17 ms·

Always Hungry? Here’s Why

153 points by kozlovsky 12y ago

exratione 12y ago
Everyone wants to be told that it isn't their fault that bad things have happened. Its a pernicious, harmful urge most often on display in courtrooms and discussions on weight and diet. Unfortunately reality is what it is: if you eat without consideration and control in this modern world of low-cost calories, then you will get fat. Accepting and acknowledging that you are 100% accountable as to what and how much you eat is a necessary first step to avoiding that end state.
- Luc 12y ago
  It's probably rational to expect people to behave in irrational ways, isn't it? Calling people 100% accountable for their actions is not a reflection of reality, it's morality.
  - everyone 12y ago
    Yeah I think in a rational society nothing would be left up to willpower, moral fortitude, honour etc. as they are bound to fail. However they are still attainable ideals and worth striving for. I certainly have a tendency to be fat, I am always really hungry and just plain greedy when it comes to food, my dad has always been a bit fat, I grew up eating oven food: waffles, fried chicken etc. When I started getting close to 30 I could see myself starting to get fat and I just went "No! I will not be fat" In aid of this I have developed myself a pretty healthy lifestyle over the years that includes plenty of exercise, fruits vegetables and water, and I abstain from sugar and things of that ilk. As a result I am fitter than most people my age, in fact I'm doing a 200k cycle in a few weeks :) edit: You know there is probably a willpower / self worth feedback cycle too. If you give into temptation once you feel bad about yourself and are probably then more likely to to fall again.
- loceng 12y ago
  The food and quality of food that is available to many people is a factor, which is could be said is generally out of their control. I don't think it's helpful to blame the individual as we are all part of systems.
- morgante 12y ago
  > Everyone wants to be told that it isn't their fault that bad things have happened. Actually, the general cultural attitudes are to castigate overweight individuals for some sort of moral failing. In reality, it is substantially harder for different people with different genes to maintain a lower weight. Disregarding that is purely callous and is equivalent to denying the existence of phenomena like addiction. People are 100% accountable, but that doesn't mean we should ignore that it's harder for certain people to make the "right" choice. It also doesn't mean we shouldn't give them support and assistance to make the right choice.
  - joel_perl_prog 12y ago
    I think it's both. I see both happening. I see major attitudes of helplessness or victim mentality. Or just ambivalence. Go to any mall. We all know this story. But also, it then becomes a thing where those who do have their head in the right place to pursue health in a practical and beneficiary (edit: beneficial) manner, these folks often do turn around and moralize. It's too bad. The real truth is, we need to forget about those types of things, for a little while at least, and concentrate purely on the facts. The consequences. What is actually occurring. Because in the end, it doesn't matter what peoples' intentions are, or motives, or desires, or anything else. What matters are consequences. That said, of course it's incumbent upon anyone promoting health to offer a helping hand, only, and never anything else. Never any judgment. Because not one of us is "above it."
- FLUX-YOU 12y ago
  >Accepting and acknowledging that you are 100% accountable as to what and how much you eat is a necessary first step to avoiding that end state. You are technically correct, except in the case of children who were raised with terrible eating habits and found themselves with the same habits and damage in adulthood. In my (terribly uninformed) opinion, I think this is more common than we give it credit, and the behavioral effects of several years or more of terrible eating is more powerful and controlling than we give it credit. The statement "You are 100% accountable" is very good for empowering individuals to change, but it is commonly confused as something intended to shame.
  - marcosdumay 12y ago
    If you want to improve, you'd better take accountability. Looking for places where to put blame is useless in situations where there isn't moral hazard, or where you are unable to punish the blamed. On those cases, you're left with the choice of accepting your part of the problem and correcting it, or keep suffering.
- VLM 12y ago
  Experience with the root cause of stomach ulcers and mental illness would seem to indicate the philosophical moral arguments about "weakness" and "accountability" eventually end up sounding obsolete, regretted, and medieval. "if you eat without consideration and control" the battle is you vs an entire army of PR people and biochemists focused on defeating you for profit. My betting money is on the army. The moral and ethical failure is creating a civilization designed to kill in exchange for a few making high profits, its not a moral or ethical failure for some wanna-be Rambo's getting wiped out by the combined arms attack of an entire army. Or, a "hate the game not the players" argument.
- jusben1369 12y ago
  This argument can really be filed under the "I want to wash my hands of the whole affair by stating fat people simply should eat less and it's all their fault" Obesity rates have soared. Inquisitive minds want to know what is driving that change? It appears to be more than simply "oh a whole new generation just doesn't have the will power of people as recently as 20 or 25 years ago" As this article points out people who are trying to lose weight and following the advice of 'experts' may have been doing the wrong thing Staying hungry eating grain bread, pastas and fruit and not satiating themselves with enough fats or proteins. Jump in and join the discussion don't try and dismiss it with a disdainful wave of the hand.
  - DanBC 12y ago
    The reason that Americans are fat include never walking anywhere but always using their cars; and drinking huge amounts of sugared water. http://imgur.com/9Xa92tr http://imgur.com/9Xa92tr http://imgur.com/mUJsbPu http://imgur.com/mUJsbPu http://imgur.com/GxgrGWg http://imgur.com/GxgrGWg Experts have never said "eat bread" or "eat pasta" to people dieting. Are you mistaking "expert advice" for "populist nonsense"? You wouldn't be alone. Every single HN thread about nutrition contains fucking awful pseudo-scientific nonsense supported by anecdote with no actual science anywhere.
    - rdtsc 12y ago
      Given how little calories exercise burn per hour or per mile and I don't see blame on walking or not being a big factor. It surely is in the popular culture. Most importantly this idea is dangerous because it is used often in the PR campaigns of processed food manufacturers. "Drink the 1L soda bottle, it is ok, because then you can walk around the block to burn it off!" kind of idea.
      - bjlorenzen 12y ago
        The act of walking itself doesn't burn very many calories, no, but it does strengthen your legs (the largest muscles in your body) which then burn more calories 24/7.
Udo 12y ago
There seems to be a pervasive unwillingness to understand the nature of positive feedback cycles, and instead we're just continually hearing "fat because of intake" and "intake because of fat" arguments that try to fall on an extreme interpretation of simplified causality. This article belongs to the very few that actually do a job of describing a feedback cycle, but then it falls short and does the popular simplification thing. Fat cells emit hormones that cause hunger, and they actually do require energy for upkeep. The body prioritizes not losing any of its substance, so most "healthy" adults will always at least eat the amount they need to not lose weight. On top of that come fatal breakages in the messaging system the body uses to control the flow of energy. Fat people are prone to insulin resistance, physical extension of their digestive system that leads to the urge for more throughput, and other mechanisms - all of which cause an almost insurmountable desire to eat a lot. It's an addiction that subverts two of our most powerful mental priorities: the reward/pleasure system and the survival instinct. In most people there is not a lot that can be done to overcome what these two systems tell you. That's why diets fail: my body is lying to me. It's like getting two popup alert boxes every minute, one saying "you are DYING! eat something" and the other goes "you're unhappy, eat something, you deserve some happiness".
- SatoshiPacioli 12y ago
  There's a wealth of information on ketogenic (low to no carb) diets: http://www.reddit.com/r/keto http://www.reddit.com/r/keto Everyone serious about this understands that carbs are the problem.
  - ajcarpy2005 12y ago
    Or for underweight people, part of the solution.
  - steeve 12y ago
    I came here to post this. I wish people knew more about keto.
  - mistermann 12y ago
    Also, most people have no idea the type and variety of foods you can continue to eat while on an extreme low carb diet: http://www.reddit.com/r/ketorecipes/top/ http://www.reddit.com/r/ketorecipes/top/
rav 12y ago
I was moderately shocked and confused at the pasta/cake illustration midway in the article.
- VLM 12y ago
  WRT "confused", google for the term "glycemic index" or "glycemic load per serving" Its an artistic illustration of Betty Crocker vanilla cake and vanilla frosting having a GI of 42 and a total glps around 24 (for 111 grams) vs kraft mac n cheese having a GI of 64 and total glps around 32 (for 180 grams). (Yes I actually looked this up not just make up example) Some of this is political BS in that the serving size for the mac n cheese is about 60% larger than the serving size for the cake. None the less it is a medical experimental fact that your blood sugar level will spike about 50% harder after the pasta than after the cake. Probably all the oil in the cake, and grease (if purchased) or butter (if homemade) in the frosting, and egg in the cake (intended as an emulsifier rather than a protein source). But yeah, like it or not, WRT blood sugar levels, at the end of dinner, you're WAY better off eating a serving of cake than going back for seconds of pasta. Crazy but true. Now notice that the total glycemic load is what annoys / kills your pancreas, so cake is slightly worse (per gram of serving). However wild crazy fluctuations in blood sugar both drive your brain crazy and screw up the rest of your body, so pasta is worse for that. Your pancreas is not in charge of the quantity of food you eat, so the net effect is eating "more cake and less pasta" will in the long run loose weight or at least result in less weight gain.
