3) Eating less calories than this will result in you being in a calorie deficit and losing weight.
4) Every ~3500 calories under maintenance will result in 1 lb weight loss (so eating 500 less calories than maintenance per day will result in 1 lb/week)
4a) Likewise when bulking 500 calories per day above maintenance will mean you put on 1 lb/week (approx).
4b) 250 calories under maintenance per day, 1750 per week and you'll lose 0.5 lbs in that week. (You get the idea..)
5) A slightly higher protein diet will help hold on to muscle mass while cutting this weight.
6) Muscle mass helps loss weight because the more of it you have the more calories your body consumes.
7) Some general recommendations on macros (protein = 4 calories/gram, carbs = 4 cals/gram, fat = 9 cals/gram)
- protein: 0.6g-0.8g/lb of body weight
- fat: 0.4g-0.6g/lb of body weight
- carbs: fill in the rest of your calorie allowance
Example for 200 lb male trying to eat 2200 calories;
protein: 200 x 0.8 = 160 gram | 160 x 4 cals = 640 cals
fat: 200 x 0.5 = 100 grams | 100 x 9 cals = 900 cals
Therefore the 200lb male will consume 2200 calories by eating 160g of protein, 100g of fat and 165g of carbs.
When and how these calories are consumed doesn't really matter unless your really care about athletic performance.(1-2% to be gained maybe in meal timing and nutrient partitioning)
So eat how and whatever you prefer. If that means 1 huge meal or 5 small ones no problem.
I'd recommend a balanced diet consisting of fresh natural foods.
Also 1 hour of exercise per day (some days cardio, other days weights(focus on compounds; squat, deadlift, bench press, shoulder press, pullups, rows)).
This is the reddit party line, and it's just as much an oversimplification here as it is there. In actuality, people have wildly different metabolic responses to over/underfeeding, and those responses also vary depending on macronutrient composition.
What you described is a reasonable way to get a starting point, but the math almost never works out the way you described. Instead, you must track your body's response over a week or two to a very repetitive diet, then change one or two variables at a time and repeat the tracking process until you get the desired result.
> Every ~3500 calories under maintenance will result in 1 lb weight loss
If you are managing to lose pure fat, this is true; in reality, it probably won't be. Its more like 600 calorie deficit per pound of muscle, and, ceteris paribus, the greater the calorie deficit, the greater the proportion of weight loss that will be from muscle. (OTOH, the more overweight you are, ceteris paribus, the greater the percentage of the weight loss that will be from fat, so if you are very overweight, then a very aggressive calorie deficit is more tolerable than when you are less overweight.)
Losing muscle is more rapid weight loss than losing fat, but its generally not what people seeking to "lose weight" really want, so its important to not overdo the calorie deficit (what "overdo" means depends on how high your body fat is currently, various things that vary from individual to individual, and to a certain extent what the exercise pattern and particular diet pattern is that you are doing, since that affects maintenance of muscle mass.)
The 500 calorie number is a little sketchy. For it to hold true, here are some questions:
1. How accurately do we know how many calories are needed for maintenance? I would imagine this is highly variable, unless there is evidence to show it is not. People's activity can be quite different day to day. Also is there evidence that metabolism occurs at a consistent rate? If all these add up to an error that is an order of magnitude less than 500, only then can we reliably use the number 500.
2. There is some new research [1] that shows that we may have to rethink the calorie-labels based on how foods are digested. For example cooked food are sometimes digested more completely than raw food, leading to a net intake of more calories.
nice comment explaining simple math. now a bit trickier part - how to follow it. And to put it simply - to be able to follow it you have to incorporate it into your daily routine. Also, you have to like things you do and eat (that's why restricting all carbs from diet if you love chocolate should not be done.) If you don't like jogging, do several 7 minutes exercises per day, or do some active sport (soccer?.) If you don't like weights - this one is tricky, as I don't know what can really replace it. But you have to find what you like, otherwise it will be too hard to follow.
Well, I lost about 100 pounds. I'm pretty sure I looked at this website at some point while I was doing this. What I can say anecdotally is that there are two main issues at play for those who are obese:
1. Food is too damn good. We've developed food to be tastier and tastier, setting off more and more pleasure sensations, almost to the point where it loops back around and becomes disgusting.
