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

281–290 of 376 posts

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

#281

Post by npsimons »

emodendroket wrote: post #127
vinceguidry wrote: post #69

I managed to lose 40 pounds last year, using intermittent fasting. That impressed people, but what's impressed me is how easy it was to keep it off. I expected to have to do a lot more work than I have, I really seemed to have found a new 'set point', where I can simply let my body self-regulate eating and I won't gain weight. Sometimes it even goes down. I think a person's state of mind plays a huge role. I used IF…

A year is awfully short to be chiming in with advice for long-term weight loss.

> A year is awfully short to be chiming in with advice for long-term weight loss.

How about nine years? 2007-03-28: 192lb; 2016-04-30: 153lb. I hit 160lb in late September of 2007 and haven't been above it since, typically fluctuating these days between 150-155lb. I did it by simply eating less and paying more attention to hunger signals. If you want to be sure you're not overeating, track calories in and your weight using something like MyFitnessPal. Weight loss is possible; CICO overrides everything.

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

#282

Post by npsimons »

beloch wrote: post #275

I'm curious about how the metabolic rate of these former contestants is determined. Are they confined to a lab where their dietary intake and physical activity can be accurately measured for an extended period of time? Probably not. My best guess is that the subjects being studied are asked to keep food and activity journals and then these, plus their weight, is used to calculate their metabolic rate. I've experiment…

> How much can basal human metabolism really vary anyways?

The range is within 200-300 kCal for people of the same height and mass: http://examine.com/faq/does-metabolism-vary-between-two-peop...

Also, you are correct to ask how data was collected: people routinely fudge reports of intake and activity, to the point that self-reported data is considered completely unreliable.

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

#283

Post by npsimons »

dempseye wrote: post #2

> The difficulty in keeping weight off reflects biology, not a pathological lack of willpower affecting two-thirds of the U.S.A. Fifty years ago, two-thirds of the USA were not obese. Biology has not changed in that time. What has?

> Fifty years ago, two-thirds of the USA were not obese. Biology has not changed in that time. What has?

I wish more people would ask this question. It's extremely innocent and straightforward, and replies to it are incredibly revealing of the respondents' understanding of biology . . .

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

#284

Post by dikdik »

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…

Yes, this is sadly correct. In the pharma industry, we call it pleasing "the stakeholders." Many times more expensive tests/treatments/etc are developed over cheaper ones, as the risk seemingly (if the MBA stakeholders are to be believed) necessitates chasing medical innovations that will have the largest ROI.

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

#285

Post by duderific »

pessimizer wrote: post #170
VLM wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

People didn't just start getting fat in the 80s. Where is that coming from?

Here is a chart that supports exactly that: https://lanekenworthy.net/2012/05/31/why-the-surge-in-obesit...

The hockey stick starts exactly at 1980.

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

#286

Post by CJefferson »

humbleMouse wrote: post #94
vinceguidry wrote: post #69

I managed to lose 40 pounds last year, using intermittent fasting. That impressed people, but what's impressed me is how easy it was to keep it off. I expected to have to do a lot more work than I have, I really seemed to have found a new 'set point', where I can simply let my body self-regulate eating and I won't gain weight. Sometimes it even goes down. I think a person's state of mind plays a huge role. I used IF…

I think the message here is to listen to your body. Too often one finds themselves eating just because they were invited to lunch, or even because they are bored. If you listen to your body and just eat when you are hungry, magical things will happen.

In my experience, that's great advice for already thin people. I could only lose 10 stone and reach normal weight by ignoring my body demanding it was starving for a year or so.

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

#287

Post by ck2 »

jschwartzi wrote: post #154
sageabilly wrote: post #90

The results of this study, while interesting, seem flawed to me because losing 200+lbs in only 8 months' time is ridiculously fast. I would be more interested in a study following people who lost weight very slowly and steadily over time, and curious about their metabolisms and recidivism rates. I've lost 100lbs over the last three years and have had zero issue (so far, not saying I won't ever) with keeping at this w…

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

Not sure why the downvotes except maybe not sourcing it.

What you are saying is 100% right in my experience and watching others.

Cut 500 calories per day and you lose a pound per week and that can be maintained.

Those poor people were losing a pound per DAY which there is no way you can maintain that lifestyle. You aren't teaching habits for life with that kind of diet, you are teaching how to crash and burn.

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

#288

Post by facepalm »

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…

I've heard the theory that establishing these high standards was actually in the best interest of the pharmacy industry. A great way to keep competition at bay, because only huge companies can afford to comply with the regulations.

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

#289

Post by revelation »

sz4kerto wrote: post #269
revelation wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

CHO storage in muscles and mostly kidney only amounts to about 2000kcal worth of energy. So there is a very high turnover and already over a week it's averaged out to the point where it doesn't really matter if what you eat is carbs or fat. So for healthy, non-diabetic people it really doesn't matter. (With the obligatory addendum that going all "low-carbs" or "keto" is a very, very bad idea if you expect to do any e…

Why would keto be a bad idea? Genuine question. A friend of mine just run a 54k mountain track (2600m elevation) after 7 months keto. I have barely eaten carbs for 2 weeks now, and just cycled 120 km two days ago.

The short summary is that aerobic exercise performance in humans is limited by the maximal rate of oxygen uptake or VO2max. Oxidation of fatty acids requires more oxygen per unit of "energy" produced than glycolysis; they are simply less bang for buck (or oxygen). Hence chronically depleted (particularly muscle) glycogen stores are a great recipe for bad exercise performances as you force the body into deriving more energy from fats.

Now, in reality, energy during exercise is always derived from a mix of both fatty acids and glycogen. In general, as exercise intensity increases (you are getting closer to VO2max), a larger ratio of energy will be derived from glycogen. So for your friend, running 54k of mountains is only going to be done at rather low intensity (50-60% of VO2max), where ~60% of energy will be from fatty acids, saving glycogen and preventing hypoglycemia.

Hypoglycemia, incidentally, is also known as "bonking". It's rather unpleasant. On long, high intensity exercise sessions you can't usually replace all the glycogen you deplete through food intake. So if you start with lower glycogen stores through a low carb diet, what you are doing is priming your body for hypoglycemia.

Post reply on HN