falcolas 12y ago
Caloric restriction does work, but from my experience, it's hard, and requires conscious effort all day every day. That's why, until a year ago, it never worked for me. I would imagine that's why it doesn't work for most people as well. Well, conscious effort, and a thoroughly ingrained habit to eat everything on my plate because "starving children in Africa".
smtddr 12y ago
>>In studies by Dr. Rudolph L. Leibel of Columbia and colleagues, when lean and obese research subjects were underfed in order to make them lose 10 to 20 percent of their weight, their hunger increased and metabolism plummeted. Conversely, overfeeding sped up metabolism. This is kind of useless without knowing if they underfed by decreasing amount of food for each feeding time or reducing the numbers of feeding times. The whole idea of eating many small meals during the day instead of a few big ones. Also, depending on the amount of exercising these people are doing these results could go either way.
Mexxer 12y ago
Is this something new for the American population? Hasn't this been known for years or decades already? That's why there are low-carb diets. Put that in combination with calorie intake and exercise and your fat will gradually disappear. It's not exactly rocket science.
- sp332 12y ago
  Calorie reduction and exercise will reduce your body fat even if you eat mostly carbs. The trouble is that it's hard to stick to a low-calorie diet if you're mostly eating carbs.
- delluminatus 12y ago
  Of course this isn't new information for people who make an effort to learn and care about their health. There has been a big push in America towards low-carb diets thanks to Dr. Atkins, although it's unclear that a ketogenic diet has higher utility than some other kinds of calorie restriction. But, there are many people in America that don't care enough to know, and more to the point, we benefit in motivation from every reminder that our eating habits are fucked up.
hownottowrite 12y ago
Ref: http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1871695 http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1871695
igravious 12y ago
Would it be going too far to say the type of person who would most benefit from the nutritional advice of this column is also unlikely to be the type of person who reads the New York Times. And to the person who says that what people put into their mouths is, "generally out of their control" - imagine a legal setting and some crime committed, the only way to claim diminished responsibility is to be a minor or plead various forms of insanity. Are we saying that most overweight/obese people are borderline insane when we're invoking the, "it's not their fault" argument?
- morgante 12y ago
  > Would it be going too far to say the type of person who would most benefit from the nutritional advice of this column is also unlikely to be the type of person who reads the New York Times. Um, yes. I don't at all understand your point. That's the most ridiculous point I've heard in a long time. Are you somehow insinuating that overweight people are not well-read or intelligent? The many, many overweight NYT readers I know (including myself) would beg to differ. > And to the person who says that what people put into their mouths is, "generally out of their control" Your attitude is a terrible example of the moralistic viewpoint which this article disparages. Being overweight is in no way equivalent to a crime. Choice is not a binary. Of course people have some control over what they eat, but it's well established by science that different people at different times have different drives to eat. Or are you completely dismissing addiction as a phenomenon?
  - igravious 12y ago
    > That's the most ridiculous point I've heard in a long time. How is it ridiculous? It's not a personal slur on you. Do you deny that people from lower socio-economic backgrounds generally suffer more from overweight issues and obesity? Wouldn't you say that people from this type of background are less likely to consume their mass media in the form of the New York Times? > Being overweight is in no way equivalent to a crime. That's not what I said. Read again what I wrote. Another example. I smoke cigarettes. Should I not take responsibility for this? If I can't stop smoking is it "out of my control"? I'm not making a binary choice out of anything, I'm just contesting the following comment elsewhere here (I should have made a separate comment): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7762934 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7762934 > The food and quality of food that is available to many people is a factor, which is could be said is generally out of their control. I don't think it's helpful to blame the individual as we are all part of systems. There is nowhere in the developed world where you can't buy decent fresh food. At some point along the way some of the responsibility must lie with the person who is choosing to buy one type of food over another because perhaps its pre-made, pre-packaged, hits their pleasure centres, whatever. I guess it relates back to my first point in that I imagine that people like this may not be as informed about nutrition as you or I. And if they are informed then what?
kome 12y ago
Obesity rates in Europe (2008): http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/50326000/gif/_50326564_obesity_rates_464.gif http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/50326000/gif/_50326564... Why Italians, that eat pasta (carbohydrates) almost every day are so thin? Goddammit.
- smtddr 12y ago
  I don't want to derail this into a crazy huge off-topic & mostly opinionated thread... but there can be a bunch of things going on here. Do Italians have to deal with the same food issues that people in USA deal with? - Is corn syrup in nearly all their breads/pasta? - Do they create their pastas(and sauce) at home rather than USA's commonly TV-dinner style or high-processed fast foods? - I suspect that what a low income person in Italy typical eats is very different from what a low income person in America typically eats. - This... http://www.mapsofworld.com/world-top-ten/world-top-ten-carbonated-soft-drink-consumer-countries.html http://www.mapsofworld.com/world-top-ten/world-top-ten-carbo... - Do they... [One million other things that make the common American's diet a horrible disaster]?
- coffeedrinker 12y ago
  I do not know if this has anything to do with anything, but I do know that warmer weather affects how much I eat. Whether summering in Italy or in hot weather in the US, I don't experience hunger the same way as when I am in cold weather. My guess is my body does not need as much energy to generate heat, and I tend to drink much more water (sweating) than have a desire for food. Of course, this is my personal experience and genetics and does not explain obesity rates in hotter parts of the US (unless rather than water people are drinking Coke).
  - kaybe 12y ago
    Well, ACs are rare in Italy..
  - nowlnowl 12y ago
    Well, Sweden is up there too so...
- 12y ago
SixSigma 12y ago
> Specifically, it’s the first law of thermodynamics > exert willpower and eat less > this advice doesn’t work As we know round these parts, "Ideas are useless without execution"
joel_perl_prog 12y ago
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rTuJ6r1F2hA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rTuJ6r1F2hA I've been helping my family and friends with this recipe, and it's changing lives. Literally. My father, who I taught how to eat vegetarian, has stopped needing insulin! (After heading steadily down the standard American road...sad...) If you add this smoothie to your daily life, and change nothing else, you will feel better. A lot better. You can still eat bacon and eggs for breakfast (I don't recommend that, but you can), and you can still eat a pulled pork sandwich for dinner (also, don't recommend), but if you have this smoothie around the middle of the day, you will feel better and experience benefits. More or less immediately from day one. You are quite literally what you eat. How could it possibly be otherwise? EDIT: easily worth any down votes I may receive here. Computer enthusiasts and professionals, for the most part, in my observation, have a huge blind spot for their health. Huge. So down vote away, my friends. As long as you are also involved in your health!
- Mexxer 12y ago
  I don't think you are getting downvotes because developers don't care about their health. It's because you are saying that ONE smoothie is changing lives... which is a ridicolous statement. And it honestly sounds like an attempt for self promotion.
  - joel_perl_prog 12y ago
    It is not a claim about the future. It's a fact, referring to the past. Of course I will not, but I could easily fish out thank you letters and comments about positive change from a private forum. I promote your health, sir. Not myself. Forget about me. Think about you. And in particular, note that I don't have any ads on my video. It's really about you. If you can believe that. Sometimes people try to do good for its own sake, even in this day and age. Crazy, huh?
    - dandelany 12y ago
      "You will feel better" is certainly and obviously a claim about the future.
moron4hire 12y ago
One of the problems is that, when you are hungry, you are least likely to succeed at deciding to not overeat. Will power is a function of energy. It's why it's so easy for me to decide on things before bed, when I feel the most awake, and find it nearly impossible to pull through on them when I first wake, when I feel the most tired.
rayiner 12y ago
People who say "just eat less" aren't thinking like engineers. Engineers don't get to ignore the wrenches thrown into the works by reality. If seemingly simple advice fails for almost everyone, then the advice is flawed and someone thinking like an engineer has to figure out how to work around those flaws. I don't know if low-carb diets are the full solution, but I think they're at least part of the solution. Avoiding carbs is a simple rule that let's you avoid eating too many calories with relatively less effort than trying to stick to a low-calorie balanced diet. Its easy to blow through 200-300 calories of bagle without even a thought, not so much for an equivalent amount of bacon (6-7 slices).
- JoeAltmaier 12y ago
  The advice is sound. You get fat from the stuff that goes in your piehole. Stop putting so much stuff in there. The flaw is not in the argument. The flaw is in the people. THAT's thinking like an Engineer.
  - sgift 12y ago