2. Some people under stress do not eat. Other people under stress eat more. People who eat more when stressed will gain weight, and become more stressed about their weight gain.
I'm talking about the morbidly obese here, not just people about twenty pounds overweight.
What I did for myself was to make a few adjustments:
1. Eat healthier versions of food that I actually like. I mean, sure, a fried chicken sandwich or a hamburger can be delicious. But so is a turkey sandwich, or grilled chicken. When I lost weight, I chose the lower calorie options that I still enjoyed.
2. Avoid pointless food. French fries are great, but they're just filler. Soda is tasty (though I actually dislike it now that I've had distance from it), but it's not substantively adding to my enjoyment of a meal. Stop focusing on sides and enjoy the main course on its own.
3. Exercise reasonably and consistently. It's not sustainable to go from sedentary obesity to daily hill sprints. Start with walking more, move on to exercise twice a week. Progressively build up from there. Find something you can enjoy doing (for me, I enjoy lifting weights).
There's a lot more I could talk about (e.g. better sleep, realistic expectations, tolerating hunger) as well. I can't say I'm perfectly healthy now, but I've hopefully saved myself from the long-term health effects of obesity.
I lost about 30 pounds 10 years ago. It was a time when I was fairly active, but I'm convinced that the main part of the weight loss came from one thing: I stopped eating French Fries. Replacing french fries with a different (or no) side had a small effect. But it also altered where I ate. You're not going to go to McDonald's if you can't order fries.
Seeing this again takes me back. After reading this a number of years ago (2002 or 2003 or so?) I actually gave my first effort to trying to lose some weight and get in better shape, which caused me to learn / figure out a bunch more, and actually start taking an interest in my physical abilities.
While I'm no serious athlete I now enjoy -- and recognize that I enjoy -- getting out and doing things, pushing myself when hiking or biking, and this has given me the ability to spend good deals of time outdoors enjoying the world. It's a great change of pace from the almost-completely-computer-focused stuff I'd done previously.
After cross-reading this, my impression is that this was written with the nutritional knowledge that was prevalent 20 years ago and mostly focuses on counting calories, not about the nutrients present in the food.
From what I understand about modern nutritional science, this is not all that useful without having a look at e.g. the amount of carbohydrates and the glycemic index of the food you eat.
It seems that most studies agree that losing wait is most successful with a low carb + high protein diet. Most other approaches going with higher carb content usually just lead to insulin spikes and make you feel hungry at unnecessary times. Unless you like suffering, have impressive self control and don't mind what bloodsugar does to your body, that's probably not a good idea.
If you really want to eat carbohydrates, at least make sure you get a good amount of fiber with them, so it slows down their intake and reduces the amount of insulin your body fires off in response.
I would say the behavioural part (tracking weight etc) is probably a good idea. The actual diet part of this should probably be discarded.
> CONCLUSIONS
>
> Reduced-calorie diets result in clinically meaningful
> weight loss regardless of which macronutrients they
> emphasize.
Edited to include an additional quote from the study:
> The principal finding is that the diets were equally successful in promoting
> clinically meaningful weight loss and the maintenance of weight loss over the
> course of 2 years. Satiety, hunger, satisfaction with the diet, and attendance
> at group sessions were similar for all diets.
Carbs being bad is very much outdated. As are unsustainable eating methods for short term benefits. Eating 6 times a day is also seeing some push back as to whether it is really any healthier. Calorie counting not being important was a fad (if its possible to have a negative fad). How can you have an ideal macro split for a diet when each of those macros has a calorie value without also taking into account your overall calorie needs?
It may become more prevalent that the notion of eating consistently will change too. You cannot eat at a deficit for any period of time without getting pretty severe diminishing returns as your body adapts to its in vs out. 5:2 is a very simple model of calorie cycling, just an unsustainable on.
Protein and calories have the same calorie content per gram, so if you hit your protein macros then there is no downside to eating carbs, and actually for active people your gains and recovery will suffer dramatically from lack of carbs. Overloading on protein has the same downsides as overloading on carbs in simple calories in vs out terms.
I think it's fairly common knowledge now that fats are largely good (saturated fats help with testosterone regulation for example) even though food producers seem to be wilfully slow in catching up (low fat items being filled with sugar thus making them far more unhealthy).
