Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by bitwize 3459 days ago
This is the "a calorie is a calorie is a calorie" argument, and it's not true. Sugar upsets the metabolic process in disconcerting ways, leading to fat accumulation and insulin resistance; sugar is also more addictive than cocaine[0]. Meaning that when you consume calories from sugar, you crave more sugar calories. The foods you eat do make a difference in how fat you get, because they alter your metabolism and behavior -- but Western foods are so loaded with added sugar that sugar becomes difficult to control for.

[0] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23719144
2 comments
another_account 3459 days ago
Yes, macro break down, thyroid issues, metabolism, illness, meal timing, GI, insulin spikes, hormone levels etc do make a difference. To grab at a generous figure lets say they make up 25% of the puzzle. With calories in VS calories out been 75%. And i think that 25% is very, very generous.

Stating calories in VS calories out is not true because of X, Y or Z is like building a house by starting with the doorbell. Before you lay the foundations. Fundamentals before details.

link
mi100hael 3459 days ago
The "calorie is a calorie" argument is true in that

    weight gain/loss == surplus/deficit intake
Your point about sugar fucking with insulin balance and its addictive properties are good points, but not directly related to the study at hand. Western prepared foods are loaded with added sugar, but it's completely possible for obese people to eat a complete diet of home-cooked meals in surplus using only fresh, raw ingredients without a gram of added sugar. It's also completely possible for skinny people to eat shit food and not get fat. The researchers should have controlled for body fat % and diet, which would not have been challenging. Instead it seems they've chosen to completely conflate the two key factors.
link