10 ms·

Eating for Health, Not Weight

108 points by rhollos 14y ago

Diamons 14y ago
Sometimes it just doesn't work, no matter what. Sometimes you're just meant to be big. I am a former wrestling local city champion, currently a kickboxer, and also practicing jujitsu. I move fast and sprint like I'm 140 pounds, I can roundhouse kick someone that's 5'9 in the head, and I'm almost at a split. I can do 50 pushups, 12 pullups, once ran 8 miles, and have done high intensity cardio 5 days a week for 2 hours everyday. Yet I'm 250 pounds and a huge gut. My diet? Eggs, veggies, rice, fruits. No sugar at all, and yet I have not been able to lose weight for the past 2 - 3 years. I have slowly watched the scale climb up no matter how many calories I cut or how many carbs I don't eat. Sometimes you just can't fight your body and you're meant to be who you are.
- oftenwrong 14y ago
  Do you track what you eat? I would be interested to see what your average week of food is like.
- andyakb 14y ago
  Without logging your caloric intake (no estimates, logging everything you eat as it actually is), it is very easy to convince yourself you arent eatng too many calories. Hoewever, for practical matters, if you do not have a significant health issue, if you eat less calories than your body burns you will lose weight. In the vast majority of cases, it really is that simple. Find an app or website that is easy for you to use and try logging all your food (include snacks and things that you may consider to be "little"). Figure out based on your weight and activity level (be conservative) what you need to eat to lose 1-2 pounds a week and hit the goals If you do this honestly for an extended period of time, you will lose weight.
  - littledude 14y ago
    yes buy a gram scale and keep it on your kitchen counter then use http://www.myfitnesspal.com/ http://www.myfitnesspal.com/ or http://www.fatsecret.com/ http://www.fatsecret.com/ to measure all food best investment i;ve made trying to put on muscle
- taligent 14y ago
  You do know that rice/fruits get converted into sugar, right ? If you switched to just vegies and meat I guarantee you would lose weight.
  - malsme 14y ago
    In addition to this, it's worth noting that not all calories are created equally. If you process your food to make juices, smoothies etc (or buy it already processed), then you'll get a greater, more immediate hit of energy than if your body broke it down itself. http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/2012/08/27/the-hidden-truths-about-calories/ http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/2012/08/27/th...
    - charliepark 14y ago
      But you also end up getting all of the fructose and none of the fiber, which your body needs for processing the fruit without the sugar hit. Lustig: "When god made the poison, he packaged it with the antidote."
- enraged_camel 14y ago
  >>Sometimes it just doesn't work, no matter what. Sometimes you're just meant to be big. The only people who are "meant to be big" are those with hormonal imbalances. And even then, modern medicine can address most of their problems. >>Sometimes you just can't fight your body and you're meant to be who you are. It's true that you can't fight your body if you eat more calories than you consume. I noticed that the only part of your diet you listed was the type of food you eat. What about amount? Do you weigh your food, or have some other type of calorie estimation method? If not, you'll eat like a pig (especially at your activity level) and never realize it.
  - dasil003 14y ago
    > The only people who are "meant to be big" are those with hormonal imbalances. And even then, modern medicine can address most of their problems. Apparently you don't watch rugby.
    - enraged_camel 14y ago
      What does that even mean? Rugby players are big because they want to be big, not because they can't help it.
      - dasil003 14y ago
        How can you possibly believe there is no genetic component in professional athletics?
- thenomad 14y ago
  On the up side, it would seem from recent evidence that you're probably not at too much risk health-wise. High cardiovascular fitness seems (from a lot of studies, at least - IANAD) to correlate better with positive health outcomes than low BMI. And on a side note - speaking as a fellow martial artist with flexibility problems, I'm envious of your flexibility!
- etherspin 14y ago
  have you had a period where you blew out and perhaps multiplied the actual number of fat cells in your body ? I wonder if liposuction could be productive to lower the fat cell count back to something more manageable if so ? and like the other poster,maybe drop the fruit a bit lower just to see if it helps but of course go straight back on if no benefit as fruit is excellent
- elliott99 14y ago
  You need to get your thyroid checked. Diet and exercise are 100% effective at fat loss PRECONDITIONED UPON your hormones being not out of whack.
scythe 14y ago
