4 ms·

seriously, what's with you guys? I lost 75 pounds in 6 months. I couldn't have made my blog post about that more Hacker News bait than it already was. I know a

seriously, what's with you guys? I lost 75 pounds in 6 months. I couldn't have made my blog post about that more Hacker News bait than it already was. I know a lot of you saw it. and still the ratio of people talking about it to people doing it is like 10,000 to 1. and you'd still rather debate some tangentially relevant research. google "Dr Joel Fuhrman." I lost 100 points of cholesterol in three months. 75 pounds in six months. all you do is you eat vegetables. there's a little more to it, but not much. it's easy. the guy has reams of case studies and science backing him up. my 100-point cholestrol dip barely even blipped on his radar personally - didn't even raise his eyebrows - because he sees it all the time, but just for comparison, my dad and my uncle both got 100-point drops in their cholesterol too, over the course of ten years, and their cardiologists were happy, because normal nutrition is so bad that ten years is an acceptable time frame for that. so: ten years' progress in two months' time. seriously, this is a solved problem. this is like, "let's figure out how to get a computer into every home and office in America." they're already there! why are you trying to answer a solved problem? you could spend your whole life debunking invalid theories, or you could just find the theory that works and run with it. which sounds like a more effective use of time?

pohl 17y ago
I think it's pretty clear from your rant that you did not watch the presentation. The submitter did a great disservice to the speaker by framing this presentation as a debunking of the calories in/out model, because that is not, at all, the central point of this lecture. (I have watched it through twice now, and it is a phenomenal presentation; I recommend it highly.) In no way does the speaker attempt to turn thermodynamics on its head. Rather, he suggests that the storage of fat be perceived as the primary driver, and caloric intake & expenditure taking a back seat. He re-frames it this way because the real central thesis is about how fructose is a driver of obesity, which in turn leads to increased consumption. The caloric in/out slide only serves as motivation for why we should be wary of the fact that fructose is a chronic toxin (in particular, the effects thereof), and how HFCS is an economic evil as much as a metabolic one. It's ok to rail against the headline, though. The submitter took too much out of one slide, in my opinion.

pohl 17y ago

I think it's pretty clear from your rant that you did not watch the presentation. The submitter did a great disservice to the speaker by framing this presentation as a debunking of the calories in/out model, because that is not, at all, the central point of this lecture. (I have watched it through twice now, and it is a phenomenal presentation; I recommend it highly.) In no way does the speaker attempt to turn thermodynamics on its head. Rather, he suggests that the storage of fat be perceived as the primary driver, and caloric intake & expenditure taking a back seat. He re-frames it this way because the real central thesis is about how fructose is a driver of obesity, which in turn leads to increased consumption. The caloric in/out slide only serves as motivation for why we should be wary of the fact that fructose is a chronic toxin (in particular, the effects thereof), and how HFCS is an economic evil as much as a metabolic one. It's ok to rail against the headline, though. The submitter took too much out of one slide, in my opinion.