10 ms·

From reading the article I get the impression that the author isn't that familiar with the scientific literature at all. The evidence he presents against the u

by xiaoma 14y ago

From reading the article I get the impression that the author isn't that familiar with the scientific literature at all. The evidence he presents against the usefulness of cardio for weight loss compares a group of weightlifters against a group of runners who ran only 20km per week and they still lost marginally more weight than the weightlifters! Cardio really should be a minimum of an hour per day, at least 5 days a week if weight control is the goal. Health benefits accrue much sooner, though. Science certainly hasn't weighed in on favor of high protein diets or abandoning cardio unless you cherry pick specific smaller studies to get what you're looking for. On the other hand there are HUGE studies supporting cardio, both for weight loss and for health. I've written about this many times before on HN: According to the 32,000 person study in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition (1999), "fit persons with any combination of smoking, elevated blood pressure, or elevated cholesterol level had lower adjusted death rates than low-fit persons with none of these characteristics". The same study found that aerobic fitness had a far more important impact on longevity than obesity did. Fantastic Voyage, Kurzweil and Grossman, Chapter 22. Here's a report on a study that monitored over 100,000 people: Paul Williams, Ph.D., author of the study, found that men who ran two or more marathons per year were 41 percent less likely to suffer from high blood pressure, 32 percent less likely to have high cholesterol, and 87 percent less likely to be diabetic than non-marathoners. Those who ran only one marathon every two to five years also had significantly lower risk for these conditions than non-marathoners. The benefits of running marathons were largely independent of total number of miles run per year by participants, indicating that isolated distance running bouts in preparation for marathons may have been effective in decreasing risk of disease. Even runners who didn't run marathons - those who included longer runs as part of their usual exercise routines - were less likely to have high blood pressure, diabetes, or high cholesterol. http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/140104.php http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/140104.php Here's a different piece on how regular hour-long runs stimulate neurogenesis and memory improvements in middle aged humans: http://www.dana.org/news/brainwork/detail.aspx?id=7374 http://www.dana.org/news/brainwork/detail.aspx?id=7374 Distance running is one of the most beneficial things you can do for yourself. Racing marathons can be reasonably low-risk with sufficient training, but it's the training that gives benefits. In terms of life expectancy, endurance athletes such as marathoners and cross-country skiers live about 2 years longer than sprinters, 4 years longer than power lifters and 6 years longer than the general populace. (warning- small sample sized case study) http://www.mdconsult.com/das/citation/body/163630869-2/jorg=.. http://www.mdconsult.com/das/citation/body/163630869-2/jorg=.... Recommended food for thought for those convinced that low-carb is the optimal diet: Why is it that both Atkins and Taubes got so fat on very low carb diets while Japanese people traditionally ate (and many still do eat) rice at every single mean, lunch, breakfast and dinner? Maybe a bunch of high protein eating redditors don't have all the answers. http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2008/07/15/the-never-ending-diet-wars.html http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2008/07/15/the-never-e... http://www.paleopharm.com/what-if-gary-taubes-is-a-big-fat-liar/ http://www.paleopharm.com/what-if-gary-taubes-is-a-big-fat-l... http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/03/16/no-surprise-meat-is-bad-for-you/ http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/03/16/no-surprise-... My own personal experiences are largely irrelevant, but FWIW the leanest and fittest I ever was, I was getting nearly 80% of my calories from carbs. And the time in my life I gained the most, I was only getting closer to 20% of my calories from carbs. I can respect someone who encourages testing, a la Seth Roberts' "n=1 studies". I can't respect someone who puts up a few blog posts and claims to know more than the entire medical establishment. Americans are more into protein and more into weightlifting than any other nation I've ever seen. And while there are a number of muscled-bound guys strutting around, there are a whole lot more fat people buying into the same pop weight-loss ideologies.

