
Biohacking Lite - askytb
https://karpathy.github.io/2020/06/11/biohacking-lite/
======
gdebel
I'm French (and incidentally a doctor,and my post is not judgemental in any
way, this is not the point). Everytime I travel to the USA, I'm puzzled by how
difficult it is to "eat normally" (= by my own standards). You can find really
good junk food everywhere, or pay a really high price to eat in high-level
Italian restaurants for example, but it is very difficult to eat standard
meat-with-vegetable-without-sugar-added, except in Asian restaurants (and even
there, food is often sweetened). Of course it is biased because I have no
access usually to a kitchen when I travel.

I think sugar is the main problem (not fat) and I'm not convinced calory count
is key. We did not evolved to eat processed sugar, which is not easily found
naturally in the environment.

My 2 cents: \- eat as much vegetables as you want (learn to cook them, with a
little bit of olive oil) \- eat as much fish as you want (no need to cook! Low
temperature baking, 1h at 70-80°, the best cooking you'll ever have) \- eat
meat in reasonable, "as-if-you-had-to-hunt-it-with-a-bow" quantities \- ban
every processed food, sauce, appetizer.... If you would not eat a spoon of
every single ingredient of some food, don't eat it. \- ban all added sugar,
except (real) honey in reasonable proportions.

This implies to know/learn how to cook (not so hard but this is easier when
the local/family culture allowed you to learn passively).

It looks like this is hard to do in the USA: you don't easily find, for
example, yogurt without sugar added. (Or I didn't look at the right place,
once again this is not judgemental).

Generally speaking, it is easy to find online high-level cooking courses, but
hard to learn the basics of how to cook your onions or tomatoes in different
ways in everyday life, or make an healthy meal with what's left in the fridge;
this could be interesting to have.

\--edited for typing errors

~~~
shawxe
In general, I agree with a lot of what you're saying here about eating more
vegetables and way less sugar being the way to go health-wise, but I do want
to respond to some specific things you've said.

> You can find really good junk food everywhere, or pay a really high price to
> eat in high-level Italian restaurants for example, but it is very difficult
> to eat standard meat-with-vegetable-without-sugar-added, except in Asian
> restaurants

Restaurants are typically not where I go to eat healthy food anywhere in the
world, although I do think you have a pointed that American restaurants are
often relatively junk food oriented.

> ban every processed food, sauce, appetizer....

There is nothing inherently wrong with "processed" food; it is entirely
possible to use industrial processes to make a perfectly healthy and wholesome
food product. Take for example, (this is by no means an endorsement) Larabar
[1]. They make snack bars that typically contain 2-3 ingredients that are all
just dried fruit. Should they be banned as "processed" food because of how
they are made?

> If you would not eat a spoon of every single ingredient of some food, don't
> eat it

This is a ridiculous statement and is one of the main reasons why I'm
commenting. I wouldn't eat a spoonful of yeast, should I not eat bread? I
wouldn't eat a spoonful of salt, should I not eat... anything?

> It looks like this is hard to do in the USA: you don't easily find, for
> example, yogurt without sugar added.

I've never lived in an area in the United States where I've ever had any
problem finding anything like this.

[1] [https://www.larabar.com/](https://www.larabar.com/)

~~~
gdebel
I can eat a spoon of salt, or yeast. It is not particularly good but I know
what it is, and I know the toxic dose. I won't eat a spoon of sodium benzoate
or E324 or I don't know which food additive, I can't buy it in a food store,
it is not "food" by itself. So I don't eat it :-)

~~~
shawxe
I'm not sure a big spoon of salt will make you any less sick than a big spoon
of sodium benzoate, but that's fair. I definitely agree that people should
avoid eating things they do not understand; I think most of my disagreement
with your original post is semantic, but I do still appreciate it. :-)

------
thechao
If anyone else wants to get into this, there are a few _really strong_
measures that correlate fairly well to the DEXA scans. My favorite (because
its easy): measure your waist just above your belly button. This area has
virtually no "bulky" muscle and is one of the principle deposits of "internal"
body fat.

The two measures I take everyday are:

1\. Body weight; and,

2\. Waist size.

I use the following routine for weight loss (I've lost about 50kg, and have
kept it off for several years):

1\. You must have a diet to _weigh less_ ;

2\. You must have a distinct diet to _lose weight_ ;

3\. You must do low impact cardio — I walk 3-5 miles a day; and,

4\. You must do resistance training.

Those four things have the following purpose:

1\. Keep you at a stable weight;

2\. Take off weight;

3\. Increase background caloric burn from "super sedentary"; and,

4\. Encourage _fat loss_ over _lean body mass loss_.

All of this is requires _routine_. You must develop a _routine_ for the rest
of your life, and not vary from it. It also requires _honesty_ : you need to
be _honest_ with yourself about what you're eating, when; what exercise you're
really doing; when. And, finally, if you're overweight you're at the mercy of
millions of years of evolution, but you're the _victim_ of our modern diet.
It's not your fault, but there is something you can do about it.

~~~
andrewzah
Intermittent fasting also helps. Many people do 16:8 (16 hours of fasting) and
only eat from 12-8 or 10-6.

With IF, I lost about ~5 lbs doing nothing besides being more mindful. Once I
added in daily runs / walks of ~4-5 miles, I lost another ~10 lbs easily.

I think the biggest challenge for people looking to lose weight is mindless
eating / snacking. Initially I kept a diet journal and wrote down _everything_
I ate or drank, and realized I would get more snacks throughout the day than I
thought. I also drank a lot less water than I thought.

The other thing is portions. When I was at my largest, the portions I would
set for myself were larger, and I would more often get a second round. All
without really thinking about it, of course. Now I deliberately think about
how big of a portion is appropriate and I never go for seconds except on some
cheat days.

~~~
karpathy
Agree, I didn't mention this in the post but I've become a big fan of
intermittent fasting, which is a fancy way of saying "skip breakfast". I only
eat from 12-8pm and most days from 12-6pm. I also found that even if I wake up
a bit hungry my morning coffee suppresses my appetite and I rarely struggle to
get to lunch. A hard threshold on 8pm also avoids most of the unhealthy
snacking that tends to happen in late hours. I find that as the body winds
down for the day and is a bit more tired my defenses and motivation are down a
bit and I feel tempted by snacks. With IF it's easy to blanket reject such
ideas from my brain because I'm outside of my window. There is also a slight
element to which the body "gets used to" the feeding schedule, and doesn't
bother you as much outside of it with snacking ideas.

~~~
agumonkey
I need some polls about the relationship between 'hunger' and boredom. I felt
skipping meals was difficult for a few minutes but then I turned the eating-
stress into action and it made me slightly manically motivated into doing some
task (electronics, cleaning, jogging) and few minutes later the hunger
disappeared.

~~~
jdhzzz
Also a coronavirus convert to "skip breakfast". That has let some weight to
"effortlessly" slide off. Down about 7 pounds (3-ish kg) from 195 (88.5). I
have many more days behind me that before me, so I refuse to give up on eating
things I've spent a lifetime consuming (red meat, super processed snack foods:
high density carbohydrates, fat, salt and probably more sugar/HFCS than I care
to consider. Mmmmm). It has been all about quantity for me. I have been
consistent about getting exercise, but that has minimal impact on weight as
has been pointed out.

