity exercise (WMD - 0.3 mmol/L; 95% CI -0.5 to -0.2). No data were identified on adverse events, quality of life, morbidity, costs or on mortality.

> The results of this review support the use of exercise as a weight loss intervention, particularly when combined with dietary change. Exercise is associated with improved cardiovascular disease risk factors even if no weight is lost.

> 600 calories. Eating an extra snack before bed can easily be that.

I agree that it's easy to eat a lot of calories without paying attention, but it's only self-delusion that calls that a snack. That's almost two mcdonald's sandwiches. That's four bowls of cereal. 600 calories is an entire meal.

Or a 12 oz soda and 4 Reese's Cups.

People don't account for the calories in drinks properly, I'd rather not use an example with soda.

So yes seven Reese's Cups (well 6.8) will make up an entire meal. That's a bit much for a snack.

The fact that three sodas can be an entire meal is a different problem (you can drink that much without even realizing you ate) with a pretty easy solution.

I started trying to lose weight recently and have been counting daily calories. It's astounding how much easier it is to clock in at a reasonable number if you cut out all liquid calories. Soda may taste delicious but it does absolutely nothing to fill you up and has a ton of calories.

> That's almost two mcdonald's sandwiches.

Its a hair more than one Big Mac (530 cal), Quarter Pounder with Cheese (520 cal), or Quarter Pounder Deluxe (540 cal), or Large Fries (510 cal), exactly one Quarter Pounder with Bacon and Cheese (600 cal), and less than one Bacon Clubhouse Burger (720 cal) or Double Quarter Pouder with Cheese (740 cal).

It's over one and a half McDoubles (390 cal), or one and two thirds McChickens (360 cal).

At least according to the top result. I'm not sure why different things say different numbers.

Edit: The official site actually gives slightly lower numbers. And apparently a cheeseburger or grilled onion cheddar is 290/300, so exactly two.

A quarter pounder deluxe is hardly a 'snack' either.

WHAT you eat can be as important or even more important as HOW MUCH you eat. 99% of people still don't get that, they think a calorie is a calorie.

We are not simply calorie burning machines. The human body, metabolism and related systems are incredibly more complex than that.

I agree with you, but that's not the argument I'd make for "What you eat" over "how much you eat."

The difficult part of managing weight isn't the food. The food is easy - eat less than X amount, and you will lose weight. No, the difficult part of it is mental. Food does more than simply provide nutrients. It satiates hunger and provides pleasurable experiences. People generally don't over-eat because they are lacking nutrients, they over-eat because they want the fun experiences of eating or to drive away the discomfort of feeling hungry.

So if you can give yourself smart choices about what you eat, and make it extra clear what the rules are for deciding things, you can exert a ton of control over how much you eat. Personally, I've lost 40 pounds on keto (an extremely low-card, moderate protein, high fat diet). I know keto does interact with your metabolism, but I suspect that a good chunk of the weight loss was simply by removing a lot of non-satiating calories.

"You can't outrun a fork"

Reply on news.ycombinator.com