So the major factor here is generally proposed to be dietary fiber. People on a high-fiber diet are healthy, and that's really the major separating variable between laboratory diets like the one in this article and real diets that make you fat. Going off the description of dishes in the article, I'd estimate the subjects had a daily fiber consumption of 40-60 grams, most of it soluble. Studies that look at meat consumption generally do not control for fiber, though they usually mention the correlation in many populations between increased meat consumption and less fiber consumption. Of course there are correlations with fiber and CAD and cholesterol. But we already knew that. It's a rather significant confounding factor when anyone uses an extremely high-fiber test diet to argue for the health value of various other characteristics of said diet. This author does it all over the place. Frankly, a mere 12 pound loss over five years may not really be too impressive, depending on where they're starting. I imagine Mark Sisson could post better results than that. Similarly, I imagine the guy who wrote The China Study could post better results than that... most diets will! What they've got statistically significant, but pretty much any diet that cuts out processed foods alone will show statistically significant changes... The sole really impressive thing is the prostate cancer improvements: but there are too many confounding factors to determine what, precisely, is causing the improvements. Maybe there's some anticancer compound in a vegetable emphasized in the diet. Diindolylmethane comes to mind, or beta-caryophyllene.
- jnhnum1 14y ago
  Do you have any sources to support dietary fiber as the real causal factor, as opposed to other diet / lifestyle variables?
- tocomment 14y ago
  Is it worth taking fiber supplements? It seems tough to get enough fiber even with some fruits and vegetables every day.
  - debacle 14y ago
    I take ~2 grams of metamucil, in tablet form, once a day. It's ~1/4th the recommended dosage for people who are using it as a suppliment, however it is inexpensive and helps me make sure I get at least some fiber (I eat on a very erratic schedule). However, IIRC two stalks of Celery will give you more fiber.
dlytle 14y ago
I've personally lost 35 pounds in 5 months on keto, and I've had all my cholesterol levels drop, along with my blood pressure. (Which probably has more to do with my weight loss than the meat-based diet.) I literally can't lose weight while eating any amount of carbs; I ate 1250 calories a day for 2 months, lost 5 pounds, and was miserable. (Yes, 1250. I was super anal about calorie counting, and only drank water + black coffee. It sucked.) The long and short of it is that every person has a slightly different combination of body chemistry quirks, so there's never really a one-size-fits-all method for losing weight. You've got to find something that works for you, considering both weight reduction and quality of life. If I didn't love meat so much, I'd probably be in a tough situation.
- somesaba 14y ago
  What you did was not a healthy way to lose weight and unless you make a LIFESTYLE change that you can live with for the rest of your life then you will find yourself repeatedly using this starvation technique to lose weight unhealthily. Find something sustainable, keto is not sustainable for most people, and especially not at 1250Calories...
  - omgsean 14y ago
    I think you misread the comment. Ketogenic was one diet, 1250kcal/day was another. I lost a significant amount of weight on a ketogenic diet as well but it's been about a year and a half and it's hard to keep away from those carbs...
    - taligent 14y ago
      Getting into a keto state is by the far the fastest and most reliable way to lose weight. Probably also hard to maintain as it can be hard to get that full feeling like you do with carbs. It is the same diet which professional bodybuilders use. And they know EVERYTHING about how to lose weight since every % of body fat they lose can make a massive difference in muscle definition.
      - deleted 14y ago
fingerprinter 14y ago
This is just a terrible, terrible article. It's not actually saying anything. Here is how I've looked at this and I think most people would do well to do the same. What are your goals? Are you obese and looking to lose a massive amount of weight? Are you a bit overweight and looking to lose the last 10 lbs? Are you looking to "look better naked"? Are you looking to gain muscle? Are you looking to get better at x, y or z sport? Are you looking to just have a decent lifestyle? Are you looking to maximize your lifespan? There are others, but you get the idea. Without knowing the goal, you can't know how to eat. There are quite different approaches to all of the above and if you just choose one approach, it probably won't be optimal for the goal you have. I hate articles like this, they paint every approach with the same brush and you can't possibly do that. Know your freakin' goal and then optimize your eating to support that goal. If anyone wants some suggestions on what/how to eat, just state your goal and we an riff from there. It really isn't that tough.
- SideburnsOfDoom 14y ago
  > What are your goals? I think the point is that in the short term goals can vary a lot (e.g. "obese and looking to lose a massive amount of weight" vs wanting to tone up) but in the long term they converge on having a long, healthy life.
- edtechdev 14y ago
  I guess you didn't read much of the article - the goal is stated in the title. There's a ton of stuff out there on plant-based diets like the one described here. See the video Forks Over Knives on Netflix.
jvoorhis 14y ago
This: "WHAT you eat is as important as what you exclude — your diet needs to be high in healthful carbs like fruits, vegetables, whole grains, legumes, soy products in natural, unrefined forms and some fish, like salmon. There are hundreds of thousands of health-enhancing substances in these foods. And what’s good for you is good for the planet." can't possibly be right for everyone. I've read (and read the debunking of) plenty of points of view, but I'm fairly sure a soy-based diet isn't right for me, and all of the neatly packaged dietary points of view (keto, Sisson, Mediterranean, Weston Price, veg-*) aren't universal. Nutrition still has a long way to go, and this reads like a brochure.
- manmal 14y ago
