8 ms·

The diet that really works

66 points by prakash 18y ago

deleted 18y ago
[deleted]
brm 18y ago
why is food always the culprit? what ever happened to just increasing the amount of exercise you do? Michael Phelps seems to be doing ok on 10,000+ calories a day This also bothers me: "But what’s different about Arthur is, first, he is not selling anything, except for subscriptions to his website."
- Tichy 18y ago
  Swimming 6 hours a day is simply not an option for everybody. Besides, even with enough exercise I would imagine that some diets would still make you sick, for example if all you ate were chocolate and ice cream. (Note that I don't advocate the low-carb diet from the article). The "not selling anything but..." bothered me too, also "Thirdly, he is very smart. His reasoning is immaculate and he knows a lot more than your average doctor or nutritionist." The doctors on TV trying to sell me on chocolate bars also look very smart...
  - brm 18y ago
    yes I agree that 6 hours is unreasonable, but 90 minutes a couple times a week would probably have people in a lot better fitness than removing all the carbs from their diet. Frankly moving up from the 0 minutes most people get to 30 minutes a couple times a week would be more beneficial to most people than a change in diet.
    - subwindow 18y ago
      And if you read the article, you would have seen: "You must have a playful, intermittent form of exercise. And you must exercise. The benefits are profound. Make it fun, intense according to your own fitness and goals, and brief. Brevity and intensity are keys. Intensity means a little burn in the muscle, not heaving and straining. Brevity means you do not release stress hormones." He agrees with you.
- gaius 18y ago
  Because, unless you are very genetically gifted and/or using steroids, there are surprisingly low limits on the amount of exercise you can do and still see gains. After 45 minutes or so cortisol (stress hormone) levels rise and a process called gluconeogenesis sets in - your body begins burning muscle tissue for energy. The net effect of this is to lower your resting metabolic rate, which is what burns most of most people's calories. Which means you can cut back on the calories you consume, train like a madman and still get fatter. 3-4 sessions of 45 minutes per week, at a decent level of intensity, is about right for most people.
  - brm 18y ago
    Let me get this straight... you're claiming that after 45 minutes of moderately intense cardiovascular exercise, most people begin to see negative fitness effects?
    - gaius 18y ago
      I don't see the phrase moderately intense cardiovascular exercise in my comment. Head on over to t-nation.com and read some of their articles on training.
      - unexpected 18y ago
        this explains why marathon runners are so fat.
        gaius 18y ago
        Heh, you see plenty of fat people at marathons, if you've ever run one, and plenty of 'em finish too.
        unexpected 18y ago
        I've read every article on t-nation, I work out >20 hours a week, and I train for triathlons and marathons. That being said, your statement is unfounded. If you're LIFTING, and lifting HEAVY, then yes, it doesn't make sense to go for more than 45 minutes, for exactly the reasons you stated. However, cardio? People will see huge cardio benefits if they run for a long time. There's no "negative fitness effect." Yes, you may burn muscle, but it's not like you're going to all together stop burning fat. In fact, when you hit glycogen depletion (the 'hitting the wall'), your body will switch energy burning modes entirely, and start burning a TON of fat. I'm nit-picky about your statement because America, as a whole is in such a crisis. We look for any excuse to get out of exercise. Those idiots at the gym lifting 10 lb weights? Do you really think they're getting a good workout? They're not lifting heavy, and they can go far longer than 45 min doing 7 lb arm curls. What about those on the treadmill, walking for 45 minutes while talking on the cell phone? As a society, we've become too used to everything being easy- we want an easy job with lots of money, we want to consume everything, and we want to be able to eat what we want, and just have the pounds come off. Losing weight is hard. It takes discipline and focus. Now, especially in the two weeks of the Olympics, we should be able to collectively get off our fat asses and look at what some Americans have been able to accomplish with a ton of hard work and sacrifice. Think Michael Phelps works out 45 min a day? All those gymnasts? Tyson Gay? So maybe you should step back, realize there's more to life than T-nation, and look at actual exercise science. T-Nation is the equivalent of looking at some IT trade magazine talking about Java applets and their Web 2.0 capabilities. Yeah, it can be done. Is it the best tool for the job? No.
- streety 18y ago
  Don't worry about the not selling anything bit. It's total nonsense. He is selling a 4 DVD set for $139.95
- enra 18y ago
  I don't agree. Calories are not treated equal and it's not only about staying not-fat eather but also promoting health. Calories are not just some unified fuel that you put in to your system. Your body needs to process different foods differently.
- scott_s 18y ago
