After ‘The Biggest Loser,’ Their Bodies Fought to Regain Weight • Hacker News Board

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

#171

Post by gregw134 » Mon, May 02, 2016, 5:33 PM UTC

varelse wrote: post #99

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…

"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." This seems overly general and anecdotally total BS. I still eat what I like just like I did in my 20s/30s. It's just that what I like is generally lots of vegetables and sufficient protein, with occasional vices slipped in because YOLO(tm). That said, without the exercise, I gain about a pound per wee…

My health prof in college said people gain weight because they don't maintain their muscle as they age...muscle requires 30 calories/pound just to maintain.

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

#172

Post by zyxley » Mon, May 02, 2016, 5:34 PM UTC

ghshephard wrote: post #168

zyxley wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If I insure I burn at least 3000 calories a day (usually much more), I can maintain my weight indefinitely. If you're having to burn 3000 calories a day, you're eating too much. That energy has to come from somewhere . Have you tried calorie tracking?

All of my serious (recreational) bike rider friends eat a lot more than 3000 calories/day prepping for their weekend bike rides.

Yes, some exercise routines require well over 2000 calories a day, but that's still pedantically missing the point of my comment.

If somebody is confused about why they need to burn 3000 calories a day to keep from gaining weight, they're eating too much.

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

#173

Post by AnthonyMouse » Mon, May 02, 2016, 5:38 PM UTC

atria wrote: post #125

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…

^ This times 1000000. There is so much chicanery and malfeasance in the nutrition and fitness industry. I was diagnosed with T2 diabetes a few years ago. I went to dietitian who prescribed a diet with 60% carbs (I believe its roughly the same as the ADA dietary guidelines). The standard treatment is medication, followed by more medication, then insulin shots. Frustrated, I read everything I could get my hands on, and…

> I stopped listening to medical practitioners and starting experimenting with the foods I ate, using pairs testing with a glucose monitor.

I sometimes wonder if the state of medical ethics is killing us. We've made it so expensive to do a medical study that nobody is going to do it unless the end result is something they can sell, so the only "solutions" we get are drugs because there is no money to be made in prescribing diabetics a diet of fish and vegetables.

It's a sad state if an individual can learn more by experimenting on themselves than their doctor knows because the doctor isn't allowed to participate in or publish the result of the same experiment without a multi-million dollar budget.

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

#174

Post by lexhaynes » Mon, May 02, 2016, 5:39 PM UTC

ghshephard wrote: post #168

zyxley wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If I insure I burn at least 3000 calories a day (usually much more), I can maintain my weight indefinitely. If you're having to burn 3000 calories a day, you're eating too much. That energy has to come from somewhere . Have you tried calorie tracking?

All of my serious (recreational) bike rider friends eat a lot more than 3000 calories/day prepping for their weekend bike rides.

Serious cardio will burn a LOT of calories. If a person who is NOT doing serious cardio needs to exercise to a 3000 cal deficit every day to maintain weight, they should lower their caloric intake.

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

#175

Post by jlos » Mon, May 02, 2016, 5:41 PM UTC

Isolating a few of the variables would help clarify some of the questions this study raises:

1) Amount of excess weight / median weight. E.g. Does the effect of the bodies homeostasis change as a person gets more severely overweight?

2) Speed of weight loss. Does loosing 1lb/day/week/month affect the bodies homeostasis differently?

3) Types of foods affect on homeostasis. Do substances like sugar have a worse effect than others? Does a diet high in something like vegetables tend towards a healthier homeostasis?

4) Amount of time for homeostatic change. Does being 100lbs overweight for a year or 5 years make a difference?

>> And with his report from Dr. Hall’s group showing just how much his metabolism had slowed, he stopped blaming himself for his weight gain.

Its critical to help people struggling with weight loss to deal not only with the nutritional challenges, but also psychological issues behind weight loss (guilt, depression, helplessness). However, presenting the problem as a binary (purely biological vs purely will) may actually not be the best approach. The individuals still played a part in their initial weight gain. The repeated dietary decisions leading to obesity are obviously complicated by family history, misinformation, failure to realize the full consequences, and other factors both within and outside the control of the person. And neither does the person's complicity, to whatever extent, in gaining weight mean they should receive any less sympathy or help. I say this because of the persistence of the myth that weight gain can be easily undone with just a few weeks/months of discipline, a myth perpetuated by shows like The Big Loser. Weight gain is an insidious danger that can have long lasting implications and be very difficult to extricate oneself from. That point seems quite clear from the research but never addressed in the article.

