Hacker News Reader

Comment by latch | Hacker News Reader

Eat better and exercise more.

Haven't read the new book, but Taubes' previous work 'Good Calories, Bad Calories' makes a strong case that there's shockingly little experimental evidence in favor of the conventional wisdom that "eating better" means a low fat, low calorie diet.

Yes, but what is "better"? And what is the best way to make both life changes enduring? (E.g. if someone is constantly hungry, their change in diet is probably not sustainable.)

I'm a layman, but I'm highly skeptical at the amount and complexity of information in this field with respect to your average person (which is not the same as scientific and medical research into the subject of nutrition, chemistry, etc.)

What's better? 5 servings of fruits and vegetable. Unrefined, whole foods. Water. Legumes and grains. Fish.

Combine such a "diet" with 1 hour of light exercise (for example walking) a day and I bet most people would be considerably healthier (all the better if they can do aerobic exercise a couple times a week, say on the weekend). Most impressive this is also normally a cheaper way to eat and doesn't have to taste bad.

We should be skeptical. Taubes' books show most of the conventional nutrition information is based on flawed studies that eventually became dogma. GCBC was aimed at medical professionals, and his new book tries to present it for average people, but he still has to present enough to counter 50 years of bad advice.

"What's better? 5 servings of fruits and vegetable. Unrefined, whole foods. Water. Legumes and grains. Fish."

Cut out legumes and grains - those are not whole foods, but they are modern (in evolutionary terms) and processed, and detract from nutritional advantages of of real food: fish, meat, eggs, and vegetables.

Legumes are the dried fruit of a certain type of plant. I'm not sure how that's modern or processed.

This. I don't understand how people can ignore how sedentary society has become when discussing the obesity problem.

You can easily get away with eating a lot of carbs; being physically active not only allows it, but often requires it.

Taubes actually addresses this point very carefully in both Good Calories, Bad Calories and Why We Get Fat. He cites quite a few cases of communities with high rates of obesity, and varying rates of nourishment and sedentary behavior.

One very interesting result is that some of the communities lived in incredible poverty and with significant physical exertion.

I'd recommend that you read the book (Why We Get Fat: And What to Do About It) and see whether he addresses your concern. Far from ignoring our sedentary society, Taubes makes a strong case for other factors.

According to the article, just eat fewer carbs (and/or higher quality carbs) because even if they don't realize they're doing it, the people who "eat better" or "exercise more" also cut carbs which is what truly leads to the weight loss they experience.

I don't agree with the premise, for one thing there's a line or two about the science of metabolism as it relates to carbs and naught else to actually support the theory in the article, but alas the point of the article wasn't to prove, rather it was to disprove the methods of comparing diets typically used. That part it did well.

That is overstating the thesis. The article is saying only that it is possible carb restriction is the sole cause of weight loss. While the writing suggests that the author believes that, the explicit point is that until we control for all variables, we can't know.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com