  Michael Phelps also swims 120 miles a week. He eats 10,000+ calories a day because that's how much energy he needs to maintain weight and muscle mass.
  - mattmaroon 18y ago
    And it's not healthy long-term. His diet is designed to make him win Olympic gold in his early 20's, not to achieve a long, healthy life. The only reason any swimmers ever live past 40 is that they stop doing this well before 30.
    - scott_s 18y ago
      Clearly, when he stops swimming 120 miles a week, he needs to eat less. I doubt that's too much of a problem; some people can listen to what their bodies are telling them and eat accordingly. I can, so I bet an elite athlete can. But I'm unclear on what you think is terrible for him, long term. His diet or the training? Keep in mind his diet is what his body needs right now. I don't know what you're basing your conclusions on.
      - mattmaroon 18y ago
        Science seems to be showing that your longevity is largely based on your metabolism. It's perhaps less accurate to think of a human's average lifespan in terms of years rather than in terms of calories burned. Eating and then burning 10k calories a day probably ages you significantly faster than eating and burning 2k calories, possibly even 5x. Also, most people, including elite athletes, are very poor at listening to their bodies and eating accordingly. There's a lot more to eating than simply being hungry. It's very much a habit. Google around for the psychology of eating, it's actually mind-boggling how complex and deeply rooted in our psyche it is. (Actually, most bodily functions go a lot deeper than we think.) Ex-athletes are often very overweight specifically for that reason. They stop the exercise but not the eating.
        scott_s 18y ago
- mattmaroon 18y ago
  Let's check back in on Phelps in 20 years. If he's lucky, his current lifestyle won't have lasting effects.
  - unexpected 18y ago
    On a related note, I met someone who swam for the US team in 1996. I won't name him or his event b/c it'd be mean to identify him, but let's just say the ensuing 12 years have done absolutely horrifying things to his waistline. When I met him, I thought that there was no way he could be a swimmer!
    - mattmaroon 18y ago
      Ha, yeah. That happens to a lot of athletes. It's a lot easier to stop swimming for 6 hours a day than it is to stop eating whatever the hell you want 6 meals a day. Also there's a lot of evidence that all of that drastically increased metabolism basically burns years off of their lives.
Tichy 18y ago
I thought low-carb was already the fad of the past. From "The China Study" about high-protein diets: "And yet these books are immensely popular. Why? Because people DO lose weight, at least in the short term.[...](about a study) The first sign that all is not rosy is that these obese subjects were severely restricting their calorie intake during the study (35% fewer calories). [...](list some problems) Additionally, they found that the dieters had a stunning 53% increase in the amount of calcium they excreted in their urine, which may spell disaster for their bone health. The weight loss, some of which is simply initial fluid loss, might come with a very high price. [...](from an Australion study:) 'Complications such as heart arrhythmias, cardiac contractile function impairment, sudden death, osteoporosis, kidney damage, increased cancer risk, impairment of physical activity and lipid abnormalities can all be linked to long-term restriction of carbohydrates in the diet.'".
ars 18y ago
Blah blah blah blah blah. The entire article is just blah blah blah. The guy needs an editor to cut it to 10% of it's size. Is he paid by the word or something? He sure knows the art of saying nothing using many words. Heck I can summarize it in 2 words: Modified atkins.
- ssanders82 18y ago
  Or 2 other words: South Beach. (Which is a modified atkins diet - low carb, but doesn't advocate steak every meal.)
- eugenejen 18y ago
  I agree with you on that his article requires editing. But is this method a modified Atkins one? It requires dieters to experience not only the food that paleolithic human ates, but also the frequency of insecurity of hunger and periodic exposure to unaware danger in life. I had an old boss before who stuck to Atkins after coronary artery bypass to lose 40 lbs, but he still ate a lot, ate frequently and he hated the feeling of being hungry. The method in the article actually wants you to experience randomly meal skipping and hunger to get into the zone. I think at this point, it is different.
  - jksmith 18y ago
    Even more obvious, if you want to relive the native experience, then you've got to simulate the hunt before eating. In modern terms, get your cardio in the morning before eating breakfast. Many believe as I do that this keeps your meta rate kicked up a bit for several hours afterwards. It is great for dropping weight, at least until Kurzweil has developed v1.0 of an evolved diet technology.
    - softbuilder 18y ago
      Don't forget to occasionally under-cook your meat or forget to wash your vegetables so you get diarrhea from time to time.
- gojomo 18y ago
caglouq 18y ago
Here is the ultimate diet "Slow down on the food you like the most" ... you may add to this diet the (always right) corollary "never stop your diet"