StavrosK 14y ago
> Why is it that both Atkins and Taubes got so fat on very low carb diets while Japanese people traditionally ate (and many still do eat) rice at every single mean, lunch, breakfast and dinner? Because eating a lot will make you fat, and eating a little will make you thin. Whether you eat proteins, fat or carbs, you can gain or lose weight depending on how much you eat. I haven't studied it very much, but just eating less works for me.
- fingerprinter 14y ago
  No way. Try getting fat eating just protein. It is so incredibly hard. Just try it. Now, try getting fat eating nothing but fat+protein. Hard, but much easier than just protein. Now, try getting fat eating just carbs. Easy. Now, try getting fat eating carbs+anything. Easy. A "calorie is a calorie" isn't true now and never has been. It was a very simple model. Our understanding has changed and we now know much more. For instance, there are hormonal changes that come from eating the above (re: hgh secretion, testosterone production (both up and down) and insulin (which we knew all along)). Eating little does help you lose weight, but the key is the word 'weight'. If you are beyond trying to just be a certain number on a scale and care about things like muscle, performance, body fat percentage or how you look, there are other things to consider. For instance, trying to build muscle? Eat protein+carbs post working out heavy with weights. Do not eat carbs before you workout. Which means, fat+protein only before a workout. Trying to lose fat? Have a long way to go? (say upper teens+ in body fat). Do very low carb (protein+fat+veggies like broccoli) for 6.5 days a week. The evening of the 7th day, eat protein+carbs (the carb refeed). do this until you like what you see in the mirror. (this is a muscle sparring approach). Just trying to live a normal life and don't care about the two above (and you don't exercise much)? Generally restrict carbs to around 100g a day MAX. You aren't using them, so your body doesn't need them. If you keep giving your body carbs it doesn't need, overtime you'll get fatter. Play with the number of carbs a day, but know this is the one dial you have. You'll have much better results with this than lowering the total calories.
  - papa_bear 14y ago
    The first part of your comment isn't exclusive to "a calorie is a calorie." Protein has been shown to be more satiating than either fat or carbs, and the low blood sugar following an insulin spike from a high glycemic, carb heavy meal will strongly promote hunger. If you can manage to eat a ton of carb and protein calories, you will probably lose some water weight initially, but overall stay the same relative to other macronutrient distributions.

by xiaoma 14y ago

StavrosK 14y ago

> Why is it that both Atkins and Taubes got so fat on very low carb diets while Japanese people traditionally ate (and many still do eat) rice at every single mean, lunch, breakfast and dinner? Because eating a lot will make you fat, and eating a little will make you thin. Whether you eat proteins, fat or carbs, you can gain or lose weight depending on how much you eat. I haven't studied it very much, but just eating less works for me.

fingerprinter 14y ago
No way. Try getting fat eating just protein. It is so incredibly hard. Just try it. Now, try getting fat eating nothing but fat+protein. Hard, but much easier than just protein. Now, try getting fat eating just carbs. Easy. Now, try getting fat eating carbs+anything. Easy. A "calorie is a calorie" isn't true now and never has been. It was a very simple model. Our understanding has changed and we now know much more. For instance, there are hormonal changes that come from eating the above (re: hgh secretion, testosterone production (both up and down) and insulin (which we knew all along)). Eating little does help you lose weight, but the key is the word 'weight'. If you are beyond trying to just be a certain number on a scale and care about things like muscle, performance, body fat percentage or how you look, there are other things to consider. For instance, trying to build muscle? Eat protein+carbs post working out heavy with weights. Do not eat carbs before you workout. Which means, fat+protein only before a workout. Trying to lose fat? Have a long way to go? (say upper teens+ in body fat). Do very low carb (protein+fat+veggies like broccoli) for 6.5 days a week. The evening of the 7th day, eat protein+carbs (the carb refeed). do this until you like what you see in the mirror. (this is a muscle sparring approach). Just trying to live a normal life and don't care about the two above (and you don't exercise much)? Generally restrict carbs to around 100g a day MAX. You aren't using them, so your body doesn't need them. If you keep giving your body carbs it doesn't need, overtime you'll get fatter. Play with the number of carbs a day, but know this is the one dial you have. You'll have much better results with this than lowering the total calories.
- papa_bear 14y ago
  The first part of your comment isn't exclusive to "a calorie is a calorie." Protein has been shown to be more satiating than either fat or carbs, and the low blood sugar following an insulin spike from a high glycemic, carb heavy meal will strongly promote hunger. If you can manage to eat a ton of carb and protein calories, you will probably lose some water weight initially, but overall stay the same relative to other macronutrient distributions.