
Diet Advice That Ignores Hunger - eiriklv
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/30/opinion/diet-advice-that-ignores-hunger.html
======
dang
The recent study Taubes critiques here was covered in several articles posted
to HN.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10061426](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10061426)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10068486](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10068486)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10058472](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10058472)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10050278](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10050278)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10058190](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10058190)

~~~
plaguuuuuu
The interesting thing about that study is that the low-fat diet had 8% fat,
which is crazy low and a ~75% reduction, whereas the low-carb diet had 29%
carbs, which is only a 40% reduction and not extreme at all. The studies that
support low-carb being a more efficient diet have far lower carbohydrates than
this study.

I mean, sure, if you just put people into ketosis with ~0% carbs it would be a
different story! But 29% is on the other end of the spectrum. It is high
enough that IMO, it makes the study's argument sound, but not valid, if you
get my drift.

~~~
leshow
Not really, unless the diets controlled protein intake between the groups
(which is often overlooked in low carb studies), low carb really just means
high protein. in which case the beneficial results of the low carb group could
just be because of increased protein consumption.

~~~
plaguuuuuu
Yep, that would be another way to get relatively useless results, since
protein metabolism is not at all energy efficient compared to carbs or fats.

So if caloric intake is kept constant at say 1500 but protein makes up a large
proportion, "usable" calories is actually much smaller.

~~~
leshow
I don't think the TEF has a very large effect honestly. I think the other
things that come with a high protein diet such an increased lean mass probably
have a larger effect. Still in most low carb studies the low carb group is
really just the high protein group. It's pretty obvious that you can't draw
any kind of reliable conclusion if you change more than one variable

------
Almaviva
The facts of that study brushed aside: the participants diet was based on
potatoes, rutabagas, turnips, bread and macaroni. Notice, not enough protein
to maintain lean body mass. This is a bad idea.

Also, over 24 weeks the group lost 25% of their body mass.

Look at pictures of the participants:
[http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-25782294](http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-25782294)
These look like frail bodys that, indeed, can sustain on 1600 calories per
day, which explains slowed weight loss.

If you're an individual looking at how to seriously lose fat and recompose
your body, don't look at popular media, but look at those with vested interest
in effective results. E.g. athletic trainers in sports where weight management
is a key point of the sport, like bodybuilding, wrestling, MMA, powerlifting.
The science is quite clear, you just have to figure out how to filter out
popular articles. (Lyle McDonald's site is a great start.)

Calorie restriction, with adequate protein intake, works. Also, any diet or
lifestyle change that works creates a caloric deficit, and will also work if
you count this deficit.

~~~
mistermann
My wife has been failing to lose weight for several months, she is literally
weighing everything she eats and recording calories (~1200/day), plus doing a
several hours of quite intense exercise (stairs, etc) per week yet has hit a
plateau for well over a month - any advice, things to read? (Note: she "can't"
do low carb, which I personally recommend.)

~~~
c0riander
If your wife has been in caloric restriction for an extended period of time,
she may have metabolic damage. I recently stumbled upon Layne Norton's work -
he has a PhD in Nutritional Science and is a bodybuilder/powerlifter, and he
makes some compelling arguments (and reviews of the literature) about how the
metabolism responds to prolonged caloric restriction.

Here's a good place to start:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QHHzie6XRGk](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QHHzie6XRGk)

~~~
mistermann
Interesting....again, this all sounds plausible, but is also contradictory
with other perfectly plausible theories, some even in this same thread
(whether low intensity cardio is good or bad).

Considering the plateau my wife's hit, I think maybe this is an avenue worth
exploring though. She'll certainly be open to the idea of consuming more
calories!

You know one thing that sucks, I would be not at all surprised if the average
personal trainer at a gym hardly has a clue what they're talking about, not to
mention the theoretical approach they subscribe to might not even be correct.

------
gnoway
A 6 day study on diet in 19 people somehow generating meaningful conclusions
about weight loss in general is _absurd_. It does seem like you could learn
something about rates of change - are we speedboats or supertankers - but
that's about all.

~~~
leshow
thank god there is someone else in here who saw that.

------
hiou
More diet fad posts.