- swombat 18y ago
  Hardly. "Slow down on the unhealthiest foods," perhaps. I love fruit. Should I slow down on fruit?
  - rob 18y ago
    Most likely yes if you're eating tons of it a day.
    - swombat 18y ago
      Nah, most fruit is not energy-dense enough to cause you that kind of trouble. There's not enough room in your stomach to become obese on fruit. If you're eating a ton of fruit a day, keep doing it! It's probably the healthiest thing you can put in your mouth.
      - tobyo 18y ago
        Fruit is not bad for you but If you combine it with other sugary food it is no good for you To be super healthy eat lean protein sources in every meal, a ton of vegetables, some fruit, and some good fats like fish oil and olive oil.
        swombat 18y ago
        Totally agree. My point was opposing the "Slow down on what you love" advice, which I think is crazy.
  - Tichy 18y ago
    I've actually read one book about "sugar addiction" where one candidate allegedly got their sugar fix from eating lots of fruit. Not sure how credible the book is, though, but I thought it was interesting. It did not say that fruits in general are bad.
swombat 18y ago
Arthur asked himself what was going on here – and, basically, decided almost everything we thought we knew about diet and metabolism was wrong. Yeah, that sounds likely. </sarcasm>
albertcardona 18y ago
Someone rediscovered the paleodiet.
josefresco 18y ago
I hereby nominate timesonline.co.uk for temporary suspension from Hacker News. Too many articles submitted recently that were poorly researched and written.
- andyjenn 18y ago
  Agreed. A terrible daily, bereft of insight or intellect in keeping with Murdoch's other rags.
vaksel 18y ago
Diet doesn't really matter, I have a horrible diet I eat anything I want, I don't deny myself anything(junk food, fast food) but I'm in good shape because I work out an hour every day and burn off the calories I gain during the day.
- swombat 18y ago
  Wait until you hit your mid-thirties and let's talk again.
  - vaksel 18y ago
    As long as your calories out => calories in, it shouldn't matter. Should it?
    - gms 18y ago
      Junk food has a lot of calories. Are you sure you're burning those off?
      - vaksel 18y ago
        well I'm 5'11 and weigh 170, so I would have to say yes?
    - orib 18y ago
      Yes. Food isn't only calories. If it was, we'd be able to live off of nothing but sugar water. Food brings in not only calories, but various other nutrients that your body needs to keep itself in good condition. It can also bring in things that the body works hard to get rid of, and still do damage while they're being removed.
      - unexpected 18y ago
        there are people that do live off sugar water! People in hospitals, people doing the master cleanse. You really only need calories. It's a terrible life, and no fun, but you could live off sugar water + a multi-vitamin.
thomasmallen 18y ago
"Eat less, move more." - Mad TV
edw519 18y ago
Much better: http://www.tbkfitness.org/ http://www.tbkfitness.org/
fendale 18y ago
I gave up on this article before I got to the 'meat' as it was too waffley ... anyway, to lose weight my best advice is to: * avoid fizzy drink as much as possible * avoid crisps (do americans call them chips?) * go easy on fried and fast food (no need to cut them out completely) * Try to cut down on alcohol, but I don't really follow my own advice here! Then * walk or cycle as much as possible * take the stairs instead of the lift for 5 floors or less * and exercise 4 or 5 times a week doing whatever you find fun. Maybe I am just lucky, but I never seem to put on any weight, and I do eat fast food and drink plenty of beer, but I do exercise a lot and cycle to work each day.
qqq 18y ago
This is why we should have topic limitations. Yeah, people will post stuff like this anyway, and I don't think we should punish them. But we also shouldn't make it officially legitimate which will encourage a higher volume of such posts. Edit: Umm, you guys like wordy articles about fad diets with bad signal/noise ratio?
mattmaroon 18y ago
This guy should have just read In Defense of Food. Not much that he says here hasn't been known for quite some time. And it's very interesting to learn exact where our diet went wrong.
defen 18y ago
Call me skeptical, but I doubt a 71 year old is capable of driving a golf ball 340 yards without some serious help from the wind.
teuobk 18y ago
"Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants." -- Michael Pollan
- mattmaroon 18y ago
  + exercise.
hussong 18y ago
I was really surprised to learn that the horny old caveman was the same guy that wrote one of the most interesting papers I came across in media economics: De Vany, Arthur & Walls, W. David, 1996. "Bose-Einstein Dynamics and Adaptive Contracting in the Motion Picture Industry," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 106(439), pages 1493-1514, November.
dejb 18y ago
We need down-voting of articles
jgamman 18y ago
OMFG - diets!!?? on HN?? good grief.
weegee 18y ago
this is a classic Atkins diet, and it will work, but it's a diet you need to stay on for the rest of your life if you want to remain lean. I'm currently addicted to carbs at the moment, and would have a real difficult time giving up beer.