I'm not sure I entirely buy into the if it fits your macros (IIFYM) way of thinking, but it's not a bad strategy for a lot of situations.
Nutrition and weight loss are 2 very complex subjects to say the least. However, calorie counting and weight measurement pretty much fit into all programs, mainly for the sake of raising awareness.
Counting calories is like keeping tracking of your spending. It won't solve your problems, but it will highlight areas of concern. If you're caloric intake goal is 1800, and you're consistently eating 2000, calorie counting will help you figure out where you can drop those 200 calories.
Similar to weight measurements, if you're losing weight at a consistent rate (~1-2 lbs/week), you can stay the course. If you flat line or start going up, it's good time to start reviewing what you're doing.
Of course, the situation is nuanced. For example, you could eat 1800 calories worth of cookies, or your weight gain could be caused due to the growth of muscle (which does happen).
At the outset, however, those 2 practices will get the machine going.
>It seems that most studies agree that losing wait is most successful with a low carb + high protein diet.
We've also seen studies that say that this is actually gives you an increased risk of regaining weight, once you lost it.
It really seems that the old recommendations: Everything in moderation, exercise and balanced diet are the best. Every "shortcut" modern diets present seems to fail in one way or another.
I think the issue is that we've created a culture where a people who loss weight, what ever the method, sets out to write a book or blog, detailing their new found wisdom. It's all anecdotal, proof is retrofitted to fit the result and claims are never properly verified or tested on a broad cross section of people. These weight loss anecdotes sells because we want them to work. Have you ever seen someone ask another person: "How did you loss all that weight?" and then their disappointment when the answer is "I eat less and workout". That's not what people want to hear, they want you to say that you just eat a lemon and half a pound of bacon every Tuesday.
Eat less that you burn, and try to get your basic nutrient requirement meet - That every single healthy diet summed up.
Yeah, it's straight up calorie counting, which works for some people and doesn't work for others. But I think the other half of it is to use a rolling average for weight tracking, and it's surprising how few weight loss apps do that.
>"From what I understand about modern nutritional science, this is not all that useful without having a look at e.g. the amount of carbohydrates and the glycemic index of the food you eat."
GI becomes irrelevant once you eat more than once every 24 hours, which for most people is the norm. [1]
Many people don't seem to like the approach of the Hackers Diet, as it only focuses on how much and not what you eat.
I actually really like this approach. Everybody has different ideas about what is good to eat or what isn't, but in the end, you only lose weight if you eat less than you burn. The Hackers Diet gives you the freedom to choose what you think is best to eat, while giving you feedback about what kind of effect it has on your weight.
Also one very important realization: your fat cells will only release fat when your blood sugar level is low, and when that happens, your brain will receive messages you should eat. So if it's strong or not, if you want to burn fat, you will be hungry. Exercise suppresses this feeling a bit though, but unless you can do that everyday, it won't be very effective.
Don't diet, but eat a healthy diet. By this point I'll get burned at the stake for this, but there is something to the Paleo diet. Our current diet is a nightmare in terms of not just weight, but health in general, more specifically, the rise in auto-immune disease. Research shows that a leaky gut is a _prerequisite_ (but not only factor) for developing auto-immune disease. One thing that causes leaky gut is gluten. Grains and seeds contain stuff that hurts your gut, why? Because grains and seeds have developed a defence for digestion because they need to come out the other side. I'm not a fad-following hipster, I just read literature on this, and I've seen first hand what gluten does to someone who's not even gluten intolerant. My wife has Grave's disease which is auto-immune. Her options were taking meds that devastate the thyroid and liver, or operate her thyroid and in the process likely develop the opposite of Grave's: hypothyroidism. She tried every other option, including different kinds of diets, until we read about the Autoimmune Protocol (AIP), which is a strict version of the Paleo diet. Her symptoms (constant 100-120 bbm heartbeat) went away within days. We've pinned it down to gluten as the main factor.
Counting calories is an extremely simplistic world view, and while it's very comforting to have a simple rule to follow, I believe it's a very bad idea to not care what you put in your body, as opposed to just how much of it.
The main reason the paleo people get flack comes from trying to claim historical accuracy when science has consistently shown that claims about e.g. how long humans have been eating grain or dairy products are off by thousands of years.