    > The flaw is in the people. Reminds me of a story (no idea about historical accuracy): When the chief propagandist of the UDSSR was invited to a scientific conference he talked about all the positive effects of socialism, how it will solve all problems and so on. When his talk was finished the scientists unsurprisingly questioned him about his talk, because of all the prominent problems with socialism. His answer was simple: "The system is perfect. The people are the problem." If your system is 'perfect', but the people are the problem, maybe your system is shit. No one would use an engine that could go near the speed of light but killed all passengers in the process.
    - lvryc 12y ago
      I read the grandparent as being a parody of how the stereotypical engineer thinks. Poe's law in action?
  - TillE 12y ago
    It's factually correct, but completely useless as advice. It's someone saying "just do X" with a wave of their hand, without ever bothering to think about how to actually implement X.
tpeng 12y ago
The stomach is not a good judge of whether you should be eating more or less food. For whatever reason, some individuals may be prone to overeating or undereating. If your natural eating tendencies have caused you to be over- or underweight, common sense says that you should stop listening to those natural urges. The key to successful dieting is to transform eating from a biologically-mediated process into a cognitively-mediated process based on counting calories. Given this cognitive feedback, your stomach will actually adapt to a new calorie intake level, lessening hunger. Hunger can also be managed by eating more satiating foods and drinking water. Caloric deficits (or surpluses) work like clockwork. The metabolic slowdown discussed in the article has marginal effects if any -- perhaps a couple hundred calories worth per day at most. A simple thought experiment shows us that the idea of a "set point" body weight is ludicrous: at starvation, of course, the body cannot possibly maintain weight. The reasons why many people fail at dieting is that people underestimate the amount of effort/pain required: http://www.cracked.com/article_18544_how-the-karate-kid-ruined-modern-world.html http://www.cracked.com/article_18544_how-the-karate-kid-ruin...
- dlp211 12y ago
  "The metabolic slowdown discussed in the article has marginal effects if any -- perhaps a couple hundred calories worth per day." I'm sorry, but that is not a marginal effect. That is the difference between weight gain and weight loss. Also, if you read the article you would have noticed that a calorie deficit is not the only thing that necessitates weight loss, in fact, it might not help at all. There are good calories and bad calories, and how your body handles each depends on the source of the calorie.
  - tpeng 12y ago
    I recently went from bulking to cutting and went from 3500 calories per day to 2000 per day. You are massively underestimating caloric intake shifts that are possible or necessary.
    - dlp211 12y ago
      You are assuming that the average person is a weight lifter like yourself. Most people aren't, most people get very little structured exercise. The truth of the matter is that most people don't have the time to go throw 45's around a gym for an hour a few times a week, and that diet and metabolism are the two main factors in a persons weight. Edit: Also, most people aren't eating 3500 calories a day. They are probably eating maybe a couple hundred calories more than they should, but the calories that they are consuming is causing insulin resistance which causes your fat stores to take up additional calories. Even cutting out the extra calories won't help once insulin resistance happens. And here's the kicker, not everyone's body will exhibit insulin resistance, that is why there are people that seem like they can eat what ever they want and not get fat. Here's my anecdotal evidence, I used to eat whatever I wanted, though I ate mostly (what I thought to be) healthy, eg: oatmeal, fruit, veggies, etc. But I hurt my back and all of a sudden, despite my reduced caloric intake, the pounds started being put on. It wasn't until I discover HFLC diets, and began to do my own research that I realized it wasn't how much I was eating, but what I was eating that was causing the weight gain.
HarrietJones 12y ago
Saying that fat contains twice the calories as carbs ignores the plain fact that carbs contain a hell of a lot of calories. This is the problem with modern eating. We don't realise how many calories there are in a slice of bread or a bowl of pasta. Low carb works because people can't seem to understand that flour is 95% the energy density of sugar, and it's easier for them to trick themselves into calorie restriction by pretending that carbs are metabolised in a weird fat making way than it is for them to understand that wheat contains a lot of calories. Also - people don't realise that after you've done all the calculations - eating an extra pound of fat will make you weigh roughly an extra pound. Here's my diet advice: If the thing you're eating is used in nature as an energy store, then it's probably packed with calories. The article sets off alarm bells with me, because it places so much emphasis on slowing metabolisms at the beginning. As far as I'm aware, your metabolism doesn't slow down until you're close to starvation (all reserves used), and the reduction in energy output caused by the slowing metabolism is minor. Speed of metabolism seems to be something only people on the dodgy end of the weight loss spectrum believe in.
- a8da6b0c91d 12y ago
  > As far as I'm aware, your metabolism doesn't slow down until you're close to starvation (all reserves used) A bad night's sleep or a lack of sunlight will slow your metabolism down. It's quite variable. Under eating for just a couple days will tank it. Going low protein (under, say, 80 grams) is also sure to lower metabolism.
pkulak 12y ago
If carbs are bad, sugar is horrible. Just in case you haven't seen these: Sugar: The Bitter Truth: http://youtu.be/dBnniua6-oM http://youtu.be/dBnniua6-oM Fat Chance: Fructose 2.0: http://youtu.be/ceFyF9px20Y http://youtu.be/ceFyF9px20Y
kephra 12y ago
All those theories ignore the epigentics part ob obesity. One of the main factors are what did your mother eat, when she was before puberty, and what did you eat before puberty. Children of immigrants are often fat, because their mothers came from a culture where food was scare but natural, and they now grow up in in a culture where food is cheap and contains lots of sugar. The epigentics now cause that they will store the sugar into fat, whenever available. Grand children of immigrants are often thin again. Because their parents already grown up in a culture where food was cheap. So there are only a few things one could do: 1st - try to keep your children thin. Let them make sport, let them drive bicycle to school, and do not drive them by car. Avoid sugar, especially fructose. 2nd - its to late, once you left puberty. Only a hormone change could change weight. Women get a 2nd chance to get thin when pregnant or during menopause. But they normally get fatter. 3rd - So just try to live with your weight. Start a sport where weight is good, e.g. sailing. Every sailor is always searching for fat crew, as self loading ballast on the rail. Even if sailing does not feel like sport, you burn lots of calories by moving your body to balance the waves. You learn to move your fat fast, and to balance yourself, even with high weight. A few years sailing might only cause 10lbs of weight loss, but the health benefit is much bigger then just the weight loss. And the self esteem gains a lot, regardless if you win a race, or only sail recreational.
- vobios 12y ago
  Do not confuse epigenetics with culture. There are a ton of calorie restriction experiments involving all species (except humans, since that is not realistically possible). These studies show that calorie restriction clearly results in weight loss.
encoderer 12y ago
I cringe when I hear things like "And when you cut their diets, their metabolism slows down, and when you add to them, it speeds up" That's exactly what it's supposed to do.
greggman 12y ago
Just a random "obvious" comment but.. I've lost some weight recently by cutting my intake. My inspiration was my sister who used to be 5'2" and 260lbs but is now ~130lbs. She got her stomach stapled and for some number of months was on a 500 calorie a day diet. (I don't recommend that) Anyway, seeing that and reading things here on HN about how calorie restriction has an order of magnitude more effect than exercise (which I do) I decided to try to eat ~1500 calories a day for a while. It's surprisingly HARD because of how little food that is. They way people eat in the USA, it's crazy how large the portions are. I'm in Japan where the portions are smaller but, calories are labeled on most things and even with small portions it's amazing to me just how little I can eat and stay under 2000 a day let alone 1500 a day. A "small" Japanese convenience store style sandwich is 300 calories. Those are probably only 60% the size of the smallest sandwich I'd see in the USA. Pretty much any small Japanese pastry, donut, thing made with bread is 300-500 calories. Again those are at least 30% smaller than their USA counterparts. Soda, Fruit juice, coffee with sugar, etc, all around 140 calories for 12oz. Potato-chips or fries or a sugary snack? Forget about it! The point is, it wasn't until I actually tried seriously looking at my calorie intake that I realized how many calories I was consuming. A small lunch, a medium dinner and a snack and I'm over 2000 calories easily. There's no way I could fit any kind of "normal" breakfast in that routine and still fit in 1500-2000 calories. Anyway, I guess like I said that's kind of obvious but for whatever reason it wasn't to me until I actually started paying attention. As for being hungry all the time, yea, because of 48+ years of eating way too much my idea of what a meal should be or how much I should eat to feel like I've done more than just had a snack is seriously out of whack.
- mistermann 12y ago
  Informative: http://www.wisegeek.com/what-does-200-calories-look-like.htm http://www.wisegeek.com/what-does-200-calories-look-like.htm http://www.mendosa.com/satiety.htm http://www.mendosa.com/satiety.htm http://healthyeating.sfgate.com/foods-high-satiation-3799.html http://healthyeating.sfgate.com/foods-high-satiation-3799.ht... Imho the easiest way by far to lose weight is eat foods that combine low carb + high satiation index.
  - greggman 12y ago
charlieflowers 12y ago
Lustig has his critics[1]. In fact, seems the mainstream almost thinks of him as a quack (almost). Myself, I can't discern who's right and wrong. I can see that a lot of people are overstating their level of certainty. [1] http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/01/29/the-bitter-truth-about-fructose-alarmism/ http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/01/29/the-bitter-truth-ab...