66 points by prakash 18y ago

deleted 18y ago

[deleted]

brm 18y ago

why is food always the culprit? what ever happened to just increasing the amount of exercise you do? Michael Phelps seems to be doing ok on 10,000+ calories a day This also bothers me: "But what’s different about Arthur is, first, he is not selling anything, except for subscriptions to his website."

Tichy 18y ago
Swimming 6 hours a day is simply not an option for everybody. Besides, even with enough exercise I would imagine that some diets would still make you sick, for example if all you ate were chocolate and ice cream. (Note that I don't advocate the low-carb diet from the article). The "not selling anything but..." bothered me too, also "Thirdly, he is very smart. His reasoning is immaculate and he knows a lot more than your average doctor or nutritionist." The doctors on TV trying to sell me on chocolate bars also look very smart...
- brm 18y ago
  yes I agree that 6 hours is unreasonable, but 90 minutes a couple times a week would probably have people in a lot better fitness than removing all the carbs from their diet. Frankly moving up from the 0 minutes most people get to 30 minutes a couple times a week would be more beneficial to most people than a change in diet.
  - subwindow 18y ago
    And if you read the article, you would have seen: "You must have a playful, intermittent form of exercise. And you must exercise. The benefits are profound. Make it fun, intense according to your own fitness and goals, and brief. Brevity and intensity are keys. Intensity means a little burn in the muscle, not heaving and straining. Brevity means you do not release stress hormones." He agrees with you.
gaius 18y ago
Because, unless you are very genetically gifted and/or using steroids, there are surprisingly low limits on the amount of exercise you can do and still see gains. After 45 minutes or so cortisol (stress hormone) levels rise and a process called gluconeogenesis sets in - your body begins burning muscle tissue for energy. The net effect of this is to lower your resting metabolic rate, which is what burns most of most people's calories. Which means you can cut back on the calories you consume, train like a madman and still get fatter. 3-4 sessions of 45 minutes per week, at a decent level of intensity, is about right for most people.
- brm 18y ago
  Let me get this straight... you're claiming that after 45 minutes of moderately intense cardiovascular exercise, most people begin to see negative fitness effects?
  - gaius 18y ago
    I don't see the phrase moderately intense cardiovascular exercise in my comment. Head on over to t-nation.com and read some of their articles on training.
    - unexpected 18y ago
      this explains why marathon runners are so fat.
      - gaius 18y ago
        Heh, you see plenty of fat people at marathons, if you've ever run one, and plenty of 'em finish too.
        unexpected 18y ago
        I've read every article on t-nation, I work out >20 hours a week, and I train for triathlons and marathons. That being said, your statement is unfounded. If you're LIFTING, and lifting HEAVY, then yes, it doesn't make sense to go for more than 45 minutes, for exactly the reasons you stated. However, cardio? People will see huge cardio benefits if they run for a long time. There's no "negative fitness effect." Yes, you may burn muscle, but it's not like you're going to all together stop burning fat. In fact, when you hit glycogen depletion (the 'hitting the wall'), your body will switch energy burning modes entirely, and start burning a TON of fat. I'm nit-picky about your statement because America, as a whole is in such a crisis. We look for any excuse to get out of exercise. Those idiots at the gym lifting 10 lb weights? Do you really think they're getting a good workout? They're not lifting heavy, and they can go far