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

People with low BMI aren't more active, they are just less hungry, 'run hotter'

sciencedaily.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 350 posts

Re: People with low BMI aren't more active, they are just less hungry, 'run hotter'

#111

Post by whatshisface »

FollowingTheDao wrote: post #57
giraffe_lady wrote: post #52

If I were playing a game of trying to extrapolate HN titles by the comment sections, my guess for this one would be "Ask HN: What's your BMI and what does that say about you"

Right? I was hoping more people would be thinking about the genetic aspect of this and how we need to stop telling people there is that "one diet" everyone should follow.

To be fair, the "CICO isn't the whole story" vs. "how can there be anything more to dieting than the diet you choose" debate is also a stereotypical HN favorite.

Re: People with low BMI aren't more active, they are just less hungry, 'run hotter'

#112

Post by cycrutchfield »

zeroonetwothree wrote: post #99
Terretta wrote: post #83

Yes, and, about 8 minutes of true HIIT* at least 3 days a week for 6 weeks is proven to adjust your metabolic run level. Graph your weight. After 6 weeks of HIIT, you'll see weight really shed because you're not burning calories during exercise but 24/7, and because of that metabolic shift, the weight will continue to shed for months even if you stop HIIT. * HIIT is High Intensity Interval Training. It's a technical…

I actually tried this and it didn’t work for me. My weight stayed the same. Maybe my body is just hopeless. Is there actual evidence that this is generally effective?

Weight loss is like 80% from the kitchen, maybe 20% from the gym. Point being, if you just work out a little bit more you're probably also eating more as well.

Re: People with low BMI aren't more active, they are just less hungry, 'run hotter'

#113

Post by CJefferson »

I think the hungry bit is often under-discussed.

I lost 75kg over 3 years, then put exactly 75kg back on over the 4 years after that.

While losing weight, and keeping it off (for about 6 months), I was hungry all the time, every day. I hoped that my body would eventually "get used" to the new standard, but in the end (not conciously), I gave up -- it was too mentally tiring to be hungry whenever I was awake.

I'm sure lots of it was a combination of physical and psycological -- I could eat lots of raw vegetables and not want to eat another carrot -- that wouldn't stop me eating something fatty/sugary.

Re: People with low BMI aren't more active, they are just less hungry, 'run hotter'

#115

Post by malfist »

zeroonetwothree wrote: post #99
Terretta wrote: post #83

Yes, and, about 8 minutes of true HIIT* at least 3 days a week for 6 weeks is proven to adjust your metabolic run level. Graph your weight. After 6 weeks of HIIT, you'll see weight really shed because you're not burning calories during exercise but 24/7, and because of that metabolic shift, the weight will continue to shed for months even if you stop HIIT. * HIIT is High Intensity Interval Training. It's a technical…

I actually tried this and it didn’t work for me. My weight stayed the same. Maybe my body is just hopeless. Is there actual evidence that this is generally effective?

Weightloss is made in the kitchen, not the gym. It's really really hard to burn more calories than you eat.

That extra donut or candy bar you had? That's an hour or so on a treadmill.

The good news is that almost all diets work, find one you can stick to and stick to it. You should see results. It's not a fast process though. It didn't take a week or a month to put on that weight, it's not going to take a week or a month to get rid of it.

Me personally, the weight watchers tier with the weekly call with a coach was immensely helpful for me, but there's all kinds of other diets you can try.

Re: People with low BMI aren't more active, they are just less hungry, 'run hotter'

#116

Post by gpm »

surfpel wrote: post #38
gjsman-1000 wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does it matter? Many scientists in the know say that peer review is as good as a trashy spam filter these days. This isn't to say that it is absolutely useless, more that it is very overrated.

With the volume of research being churned out of "publish or perish" institutions, I expect a peer review to inform me on the "Is this complete garbage" metric rather than give some assured level of quality / correctness. Ie: if its peer reviewed, it /probably/ isn't /complete/ garbage.

I think the other direction is more useful, if it isn't peer reviewed (and is written in this format) it almost certainly is complete garbage. Otherwise it would be peer reviewed.

Re: People with low BMI aren't more active, they are just less hungry, 'run hotter'

#117

Post by thaumasiotes »

NoSorryCannot wrote: post #92
thaumasiotes wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'd say the median number of articles reviewed per person in a given year is 10. That's a pretty light annual workload. How do you get to be one of those people? Or do those people have other work to do?

They are other researchers in the field. Literally, your peers. Yes, they have other work to do.

Yes, I'm aware of those things.

I'm pointing out that the number of papers someone reviews in a year is not even distantly related to the amount of attention they have available to devote to the job.

Re: People with low BMI aren't more active, they are just less hungry, 'run hotter'

#118

Post by ska »

chrisseaton wrote: post #86
klyrs wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've known very active cyclists that couldn't lose weight despite riding hundred mile rides weekly. In my youth, I could eat anything and do nothing and not suffer the consequences. I definitely fit the "run hot" part but I was the plate-cleaner in my family and didn't really stop eating like that until I was in my late 30s and suddenly started gaining weight.

> I've known very active cyclists that couldn't lose weight despite riding hundred mile rides weekly. Isn’t this against the laws of physics? If you’re burning a ton of energy and not eating excessively, where are their bodies getting mass from to maintain weight?

> Isn’t this against the laws of physics?

No because they were also eating a lot, the lower bound on this established by physics.

I've known a lot of roadies who sort-of-correctly believed they could eat as much as they could physically manage, as they were expending enough (3+ hour intense riding daily) that it was a chore to keep up. At least when they were 20-something and racing. Many struggle a bit when the a) get a bit older/metabolically slower and b) life gets in the way and they ride a lot less. All of a sudden a guy who was rail thin gains 30lb that "sticks".

Re: People with low BMI aren't more active, they are just less hungry, 'run hotter'

#119

Post by marifjeren »

ErikAugust wrote: post #91
marifjeren wrote: post #82

"people with low BMI" seems like it refers to a large group of healthy people, but it actually refers to folks who are underweight. In China, that's like 1 in 10 people. In the USA it's closer to 1 in 50. I wonder what kind of genetics and behavior you have to have to be underweight in the USA.

Are 1 in 50 people in the US (ab)users of uppers? That could account for some of it.

Hmm yeah. Uppers, SSRIs, nicotine (if that's not already considered an 'upper'), ...

Re: People with low BMI aren't more active, they are just less hungry, 'run hotter'

#120

Post by chrchr »

zhynn wrote: post #74
sudden_dystopia wrote: post #42

The study was underweight bmi vs healthy bmi. Nothing about overweight bmi, which I would assume is the trifecta of overeating, little activity, and slower metabolism. At least that is my personal experience in going from overweight to healthy bmi. Really not surprising that people that eat less have lower bmi and higher metabolism than people that eat more with a slower metabolism but who are more active.

you missed the important point, IMO: being hungry. it's bizarre that we can be mechanically and nutritionally full yet still be hungry. These low BMI individuals were not hungry. WTF is going on with the hunger response being so messed up in a huge segment of the population?

It’s not messed up. It’s just maladapted to our food environment where there is high calorie, highly rewarding, cheap food available to us at all times. Countries where traditional diets predominate don’t have widespread obesity, and we can see obesity rise in developing nations as they adopt Western diets.

Some people, including the Chinese-resident subjects of this study, have hunger responses that are not susceptible to the temptations of our food system.

Post reply on HN