  Yep. Grains is proven to be suboptimal, causing inflammation in the intestines and the rest of the body (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2821887/ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2821887/). And soy acts like estrogen in one's body, not exactly what I would like - it might even be that this is the reason for less prostate cancers (prostate cancer patients are even given estrogen as treatment). I do agree though that low-carb diets don't cut it health-wise, omitting fruit entirely just does not seem right, considering humans have always eaten them. Also, eating immense amounts of red meat seems to be related to all sorts of illnesses. I have adapted another view: If it's fresh and organic, it can't be wrong, and the occasional rice bowl or apple is cool. Junk food or processed food containing transfats or shredded soy should be restricted (like, one day per week). UPDATE: Processed food is literally everywhere if you don't cook yourself - most restaurants use ready-made "components" to achieve speedier meal preparation. I think it's hard (or expensive) for people eating out to get a healthy meal, especially in the US.
  - chokma 14y ago
    > Grains is proven to be suboptimal, causing inflammation in the intestines and the rest of the body (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2821887/ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2821887/). From the study, it is refined grains that are problematic, while whole grains are recommended: "In conclusion, whole grain consumption may be related to lower circulating plasma concentrations of PAI-1 and CRP, which in turn could lower the risk of type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease. These findings suggest that the protectiveness of whole grains in relation to type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease may be due to an effect on plasma inflammatory protein concentrations and reinforces the public health recommendations that whole grains be consumed daily as part of a healthy diet. Refined grain intakes were positively associated with PAI-1 concentrations, indicating that refined grain intake could have proinflammatory effects."
Nav_Panel 14y ago
http://www.awlr.org/1/post/2012/09/response-to-dean-ornishs-new-york-times-op-ed.html http://www.awlr.org/1/post/2012/09/response-to-dean-ornishs-... Fascinating response piece highlighting many of the issues in the linked op-ed. Definitely worth reading.
spodek 14y ago
With an Ivy League PhD in physics, I'm a big fan of science. I have not observed a scientific approach to diet effective in promoting health. In my albeit limited observation, I observe no correlation between knowing a lot about food, digestion, etc and fitness or healthiness. In particular, American culture appears to approach diet most scientifically, yet has probably the least healthy population. Meanwhile, many illiterate cultures appear to have healthy diets (implying thousands of years of trial and error, admittedly a form of science, works). My observations are anecdotal, not data, so feel free to dismiss them as such. I just suggest all scientific results so far, compared to what we'd need to meaningfully predict healthiness in a diet, negligibly less anecdotal. The body is incredibly complex and diet involves multiple internal systems -- digestive, motivational, cardio-vascular, etc -- interacting with huge varieties of foods -- themselves sets of incredibly complex systems. Looking at parts of these systems doesn't seem effective in helping people get healthy, at least not at the level science is at today. Generations from now science may be able to grasp this complexity and predict healthy diets at the individual level. For now, I appreciate people researching it, but I found all of their predictions for what makes healthy food based on so many untested assumptions and other logical jumps as to be worthless for anything but displaying the pre-conceived notions of the experimenters.
- ericd 14y ago
  I'm very scientifically bent, but yeah, nutrition science seems to amount to roughly superstition at this point. A little bit of knowledge combined with an ironclad belief in rationality is a dangerous thing - our gut instinct seems to work much better in this case. Unfortunately, the FDA can't admit that they have no idea how things work.
- Tichy 14y ago
  Isn't the problem rather that it is difficult to stick to a diet? The illiterate cultures you cite probably don't pass a McDonalds every day on their way to their hunting grounds. How to make diets stick is simply another field of science, which apparently still needs a lot of work.
  - _delirium 14y ago
ghshephard 14y ago
I find it distressing that all of these very well educated, well researched, and up-to-date authorities on Diet continue to write OpEds for the NYT with basically polar-opposite positions. Here we have Dean Ornish basically coming out with a position almost completely contrary to Gary Taubes. Perhaps, one day, someone will do some long term randomized trials with a unbiased observer and we'll discover the truth.
- Tichy 14y ago
  I don't know about Dean Ornish, but Gary Taubes is a journalist, as far as I know, not a nutrition expert. Maybe his research on his books turned him into an expert, not sure. I have to admit the Good Calories, Bad Calories book seemed a bit unstructured to me. In the end it was just listing a load of studies in favor of his thesis. It left me wondering if perhaps he only selected those that supported his claims. The problem with researching diets is probably the long term aspect of it. How do you make people stick to a diet you randomly assign to them for 20 years? It also has an ethical component, because you might assign unhealthy diets.
  - enraged_camel 14y ago
