Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The grandmaster diet: How to lose weight while barely moving

espn.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

301–310 of 359 posts

Re: The grandmaster diet: How to lose weight while barely moving

#301

Post by RobertRoberts »

radlad wrote: post #30
RobertRoberts wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>"Morning weight" == fasted and somewhat dehydrated weight. I was tracking weight loss over time, so it's not just water loss. I tracked weight multiple times a day to see when weight loss actually happens. If it was simple dehydration then sleeping would be irrelevant, but sleep is when something is processed, an action occurs that expels the waste/water.

You can lose "true" weight during the day, while still gaining enough weight from food/water to offset the previous night's fasting and weight loss. In other words, it's not that you don't lose weight until you sleep: it's that you can't differentiate whether you have net lost weight or gained weight until you have similar conditions of measurement.

Yes, thank you, this is a better way of describing the process that I observed.

But I would add to this, that it seems that you can lose some net lost weight from not having enough time sleeping for the process to finish.

Maybe like how a sceptic tank gets filled and drained repeatedly, but only gets drained at night (for an equal analogy). And if there's not enough night (sleep), it can't drain completely, therefore retaining waste.

It would explain also why you get sick if you don't get enough sleep... something else to ponder.

Re: The grandmaster diet: How to lose weight while barely moving

#302

Post by RobertRoberts »

scarface74 wrote: post #277
RobertRoberts wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I understand that it's on me to prove my methodology, not expect you to assume I did it right. That is fair. The data is multiple points of weight recorded every day (4 times a day) over a month, with a follow up a few years continued observance based on the results. Also, daily exercise and daily diet were documented as well (during the month of testing). Granted, I did not measure "fat" with calipers or other metho…

Aren’t you arguing against your point? You cut down the amount of calories in and you increased calorie expenditure. You probably also gained lean muscle mass that helped to increase your basal metabolic rate. This goes more to show what everyone knows based on accepted science.

No, because I think I presented my observation poorly.

I think 100% of the weight loss is from use of calories, and limiting the intake of calories.

What I meant to state more clearly is that I think the waste or _something_ related to the removal of the fat (after being used) happens during sleep.

Re: The grandmaster diet: How to lose weight while barely moving

#303

Post by vinceguidry »

dpark wrote: post #298
vinceguidry wrote: post #296

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is utterly untrue. Not just an incomplete picture or misleading, but an utter falsehood. Would you be so kind as to elaborate? You are literally stating that something is 'utterly untrue' without supporting rationale. I'm not expecting you to do a peer-reviewed study. Just to explain why you feel this way.

Because there’s absolutely no scientific evidence for this claim. Please share any evidence you have for the claim that a human body will “adapt” to a caloric deficit so well that it will regain the lost weight without calories increasing again. The statement is essentially that calories consumed are unrelated to weight gain and loss except in the short term after which the body will return to its normal weight no ma…

The author claimed this was legitimate science, in which case there will be references in the book.

I am avoiding the normal urge to go out and buy the book to verify and share the references to you. But it is something you could easily verify and find for yourself.

Re: The grandmaster diet: How to lose weight while barely moving

#304

Post by scarface74 »

DanBC wrote: post #233
dpark wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> CICO is mostly nonsense, because you can't control neither CI no CO. This is a wholesale abdication of responsibility and an embrace of victimhood. Yes, there are elements of calories out that aren’t fully in your control. However these place a lower bound on calories out. You can absolutely increase your exercise and activity level. On the other side, you are very much in control of your calories in. You can choos…

> You can absolutely increase your exercise and activity level. Exercise is important for health. Exercise does not help people control weight, and it may make people heavier. The fact that people insist they're scientific while ignoring the evidence is particularly frustrating.

This is both scientifically untrue and longitudinally true.

Of course if you use exercise to help create a calorie deficit you will lose weight. However, every single study shows that most people won’t lose weight by exercising. They overestimate how much they burn and underestimate how much they lose eat. Exercise also tends to make you hungrier and it makes it harder to not eat more. Also, hardly anyone has the discipline to work out consistently over a long period of time or the fitness level to work out long enough and have enough to use exercise as a weight loss tool.

Re: The grandmaster diet: How to lose weight while barely moving

#305

Post by [deleted] »

RobertRoberts wrote: post #291
kerkeslager wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I absolutely tested for water loss. No, you didn't. How do you think you tested for water loss? Briefly, you'd need to separate out the water for your urine, weigh that, then separate out the water from your feces, and weigh that, and spend all your time in a sealed chamber and monitor the humidity of that chamber to see how much water you're exhaling and sweating out. I'm guessing you did exactly none of this. Oh…

>How do you think you tested for water loss? Over time. I was not dehydrated at the end of the month, but I was 15+ 1bs lighter, and my neck, waist and limbs were slimmer. >do you really think you're the first person to research this? Nope, I have no such illusions. I find though that science _requires_ discussion to move forward. And I found a phenomenon. I can't explain the details, but the results are sound. I thi…

[deleted]

Re: The grandmaster diet: How to lose weight while barely moving

#306

Post by swat535 »

skygazer wrote: post #274
magna7 wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why aren't you a proponent of Fung? I'm just curious.

Oh, it's not that I find it controversial, favor an alternative or object to any of it. It seemed quite compelling, and I'm open to it. It's just that I've only read a single book on the topic, and health and physiology are fiendishly complex, and I long ago discovered that a single book, even if compelling and seemingly supported, may still not represent the whole picture.