longer than 45 min doing 7 lb arm curls. What about those on the treadmill, walking for 45 minutes while talking on the cell phone? As a society, we've become too used to everything being easy- we want an easy job with lots of money, we want to consume everything, and we want to be able to eat what we want, and just have the pounds come off. Losing weight is hard. It takes discipline and focus. Now, especially in the two weeks of the Olympics, we should be able to collectively get off our fat asses and look at what some Americans have been able to accomplish with a ton of hard work and sacrifice. Think Michael Phelps works out 45 min a day? All those gymnasts? Tyson Gay? So maybe you should step back, realize there's more to life than T-nation, and look at actual exercise science. T-Nation is the equivalent of looking at some IT trade magazine talking about Java applets and their Web 2.0 capabilities. Yeah, it can be done. Is it the best tool for the job? No.
streety 18y ago
Don't worry about the not selling anything bit. It's total nonsense. He is selling a 4 DVD set for $139.95
enra 18y ago
I don't agree. Calories are not treated equal and it's not only about staying not-fat eather but also promoting health. Calories are not just some unified fuel that you put in to your system. Your body needs to process different foods differently.
scott_s 18y ago
Michael Phelps also swims 120 miles a week. He eats 10,000+ calories a day because that's how much energy he needs to maintain weight and muscle mass.
- mattmaroon 18y ago
  And it's not healthy long-term. His diet is designed to make him win Olympic gold in his early 20's, not to achieve a long, healthy life. The only reason any swimmers ever live past 40 is that they stop doing this well before 30.
  - scott_s 18y ago
    Clearly, when he stops swimming 120 miles a week, he needs to eat less. I doubt that's too much of a problem; some people can listen to what their bodies are telling them and eat accordingly. I can, so I bet an elite athlete can. But I'm unclear on what you think is terrible for him, long term. His diet or the training? Keep in mind his diet is what his body needs right now. I don't know what you're basing your conclusions on.
    - mattmaroon 18y ago
      Science seems to be showing that your longevity is largely based on your metabolism. It's perhaps less accurate to think of a human's average lifespan in terms of years rather than in terms of calories burned. Eating and then burning 10k calories a day probably ages you significantly faster than eating and burning 2k calories, possibly even 5x. Also, most people, including elite athletes, are very poor at listening to their bodies and eating accordingly. There's a lot more to eating than simply being hungry. It's very much a habit. Google around for the psychology of eating, it's actually mind-boggling how complex and deeply rooted in our psyche it is. (Actually, most bodily functions go a lot deeper than we think.) Ex-athletes are often very overweight specifically for that reason. They stop the exercise but not the eating.
      - scott_s 18y ago
mattmaroon 18y ago
Let's check back in on Phelps in 20 years. If he's lucky, his current lifestyle won't have lasting effects.
- unexpected 18y ago
  On a related note, I met someone who swam for the US team in 1996. I won't name him or his event b/c it'd be mean to identify him, but let's just say the ensuing 12 years have done absolutely horrifying things to his waistline. When I met him, I thought that there was no way he could be a swimmer!
  - mattmaroon 18y ago
    Ha, yeah. That happens to a lot of athletes. It's a lot easier to stop swimming for 6 hours a day than it is to stop eating whatever the hell you want 6 meals a day. Also there's a lot of evidence that all of that drastically increased metabolism basically burns years off of their lives.

