

In Dieting, Magic Isn’t a Substitute for Science - vellum
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/10/health/nutrition/q-and-a-are-high-protein-low-carb-diets-effective.html

======
raverbashing
Oh come on

Yes, a calorie is a calorie (as long as dietary: macro/micro nutrients needs
are supplied), still there may be advantages to the diet, _as it is pointed in
the article_

"They report that people on the Atkins diet were burning off more calories.
Ergo, the diet is a good thing." (it's not necessarily all good especially if
you think low-carb diet==eating bacon at will, still)

Also, there may be other advantages, like hunger sensation in different diets.

Dieting is calorie balancing but there are several other aspects that should
be considering and dismissing 'low-carb' diets because you're only focusing on
the calorie balancing is naive.

~~~
danmaz74
"Ergo, the diet is a good thing" is what the proposers of that diet say. _On
the contrary_ , Dr. Hirsch says that "when carbohydrate levels are low in a
diet and fat content is high, people lose water. That can confuse attempts to
measure energy output" ergo, the measurements were mistaken and there is not
advantage from a low-carbs diet (as proved from Dr. Hirschs's experiments in a
controlled environment).

~~~
raverbashing
""when carbohydrate levels are low in a diet and fat content is high, people
lose water"

This is not a bad thing, but it is a thing that has to be compensated.

And there is loss of water in _all_ weight loss diets.

"the measurements were mistaken and there is not advantage from a low-carbs
diet"

There is not an advantage _from the calorie balancing point_ but there are
_several other aspects_ that are important in diets

~~~
danmaz74
He isn't saying that losing water is a bad thing, he says that how you lose it
could explain the measured increased levels of calories burned from this new
study, even if his own evidence says that you don't lose more weight from a
hig fat diet.

"There is not an advantage from the calorie balancing point": what he says is
that there are no advantages from a weight loss point, as the calories balance
IS what creates long-term weight loss (according to him).

~~~
raverbashing
"what he says is that there are no advantages from a weight loss point"

A diet is much more than counting calories. It's about managing to maintain a
set amount of food for your objective.

Here's an experiment you can do. Replace all your food (lunch/dinner) with
chicken fillets (for the daily need of protein), top up calories with sweet
potatoes and olive oil for fat needs.

See how long you can keep up with this diet. This is a nutritionally sound
diet (except for micronutrients), and if you calculate your daily needs you
will maintain your weight (or you can adjust for weight loss or gain)

But a regular person will probably lose weight because (s)he will get sick of
it fast and eat less!

The calories matter, but two things can have an equal number of calories and
one may make people feel hungry after 1h and the other may make people feel
full for the whole day. Guess who's more likely to lose weight?!

------
hardwear
Counting calories can not be a long term solution for obesity. A workable
solution must be based on easier to implement facts such as the more sweets
one eats, the more one craves sweets. I would recommend the No S Diet:
www.nosdiet.com "I would have them eat a lower-calorie diet. They should eat
whatever they normally eat, but eat less. You must carefully measure this. Eat
as little as you can get away with, and try to exercise more." -Dr. Jules
Hirsch. This is incredibly poor advice, based in physics, and ignoring
psychology.

------
damianpeckett
What these ridiculous study cherry picking groups overlook is the satiating
effects of high protein consumption. An attempt at a high protein body
building diet ended with me losing 10kg of fat.

Eat lot's of protein and your appetite just dies, fat/carbs a lot of the time
make no difference. It's just easy on the high fat diet to avoid high glycemic
response carbs and fructose.

Plus palatability, sugar makes you over eat. Plain and simple, High levels of
protein cause one to undereat. Take your pick.

~~~
KingMob
Definitely. I, personally, can eat half a box of pasta and be extremely hungry
again in a few hours. If I eat a bowl of lentils, I sometimes have difficulty
finishing it.

------
HyprMusic
This is taking dieting completely out of context. It's akin to saying that 1
gallon of fuel will result in the same amount of distance driven no matter how
you drive.

There are advantages to cutting out high GI carbs, since they lead to a spike
in insulin which results in food cravings, tiredness and hunger. Switch the
sugary cereal for the oats in the morning and you'll experience this first
hand.