The better way to phrase this is to avoid trying to claim unique merit: “This diet works for me. Maybe it will work for you.” That keeps the truthful part but drops the magical claims about why everyone else's choices aren't as valid.
Paleo works well for people who have low grade gluten/casein allergies. For those that don't, it is needlessly restrictive. Additionally, the emphasis on high fat consumption can actually exacerbate leaky gut, as high fat diets promote the growth of bacteria that release lipopolysaccharide. High lipid content also directly modulates intestinal permeability.
If you are going to make categorical statements like Research shows that a leaky gut is a _prerequisite_ (but not only factor) for developing auto-immune disease, please provide a reference.
which I found linked from a nutritionist promoting AIP, only goes as far as
However, in several autoimmune conditions it appears that increased permeability is a constant and early feature of the disease process. Furthermore, it is becoming increasingly apparent that in some conditions increased permeability is critical to the development of disease as if it is abrogated the disease does not develop.
Note all the equivocation in the science there.
Edit: Actually linking one might be difficult, but for such a categorical statement, you should be able to cite a recent textbook, not just a few articles.
The exercises in this book are a slimmed-down version of the 5BX plan by the RCAF. I started doing these about 3 months ago and can really recommend this. It only costs about 11 minutes of your daily time.
The full version of these exercises have some more variety, as every 12 steps the exercises get a bit more challenging.
This definitely works! I used to drink coffee with grass-fed butter every morning when I woke up and also took a few other things of Bulletproof diet to heart and lost over 30 kilo's in two years time.
Friends of mine are very positive about this and Keto seems to very successful as well, as seen here: http://www.reddit.com/r/keto
My weight is good, so I haven't read much on the actual diet, but I am trying the ladder. Being a developer, I sit most of the day and for me I have developed a lower back pain so I figure I need more exercise. Hopefully this will work out.
I have the same problem. What I've found really useful is this simple exercise: hang from the pull up bar (like you do when preparing for pull-ups), lift both of your legs until they make 90 degree angle with your back, then slowly lower them down; repeat as many times as you can, but 10-20 repetitions daily after work are usually enough for me. Another simple exercise is a little less effective, but doesn't require any equipment: stand upright your back, shoulders and heels touching the wall, extend your hands forward then do normal squats.
For me the main takeaway from this was the "moving average" method to calculate weight, which smooths daily spikes into a trend curve. An excellent app for this on iOS is True Weight. Saves you from making calculations.
I used to use this site, long ago and I did lose weight in my 20’s. Now in my 40’s I find it emphasizes a way of thinking that I think is missing the point.
I don’t necessarily disagree with calorie counting, but forcing yourself to not eat when you are hungry is the key to failure. I think this is at the root of the low-carb approach in which the foods that you eat don’t stimulate your body’s fat-making hormones.
If your body is being asked to make fat (through raised insulin levels), it doesn’t matter how many calories you eat, they are mostly being stored and you will continue to be hungry.
Low-carb helps you eat fewer calories because more of the calories you eat are available for energy and your body will signal that you are satiated.
If you want to go really low-carb, you can go into ketosis, where your body realizes it can also start eating its own fat for energy and promptly does so. Then you are satiated on even fewer calories because your body can get what it needs from itself.
I’ve found ketosis to be very reliable and even better, I find I concentrate much better because I’m not so distracted by how I’m going to get my next snack to much while I code. That concept is no longer a part of my consciousness. You don’t realize how noisy your brain is around food until it’s quiet.
[+] [-] FidesFacitFidem|10 years ago|reply
1) You need to be in a calorie deficit. (consuming less calories than you use)
2) Use a calorie calculator to find out roughly what your maintenance daily calorie allowance is. (eg http://www.freedieting.com/tools/calorie_calculator.htm)
3) Eating less calories than this will result in you being in a calorie deficit and losing weight.
4) Every ~3500 calories under maintenance will result in 1 lb weight loss (so eating 500 less calories than maintenance per day will result in 1 lb/week)
4a) Likewise when bulking 500 calories per day above maintenance will mean you put on 1 lb/week (approx).
4b) 250 calories under maintenance per day, 1750 per week and you'll lose 0.5 lbs in that week. (You get the idea..)
5) A slightly higher protein diet will help hold on to muscle mass while cutting this weight.
