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

331–340 of 376 posts

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

#331

Post by Jweb_Guru »

npsimons wrote: post #321
Jweb_Guru wrote: post #314

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You mean the broken link to the study? I'll posit you didn't even click through the link I provided. Pot, meet kettle. Just judging from the article (which leaves a lot to be desired), though, it sounds like a small sample size, with no control group, and hasn't been reproduced. Edit: I'm not saying it's impossible; it's a known issue: http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/69/6/1117.full There are reasons that most docto…

The link isn't broken, and I have absolutely read it. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/oby.21538/full. Please note their methodology. And metabolic adaptation is fairly well established at this point, it doesn't just apply to people who lose tons of weight at a rapid rate.

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

#332

Post by washadjeffmad »

washadjeffmad wrote: post #96
Kenji wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

There are also differences between gaining weight, getting fat, and being fat. People gain weight when they gain muscle, and heavier people by the mechanics of supporting their weight seem to gain and hold muscle more easily than lighter people. More muscle mass has been associated with better health outcomes despite other factors. I've also read that it's not being fat that's bad for you, but getting fat. Some peopl…

e: 's/corporeal/visceral/g'

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

#333

Post by varelse »

sawthat wrote: post #245
awesomerobot wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When you hear someone stating that they find burning 3,000 calories a day necessary it seems like a logical question. You can't burn that many calories without first adding them.

I assume this person has found that burning that many calories is easier for them than restricting their diet more.

Exactly. I eat pretty healthy, but I like food. Sure, I could starve myself and be miserable. But why do that when exercise solves the problem and it has all sorts of other positive side effects? So I can sit on my butt all day like the people from Wall-E? No thank you.

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

#334

Post by AnthonyMouse »

arkades wrote: post #329
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

The limiting factor on medical research isn't ethics: it's samples large and diverse enough to have a meaningful ability to distinguish between null and alternative hypotheses. We produce shit studies with small sample sizes and dodgy methodologies all the time. They just don't add to the pool of human knowledge.

> We produce shit studies with small sample sizes and dodgy methodologies all the time. They just don't add to the pool of human knowledge.

They actually do. A crappy study with p=.70 isn't enough to justify changing the standard treatment for a disease but it is enough to justify doing the more comprehensive study to see if the result still holds.

We have a choice between doing ten comprehensive studies only to prove that nine of the things didn't work, or using the same resources to do a hundred crappy studies and then repeat the five with the most promising results using the more robust methodology and discover that three of them still hold.

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

#335

Post by taneq »

massysett wrote: post #318
ck2 wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If you're not losing weight after cutting 500kcal/day from your diet then you were gaining at least a pound a week before you made the cut.

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

#336

Post by dclowd9901 »

MustardTiger wrote: post #323
dclowd9901 wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

5'11" and 185. It's possible I'm miscounting calories (given how much of a crapshoot the task is), but not by so much that it would matter greatly.

Yes, it is very possible that it would matter greatly. People routinely count their calories at 1/3 of what they are really consuming. Get a scale, weigh your food. It is the only way to get useful accuracy.

I've lost 40 pounds before. I'm not new to how to do it. I know my input is anecdotal but I gave it because apparently it's been backed up by hard evidence.

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

#337

Post by wnevets »

pitchka wrote: post #141
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.

if you eat too much meat it just gets converted to sugar anyway

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

#338

Post by taneq »

CJefferson wrote: post #286
humbleMouse wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The biggest scam that the diet industry ever pulled on the general public is the perception that "a diet" is a short term thing which you do until you're a healthy weight, and then you can eat whatever you want again.

The second biggest scam is the perception that most people can lose weight without either doing an absolute ton of exercise, or feeling hungry quite a lot of the time.

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

#339

Post by [deleted] »

tzs wrote: post #265
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?

I've cut a tremendous amount of sugar by cutting way way back on Pepsi. I could not stand diet soda, so when I started aiming for under 40% calories from carbs I was trying fairly hard to make sure that I was way under 40% for most of the day, so that my evening snack could include a Pepsi. I tried adding some low sugar gelatin cup desserts to my diet to have a nice cool dessert on occasion, not expecting much since…

[deleted]

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

#340

Post by learc83 »

gozur88 wrote: post #311
gregw134 wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> Your average sedentary middle aged guy is going to gain weight if he eats more than about 1500 calories per day.

That's not true. The average middle age man (say 50 years old, 5'9", 160lbs) has a BMR around 1600 calories, and unless he's bed ridden will burn around 2000 calories per day.

Post reply on HN