Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

After ‘The Biggest Loser,’ Their Bodies Fought to Regain Weight

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 376 posts

Re: After ‘The Biggest Loser,’ Their Bodies Fought to Regain Weight

#131

Post by kazinator »

> A study of Season 8’s contestants has yielded surprising new discoveries about the physiology of obesity

No it didn't. Just another example of junk science.

> Now burns 800 fewer calories a day than would be expected for a man his size.

"Expected for a man of his size" is a fiction. What they are insinuating here is that the rapid weight loss did long term damage to his metabolism. But to confirm that, you have to have data on what is burn rate was when he was previously at his current 295 weight. (Which he must have reached at some point in his life long before the participation of Biggest Loser, on his way to becoming 400-something). Comparing to what can be "expected" based on plugging 295 into some model is not adequate.

Maybe he previously also burned hundreds of calories less than what can be expected of someone of his weight. Maybe it's been like that most of his life!

Re: After ‘The Biggest Loser,’ Their Bodies Fought to Regain Weight

#132

Post by falcolas »

cableshaft wrote: post #126

I really need to lose weight, my heaviness has started to lead to other health problems, but I find that whenever I try to eat significantly less, I have difficulty concentrating on heavy mental tasks (i.e. programming, my job). The constant feeling of hunger distracts me, or my mind just drifts, until I get some food in me again. I never see any of these articles even acknowledge this as an issue, either as if no on…

Yes, I've noticed it as well. Operating at a caloric deficiency caused me mood and concentration issues - which makes sense: stored fat takes time to convert back into usable calories, so you'll be operating with less raw fuel most of the time.

It's not fun.

Re: After ‘The Biggest Loser,’ Their Bodies Fought to Regain Weight

#133

Post by CPLX »

VLM wrote: post #42
amelius wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Intake of refined sugars. The amount of time spent sitting at a desk.

If you believe the internet memes, the desk was not invented until 1980. Ditto the car, the burbs, the commute... Pictures of my great grandpa's accounting firm open office compared to a typical 2016 open office from 1920 (yes I'm old, a sterotypical HN reader's G-Grampa would be in the 50s) are pretty enlightening WRT just how little of an effect the magical post-1980 desk has on obesity. Now what happened in the 80…

It's anecdotal observation of course, but my memory is that the 80's were the era where suddenly people became afraid of high fat diets. Hence a corresponding increase in sugar and simple carbs.

Re: After ‘The Biggest Loser,’ Their Bodies Fought to Regain Weight

#134

Post by JeremyNT »

vitno wrote: post #65
Kenji wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure if it's that simple. My body maintains a low but healthy weight no matter what I do. I can avoid sports for years and eat as much as I want, to the point of feeling uncomfortably full, without increasing weight. It seems likely that in some or even most obese people, a regulation system has been broken.

Study after study has repeatedly shown this to be untrue. People who think they "eat as much as they want" really don't eat as much as people who think they "eat almost nothing" Try actually counting your calories over the course of a week.

> Study after study has repeatedly shown this to be untrue. People who think they "eat as much as they want" really don't eat as much as people who think they "eat almost nothing"

This doesn't actually refute what the OP was saying, which is that he could eat as much as he wants without gaining weight. Presumably he simply wants to eat less than many people.

Anecdotally, I find this to be true. Some people simply seem to "know" how much they need to eat to maintain a healthy weight on some instinctual level. It's not that they magically make the calories disappear, it's just that they feel satiated at appropriate levels of caloric input with respect to their physical output.

The Biggest Losers clearly lack this characteristic, and the way in which they lose the weight boot-camp style doesn't seem to impart that ability upon them. Some of us will always simply have to use other means to manage input and output if we want to regulate our weight effectively.

Re: After ‘The Biggest Loser,’ Their Bodies Fought to Regain Weight

#135

Post by 49para »

simonbarker87 wrote: post #123
49para wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right, I understand the idea. I just haven't seen any studies on the idea that an empty fat cell will never be destroyed. I have seen quotes like "your whole body is reconstructed over a period of years", i.e. cells have a lifespan, so if your body is reconstructing cells why would it put resources into rebuilding empty fat storage containers. Or, the other option would be fat cells are immortal, which seems to be ex…

ah, ok - get what you mean. To be honest I can't point you in the direction of any studies so any explanation from me would be educated guess work. Ok, a quick google pulls up this article in the NYTimes referencing a study - have read the first paragraph or so and article is on the right lines of what you are after. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/05/health/research/05fat.html

Thanks for the link, it didn't really satisfy my curiosity though :)

Obviously there are a lot of biochemical triggers for fat storage, muscle growth etc. Leptin has a very large part to play along with insulin, etc.

If something controls the fat storage levels, it makes sense that they will grow back after being removed via liposuction, especially if the person doesn't fundamentally change what / how they are eating. Their insulin resistance, leptin levels, etc will control this regardless of the actual surgery implications.

