4 ms·

From all I've seen, the only scientific assumptions derived from current experimental data are: 1. Calories in/out control weight 2. Not everyone's digestive

From all I've seen, the only scientific assumptions derived from current experimental data are: 1. Calories in/out control weight 2. Not everyone's digestive system is exactly the same, thus some small variance exists in how many calories we each absorb from various foods. This variance is very small, but maybe some exceptional outliers exist with very strange conditions here that could dramatically affect digestion. Don't justify your weight on this, you are most likely not the outlier and are just eating too much :p 3. Insulin levels and other hormonal conditions could affect the ability to lose fat. Again, this assumes major imbalance, most likely due to medical conditions like diabetes or hashimoto, etc. 4. The body needs what it needs. So a diet is more than just weight loss. You need a balanced diet, not necessarily balanced in foods, but you do in nutrients. It doesn't take much of anything though. 5. Certain foods have extra curricular effects that can be good or bad. It really depends in the food and your body. Intolerance, allergies, carcinogens, antioxidants, and many others. You can think of food as medication that is micro dosed, and with possibly immeasurable long term effects. Also, it does seem that trans fat affect heart disease, as well as sugars. And it is the interaction between both which creates a high risk scenario. That's why both diets work. Ideally, you even cut out both, which is what Keto often does, it favour healthy fats and cut out sugars. P.S.: Sorry, I wish I could put down my sources, but I wasn't keeping track. This is the current synthesis from memory of the many studies I read over time for fun in the last 3/4 years.

korm 7y ago
You are correct. HN is strangely disappointing when it comes to health and nutrition. Somehow science and evidence isn't as important as anecdotes and guru-talk. Here's a link backing up your claims, including how metabolism and the thyroid affects weight gain in the Related Links https://examine.com/nutrition/low-fat-vs-low-carb-for-weight-loss/ https://examine.com/nutrition/low-fat-vs-low-carb-for-weight...
MegaDeKay 7y ago
Please take my upvote. I don't understand why some on HN keep trying to equate "a calorie is a calorie" with nutrition and satiety. The first is a unit of energy and the other two are not. It is that simple. I do 16:8 Intermittent Fasting. Are there health benefits to it? Maybe. But I know for sure that if I want to drop a bit of weight, this style of eating makes it a lot easier for me for reasons of hunger more than anything: I'm not that hungry until I eat. I also know for sure that I like eating big. If I have a couple small meals early on, I can have a great big meal near the end of my window as if I were a lion taking down a zebra.
- ordinaryperson 7y ago
  Who's equating caloric intake with nutrition and satiety? My point is people who have successfully adopted a particular technique for reducing their caloric intake (fasting, kale, smoothies, veganism, omega 3 acids, etc) are disguising the underlying process that's conferring most of the health benefits they're seeing: which is weight loss. How many stories have you read out there about Secret Diet X that does all sorts of allegedly amazing things for you? Paleo diet. Veganism. Atkins diet. The Zone diet. The Dukan diet. And on and on. There are many strategies for reducing caloric intake and if 16:8 fasting works for you: fantastic. But at the end of the day most people will improve their health through weight loss, not some special ritual or ingredient, and I think we should be cautious before crowning specific calorie reduction techniques as having special or more beneficial properties unless there is clear scientific evidence for them.
  - 0x8BADF00D 7y ago
    > There are many strategies for reducing caloric intake and if 16:8 fasting works for you: fantastic. But at the end of the day most people will improve their health through weight loss, not some special ritual or ingredient, and I think we should be cautious before crowning specific calorie reduction techniques as having special or more beneficial properties unless there is clear scientific evidence for them. Fasting when you are obese is different too. On average, you will burn more fat than muscle. Mainly because your body composition is primarily fat (i.e. 38% body fat).
  - MegaDeKay 7y ago
    > Who's equating caloric intake with nutrition and satiety? Well, jonwinstanley above, for one. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ > No, calories vary massively. If someone ate 2000 calories of vegetables each day and someone else ate 2000 calories of sugar there would be a huge amount of difference between their nutrition.
    - jonwinstanley 7y ago
      I think one thing we can take from this discussion is that people's opinions on diet, calories, fat, carbs, health etc varies wildly!
tchaffee 7y ago
You are likely underestimating the effect food has on the digestive system. Especially wrt to what lives there. Add fecal transplants to your research. If what bacteria live in the gut can sometimes cure depression, we should be paying far more attention to what we feed our gut bacteria. It's our second brain and science is just now starting to discover how it all works.

korm 7y ago

You are correct. HN is strangely disappointing when it comes to health and nutrition. Somehow science and evidence isn't as important as anecdotes and guru-talk. Here's a link backing up your claims, including how metabolism and the thyroid affects weight gain in the Related Links https://examine.com/nutrition/low-fat-vs-low-carb-for-weight-loss/ https://examine.com/nutrition/low-fat-vs-low-carb-for-weight...

MegaDeKay 7y ago

Please take my upvote. I don't understand why some on HN keep trying to equate "a calorie is a calorie" with nutrition and satiety. The first is a unit of energy and the other two are not. It is that simple. I do 16:8 Intermittent Fasting. Are there health benefits to it? Maybe. But I know for sure that if I want to drop a bit of weight, this style of eating makes it a lot easier for me for reasons of hunger more than anything: I'm not that hungry until I eat. I also know for sure that I like eating big. If I have a couple small meals early on, I can have a great big meal near the end of my window as if I were a lion taking down a zebra.

ordinaryperson 7y ago
Who's equating caloric intake with nutrition and satiety? My point is people who have successfully adopted a particular technique for reducing their caloric intake (fasting, kale, smoothies, veganism, omega 3 acids, etc) are disguising the underlying process that's conferring most of the health benefits they're seeing: which is weight loss. How many stories have you read out there about Secret Diet X that does all sorts of allegedly amazing things for you? Paleo diet. Veganism. Atkins diet. The Zone diet. The Dukan diet. And on and on. There are many strategies for reducing caloric intake and if 16:8 fasting works for you: fantastic. But at the end of the day most people will improve their health through weight loss, not some special ritual or ingredient, and I think we should be cautious before crowning specific calorie reduction techniques as having special or more beneficial properties unless there is clear scientific evidence for them.
- 0x8BADF00D 7y ago
  > There are many strategies for reducing caloric intake and if 16:8 fasting works for you: fantastic. But at the end of the day most people will improve their health through weight loss, not some special ritual or ingredient, and I think we should be cautious before crowning specific calorie reduction techniques as having special or more beneficial properties unless there is clear scientific evidence for them. Fasting when you are obese is different too. On average, you will burn more fat than muscle. Mainly because your body composition is primarily fat (i.e. 38% body fat).
- MegaDeKay 7y ago
  > Who's equating caloric intake with nutrition and satiety? Well, jonwinstanley above, for one. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ > No, calories vary massively. If someone ate 2000 calories of vegetables each day and someone else ate 2000 calories of sugar there would be a huge amount of difference between their nutrition.
  - jonwinstanley 7y ago
    I think one thing we can take from this discussion is that people's opinions on diet, calories, fat, carbs, health etc varies wildly!

tchaffee 7y ago

You are likely underestimating the effect food has on the digestive system. Especially wrt to what lives there. Add fecal transplants to your research. If what bacteria live in the gut can sometimes cure depression, we should be paying far more attention to what we feed our gut bacteria. It's our second brain and science is just now starting to discover how it all works.