- benjohnson 12y ago
  Personally, I think Lustig has gotten a bit shrill in his attempt to get notice for his discoveries and observations. I can forgive him for that. For myself, I accepted his premise and did my own experiment: by making a minimal attempt to stay away from most sugar, I've lost 15 lbs in the last year and a half.
- hornbaker 12y ago
  This article was by Ludwig, not Lustig.
  - charlieflowers 12y ago
    You're right. Oops. The claims sounded similar and the names were similar, and my brain jumped to a conclusion. Apparently, the OA has nothing (directly) to do with Lustig. I'd delete my comment if I could, but I don't see an option for that.
Tycho 12y ago
I have a theory that being overweight is mostly caused by lack of walking. Everyone seems to get heavier as they get older, and most people seem to be slim when they're students. Regardless of how 'healthy' their lifestyle is (ie. if they eat junk food, or go jogging). So basically my theory is that when you're a student, you're probably walking a long way to get to university each day, and then when you're there you spend a lot of time walking about campus. When you leave university and get a job, you get into a car and drive to work, and then sit at your desk most of the day. And then retreat to the family home for the evening, rather than walking about town to meet your friends. Most people are aware of their sedentariness, and put effort into diets and exercise regimes (which they never dreamt of when they were younger), but without the daily walking it's an uphill struggle. So gradually over the years they put on the pounds, until virtually all of them have lost that slim figure.
- tim333 12y ago
  While I think your theory is quite likely an oversimplification I found it interesting looking for fat people while trekking in Nepal through villages with no roads where the only way of getting around was hilly trails. Basically there were no fat people amongst the locals and fat trekkers lost weight at a healthy clip, myself included. This in spite the restaurants including things like fried rice which go against most healthy eating menus. It would be an interesting experiment to build homes for the clinically obese that were in a valley with only walking access up the hill to the nearest eatery. I'd wage money that weight loss would ensue even if the eatery was a McDonalds.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- munificent 12y ago
  I think your theory is an oversimplification, but I agree totally that walking is an under-appreciated component of health. Anecdote: several years ago, my brother and his wife were in their thirties and starting to get a bit soft around the middle like everyone does when they exit their twenties. Like most Americans, they lived in a pedestrian-unfriendly city and drove everywhere. They moved to Vancouver and sold their car. Suddenly, they were walking everywhere. I went to visit them and they both looked markedly better: slimmer and healthier. They eventually moved back to the States and they went right back to the shape they were in before. I think walking is one of the easiest and most pleasurable things we can change to improve our health. Aside from the time cost, there's little downside to it.
germancito 12y ago
>>Several prominent clinical trials reported no difference in weight loss when comparing diets purportedly differing in protein, carbohydrate and fat. However, these trials had major limitations; at the end, subjects reported that they had not met the targets for complying with the prescribed diets. I would really like to know the percentage of subjects who did not comply with the diets. So far the evidence from many clinical trials shows that there is no effect of diet content on weight loss, as much as I like the article's point.
aianus 12y ago
I wish I was fat so I could achieve my weight goals by sitting around working, watching TV, and not eating. Trust me, trying to gain weight is way more difficult and expensive and time consuming.
ninkendo 12y ago
This article goes to a lot of effort to make calorie-counting diets seem futile due to human nature, and there's certainly some truth to it. But I still think "pure" calorie counting (and by that I mean not changing much of what you eat, just how much you eat) can work for the average person. It's just that, to "just eat less", you actually have to log everything you eat so that you can't lie to yourself and blow your calorie budget without knowing it. This is true IMO even if you're doing low-carb or any other kind of diet. Accountability and making it impossible to lie to yourself is key. Personal anecdote follows: I lost 50 lbs (220 -> 170 lbs at 6'2") by logging every single (non-zero-calorie) thing that passes my lips, and I've kept it off for over a year. I have no idea if the amount of willpower I have is typical, but I definitely couldn't have done it if I didn't log what I eat. My theory is that if you don't actually account for all the food you eat, you're more likely to slip out of good habits because you gradually lie to yourself more and more until you're consistently blowing your calorie budget without realizing it. But I really have to log everything, no matter what, even when I overeat. I can never say to myself "I'm on vacation, I can skip a day" or "well I'm already way over my calorie budget, may as well stop logging." Even if I end up 1500 calories over budget, all the food I ate is right there in my log. There's a couple of reasons why I think this works for me: * If I log everything, then it's impossible to blow through 200-300 calories on a bagel without realizing it, because the act of logging it puts it in the front of my mind. * So long as I log everything, I can allow myself to blow my budget now and again. But since it's logged, I know exactly how many calories I need to make up in the coming days. On a week-to-week and month-to-month basis I can make it all even out. * Even though it's human nature to want to eat back all the calories you lost (and you will slip), there's nothing in human nature that's preventing you from logging it all. I may binge and overeat because my body's telling me to, but perhaps the next day when I realize I'm already 1500 calories over for the week because of yesterday, I'm better equipped to compensate for it and have a salad for lunch instead. * Once you find the right number of calories, you can avoid under eating as well. For me I decided early I wanted to lose only 1 lb/week. So in the early months of my diet there was plenty of times where I was something like 600 calories under my daily budget, and I didn't feel like eating, but I forced myself to eat anyway. This throttled my weight loss, but I think it was a major factor in keeping it off... my brain never really went into the severe feast/famine recovery that made me yo-yo right back to my old weight. The main downside of this plan though, is I have no exit strategy... I have my "maintenance level" of calories set on my logging app, and I really do plan to just log what I eat for the rest of my life. (I've been doing it for two years straight now.) It's completely automatic for me (I use the "Lose It!" app on my iPhone) so I don't even see it as a burden any more, but I know that as soon as I stop I'll slip back into my old habits and gain all my weight back.
findjashua 12y ago
Stephan Guyenet has written extensively on the issues with the insulin hypothesis: http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2012/01/insulin-and-obesity-another-nail-in.html http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2012/01/insulin-and-ob... He has also written about how low carb diets work by reducing the variety and the reward factor of the diet (http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2011/08/carbohydrate-hypothesis-of-obesity.html http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2011/08/carbohydrate-h...) some other counterarguments are: 1. Protein digestion also raises insulin, so why doesn't a high protein diet result in weight gain? 2. There are plenty of cultures around the world whose diet is primarily starch based (eg. Kitavans). Why isn't obesity prevalent in these cultures (http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2008/08/kitavans-wisdom-from-pacific-islands.html http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2008/08/kitavans-wisdo...). 3. More recently, someone lost weight while eating only potatoes for 60 days (http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2012/12/the-potato-diet.html http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2012/12/the-potato-die...). It'd be interesting to see the effects of just eating nuts (high fat, low carb) for 60 days. tldr: it's not insulin that causes us to eat more than we need, it's the high reward factor and low satiety of the diet. A simple diet comprised of foods with low reward factor and high satiety makes it very easy to stay within the caloric budget.
- a8da6b0c91d 12y ago
  A lot of people have had success losing weight by going with a very simple diet that is nutrient replete. The low carb thing really is BS. Sugary fruit is fine nutrition. It's really not hard to get complete nutrition from well chosen foods like fruit and dairy. Here's 20 bananas and four pints of 1% milk, totally nutrient replete: http://imgur.com/a/X6F6j http://imgur.com/a/X6F6j You could eat this every day for weeks and have no problems. If you're fat you'd almost certainly lose weight and maintain muscle.
guyinblackshirt 12y ago
I first read about insulin's role in weight loss in Ferriss' book "Four Hour body", and the results from his approach have been pretty impressive (tracked 3,500 people and 84% of them lost weight) http://fourhourworkweek.com/2013/01/22/is-the-4-hour-body-a-scam-tracking-3500-people-to-find-out/ http://fourhourworkweek.com/2013/01/22/is-the-4-hour-body-a-...
codeshaman 12y ago
Calories and energy sources (carbs, proteins, fats) are a small part of the riddle. Besides calories our bodies need lots of micronutrients, amino-acids, enzymes,... - the quality of the food is paramount. Our modern food is high in calories and low in nutrients, that's mostly due to the 'advances' in modern agriculture and the whole chain of food production and distribution. Then there is the aspect of the mind. Look into the mind of any overweight or obese person and you'll find a bucket of psychological disorders, most of them caused by poor nutrition and most of them being the reason for the person 'fixing' them with more food or alcohol or drugs. Few people ever learn to listen to their bodies and when their bodies scream 'I need nutrients', the mind hears 'I am hungry' and goes and procures more empty calories. That's the cycle which leads to weight gain and obesity and all the related health problems.

