Hacker News Reader

Comment by agentPrefect | Hacker News Reader

I'm absolutely floored to see comments here still nit-picking at FOOD QUALITY vs FOOD QUANTITY vs WHAT DEFINES EXERCISE vs ETC.

Whilst I fully enjoy reading some of the opinions on SOD, the myriad of needless front-end frameworks, etc. - this really is not subjective at all. Calories in, calories out. You eat 5000cal of the most nutritious, well balanced meal & run 10km - you will still put on weight (given you're not a giant).

I'm not sure how this is so open to interpretation, it's rudimentary science at best.

View on HN

Percent body fat is a better metric to reduce than weight alone. Most men would even want to gain weight if it is muscle mass. If you want lean bodymass it's best to control your blood sugar (low glycemic diet) and exercise.

Calories in/out does control weight but there more to it if you don't want to end up skinnyfat. If you think calories is all that matters, try a diet solely of dextrose (glucose) and see how you end up.

Remember this guy -> http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/207071.php

I also should say, that I do agree with you. If it is more that losing weight you want, then the caloric deficiency is not the best way go - like if you're doing resistance training. But somebody who is obese? Eat cleanly yes ... but most certainly eat less.

You're right, so let's move the discussion on.

Most people know what they should be eating: why aren't they eating it? Why do some people find it so hard to avoid excess calories?

Or, is 2,000 calories of chocolate as satiating as 2,000 of carrot and potato?

Or how relevant is gut flora? (Some people have gut flora that helps them stay slim; other people have gut flora that help them stay fat); how easy is it for someone to change their gut flora?

I always see it presented this way, but calories is a measure of energy, not mass. Clearly a weight loss program is designed reduce the mass of your body.

Can anyone explain if there is a simple proportional link between "mass in/mass out" and "energy in/energy out" ?

Different foods cause different levels of satiation.

Knowing that eating less will make you lose weight is not the same thing as overcoming feelings of hunger to actually eat less in practice.

Absolutely agree with you, but that is an entirely different discussion. A good use case for the quality vs. quantity issue would be bodybuilders. Throughout a bulking cycle they make (or ... they should make) a concerted effort to do a "clean bulk" - which is healthy, good food. Ask any bodybuilder how difficult that is - which is exactly what you're saying. It's difficult because the food makes them full, satiated, etc.

BUT - they still bulk. They still put on the excess weight regardless of how clean they eat. Calories in, calories out.

    > that is an entirely different discussion

Surely it's a deeply related one.

    > Throughout a bulking cycle they make (or ... they should 
    > make) a concerted effort to do a "clean bulk" - which is
    > healthy, good food

For better or worse, most of the ones I know eat any old shit. Turns out supplemental testosterone is one helluva drug.

At time of writing, this is RIGHT NEXT to a comment saying "Still amazed that people are still considering this a pure caloric issue and not a food quality issue."

Hahaha. Nice.

Is it really so simple? Doesn't that ignore all other bodily responses to food and assume that food has only one characteristic, to be used for energy? Isn't it possible that some food creates hormonal conditions that result in a body with a higher/lower metabolic rate? Isn't it also possible that some calories are lost through waste? I think it's naive to simplify such a complex process.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com