6) Muscle mass helps loss weight because the more of it you have the more calories your body consumes.
7) Some general recommendations on macros (protein = 4 calories/gram, carbs = 4 cals/gram, fat = 9 cals/gram)
- protein: 0.6g-0.8g/lb of body weight - fat: 0.4g-0.6g/lb of body weight - carbs: fill in the rest of your calorie allowance
Example for 200 lb male trying to eat 2200 calories;
protein: 200 x 0.8 = 160 gram | 160 x 4 cals = 640 cals
fat: 200 x 0.5 = 100 grams | 100 x 9 cals = 900 cals
carbs: 900 cals + 640 cals = 1540 | 2200 - 1540 = 660 | 660 / 4 cals = 165 grams
Therefore the 200lb male will consume 2200 calories by eating 160g of protein, 100g of fat and 165g of carbs.
When and how these calories are consumed doesn't really matter unless your really care about athletic performance.(1-2% to be gained maybe in meal timing and nutrient partitioning) So eat how and whatever you prefer. If that means 1 huge meal or 5 small ones no problem.
I'd recommend a balanced diet consisting of fresh natural foods. Also 1 hour of exercise per day (some days cardio, other days weights(focus on compounds; squat, deadlift, bench press, shoulder press, pullups, rows)).
[+] [-] wmil|10 years ago|reply
This is a bit of a pet peeve of mine, but recommending pull-ups to someone out of shape who needs to loose weight is just bizarre.
If someone was a beginner on the bench press, would you start them at 250lbs and yell at them to push harder? No. That would be stupid and dangerous.
Yet somehow fat people are supposed to will themselves to do a pull up, which is basically the equivalent.
[+] [-] CuriouslyC|10 years ago|reply
What you described is a reasonable way to get a starting point, but the math almost never works out the way you described. Instead, you must track your body's response over a week or two to a very repetitive diet, then change one or two variables at a time and repeat the tracking process until you get the desired result.
[+] [-] dragonwriter|10 years ago|reply
If you are managing to lose pure fat, this is true; in reality, it probably won't be. Its more like 600 calorie deficit per pound of muscle, and, ceteris paribus, the greater the calorie deficit, the greater the proportion of weight loss that will be from muscle. (OTOH, the more overweight you are, ceteris paribus, the greater the percentage of the weight loss that will be from fat, so if you are very overweight, then a very aggressive calorie deficit is more tolerable than when you are less overweight.)
Losing muscle is more rapid weight loss than losing fat, but its generally not what people seeking to "lose weight" really want, so its important to not overdo the calorie deficit (what "overdo" means depends on how high your body fat is currently, various things that vary from individual to individual, and to a certain extent what the exercise pattern and particular diet pattern is that you are doing, since that affects maintenance of muscle mass.)
[+] [-] shas3|10 years ago|reply
1. How accurately do we know how many calories are needed for maintenance? I would imagine this is highly variable, unless there is evidence to show it is not. People's activity can be quite different day to day. Also is there evidence that metabolism occurs at a consistent rate? If all these add up to an error that is an order of magnitude less than 500, only then can we reliably use the number 500.
2. There is some new research [1] that shows that we may have to rethink the calorie-labels based on how foods are digested. For example cooked food are sometimes digested more completely than raw food, leading to a net intake of more calories.
[1] http://news.sciencemag.org/evolution/2013/02/have-we-been-mi...
[+] [-] hippich|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] anthony_romeo|10 years ago|reply
1. Food is too damn good. We've developed food to be tastier and tastier, setting off more and more pleasure sensations, almost to the point where it loops back around and becomes disgusting.
2. Some people under stress do not eat. Other people under stress eat more. People who eat more when stressed will gain weight, and become more stressed about their weight gain.
I'm talking about the morbidly obese here, not just people about twenty pounds overweight.
What I did for myself was to make a few adjustments:
1. Eat healthier versions of food that I actually like. I mean, sure, a fried chicken sandwich or a hamburger can be delicious. But so is a turkey sandwich, or grilled chicken. When I lost weight, I chose the lower calorie options that I still enjoyed.
2. Avoid pointless food. French fries are great, but they're just filler. Soda is tasty (though I actually dislike it now that I've had distance from it), but it's not substantively adding to my enjoyment of a meal. Stop focusing on sides and enjoy the main course on its own.