I am sure for a claim of this magnitude, there would be plenty of references other than the book which shows our bodies somehow magically adopt and regain the lost weight. The burden of proof is on you to support this false claim

Re: The grandmaster diet: How to lose weight while barely moving

#307

Post by kerkeslager »

RobertRoberts wrote: post #291
kerkeslager wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I absolutely tested for water loss. No, you didn't. How do you think you tested for water loss? Briefly, you'd need to separate out the water for your urine, weigh that, then separate out the water from your feces, and weigh that, and spend all your time in a sealed chamber and monitor the humidity of that chamber to see how much water you're exhaling and sweating out. I'm guessing you did exactly none of this. Oh…

>How do you think you tested for water loss? Over time. I was not dehydrated at the end of the month, but I was 15+ 1bs lighter, and my neck, waist and limbs were slimmer. >do you really think you're the first person to research this? Nope, I have no such illusions. I find though that science _requires_ discussion to move forward. And I found a phenomenon. I can't explain the details, but the results are sound. I thi…

> Over time. I was not dehydrated at the end of the month, but I was 15+ 1bs lighter, and my neck, waist and limbs were slimmer.

That establishes what month you lost fat in. It does not establish what time of day you lost fat in. It does not establish that you lost fat through your urine.

I totally believe you that you lost weight in a month; I'm not objecting to to that claim. The claims you made that I am objecting to are:

1. That you know what time of day you lost weight in.

2. That you know you lost weight primarily through your urine.

You did not control for water weight when testing either of these hypotheses.

> I find though that science _requires_ discussion to move forward.

No it doesn't. Discussion is sometimes helpful to the scientific method, but it is not a part of it. Science requires sound experimentation, which you have not done.

> In the morning, you will not have lost any weight (call it water weight if you want).

I don't need to stay up all night to demonstrate that I can lose weight while awake. I just got back from a run and had to go, so I urinated and lost 1.6 lbs according to measuring before and after on my bathroom scale. Since you've given me permission, I'll go ahead and call that water weight.

> Go take a nap, when you wake you will urinate again, but it will be different.

How will it be different? You've literally provided no explanation whatsoever for why you think there's fat mass in your urine.

> But maybe you can only understand this difference if you are carefully monitoring your weight over an extended period of time?

I have gathered my weight data almost every day for the last few months, to correlate with a weight training routine.

Maybe I could understand the difference if you could explain it to me, but all you've done is just say there is a difference.

> The reason I don't think the carbon dioxide thing is the primary method of weight loss is because of my tests, where your body weight simply does not normalize until after sleeping.

What do you mean by normalize?

> I think the majority of the fat (by weight) comes out in urine.

Why do you think this?

> But I am just guessing based on my experiments over the past few years. Yep, I am an amateur scientist, but I control my weight now.

You don't get to call yourself even an amateur scientist if you refuse to even consider very obvious confounding factors. Science is about isolating phenomena, and if you haven't even measured the heaviest thing coming out of your body (water) then you can't claim to have isolated any information about lighter substances leaving your body. What you're doing is not science.

I'm happy for you that you're controlling your weight, though. Good job.

Re: The grandmaster diet: How to lose weight while barely moving

#308

Post by lurquer »

hcurtiss wrote: post #265
lurquer wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've yet to meet a fat person who didn't eat large portions and sugary foods. "It's a glandular problem," you'd often hear a few decades back. Now, there is other mumbo-jumbo. But, at the end of the day, fat people eat too much. Period. Mass is not created out of thin air. (Unless you're a plant.) Whether this fact is "helpful" to people trying to lose weight, I'll leave to the psychologists. But, it's true. And, the…

Of course they eat too much. The question is why? Taubes has a good example. If I asked you why that restaurant was so full, and you responded "because more people entered than exited," I would think you were an asshole. But CICO is the same kind of platitude. It doesn't actually tell you anything. Taubes and many others assert that the kind of food you put in your body dictates your drive to put more food in your bo…

>Of course they eat too much. The question is why?

Because they are gluttons and lack self-control. Why coddle them?

Re: The grandmaster diet: How to lose weight while barely moving

#309

Post by dpark »

vinceguidry wrote: post #303
dpark wrote: post #298

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because there’s absolutely no scientific evidence for this claim. Please share any evidence you have for the claim that a human body will “adapt” to a caloric deficit so well that it will regain the lost weight without calories increasing again. The statement is essentially that calories consumed are unrelated to weight gain and loss except in the short term after which the body will return to its normal weight no ma…

The author claimed this was legitimate science, in which case there will be references in the book. I am avoiding the normal urge to go out and buy the book to verify and share the references to you. But it is something you could easily verify and find for yourself.

Then it should be easy for the thread originator to provide a citation. I’m not willing to buy the book to look for citations I don’t expect to be there. My bet is that the book doesn’t really say what was presented and that it gives a rather more reserved statement about metabolic adaptation.

Re: The grandmaster diet: How to lose weight while barely moving

#310

Post by jimmaswell »

tsumnia wrote: post #300
jimmaswell wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or people who are naturally fit with no effort vs. people who aren't willing to massively restrict their diet and live in discomfort for the rest of their lives since the body permanently adapts to expecting a certain amount of food: https://www.thecut.com/2016/05/weight-loss-metabolism-slows-...

First, I take issue with the cited article because the study referenced in the opening paragraph because they do not provide any discussion over limitations of their study. In particular, that members of the "Biggest Loser" show may have also been more extrinsically motivated by money and fame than intrinsically motivated to become healthy. Thus, when they failed to earn said money/fame, they returned to their normal…

There's a big difference willpowering yourself to stay at your natural state of skinnyness and willpowering through hunger-regulating systems in your body being permanently broken. Here's another reference if you didn't like the other study. https://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-weight-...
Post reply on HN