
The Hacker's Diet - jacquesm
http://www.fourmilab.ch/hackdiet/
======
notsosimple
I read "The 150 Healthiest Foods on Earth" (Jonny Bowden) recently and took
from it this extremely condensed diet advice: "Avoid grains and industrial
processing." Grains have near-zero nutrition, and industrial processing is the
source of a lot of questionable practices.

On this diet, which I've followed just a few weeks, I cheat all the time, but
I feel and perform better in ways that I can quantify at the gym: more
strength, better endurance. Noticeable improvements every time I've gone, so
far.

~~~
dangrover
This is the annoying thing about diet/nutrition advice, and why "The Hacker
Diet" is really appealing to me, even if it's a little simplistic -- it's at
least logically consistent and has some rationale behind it, even if it's a
flawed one.

Most diet advice is vague and full of generalizations and never backed up. It
makes sense, but you hear often opposing viewpoints made in the same hand-wavy
fashion. For instance:

Okay, why avoid grains? Are some grains worse than others, or are they all
magically bad? Either way, why, and what evidence supports it? Does this apply
to any carbohydrate, or just strictly grains? What's wrong with industrial
processing, and is there evidence to prove it? Does it apply to _everything_
that could possibly be considered industrial processing, or just certain types
of industrial processing that are particularly bad? Is it possible to make up
for whatever negative effects it (anything one is advised not to eat) has, and
does it apply to 100% of people, or a set of people that you make a set of
assumptions about?

I'm not attacking your viewpoint specifically -- I think you're most likely
right -- but this is just why I have a hard time believing most diet advice.
It's always so wishy washy, and it always brings up more questions.

Another example: advice around drinking soda. There are many types of
sweeteners used in diet sodas, and lots of studies done on their effects on
humans and other mammals -- none particularly damning. But no one giving
nutrition advice will say "avoid ingredient X because Y", they'll say "avoid
(vague category of food which may or may not contain ingredient X)". And then
someone else will come along and say the opposite. And then there's always
some link to some study done in the 1940's that's since been discredited or
something.

~~~
stonemetal
carbohydrates are all nothing but sugar, they do nothing for you. Grains are
particularly bad because they not only don't provide anything but sugar but
they also prevent the absorption of minerals(in the link he explicitly calls
out oat meal but others do it as well). Studies show that cutting out
grain(note some grains are ok mostly freshly processed grains are bad. Sour
dough is OK) will make your teeth immune to tooth decay and any cavities you
have will heal themselves.

[http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2009/03/reversing-
toot...](http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2009/03/reversing-tooth-
decay.html)

~~~
swombat
_carbohydrates are all nothing but sugar_

Sugars are a pretty essential part of any healthy diet. If you're not eating
sugars (complex and simple), you're not eating right.

------
ryanwaggoner
I'm definitely not great with the healthy eating (I have Taco Bell leftovers
sitting on my desk as I type this), but I _really_ like Michael Pollan's
little manifesto thing: "Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants." To me, this
covers the three major guidelines of healthy eating:

    
    
      1. Eat real food, not over-processed empty calorie junk.
      2. Don't eat too much of whatever you eat.
      3. No need to give up meat & dairy, but don't go overboard.

------
llopis
Except that human bodies are not engines. Calories in != calories out + stored
energies. A healthy body will store just enough and discard the rest of the
eaten food.

For a much more accurate and interesting read, check out Good Calories, Bad
Calories.

~~~
sp332
You are not just wrong, but obviously totally wrong. Obesity is up worldwide.
Why would this happen if human bodies just discarded unnecessary calories?

~~~
embeddedradical
please, at least hear the quackjob out:
<http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4362041487661765149>

science mag and a lot of others thought he was worth listening to...

the argument is that it's not something simple like calorie in, calorie out
(seen this argument on hn a few times), but rather how _certain_ calories
trigger certain behavior with insulin in our bodies.

After all, if he's right - it quite changes how we approach the problem, and
considering the backing this research has from other reputable sources - it's
quite foolish to just ignore such a paradigm shifting idea like that. perhaps
it was worth ignoring before the guy wrote a giant book looking at one study
after the next....before he presented such a good case for the argument...but
at this point, obviously wrong is not true.

if you've got a good reference, a link to an article perhaps, to why Gary
Taubes is wrong -- I'd love to see it.

~~~
sp332
Actually, that sounds OK. I know my body reacts very differently to HFCS vs
sucrose, for example. My problem with GP is that Calories In == Calories
Expended + Calories Stored, always (unless you have diarrhea or something).
The differences in the way your body responds only changes the ratio of energy
stored to energy expended, by making you hyper or relaxed.

------
discojesus
an oldie, but a goodie. A good way to keep track of your progress online here:

<http://www.fourmilab.ch/hackdiet/online/hdo.html>

It will calculate everything for you and even provide the pretty little
weighted graphs just like in the book.

~~~
alexfarran
It works pretty well for me. I also keep a rough running total of my daily
calories - not hard to do after a week or so. Progress is gradual, but
sustainable.

I'm posting monthly updates to flickr.
[http://www.flickr.com/photos/alexfarran/sets/721576162210862...](http://www.flickr.com/photos/alexfarran/sets/72157616221086238/)

------
jacquesm
To me the most interesting part of Walkers writings on diet and exercise are
the exercise bits:

<http://www.fourmilab.ch/hackdiet/www/chapter1_2_5.html>

Very simple and absolutely doable even without any room or extra gear.

Don't let the simplicity deceive you.

~~~
alexfarran
I think I'll give that a go. I do a reasonable amount of cycling and walking,
but it would be interesting to see where my current fitness level puts me on
that scale.

------
grendel
I have found that "Good Calories, Bad Calories" does a great job of pointing
towards a better understanding of diets and how the body works.

------
kingkongrevenge
If research about "diets" has found anything it's that they don't work. Any
calorie counting approach is doomed to fail for most people.

This diet is straight out of the Stalinist four year plan school. Normal
people have zero chance of tolerating this. The bondage and discipline rigid
planning approach doesn't work in any field. People aren't machines.

~~~
pbhj
How does calorie counting not work. You put in less energy than is being used
and the body makes up the rest from reserves. Or is the body somehow
generating energy without burning fat?

~~~
antiismist
The point is that it is difficult for people to follow the diet consistently.