3. Exercise reasonably and consistently. It's not sustainable to go from sedentary obesity to daily hill sprints. Start with walking more, move on to exercise twice a week. Progressively build up from there. Find something you can enjoy doing (for me, I enjoy lifting weights).
There's a lot more I could talk about (e.g. better sleep, realistic expectations, tolerating hunger) as well. I can't say I'm perfectly healthy now, but I've hopefully saved myself from the long-term health effects of obesity.
[+] [-] bryanlarsen|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] c0nsumer|10 years ago|reply
While I'm no serious athlete I now enjoy -- and recognize that I enjoy -- getting out and doing things, pushing myself when hiking or biking, and this has given me the ability to spend good deals of time outdoors enjoying the world. It's a great change of pace from the almost-completely-computer-focused stuff I'd done previously.
[+] [-] rb2k_|10 years ago|reply
From what I understand about modern nutritional science, this is not all that useful without having a look at e.g. the amount of carbohydrates and the glycemic index of the food you eat.
It seems that most studies agree that losing wait is most successful with a low carb + high protein diet. Most other approaches going with higher carb content usually just lead to insulin spikes and make you feel hungry at unnecessary times. Unless you like suffering, have impressive self control and don't mind what bloodsugar does to your body, that's probably not a good idea.
If you really want to eat carbohydrates, at least make sure you get a good amount of fiber with them, so it slows down their intake and reduces the amount of insulin your body fires off in response.
I would say the behavioural part (tracking weight etc) is probably a good idea. The actual diet part of this should probably be discarded.
[+] [-] gabemart|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] weego|10 years ago|reply
It may become more prevalent that the notion of eating consistently will change too. You cannot eat at a deficit for any period of time without getting pretty severe diminishing returns as your body adapts to its in vs out. 5:2 is a very simple model of calorie cycling, just an unsustainable on.
Protein and calories have the same calorie content per gram, so if you hit your protein macros then there is no downside to eating carbs, and actually for active people your gains and recovery will suffer dramatically from lack of carbs. Overloading on protein has the same downsides as overloading on carbs in simple calories in vs out terms.
I think it's fairly common knowledge now that fats are largely good (saturated fats help with testosterone regulation for example) even though food producers seem to be wilfully slow in catching up (low fat items being filled with sugar thus making them far more unhealthy).
I'm not sure I entirely buy into the if it fits your macros (IIFYM) way of thinking, but it's not a bad strategy for a lot of situations.
[+] [-] Delmania|10 years ago|reply
Counting calories is like keeping tracking of your spending. It won't solve your problems, but it will highlight areas of concern. If you're caloric intake goal is 1800, and you're consistently eating 2000, calorie counting will help you figure out where you can drop those 200 calories.
Similar to weight measurements, if you're losing weight at a consistent rate (~1-2 lbs/week), you can stay the course. If you flat line or start going up, it's good time to start reviewing what you're doing.
Of course, the situation is nuanced. For example, you could eat 1800 calories worth of cookies, or your weight gain could be caused due to the growth of muscle (which does happen).
At the outset, however, those 2 practices will get the machine going.
[+] [-] mrweasel|10 years ago|reply
We've also seen studies that say that this is actually gives you an increased risk of regaining weight, once you lost it.
It really seems that the old recommendations: Everything in moderation, exercise and balanced diet are the best. Every "shortcut" modern diets present seems to fail in one way or another.
I think the issue is that we've created a culture where a people who loss weight, what ever the method, sets out to write a book or blog, detailing their new found wisdom. It's all anecdotal, proof is retrofitted to fit the result and claims are never properly verified or tested on a broad cross section of people. These weight loss anecdotes sells because we want them to work. Have you ever seen someone ask another person: "How did you loss all that weight?" and then their disappointment when the answer is "I eat less and workout". That's not what people want to hear, they want you to say that you just eat a lemon and half a pound of bacon every Tuesday.
Eat less that you burn, and try to get your basic nutrient requirement meet - That every single healthy diet summed up.
[+] [-] angdis|10 years ago|reply
People can lose weight and achieve goals using a wide variety of dietary programs (or none at all, if you throw in exercise).
If the hacker diet works for somebody, that's great. If not, they're plenty of other stuff to try.