Tichy 18y ago

I thought low-carb was already the fad of the past. From "The China Study" about high-protein diets: "And yet these books are immensely popular. Why? Because people DO lose weight, at least in the short term.[...](about a study) The first sign that all is not rosy is that these obese subjects were severely restricting their calorie intake during the study (35% fewer calories). [...](list some problems) Additionally, they found that the dieters had a stunning 53% increase in the amount of calcium they excreted in their urine, which may spell disaster for their bone health. The weight loss, some of which is simply initial fluid loss, might come with a very high price. [...](from an Australion study:) 'Complications such as heart arrhythmias, cardiac contractile function impairment, sudden death, osteoporosis, kidney damage, increased cancer risk, impairment of physical activity and lipid abnormalities can all be linked to long-term restriction of carbohydrates in the diet.'".

ars 18y ago

Blah blah blah blah blah. The entire article is just blah blah blah. The guy needs an editor to cut it to 10% of it's size. Is he paid by the word or something? He sure knows the art of saying nothing using many words. Heck I can summarize it in 2 words: Modified atkins.

ssanders82 18y ago
Or 2 other words: South Beach. (Which is a modified atkins diet - low carb, but doesn't advocate steak every meal.)
eugenejen 18y ago
I agree with you on that his article requires editing. But is this method a modified Atkins one? It requires dieters to experience not only the food that paleolithic human ates, but also the frequency of insecurity of hunger and periodic exposure to unaware danger in life. I had an old boss before who stuck to Atkins after coronary artery bypass to lose 40 lbs, but he still ate a lot, ate frequently and he hated the feeling of being hungry. The method in the article actually wants you to experience randomly meal skipping and hunger to get into the zone. I think at this point, it is different.
- jksmith 18y ago
  Even more obvious, if you want to relive the native experience, then you've got to simulate the hunt before eating. In modern terms, get your cardio in the morning before eating breakfast. Many believe as I do that this keeps your meta rate kicked up a bit for several hours afterwards. It is great for dropping weight, at least until Kurzweil has developed v1.0 of an evolved diet technology.
  - softbuilder 18y ago
    Don't forget to occasionally under-cook your meat or forget to wash your vegetables so you get diarrhea from time to time.
gojomo 18y ago

caglouq 18y ago

Here is the ultimate diet "Slow down on the food you like the most" ... you may add to this diet the (always right) corollary "never stop your diet"

swombat 18y ago
Hardly. "Slow down on the unhealthiest foods," perhaps. I love fruit. Should I slow down on fruit?
- rob 18y ago
  Most likely yes if you're eating tons of it a day.
  - swombat 18y ago
    Nah, most fruit is not energy-dense enough to cause you that kind of trouble. There's not enough room in your stomach to become obese on fruit. If you're eating a ton of fruit a day, keep doing it! It's probably the healthiest thing you can put in your mouth.
    - tobyo 18y ago
      Fruit is not bad for you but If you combine it with other sugary food it is no good for you To be super healthy eat lean protein sources in every meal, a ton of vegetables, some fruit, and some good fats like fish oil and olive oil.
      - swombat 18y ago
        Totally agree. My point was opposing the "Slow down on what you love" advice, which I think is crazy.
- Tichy 18y ago
  I've actually read one book about "sugar addiction" where one candidate allegedly got their sugar fix from eating lots of fruit. Not sure how credible the book is, though, but I thought it was interesting. It did not say that fruits in general are bad.

