Hacker News Reader

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2763382/

  > CONCLUSIONS
  > 
  > Reduced-calorie diets result in clinically meaningful
  > weight loss regardless of which macronutrients they
  > emphasize.

Edited to include an additional quote from the study:

  > The principal finding is that the diets were equally successful in promoting
  > clinically meaningful weight loss and the maintenance of weight loss over the
  > course of 2 years. Satiety, hunger, satisfaction with the diet, and attendance
  > at group sessions were similar for all diets.

I didn't say that counting calories won't work, I just said that it's not an optimal solution.

There are ranges of protein, fat, carbs that is possible to lose weight on. Some of them are just more effective than others.

The linked study didn't find any significant difference in weight loss between diets with a radically different macronutrient composition:

  > By 2 years, weight loss remained similar in those who were assigned to a
  > diet with 15% protein and those assigned to a diet with 25% protein (3.0
  > and 3.6 kg, respectively); in those assigned to a diet with 20% fat and
  > those assigned to a diet with 40% fat (3.3 kg for both groups); and in
  > those assigned to a diet with 65% carbohydrates and those assigned to a
  > diet with 35% carbohydrates (2.9 and 3.4 kg, respectively) (P>0.20 for all
  > comparisons)

  [...]

  > The principal finding is that the diets were equally successful in promoting
  > clinically meaningful weight loss and the maintenance of weight loss over the
  > course of 2 years. Satiety, hunger, satisfaction with the diet, and attendance
  > at group sessions were similar for all diets.

There are people who respond well to high carbohydrate diets, and people who respond well to low carbohydrate diets. Any study that just separates the participants into two different groups is just going to see that individual variability in response as "noise" in the final analysis. The only studies you can trust on macronutrient response include a crossover period.

Carbs being bad is very much outdated. As are unsustainable eating methods for short term benefits. Eating 6 times a day is also seeing some push back as to whether it is really any healthier. Calorie counting not being important was a fad (if its possible to have a negative fad). How can you have an ideal macro split for a diet when each of those macros has a calorie value without also taking into account your overall calorie needs?

It may become more prevalent that the notion of eating consistently will change too. You cannot eat at a deficit for any period of time without getting pretty severe diminishing returns as your body adapts to its in vs out. 5:2 is a very simple model of calorie cycling, just an unsustainable on.

Protein and calories have the same calorie content per gram, so if you hit your protein macros then there is no downside to eating carbs, and actually for active people your gains and recovery will suffer dramatically from lack of carbs. Overloading on protein has the same downsides as overloading on carbs in simple calories in vs out terms.

I think it's fairly common knowledge now that fats are largely good (saturated fats help with testosterone regulation for example) even though food producers seem to be wilfully slow in catching up (low fat items being filled with sugar thus making them far more unhealthy).

I'm not sure I entirely buy into the if it fits your macros (IIFYM) way of thinking, but it's not a bad strategy for a lot of situations.

>"I'm not sure I entirely buy into the if it fits your macros (IIFYM) way of thinking,"

IIFYM is a misleading acronym, it was born out of frustration with people asking "can I eat x? can I eat y?", it it meant to mean "If it fits your protein, carbs, fat, fiber and micronutrients".

I agree mostly. My main point of concern was the "just count calories, you'll be fine" completely ignores anything we know about a healthy died in terms of nutrients.

The fat one I find interesting:

> I think it's fairly common knowledge now that fats are largely good (saturated fats help with testosterone regulation for example) even though food producers seem to be wilfully slow in catching up (low fat items being filled with sugar thus making them far more unhealthy).

While these things mostly go over my head, I could get my better half (PhD in nutritional epidemiology) to make a comment. Her answer:

"Saturated fats are not accepted to be healthy by the scientific community. Unsaturated fats are healthy, reduce cardiovascular risk, and promote satiety, so eating some is good, even if they have a higher calorie count per gram"

That being said, this comment mostly targets a healthy diet to prohibit e.g. cardiovascular diseases. While those usually correlate to reducing weight to a normal level, they might not be the same :)

"Saturated fats are not accepted to be healthy by the scientific community..."

Why? Because this is plain wrong.

Here some links that are worth checking out on this subject:

Meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies evaluating the association of saturated fat with cardiovascular disease: http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/early/2010/01/13/ajcn.2009...

Article backed with research: http://authoritynutrition.com/top-8-reasons-not-to-fear-satu...

A personal story: http://grassfedcrossfit.com/what-a-diet-of-70-saturated-fat-...

