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

Daily energy expenditure through the human life course

research.brighton.ac.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 256 posts

Re: Daily energy expenditure through the human life course

#191

Post by ses1984 »

Adverblessly wrote: post #104
kenjackson wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The article states the difference is small, but also notes “ The majority of the population exists in a range of 200-300kcal from each other”. All things being even 200kcal difference per day is about 20lbs per year attributed purely to metabolic difference. Now you can say to just eat 200kcal less per day, but those little differences on a daily basis add up.

> All things being even 200kcal difference per day is about 20lbs per year attributed purely to metabolic difference. As you gain weight, you burn more energy, even just being idle, so 200kcal doesn't means 20lbs per year (obviously so, as otherwise you'd gain 600lbs in 30 years). An extra 200kcals per day implies gaining extra weight until the extra energy you burn cancels it out, and then stabilizing there. IIRC th…

You might become more sedentary as you gain more weight.

Re: Daily energy expenditure through the human life course

#192

Post by ses1984 »

username135 wrote: post #172
stanford_labrat wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a biological feedback loop that dictates how hungry you are via hormones such as ghrelin and leptin. My little brother is about 50lbs lighter than me at the same height and we have very different builds and all his attempts to bulk fail for the same reason: no appetite. Meanwhile I’m overshooting my bulks and have to cut harder because I love eating too much.

Eating enough food is the most exhausting part of trying to bulk. Its not hours in the gym - thats easy - its calories on the plate.

Everyone’s different.

Re: Daily energy expenditure through the human life course

#193

Post by ses1984 »

paulpauper wrote: post #185
XorNot wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is Michael Rea considered exceptional here? For that height and weight, that's pretty much bang on what you'd expect as a maintenance level of calories assuming he does any physical activity at all.

trying to get that low of a weight would entail significant metabolic adaptation, which calculators do not account for. Take a 180lb 6-foot male and try to get him to 115 and you can be sure it will take way fewer than 1900.

The question isn’t getting there, it’s staying there.

Re: Daily energy expenditure through the human life course

#194

Post by paulpauper »

ses1984 wrote: post #193
paulpauper wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

trying to get that low of a weight would entail significant metabolic adaptation, which calculators do not account for. Take a 180lb 6-foot male and try to get him to 115 and you can be sure it will take way fewer than 1900.

The question isn’t getting there, it’s staying there.

They are master practitioners of Calorie Restriction, a diet whose central, radical premise is that the less you eat, the longer you’ll live.

It would seem like it is intentional, going by the article. They are trying to lose weight to maximize lifespan.

Re: Daily energy expenditure through the human life course

#195

Post by paulpauper »

medler wrote: post #187
paulpauper wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One individual, Michael Rea, weighed (at the time of publication) 115 lbs at 6-feet and subsisted on a diet of 1900 calories a day [0], which he tracked meticulously. It's hard to convey with words how incredible this is. To put this in perspective, Ansel Key's subjects had to diet down to 1,500/day to get almost as thin. Super-fast metabolisms that cannot be explained by undereating or pathology do exist. [0] https:…

Was he sedentary, or did he run 10 miles a day? I see no reason to believe his metabolism was unusual without more information about his physical activities.

Michael can stand up in the morning, let alone jog twenty miles a week. But jog he does, and if the results of both his latest physical and the latest CR research are anything to go by

This is 3 miles/day. not that much. Minnesota starvation experiment subjects had to walk 22 miles/week.

Re: Daily energy expenditure through the human life course

#196

Post by riazrizvi »

djtango wrote: post #160
riazrizvi wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I understand that as a healthy body sustains lifestyle damage, the effects begin to stack up, and then the effects become more noticeable, but it's not age based because it's reversible. So look to your unhealthy lifestyle's accumulated effects in your body, atherosclerosis, obesity, pre-diabetes, hypertension, specific nutritional deficiencies, physiological mental health... And make a robust effort to improve your…

Would love to hear what sort of things you did as part of your intervention? Def noticing amongst my friends a few new allergies/intolerences manifesting as we get older For some context am reasonably healthy and actually had to increase my sodium intake because I had over corrected on reducing salt consumption and was getting hyponatremic after training

A good story is Rich Roll’s Finding Ultra. Or a good technical read on nutrition is Julia Ross’s The Mood Cure. But I read about 50 non fiction books cover to cover each year, and learning about your health is a big area, made harder by the reality that for every good book on the topic there are 19 others that are bad. There are lots of bad fads and actors, and they can include pill pushing doctors, sadly. The only real way to figure out how to get healthy is to experiment until you succeed at it. I guess one piece of specific advice I’d give, is if you have long term high cholesterol, and high blood pressure, take your doctor’s advice and take a statin if they recommend it. I think that was a huge boost. Also, when you want online advice on health, add ‘site:.gov’ to your search so that you get good sources and not health blogs.

Ultimately I think you’ve got to come up with a good model of your physiology based on uncontroversial science. So in the case of your training, you’d figure out you are draining yourself of more than sodium chloride but rather the broad spectrum of minerals that you typically sweat out, so your ‘salt intake’ is a multi mineral supplement and not actual salt. Which is what I imagine you figured out.

Re: Daily energy expenditure through the human life course

#197

Post by [deleted] »

tayo42 wrote: post #45
reedf1 wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Convincing men at basically peak testosterone production to permanently impair their natural ability to produce it. It's awful. Not to mention the side effects of taking exogenous hormones e.g. damage to your liver...

Peak? We're talking about 30 year olds. For some it's not really convincing. They look at it like doctor perscribed steroids.

[deleted]

Re: Daily energy expenditure through the human life course

#198

Post by ynab5 »

hotnfresh wrote: post #153
hombre_fatal wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't buy your anecdote. Those are the figures people always estimate. Always the same story: 4000 calories when they were skinny, and now they can't lose weight on 1500 calories when their maintenance intake is 2600. Then you make them log their food for a week and they are eating 3000 calories when they swore they ate no more than 2000. In my 20s I worked at a personal trainer in a gym that made people log their…

> 4000 calories when they were skinny, and now they can't lose weight on 1500 calories when their maintenance intake is 2600. 4000 is a conservative estimate. Four pop tarts, an entire large pizza (all you can eat buffets FTW), two liters of soda, and an entire large bag of chips was, like… a totally normal day for me. There’s probably also be some cookies or hostess donuts in there, too. > If you couldn't lose weigh…

[flagged]

Re: Daily energy expenditure through the human life course

#199

Post by goostavos »

naijaboiler wrote: post #147
MichaelDickens wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In addition to activity levels, you probably just weren't eating that much food. It was similar for me when I was a teenager: some days I would binge on a ton of junk food, but other days I would forget to eat breakfast, and the latter happened often enough that I stayed skinny.

No I legit ate way much much more in my 20s. I'm not misremembering. I ate more

>I'm not misremembering

It's the easiest explanation. As a gym bro that regularly cycles weight, it's is remarkably easy over/under estimate intake just going off recollection. I always think I'm dialed in until I write things down (I'm almost always eating way fewer calories than I think).

Re: Daily energy expenditure through the human life course

#200

Post by ses1984 »

paulpauper wrote: post #194
ses1984 wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The question isn’t getting there, it’s staying there.

They are master practitioners of Calorie Restriction, a diet whose central, radical premise is that the less you eat, the longer you’ll live. It would seem like it is intentional, going by the article. They are trying to lose weight to maximize lifespan.

I’m not sure what’s in the article, I can’t read it because of a paywall, but I don’t see anywhere in the comments here discussion of Rea losing more weight, it just says he eats 1900 and he’s 6’ 115lbs.
Post reply on HN