~~~
agumonkey
Well weight is one thing but in my case sport is such a cornerstone of my well
being. Even if one is heavy, I think being very active leads to tons of
benefits internally.

------
yutopia
After years of experimentation, lately I’ve decided that eating like my
grandparents (i.e., eating like a traditional Japanese) is the easiest way to
keep myself lean and healthy.

Traditional Japanese meals follow a standard format [1]: a bowl of rice,
several small sides (which can change by the day), and an optional cup of miso
soup. Sticking to this format every day can be boring, but it keeps my diet
_reasonably_ balanced without the need for conscious efforts like counting
calories (which I'm too lazy to continue long-term).

[1] [https://elemental.medium.com/ichiju-sansai-how-to-
construct-...](https://elemental.medium.com/ichiju-sansai-how-to-construct-
meals-like-a-japanese-centennial-7cb878366994)

I think in modern cities we have too much freedom with regard to what we eat,
which is great of course but the downside is that we’ve lost a great deal of
local culinary tradition, and along with it intuitive understandings of what
is and what isn’t healthy eating.

~~~
dnhz
The funny thing is that eating rice isn't even that old of a tradition, and
neither is eating it in polished, white form. White rice only became
ubiquitous when milling technology improved, and spoilage of the oils in brown
rice became a concern for storage.

> Despite its long history in Japan rice was, for a long time, a food reserved
> for the warriors and the nobility. It was consumed by the majority of the
> population only from the seventeenth century onwards, not becoming the basis
> of Japanese food until the early twentieth century

[https://www.japan-experience.com/to-know/chopsticks-at-
the-r...](https://www.japan-experience.com/to-know/chopsticks-at-the-
ready/rice-in-japan)

> A disproportionate share of the rice crop was therefore consumed in the
> cities and by the political and economic elite, while the diet of much of
> the rural population continued to depend on the availability of a range of
> other grains – wheat, millet, barley, etc. – together with vegetables,
> fruit, pulses and occasional fish or game, grown at home or collected in the
> locality.

[https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/0955580070133003...](https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09555800701330030)

~~~
rrrrrrrrrrrryan
I currently work for a company that makes glucose monitors for people with
diabetes, but we (non-diabetic) employees sometimes get to try the products
out.

As far as I'm aware, all the current medical literature states to avoid simple
carbs (like white rice) to prevent insulin spikes, and to eat things like
whole grain breads instead. But, we noticed that this seems to only be true
for people of European descent - my Asian co-workers were able to process
white rice just fine. Which kind of makes sense - East Asian people eat a ton
of rice, and yet they're thin.

This is all purely anecdotal of course, and I'm not a doctor, but we do know
that different ethnicities process food differently (e.g. lactose), and it's
not so hard to imagine that our current dietary recommendations might be a bit
skewed, because the people in the datasets are mostly of European ancestry.

~~~
dnhz
I've read elsewhere that East Asians are more prone to diabetes than are other
ethnicities. A quick google search for "east asian diabetes" yields links for
higher risk, with diabetes occurring at lower BMI values. Also, the nature of
diabetes type II appears to be different [2].

1\. [https://www.clinicalcorrelations.org/2018/11/30/how-
diabetes...](https://www.clinicalcorrelations.org/2018/11/30/how-diabetes-
differs-in-the-east-asian-patient-implications-for-diagnosis-and-treatment/)

2\. [https://asiandiabetesprevention.org/what-is-diabetes/why-
are...](https://asiandiabetesprevention.org/what-is-diabetes/why-are-asians-
higher-risk)

------
gandreani
> As a result I’ve improved a number of biomarkers (e.g. resting heart rate,
> resting blood glucose, strength, endurance, nutritional deficiencies, etc).
> I wish I could say I feel significantly better or sharper, but honestly I
> feel about the same. But the numbers tell me I’m supposed to be on a better
> path and I think I am content with that .

I appreciate this honesty

~~~
byproxy
I think a lot of that last point can be attributed to gradual improvement and
acclimation to that improvement. If you were able to snapshot mood and mental
health like you could a picture of your body, you might see a marked
improvement over pre-healthy-lifestyle vs., say, post-1-year-healthy-
lifestyle.

For example, I've been losing weight and doing body-weight training the last
month-and-a-half and a picture of my body now vs. then shows a fairly drastic
change. But I can' say that I feel like I weigh less or feel that I'm
stronger. Though, the scale and reps of exercise that I can do say otherwise.
Every day starts a "new normal."

~~~
akiselev
A lot of people also aren't "in tune" with their bodies, especially those with
weaker autobiographical memories. Many just don't internalize or remember how
they feel over different time periods except for extreme events (emotional,
strong smells, etc.). Unless they have a hangover, they don't much consider
how they feel on a relative scale, let alone try to tie it back to their past
diet or lifestyle. Throw in a lot of drugs like caffeine, antidepressants,
pain killers, depressants like alcohol, stimulants like ADHD meds and it
results in a perfect storm where subtle signals that many people are naturally
mindful of just get drowned out. Even becoming aware that you can
differentiate signals takes practice just like any other muscle.

This has been my biggest struggle with health. I've always had troubles with
autobiographical memory and without it, I can't stay motivated because I
quickly forget how good exercise felt or how junk food made me feel a few
hours later. I started going to the gym to dogfood when I joined a fitness
company and within a few months I was looking a lot better but not feeling it.
It wasn't until I started to really push my limit with rowing workouts that I
felt the "runner's high" athletes talk about. From that point on, it was felt
like I was discovering a new muscle group every few weeks and correlating how
far I rowed in a 60 minute rowing session with my diet and lifestyle. Junk
food that I would scarf down because unappetizing. Drinking alcohol went from
a no-brainer to "how will I feel tomorrow?" Morning stretches and exercise
became mandatory just to feel "normal."

Even now, with the gyms closed for months, I can feel that newly acquired
skill slipping and predictably, my self discipline slides too. I've almost
forgotten how good it feels after a nice workout.

~~~
eebynight
I can very much relate to this. I have tended to always be someone that pays
attention to these minor details. To me, it is absolutely insane that people
don't remember or internalize how they feel regularly. For example, I can tell
you with ease that I had a long string of extreme productivity and focus in
March lasting until the middle of April which dipped during May and is now
peaking again. I can tell you what I believe to have caused it and what also
ruined it. Productivity, Energy, sleep quality and overall mood are things I
think about daily.

For me developing this skill was a necessity after I encountered frequent
headaches from eating and drinking the "wrong" things. I was basically forced
to take my awareness of general overall wellbeing up a notch to really figure
out what was causing them. Noticing small signs became important to prevent
being sidelined from life with a nasty headache.

I have it down pretty well now and there are certain very small, but distinct,
signals and feelings that tell me when headaches are coming so I can work to
prevent them.

Anecdotal, but I've talked to lots of acquaintances about this and no one
seems to understand what I'm talking about. I've also been meditating for 4+
years perhaps that adds to the heightened awareness.

I don't want to say that people are "unconscious" but is sad that many are
missing out on a more nuanced experience of life.