153 points by kozlovsky 12y ago

Everyone wants to be told that it isn't their fault that bad things have happened. Its a pernicious, harmful urge most often on display in courtrooms and discussions on weight and diet. Unfortunately reality is what it is: if you eat without consideration and control in this modern world of low-cost calories, then you will get fat. Accepting and acknowledging that you are 100% accountable as to what and how much you eat is a necessary first step to avoiding that end state.

Luc 12y ago
It's probably rational to expect people to behave in irrational ways, isn't it? Calling people 100% accountable for their actions is not a reflection of reality, it's morality.
- everyone 12y ago
  Yeah I think in a rational society nothing would be left up to willpower, moral fortitude, honour etc. as they are bound to fail. However they are still attainable ideals and worth striving for. I certainly have a tendency to be fat, I am always really hungry and just plain greedy when it comes to food, my dad has always been a bit fat, I grew up eating oven food: waffles, fried chicken etc. When I started getting close to 30 I could see myself starting to get fat and I just went "No! I will not be fat" In aid of this I have developed myself a pretty healthy lifestyle over the years that includes plenty of exercise, fruits vegetables and water, and I abstain from sugar and things of that ilk. As a result I am fitter than most people my age, in fact I'm doing a 200k cycle in a few weeks :) edit: You know there is probably a willpower / self worth feedback cycle too. If you give into temptation once you feel bad about yourself and are probably then more likely to to fall again.
loceng 12y ago
The food and quality of food that is available to many people is a factor, which is could be said is generally out of their control. I don't think it's helpful to blame the individual as we are all part of systems.
morgante 12y ago
> Everyone wants to be told that it isn't their fault that bad things have happened. Actually, the general cultural attitudes are to castigate overweight individuals for some sort of moral failing. In reality, it is substantially harder for different people with different genes to maintain a lower weight. Disregarding that is purely callous and is equivalent to denying the existence of phenomena like addiction. People are 100% accountable, but that doesn't mean we should ignore that it's harder for certain people to make the "right" choice. It also doesn't mean we shouldn't give them support and assistance to make the right choice.
- joel_perl_prog 12y ago
  I think it's both. I see both happening. I see major attitudes of helplessness or victim mentality. Or just ambivalence. Go to any mall. We all know this story. But also, it then becomes a thing where those who do have their head in the right place to pursue health in a practical and beneficiary (edit: beneficial) manner, these folks often do turn around and moralize. It's too bad. The real truth is, we need to forget about those types of things, for a little while at least, and concentrate purely on the facts. The consequences. What is actually occurring. Because in the end, it doesn't matter what peoples' intentions are, or motives, or desires, or anything else. What matters are consequences. That said, of course it's incumbent upon anyone promoting health to offer a helping hand, only, and never anything else. Never any judgment. Because not one of us is "above it."
FLUX-YOU 12y ago
>Accepting and acknowledging that you are 100% accountable as to what and how much you eat is a necessary first step to avoiding that end state. You are technically correct, except in the case of children who were raised with terrible eating habits and found themselves with the same habits and damage in adulthood. In my (terribly uninformed) opinion, I think this is more common than we give it credit, and the behavioral effects of several years or more of terrible eating is more powerful and controlling than we give it credit. The statement "You are 100% accountable" is very good for empowering individuals to change, but it is commonly confused as something intended to shame.
- marcosdumay 12y ago
  If you want to improve, you'd better take accountability. Looking for places where to put blame is useless in situations where there isn't moral hazard, or where you are unable to punish the blamed. On those cases, you're left with the choice of accepting your part of the problem and correcting it, or keep suffering.
VLM 12y ago
Experience with the root cause of stomach ulcers and mental illness would seem to indicate the philosophical moral arguments about "weakness" and "accountability" eventually end up sounding obsolete, regretted, and medieval. "if you eat without consideration and control" the battle is you vs an entire army of PR people and biochemists focused on defeating you for profit. My betting money is on the army. The moral and ethical failure is creating a civilization designed to kill in exchange for a few making high profits, its not a moral or ethical failure for some wanna-be Rambo's getting wiped out by the combined arms attack of an entire army. Or, a "hate the game not the players" argument.
jusben1369 12y ago
This argument can really be filed under the "I want to wash my hands of the whole affair by stating fat people simply should eat less and it's all their fault" Obesity rates have soared. Inquisitive minds want to know what is driving that change? It appears to be more than simply "oh a whole new generation just doesn't have the will power of people as recently as 20 or 25 years ago" As this article points out people who are trying to lose weight and following the advice of 'experts' may have been doing the wrong thing Staying hungry eating grain bread, pastas and fruit and not satiating themselves with enough fats or proteins. Jump in and join the discussion don't try and dismiss it with a disdainful wave of the hand.
- DanBC 12y ago
  The reason that Americans are fat include never walking anywhere but always using their cars; and drinking huge amounts of sugared water. http://imgur.com/9Xa92tr http://imgur.com/9Xa92tr http://imgur.com/mUJsbPu http://imgur.com/mUJsbPu http://imgur.com/GxgrGWg http://imgur.com/GxgrGWg Experts have never said "eat bread" or "eat pasta" to people dieting. Are you mistaking "expert advice" for "populist nonsense"? You wouldn't be alone. Every single HN thread about nutrition contains fucking awful pseudo-scientific nonsense supported by anecdote with no actual science anywhere.
  - rdtsc 12y ago
    Given how little calories exercise burn per hour or per mile and I don't see blame on walking or not being a big factor. It surely is in the popular culture. Most importantly this idea is dangerous because it is used often in the PR campaigns of processed food manufacturers. "Drink the 1L soda bottle, it is ok, because then you can walk around the block to burn it off!" kind of idea.
    - bjlorenzen 12y ago
      The act of walking itself doesn't burn very many calories, no, but it does strengthen your legs (the largest muscles in your body) which then burn more calories 24/7.

Udo 12y ago

There seems to be a pervasive unwillingness to understand the nature of positive feedback cycles, and instead we're just continually hearing "fat because of intake" and "intake because of fat" arguments that try to fall on an extreme interpretation of simplified causality. This article belongs to the very few that actually do a job of describing a feedback cycle, but then it falls short and does the popular simplification thing. Fat cells emit hormones that cause hunger, and they actually do require energy for upkeep. The body prioritizes not losing any of its substance, so most "healthy" adults will always at least eat the amount they need to not lose weight. On top of that come fatal breakages in the messaging system the body uses to control the flow of energy. Fat people are prone to insulin resistance, physical extension of their digestive system that leads to the urge for more throughput, and other mechanisms - all of which cause an almost insurmountable desire to eat a lot. It's an addiction that subverts two of our most powerful mental priorities: the reward/pleasure system and the survival instinct. In most people there is not a lot that can be done to overcome what these two systems tell you. That's why diets fail: my body is lying to me. It's like getting two popup alert boxes every minute, one saying "you are DYING! eat something" and the other goes "you're unhappy, eat something, you deserve some happiness".

SatoshiPacioli 12y ago
There's a wealth of information on ketogenic (low to no carb) diets: http://www.reddit.com/r/keto http://www.reddit.com/r/keto Everyone serious about this understands that carbs are the problem.
- ajcarpy2005 12y ago
  Or for underweight people, part of the solution.
- steeve 12y ago
  I came here to post this. I wish people knew more about keto.
- mistermann 12y ago
  Also, most people have no idea the type and variety of foods you can continue to eat while on an extreme low carb diet: http://www.reddit.com/r/ketorecipes/top/ http://www.reddit.com/r/ketorecipes/top/

rav 12y ago

I was moderately shocked and confused at the pasta/cake illustration midway in the article.

