Live data from Hacker News

When somebody loses weight, where does the fat go?

bmj.com

121–130 of 241 posts

Re: When somebody loses weight, where does the fat go?

#121
post #4

For anyone coming straight to the comments looking for an answer to the question: it turns into CO2 (and a bit of water) and you breathe it out. When you realize that you have to breathe out all the weight you lose, I think it gives you a bigger appreciation for how difficult weight loss can be.

I sometimes ask the deep philosophical question, why does a tree not sink into the ground it grows out of? It blows people's minds when I explain that the reason is because the tree is mostly water and CO2, a gas and a liquid coming from the sky.

Trees don't sink into the ground because (a) a tree's root system is as large in the ground as it stands out of the ground and (b) the pressure of the weight of the tree is distributed across the (large) surface area of that root system.

Trees aren't light, by any stretch of the imagination. That solid mass is mostly water. Try lifting up a 1' or 2' section of a tree trunk that's 1-2' in diameter sometime.

Re: When somebody loses weight, where does the fat go?

#122
post #94
post #4

For anyone coming straight to the comments looking for an answer to the question: it turns into CO2 (and a bit of water) and you breathe it out. When you realize that you have to breathe out all the weight you lose, I think it gives you a bigger appreciation for how difficult weight loss can be.

I've lost 16kg this year, which I attribute to 3 things: 1. being fairly strict with calorie intake - though I have gone over my limit a whole bunch of times 2. upping my running game - 80km+ most months 3. being diagnosed asthmatic (after 40 years of merely "you've got shitty lungs, sorry") and prescribed a morning+night inhaler Dieting isn't new to me, I've been a fat bastard all my adult life. Previous attempts at…

I highly recommend a meal tracker app for anyone who's looking to lose. I avoided it for ages. I didn't want to be "one of those people". I felt like I ate fairly well and was working hard enough, I shouldn't have to stoop to that level.

I started bike commuting over 3 months ago now, but my weight was only increasing, and I was pretty sure my diet was the same as ever -- healthy breakfast, fairly healthy lunch, healthy dinner -- mostly homemade, rarely eat out, etc. My only real "sin" was drinking, but it didn't seem to matter if I drank every night or cut back to weekends only (which I had when I started biking, working out more, and again seeing no real benefit).

So I finally broke down and started using one a few weeks ago and it's made all the difference in the world. The biggest advantage is the immediate metrics. I HATED the idea that I could work my ass off for a week or three and see my weight go up, or down, and really have no idea what was happening on a day to day basis. By tracking my meals (plus workouts and commuting between Strava and Apple Health sync), I can immediately see if I'm ahead or behind. It's the feedback I had been craving for years. Where I thought the point of one of these apps was to try to learn what's healthy to eat and to be calorically restrictive (which was unappealing.. again, I don't want to be "that guy"), it's really the realtime data that's useful.

In my particular case, I've learned I actually eat amazingly well for the most part, and it's very easy to run huge caloric deficits during the week. Without even trying I was seeing a deficit of perhaps 1500kcal/day (during the week). What was killing me was beer (on weekends, but then again, 3/7 days is almost half the days of the week) and the occasional big consumption day. You know, have a big breakfast on the weekend, a big lunch, some drinks, and pretty soon 1 day could almost kill a whole week's progress. The tracking has given me the ability to say actually, yeah, one more beer really WILL push me over the edge from a deficit to a gain. I don't really need that 3rd bagel. And so on. And given that I tend to consume more on weekends, and typically I only got a single short run in one weekend day, those weekends were just killing my progress.

On the other hand, it's made me mind snacking a bit less -- the deficits I run during the week are so big that a couple fun size bag of Skittles (we just ran out of halloween candy at work) make almost no difference in my daily progress.

I'm just starting out with it, but again, the realtime feedback has made me realize how much EASIER it's going to be than I ever expected. When I felt I had nothing left to easily cut or change, I actually found the solutions were far easier than I realized, and it's helped me to quantify things that I knew were bad but didn't really appreciate the magnitude of.

And because I no longer have to just "do my best" or a month and hope it shows up on the scale, there's no more disappointment/discouragement.

Re: When somebody loses weight, where does the fat go?

