
Always Hungry? Here’s Why - kozlovsky
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/18/opinion/sunday/always-hungry-heres-why.html
======
Udo
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
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.

~~~
stinos
Care to also post links to scientific evidence next to the reddit? Sure it has
information, but from a quick glance it's information without much
science/proof to back it up, from people who are already convinced. I think
way more is needed to convince the rather critical spirits on HN :)

~~~
desigooner
Lyle McDonald's e-book on Ketogenic Diet is probably the best thing I've ever
read. It's well referenced and pretty comprehensive.

[http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/the-ketogenic-
diet](http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/the-ketogenic-diet)

------
rayiner
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
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
> 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
I read the grandparent as being a parody of how the stereotypical engineer
thinks. Poe's law in action?

------
HarrietJones
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
> 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.

------
falcolas
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".

------
greggman
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.

~~~
Spittie
>Potato-chips or fries or a sugary snack? Forget about it!

Well, it's supposed to be a diet after all :)

I think that one should remove snacks/sweets/junk foods from their life before
even considering what kind of a diet one should do. After all, those are
probably 50%+ of the intake (at least, they are of mine... I'm trying to stop
_) and there are very few foods with so many calories /carbs.

Sodas are particularly nasty, because one drink them all the day without
realizing how much (my suggestion: switch to water, I've done it years ago and
I couldn't be happier. Now I can't bring myself to drink a soda while eating,
way too sweet).

_ (Unrelated) you know, I don't even like those this much. I just have a
craving for them. When I finish eating those, I usually even drink a cup or
two of water because I don't like the taste left in my mouth.

~~~
magicalist
> _Sodas are particularly nasty, because one drink them all the day without
> realizing how much (my suggestion: switch to water, I 've done it years ago
> and I couldn't be happier. Now I can't bring myself to drink a soda while
> eating, way too sweet)._

Ha, I don't understand people who say this. I've also cut sodas out of my life
in exchange for water, and my weight has thanked me (a little), but I still
find them _delicious_ whenever I have them for a treat.

~~~
Spittie
"while eating", I do like them from time to time as a treat. I find that they
just ruin the taste of food, making everything a sweet mix.

Really, there are pretty much two things that I can manage to drink while
eating, water and beer. And the second one usually only with pizza.

------
kephra
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
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.

------
kome
Obesity rates in Europe (2008):
[http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/50326000/gif/_50326564...](http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/50326000/gif/_50326564_obesity_rates_464.gif)

Why Italians, that eat pasta (carbohydrates) almost every day are so thin?
Goddammit.

~~~
coffeedrinker
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).

~~~
nowlnowl
Well, Sweden is up there too so...

------
tpeng
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-
ruin...](http://www.cracked.com/article_18544_how-the-karate-kid-ruined-
modern-world.html)

~~~
dlp211
"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.

~~~
HarrietJones
200 calories a day equates to one pound loss every 16 days, but to reach that
level of metabolic slowdown, you need to be thin, and you need to cut your
caloric intake down by about 1000 calories a day.

So yeah - it's a marginal effect.

~~~
tpeng
I was also being quite generous in that 200 estimate. While many people do
anecdotally report that their maintenance level seems to be lower when
cutting, I suspect that it's largely due to changes in physical activity as
individuals are more easily exhausted on caloric deficits.

------
Tycho
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.

~~~
munificent
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.

~~~
Tycho
Plus since walking is so pleasant, and is usually not 'deliberate' exercise
(you're just trying to get somewhere), nobody feels the need to 'reward'
themselves with extra food at the end of it.

------
SixSigma
> 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"

------
rav
I was moderately _shocked and confused_ at the pasta/cake illustration midway
in the article.

~~~
VLM
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.

------
findjashua
Stephan Guyenet has written extensively on the issues with the insulin
hypothesis: [http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2012/01/insulin-and-
ob...](http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2012/01/insulin-and-obesity-
another-nail-in.html)

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-h...](http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2011/08/carbohydrate-
hypothesis-of-obesity.html))

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-
wisdo...](http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2008/08/kitavans-wisdom-from-
pacific-islands.html)). 3\. More recently, someone lost weight while eating
only potatoes for 60 days ([http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2012/12/the-
potato-die...](http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2012/12/the-potato-
diet.html)). 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
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.

------
charlieflowers
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-
ab...](http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/01/29/the-bitter-truth-about-
fructose-alarmism/)

~~~
hornbaker
This article was by Ludwig, not Lustig.

~~~
charlieflowers
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.

------
guyinblackshirt
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-...](http://fourhourworkweek.com/2013/01/22/is-the-4-hour-body-a-scam-
tracking-3500-people-to-find-out/)

------
moron4hire
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.

------
codeshaman
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.

------
ninkendo
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.

~~~
ximi
Out of curiosity: How many calories per day are you aiming for and how did you
come up with that number?

