Hacker News Reader

Comment by vilmosi | Hacker News Reader

Oh I get it now, there's a misconception here. A caloric deficit DIET is detrimental to you. But you can still obtain calorie deficit process by simply increasing the output (i.e. exercise). Eating quality food helps too.

View on HN

There is nothing detrimental about being on a caloric deficit diet if are overweight. It's not starving yourself, it's not bad for you, it's the ONLY way you can lose fat. Reducing intake is much more efficient than increasing output, as the article we are discussing elaborates on.

> There is nothing detrimental about being on a caloric deficit diet if are overweight.

Yes, there is. Sustained calorie deficit has a number of potential adverse effects. OTOH, if you are overweight, those detrimental effects may be justified by the expected long-term health benefits of weight loss.

Yes you do lose weight, I don't disagree. If you do have a weight problem, it might be an option. But I don't think it's not detrimental for you or that it's a viable long term solution.

Nope, still wrong. There is nothing detrimental about eating less than you need within reason.

Agree to disagree. Starving yourself should never be an option.

This isn't "agree to disagree" territory, this is published and peer-reviewed science. You are wrong. There is no disagreement.

Fine then, show me. Show me some "science" that show how starving yourself is good for you.

Put up or shut up, this isn't productive.

You are making the claim that a caloric deficit is detrimental to health (although you choose to call it "starving yourself" for unknown reasons, even though starvation is something completely different), the onus is on you to show evidence for that.

And I gave you links explaining the downsides. A calorie deficit diet does not guarantee fat-loss, it's more likely that your muscles break down before your fat. Your metabolism slows, making it even harder to lose weight, you'll be stuck in a vicious cycle. And finally, a big enough deficit can trigger starvation (medically) which tells your body to store fat as much as it possibly can. Meaning that as soon as you stop the diet, the weight will come right back, as fat. The proper way to lose weight is to increase the output (i.e. exercise) and eating more quality food. Not eating less.

I'm not against obtaining a calorie deficit because of more exercising or eating less sugar, I'm against having a calorie deficit diet by eating less, as the article suggests.

Hope I was more clear enough now.

Here's some more reading:

http://www.aworkoutroutine.com/how-to-lose-fat-without-losin... http://www.livestrong.com/article/518807-negative-side-effec... http://www.acaloriecounter.com/diet/daily-calorie-intake-cal...

None of the claims you just made are correct.

You did not link to scientific evidence, you linked to articles on the Internet.

Here you go. Clinical study performed at the University of Minnesota on the effects of reduced calorie intake. At least those men did lose weight.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_Starvation_Experimen...

>> None of the claims you just made are correct.

Must be fun to be able to ignore everything everyone says unless they did a Phd on the subject, while never actually presenting any arguments yourself.

That experiment does not support any of your claims.

Quoting:

>>> Among the conclusions from the study was the confirmation that prolonged semi-starvation produces significant increases in depression, hysteria and hypochondriasis

>>> Participants exhibited a preoccupation with food, both during the starvation period and the rehabilitation phase

>>> There were marked declines in physiological processes indicative of decreases in each subject’s basal metabolic rate (the energy required by the body in a state of rest), reflected in reduced body temperature, respiration and heart rate.

Depending on the amount of calorie deficit, the symptoms may not be as sever, but they are there. I don't really understand why you can't accept basic science.

A moderate caloric deficit is not starvation, however. So the experiment in question is completely unrelated to your claims. Science does not say that a caloric deficit automatically is starvation, you alone are making that claim.

>>> Science does not say that a caloric deficit automatically is starvation, you alone are making that claim

I never said that. Eating 100 calories less a day is not starvation, duh. But that diet it's not really effective at losing weight, now is it?

I know it's hard to admit being wrong on the internet, but you have no argument here.

You don't need to starve yourself to suffer from those symptoms. Your metabolism slows because it literally doesn't have the same energy to work. Meaning you'll get fat very easily. This doesn't even need a scientific paper, it's just common sense.

If you read closer, the Minnesota experiment showed that when terminating a low calorie diet the body becomes primed to gain fat FIRST before anything else. And your metabolism slows, making it extremely hard to continuously lose weight.

And most importantly, it doesn't work long-term. You can't just lose the weight, you have to stay like that.

Finally, no medical organisation recommends it unless you have a valid medical reason to do so.

http://www.webmd.com/diet/low-calorie-diets

"For people who are overweight but not obese (BMI of 27-30), very low-calorie diets should be reserved for those who have weight-related medical problems and are under medical supervision."

http://www.nhs.uk/Livewell/loseweight/Pages/very-low-calorie...

"Most people who want to lose weight do not need to eat a very low calorie diet."

My experience is different. I can go days without eating, and not suffer. Food occurs to me, but I'm not preoccupied. I work normally or with extra concentration, for longer. Fasting is the route to focus for me.

Call nutrition science if you like, but begin by admitting each experience may vary. We're not all built the same.

Yes, every person is different. But there are standards and averages and common approaches to these things. Otherwise medicine wouldn't exist since no two people have the same physiology. This is not an excuse to ignore scientific results.

Days without eating is not normal in any sense of the word.

Well, depends. For the first million years it was the norm. In a sense we're designed for it. Modern city-dwellers are all soft and weak and think they have to eat three times a day. But there's absolutely no biological reason its necessary.

That's just not true. If you are talking about hunter-gatherer societies, you'd be surprised to find out they didn't starve themselves regularly. They ate well and worked fewer hours than us, with a surprisingly high life expectancy.

"According to Sahlins, ethnographic data indicated that hunter-gatherers worked far fewer hours and enjoyed more leisure than typical members of industrial society, and they still ate well."

"Sackett found that adults in foraging and horticultural societies work, on average, about 6.5 hours a day, where as people in agricultural and industrial societies work on average 8.8 hours a day.[26]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunter-gatherer

...and Japanese farmers work 10 hours a day. What a world.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com