------
curiousgal
As someone struggling to _gain_ weight it always bugs me how "being healthy"
is only associated with weight loss.

~~~
hinkley
I was a bean pole into my early twenties, and would have been 20 lbs skinnier
still if not for cycling. I never gained any more weight until I dumped the
classical advice and did my own thing.

Everyone tries to compress a workout into a single time interval in the day,
where you do n sets of each exercise and then go home. To do three sets in
three minutes, you're going to have to pick a _very_ conservative goal. Doing
5 sets spread out over the entire day, I could lift more and saw results
pretty much right away, and really for the first time. I'd exercise while
waiting for things like the drier to ding or toast to pop up, a file to
download, a commercial break or a cut scene to finish. But, I had to have
exercises I could do at home, which takes some creativity (or a lot of money).

Your body is conserving resources. The whole point of 'exercise' is to trick
your body into thinking that you are an active person who needs to spend the
extra resources to build and maintain large muscles, cardiac or lung capacity,
or all three. If you are actually active you don't have to 'work out'. Your
life is work, and your body adapts.

Once I got past that initial roadblock, I got results even from the gym, but I
was able to be more consistent doing it at home.

The trouble with putting on a lot of bulk though, is if you stop. Exercise
burns a lot of calories. Persistent exercise therefore changes your notion of
what a 'normal' amount of food is. If you stop, it probably due to some major
life event, and adjusting your notion of 'normal eating' might get lost in the
mix. Which is probably why a lot of pro athletes chunk up when they retire (or
get retired). Going from 3-4000 calories a day to under 2500 is quite a
lifestyle change.

~~~
kleinsch
What were the exercises you ended up doing at home spread out over the day?
Given the current situation, seems like a unique time lots of us could try out
that type of workout.

~~~
hinkley
If you're trying to weave a workout into your day, isometric exercises are the
quickest exercise. You just need floor space. A dumb-bell or two for the upper
arms and torso, put somewhere that you won't stub your toe (you will stub your
toe anyway)

Pullups are the trickiest. At the time there was a staircase with open treads
near my apartment.

------
ve55
>all of which I won’t go into full details of because it lets a bit too much
of the mad scientist crazy out.

This is a bit disappointing, but I know how the author feels. I can definitely
feel like I am going to be judged for being crazy telling people about the
strange ways in which I try to empirically optimize my health.

But, nothing is more important than our health, and I think it would have
great effects on readers for the author to continue to expand on all of these
other great health topics they're interested in. Speaking for myself, I became
much more interested in this stuff just after reading some great detailed blog
posts from others that are very into biohacking and related areas, and it had
a wonderful effect on my life.

I'd love for others to be able to receive the same, much of us often focus too
much on technical endeavors and lack giving the proper attention to diet,
exercise, and much more. It becomes a lot more interesting and fun to some
people when they realize the level of detail, optimization, quantification,
and so on, they can put into this.

The best part is that instead of having your code run faster or your customer
retention go up, you literally increase your life span and decrease your risk
if diseases.

~~~
JamesBarney
What were the changes you made that had biggest impacts?

~~~
ve55
For myself the largest impact would have to be diet improvements, just like
for most people. But, in general I want to be able to be much more
preventative instead of reactive. I don't want to get diagnosed with
atherosclerosis or diabetes in 10 years, I want to prevent the onset of them
as best as I can _now_.

But, to try to provide a more helpful answer, here is two examples of things I
do now, with much more detail:

1) I get a lot of (mostly blood) tests, and work to optimize them past 'making
sure they are okay'. A lot of basic tests can be kind of pass or fail, like
"do you have enough iron?" or "do you have enough vitamins?". But, a lot of
other tests are less quantized, and have a lot of room for improvement past
just being in the standard range, which does not mean you are _optimal_ , just
_not doing terribly_. A good example for this is an advanced lipid panel,
triglycerides, blood pressure, and insulin resistance. Just getting results of
"you probably aren't going to have a cardiac event or get diabetes" is good,
but they can be optimized much more than this to reduce your long-term
probability of many problems to as low as possible. It's also fun to find out
the diverse array of other tests you can get to learn more about yourself, and
potentially optimize. Nerdy people generally like optimizing things, and
having numbers to attach to how well you are doing makes this a lot more
alluring, at least for me.

2) A lot of more speculative research on different dietary (whether food,
supplements, or drugs) changes that I can make for hope of long-term
noticeable improvements. More common examples here might be things like
magnesium or Vitamin D, but there's countless rabbit holes you can go down of
many, much more interesting examples (For example, metformin, rapamycin, and
many many others). The reason I don't provide a list is mostly because
everyone is very different and has different goals, and also because I'm not a
fan of the (mostly terrible) supplements industry as a whole. But just because
so many popular products use junk science and scam consumers, doesn't mean
there are many real gems out there.

------
dishoom
I must say coming from a medical perspective (1/2 doctor),it's always
interesting hearing peoples views about metabolism. Although the opinions are
"valid", the bottom line to this discussion is that we need to simply eat less
sugar, with the whole fruit as a notable exception to this rule. Ideally, our
diets should be low in sugar and high in fiber, consisting primarily of
fruits, vegetables and whole grains. By paying attention to the sugar in
prepackaged foods, adding less sugar to our tea or coffee, limiting desserts,
and drinking water instead of sugary beverages, it’s easy to reduce our sugar
consumption.

A change that I would want to see in the food industry is traffic light
labeling. This is popular in Europe and in limited use in the US. In this
system, food and beverages are labeled by color, with green indicating the
healthiest options, and yellow and red less healthy ones. In the UK, total
sugar content is used to determine a beverage’s rating, placing juice on par
with soda. These simple systems help consumers especially in the western world
make better choices, even when they don’t have the time to peruse a nutrition
facts label.

------
julianeon
I was a little bit disappointed that the title promised an introduction to
biohacking, but in practice, by the end, it amounted to how to lose weight.
The "hacking" part is in understanding how the body processes energy and how
eating affects that, I guess. Still, from that title, I think it was fair to
expect a different article.

~~~
andbberger
I mean.... what did you expect... "I CRISPR'd myself and now i'm
photosynthetic?"

~~~
lordlic
Well, there are lots of people with unhealthy tolerances for risk who write
about brain hacking with nootropics.

------
zan2434
I think the most sustainable way to lose fat (not weight ofc) is to gain lean
muscle mass. You can substantially increase your basal metabolic rate and
induce a calorie deficit to incur fat loss without actually eating any less.
The problem of course is that your body does automatically increase your
appetite commensurately as your BMR goes up, but calorie counting + discipline
can help you stay lean as you gain muscle mass, and then lose the fat over
time.

------
fudged71
As a personal trainer I'm really impressed by the technical depth of this
post, although it really only centers on the idea of caloric deficit, which is
relatively basic compared to the other topics he mentioned.

It's so hard to visualize small long-term biological changes without moving
averages. "Trust the process" is so important.

"Trust the algorithm" is even more apt:

• what/when to eat,

• what/when to train, and conversely

• what/when to rest.

If you haven't seen exercise/nutrition through an algorithmic lens, you might
be surprised how straightforward it is to make progress day-to-day and how
much progress you can really make in a short period of time. I wish strength
training had more academics/coders and fewer 'meatheads' because the
documentation around it is so anti-intellectual.

Even as a trainer it's taken time to find reliable resources to optimize this
algorithm, but I've been using a solid combination of tools and methodologies
that make this complete and quantitative. I have clients that have lost a lot
of weight and are lifting serious weight in a short span of time.

It's great to see software engineers speak about health topics in general.

