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

You're Not Losing Fat Because You're Eating Too Damn Much (2016)

physiqonomics.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

481–490 of 501 posts

Re: You're Not Losing Fat Because You're Eating Too Damn Much (2016)

#481

Post by jawarner »

stevebmark wrote: post #399
lmariscal wrote: post #384

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is this answer? Are you being serious comparing eating actual sand to caloric dense food? Obviously calories aren't everything in terms of diet and health; vitamins, nutrients and other parts come into play. But when it comes down to actual physical weight, nothing else matters, unless you have a medical problem. Learning how calories work and counting them for some time, so you understand what you are actually…

Saying that people gain weight because they consume more energy than they expend is both obvious and too blunt to be useful for weight loss. The same caloric intake of protein, carbohydrates, fat, fiber, preservates, sand, poison, all act differently in your body. You can lose weight in a caloric surplus diet and gain weight in a caloric deficit diet. One fun paradox is some people who train for marathons gain body f…

It's true that your body doesn't digest all the available calories in food, and the energy extracted from the food is going to vary by food source, along with the digestion profile, or glycemic index.

So, it is true that:

> You can lose weight in a caloric surplus diet

But I don't see how it's possible to:

> gain weight in a caloric deficit diet

There are many sources of digestible and energetic food, even outside the primary 3 macronutrients. There's alcohol, for instances, in addition to the basic fats, proteins, and carbohydrates. Sand I don't understand to be calorically rich at all. Quartz isn't even an organic compound.

Re: You're Not Losing Fat Because You're Eating Too Damn Much (2016)

#482

Post by itake »

kixiQu wrote: post #194
itake wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> reply with some suggestion as to how I should eat so that I'm not hungry Not to be that guy... but are you eating low calorie dense foods or high calorie dense foods? The article points out that an Apple and a Donut have roughly the same volume, but an Apple is half the calories. Also, as the article suggests, cutting out liquid calories (that don't satisfy hunger) are easy first steps.

I promise you that someone thirty pounds down from their max knows all the "easy first steps". Please consider why you are choosing to be that guy.

> Please consider why you are choosing to be that guy.

I am trying to be helpful?

I've gone down to ~9% body fat, so I have experience with the "hard last steps." For me, the "first steps" were not easy and much harder than the last steps.

Re: You're Not Losing Fat Because You're Eating Too Damn Much (2016)

#483

Post by jawarner »

gaganyaan wrote: post #451
xurukefi wrote: post #406

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> To use that terminology though, your body could be said to have a "set point" that it aims for, but that "set point" can change. Which I acknowledged. You can decrease (or increase) your set point, but there is a limit to that. Thinking that everybody has the potential to be at BMI x simply does not match reality. The vast range of human physiology is stunning. Everybody is different. Some people need to carefully…

> Thinking that everybody has the potential to be at BMI x simply does not match reality This is wrong, and why set point theory is trash. Nobody is destined to be fat, everybody's "set point" can in fact be at a regular, healthy weight.

I see your point that there's no way that weight levels are entirely predetermined by genetics. To your point there are various cultures around the world who suffer more or less from obesity.

I don't understand this genetic determinism of weight to be the claim of Set Point Theory, which to my understanding is involved in energy homeostasis, which you acknowledged. Your body sets your metabolism, and it can tune it up or down. There are homeostatic processes in place such that your body "knows" whether it is underweight or overweight.

I'm not sure if there is a more specific objection you have to set point theory. It certainly has its limitations as to what it can explain, but it seems to be a useful concept or model.

Re: You're Not Losing Fat Because You're Eating Too Damn Much (2016)

#484

Post by netmonk »

CuriousSkeptic wrote: post #478
netmonk wrote: post #468

Earlier quoted context omitted.

2 years of corona circus and explosion of obesity worldwide. https://www.who.int/health-topics/obesity#tab=tab_1 So promoting paper which relate to prenatale conditions which would leads to adult obesity is just a smoke screen to hide that the whole modern society is just a big pathology factory at mankind scale. better make people feel they are cursed by gene than just realise that the real war on drug should be aga…

The WHO report actually agrees with you on food cartel issue

well telling half truth doesnt mean you are honnest... Some stuff are so big that ignoring them is too difficult to ignore and would question others too easely on your motive. But Devil hides in details. Read their updated diet recommandation and understand that beside yelling with the herd about obesity epidemia, they are doing everything to promote it with their diet guidelines (based on vegan wokism).

Also it's not like nutrition heterodoxia haven't been warning since 50 years an this major health crisis. After year of promotion of modern diet from WHO and associates.

Now that you cannot go in the street without being surrounded by Obesity everywhere it's hard to play blind.

Also after 2 years of COVID, more and more peoples realised that OBESITY poses a threat by fragilizing society at global scale, as far as Obese peoples are weaker to fight against virus, and vaccines are less efficient on obese peoples. So basically they are weak and difficult to protect from common virus, especially respiratory virus.

Not forgetting about Diabetes type 2 (almost 1/3 of adult in the world has diabetic condition mostly due to overweight and obesity). Which calls about talking also on Diabete type 3 which is commonly named Alzheimer disease. Type 2 Diabetic have 6 times more chance to developp Alzheimer than non diabetic in the 10 to 20 years after start of their conditions.

So with more and more young starting to develop T2D around 20 years old, a good part of them will develop Alzheimer disease around 35-40 years old which will also have an huge societal impact. And even before that, cognitive performance are deeply tied to calories type of sources. Alzheimer disease just being the final stage of a long degradation process over decades due to abuses of bad calories. So basically cognitive performance are degradated long time before Alzheimer occurance.

everybody jokes about Karen, but nobody look at average karen's bodyshape...This could explain a lot.