~~~
phren0logy
Citation needed.

~~~
HyprMusic
Just look up the affects of insulin, or why a low GI diet is good. Here you
go:
[http://health.ninemsn.com.au/dietandnutrition/nutrition/6938...](http://health.ninemsn.com.au/dietandnutrition/nutrition/693899/the-
low-gi-diet)

------
lukifer
The human body is the most complex piece of machinery in the history of the
known universe, and is highly variable from one person to the next, with all
sorts of evolutionary cruft and random aberrations.

I understand we all need actionable information to maximize our odds at life,
but any attempt at science journalism that doesn't start from that premise and
instead tries to tell you "X good, Y bad" can probably be ignored, or at least
taken with a grain of salt.

~~~
ktizo
Surely on that argument, the body of almost any animal that is bigger than us
is actually a more complex piece of machinery. Blue whales are massive, for
instance and are made of far more cells than we are.

~~~
Heinleinian
It's not about size. Human brains produce consciousness. Can't argue with
that.

~~~
ktizo
a. How do you know that other brains don't.

b. How do you know that consciousness is primarily a function of complexity.

c. Complexity need not give recognisable output.

d. The weather.

------
masto
Since this is Hacker News, no discussion of diets can be complete without a
reference to The Hacker's Diet
<[https://www.fourmilab.ch/hackdiet/>](https://www.fourmilab.ch/hackdiet/>).
Especially in this context, since it's basically calorie restriction designed
to appeal to an engineer.

Personally, I lost 50 pounds using this approach, and my diet consisted mainly
of Hot Pockets, microwaved White Castle cheeseburgers, and frozen pizza.
Because they print the number of calories on the back of the box, it made it
easier to control calories in. I didn't exercise and as a programmer spent
most of my day sitting in a chair. Yet it was relatively straightforward to
lose weight by simply eating less, with no particular regard to the
composition of what was eaten.

My personal opinion is that all diets "work". Regardless of the magic or
science involved, people on diets who have actually adopted the "I'm seriously
trying to lose weight" mindset will eat fewer calories. Especially when it
starts working: The Hacker's Diet involves a daily weight log and some math to
extract the trend line from the noise. Now that we have WiFi scales and fit-
tracking web sites, it's very easy to monitor the effect of cutting out soda,
skipping dessert, and not having seconds at the dragon buffet.

Our brains are wired to make connections, and to some extent, to evangelize.
So if you lose weight on the Tofu Diet, you're likely to go around telling
everyone about the miracle benefits of tofu. Much like I'm convinced a simple
calories-in/calories-out approach is all you need.

~~~
vitno
He has actually started the paleo diet.
[http://www.fourmilab.ch/fourmilog/archives/2011-12/001344.ht...](http://www.fourmilab.ch/fourmilog/archives/2011-12/001344.html)

~~~
masto
Though as he says, not to lose weight.

------
thenomad
Dr Hirsch seems to be rather oversimplifying, to me. I'm not an expert, but
what about -

1) Psychological factors and satiation? 2) Calorific uptake and excretion? 3)
The mechanisms by which the body converts excess energy to fat, why and when
they're triggered?

~~~
rprasad
He does address those things, but he notes that when losing weight, calornies
in < calories out is the primary factor for any weight loss diet. For
maintenance diets, 1, 2, and 3 matter, because the types of calories play a
role in metabolism, dietary function, and overall health.

------
pella
#classic #Ornish diet / #lifestyle #Radical Change

Change or Die /

 _"All leadership comes down to this: changing people's behavior. Why is that
so damn hard? Science offers some surprising new answers -- and ways to do
better."_

BY ALAN DEUTSCHMAN | MAY 1, 2005

[http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/94/open_change-or-
die.ht...](http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/94/open_change-or-die.html)

~~~
pella
_"Reframing alone isn't enough, of course. That's where Dr. Ornish's other
astonishing insight comes in. Paradoxically, he found that radical, sweeping,
comprehensive changes are often easier for people than small, incremental
ones. For example, he says that people who make moderate changes in their
diets get the worst of both worlds: They feel deprived and hungry because they
aren't eating everything they want, but they aren't making big enough changes
to quickly see an improvement in how they feel, or in measurements such as
weight, blood pressure, and cholesterol. But the heart patients who went on
Ornish's tough, radical program saw quick, dramatic results, reporting a 91%
decrease in frequency of chest pain in the first month. "These rapid
improvements are a powerful motivator," he says. "When people who have had so
much chest pain that they can't work, or make love, or even walk across the
street without intense suffering find that they are able to do all of those
things without pain in only a few weeks, then they often say, 'These are
choices worth making.' ""_

[http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/94/open_change-or-
die.ht...](http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/94/open_change-or-
die.html?page=0%2C3)

------
dkrich
"There is an inflexible law of physics — energy taken in must exactly equal
the number of calories leaving the system when fat storage is unchanged."

