The biggest losers: Metabolic damage or constrained energy?
physiqonomics.com
The biggest losers: Metabolic damage or constrained energy?
1–10 of 284 posts
Re: The biggest losers: Metabolic damage or constrained energy?
#2But most contestants regained a lot of weight and metabolisms slowed relative to bodyweight and stayed slow long after regaining weight. The adaptation explains why they regained weight so fast. It's incontrovertible that the show was a failure for the majority of the contestants. this also agrees with the high failure rates of diets overall and why formerly fat people regain so fast . Biology screws you over and has the final say. This is why it took so long to develop GLP-1 weight loss drugs and why they are such a big deal, by at last giving people a leg-up in this often losing battle against the body.
Re: The biggest losers: Metabolic damage or constrained energy?
#3But most contestants regained a lot of weight and metabolisms slowed relative to bodyweight and stayed slow long after regaining weight. The adaptation explains why they regained weight so fast. It's incontrovertible that the show was a failure for the majority of the contestants. this also agrees with the high failure rates of diets overall and why formerly fat people regain so fast . Biology screws you over and has…
I don’t understand how this needs anything beyond surface level complexity… you have fat people who for show reasons were tightly controlled on exercise and food intake - which works for well understood reasons - then they took that away and left the people to their lifelong established habits.
Of course they regain the weight.
These people didn’t magically create mass from nothing. They ate too much for their activity. Done. Stop doing that if you don’t want to gain weight. Obviously easier said than done. But I’m sick of the idea that these poor souls are visited at night by globs of mass that force their way inside.
All these magic drugs are going to do is incentive bad food and bad habits. This isn’t good news.
Re: The biggest losers: Metabolic damage or constrained energy?
#4[deleted]
Re: The biggest losers: Metabolic damage or constrained energy?
#5Metabolic damage is mostly a myth.
Fat, muscle, and activity burn calories.
If you lose weight you’re probably burning fewer calories unless you replace it with muscle.
Activity levels also vary over our lives. We tend to be more active when we’re younger.
Re: The biggest losers: Metabolic damage or constrained energy?
#6> In 2016, Pontzer and colleagues published a study putting forward the constrained energy model: Energy expenditure does increase with more activity, but only to a point. Once physical activity gets really high, the body will adjust other components of the metabolism to keep your daily energy expenditure within a narrow range
How do people who constantly repeat the mantra of thermodynamics in such threads explain this? How is the body burning the same calories with increased physical activity? Not to mention that people can extract more or less calories from the exact same food and quantity consumed.
Re: The biggest losers: Metabolic damage or constrained energy?
#7OT, but is anyone else's HN homepage like, super stale? Most of the posts are from 12+ hours ago, some from more than a day.
Edit: 5/30 less than 12 hours old, 16/30 more than 20 hours old.
Re: The biggest losers: Metabolic damage or constrained energy?
#8OT, but is anyone else's HN homepage like, super stale? Most of the posts are from 12+ hours ago, some from more than a day. Edit: 5/30 less than 12 hours old, 16/30 more than 20 hours old.
I suppose they still have some issues, HN was down for a few hours today.
Re: The biggest losers: Metabolic damage or constrained energy?
#9OT, but is anyone else's HN homepage like, super stale? Most of the posts are from 12+ hours ago, some from more than a day. Edit: 5/30 less than 12 hours old, 16/30 more than 20 hours old.
Mine as well. They had some outages today, I wonder if there's trouble afoot.
Re: The biggest losers: Metabolic damage or constrained energy?
#10But most contestants regained a lot of weight and metabolisms slowed relative to bodyweight and stayed slow long after regaining weight. The adaptation explains why they regained weight so fast. It's incontrovertible that the show was a failure for the majority of the contestants. this also agrees with the high failure rates of diets overall and why formerly fat people regain so fast . Biology screws you over and has…
I don’t understand how this needs anything beyond surface level complexity… you have fat people who for show reasons were tightly controlled on exercise and food intake - which works for well understood reasons - then they took that away and left the people to their lifelong established habits. Of course they regain the weight. These people didn’t magically create mass from nothing. They ate too much for their activi…
> These people didn’t magically create mass from nothing. They ate too much for their activity. Done. Stop doing that if you don’t want to gain weight
Not true.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/science-reveals-w...
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5082693/
> discovered that certain Russian populations had large intestines that were about 57 centimeters longer on average than those of certain Polish populations. Because the final stages of nutrient absorption occur in the large intestine, a Russian eating the same amount of food as a Pole is likely to get more calories from it. People also vary in the particular enzymes they produce. By some measures, most adults do not produce the enzyme lactase, which is necessary to break down lactose sugars in milk. As a result, one man's high-calorie latte is another's low-calorie case of the runs.
> Call out: Germ-free mice can eat more and gain less weight than conventional mice