Re: You're Not Losing Fat Because You're Eating Too Damn Much (2016)

#485

Post by fennecfoxy »

csours wrote: post #73

I weigh 350 pounds. I'm very obese. I know this. When I was a teenager, I looked at people who weighed 300+ pounds and though, how do you get that way. Don't you realize that you are gaining weight? Don't you know that you just have to eat less to lose weight? Anyway, now I realize that I am hungry. It never goes away unless I eat a significant amount of food. My body told me to eat, so I ate. It doesn't even take th…

If there's one thing I've learnt about hunger it's that not all hunger is real.

You have to think to yourself, am I hungry, or am I bored/idle?

I find keeping yourself busy/no snacking or food at desk etc helps a lot. It may be different for other people but if I get up and walk around a bit/stretch I usually realise I'm not hungry, just for some reason sitting & idling too long make me feel like food.

Another big one is hydration, drinking enough water helps a lot, count coffee, etc as a - for the amount of water you drink. If I'm a little peckish and I realise I haven't had enough water, just drinking half a glass usually staves off the feeling of hunger.

Re: You're Not Losing Fat Because You're Eating Too Damn Much (2016)

#486

Post by tenebrisalietum »

ntlk wrote: post #67
javert wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> To lose weight you have to do a lot more exercise than you think consistently. And you have to eat a lot less than you think. I think this is a misleading cliche. I seem to have a lost a significant amount of weight just from eating less, without exercise. Which makes sense. It's amazing how many miles you'd have to run to burn the calories you get from a Big Mac. Basically, our food is super dense in calories, and…

A Big Mac is 563 calories. Hardly unreasonable for a meal.

I see many get huge sodas with the Big Macs which is what pushes it to crazy amounts.

Re: You're Not Losing Fat Because You're Eating Too Damn Much (2016)

#487

Post by msrenee »

zemvpferreira wrote: post #346
msrenee wrote: post #291

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It completely depends on your lean weight, but 200g of protein is very high for most people who aren't athletes. I'm not in a state to work out whether the normal chorus saying that much protein will damage your kidneys is true or if I've just heard it enough times that it sounds true. Here's a publication that looks informative, but I haven't worked all the way through it and it may or may not support my presumption…

Not to defend (or bash) the proposed extreme diet but as far as we know your kidneys will be fine handling pretty much any amount of protein you can consume unless you have kidney disease. Most of it will end up being converted to glucose via gluconeogenesis. Said diet is certainly better for you than 30 years of fast food, as evidenced by the complete lack of protein-caused-disease in medical case studies opposed to…

Definitely agree. If it helps control your appetite, it's not worse than continuing to carry all that weight. I just thought I'd throw that paper up because it seemed like a different take than I usually see. And just to stick my nose in and mention that 200 g a day is more protein than the vast majority of people need.

My gut would have something to say about all that protein before my kidneys even noticed, honestly.

Re: You're Not Losing Fat Because You're Eating Too Damn Much (2016)

#488

Post by tedmiston »

Alacart wrote: post #310
csours wrote: post #73

I weigh 350 pounds. I'm very obese. I know this. When I was a teenager, I looked at people who weighed 300+ pounds and though, how do you get that way. Don't you realize that you are gaining weight? Don't you know that you just have to eat less to lose weight? Anyway, now I realize that I am hungry. It never goes away unless I eat a significant amount of food. My body told me to eat, so I ate. It doesn't even take th…

This kind of hunger is what I've felt my whole life too, though my weight is still only in the overweight category. I can eat twice, three times what a normal portion is and still feel like I need to eat. I could easily eat multiple large pizzas by myself with no problem at all. There's a scene from The West Wing where the chief of staff describes his alcoholism and how people would ask him how could he drink so much…

> A year ago I was diagnosed with ADHD (inattentive) and prescribed a very low dose of Vyvanse (amphetamine based). Suddenly it was gone.

Reduced appetite or appetite suppression is a very common side effect of those types of medications.

Re: You're Not Losing Fat Because You're Eating Too Damn Much (2016)

#489

Post by digisign »

Blackthorn wrote: post #136
digisign wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is 15 grams, too much at once if you want to maintain a level blood sugar. No, it won't kill you but it's a habit no one needs.

1 tablespoon of common granulated sugar is 12 grams.

Some sites say 15, some say 12.5. Tablespoon quantities are typically rounded up to "heaping" as well, so who cares? It is clear from the ancestor post adults are healthier without all this sugar.

Re: You're Not Losing Fat Because You're Eating Too Damn Much (2016)

#490

Post by tasuki »

CuriousSkeptic wrote: post #235
csours wrote: post #73

I weigh 350 pounds. I'm very obese. I know this. When I was a teenager, I looked at people who weighed 300+ pounds and though, how do you get that way. Don't you realize that you are gaining weight? Don't you know that you just have to eat less to lose weight? Anyway, now I realize that I am hungry. It never goes away unless I eat a significant amount of food. My body told me to eat, so I ate. It doesn't even take th…

WHO recently released a report on obesity in europe[1] Stressing, among other things, that obesity is a chronic disease starting very early in life, indeed even before conception, and cannot be treated as an individual failing. They also point out that health professionals should focus not on weight loss, but on life long prevention of comorbidities. To which end various treatment options are available. Weight loss m…

Have you read the linked article? What does "chronic disease" mean?

If obesity weren't linked to eating too much, how come there are no obese people in concentration camps?

Post reply on HN