I'm currently going for 1800 calories and after losing a decent amount of
weight initially, I feel I'm making fairly little progress (to be expected).
It seems to me that I actually lose more weight when I go a bit over the
limit, which leads me to believe I might be eating so little that my
metabolism slows down.

~~~
ninkendo
When I was losing weight I was trying for around 2100 calories per day, and
that brought me to around 1 lb/week of weight loss.

From what I've read, the rule of thumb is 3500 calories = 1 lb of fat, so in a
week, you want to run a 500 calorie deficit each day. That, and most of the
online calorie estimators seemed to cluster around 2600 calories/day for
"maintenance" for me, assuming a mostly sedentary lifestyle. So I came up with
2100 and that mostly worked.

It's important to "dial it in" though, by weighing yourself at the same time
every day and keeping track of how much you've lost in a given week. At first
I was doing 1800 calories per day and I was losing too much, so I bumped up my
number up to 2100 and leveled off a bit.

Nowadays I'm doing 2600 per day and I'm coasting pretty well, maybe losing a
tiny bit, but making up for it by blowing my budget on occasion. 2600 is very
easy to hit though... I can still do fast food for lunch and have no problem
making my budget so long as I don't overdo it too much.

------
smtddr
_> >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.

------
germancito
>> _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.

------
Mexxer
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
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.

------
aianus
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.

------
encoderer
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.

------
hownottowrite
Ref:
[http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1871695](http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1871695)

------
pkulak
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)

------
exratione
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.

~~~
morgante
> 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
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."

------
igravious
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
> 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
> 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?

~~~
morgante
> How is it ridiculous?

Because you're taking a correlation and eliminating the lower data point. Yes,
people with better educations tend to eat better, but not by much. In fact,
for adult males there is no correlation between education and obesity
prevalence. [1]

I, and the many other overweight NYT readers, certainly exist. We could also
benefit from this article. Should we not get access to it because of your
faulty moralistic viewpoint?

> Should I not take responsibility for this? If I can't stop smoking is it
> "out of my control"?

Of course it is partially in your control, but you totally missed the nuance.
It would probably be much harder for you (as a smoker) to choose to not smoke
a cigarette today than for me (as a non-smoker). That doesn't make me better
than you, it's just an acknowledgement of addiction as a phenomenon.
Acknowledging it helps us to build better for strategies for helping people to
make good choices.

Also, two individuals who have the exact same diet and exercise can weigh very
differently depending on their genetic makeup and background. How is that
their fault?

> 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.

What the fuck? I didn't even say that. Way to put words in my mouth.

1:
[http://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2012/p0516_higher_educatio...](http://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2012/p0516_higher_education.html)

~~~
igravious
I know you didn't say that. Which is _why_ I said, "I'm just contesting the
following comment elsewhere here (I should have made a separate comment)" and
then I posted the link to the comment which said it. I'm not arguing with you,
I'm arguing with that comment so you need to go read it if you want to debate
that. I probably shouldn't have rolled two viewpoints into the one post as it
seems to have totally confused the issue.

The opening paragraph of the piece you linked to says, "People with higher
levels of education and higher income have lower rates of many chronic
diseases compared to those with less education and lower income levels,
according to Health, United States, 2011 – the government’s annual
comprehensive report on Americans’ health." which seems to back up my
viewpoint,

Which is all that I've been saying. I'm sorry if it offends you but I'm going
to stick by what I've said - (in general terms) the type of person who might
most benefit from this article in the New York Times is less likely to be the
type of person to read the New York Times. Note that I am _not_ saing that
overweight people do not read the New York Times, if you got that from what I
said I'm sorry I didn't word it better but I'm not taking it back.

~~~
morgante
Mixing replies and quotes from two different comments completely muddles the
waters and confuses the issue of authorship. Please don't do that.

If you looked a little closer at the report I linked to, you would find that
"obesity prevalence among adult males did not vary consistently with level of
education." Which is in fact exactly what I stated.

Sure, NYT non-readers might on average be fitter than NYT readers. But that's
hardly a reason for it not being beneficial to or interesting to NYT readers.
By that logic, we should never post intro coding tutorials to HN because on
average they'd be more helpful to the general public than HN readers.

------
joel_perl_prog
[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
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
Also, serious question: why is sharing something in a higher bandwidth format
than just typing "promotion?" Do you not promote your own thoughts and agenda
any time you enter a comment? When I have no product, nothing for sale, no ads
on the video, nothing like that, how does one conclude that sharing something,
which is just me, commenting, really, in a higher bandwidth format, how do you
conclude "promotion?" As I say, serious question.

~~~
kayoone
Well you have no proof whatsoever of your claims. No question that it's a
healthy thing to consume, but saying it will change lives from day one without
changing anything else is just a very bold statement to make without backing
it up with anything. Kudos for the recipe though.