Some more info: https://www.bulletproofexec.com/podcast-16-everything-you-ne...

I am not an expert in this field (nutritional epi + cardiovascular disease).

Luckily, my significant other is (which is there the quote came from).

Her answer: "The first article shows no association of saturated fats with cardiovascular disease. No association does not mean healthy." and "Substituting polyunsaturated fats for saturated fats has been shown to lower ldl and is associated with lower risk of cardiovascular disease. This comes from both robust randomized controlled trial evidence, and data from prospective cohort studies"

I think the whole idea is that people agree that unsaturated fats do have health benefits. There is no clear evidence that saturated fats do. They might not actively cause harm, but they also don't have comparable benefits to health.

One important aspect of weight loss is appetite control. Eating less carbs helps you to limit your calorie intake.

Actually, while frequent eating is beneficial in terms of maximizing the gene expression response to protein feeding, it is actually detrimental in terms of insulin sensitivity. At least one study has shown that people practicing an intermittent fasting pattern of food intake improved insulin sensitivity relative to people consuming a calorie matched diet consumed using traditional meal timing.

Monounsaturated fat is a much better choice as it is nearly as effective as saturated fat at promoting hormone biosynthesis. The problem with saturated fat is that it triggers expression of genes for fat storage, and the effect is particularly pronounced in visceral tissue (which is the least healthy place to store it!).

"If it fits your macros" is bullshit, because there is a definite difference between sugar and other carbs, and a definite difference between saturated fat and other fats. Try going on a diet where all your carbs come from sugar, and almost all your fat comes from saturated fat and see how you look and feel.

Nutrition and weight loss are 2 very complex subjects to say the least. However, calorie counting and weight measurement pretty much fit into all programs, mainly for the sake of raising awareness.

Counting calories is like keeping tracking of your spending. It won't solve your problems, but it will highlight areas of concern. If you're caloric intake goal is 1800, and you're consistently eating 2000, calorie counting will help you figure out where you can drop those 200 calories.

Similar to weight measurements, if you're losing weight at a consistent rate (~1-2 lbs/week), you can stay the course. If you flat line or start going up, it's good time to start reviewing what you're doing.

Of course, the situation is nuanced. For example, you could eat 1800 calories worth of cookies, or your weight gain could be caused due to the growth of muscle (which does happen).

At the outset, however, those 2 practices will get the machine going.

>It seems that most studies agree that losing wait is most successful with a low carb + high protein diet.

We've also seen studies that say that this is actually gives you an increased risk of regaining weight, once you lost it.

It really seems that the old recommendations: Everything in moderation, exercise and balanced diet are the best. Every "shortcut" modern diets present seems to fail in one way or another.

I think the issue is that we've created a culture where a people who loss weight, what ever the method, sets out to write a book or blog, detailing their new found wisdom. It's all anecdotal, proof is retrofitted to fit the result and claims are never properly verified or tested on a broad cross section of people. These weight loss anecdotes sells because we want them to work. Have you ever seen someone ask another person: "How did you loss all that weight?" and then their disappointment when the answer is "I eat less and workout". That's not what people want to hear, they want you to say that you just eat a lemon and half a pound of bacon every Tuesday.

Eat less that you burn, and try to get your basic nutrient requirement meet - That every single healthy diet summed up.

Nutritional knowledge in the last 20 years hasn't resulted in much difference in outcomes. Folks are still too fat. There's been no breakthrough.

People can lose weight and achieve goals using a wide variety of dietary programs (or none at all, if you throw in exercise).

If the hacker diet works for somebody, that's great. If not, they're plenty of other stuff to try.

At least these days the updated food pyramids doesn't suggest stuffing yourself with grains but balance it a bit more.

That being said, people still will.

If you have a big calories surplus it will take a looooot of exercise to lose weight.

But it WILL work, and in most cases, it doesn't take much exercise to see results. The point is there's a lot of ways to lose weight and there's no "best way" that works for everyone.

>"The point is there's a lot of ways to lose weight and there's no "best way" that works for everyone."

Incorrect. Eating at a consistent caloric deficit over a significant period of time will result in weight loss [1]. Any diet which incorporates that will 'work', different strategies of adhering to the deficit will allow different people to be consistent, which is the key to prolonged weight loss.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_law_of_thermodynamics and it in practice http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2763382/

Let's not get pedantic here, mr spock. Of course you need a caloric deficit, and yes, if you do start walking/exercising for an hour a day and follow that up with a few big macs and chocolate shake you'll gain weight. In reality, if people introduce exercise and keep their diets roughly constant, THEY LOOSE WEIGHT.