VLM 12y ago
WRT "confused", google for the term "glycemic index" or "glycemic load per serving" Its an artistic illustration of Betty Crocker vanilla cake and vanilla frosting having a GI of 42 and a total glps around 24 (for 111 grams) vs kraft mac n cheese having a GI of 64 and total glps around 32 (for 180 grams). (Yes I actually looked this up not just make up example) Some of this is political BS in that the serving size for the mac n cheese is about 60% larger than the serving size for the cake. None the less it is a medical experimental fact that your blood sugar level will spike about 50% harder after the pasta than after the cake. Probably all the oil in the cake, and grease (if purchased) or butter (if homemade) in the frosting, and egg in the cake (intended as an emulsifier rather than a protein source). But yeah, like it or not, WRT blood sugar levels, at the end of dinner, you're WAY better off eating a serving of cake than going back for seconds of pasta. Crazy but true. Now notice that the total glycemic load is what annoys / kills your pancreas, so cake is slightly worse (per gram of serving). However wild crazy fluctuations in blood sugar both drive your brain crazy and screw up the rest of your body, so pasta is worse for that. Your pancreas is not in charge of the quantity of food you eat, so the net effect is eating "more cake and less pasta" will in the long run loose weight or at least result in less weight gain.

falcolas 12y ago

Caloric restriction does work, but from my experience, it's hard, and requires conscious effort all day every day. That's why, until a year ago, it never worked for me. I would imagine that's why it doesn't work for most people as well. Well, conscious effort, and a thoroughly ingrained habit to eat everything on my plate because "starving children in Africa".

smtddr 12y ago

>>In studies by Dr. Rudolph L. Leibel of Columbia and colleagues, when lean and obese research subjects were underfed in order to make them lose 10 to 20 percent of their weight, their hunger increased and metabolism plummeted. Conversely, overfeeding sped up metabolism. This is kind of useless without knowing if they underfed by decreasing amount of food for each feeding time or reducing the numbers of feeding times. The whole idea of eating many small meals during the day instead of a few big ones. Also, depending on the amount of exercising these people are doing these results could go either way.

Mexxer 12y ago

Is this something new for the American population? Hasn't this been known for years or decades already? That's why there are low-carb diets. Put that in combination with calorie intake and exercise and your fat will gradually disappear. It's not exactly rocket science.

sp332 12y ago
Calorie reduction and exercise will reduce your body fat even if you eat mostly carbs. The trouble is that it's hard to stick to a low-calorie diet if you're mostly eating carbs.
delluminatus 12y ago
Of course this isn't new information for people who make an effort to learn and care about their health. There has been a big push in America towards low-carb diets thanks to Dr. Atkins, although it's unclear that a ketogenic diet has higher utility than some other kinds of calorie restriction. But, there are many people in America that don't care enough to know, and more to the point, we benefit in motivation from every reminder that our eating habits are fucked up.

hownottowrite 12y ago

Ref: http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1871695 http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1871695

igravious 12y ago

Would it be going too far to say the type of person who would most benefit from the nutritional advice of this column is also unlikely to be the type of person who reads the New York Times. And to the person who says that what people put into their mouths is, "generally out of their control" - imagine a legal setting and some crime committed, the only way to claim diminished responsibility is to be a minor or plead various forms of insanity. Are we saying that most overweight/obese people are borderline insane when we're invoking the, "it's not their fault" argument?

morgante 12y ago
> Would it be going too far to say the type of person who would most benefit from the nutritional advice of this column is also unlikely to be the type of person who reads the New York Times. Um, yes. I don't at all understand your point. That's the most ridiculous point I've heard in a long time. Are you somehow insinuating that overweight people are not well-read or intelligent? The many, many overweight NYT readers I know (including myself) would beg to differ. > And to the person who says that what people put into their mouths is, "generally out of their control" Your attitude is a terrible example of the moralistic viewpoint which this article disparages. Being overweight is in no way equivalent to a crime. Choice is not a binary. Of course people have some control over what they eat, but it's well established by science that different people at different times have different drives to eat. Or are you completely dismissing addiction as a phenomenon?
- igravious 12y ago
  > That's the most ridiculous point I've heard in a long time. How is it ridiculous? It's not a personal slur on you. Do you deny that people from lower socio-economic backgrounds generally suffer more from overweight issues and obesity? Wouldn't you say that people from this type of background are less likely to consume their mass media in the form of the New York Times? > Being overweight is in no way equivalent to a crime. That's not what I said. Read again what I wrote. Another example. I smoke cigarettes. Should I not take responsibility for this? If I can't stop smoking is it "out of my control"? I'm not making a binary choice out of anything, I'm just contesting the following comment elsewhere here (I should have made a separate comment): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7762934 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7762934 > The food and quality of food that is available to many people is a factor, which is could be said is generally out of their control. I don't think it's helpful to blame the individual as we are all part of systems. There is nowhere in the developed world where you can't buy decent fresh food. At some point along the way some of the responsibility must lie with the person who is choosing to buy one type of food over another because perhaps its pre-made, pre-packaged, hits their pleasure centres, whatever. I guess it relates back to my first point in that I imagine that people like this may not be as informed about nutrition as you or I. And if they are informed then what?

kome 12y ago

Obesity rates in Europe (2008): http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/50326000/gif/_50326564_obesity_rates_464.gif http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/50326000/gif/_50326564... Why Italians, that eat pasta (carbohydrates) almost every day are so thin? Goddammit.

smtddr 12y ago
I don't want to derail this into a crazy huge off-topic & mostly opinionated thread... but there can be a bunch of things going on here. Do Italians have to deal with the same food issues that people in USA deal with? - Is corn syrup in nearly all their breads/pasta? - Do they create their pastas(and sauce) at home rather than USA's commonly TV-dinner style or high-processed fast foods? - I suspect that what a low income person in Italy typical eats is very different from what a low income person in America typically eats. - This... http://www.mapsofworld.com/world-top-ten/world-top-ten-carbonated-soft-drink-consumer-countries.html http://www.mapsofworld.com/world-top-ten/world-top-ten-carbo... - Do they... [One million other things that make the common American's diet a horrible disaster]?
coffeedrinker 12y ago
I do not know if this has anything to do with anything, but I do know that warmer weather affects how much I eat. Whether summering in Italy or in hot weather in the US, I don't experience hunger the same way as when I am in cold weather. My guess is my body does not need as much energy to generate heat, and I tend to drink much more water (sweating) than have a desire for food. Of course, this is my personal experience and genetics and does not explain obesity rates in hotter parts of the US (unless rather than water people are drinking Coke).
- kaybe 12y ago
  Well, ACs are rare in Italy..
- nowlnowl 12y ago
  Well, Sweden is up there too so...
12y ago

SixSigma 12y ago

> Specifically, it’s the first law of thermodynamics > exert willpower and eat less > this advice doesn’t work As we know round these parts, "Ideas are useless without execution"

joel_perl_prog 12y ago

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rTuJ6r1F2hA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rTuJ6r1F2hA I've been helping my family and friends with this recipe, and it's changing lives. Literally. My father, who I taught how to eat vegetarian, has stopped needing insulin! (After heading steadily down the standard American road...sad...) If you add this smoothie to your daily life, and change nothing else, you will feel better. A lot better. You can still eat bacon and eggs for breakfast (I don't recommend that, but you can), and you can still eat a pulled pork sandwich for dinner (also, don't recommend), but if you have this smoothie around the middle of the day, you will feel better and experience benefits. More or less immediately from day one. You are quite literally what you eat. How could it possibly be otherwise? EDIT: easily worth any down votes I may receive here. Computer enthusiasts and professionals, for the most part, in my observation, have a huge blind spot for their health. Huge. So down vote away, my friends. As long as you are also involved in your health!

Mexxer 12y ago
I don't think you are getting downvotes because developers don't care about their health. It's because you are saying that ONE smoothie is changing lives... which is a ridicolous statement. And it honestly sounds like an attempt for self promotion.
- joel_perl_prog 12y ago
  It is not a claim about the future. It's a fact, referring to the past. Of course I will not, but I could easily fish out thank you letters and comments about positive change from a private forum. I promote your health, sir. Not myself. Forget about me. Think about you. And in particular, note that I don't have any ads on my video. It's really about you. If you can believe that. Sometimes people try to do good for its own sake, even in this day and age. Crazy, huh?
  - dandelany 12y ago
    "You will feel better" is certainly and obviously a claim about the future.

moron4hire 12y ago

One of the problems is that, when you are hungry, you are least likely to succeed at deciding to not overeat. Will power is a function of energy. It's why it's so easy for me to decide on things before bed, when I feel the most awake, and find it nearly impossible to pull through on them when I first wake, when I feel the most tired.

rayiner 12y ago

People who say "just eat less" aren't thinking like engineers. Engineers don't get to ignore the wrenches thrown into the works by reality. If seemingly simple advice fails for almost everyone, then the advice is flawed and someone thinking like an engineer has to figure out how to work around those flaws. I don't know if low-carb diets are the full solution, but I think they're at least part of the solution. Avoiding carbs is a simple rule that let's you avoid eating too many calories with relatively less effort than trying to stick to a low-calorie balanced diet. Its easy to blow through 200-300 calories of bagle without even a thought, not so much for an equivalent amount of bacon (6-7 slices).