Really? That's an inflexible law of physics? Only if fat is the only source of
energy the body has. But it isn't. Simple sugars are a huge source of energy
for the body. This is the main reason why the Atkins diet works for quick fat
loss- basically eliminates the alternate sources of energy your body would
usually use and forces it to start burning fat.

------
ry0ohki
"Dr. Rudolph Leibel, now an obesity researcher at Columbia University, and I
took people who were of normal weight and had them live in the hospital, where
we diddled with the number of calories we fed them so we could keep their
weights absolutely constant, which is no easy thing. This was done with liquid
diets of exactly known calorie content."

Wow, how much does one get paid for agreeing to take part in something so
terrible sounding?

~~~
ktizo
You get paid by the fruits of progress and enlightenment, for which to nurture
your soul. Or alternatively in dollars, if that doesn't cut it. To be honest,
it sounds like what a lot of people seem to eat anyway, I know loads of people
who appear to exist solely on vitamin milkshakes.

------
codex
A consulted expert disses new research with a conjured, speculative flaw,
because it contradicts his own research.

This is illogical, but not just because the expert has a conflict of interest;
the studies measure different things.

The old study put people on appropriate maintenance diets of varying
compositions and found that everybody maintained their weights regardless of
what they ate. As it turns out, humans are very good at maintaining their
weights; feed them more, within reason, and their bodies burn more; feed them
less and the trim is adjusted to burn less.

The new study measures how easily people regain weight on various diets after
their bodies have been kicked out of this mode by extreme calorie deflicts
(resulting in weight loss). Not the same thing, at all.

------
readme
We should eat well balanced diets that are tailored to each of us as
individuals. I tried high fat high protein before and it didn't work very well
with my metabolism, to spare you some details.

Listen to your body, and give it what it needs. Experiment a bit. That's what
I learned after trying fad diets. The realization is we are individuals each
with our own metabolism that is slightly different.

What I found is that low carb diets are a big sham. The key is not to avoid
carbs, but to avoid SUGAR and HFCS. Lots of "carbs" we eat come from absolute
garbage, like white bread.

Trust me, a diet of mostly high fiber green vegetables is NOT going to effect
your health adversely. It will do only the opposite, no matter how many damn
carbs are in it.

~~~
apl

      > We should eat well balanced diets that are tailored to
      > each of us as individuals.
    

vs.

    
    
      > What I found is that low carb diets are a big sham.
    
    ?

~~~
readme
by "low carb diet" I am specifically referring to carb-restriction type diets
like atkins that advocate eating an extraordinarily low amount of
carbohydrates.

carbohydrates are an important macronutrient. the problem is not with carbs,
but with bad carbs.

go visit some third world countries where they eat primarily carbs and find me
the obese people. (hint: you won't find any)

~~~
div
The problem isn't with carbs, protein, fat or subcategories of those, the
problem is with more calories being eaten than calories being burned.

caloric intake > caloric burn -> weight gain

caloric intake = caloric burn -> weight stabilises

caloric intake < caloric burn -> weight loss

You can alter your caloric intake by changing the amount and type of food you
eat. You can alter your caloric burn by changing the amount of exercise /
labor you perform.

~~~
readme
I absolutely agree that weight is regulated by calories consumed vs calories
burned.

In practice though, trying to say that is the only important aspect is
complete bull. Try getting all your calories from wood chips and let me know
how that work.

In order for consistent weight loss to occur, we need to eat healthy foods so
that we feel good. Feeling lousy will cause you to overeat. Eating bad foods
could also make you sick.

~~~
div
Well yes, of course your diet should be well-rounded and contain all the
necessary vitamins, fibers, protein your body needs.

My comment was more a reaction to all the different kinds of diets, and how
they're supposedly a better way to lose weight than the previous diet. If you
want to lose weight, and you already have a varied diet that meets your body's
daily intake requirements, it can be useful to calculate your calorie
consumption and burn rate and try to tweak both of those so that you end up
with a caloric deficit.

Of course this only directly affects your weight, and you need to also take
care of your body's general health. I would hope it's obvious to most that you
shouldn't start a wood chip diet.

------
alan_cx
Forgive my sense of humour, but just on the title alone....

