Found in 13 comments on Hacker News
crazygringo · 2018-06-25 · Original thread
> Caloric Deficit == Weight Loss. The only thing you really need to know is that you should be eating fewer calories than your body burns everyday. If you do this, you will lose weight – it’s science. Nothing else matters for weight loss.

True but completely disingenuous. If you normally eat 3,000 calories/day, and cut it to 2,000 calories/day, you won't necessarily lose weight -- many people's metabolisms will simply slow down equivalently.

Happy for this guy that it worked, but not all of us are so lucky. Turns out there are a lot of different factors that affect our metabolism, which can be just as important (if not more).

Edit: see Gary Taubes' work on this, extremely detailed stuff on what regulates metabolism and fat storage, there's nothing simple about it -- e.g.

asangha · 2016-04-14 · Original thread
Gary Taubes wrote a great book showing how politics marred nutritional science:
maroonblazer · 2014-06-01 · Original thread
Not to mention these two:

Why We Get Fat: And What to Do About It

Good Calories, Bad Calories: Fats, Carbs, and the Controversial Science of Diet and Health

The amount of highly processed carbohydrates is frightening and far from "healthy"[1]. It's unfortunate, but to eat healthy costs more, because healthy food spoils.

I look at it like this: if a food doesn't spoil[2], it is most likely because bacteria and fungus can get no nutritional value from it. Do I want to eat that?


2. There are some exceptions, of course, but surprisingly few.

jond2062 · 2013-03-19 · Original thread
It's unfortunate that a lot of people are so quick to write off a low-carb, grain-free, or Paleo approach to eating as just another fad. There is actually an extensive amount of science and research behind the principles.

Yes, some folks are riding the "fad train" and profiting handsomely from the current popularity. That is true no matter whether it is a diet, a sports team, or a TV show that is currently en vogue. However, there are quite a few people who are actually focused on the science and evidence behind human nutrition and health.

The best book I've come across that dives into the research and nearly every important epidemiological study in the last 200-300 years is Good Calories, Bad Calories by Gary Taubes ( It's not exactly an airplane read and certainly not a "diet" book; however, it completely changed the way I think about nutrition, exercise, disease, and overall health.

I would also recommend anything by Loren Cordain or Robb Wolf.

Before you make any judgments, do the research.

Evgeny · 2011-10-16 · Original thread
Here's the list of my favourite ones:

Good Calories, Bad Calories: Fats, Carbs, and the Controversial Science of Diet and Health - Gary Taubes

The Paleo Solution: The Original Human Diet - Robb Wolf

Wheat Belly: Lose the Wheat, Lose the Weight, and Find Your Path Back to Health - William Davis

The Great Cholesterol Con - Anthony Colpo

Fat and Cholesterol are Good for You - Uffe Ravnskov

Evgeny · 2010-09-08 · Original thread
Add to that "Good Calories, Bad Calories" by Gary Taubes and that's a start!

yanowitz · 2010-05-04 · Original thread
Gary Taubes' Good Calories, Bad Calories is quite good (
latortuga · 2010-04-18 · Original thread
"Take in fewer calories than you burn, put yourself in negative energy balance, lose weight,” says Braun, who has been studying exercise and weight loss for years."

Weight loss is not this simple - this kind of article enrages me. Everyone wants it to be an easy equation. Low carbohydrate/high fat diets are wildly successful despite not having to monitor calories. All calories are not created equal and simply eating less does not lead to long term weight loss, it leads to hunger.

I know many have talked about this idea on HN before, but in case you missed it, an excellent, eye-opening read is Gary Taubes' book, Good Calories Bad Calories -

elptacek · 2010-04-04 · Original thread
Carboxymethyl cellulose! This article is good, but flawed. There are no conclusive studies that link higher intakes of fat to higher rates of heart disease... but higher intakes of fat AND carbohydrates are a different story. Read this:
rmobin · 2010-03-18 · Original thread
read Good Calories, Bad Calories for a well researched book on why this is (
kowen · 2010-01-10 · Original thread
I read Gary Taubes' "Good Calories, Bad Calories" 4 months ago, which had me curious enough to experiment.

The book is a meta study of the research done on the so-called metabolic disorders (obesity, diabetes, heart disease). The research doesn't talk about evolution and cavemen, but rather health markers, hormones, and metabolic processes.

I've been eating a less -ahem- tribal version of this for 4 months, and the results have been pretty remarkable (if entirely anecdotal).

I have lost a large amount of weight, my skin and hair are much improved, my digestive functions have normalized after a lifetime of trouble, and I'm no longer tired all the time.

I haven't been sick since I started, but 4 months isn't exactly long enough to suggest anything in that respect.

What I do differently from the tribal version in the article is 1) I don't exercise (yeah, I know, evil, but I just don't feel like it yet) 2) I eat tomatoes and cheese and cream 3) I don't fast; I eat whenever I'm hungry. Interestingly, I'm only hungry about twice a day now, rather than 5 or 6 times a day which was the norm for me before I started this experiment 4) I'm super relaxed (pragmatic?) about the whole thing. I haven't seen the light or anything like that, I've simply had some really good results with very little effort.

There is a blog at which has plenty of interesting articles, as well, but the Gary Taubes book is the closest thing I've found to proven health benefits.

Fresh book recommendations delivered straight to your inbox every Thursday.