JoeAltmaier 12y ago
The advice is sound. You get fat from the stuff that goes in your piehole. Stop putting so much stuff in there. The flaw is not in the argument. The flaw is in the people. THAT's thinking like an Engineer.
- sgift 12y ago
  > The flaw is in the people. Reminds me of a story (no idea about historical accuracy): When the chief propagandist of the UDSSR was invited to a scientific conference he talked about all the positive effects of socialism, how it will solve all problems and so on. When his talk was finished the scientists unsurprisingly questioned him about his talk, because of all the prominent problems with socialism. His answer was simple: "The system is perfect. The people are the problem." If your system is 'perfect', but the people are the problem, maybe your system is shit. No one would use an engine that could go near the speed of light but killed all passengers in the process.
  - lvryc 12y ago
    I read the grandparent as being a parody of how the stereotypical engineer thinks. Poe's law in action?
- TillE 12y ago
  It's factually correct, but completely useless as advice. It's someone saying "just do X" with a wave of their hand, without ever bothering to think about how to actually implement X.

tpeng 12y ago

The stomach is not a good judge of whether you should be eating more or less food. For whatever reason, some individuals may be prone to overeating or undereating. If your natural eating tendencies have caused you to be over- or underweight, common sense says that you should stop listening to those natural urges. The key to successful dieting is to transform eating from a biologically-mediated process into a cognitively-mediated process based on counting calories. Given this cognitive feedback, your stomach will actually adapt to a new calorie intake level, lessening hunger. Hunger can also be managed by eating more satiating foods and drinking water. Caloric deficits (or surpluses) work like clockwork. The metabolic slowdown discussed in the article has marginal effects if any -- perhaps a couple hundred calories worth per day at most. A simple thought experiment shows us that the idea of a "set point" body weight is ludicrous: at starvation, of course, the body cannot possibly maintain weight. The reasons why many people fail at dieting is that people underestimate the amount of effort/pain required: http://www.cracked.com/article_18544_how-the-karate-kid-ruined-modern-world.html http://www.cracked.com/article_18544_how-the-karate-kid-ruin...

dlp211 12y ago
"The metabolic slowdown discussed in the article has marginal effects if any -- perhaps a couple hundred calories worth per day." I'm sorry, but that is not a marginal effect. That is the difference between weight gain and weight loss. Also, if you read the article you would have noticed that a calorie deficit is not the only thing that necessitates weight loss, in fact, it might not help at all. There are good calories and bad calories, and how your body handles each depends on the source of the calorie.
- tpeng 12y ago
  I recently went from bulking to cutting and went from 3500 calories per day to 2000 per day. You are massively underestimating caloric intake shifts that are possible or necessary.
  - dlp211 12y ago
    You are assuming that the average person is a weight lifter like yourself. Most people aren't, most people get very little structured exercise. The truth of the matter is that most people don't have the time to go throw 45's around a gym for an hour a few times a week, and that diet and metabolism are the two main factors in a persons weight. Edit: Also, most people aren't eating 3500 calories a day. They are probably eating maybe a couple hundred calories more than they should, but the calories that they are consuming is causing insulin resistance which causes your fat stores to take up additional calories. Even cutting out the extra calories won't help once insulin resistance happens. And here's the kicker, not everyone's body will exhibit insulin resistance, that is why there are people that seem like they can eat what ever they want and not get fat. Here's my anecdotal evidence, I used to eat whatever I wanted, though I ate mostly (what I thought to be) healthy, eg: oatmeal, fruit, veggies, etc. But I hurt my back and all of a sudden, despite my reduced caloric intake, the pounds started being put on. It wasn't until I discover HFLC diets, and began to do my own research that I realized it wasn't how much I was eating, but what I was eating that was causing the weight gain.

HarrietJones 12y ago

Saying that fat contains twice the calories as carbs ignores the plain fact that carbs contain a hell of a lot of calories. This is the problem with modern eating. We don't realise how many calories there are in a slice of bread or a bowl of pasta. Low carb works because people can't seem to understand that flour is 95% the energy density of sugar, and it's easier for them to trick themselves into calorie restriction by pretending that carbs are metabolised in a weird fat making way than it is for them to understand that wheat contains a lot of calories. Also - people don't realise that after you've done all the calculations - eating an extra pound of fat will make you weigh roughly an extra pound. Here's my diet advice: If the thing you're eating is used in nature as an energy store, then it's probably packed with calories. The article sets off alarm bells with me, because it places so much emphasis on slowing metabolisms at the beginning. As far as I'm aware, your metabolism doesn't slow down until you're close to starvation (all reserves used), and the reduction in energy output caused by the slowing metabolism is minor. Speed of metabolism seems to be something only people on the dodgy end of the weight loss spectrum believe in.

a8da6b0c91d 12y ago
> As far as I'm aware, your metabolism doesn't slow down until you're close to starvation (all reserves used) A bad night's sleep or a lack of sunlight will slow your metabolism down. It's quite variable. Under eating for just a couple days will tank it. Going low protein (under, say, 80 grams) is also sure to lower metabolism.

pkulak 12y ago

If carbs are bad, sugar is horrible. Just in case you haven't seen these: Sugar: The Bitter Truth: http://youtu.be/dBnniua6-oM http://youtu.be/dBnniua6-oM Fat Chance: Fructose 2.0: http://youtu.be/ceFyF9px20Y http://youtu.be/ceFyF9px20Y

kephra 12y ago

All those theories ignore the epigentics part ob obesity. One of the main factors are what did your mother eat, when she was before puberty, and what did you eat before puberty. Children of immigrants are often fat, because their mothers came from a culture where food was scare but natural, and they now grow up in in a culture where food is cheap and contains lots of sugar. The epigentics now cause that they will store the sugar into fat, whenever available. Grand children of immigrants are often thin again. Because their parents already grown up in a culture where food was cheap. So there are only a few things one could do: 1st - try to keep your children thin. Let them make sport, let them drive bicycle to school, and do not drive them by car. Avoid sugar, especially fructose. 2nd - its to late, once you left puberty. Only a hormone change could change weight. Women get a 2nd chance to get thin when pregnant or during menopause. But they normally get fatter. 3rd - So just try to live with your weight. Start a sport where weight is good, e.g. sailing. Every sailor is always searching for fat crew, as self loading ballast on the rail. Even if sailing does not feel like sport, you burn lots of calories by moving your body to balance the waves. You learn to move your fat fast, and to balance yourself, even with high weight. A few years sailing might only cause 10lbs of weight loss, but the health benefit is much bigger then just the weight loss. And the self esteem gains a lot, regardless if you win a race, or only sail recreational.

vobios 12y ago
Do not confuse epigenetics with culture. There are a ton of calorie restriction experiments involving all species (except humans, since that is not realistically possible). These studies show that calorie restriction clearly results in weight loss.

encoderer 12y ago

I cringe when I hear things like "And when you cut their diets, their metabolism slows down, and when you add to them, it speeds up" That's exactly what it's supposed to do.

greggman 12y ago

Just a random "obvious" comment but.. I've lost some weight recently by cutting my intake. My inspiration was my sister who used to be 5'2" and 260lbs but is now ~130lbs. She got her stomach stapled and for some number of months was on a 500 calorie a day diet. (I don't recommend that) Anyway, seeing that and reading things here on HN about how calorie restriction has an order of magnitude more effect than exercise (which I do) I decided to try to eat ~1500 calories a day for a while. It's surprisingly HARD because of how little food that is. They way people eat in the USA, it's crazy how large the portions are. I'm in Japan where the portions are smaller but, calories are labeled on most things and even with small portions it's amazing to me just how little I can eat and stay under 2000 a day let alone 1500 a day. A "small" Japanese convenience store style sandwich is 300 calories. Those are probably only 60% the size of the smallest sandwich I'd see in the USA. Pretty much any small Japanese pastry, donut, thing made with bread is 300-500 calories. Again those are at least 30% smaller than their USA counterparts. Soda, Fruit juice, coffee with sugar, etc, all around 140 calories for 12oz. Potato-chips or fries or a sugary snack? Forget about it! The point is, it wasn't until I actually tried seriously looking at my calorie intake that I realized how many calories I was consuming. A small lunch, a medium dinner and a snack and I'm over 2000 calories easily. There's no way I could fit any kind of "normal" breakfast in that routine and still fit in 1500-2000 calories. Anyway, I guess like I said that's kind of obvious but for whatever reason it wasn't to me until I actually started paying attention. As for being hungry all the time, yea, because of 48+ years of eating way too much my idea of what a meal should be or how much I should eat to feel like I've done more than just had a snack is seriously out of whack.

mistermann 12y ago
Informative: http://www.wisegeek.com/what-does-200-calories-look-like.htm http://www.wisegeek.com/what-does-200-calories-look-like.htm http://www.mendosa.com/satiety.htm http://www.mendosa.com/satiety.htm http://healthyeating.sfgate.com/foods-high-satiation-3799.html http://healthyeating.sfgate.com/foods-high-satiation-3799.ht... Imho the easiest way by far to lose weight is eat foods that combine low carb + high satiation index.
- greggman 12y ago

charlieflowers 12y ago

Lustig has his critics[1]. In fact, seems the mainstream almost thinks of him as a quack (almost). Myself, I can't discern who's right and wrong. I can see that a lot of people are overstating their level of certainty. [1] http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/01/29/the-bitter-truth-about-fructose-alarmism/ http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/01/29/the-bitter-truth-ab...

benjohnson 12y ago
Personally, I think Lustig has gotten a bit shrill in his attempt to get notice for his discoveries and observations. I can forgive him for that. For myself, I accepted his premise and did my own experiment: by making a minimal attempt to stay away from most sugar, I've lost 15 lbs in the last year and a half.
hornbaker 12y ago
This article was by Ludwig, not Lustig.
- charlieflowers 12y ago
  You're right. Oops. The claims sounded similar and the names were similar, and my brain jumped to a conclusion. Apparently, the OA has nothing (directly) to do with Lustig. I'd delete my comment if I could, but I don't see an option for that.