~~~
tomp
So... where can a non-PT find this kind of advice? Maybe you, or any other
trainer you can recommend? Or some online resource?

(Personally, I'm probably above-average knowledgeable about fitness, but I
_still_ find the information unmanageably overwhelming - train every day,
every 3 days, every muscle once a week, every muscle 3 times a week, big
muscles less often than small muscles, focus on strength, focus on growth,
focus on flexibility, cardio, no cardio, ...)

~~~
joshvm
You probably need to be more specific about your end goal. Is it to lift a
particular amount, run a marathon, climb a certain route etc? There are
usually specific trainers for certain skills, just like in video games :) If I
wanted to get better at bouldering, I'd book a 1 on 1 at my climbing wall, not
a generic trainer at the local gym (but maybe I would after advice from the
climbing coach).

For generic "get fit" goals, stretch every day and some amount of
cardio/resistance training three times a week is hard to get wrong. The
important thing is to read your body and don't push your luck. Also, to stop
when you lose good form.

There is a lot of overwhelming information, but a lot of it is conflicting and
anecdotal. You yourself point out - should you go for growth? 5 days on? 7
days on?? You can find information online to support pretty much any theory
you like (particularly about training frequency).

~~~
fudged71
I agree there's a lot of conflicting information and that specificity is key.
But it can also be useful to have a guide for when you change goals, someone
who knows your history and preferences etc.

Body composition changes typically go through multiple different phases and
cycles. It might seem like you'd want someone specific for each phase, yet
some consistency is helpful across phases too. As an analogy, you wouldn't
want to change universities for each year of your degree

~~~
joshvm
I was trying to allude to this a bit, but maybe it didn't come across clearly.
I was thinking more about how you approach getting help to achieve a goal. And
probably a good way forward is a mixture of occasional 1-on-1 sessions with
experts in your chosen activity, followed up with more regular sessions with a
general trainer who can help you achieve what the expert says you need to
improve. For example, specialist advice can range from very specific technique
improvements, to more general comments like "technique is good, but you need
better core strength" at which point a personal trainer might be a good call.

------
tonystubblebine
If people are looking for alternative approaches to weight loss, I would
consider simply buying a blood glucose monitor. They cost about $100 on Amazon
or less and test strips less than $0.50.

The thing that makes it alternative is that it sets you up to be reactive
rather than prescriptive. A lot of people end up rebelling against
prescriptive rules for eating and then fall off the wagon in frustration.

The Blood Glucose monitoring approach is to see what spikes your blood sugar
on the idea that higher levels are more likely to lead to reduced insulin
sensitivity which often leads to more of the calories you eat being stored as
fat. I just take the measurement first thing in the morning.

I find that how I eat shows up in my morning BGL and so I can be a little bit
more reactive. If the level is high, then I need to pull harder on some of the
levers that day.

This way of thinking also sets you up to have a better personal sense of what
levers matter. For me, pasta is much worse than chocolate chips. What really
flips my levels though is two high carb meals in the same day.

~~~
ryeguy
Insulin does not lead to increased weight gain. If this approach does work,
it's because it's a roundabout way of eating lower calorie foods and thus
lowering daily caloric intake.

~~~
jacobedawson
Afaiu insulin in combination with elevated blood glucose levels specifically
does lead directly to weight gain - it's like a vicious cycle in that high
blood sugar = increased insulin levels = excess glucose is stored as fat.

~~~
mdomans
No. I can elaborate but generally it's the glucose that stimulates the insulin
release (the pancreas has glucose receptors).

Weight gain IS NOT driven by insulin or glucose. You can put someone on
euglycemic clamp literally pumping him with insulin and glucose and he won't
get fat from that. He will hover start storing fat IF we give him too much
glucose for his needs.

Frankly, if you were a very mad you could theoretically put yourself on
insulin/protein infusion to lose fat.

Idea being that insulin will drop your blood glucose (via insulin-dependant
glucose transporter translocation) forcing liver to balance that out. When
liver runs out of stored glucose it will start breaking down fat.

The downside of that is that eventually muscles won't store more glucose
(you'd somehow need to get rid of that) and the risk of dying is pretty high.

------
dmix
Unrelated but I just noticed `hydroxy-` (for ex: beta-hydroxybutyrate) means
hydrogen + oxygen, whereas something like `hydro-` (for ex: hydrochloride) is
just hydrogen. One of those obvious things you read all the time and not
notice but obvious in retrospect.

------
adaisadais
Time-restricted eating has worked wonders for me. I typically eat between
11a-7p and I track it all through the Zero App. It can be very difficult to
start initially but when you power through the first week you truly start to
see some results.

I stopped doing it and started eating later and later in mid-march. I weighed
153.2 (the heaviest) on May 31. I resumed time restricted eating on June 1 and
have consistently done it. I currently weight 147.6 and I feel much better.
Less cravings and my pants fit quite nicely again.

~~~
karpathy
Agree! (and wrote a bit more in a comment above). I think IF was the high
order bit that enabled me to achieve a long-term consistent deficit. I used to
track it with Zero but stopped later because there isn't much to track. I
strictly stick to 12-8pm window (often 12-6), which does not need an app for
tracking.

------
ssijak
I do not understand the obsession with keto/low carb diets. There are no long
term studies showing the touted magical benefits. Even Gary Taubes, author who
amassed wealth bashing carbs and touting keto diet, funded studies that he
thought would confirm what he was saying, but then results came in slight
favor of high carb diets against low carb high fat diets in terms of losing
weight.

Yes, processed sugar is crap, but whole food carbs are not. People who eat
mostly whole food plant based diets, in long term studies live the longest and
are healthier. And why do people accept processed carbs to be bad but skip the
same logic for oils (yeah, squeezed oil is processed food and also pretty much
empty calories).

I experimented with a lot of things during my life, one of which was keto
diet. I tried it several times for months, but always abandoned it for several
reasons. Firstly, I feel like I loose 20+ IQ points on it, I can not think
clearly, have brain fog, and after strenuous exercise, I start to forget
things. And no, it was not a transitional period, it was the same after 1+
months and I tested ketosis with urine sticks. And it is understandable
because brain is the largest consummator of glucose. Second, you do not have
the same amount of energy, especially for burst activity. Third, you stink
more, my sweat stink more, and breath also (which is kind of normal for keto).
And lastly, it is harder to maintain which is not a problem for me if I found
it to be beneficial, but it could be problem for many. And one more thing,
each time I tried keto, I got sick during the period. It could be coincidence,
but probably not.

Now I eat plant based whole food diet. And from all the things I have tried,
it thicks all the good boxes. Eating plenty of very tasty foods, never hungry,
never have sweets cravings, tons of energy (my libido went through the roof
too), extremely easy to loose excess fat (while feeling good during the
process), very good workouts and recovery and steady mental energy throughout
the day, stool is regular and good, sleep better (and need less of it) and am
much happier (yeah, carbs are precursor to serotonin, and fiber feed the gut
microbiome which is extremely important for many things and most of serotonin
is made in the gut also) etc. And tons of research which supports the benefits
of it for longevity, health and sports.

Still it boggles my mind that we somehow managed to vilify foods like a sweet
potato or brown rice or whichever carb containing food. I think Pollan
summarised it the best : "Eat food (food=unprocessed whole food stuff). Not
too much. Mostly plants." That would give 95% of benefits to most people. We
get bogged down with details and minute optimisations while loosing the sight
of the big picture.