I'd be interested in a longer term study where an obese person undergoes something like liposuction, then also changes their diet to something more in line with low carb to fix these insulin and leptin issues and see if those cells actually regrow.

Re: After ‘The Biggest Loser,’ Their Bodies Fought to Regain Weight

#136

Post by rayiner »

pcwalton wrote: post #128
rayiner wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm just wondering why there seems to be more empathy towards people with eating habits problems, than when it comes to other addicts. Because 75% of the country doesn't have a moderate to severe coke addiction. "Addiction" is what we call behavior that falls outside the "normal range" on the bell curve. What the majority of people do is by definition "normal" and so when you have a problem that afflicts the majori…

> "Addiction" is what we call behavior that falls outside the "normal range" on the bell curve. I don't think the definition of addiction has to do with how many people are addicted. Seems uncontroversial to me that the majority of the population in the early part of the 20th century were addicted to tobacco smoking, for example. Google brings up this definition of addiction: "physically and mentally dependent on a p…

That may be factually true. But only now that everyone has stopped smoking do we actually talk about "smoking addiction." Back when everyone did it, it wasn't treated as an addiction with us blaming individual smokers for smoking. It was treated as a public health problem, and ultimately the blame was laid at the feet of the tobacco industry.

Re: After ‘The Biggest Loser,’ Their Bodies Fought to Regain Weight

#137

Post by xlm1717 »

kefka wrote: post #104

Well, I'd say that the endocrine reason sounds like a valid one. I can at least be counted in that group. Last December, I was diagnosed with T2 diabetes. After talking with a researcher about this (have worked with diabetes research school locally due to job), I came across a few things: 1. Damage is done to the pancreas at 140mg/dL 2. Too long at 140mg/dL or above can cause permanent damage to the pancreas. 3. Earl…

Buying a blood glucose meter is not an expensive investment (provided you don't really need it, ie. don't have diabetes) and it will pay dividends in terms of health. With a meter and about 200 strips and lancets, you can determine a big list of foods that raise your blood glucose and foods that don't.

I've been customizing my meals based on what my glucose meter tells me raises my blood glucose the least and I am losing weight. The weight loss is gradual, but the most important thing is I am doing it eating foods I will eat, setting up a diet I can stick to long term, and I know that this will be good for me because the numbers back it up. Like you, I've always liked meats and testing myself with the glucose meter shows that eating more meats and less carbs is good for me personally. I should note I am not diagnosed with diabetes, I just bought the glucose meter to guide me in what I eat.

Re: After ‘The Biggest Loser,’ Their Bodies Fought to Regain Weight

#138

Post by intrasight »

IndianAstronaut wrote: post #34
varelse wrote: post #15

Extreme diligence seems to be the only way to fight this. If I stop exercising, the pounds pack on within weeks. If I insure I burn at least 3000 calories a day (usually much more), I can maintain my weight indefinitely. But I walk to work and I exercise for 1-2 hours daily. Most people cannot or will not do this. Add in the extreme carbohydrate and fat-laden diets most readily available to America and it's a perfect…

How do you manage the 1 to 2 hours of daily exercise with a programmer lifestyle(assuming you are a programmer)?

I'm at the gym every day from 5-7. I'll allow almost nothing to interfere with that. Others I know get up at 5:30 and run 10 miles. Some I know do both!

Re: After ‘The Biggest Loser,’ Their Bodies Fought to Regain Weight

#139

Post by alva »

xlm1717 wrote: post #137
kefka wrote: post #104

Well, I'd say that the endocrine reason sounds like a valid one. I can at least be counted in that group. Last December, I was diagnosed with T2 diabetes. After talking with a researcher about this (have worked with diabetes research school locally due to job), I came across a few things: 1. Damage is done to the pancreas at 140mg/dL 2. Too long at 140mg/dL or above can cause permanent damage to the pancreas. 3. Earl…

Buying a blood glucose meter is not an expensive investment (provided you don't really need it, ie. don't have diabetes) and it will pay dividends in terms of health. With a meter and about 200 strips and lancets, you can determine a big list of foods that raise your blood glucose and foods that don't. I've been customizing my meals based on what my glucose meter tells me raises my blood glucose the least and I am lo…

This is the first time I have heard glucose meters being used specifically for weight loss, very interesting. If this is a safe and effective way to encourage weight loss, this could be a huge business opportunity.

Re: After ‘The Biggest Loser,’ Their Bodies Fought to Regain Weight

#140

Post by criddell »

kefka wrote: post #104

Well, I'd say that the endocrine reason sounds like a valid one. I can at least be counted in that group. Last December, I was diagnosed with T2 diabetes. After talking with a researcher about this (have worked with diabetes research school locally due to job), I came across a few things: 1. Damage is done to the pancreas at 140mg/dL 2. Too long at 140mg/dL or above can cause permanent damage to the pancreas. 3. Earl…

> The answer is "Don't eat foods that raise your blood sugar above 140mg/dL".

Is that related to glycemic index?

Post reply on HN