    Gary Taubes is not just a journalist. He is a science journalist with a background in physics. This is an important distinction because he has the necessary training to correctly interpret scientific studies. That's what his book is about: it's a huge meta-study that explores the history and the current state of nutrition science. And his ultimate finding is that mainstream nutrition science is wrong and it's carbs that should be avoided, not fats.
    - Tichy 14y ago
      But ultimately why believe him instead of some other scientist? Because his book is thicker? I also noticed that he had a bit of a tummy when I saw a YouTube video of him. I've read another thick book advocating plant based diets and metaanalyzing lots of studies, The China Study. GC,BC is a bit thicker, though.
chriseidhof 14y ago
I really would like to eat healthy. I already exercise a lot and have a good body weight. I'm not looking to lose weight, but to optimize my quality of life (e.g. feeling good, being productive, have the energy to exercise). All the "scientific" diets seem to do that. I know bits and pieces about Paleo, read parts of Taubes' book, have vegan friends, and now this. They all claim to be scientific and healthy. I have a hard time figuring out which is true, and end up making my own rules. Does anyone have a good framework for evaluating these health recommendations?
- VLM 14y ago
  "Does anyone have a good framework for evaluating these health recommendations?" Its stomps all over certain religions, so we can't talk about it in public, but here on hacker news, if your ancestors evolved for millions to hundreds of thousands of years eating it, its probably an excellent biochemical match to you today, plus or minus recent dental issues WRT to cooked vs raw. If you think your ancestors were drinking beer, corn syrup sodas, pizzas and big macs a million years ago, or that the earth is only 6000 years old and humans have always eaten rice grains and beans because god told them they have to (LOL), you're going to have very serious issues with this advice. Eat what your ancestors ate. And I'm talking pre-agricultural revolution not mom and dad. Cooking is OK because your teeth have evolved to support it. I wouldn't advise going much beyond that other than "special snacks and special events".
minikites 14y ago
How true is the paleo assertion that cereal grains contain inflammatory and anti-nutrient compounds? http://www.direct-ms.org/pdf/EvolutionPaleolithic/Cereal%20Sword.pdf http://www.direct-ms.org/pdf/EvolutionPaleolithic/Cereal%20S... >we have seen that patients who ate mostly plant-based meals, with dishes like black bean vegetarian chili and whole wheat penne pasta with roasted vegetables, achieved reversal of even severe coronary artery disease. They also engaged in moderate exercise and stress-management techniques How much of that health improvement is from diet and how much is from exercise?
- VLM 14y ago
  "How true is the paleo assertion that cereal grains contain inflammatory ... compounds?" Ask any of the 1% or so of the population medically diagnosed with celiac disease. If wheat was "invented" today instead of being a popular historical ethnic food, there's no way the USDA / FDA would allow it to start being sold knowing it makes so many people very ill.
  - debacle 14y ago
    You could say the same of peanuts or milk products or shellfish. Wheat isn't dangerous, it's just not very good for you.
Ensorceled 14y ago
"Being overweight is not necessarily linked with disease or premature death." This article lost me right here; I thought "fit but fat" had been debunked and that controlled studies showed that just being overweight was, by itself, a health risk. You need citations for this kind of bold claim.
pragmatic 14y ago
Some may remember Dr Ornish for his involvement with Steve Jobs' cancer treatment: http://www.bulletproofexec.com/steve-jobs-dr-dean-ornish-and-vegetarian-cancer/ http://www.bulletproofexec.com/steve-jobs-dr-dean-ornish-and...
jdietrich 14y ago
Eat food, mainly plants, not too much. Is that so hard?
enraged_camel 14y ago
Some good discussions taking place here, and I responded to some of the individual points made, but I wanted to chime in and say that the Paleo mode of thinking, which suggests that we should eat only what we "evolved" to eat, is bullshit. There are a multitude of problems with the assumptions underlying the Paleo diet. First, the statement that the human genome evolved during the Pleistocene period rests on the gene-centered view of evolution, which is described by prominent biologists as excessively reductionist. It's akin to "Darwinian fundamentalism", and as with fundamentalism of any kind, it's dangerous thinking. Second, the idea that 10,000 years is not enough to ensure an adequate adaptation to agrarian diets is questionable. For example, humans got a lot better at tolerating lactose just a few thousand years after animal husbandry was invented. Similarly, scientists have observed increases in the number of copies of the gene for amylase, which digests starch. This appears to be related to agriculture. Both of these changes in human physiology suggest that 400-500 generations may be enough to sufficiently adapt to changes in the environment. Third, we have evidence to suggest that the diet of Stone Age humans did in fact include refined starches and grains that are excluded from the Paleo diet. This evidence shows Paleolithic societies processing cereals for food use at least as early as 30,000 years ago, and possibly even as early as 100,000-200,000 years ago. The bottom line is that the Paleo diet is based on a misunderstanding of biological evolution and seems to be inspired by a naive adaptationistic view of life.

