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

141–150 of 376 posts

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

#141

Post by pitchka »

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…

I was diagnosed with T2 diabetes. Changed my diet to lots of veggies, fruits, beans and legumes. Symptoms disappeared.

At first I was heavy on meat when I removed the carbs but it didn't help at all.

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

#142

Post by pcwalton »

rayiner wrote: post #136
pcwalton wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "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.

I think that was more of a linguistic change than anything. If the word "addiction" had been commonplace during the lead up to Prohibition, I bet you that the prohibitionist movement would have constantly used the term "alcohol addiction", despite alcohol use being ubiquitous. Nowadays, for example, you see articles talking about "caffeine addiction", despite the fact that the majority of the population drinks coffee.

I think you're absolutely right that "addiction" has a negative connotation, and all things considered most people are less likely to pass judgment on things that the majority does. But people do criticize popular things all the time too.

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

#144

Post by jerf »

criddell wrote: post #140
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?

Yes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glycemic_index:

"The GI represents the total rise in a person's blood sugar level following consumption of the food; it may or may not represent the rapidity of the rise in blood sugar. The steepness of the rise can be influenced by a number of other factors, such as the quantity of fat eaten with the food."

But only "related to". GI is complicated. The whole blood sugar thing is complicated. I don't just mean in principle, I mean in practice, too. Measuring your own body's own reactions to foods may be the most practical route to go; reading that page leads one to the conclusion that any concrete numbers for GI you ever see are at best weak approximations even under the best of circumstances.

Which is a pity, seeing as how it seems like it would be very useful.

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

#145

Post by tim333 »

TillE wrote: post #44
tim333 wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Severe dieting has long been know to do that. Mild dieting combined with exercise seems to work better. We're a bit lacking in quantification on that though. It was interesting to get some numbers from the article.

Yeah, this is what I'm curious about. All the weight loss diets described in the article seem quite extreme, some even dangerously so. Maintaining something like a 200-400 calorie deficit will lose you weight slowly but surely, and maybe hopefully not cause extreme changes in metabolism?

Yeah, I'm trying to lose weight like that so I hope so. People say doing some weights to keep up muscle mass helps and it probably does though there doesn't seem much good data on how much does what.

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

#146

Post by pkaye »

Kenji wrote: post #40
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…

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.

Could I ask you how old you are? I know at a younger age, it was much easier for me to maintain a healthy weight like you but now it is a much more challenge. Some of it is due to my level of activity (work, driving, exercise) but I think some of it just comes with age.

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

#147

Post by mfoy_ »

bluedino wrote: post #54

While these people are on the show, they are living in house with other contestants. You can't just order a pizza and sit on the couch with TV cameras and your co-stars watching you. They're forced to exercise for hours. If you're at home you're not going to wake up at the crack of dawn and do a 5 mile run and then do weights. They're forced to eat right. Food selection is limited. There's no cheese and donuts and fa…

Did you even read the article or are you just jumping on the /r/fatpeoplehate bandwagon?

The takeaway is that we need to focus on prevention, don't get obese in the first place. Once you're obese, the deck is really stacked against you.

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

#148

Post by stkni »

CuriouslyC wrote: post #117
hourislate wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exercise has nothing to do with weight loss. Caloric restriction also doesn't work without consuming the correct fats to satiate your appetite. As you age there is no amount of exercise that will allow you to maintain the amount you weigh in you 20's or 30's. It will all depend on your diet of the correct foods. I would suggest probably the best book ever written about why people get fat. Why We Get Fat: And What to…

This is just wrong. Weight loss on the short scale is literally a function of the difference between calories in vs calories out. You can increase that difference by eating less, or exercising more. You can easily maintain your weight as you age by increasing the amount you exercise, it might involve more exercise than expected, but it is perfectly doable. Fat is not satiating to everyone. If it works for you, good,…

Absolutely, but without stating the blindingly obvious the calorific content of some foods is so high that exercise can not be the dominant factor of that function.

This article [1] from last week seems to support that view. There was something else on HN on Friday that offered the same opinion but included a lot more studies. Can't find it now, but the message is the same.

[1] http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/apr/22/obesity-owes-...

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

#149

Post by alva »

bb85 wrote: post #8

I wonder why, when we talk about obesity, there is this tendency to use language that removes responsibility from the person, or at least move it from their mind to their "body", as if they were different entities. I think obese people fit the definition of addicts. Most of the time, other addictions are fought by pushing awareness on the person, forcing them to recognize they have a problem and that they need to cha…

>I wonder why, when we talk about obesity, there is this tendency to use language that removes responsibility from the person

Whether they are right or wrong, there is a significant community dedicated to promoting the view that personal responsibility has nothing to do with weight gain/loss.

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

#150

Post by DanBC »

rayiner wrote: post #41
bb85 wrote: post #32

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. Maybe because they cause less damage to other people? I don't think humans are less responsible, on a society scale obviously the problem is deeper. I'm just wondering why for other problems we blame people, but not for that one. Maybe it has to do with addictions moving away from som…

> 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've never seen a definition of addiction that uses "most people don't do it".

Addiction tends to require:

i) Tolerance

ii) Pre-occupation

iii) Seeking

iv) Continuing when you know it's harmful.

Obesity tends to lack the tolerance and the seeking behaviours.

Post reply on HN