[+] [-] jdmoreira|10 years ago|reply
It's a very basic approach but if you stick to the math... you will lose weight.
[+] [-] smackfu|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dylanjermiah|10 years ago|reply
GI becomes irrelevant once you eat more than once every 24 hours, which for most people is the norm. [1]
[1] http://alanaragon.com/glycemic-index
[+] [-] roel_v|10 years ago|reply
But yeah nobody should follow this book to the letter, in 2015...
[+] [-] gitaarik|10 years ago|reply
I actually really like this approach. Everybody has different ideas about what is good to eat or what isn't, but in the end, you only lose weight if you eat less than you burn. The Hackers Diet gives you the freedom to choose what you think is best to eat, while giving you feedback about what kind of effect it has on your weight.
Also one very important realization: your fat cells will only release fat when your blood sugar level is low, and when that happens, your brain will receive messages you should eat. So if it's strong or not, if you want to burn fat, you will be hungry. Exercise suppresses this feeling a bit though, but unless you can do that everyday, it won't be very effective.
[+] [-] simik|10 years ago|reply
Nope, it's low insulin that unlocks fat cells, not low blood sugar.
[+] [-] purplelobster|10 years ago|reply
Counting calories is an extremely simplistic world view, and while it's very comforting to have a simple rule to follow, I believe it's a very bad idea to not care what you put in your body, as opposed to just how much of it.
[+] [-] acdha|10 years ago|reply
See e.g. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-paleo-diet-hal... or dozens of subsequent pieces.
The better way to phrase this is to avoid trying to claim unique merit: “This diet works for me. Maybe it will work for you.” That keeps the truthful part but drops the magical claims about why everyone else's choices aren't as valid.
[+] [-] CuriouslyC|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] maxerickson|10 years ago|reply
For instance, this article:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1856434/
which I found linked from a nutritionist promoting AIP, only goes as far as
However, in several autoimmune conditions it appears that increased permeability is a constant and early feature of the disease process. Furthermore, it is becoming increasingly apparent that in some conditions increased permeability is critical to the development of disease as if it is abrogated the disease does not develop.
Note all the equivocation in the science there.
Edit: Actually linking one might be difficult, but for such a categorical statement, you should be able to cite a recent textbook, not just a few articles.
[+] [-] rimantas|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mvanvoorden|10 years ago|reply
The full version of these exercises have some more variety, as every 12 steps the exercises get a bit more challenging.
Link: http://fit450.com/HTML/5BX_Intro.html
[+] [-] pakled_engineer|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] this_iswater|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mvanvoorden|10 years ago|reply
This definitely works! I used to drink coffee with grass-fed butter every morning when I woke up and also took a few other things of Bulletproof diet to heart and lost over 30 kilo's in two years time.
Friends of mine are very positive about this and Keto seems to very successful as well, as seen here: http://www.reddit.com/r/keto
[+] [-] JustSomeNobody|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kbart|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mvanvoorden|10 years ago|reply
I do the 5BX myself though (where the ladder is based on), as I mentioned in an earlier comment :)
[+] [-] mjklin|10 years ago|reply
https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/true-weight/id287941226?mt=8
[+] [-] michaeljbishop|10 years ago|reply
I don’t necessarily disagree with calorie counting, but forcing yourself to not eat when you are hungry is the key to failure. I think this is at the root of the low-carb approach in which the foods that you eat don’t stimulate your body’s fat-making hormones.
If your body is being asked to make fat (through raised insulin levels), it doesn’t matter how many calories you eat, they are mostly being stored and you will continue to be hungry.
Low-carb helps you eat fewer calories because more of the calories you eat are available for energy and your body will signal that you are satiated.
If you want to go really low-carb, you can go into ketosis, where your body realizes it can also start eating its own fat for energy and promptly does so. Then you are satiated on even fewer calories because your body can get what it needs from itself.
I’ve found ketosis to be very reliable and even better, I find I concentrate much better because I’m not so distracted by how I’m going to get my next snack to much while I code. That concept is no longer a part of my consciousness. You don’t realize how noisy your brain is around food until it’s quiet.
[+] [-] unknown|10 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] pliny|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jgaudette|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] skidoo|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lotsofcows|10 years ago|reply