108 points by rhollos 14y ago

Sometimes it just doesn't work, no matter what. Sometimes you're just meant to be big. I am a former wrestling local city champion, currently a kickboxer, and also practicing jujitsu. I move fast and sprint like I'm 140 pounds, I can roundhouse kick someone that's 5'9 in the head, and I'm almost at a split. I can do 50 pushups, 12 pullups, once ran 8 miles, and have done high intensity cardio 5 days a week for 2 hours everyday. Yet I'm 250 pounds and a huge gut. My diet? Eggs, veggies, rice, fruits. No sugar at all, and yet I have not been able to lose weight for the past 2 - 3 years. I have slowly watched the scale climb up no matter how many calories I cut or how many carbs I don't eat. Sometimes you just can't fight your body and you're meant to be who you are.

oftenwrong 14y ago
Do you track what you eat? I would be interested to see what your average week of food is like.
andyakb 14y ago
Without logging your caloric intake (no estimates, logging everything you eat as it actually is), it is very easy to convince yourself you arent eatng too many calories. Hoewever, for practical matters, if you do not have a significant health issue, if you eat less calories than your body burns you will lose weight. In the vast majority of cases, it really is that simple. Find an app or website that is easy for you to use and try logging all your food (include snacks and things that you may consider to be "little"). Figure out based on your weight and activity level (be conservative) what you need to eat to lose 1-2 pounds a week and hit the goals If you do this honestly for an extended period of time, you will lose weight.
- littledude 14y ago
  yes buy a gram scale and keep it on your kitchen counter then use http://www.myfitnesspal.com/ http://www.myfitnesspal.com/ or http://www.fatsecret.com/ http://www.fatsecret.com/ to measure all food best investment i;ve made trying to put on muscle
taligent 14y ago
You do know that rice/fruits get converted into sugar, right ? If you switched to just vegies and meat I guarantee you would lose weight.
- malsme 14y ago
  In addition to this, it's worth noting that not all calories are created equally. If you process your food to make juices, smoothies etc (or buy it already processed), then you'll get a greater, more immediate hit of energy than if your body broke it down itself. http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/2012/08/27/the-hidden-truths-about-calories/ http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/2012/08/27/th...
  - charliepark 14y ago
    But you also end up getting all of the fructose and none of the fiber, which your body needs for processing the fruit without the sugar hit. Lustig: "When god made the poison, he packaged it with the antidote."
enraged_camel 14y ago
>>Sometimes it just doesn't work, no matter what. Sometimes you're just meant to be big. The only people who are "meant to be big" are those with hormonal imbalances. And even then, modern medicine can address most of their problems. >>Sometimes you just can't fight your body and you're meant to be who you are. It's true that you can't fight your body if you eat more calories than you consume. I noticed that the only part of your diet you listed was the type of food you eat. What about amount? Do you weigh your food, or have some other type of calorie estimation method? If not, you'll eat like a pig (especially at your activity level) and never realize it.
- dasil003 14y ago
  > The only people who are "meant to be big" are those with hormonal imbalances. And even then, modern medicine can address most of their problems. Apparently you don't watch rugby.
  - enraged_camel 14y ago
    What does that even mean? Rugby players are big because they want to be big, not because they can't help it.
    - dasil003 14y ago
      How can you possibly believe there is no genetic component in professional athletics?
thenomad 14y ago
On the up side, it would seem from recent evidence that you're probably not at too much risk health-wise. High cardiovascular fitness seems (from a lot of studies, at least - IANAD) to correlate better with positive health outcomes than low BMI. And on a side note - speaking as a fellow martial artist with flexibility problems, I'm envious of your flexibility!
etherspin 14y ago
have you had a period where you blew out and perhaps multiplied the actual number of fat cells in your body ? I wonder if liposuction could be productive to lower the fat cell count back to something more manageable if so ? and like the other poster,maybe drop the fruit a bit lower just to see if it helps but of course go straight back on if no benefit as fruit is excellent
elliott99 14y ago
You need to get your thyroid checked. Diet and exercise are 100% effective at fat loss PRECONDITIONED UPON your hormones being not out of whack.