swombat 18y ago

Arthur asked himself what was going on here – and, basically, decided almost everything we thought we knew about diet and metabolism was wrong. Yeah, that sounds likely. </sarcasm>

albertcardona 18y ago

Someone rediscovered the paleodiet.

josefresco 18y ago

I hereby nominate timesonline.co.uk for temporary suspension from Hacker News. Too many articles submitted recently that were poorly researched and written.

andyjenn 18y ago
Agreed. A terrible daily, bereft of insight or intellect in keeping with Murdoch's other rags.

vaksel 18y ago

Diet doesn't really matter, I have a horrible diet I eat anything I want, I don't deny myself anything(junk food, fast food) but I'm in good shape because I work out an hour every day and burn off the calories I gain during the day.

swombat 18y ago
Wait until you hit your mid-thirties and let's talk again.
- vaksel 18y ago
  As long as your calories out => calories in, it shouldn't matter. Should it?
  - gms 18y ago
    Junk food has a lot of calories. Are you sure you're burning those off?
    - vaksel 18y ago
      well I'm 5'11 and weigh 170, so I would have to say yes?
  - orib 18y ago
    Yes. Food isn't only calories. If it was, we'd be able to live off of nothing but sugar water. Food brings in not only calories, but various other nutrients that your body needs to keep itself in good condition. It can also bring in things that the body works hard to get rid of, and still do damage while they're being removed.
    - unexpected 18y ago
      there are people that do live off sugar water! People in hospitals, people doing the master cleanse. You really only need calories. It's a terrible life, and no fun, but you could live off sugar water + a multi-vitamin.

thomasmallen 18y ago

"Eat less, move more." - Mad TV

edw519 18y ago

Much better: http://www.tbkfitness.org/ http://www.tbkfitness.org/

fendale 18y ago

I gave up on this article before I got to the 'meat' as it was too waffley ... anyway, to lose weight my best advice is to: * avoid fizzy drink as much as possible * avoid crisps (do americans call them chips?) * go easy on fried and fast food (no need to cut them out completely) * Try to cut down on alcohol, but I don't really follow my own advice here! Then * walk or cycle as much as possible * take the stairs instead of the lift for 5 floors or less * and exercise 4 or 5 times a week doing whatever you find fun. Maybe I am just lucky, but I never seem to put on any weight, and I do eat fast food and drink plenty of beer, but I do exercise a lot and cycle to work each day.

qqq 18y ago

This is why we should have topic limitations. Yeah, people will post stuff like this anyway, and I don't think we should punish them. But we also shouldn't make it officially legitimate which will encourage a higher volume of such posts. Edit: Umm, you guys like wordy articles about fad diets with bad signal/noise ratio?

mattmaroon 18y ago

This guy should have just read In Defense of Food. Not much that he says here hasn't been known for quite some time. And it's very interesting to learn exact where our diet went wrong.

defen 18y ago

Call me skeptical, but I doubt a 71 year old is capable of driving a golf ball 340 yards without some serious help from the wind.

teuobk 18y ago

"Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants." -- Michael Pollan

mattmaroon 18y ago
+ exercise.

hussong 18y ago

I was really surprised to learn that the horny old caveman was the same guy that wrote one of the most interesting papers I came across in media economics: De Vany, Arthur & Walls, W. David, 1996. "Bose-Einstein Dynamics and Adaptive Contracting in the Motion Picture Industry," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 106(439), pages 1493-1514, November.

dejb 18y ago

We need down-voting of articles

jgamman 18y ago

OMFG - diets!!?? on HN?? good grief.

weegee 18y ago

this is a classic Atkins diet, and it will work, but it's a diet you need to stay on for the rest of your life if you want to remain lean. I'm currently addicted to carbs at the moment, and would have a real difficult time giving up beer.