....When is magic a substitute for science?

I mean, I read the title, and my response was, "Yeah, I know. And why is it
prefaced with 'in dieting'?" Does it need further reading?

To be serious, from what I can tell, the problem is people in general will
always look for the easy out. No matter the science or logic, if some one
presents a "cure pill", they want it. Deep down they know its more hope than
anything else, but because it looks easy, they are only too willing to part
with cash. This article wont change that, it just reinforces those who already
agree.

------
Newky
I may be old-fashioned, but the idea of any of these "extreme" diets scares
me. I have always found that an approach with regular ( 2-3 times a week )
exercise and an conservative approach to eating is better.

My usual diet plans for eating is breakfast (some cereal), a big lunch at
about 1 o clock (this is my dinner effectively), and perhaps something light,
like pasta, rice when I get home, followed by a bowl of cereal for bedtime.

This with some running or other exercise leaves me at a desirable place
without causing me too much pain.

~~~
KingMob
Interesting. You realize though, that prior to agriculture, not a single human
ate anything like what you describe, right? You list a lot of grains, and
those are a relatively recent addition to the human diet.

"Extreme" is a function of time and place. What seems normal for modern
America might be very abnormal relative to the historical record.

------
Heinleinian
I have always wondered why the Adkins diet seems to work. The article
basically says it is both more successful and yet has no physiological reason
for being more successful. So why?

My first guess would be: carbs/bread is cheap and usually comes in large
quantities, like unlimited bread baskets. Meat is expensive and comes in
smaller quantities. So eating mostly meat just makes it easier to consume
fewer calories by default. But again that's just a guess.

~~~
matwood
_So eating mostly meat just makes it easier to consume fewer calories by
default._

This is probably the most important statement in the entire thread. All of
these fad diets basically trick the dieter into eating less calories. When
Lustig, etc... cite various studies those studies never seem to account for
overall caloric intake. Person A cut carbs, person B didn't, person A lost
weight ergo carbs are bad. Yeah, it doesn't quite work that way. Saying that
cutting calories will help a person lose weight doesn't sell books so authors
have to pick something to demonize.

HFCS is a popular thing to demonize now. Is it surprising to anyone that if a
person cuts out 4-6 sodas/day that had ~200 calories each that said person is
going to lose weight? It had zero to do HFCS and everything to do with cutting
out ~1000 calories/day. Again, that doesn't sell books or speaking
engagements, but declaring X as evil does.

~~~
sixbrx
No it's a jump to a conclusion at least, and according to a recent study may
be false. <http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1199154>.

The study seems to indicate that low carb diets actually do trigger more
calories to be burned for the same level of activity, about 430 additional
calories per day. It's too early to tell if this affect is real (larger study
needed), but the results are interesting.

~~~
rprasad
Low carb diets also increase metabolic stress (specifically ketosis), which is
one of the suspected reasons for the additional calorie burn. Ketosis over
short periods is good, but scientists differ on whether it is safe in the
long-term. For diabetics (Type I or II), ketosis is not safe, as the body does
not have the proper insulin response to maintain safe levels of ketosis.

~~~
KingMob
Are there any studies on ketosis and diabetes? Because one of the primary
drivers of insulin resistance in type 2 diabetes is being overweight. So, even
if ketosis were bad, if losing weight improved your insulin sensitivity, it
might still be worth it. Obviously, this shouldn't apply to type 1 diabetics,
though.

------
terio
Of course a calorie is a calorie, but this is more than often used as a
simplistic view of how the body processes food. Now it is clear that both the
type and amount of food one consumes influences the hormonal system and gene
expression. It is naive to keep thinking just in terms of calories.

------
fauldsh
What this articles says is any diet which says you can eat the same number of
calories and lose weight is lying. Some diets may make you want to eat less
calories, but you cannot eat the same number of calories and lose more weight
without doing more exercise.

~~~
sixbrx
Not true, some diets raise metabolism relative to others according to recent
studies, low carb diets burn about 430 more calories on average per day for
the same level of activity. So that's another way of burning calories without
"exercise" unless you consider sitting still exercise.

~~~
fauldsh
But that's precisely what this article argues is a falacy. He discusses a
trial carried out in hospital conditions with regulated liquid meals of
exactly the same number calories but differing carbs/ protein ratios. The
results showed that given the same calories and exercise all the subjects
maintained the same weight.

Unless I misunderstood anything.