scythe 14y ago

So the major factor here is generally proposed to be dietary fiber. People on a high-fiber diet are healthy, and that's really the major separating variable between laboratory diets like the one in this article and real diets that make you fat. Going off the description of dishes in the article, I'd estimate the subjects had a daily fiber consumption of 40-60 grams, most of it soluble. Studies that look at meat consumption generally do not control for fiber, though they usually mention the correlation in many populations between increased meat consumption and less fiber consumption. Of course there are correlations with fiber and CAD and cholesterol. But we already knew that. It's a rather significant confounding factor when anyone uses an extremely high-fiber test diet to argue for the health value of various other characteristics of said diet. This author does it all over the place. Frankly, a mere 12 pound loss over five years may not really be too impressive, depending on where they're starting. I imagine Mark Sisson could post better results than that. Similarly, I imagine the guy who wrote The China Study could post better results than that... most diets will! What they've got statistically significant, but pretty much any diet that cuts out processed foods alone will show statistically significant changes... The sole really impressive thing is the prostate cancer improvements: but there are too many confounding factors to determine what, precisely, is causing the improvements. Maybe there's some anticancer compound in a vegetable emphasized in the diet. Diindolylmethane comes to mind, or beta-caryophyllene.

jnhnum1 14y ago
Do you have any sources to support dietary fiber as the real causal factor, as opposed to other diet / lifestyle variables?
tocomment 14y ago
Is it worth taking fiber supplements? It seems tough to get enough fiber even with some fruits and vegetables every day.
- debacle 14y ago
  I take ~2 grams of metamucil, in tablet form, once a day. It's ~1/4th the recommended dosage for people who are using it as a suppliment, however it is inexpensive and helps me make sure I get at least some fiber (I eat on a very erratic schedule). However, IIRC two stalks of Celery will give you more fiber.

dlytle 14y ago

I've personally lost 35 pounds in 5 months on keto, and I've had all my cholesterol levels drop, along with my blood pressure. (Which probably has more to do with my weight loss than the meat-based diet.) I literally can't lose weight while eating any amount of carbs; I ate 1250 calories a day for 2 months, lost 5 pounds, and was miserable. (Yes, 1250. I was super anal about calorie counting, and only drank water + black coffee. It sucked.) The long and short of it is that every person has a slightly different combination of body chemistry quirks, so there's never really a one-size-fits-all method for losing weight. You've got to find something that works for you, considering both weight reduction and quality of life. If I didn't love meat so much, I'd probably be in a tough situation.

somesaba 14y ago
What you did was not a healthy way to lose weight and unless you make a LIFESTYLE change that you can live with for the rest of your life then you will find yourself repeatedly using this starvation technique to lose weight unhealthily. Find something sustainable, keto is not sustainable for most people, and especially not at 1250Calories...
- omgsean 14y ago
  I think you misread the comment. Ketogenic was one diet, 1250kcal/day was another. I lost a significant amount of weight on a ketogenic diet as well but it's been about a year and a half and it's hard to keep away from those carbs...
  - taligent 14y ago
    Getting into a keto state is by the far the fastest and most reliable way to lose weight. Probably also hard to maintain as it can be hard to get that full feeling like you do with carbs. It is the same diet which professional bodybuilders use. And they know EVERYTHING about how to lose weight since every % of body fat they lose can make a massive difference in muscle definition.
    - deleted 14y ago

fingerprinter 14y ago

This is just a terrible, terrible article. It's not actually saying anything. Here is how I've looked at this and I think most people would do well to do the same. What are your goals? Are you obese and looking to lose a massive amount of weight? Are you a bit overweight and looking to lose the last 10 lbs? Are you looking to "look better naked"? Are you looking to gain muscle? Are you looking to get better at x, y or z sport? Are you looking to just have a decent lifestyle? Are you looking to maximize your lifespan? There are others, but you get the idea. Without knowing the goal, you can't know how to eat. There are quite different approaches to all of the above and if you just choose one approach, it probably won't be optimal for the goal you have. I hate articles like this, they paint every approach with the same brush and you can't possibly do that. Know your freakin' goal and then optimize your eating to support that goal. If anyone wants some suggestions on what/how to eat, just state your goal and we an riff from there. It really isn't that tough.

SideburnsOfDoom 14y ago
> What are your goals? I think the point is that in the short term goals can vary a lot (e.g. "obese and looking to lose a massive amount of weight" vs wanting to tone up) but in the long term they converge on having a long, healthy life.
edtechdev 14y ago
I guess you didn't read much of the article - the goal is stated in the title. There's a ton of stuff out there on plant-based diets like the one described here. See the video Forks Over Knives on Netflix.

jvoorhis 14y ago

This: "WHAT you eat is as important as what you exclude — your diet needs to be high in healthful carbs like fruits, vegetables, whole grains, legumes, soy products in natural, unrefined forms and some fish, like salmon. There are hundreds of thousands of health-enhancing substances in these foods. And what’s good for you is good for the planet." can't possibly be right for everyone. I've read (and read the debunking of) plenty of points of view, but I'm fairly sure a soy-based diet isn't right for me, and all of the neatly packaged dietary points of view (keto, Sisson, Mediterranean, Weston Price, veg-*) aren't universal. Nutrition still has a long way to go, and this reads like a brochure.