Again, I have no idea what diet fads have to do with the stated relevance of
this site. This is an opinion piece with little to no information beyond
harping on one particular vein of diet ideology. I really hope these types of
ideological off topic posts begin to be penalized and flagged soon.

~~~
jschwartzi
I guess the point the author was trying to make is that extreme calorie
restriction with a nutrient poor diet is bad for you, but I would be hard
pressed to find anyone who disagrees. I guess he was trying to extrapolate
from that study somehow but the article goes off the rails and drops a bunch
of factoids about calorie restriction and diet and then closes by mentioning a
study of dubious quality.

------
rasz_pl
24 week study sounds brutal, would never happen today in politically correct
society.

    
    
       participant: I want to chop of my fingers and eat them, or kill myself, please let me go.
       "doctor": You signed a waiver, now shut up and eat your turnip!
    
    

Anecdote: There was a Polish Survivor edition in 2004, ran out of ideas
halfway thru the series and started starving contestants out. They did things
like an hour long swimming/running race culminated in holding item over your
head in full sun until you collapse, all for the prize of small bag of sugar,
while losers got small portions of white rice instead. Ordinary men got turned
into stick figures. Last program was recorded one month after the contest, all
previously super skinny guys sported huge beer bellies, when asked said they
couldnt stop eating.

------
frou_dh
Why has the simplistic traditional advice worked for some? Is there big
variation in the extent to which different humans are affected by
macronutrient ratio and food quality? Are nuanced dietary dos and don'ts a
domain reserved for the unlucky?

~~~
toomuchtodo
How hard your body holds on to calories is genetic. I carry a gene variant
that makes it much more difficult for me to shed fat cells than other people
in my family.

~~~
melling
I've never found it easy to diet. Unless you can precisely and easily measure
your caloric intake, it seems too difficult, especially if you don't cook.

When I was younger I could just start running 3-4 days a week and lose 20lbs
over several months. Now that I'm older, and more out of shape, I've resorted
to a lot of walking, plus I'm adding a spinning bike. The Apple Watch's
ability to monitor my activity got me started getting me moving enough to see
results.

[https://h4labs.wordpress.com/2015/08/27/apple-
watch-8-weeks-...](https://h4labs.wordpress.com/2015/08/27/apple-
watch-8-weeks-and-9-pounds/)

I'm hoping to lose another 20lbs this year.

~~~
ninkendo
Counting calories is hard indeed, but doable. With a good calorie logging
app[1], you should be able to look up how many calories any food you're eating
is likely to have. It doesn't have to be exact, just in the ballpark; it's
really the fact that you're logging at all that keeps your intake in check.

And after a while it becomes a lot easier, because you'll get pretty good at
estimating how much calories something has. (That omelette I got at that
french restaurant? Probably 700 calories, since it was really cheesy... etc.)
Plus, you're just as likely to overestimate calories as underestimate, so over
the course of a given week any inaccuracies probably even out.

I lost 50lbs by counting calories years ago. It took me a year to drop all of
them, but I've mostly kept it off for 2 years more. ("Mostly" because I
stopped counting several months ago and gained about 10 lbs since my lowest
level, so I'm counting calories again and am back down to +5 or so from my
lowest and dropping.)

[1] "Lose It!" is my favorite, but I've heard good things about MyFitnessPal,
which has a crowdsourced calorie database. For any food with a barcode you can
just scan it, and there's a huge database of restaurant foods, as well as
estimated calorie amounts for anything you're likely to cook.

------
codahale
Taubes breezily dismisses the Hall paper, which is, methodologically speaking,
pretty conclusive. If you're curious about the paper and its implications for
Taubes's obesity-insulin hypothesis, I'd recommend these two blog posts by
Stephan Guyenet, an obesity researcher:

[http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2015/08/a-new-human-
tr...](http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2015/08/a-new-human-trial-
seriously-undermines.html)

[http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2015/08/more-
thoughts-...](http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2015/08/more-thoughts-on-
recent-low-fat-vs-low.html)

~~~
3pt14159
I wouldn't dismiss the controversy just yet. Although the obesity-insulin
hypothesis ignores other hormones and factors such as leptin, glucagon, and
ghrelin; as well as other factors to nutrition, like how insulin spikes
contribute to muscle growth, it is pretty effective at predicting heart
disease and diabetes and reduction in not just carbohydrates but also starches
/ free sugars is almost universally agreed to provide long term health
benefits.

------
leshow
So many problems with the interpretation of the starvation study here.

Quantity of food (in caloric terms) not type, is the single biggest predictor
of weight loss. In fact unless your body magically defies the law of
conservation of energy; it's impossible to lose weight in a caloric surplus
regardless of food choices.

The subjects in the study stopped losing weight despite staying at the same
caloric consumption BECAUSE THEY LOST A LOT OF WEIGHT ALREADY. Therefore,
their maintenance caloric requirements were lower than when they started. To
assume that this is because of anything other than their body mass lowering is
ridiculous.

The second study had too small of a population and was too short in duration
to try and extrapolate anything to a longer term diet.

Taubes is a vehement believer in the low carb movement and has sold a lot of
books on the topic. His opinions are heavily biased and he has a lot invested
in interpreting the data in a way that's favourable to him.

The fact remains, it's physically impossible to lose weight when not in a
caloric deficit, so sorry Taubes, you really do have to either "eat less" or
exercise more (hopefully both).

