6 ms·

I'm not sure what you're trying to say, taken in context your post is like a non sequitur in the thread. The overwhelming consensus is that a caloric surplus c

by leshow 11y ago

I'm not sure what you're trying to say, taken in context your post is like a non sequitur in the thread. The overwhelming consensus is that a caloric surplus causes obesity (surprise! eating more than you burn causes you to gain weight) and that obesity is associated with a number of negative health effects. Nutrition is not in the 'dark ages', it's moving faster than ever. I also never brought up any weird nutrition life hacks, my statement was just that sugar is unfairly demonized when we should be pointing the finger at overconsumption. I think it's fair to say that you don't have to 'wait for science' to be settled on this issue. Consistent overconsumption of food is definitely "not good for you"

dasil003 11y ago
The problem is if you eat 100 calories of sugar you will be hungry again in 30 minutes, whereas if you eat 100 calories of protein/fat/complex carbs you will be satiated far longer. The first-law-of-thermodynamics approach is nutrition is often cited around here, but it's a trite truism that is useless in practice, and it is oft used as justification by many to eat a processed snack that puts one on a glycemic rollercoaster rather than an unprocessed item which will tend not to have the same effect. Again, as I stated in my opening sentence, I am not pinning this on you, but it was your appeal to the old calories-in-calories-out trope that compelled me to respond.
- leshow 11y ago
  "Hunger" is subjective and a completely different topic to the discussion at hand. I don't see how the knowledge that the body functions based on balancing energy is in any way useless in practice. If you're overweight, with that knowledge, you know that you are overconsuming food or under exercising and you can take appropriate steps based on that knowledge. No one is suggesting that you get all your calories from skittles, but the notion that a portion of ice cream is going to make you obese in the presence of a well balanced diet is idiotic. > processed snack that puts one on a glycemic rollercoaster rather than an unprocessed item which will tend not to have the same effect. Actually there are lots of high glycemic foods that are 'unprocessed'. Additionally if you're consuming a mixed meal (p/f/c) the glycemic index of any one food is irrelevant and tends to be evened out by the presence of the other foods. There's also not a lot of evidence that high glycemic foods are inherently bad for you, couple that with the fact that glycemic index gets 'evened out' in a mixed meal and it's one of the minutia that can be largely ignored. I find it interesting that you focus on a small detail like glycemic index and yet dismiss scientific research in general and a concept as important as conservation of energy. It just seems like you read through the thread, saw something related to total caloric intake, and felt compelled to weigh in with your personal belief on how it's an unimportant detail to be concerned about. The point was that correlation is not necessarily causation and often study methodology is overlooked when interpreting evidence.
  - dasil003 11y ago
    Your comment is fair. I definitely acknowledge you didn't deserve my trigger reaction, and yes it is a bit of a non-sequitur. Like I said, it's not about you, but just a pattern that I've seen in my years on HN and generally with many startup-types with unhealthy lifestyles. To be clear I am not dismissing scientific research, I'm saying that often times the people who cite the strongest belief in science are completely subverting the science by selectively using it to justify eating what they want to eat.

by leshow 11y ago

dasil003 11y ago

The problem is if you eat 100 calories of sugar you will be hungry again in 30 minutes, whereas if you eat 100 calories of protein/fat/complex carbs you will be satiated far longer. The first-law-of-thermodynamics approach is nutrition is often cited around here, but it's a trite truism that is useless in practice, and it is oft used as justification by many to eat a processed snack that puts one on a glycemic rollercoaster rather than an unprocessed item which will tend not to have the same effect. Again, as I stated in my opening sentence, I am not pinning this on you, but it was your appeal to the old calories-in-calories-out trope that compelled me to respond.

leshow 11y ago
"Hunger" is subjective and a completely different topic to the discussion at hand. I don't see how the knowledge that the body functions based on balancing energy is in any way useless in practice. If you're overweight, with that knowledge, you know that you are overconsuming food or under exercising and you can take appropriate steps based on that knowledge. No one is suggesting that you get all your calories from skittles, but the notion that a portion of ice cream is going to make you obese in the presence of a well balanced diet is idiotic. > processed snack that puts one on a glycemic rollercoaster rather than an unprocessed item which will tend not to have the same effect. Actually there are lots of high glycemic foods that are 'unprocessed'. Additionally if you're consuming a mixed meal (p/f/c) the glycemic index of any one food is irrelevant and tends to be evened out by the presence of the other foods. There's also not a lot of evidence that high glycemic foods are inherently bad for you, couple that with the fact that glycemic index gets 'evened out' in a mixed meal and it's one of the minutia that can be largely ignored. I find it interesting that you focus on a small detail like glycemic index and yet dismiss scientific research in general and a concept as important as conservation of energy. It just seems like you read through the thread, saw something related to total caloric intake, and felt compelled to weigh in with your personal belief on how it's an unimportant detail to be concerned about. The point was that correlation is not necessarily causation and often study methodology is overlooked when interpreting evidence.
- dasil003 11y ago
  Your comment is fair. I definitely acknowledge you didn't deserve my trigger reaction, and yes it is a bit of a non-sequitur. Like I said, it's not about you, but just a pattern that I've seen in my years on HN and generally with many startup-types with unhealthy lifestyles. To be clear I am not dismissing scientific research, I'm saying that often times the people who cite the strongest belief in science are completely subverting the science by selectively using it to justify eating what they want to eat.