manmal 14y ago
Yep. Grains is proven to be suboptimal, causing inflammation in the intestines and the rest of the body (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2821887/ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2821887/). And soy acts like estrogen in one's body, not exactly what I would like - it might even be that this is the reason for less prostate cancers (prostate cancer patients are even given estrogen as treatment). I do agree though that low-carb diets don't cut it health-wise, omitting fruit entirely just does not seem right, considering humans have always eaten them. Also, eating immense amounts of red meat seems to be related to all sorts of illnesses. I have adapted another view: If it's fresh and organic, it can't be wrong, and the occasional rice bowl or apple is cool. Junk food or processed food containing transfats or shredded soy should be restricted (like, one day per week). UPDATE: Processed food is literally everywhere if you don't cook yourself - most restaurants use ready-made "components" to achieve speedier meal preparation. I think it's hard (or expensive) for people eating out to get a healthy meal, especially in the US.
- chokma 14y ago
  > Grains is proven to be suboptimal, causing inflammation in the intestines and the rest of the body (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2821887/ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2821887/). From the study, it is refined grains that are problematic, while whole grains are recommended: "In conclusion, whole grain consumption may be related to lower circulating plasma concentrations of PAI-1 and CRP, which in turn could lower the risk of type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease. These findings suggest that the protectiveness of whole grains in relation to type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease may be due to an effect on plasma inflammatory protein concentrations and reinforces the public health recommendations that whole grains be consumed daily as part of a healthy diet. Refined grain intakes were positively associated with PAI-1 concentrations, indicating that refined grain intake could have proinflammatory effects."

Nav_Panel 14y ago

http://www.awlr.org/1/post/2012/09/response-to-dean-ornishs-new-york-times-op-ed.html http://www.awlr.org/1/post/2012/09/response-to-dean-ornishs-... Fascinating response piece highlighting many of the issues in the linked op-ed. Definitely worth reading.

spodek 14y ago

With an Ivy League PhD in physics, I'm a big fan of science. I have not observed a scientific approach to diet effective in promoting health. In my albeit limited observation, I observe no correlation between knowing a lot about food, digestion, etc and fitness or healthiness. In particular, American culture appears to approach diet most scientifically, yet has probably the least healthy population. Meanwhile, many illiterate cultures appear to have healthy diets (implying thousands of years of trial and error, admittedly a form of science, works). My observations are anecdotal, not data, so feel free to dismiss them as such. I just suggest all scientific results so far, compared to what we'd need to meaningfully predict healthiness in a diet, negligibly less anecdotal. The body is incredibly complex and diet involves multiple internal systems -- digestive, motivational, cardio-vascular, etc -- interacting with huge varieties of foods -- themselves sets of incredibly complex systems. Looking at parts of these systems doesn't seem effective in helping people get healthy, at least not at the level science is at today. Generations from now science may be able to grasp this complexity and predict healthy diets at the individual level. For now, I appreciate people researching it, but I found all of their predictions for what makes healthy food based on so many untested assumptions and other logical jumps as to be worthless for anything but displaying the pre-conceived notions of the experimenters.

ericd 14y ago
I'm very scientifically bent, but yeah, nutrition science seems to amount to roughly superstition at this point. A little bit of knowledge combined with an ironclad belief in rationality is a dangerous thing - our gut instinct seems to work much better in this case. Unfortunately, the FDA can't admit that they have no idea how things work.
Tichy 14y ago
Isn't the problem rather that it is difficult to stick to a diet? The illiterate cultures you cite probably don't pass a McDonalds every day on their way to their hunting grounds. How to make diets stick is simply another field of science, which apparently still needs a lot of work.
- _delirium 14y ago

ghshephard 14y ago

I find it distressing that all of these very well educated, well researched, and up-to-date authorities on Diet continue to write OpEds for the NYT with basically polar-opposite positions. Here we have Dean Ornish basically coming out with a position almost completely contrary to Gary Taubes. Perhaps, one day, someone will do some long term randomized trials with a unbiased observer and we'll discover the truth.

Tichy 14y ago
I don't know about Dean Ornish, but Gary Taubes is a journalist, as far as I know, not a nutrition expert. Maybe his research on his books turned him into an expert, not sure. I have to admit the Good Calories, Bad Calories book seemed a bit unstructured to me. In the end it was just listing a load of studies in favor of his thesis. It left me wondering if perhaps he only selected those that supported his claims. The problem with researching diets is probably the long term aspect of it. How do you make people stick to a diet you randomly assign to them for 20 years? It also has an ethical component, because you might assign unhealthy diets.
- enraged_camel 14y ago
  Gary Taubes is not just a journalist. He is a science journalist with a background in physics. This is an important distinction because he has the necessary training to correctly interpret scientific studies. That's what his book is about: it's a huge meta-study that explores the history and the current state of nutrition science. And his ultimate finding is that mainstream nutrition science is wrong and it's carbs that should be avoided, not fats.
  - Tichy 14y ago
    But ultimately why believe him instead of some other scientist? Because his book is thicker? I also noticed that he had a bit of a tummy when I saw a YouTube video of him. I've read another thick book advocating plant based diets and metaanalyzing lots of studies, The China Study. GC,BC is a bit thicker, though.