#123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can't help but groan at some of the "obvious" health and weight loss platitudes that get smugly thrown around. " Calories in, calories out! " " You can't outrun a bad diet! " " Weight is lost in the kitchen! " Sure, things ultimately boil down to intake-vs-expenditure. However, it IS more complicated than that in practice . As software developers, we complain when management makes decisions based on inadequate or p…

The most important role of exercise in weightloss is hormone regulation, not the calories burned. (As you correctly point out.) Being less stressed and routinely expending large amounts of energy simply causes your body to run differently (because of the hormones produced and burned off), which in turn changes how it processes food and fat stores, what it craves, etc. I think proper hormone regulation is far more sus…

> I think proper hormone regulation is far more sustainable than the calorie restrictions necessary to offset out-of-whack hormones.

Sure. As long as you have time to work out. Or you don't get hurt. Or you can afford to go to a place to work out (much of the US isn't even walkable).

Re: When somebody loses weight, where does the fat go?

#124
post #4

For anyone coming straight to the comments looking for an answer to the question: it turns into CO2 (and a bit of water) and you breathe it out. When you realize that you have to breathe out all the weight you lose, I think it gives you a bigger appreciation for how difficult weight loss can be.

Exercise makes more sense! Breathing hard == losing weight!

Not worth it. If you excercise hard for an hour daily you can triple your rate of breathing during that hour. So you get 26 instead of 24 hours of usual fat burning.

Not much of a difference. Skipping some food can do much more.

Re: When somebody loses weight, where does the fat go?

#125

The TLDR: > Physical activity as a weight loss strategy is, therefore, easily foiled by relatively small quantities of excess food. > Our calculations show that the lungs are the primary excretory organ for fat. Losing weight requires unlocking the carbon stored in fat cells, thus reinforcing that often heard refrain of “eat less, move more.” "Eat less, move more." If anyone isn't aware of that by now, I don't know w…

Because the problem with weight loss is not losing weight, it's losing weight while staying productive / not feeling like shit.

And that is more complicated than 'eat less, move more'.

Re: When somebody loses weight, where does the fat go?

#126
post #48
post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

2 pounds a day. That's how much CO2 you breath out, and the hard limit for weight loss. You can lose more than that, (see boxers before a weigh-in), but that's all water loss, and is temporary. And, with a strong likelihood of death.

I'd suspect the more exercise you do the more that number moves up, you'd be breathing harder. I'd hesitate to try and put a 'hard limit' on anything like this.

It's pretty difficult to double that number. Can you really double your metabolism without ill effect? Or without massively changing your lifestyle?

The normal expectation is maybe 10-25% change. Any more than than would require things likes 8 hours of exercise per day.

Re: When somebody loses weight, where does the fat go?

#127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Irrelevant. As long as you eat less than what you burn, you will lose weight. If you're not losing weight, cut what you eat until you see results.

You're assuming a constant factor there that isn't necessarily constant.

So? Are we assuming these things are 100% off consistently? If what you care claiming is true, there should be wide swaths of people on bodybuilding forums raising hell about how inaccurate nutrition labels are. But for anyone counting calories, it seems to work just fine.

Re: When somebody loses weight, where does the fat go?

#128
post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you tried it? I did, it's easier only for some time. After you lose about 6-7% of your body weight it's very hard to eat less, your whole behaviour changes.

I tried it - I lost nearly 25% my weight (down from 132 kg to 101 kg) over this year by eating less and walking on foot a lot more. Eating less is certainly having a lesser effect than it did at first, but I'm still losing weight bit by bit.

I did similar a few years ago. Dropped from 172lbs (78kg) to 139lbs (63kg) in 5 1/2 months. Near 21% weight reduction in body weight, just by counting calories and walking (granted, quite a bit). There definitely isn't a "wall" you encounter when losing weight. I tracked everything I ate (often to the gram) and it felt like little more than basic arithmetic.

Had a friend take notice, so he took it up himself. Dropped the best part of 60lbs (27kg) over the course of the year. Very different diet, but again tracked everything he ate (again, often to the gram) and lifted weights instead of walking. He was baffled with how simple it ended up being, but was pleased with himself nonetheless.

Re: When somebody loses weight, where does the fat go?

#130
post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Chemical reactions undergo the same mass loss as nuclear reactions. A fat molecule weighs very slightly more than the sum of it's parts. The resulting water and carbon dioxide products will weigh less than the reactants by exactly the amount of energy released. It's just much more difficult to notice because the amount of energy released is as much less.

Is this true? I was under the impression that the excess energy is due to the different bond energies of the input and output molecules and not due to mass to energy conversion.

The mass that's converted to energy in both chemical and nuclear reactions comes from differences in bond energies. Nuclear chemistry is about the bonds between subatomic particles, ordinary chemistry is about the bonds between atoms.

Mass-energy conversion isn't a special thing, it's universal. All energy has mass. When energy moves, mass moves, always.

Post reply on HN