~~~
eebynight
Not trying to be nitpicky but urine sticks are notoriously unreliable:

False-positive when you are first starting because you are not well adapted to
utilizing ketones and urinate out most of the BHB.

False-negative when you are well adapted because usable fuel will not be
wasted in urine.

It is generally accepted that the only foolproof way to truly know if you are
in ketosis is to do a blood BHB measurement.

Other than that, I would only comment that it seems there are certain
phenotypes that have much more success with low carb diets and vice versa with
high carb diets. I don't think it is as easy as dismissing it because you had
a poor experience.

Also, not particularly a fan of many of the observational nonsense coming out
of both camps (low carb vs plant based) over the last few years. There was a
HN article posted a while back but we really have a legitimacy problem in
nutritional science right now. P-value hacking and nonsense correlation is
just far too common and then most never read the study to get the true story
behind the results.

Finally, this is anecdotal but I have known people whose libidos have dropped
on low carb diets and also others who lost libido when they went most vegan
(whole food, plant based). This supports the idea:

"Figure out what works for you and ignore the rest."

Crazy concept...

~~~
ssijak
I agree with most of what you said. Yes sticks are unreliable, but I know my
way around food and know how to keep my daily intake of carbs to be
<40-50gr/day and sticks were just another easy to get data point to confirm
what I was doing, but yes, it is anecdotal experience.

And yes, food research is very problematic. Some reasons are valid, for
example we will probably never have randomized double blind placebo control
study on various food intake patterns which lasts years or decades because it
would cost too much and is very hard to do. But we can draw at least some
conclusions based on the weight of evidence that we have. My only "problem",
setting anecdotes aside, is that people jump on latest trends and make a cult
out of it, when there are not even low quality observational studies to
support what they claim. For example lately carnivore diet pops up too often
with magical claims.

There are differences between people, and some will thrive on some diets where
others would be miserable. But that is why we need to find the biggest common
ground for all of us first then optimise on differences. Cut all the fluff and
pointless optimisations in the beginning, first stick to the most basic things
: eat real food, move moderately, sleep well, don't drink alcohol or at least
not too often or daily, try to be less reactive (less stressful), do it for a
few months and then try to optimise for your ticket in the gene lottery.

~~~
eebynight
The carnivore diet is definitely at the nearly pure anecdote stage right now
haha

Let's not forget most diet trends start at that point until someone decides to
the take the anecdotes seriously and start researching it more.

I agree with your conclusions about interpreting research and find that
weighing the evidence combined with some well defined n=1 trials on yourself
can do wonders.

------
gtrubetskoy
I wouldn't rank glucose above fats. As I understand it, it's not exactly a
"shorter battery" than fat - it is simply a form of energy that is abundant in
plant life, but fat is still a (much) "better battery".

The reason our body always favors burning glucose first is NOT because glucose
is "better" but actually because it is an inferior type of fuel (it creates
"pollution" and is difficult to burn - you can develop diabetes from too much
of it) - so our evolved system tries to get rid of it first, while hanging on
to the "good stuff" for as long as it can.

~~~
TheAdamAndChe
You don't develop type 2 diabetes from being fat, you develop diabetes from
high average blood glucose levels triggering insulin resistance.

Also, what is the pollution you are talking about? From what I understand,
lipolysis generates ketones, which at normal lipolytic amounts aren't toxic.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_2_diabetes?wprov=sfla1](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_2_diabetes?wprov=sfla1)

~~~
gtrubetskoy
> Also, what is the pollution you are talking about?

For example reactive oxygen species.

[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1865572/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1865572/)

~~~
TheAdamAndChe
Oh I see now that I read your parent comment completely wrong, you are right.
Sorry, thanks for the citation!

------
drewg123
I've lost about 60lbs over the last few years in 2 stages. (210lbs->150lbs)

In the first stage, I lost about 30lbs. I did not modify my terrible diet, and
mostly did cardio (running ~4-5 miles every other day). My health markers
(heart rate, blood sugar, blood pressure, cholesterol) improved, but not a
lot. I plateaued at 180 for a few years.

Last year, I made some changes and cleaned up my diet. I avoided deserts and
all "accidental" carbs (switched away from sandwiches for lunch, etc) and
tried to run a bigger calorie deficit. I bought a rowing machine (waterrower
like from House of Cards, highly recommend) and replaced running every other
day with an hour of rowing, since its a full body workout. I started lifting
weights on the alternate days when I was not rowing. I lost 30lbs over the
course of about 5 months. After this, all my health markers improved markedly
and my doctor stopped wanting to put me on a statin.

In the 9 months since I reached my target weight, I've increased my carbs to
make my diet more long-term sustainable, but maintained my activity. My weight
has remained steady. Since COVID and the closure of gyms, I've replaced
lifting weights with lots of pushups, situps, planks, etc, but I'm worried
that is not quite as effective, and i'm looking forward returning to my gym.

~~~
agumonkey
I'd love rowing machines plugged into an alternator so my health powers my
laptop ~_~

------
an_opabinia
> Clearly, my actual weight loss (red) turned out to be slower than expected
> one based on our simple deficit math (blue). So this is where things get
> interesting... so we don’t get to fully resolve the mystery of the slower-
> than-expected weight loss.

Weight loss is difficult and I think everyone, no matter how smart, dumb,
famous or obscure they are, has trouble with it. It's always a surprise how
difficult it is.

~~~
JamesBarney
The body basically has a bunch of tricks for tricking you into not losing
weight. It starts making you subtly lazier, reduces random energy
expenditures, slows down basal metabolic rate, it makes you hungrier, it makes
you crave more calorie dense food, and it even starts to reduce willpower
related to food.

~~~
fudged71
Absolutely this. Our body is constantly trying to maintain homeostasis, so
when you make a big lifestyle change your body tries to react in the opposite
direction.

Most people don't understand that when you start a new habit it often replaces
another. When you start going to the gym you might walk less. When you eat
smaller meals you might snack more. etc. I'd love to see a list of all the
unconscious decisions your body makes in response to fitness/nutrition
interventions.

------
DoreenMichele
_Water factor. Another fun thing I noticed is that my observed weight can
fluctuate and rise a lot, even while my expected weight calculation expects a
loss. I found that this discrepancy grows with the amount of carbohydrates in
my diet (dessert, bread /pasta, potatoes, etc.). Eating these likely increases
glycogen levels, which as I already mentioned briefly, acts as a sponge and
soaks up water. I noticed that my weight can rise multiple pounds, but when I
revert back to my typical low-carbohydrate pasketerianish diet these “fake”
pounds evaporate in a matter of a few days. The final outcome are wild swings
in my body weight depending mostly on how much candy I’ve succumbed to, or if
I squeezed in some pizza at a party._

Can anyone point me to more info on this? Yes, I can google it, but the
immediate results are things like this:

[https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/320603](https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/320603)

I would like to have something with a little more info about how this works at
the molecular level or something.

~~~
meroes
No sources but it's common knowledge in fitness groups like bodybuilding. For
every 1g for carb you intake, your body wants 3-4g of water to digest it.

Also glycogen is what provides your muscles quick access to energy, and is
stored within the tissue. It increases dramatically with higher carbs and
water.

All of these increase your weight temporarily, but they are not _fat_.
Weight!=fat and you _want_ high glycogen stores in prepartion for a workout.
And bodybuilders further manipulate these facts to get a pump and more muscle
defintion.