chriseidhof 14y ago

I really would like to eat healthy. I already exercise a lot and have a good body weight. I'm not looking to lose weight, but to optimize my quality of life (e.g. feeling good, being productive, have the energy to exercise). All the "scientific" diets seem to do that. I know bits and pieces about Paleo, read parts of Taubes' book, have vegan friends, and now this. They all claim to be scientific and healthy. I have a hard time figuring out which is true, and end up making my own rules. Does anyone have a good framework for evaluating these health recommendations?

VLM 14y ago
"Does anyone have a good framework for evaluating these health recommendations?" Its stomps all over certain religions, so we can't talk about it in public, but here on hacker news, if your ancestors evolved for millions to hundreds of thousands of years eating it, its probably an excellent biochemical match to you today, plus or minus recent dental issues WRT to cooked vs raw. If you think your ancestors were drinking beer, corn syrup sodas, pizzas and big macs a million years ago, or that the earth is only 6000 years old and humans have always eaten rice grains and beans because god told them they have to (LOL), you're going to have very serious issues with this advice. Eat what your ancestors ate. And I'm talking pre-agricultural revolution not mom and dad. Cooking is OK because your teeth have evolved to support it. I wouldn't advise going much beyond that other than "special snacks and special events".

minikites 14y ago

How true is the paleo assertion that cereal grains contain inflammatory and anti-nutrient compounds? http://www.direct-ms.org/pdf/EvolutionPaleolithic/Cereal%20Sword.pdf http://www.direct-ms.org/pdf/EvolutionPaleolithic/Cereal%20S... >we have seen that patients who ate mostly plant-based meals, with dishes like black bean vegetarian chili and whole wheat penne pasta with roasted vegetables, achieved reversal of even severe coronary artery disease. They also engaged in moderate exercise and stress-management techniques How much of that health improvement is from diet and how much is from exercise?

VLM 14y ago
"How true is the paleo assertion that cereal grains contain inflammatory ... compounds?" Ask any of the 1% or so of the population medically diagnosed with celiac disease. If wheat was "invented" today instead of being a popular historical ethnic food, there's no way the USDA / FDA would allow it to start being sold knowing it makes so many people very ill.
- debacle 14y ago
  You could say the same of peanuts or milk products or shellfish. Wheat isn't dangerous, it's just not very good for you.

Ensorceled 14y ago

"Being overweight is not necessarily linked with disease or premature death." This article lost me right here; I thought "fit but fat" had been debunked and that controlled studies showed that just being overweight was, by itself, a health risk. You need citations for this kind of bold claim.

pragmatic 14y ago

Some may remember Dr Ornish for his involvement with Steve Jobs' cancer treatment: http://www.bulletproofexec.com/steve-jobs-dr-dean-ornish-and-vegetarian-cancer/ http://www.bulletproofexec.com/steve-jobs-dr-dean-ornish-and...

jdietrich 14y ago

Eat food, mainly plants, not too much. Is that so hard?

enraged_camel 14y ago

Some good discussions taking place here, and I responded to some of the individual points made, but I wanted to chime in and say that the Paleo mode of thinking, which suggests that we should eat only what we "evolved" to eat, is bullshit. There are a multitude of problems with the assumptions underlying the Paleo diet. First, the statement that the human genome evolved during the Pleistocene period rests on the gene-centered view of evolution, which is described by prominent biologists as excessively reductionist. It's akin to "Darwinian fundamentalism", and as with fundamentalism of any kind, it's dangerous thinking. Second, the idea that 10,000 years is not enough to ensure an adequate adaptation to agrarian diets is questionable. For example, humans got a lot better at tolerating lactose just a few thousand years after animal husbandry was invented. Similarly, scientists have observed increases in the number of copies of the gene for amylase, which digests starch. This appears to be related to agriculture. Both of these changes in human physiology suggest that 400-500 generations may be enough to sufficiently adapt to changes in the environment. Third, we have evidence to suggest that the diet of Stone Age humans did in fact include refined starches and grains that are excluded from the Paleo diet. This evidence shows Paleolithic societies processing cereals for food use at least as early as 30,000 years ago, and possibly even as early as 100,000-200,000 years ago. The bottom line is that the Paleo diet is based on a misunderstanding of biological evolution and seems to be inspired by a naive adaptationistic view of life.