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

#176

Post by sawthat » Mon, May 02, 2016, 5:44 PM UTC

zyxley wrote: post #165

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…

> If I insure I burn at least 3000 calories a day (usually much more), I can maintain my weight indefinitely. If you're having to burn 3000 calories a day, you're eating too much. That energy has to come from somewhere . Have you tried calorie tracking?

You are asking a person who clearly has spent a ton of time figuring out how to manage their weight if they've tried calorie tracking?

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

#177

Post by pessimizer » Mon, May 02, 2016, 5:47 PM UTC

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…

This may sound counter-intuitive, but intermittent fasting might help. I've always done a 4/3 (four days eating normally, three days eating at 20-25% of a normal intake) when I wanted to lose weight, and I've come to believe that the benefits come solely from

1) that even with the slight overeating that comes on days when you eat (probably 20%) it ends up being equivalent to an overall 20% calorie reduction and

2) it teaches you how to operate better and feel better when you're hungry, simply because it ceases to be an uncommon experience. You're hungry at least a couple of times a week, and you get used to not doing anything about it, and you know it will be over soon.

I have to admit that personally, being hungry has always made me perform better - it adds a desperation element that works for me. It does make me testy and impatient, though, and that testiness starts to fade once I'm in my 2nd or 3rd week of 4/3. The everyday irritation of calorie restriction just doesn't work for me; I can't last more than a week or two at my best. My average period of doing 4/3 is about 3 months. It's a fairly easy way to drop about 25 lbs.

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

#178

Post by jwdunne » Mon, May 02, 2016, 5:49 PM UTC

xlm1717 wrote: post #164

sageabilly wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe! I was 305 at my heaviest, but I was also a serious powerlifter and was at the gym 10-15 hours a week lifting, plus training for competitions. I often wonder if having that strength base made it easier, in some ways, to drop the weight than if I had been totally sedentary and had to start from zero with regards to exercising.

Having a lot of muscle will increase your base metabolic rate. Being a serious powerlifter, I imagine the increase due to muscle was significant (speaking just as someone who reads into this, not as a qualified professional!). Also, being a powerlifter, if you don't maintain the muscles, they would atrophy, taking a lot of weight with them.

The last point is important. Many people claim that muscle turns into fat if not exercised for maintanence. This obviously isn't true. What is interesting is where that idea may come from: the habit of eating a larger amount of calories to power a huge masses of muscle that doesn't entirely go away along with the muscle without conscious planning.

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

#179

Post by checker » Mon, May 02, 2016, 5:50 PM UTC

richmt wrote: post #155

checker wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Valid point, but I think there's more here. Kenji is saying that he is satiated. It doesn't really matter what he eats compared to others if his brain/body is happy eating the correct amount. The real question is: Why are people like Kenji satiated at an appropriate level of calories while others are not? And I think the answer is going to be a complex mix of physical, psychological, and societal factors.

I don't think there's more to it. Eating three meals a day at about 2,500 calories for a few weeks, and my body will adapt to feeling full at those portions. Upping that to 3,000+ calories a day when on a bulk, and the first week or two are difficult, but then I adapt and feel hungry if I eat the smaller portions I used to eat.

Applying a sample size of one to the general population is anecdotal and works for you based on your physical, psychological, and societal factors.

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

#180

Post by lexhaynes » Mon, May 02, 2016, 5:53 PM UTC

belltaco wrote: post #89

dempseye wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Using the USDA supertracker here ( https://www.supertracker.usda.gov/bwp/ ) with the following data/assumptions: Weight: 295 lbs Age: 46 Height: 5 feet 10 inches (average height for US male) Work activity: sedentary Leisure activity: sedentary The normal maintenance calories come out at 3117. Less 800 is 2317. That is still enough to eat well and feel full, in my experience.

>That is still enough to eat well and feel full, in my experience. That's because your hormone levels aren't crazily out of whack like the individual you reference. If your hormone levels were changed to reflect the person that lost weight, I doubt you'd say that.

Even with hormone imbalance, I wonder what exactly Cahill eats day to day. I'd guess he's not eating satiating, nutritious, whole foods. I'm almost certain he'd be eating high-GI, insulin-spiking foods, which are driving his hormones further out of whack.