The fundamental basics of weight loss are most certainly not 'pedantic'. I've personally guided ~25 or so individuals and I can tell you from anecdotal experience that their diets are most certainly not constant. I'd find it odd if they ate the exact same amount of calories every day, on accident.

This is not an intelligent approach in my opinion. Every diet which involves a caloric deficit over a prolonged period of time will result in weight loss.

Yeah, it's only calorie counting, but it will work anyway.

It's a very basic approach but if you stick to the math... you will lose weight.

Running a marathon every day would also work, but both of them are pretty tedious and sub optimal ;)

A focus on nutrient dense foods will make you feel fuller and will be better for your nutritional status and disease risk.

>"Running a marathon every day would also work, but both of them are pretty tedious and sub optimal ;)"

Nop, you can still eat enough calories to gain weight while running a marathon every day.

Eating at a caloric deficit isn't independent of eating micronutrient dense food.

Impossible. Anyone who introduces regular exercise to their previously sedentary routine will almost invariably lose weight. I am sure that someone could do a contrived lab rat experiment where this is not the case, but the point is that regular exercise WILL lower weight.

>"Impossible. Anyone who introduces regular exercise to their previously sedentary routine will almost invariably lose weight."

False. Say you're eating 3000 calories a day and you exercise for an hour per day and burn 500 calories, but your caloric maintenance is 2300 calories. So you're at 2500 calories but you need to eat less than 2300 to lose weight. [1]

If you do not know how many calories you are eating, and your maintenance level you will not be able to ascertain the correct level to lose weight. You can exercise all you want, but if you're eating more than you're burning you will not lose weight.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_law_of_thermodynamics and it in practice http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2763382/

Yes, if you were gaining weight every week before, then adding exercise may not reverse that trend.

No need to cite the 3rd law. Your 3000 calorie example is a bit ridiculous-- that would be someone who is gaining weight steadily to the tune of 1+ pound a week, and if that's the norm for years, they'd be 100's of pounds overweight. That's an edge case. A bit of regular exercise will work for all but the most silly examples.

I would not call this a 'silly' example as I have witnessed this anecdotally with a number (<10) of people who I have helped.

>A bit of regular exercise will work for all but the most silly examples.

I do not think it's wise to make such a large and unsubstantiated blanket statement, as I have mentioned prior it comes down to how much you are consuming and burning each day, over a prolonged period of time. It is also not helpful to say 'a bit of regular', that statement is hazy and it's impossible to know what you actually mean.

Yeah, it's straight up calorie counting, which works for some people and doesn't work for others. But I think the other half of it is to use a rolling average for weight tracking, and it's surprising how few weight loss apps do that.

>"From what I understand about modern nutritional science, this is not all that useful without having a look at e.g. the amount of carbohydrates and the glycemic index of the food you eat."

GI becomes irrelevant once you eat more than once every 24 hours, which for most people is the norm. [1]

[1] http://alanaragon.com/glycemic-index

That's less true for people with any of many conditions impacting to carbohydrate metabolism, pretty much all of which are overrepresented among the overweight.

I've added the source, he talks about that.

I have no idea where you got that information from, but from what I know this is simply not true?

Added the source.

I would respectfully disagree. There are a great many foods which can have substantial short-term effects on blood sugar well outside the range that the body has the capability to process effectively.

This is a classic example of an underdamped control system leading to oscillations. It happens because the bandwidth of the control system isn't sufficient for the bandwidth of the input. As an engineer if I faced this problem I typically would try and increase the bandwidth of the control system to solve the problem. But that's not really an option in the human body (yet) so the only real solution is to try and control the bandwidth of the input.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Control_system#/media/File:Seco...

The more you control the input bandwidth (excess sugars) the less you're going to end up with oscillations and I suspect that those oscillations are what help people really put on weight. Eat too much sugar, it gets stored into fat and a sugar crash. That sugar crash presents as "false" hunger, so you eat again. Probably you eat too much sugar again, and so the cycle repeats.

There's probably a lot of variation from human to human on the insulin control system bandwidth, and there's a lot of variation in the diet different people choose to eat. So if one person has high bandwidth and generally good diet, perhaps it only makes a difference like you've suggested. Someone with low bandwidth and a terrible diet might see substantial improvements by doing nothing more than cutting large quantities of high GI food from their diet.

Added the source, it addresses your concerns.

Yes, lower carb and higher protein are more efficient, but without running a calorie deficit you can never loose weight.

But yeah nobody should follow this book to the letter, in 2015...