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

Post by alva » Mon, May 02, 2016, 6:30 PM UTC

xlm1717 wrote: post #167

alva wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I had actually read about it last year. In the study, they used continuous glucose monitoring rather than glucose meter to track the blood sugar response to different foods precisely. They found that different people had different blood glucose response to different foods. The study only tracked participants for 1-2 weeks, but they do speculate on using personalized interventions devised from glucose measurements to…

Post by itchyouch » Mon, May 02, 2016, 6:33 PM UTC

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…

Post by andrei_says_ » Mon, May 02, 2016, 6:43 PM UTC

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #173

atria wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

^ 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 presc…

Post by chris_wot » Mon, May 02, 2016, 6:47 PM UTC

emodendroket wrote: post #191

jschwartzi wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's pretty well-known that if you drop more than 2 lbs/week you're very likely to gain it all back later.

Do you have any source for the claim that if you lose it slower you're more likely to keep it off? While intuitively appealing, I keep seeing it without any evidence.

Post by revelation » Mon, May 02, 2016, 6:49 PM UTC

stkni wrote: post #148

CuriouslyC wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…