~~~
waterlesscloud
So if I eat 3500 kcal worth of sand a day I won't lose weight?

~~~
adamzochowski
Assuming your body, with your lifestyle, requires on average 3500 kcal a day
to sustain itself, and if your body can extract 3500 kcal out of the sand you
produce, then yes, you won't lose weight.

There are multiple factors that change:

1) intestines+stomach can have different absorption rates

2) food preparation can change amount of calories (cooked food simplifies
calorie extraction)

3) glycemic index affects how readily cell absorb calories

4) body can only release a limited amount of energy out of fat cells per day
(study seems to suggest 22kcal per day per pound of fat). Deficit beyond
starts burning through other tissues than fat

5) Base metabolic rate - different weight and different lifestyle will have
people have different amount of daily required calories

There are many things that are affected, and it is best to calculate out
yourself. How efficient is your body in absorbing calories, and how efficient
is it in burning them, and then ensure you absorb less than you need to burn.

~~~
leshow
'Absorption' is a detail you don't need to know when it comes to losing
weight. All you need to know is you put x calories in your system and you
maintained weight, therefore x - y will produce a net loss of weight.

------
SixSigma
Don't call it hunger, call it : "the sensation of weight loss"

~~~
gaius
You shouldn't have been downvoted, thats a valid technique for some. Often
phrased as "nothing tastes as good as being lean feels".

~~~
__float
It sounds like common anorexia rhetoric. Maybe let's not go down that path.

~~~
SixSigma
Seeing the world as "fat and happy" or "anorexic and starving" is common obese
rhetoric. Maybe let's not waddle, gasping, down that path.

------
scythe
It appears Taubes has been bitten by a meme. The subjects in the NIH study
consumed isocaloric diets and were put in a chamber that measured all of their
thermodynamic outputs -- it turned out thermogenesis was a tiiiiiiny amount
higher on one diet. Why is that? Well, the "loading" (pre-test) diet was
mostly carbohydrate, the low-fat diet was also, but the low-carbohydrate diet
was mostly fat. After only six days, the subjects' metabolisms were still
adjusting to the diet. Where did I get that idea? _It 's in the study
abstract:_

> Mathematical model simulations agreed with these data, but predicted that
> the body acts to minimize body fat differences with prolonged isocaloric
> diets varying in carbohydrate and fat.

Even some of the _media stories_ , like the one in your first link, quote the
author of the paper saying this:

>Indeed, Hall's mathematical modeling predicts that in the long term the body
acts to minimise body fat differences between diets that are equal in calories
but varying widely in their ratio of carbohydrate to fat.

>"Over the long term it's pretty close," says Hall.

You'll recognize Hall as the first author of the study. Let's be clear: the
lead author of the study said in plain English that there was probably not a
significant long-term difference in energy usage resp. composition.

Why is the media blowing this up? Because they just want a story. They want
nutrition to be an argument, rather than a gradually developing science with
occasional surprises.

Their goals are at odds with researchers who want to make useful information
about nutrition available to consumers. That includes the New York Times. Keep
that in mind.

------
lifeisstillgood
Just a trawl through old diet advice, but what stood out to me was the crappy
advert (something about how many triangles I see). I cannot for a moment image
the published paper accepting some crappy trawling / phishing ad for its
sunday edition - even if they ponied up the cash.

How has advertising got so bottom-feeder and no one seems to care - this is
your brand guys !

~~~
x0x0
As mentioned, it's a remnant ad network. As for why they're doing it, well,
look in a mirror. Advertising has turned, as the saying goes, print dollars
into online nickels. If you wish to have free online content, something has to
pay the bills.

~~~
lifeisstillgood
I don't agree it's the fault of the mirror. A tradition jam newspaper can be
seen as a vertically integrated article aggregator and curation site.

So the model for reddit and HN is to charge for access, and pass on to the
articles clicked through to. However in that game, I would pay NYT a long time
before I paid Reddit.

~~~
x0x0
A newspaper is exactly _not_ an aggregation and curation site. They pay to
produce content. No income, no more content.

Reddit and hn are entirely different: they pay nobody to produce content, nor
do they charge for access.

~~~
lifeisstillgood
But if you got the editors and writers in NYT and said do Reddit /r but your
upvotes are worth 10x or 1000x then essentially I would be asking for curation
by the editors, not production and curation

Production will be valuable - but the curation is the secret sauce.