~~~
DoreenMichele
Thank you.

I have a genetic disorder and I'm prone to edema. I've lost multiple dress
sizes over the years, in part by altering my diet to account for the defective
cell channel.

I don't believe I have lost fat. I believe it's all water weight and it's
substantial amounts of water weight. I have reason to believe that I actually
have a higher amount of body fat than I have ever had before and it's a good
thing.

The right carbs plus the right fats plus the right kind of good quality salt
is a powerful combination for me that helps heal my body and consuming them
together in one sitting is typically followed by severe diarrhea. So eating
certain carbs is one of the things helping me lose excess water weight.

I really need to do some reading on the molecular processes involved to try to
fit this into my mental models for what is happening because this information
flies in the face of my first-hand experience.

I've read what I can to understand what is going on at the cellular/molecular
level. There are a number of weird things that go on with my condition, such
as calcium hoarding and also hoarding of glutathione inside the cell (with too
little glutathione occurring on the outside of the cell).

High levels of calcium inside the cell are associated with cell apoptosis
(cell death), so some people with the condition believe calcium is a bad thing
and they avoid it. I believe the opposite. I believe the body is hoarding
calcium and glutathione to buffer against extreme acidity and other chemical
derangement.

People with the condition are prone to developing osteoporosis at extremely
early ages, sometimes in their teens. Glutathione has a strong, sour, skunk-
like smell and I sometimes seem to dump it from my system as I go through
periods where one or both armpits and/or my bowel movements have that smell.
Afterwards, my baseline functioning is permanently improved.

So I'm trying to figure out what is going on that I am so prone to edema and
what I need to address to fix it because I think if I can resolve the
remaining edema, I will be more or less "normal" and largely asymptomatic. I
think the remaining edema is indicative of remaining issues and although I
continue to make progress, it's harder to make progress than it used to be. I
am looking for clues to help me figure out some new piece of the puzzle and
find a path forward on resolving this.

------
damowangcy
Reading through the post makes me thinks that are we eating unnecessarily?

3 meals a day have become the basic necessity for most. Our ancestors used to
eat as much as they could because there's no guarantee that they will have
enough food until the next hunt. So, the body will go into a state we call
"hungry", which reminds us to eat.

However with such plentiful of food available (know it didn't came easily, at
least for me, grateful for it, hope that more people is out of hunger), is the
feeling of hunger just a placebo effect that we trained ourselves to feel?

I am able to reduce my daily meals to 2 by having a bulletproof coffee in the
morning. There's urge to eat between meals but even if I skip them, I'm fine.

Since I have a desk job, I still have plentiful of energy left in the evening
for gym time.

One point to argue is nutritions but even if one is eating a lot, there's no
guarantee that much of that intake is nutritional.

~~~
tom_mellior
> I am able to reduce my daily meals to 2 by having a bulletproof coffee in
> the morning.

For whatever it's worth, two tablespoons of butter on your coffee is 204 kcal
according to Wolfram Alpha. Even Bulletproof says things like "Bulletproof
Coffee is breakfast" and "curbing your hunger with food that keeps you full
for hours. Bulletproof Coffee checks those boxes." which I read as saying that
they think of it as (liquid) food.
[https://www.bulletproof.com/recipes/bulletproof-diet-
recipes...](https://www.bulletproof.com/recipes/bulletproof-diet-
recipes/bulletproof-coffee-recipe/)

You're replacing a potentially less structured breakfast (I eat different
breakfasts every day) with a single standardised one. If you buy Bulletproof's
analysis, you _might_ be doing something ketogenic which might be beneficial
in some way. But you're not skipping a meal. Though there is a blurb on that
page that says something like "you're having a meal without breaking your fast
because [arbitrary definition we made up on the spot]".

For whatever it's worth, I wouldn't take health advice from a product sold
with an origin story of "the founder was dangerously overweight and at acute
risk of stroke or heart attack at the age of 30, so the biohacker in them
decided it would be smart to go on a difficult mountain trek in Nepal".

~~~
damowangcy
True, I don't believe anything that is marketed/advertised as "miraculous".
While bullet coffee doesn't give me superpowers, it does however helped me to
"replace" (skip is a superstitious word, I agreed with you) breakfasts that
would otherwise be full of sugars and such. The hunger disappeared from 6am
(when I wake up) until around noon.

I think diet is not just about the food and nutrients but also the lifestyle.
You can't expect someone to always be taking meticulous steps in measuring
their intake, most will slip away. Start trying out small adjustments to see
whether you can make it a habit, else it is not a good idea.

For me, the coffee helps me stay full (physiological or physically) and don't
make me grumpy the whole morning, yet still having the energy to crush it.

I am actually looking for more replacements/practices that would allow me to
eat just enough and suits my lifestyle, instead of following a specific regime
that is coupled with courses that they sell you.

------
rland
I really liked the "subway map" in this article, it reminded me of the Roche
Biochemical Pathways chart:

[http://biochemical-pathways.com/#/map/1](http://biochemical-
pathways.com/#/map/1)

------
underdeserver
This is more evidence that weight loss happens in the kitchen, not the gym.

~~~
asdff
Of course it does. Famines tell us as much. Gyms increase your burn rate,
though. Running for 5 miles a day will burn up a quarter of a 2000 calorie
diet.

That being said, a lot of gym activity that I see is basically useless and
probably taken up just to feel good about going to a gym regularly (some
examples in my gym: walking on treadmills instead of around the block, paying
for membership every month to solely use the 5lb dumbbells for 30 minutes that
go for $12 online).

~~~
bserge
I'm sorry, but 5 miles a day is just not possible for, I'd say, the vast
majority of people. As an average chump, I can barely do 2 miles every other
day.