Tycho 12y ago

I have a theory that being overweight is mostly caused by lack of walking. Everyone seems to get heavier as they get older, and most people seem to be slim when they're students. Regardless of how 'healthy' their lifestyle is (ie. if they eat junk food, or go jogging). So basically my theory is that when you're a student, you're probably walking a long way to get to university each day, and then when you're there you spend a lot of time walking about campus. When you leave university and get a job, you get into a car and drive to work, and then sit at your desk most of the day. And then retreat to the family home for the evening, rather than walking about town to meet your friends. Most people are aware of their sedentariness, and put effort into diets and exercise regimes (which they never dreamt of when they were younger), but without the daily walking it's an uphill struggle. So gradually over the years they put on the pounds, until virtually all of them have lost that slim figure.

tim333 12y ago
While I think your theory is quite likely an oversimplification I found it interesting looking for fat people while trekking in Nepal through villages with no roads where the only way of getting around was hilly trails. Basically there were no fat people amongst the locals and fat trekkers lost weight at a healthy clip, myself included. This in spite the restaurants including things like fried rice which go against most healthy eating menus. It would be an interesting experiment to build homes for the clinically obese that were in a valley with only walking access up the hill to the nearest eatery. I'd wage money that weight loss would ensue even if the eatery was a McDonalds.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
munificent 12y ago
I think your theory is an oversimplification, but I agree totally that walking is an under-appreciated component of health. Anecdote: several years ago, my brother and his wife were in their thirties and starting to get a bit soft around the middle like everyone does when they exit their twenties. Like most Americans, they lived in a pedestrian-unfriendly city and drove everywhere. They moved to Vancouver and sold their car. Suddenly, they were walking everywhere. I went to visit them and they both looked markedly better: slimmer and healthier. They eventually moved back to the States and they went right back to the shape they were in before. I think walking is one of the easiest and most pleasurable things we can change to improve our health. Aside from the time cost, there's little downside to it.

germancito 12y ago

>>Several prominent clinical trials reported no difference in weight loss when comparing diets purportedly differing in protein, carbohydrate and fat. However, these trials had major limitations; at the end, subjects reported that they had not met the targets for complying with the prescribed diets. I would really like to know the percentage of subjects who did not comply with the diets. So far the evidence from many clinical trials shows that there is no effect of diet content on weight loss, as much as I like the article's point.

aianus 12y ago

I wish I was fat so I could achieve my weight goals by sitting around working, watching TV, and not eating. Trust me, trying to gain weight is way more difficult and expensive and time consuming.

ninkendo 12y ago

This article goes to a lot of effort to make calorie-counting diets seem futile due to human nature, and there's certainly some truth to it. But I still think "pure" calorie counting (and by that I mean not changing much of what you eat, just how much you eat) can work for the average person. It's just that, to "just eat less", you actually have to log everything you eat so that you can't lie to yourself and blow your calorie budget without knowing it. This is true IMO even if you're doing low-carb or any other kind of diet. Accountability and making it impossible to lie to yourself is key. Personal anecdote follows: I lost 50 lbs (220 -> 170 lbs at 6'2") by logging every single (non-zero-calorie) thing that passes my lips, and I've kept it off for over a year. I have no idea if the amount of willpower I have is typical, but I definitely couldn't have done it if I didn't log what I eat. My theory is that if you don't actually account for all the food you eat, you're more likely to slip out of good habits because you gradually lie to yourself more and more until you're consistently blowing your calorie budget without realizing it. But I really have to log everything, no matter what, even when I overeat. I can never say to myself "I'm on vacation, I can skip a day" or "well I'm already way over my calorie budget, may as well stop logging." Even if I end up 1500 calories over budget, all the food I ate is right there in my log. There's a couple of reasons why I think this works for me: * If I log everything, then it's impossible to blow through 200-300 calories on a bagel without realizing it, because the act of logging it puts it in the front of my mind. * So long as I log everything, I can allow myself to blow my budget now and again. But since it's logged, I know exactly how many calories I need to make up in the coming days. On a week-to-week and month-to-month basis I can make it all even out. * Even though it's human nature to want to eat back all the calories you lost (and you will slip), there's nothing in human nature that's preventing you from logging it all. I may binge and overeat because my body's telling me to, but perhaps the next day when I realize I'm already 1500 calories over for the week because of yesterday, I'm better equipped to compensate for it and have a salad for lunch instead. * Once you find the right number of calories, you can avoid under eating as well. For me I decided early I wanted to lose only 1 lb/week. So in the early months of my diet there was plenty of times where I was something like 600 calories under my daily budget, and I didn't feel like eating, but I forced myself to eat anyway. This throttled my weight loss, but I think it was a major factor in keeping it off... my brain never really went into the severe feast/famine recovery that made me yo-yo right back to my old weight. The main downside of this plan though, is I have no exit strategy... I have my "maintenance level" of calories set on my logging app, and I really do plan to just log what I eat for the rest of my life. (I've been doing it for two years straight now.) It's completely automatic for me (I use the "Lose It!" app on my iPhone) so I don't even see it as a burden any more, but I know that as soon as I stop I'll slip back into my old habits and gain all my weight back.

findjashua 12y ago

Stephan Guyenet has written extensively on the issues with the insulin hypothesis: http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2012/01/insulin-and-obesity-another-nail-in.html http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2012/01/insulin-and-ob... He has also written about how low carb diets work by reducing the variety and the reward factor of the diet (http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2011/08/carbohydrate-hypothesis-of-obesity.html http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2011/08/carbohydrate-h...) some other counterarguments are: 1. Protein digestion also raises insulin, so why doesn't a high protein diet result in weight gain? 2. There are plenty of cultures around the world whose diet is primarily starch based (eg. Kitavans). Why isn't obesity prevalent in these cultures (http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2008/08/kitavans-wisdom-from-pacific-islands.html http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2008/08/kitavans-wisdo...). 3. More recently, someone lost weight while eating only potatoes for 60 days (http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2012/12/the-potato-diet.html http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2012/12/the-potato-die...). It'd be interesting to see the effects of just eating nuts (high fat, low carb) for 60 days. tldr: it's not insulin that causes us to eat more than we need, it's the high reward factor and low satiety of the diet. A simple diet comprised of foods with low reward factor and high satiety makes it very easy to stay within the caloric budget.

a8da6b0c91d 12y ago
A lot of people have had success losing weight by going with a very simple diet that is nutrient replete. The low carb thing really is BS. Sugary fruit is fine nutrition. It's really not hard to get complete nutrition from well chosen foods like fruit and dairy. Here's 20 bananas and four pints of 1% milk, totally nutrient replete: http://imgur.com/a/X6F6j http://imgur.com/a/X6F6j You could eat this every day for weeks and have no problems. If you're fat you'd almost certainly lose weight and maintain muscle.

guyinblackshirt 12y ago

I first read about insulin's role in weight loss in Ferriss' book "Four Hour body", and the results from his approach have been pretty impressive (tracked 3,500 people and 84% of them lost weight) http://fourhourworkweek.com/2013/01/22/is-the-4-hour-body-a-scam-tracking-3500-people-to-find-out/ http://fourhourworkweek.com/2013/01/22/is-the-4-hour-body-a-...

codeshaman 12y ago

Calories and energy sources (carbs, proteins, fats) are a small part of the riddle. Besides calories our bodies need lots of micronutrients, amino-acids, enzymes,... - the quality of the food is paramount. Our modern food is high in calories and low in nutrients, that's mostly due to the 'advances' in modern agriculture and the whole chain of food production and distribution. Then there is the aspect of the mind. Look into the mind of any overweight or obese person and you'll find a bucket of psychological disorders, most of them caused by poor nutrition and most of them being the reason for the person 'fixing' them with more food or alcohol or drugs. Few people ever learn to listen to their bodies and when their bodies scream 'I need nutrients', the mind hears 'I am hungry' and goes and procures more empty calories. That's the cycle which leads to weight gain and obesity and all the related health problems.