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

311–320 of 376 posts

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

#311

Post by gozur88 »

gregw134 wrote: post #171
varelse wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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.

Not even close. It takes about six calories per day to maintain a pound of muscle. And it takes two calories per day to maintain a pound of fat. That's why people who think they're going to be able to eat radically more if they change ten pounds of fat to ten pounds of muscle are deluding themselves - it adds up to about forty calories a day, which is half a teaspoon of butter.

Anyway, the thirty calorie figure doesn't pass the smell test - men average about seventy three pounds of lean muscle mass, so at thirty calories per would be 2190 calories per day even if you ignore all activity and every other metabolic process. Your average sedentary middle aged guy is going to gain weight if he eats more than about 1500 calories per day.

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

#312

Post by js2 »

kilroy123 wrote: post #230
js2 wrote: post #91

In the other direction, see the documentary "Why Are Thin People Not Fat" where a group of thin volunteers are overfed by about double their normal calories for 4 weeks: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/7838668.stm http://youtu.be/U1hbPXooB1U They all easily return to their starting weight, and at least one volunteer gains muscle but not fat. The body is amazing at maintaining homeostasis. Here's an nytime…

There's a lot of research being done right now, that suggests your gut microbiome has a lot to do with it. Very interesting stuff. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-gut-bacteria-h...

Yup, also see this recent research that bariatric surgery causes changes to the gut microbiome which account for some of the weight loss:

http://www.livescience.com/51739-bariatric-surgery-gut-bacte...

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

#313

Post by 8note »

sageabilly wrote: post #227
sdoering wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I second this. Sadly I am up about 35 pounds from when I hit bottom. Sugar-addiction, at least for me, is harder to beat then smoking. I am able to go without sugar for one to two weeks and then it hits me and I binge on chocolate again. Hope to find the strength to restart my efforts. Does any of you have helpful suggestions?

Remember that relapse is part of recovery. Fall down seven, get up eight. Corny, but it got me through my hard times (and still does!) DO NOT HAVE CHOCOLATE IN YOUR HOUSE. Ever. Even shitty chocolate. Even someone else's chocolate. If you know you'll binge on it, get rid of it. Remember that chocolate will exist today, tomorrow, next week, next year. There will be a time in your life when you can eat chocolate again.…

Alternate:

have the bitterest chocolate around(90-100%), such that you can only eat a square inch or so at a time.

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

#314

Post by Jweb_Guru »

npsimons wrote: post #282
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.

You might try reading the linked study, which answers the question of how RMR data were collected (hint: it's accurate). Actually, this entire site would benefit from actually reading the paper.

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

#316

Post by kilroy123 »

tzs wrote: post #196
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…

I seem similar. I've lost 92 lbs over 8 months, and I don't seem to be having problems. In particular, I'm not having any feelings of hunger. I've pretty consistently been averaging a tad under 2000 calories/day, 35% carbs, 21% proteins, 44% fats. One interesting thing is that if I go significantly over 2000 calories in a day, which happens maybe once every couple of weeks, I find myself automatically eating less the…

Similar to me. I've lost ~60 pounds over the last 5 years. I always maintain and slowly lose more. I don't crave anything or fight hunger, etc.

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

#317

Post by IndianAstronaut »

varelse wrote: post #95
robodale wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, if you can find a job where you're working ~40 hours per week, this can be achieved. I know this is not the case for many people.

IMO if you're working more than 50 hours a week and you don't own at least 3% of the eventual outcome, you should consider a less stressful position. Don't short change your health and well-being for a lower expected return than just working for one of the big guys. All IMO of course.

Oh I wish this were true. I am clocking in 60hrs a week. I work under ridiculous deadlines.

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

#318

Post by massysett »

ck2 wrote: post #260
utternerd wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I came here to say very similar to what you're saying. I'm down 50 pounds in a little over a year after being obese my entire life, with very minimal exercise (I walk to and from work, about 3 miles a day, but only walking) but weight-loss and slimming has accelerated greatly after cutting out carbs and sugars, which wasn't as painful as it seemed - replacing carb-rich noodles with Zucchini or Spaghetti Squash is ama…

you did it right - pound per week - it's a lifestyle change you'll be able to maintain just shave 400-500 calories per day and sure enough, each week on average you'll lose a pound hmm spaghetti squash, I'll have to try that

The whole point of the article is that this isn't true. The article says the body resets its metabolism so that it survives on less food, making weight loss more difficult.

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

#319

Post by npsimons »

forgetsusername wrote: post #306
npsimons wrote: post #281

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Tracking calories would blow most people's minds about the quanta of food they're eating. I've been tracking for a while, and sometimes I'm still surprised. Scale and app. It's never been easier.

Truth! Most people just don't realize because they've never done it.

Side note: it makes me very sad and disappointed to see comments like this downvoted. Do we not claim to value rationalism and the scientific method here? Take the challenge: weigh your food and yourself and log it, and see if you can disprove CICO. If you can, there's a Nobel prize in physics awaiting you!

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

#320

Post by atomical »

xriddle wrote: post #308
revelation wrote: post #289

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Do you have a scientific source for these claims? Dr. Peter Attia's personal research seems to claim otherwise. http://eatingacademy.com/how-a-low-carb-diet-affected-my-ath...

Most Olympians are going to be on a high carb diet. What records has Attia set in sports?
Post reply on HN