Any exercise does make me feel much better, so that alone is a good reason to
do it, but for weight loss, eating less is the fastest way.

~~~
mariojv
Is there a reason other than time commitment you think this is not possible
for most people? With 12 minute miles, it takes an hour.

It takes time to build up endurance, but with pretty simple training -
measuring weekly mileage and increasing that no more than 10% a week -
building up to 5 miles is doable. It's challenging to and probably not
advisable to do it every day due to injury risk, but I think 5 miles maybe 3-4
times a week is possible for many, barring any serious health conditions.

------
ilaksh
I wonder if anyone has any studies handy about "natural sugars" versus
"processed sugars"?

That is my biggest pet peeve in terms of dietary discussions. Many people seem
to believe that there is a magical property of "natural sugar" (such as honey
or the sugar in fruit) that means it doesn't affect your calorie intake or
something and so is okay to add to things, whereas table sugar is processed
and therefore somehow totally different.

I believe this myth derives from the fact that high-fructose corn syrup does
in fact concentrate sugar. But that doesn't mean it isn't metabolized the same
way as other types of sugar, it just means you get the same amount of
sweetness in less volume. So that is measured on labels and in the sweetness.

The common thing I hear is something like people saying they had a really
delicious mango smoothie but it was totally healthy because they did not add
any sugar. Or they switched from putting sugar in their tea to using honey and
so now they think they don't get calories from the sweetener in their tea.

------
barbegal
If you want to lose weight you need to change the energy balance. Less energy
in and more out. For most people it is difficult to meaningfully affect energy
out. Unless you go from being really sedentary to running for an hour a day
(~500 kcal) then energy out will remain roughly the same. Eating less is much
simpler but not necessarily easier, most people need help suppressing their
appetite. Probably the best way to do this is by doing high intensity exercise
(HIIT). Studies consistently show this affects weight loss more than longer
periods of moderate exercise [1]. In addition, exercise can improve depression
[2] which may also lead to less over-eating.

[1]
[https://bjsm.bmj.com/content/53/10/655](https://bjsm.bmj.com/content/53/10/655)

[2]
[https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29800984/](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29800984/)

------
terrycody
I also bookmarked a very informative article regard biohacking written by a
silicon valley CEO:

[https://hackernoon.com/im-32-and-spent-200k-on-biohacking-
be...](https://hackernoon.com/im-32-and-spent-200k-on-biohacking-became-
calmer-thinner-extroverted-healthier-happier-2a2e846ae113)

For those who interested with the topic.

------
SubiculumCode
I recommend the National Institutes of Health Body Weight Planner, which uses
formulas that take into account lower metabolism with weight loss in its
predictions and plans, the issue discussed in the excellent article.
[https://www.niddk.nih.gov/bwp](https://www.niddk.nih.gov/bwp)

------
Galus
I enjoy that you put this together, as one of my favorite CS guys out there
you inspire both educationally in academics, and professionally in industry.
You show it's possible to tackle any interests no matter your size/workload. I
also have some weird interests in (synthetic) biology, chem, ML outside of the
normal fitness/nutrition ones. You've introduced CNN and ML to me, thanks to
your work at Stanford and I hope I can get to a point where I also branch out
or work alongside a different domain like biology or law one day. ++Karpathy

------
loughnane
Eat food. Not too much. Mostly vegetables.

It is really easy to geek out on the complexity of metabolism and how our
society interacts with it. Sometimes that's cool, but for getting through life
I try to stick to the above.

------
danieltanfh95
A little note from a systemic biology perspective, I've tried this for great
results, it's amazing that we've this focus on sugars and fats and what not
when we ignore the fact that our body is just more clever than we think.

No matter what you eat and how much you eat, your body will always try to
return to normalcy as soon as possible. However, this action itself,
metabolizing the excess, is a very energy consuming act. As shown by multiple
research, more fat and protein in your diet is harmful and counter-intuitively
you need more carbs.

Here we need to view the body as a full system. In fact, just looking at the
metabolic cycles should hint at the real reason why people stay fat, but it's
a very subtle message.

Drink more water, and avoid ingesting cold things. Eat as normal when your
body wants it.

That's pretty much it. Water is needed almost everywhere in the metabolic
cycle, and yet it's really dependent on our ability to drink and absorb water.
Notably, cold water diffuses slower than warm water, so our body can't absorb
it as well. Drinking water solutions like Coke where diffusion favours the
Coke than your body cells also hampers absorption. So TLDR: drink warm water.

Next would be eating. Sugars are easily metabolized by your body and are low
investment food compared to everything else. However, eaten in excess when
your body no longer needs it causes it to be stored as fat, which requires a
lot of water and energy. You see where I'm going at? When your body feels
hungry, most of the time it means it's processing something and it needs more
energy, so we should give it something that's easier to process.

So that's what I've been trying, it actually shocked me with the results. I've
been testing with some TCM tea that helps with digestive system functions and
it works even faster.

------
tvanantwerp
I've had a similar DEXA experience. My last scan put me at 30% fat, whereas my
scale estimate 16% and a 3D external scan estimated 18%. My appearance does
not match typical pictures of someone at 30% body fat. In fact, at 30% I would
be in the 99th percentile of % fat mass for my height and weight--something I
think unlikely. Like the author, I was in a fasted state of ketosis at the
time.

------
k__
Isn't the problem of many weight lifters that "lean body mass" isn't consumed
before the fat, but at the same time?

~~~
RoidzForeva5p
Lean body mass is a misnomer (and DEXA scans aren't reliable).

Lean body mass = Total Body Mass - Fat Mass

That's "lean body mass," but it's not 1:1 "muscle mass," because bones,
organs, and etc. do not constitute as skeletal muscle, but still take up
weight.

And muscle mass itself is a misnomer, because the actual weight of your muscle
protein is not 1:1 to the actual weight of your entire muscles.

Most people think muscle is made out of protein, but while that's true, it's
not the main way you muscles get "bulk." The main compound that gives muscles
"bulk" is water. Usually that's because your muscles have hydrophillic
compounds like glycogen (stored sugar), electrolytes like potassium and
sodium, and creatine. These latter compounds draw the water into the muscle,
and make up for most of its weight and size.

All these compounds get used up during exercise, so your muscle hold less
water, and it's technically "consumed" during exercise, and needs to be
replenished after. A coincidental fact is that once these stores are depleted,
they become "super-sensitizied" that means they're much more likely to take up
compounds out of the bloodstream than before. So, exercise depletes them, but
if you eat enough after, you can fill them up to be bigger than where they
were before.

------
denfromufa
One of the most important things not mentioned in the article is sleep. Not
enough sleep and your diet will change. Not enough sleep and your body will
not finish recovering overnight. Read the book “Why we sleep”. It will change
your life.

P.S. I do marathon training and glycogen storing as well as activating the fat
burning are essential!

------
johnvega
Has anyone tried or looked into Carnivore Diet?

[https://carnivoremd.com/the-carnivore-diet-start-
here/](https://carnivoremd.com/the-carnivore-diet-start-here/)

[https://www.carnivorecast.com/podcast](https://www.carnivorecast.com/podcast)

------
praveen9920
As someone who is trying to lose weight and gone through similar phases, I
can't stress enough on diet. In the world of cheap and yummy calories
available in each and every thing we eat, it is hard maintain the low carb
diet.

Interestingly, my observation is that increased water consumption impacts
metabolism a lot

Note: I lost 4 kgs in 2 months

~~~
tw600040
// increased water consumption impacts metabolism a lot

impacts as in it helps lose weight?

------
centimeter
No mention of ketosis, which uses vastly different metabolic pathways. It
transmits energy without using glucose - instead using ketone bodies like
acetone. It's very likely that this was a frequent (perhaps the _most_
frequent) state occupied by our megafauna-hunting ancestors.

------
swyx
"More importantly, we studied the process by which our Sun’s free energy
powers blog posts via a transformation of nuclear binding energy to
electromagnetic radiation to heat." this was the key part of the post!

------
a_d
“ As a result I’ve improved a number of biomarkers (e.g. resting heart rate,
resting blood glucose, strength, endurance, nutritional deficiencies, etc)” —
how does one measure / track these things? ESP resting heart rate, blood
glucose and nutritional deficiencies.

~~~
dmeeker
Resting heart rate is commonly tracked by wearables e.g. Apple Watch. Blood
glucose can be self-monitored with the same tools diabetics use. Nutritional
deficiencies can be measured with blood tests; WellnessFX was one of the early
channels to get these but I believe Quest will let you self-order them now.

------
jwilliams
I read “Molecular Biology of the Cell” when dabbling in bioinformatics (one of
the books mentioned in the article).

It’s an excellent textbook. You’ll need a base level of chemistry and biology
- not two of my best subjects, But despite that I still got a lot of it.

------
davesque
> Adipose tissue (fat) is by far your primary super high density super high
> capacity battery pack. For example, as of June 2019, ~40lb of my 200lb
> weight was fat. Since fat is significantly more energy dense than
> carbohydrates (9 kcal/g instead of just 4 kcal/g), my fat was storing 40lb =
> 18kg = 18,000g x 9kcal/g = 162,000 kcal. This is a staggering amount of
> energy. If energy was the sole constraint, my body could run on this alone
> for 162,000/2,000 = 81 days. Since 1 stick of dynamite is about 1MJ of
> energy (239 kcal), we’re talking 678 sticks of dynamite. Or since a 100KWh
> Tesla battery pack stores 360MJ, if it came with a hand-crank I could in
> principle charge it almost twice! Hah.

I'm not following this math here. 678 * 239kcal ~= 162Mcal. But that's a
thousand times 162kcal. Seems like 40lb of fat only contains the energy of
.678 sticks of dynamite.

~~~
timy2shoes
Seems pretty straight forward. 162,000 kcal / 239 kcal = 677.8

~~~
davesque
Ahh, yep. I dropped the ",000" :/.

------
trianglem
People tend to over complicate this. To lose weight you need to eat less. I
lost 40 lbs in 3 months last year by simply switching from 2 meals a day to 1.
It’s not rocket science, if you want to lose weight, eat less.

------
tinyhouse
I don't think the advice of not eating fruits is a good one. Nothing wrong
with eating an orange every day let's say. The key is to eat things whole.
Juice is indeed not recommended,

------
bserge
That looks like a really good chart I'd like to view, but can't (I've disabled
uBlock and NoScript, no change). It's too small, please link the original!
Thank you!

------
downshun
Surprisingly well written and researched.

One thing missing is the effect of testosterone on lean mass creation.

Wonder if the fat to co2 process can be ventilator assisted without hurting
the lungs .

~~~
suyash
It says he was going strength training, that should improve testosterone
levels and prevent muscle loss.

------
nexuist
I must say I find it funny that the head of AI at Tesla used 1) computer
memory 2) internal combustion engines as examples to relate to human biology
:P

------
ausbah
is it not enough to just focus on high level objectives like what you you,
when you eat, when you sleep, your social activities, and reducing high level
stresses? it's kinda cool reading about the really indepth analyses around
health, but they strike me as overkill in some ways. I'm probably bias by my
own lifestyle howefer

------
SupriseAnxiety
This is such beautiful work I’m speechless.

~~~
suyash
It's lot of technical details that basically proves the old adage "Eat Less,
Exercise More" to see weight loss. He just did extensive tracking around it.

------
emanuensis
A bit surprising no one has mentioned the old traveling salesman trick: Eat at
the local hospital.

------
simonebrunozzi
> if you’d like to shortcut my rambling my TLDR final diet in order of
> importance: Eat only from 12-8pm. Do not drink any calories (no soda, no
> alcohol, no juices, avoid milk). Avoid processed food (follow Michael
> Pollan’s heuristic of only shopping on the outer walls of a grocery store,
> staying clear of its center). Avoid sugar like the plague, including to a
> slightly lesser extent natural sugar (apples, bananas, pears, etc - we’ve
> “weaponized” these fruits via strong artificial selection into actual candy
> bars), berries are ~okay. For meat stick to fish, occasional chicken is
> okay, avoid beef/pork. Avoid carbohydrates and “empty calories” (bread,
> pasta, potatoes, rice), replace with fats and proteins.

I admire this effort, but I have a huge problem with the conclusions. Simply
"avoid carbohydrates" is silly advice. Billions of people live quite healthy
lives eating carbs (pasta, bread, rice). How can you ignore this simple fact?
I understand what the author is trying to achieve, but... I can't take this as
good advice. Bits and pieces, yes. Everything? Unlikely.

------
scythe
I've studied nutrition out of my own curiosity for more than ten years now.
When I opened this article, one of the first things I did was ctrl+F
"potassium" \-- the most underrated nutrient. Average potassium intake is
below recommended levels and resolving this may lead to significant reductions
in mortality[1]. Potassium may also reduce the severity of osteoporosis[2],
although I (male) don't need to worry about that. Improving potassium status
is also associated with simply feeling better[3].

1 -
[https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S00256...](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0025619613004631)

2 -
[https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00198-008-0666-3](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00198-008-0666-3)

3 - [https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/british-journal-
of-n...](https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/british-journal-of-
nutrition/article/dietary-electrolytes-are-related-to-
mood/261729C7B3C7D3D2D8D5E1CDF74932FF)

Good sources of potassium include fruits, vegetables, legumes, nuts, milk,
yogurt and eggs -- or, in other words, anything except meat, cheese, grains,
and overly-processed crap. (When cheese precipitates from milk, most potassium
remains in the liquid phase. I am not sure if the same happens with tofu.)

I haven't ever really tried to lose weight, but I've always had very strong
motivations to maintain low body fat:

\- my mother's family has a history of cardiovascular disease (grandfather d.
stroke at 67, aunt d.m. type 2)

\- my father's family has a high prevalence of obesity

\- I have scoliosis with associated back pain

With these factors in mind, I've spent a lot of time combing the USDA nutrient
database: [http://fdc.nal.usda.gov/](http://fdc.nal.usda.gov/) . I don't use
an "energy out" calculator -- rather, I keep track of my intake and habits and
correlate these to changes in my weight.

The strategies I use are mostly quotidian: every meal must have some dietary
fiber; avoid snacking -- drink water first and choose foods with fiber if you
must; stay active etc. Possibly the most valuable thing I've learned, though,
is how many things -- particularly vegetables -- you can prepare using nothing
but an oven and aluminum foil, without making more dirty dishes. This is
invaluable for continuing to make healthy choices when it's late and you're
tired, or improving a meal that already requires substantial effort. Fatigue
is your most formidable enemy, and "lazy cooking" techniques ward it off.

~~~
JamesBarney
Any websites for healthy lazy cooking options?

~~~
cschneid
Sheet pan roasted stuff is a great lazy meal that the grandparent comment was
discussing.

Our personal favorite sheet pan meal is: chopped red onion, chopped bell
peppers, cherry tomatoes, box of dry gnocchi. Toss it all with a bit of oil
and salt and pepper, and whatever seasoning you may want, spread on baking
sheet and bake for a while until veggies look tasty.

Serve with a few shreds of parm or other hard cheese.

5 minutes to prep, 20-30 min to cook. A bowl to wash, and it's mostly veggies
and the components sub out really easily for anything you have in your fridge.

