The biggest losers: Metabolic damage or constrained energy? • Hacker News Board

Re: The biggest losers: Metabolic damage or constrained energy?

#21

Post by pi-e-sigma » Wed, Jan 10, 2024, 7:46 PM UTC

belltaco wrote: post #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 th…

The only plausible explanation is that it's at a cost of other functions that are vital long-term but can be turned down temporarily? Such as reduced creation of new blood cells etc.

Re: The biggest losers: Metabolic damage or constrained energy?

#22

Post by netr0ute » Wed, Jan 10, 2024, 7:46 PM UTC

belltaco wrote: post #10

SV_BubbleTime wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 Pol…

The problem is, it still boils down to CICO due to thermodynamics. That means they're still eating too much given a certain amount of physical activity.

Re: The biggest losers: Metabolic damage or constrained energy?

#23

Post by csours » Wed, Jan 10, 2024, 7:47 PM UTC

chiefalchemist wrote: post #13

In the last few months I read two books on this topic, and both (if I recalled correctly) mentioned The Biggest Loser (or similar). Exercised - Daniel E Lieberman https://www.npr.org/2021/01/05/953249677/exercised-explains-... Burn - Herman Pontzer (who I believe was a student of Lieberman's) https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/new-human-metabol... Both a fairly dry and academic, but do get into the weeds if t…

Hungry Brain by Guyenet is huge recommend from me, and I second the recommendation for Burn

Re: The biggest losers: Metabolic damage or constrained energy?

#24

Post by paulpauper » Wed, Jan 10, 2024, 7:48 PM UTC

thaanpaa wrote: post #18

SV_BubbleTime wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

It requires that complexity because a metric shit ton of scientific research shows that it is more complicated than that. Permanent weight loss of more than ten pounds is nearly impossible from a scientific standpoint. The success rate after 5 years of weight loss is somewhere around 0.1%. You'd think that if it was as easy as everyone claims, more people would succeed. Heck, many people who have had gastric bypass s…

yup, the stomach gradually expands and the weight returns. Really hard to beat the body.

Re: The biggest losers: Metabolic damage or constrained energy?

#25

Post by bluescrn » Wed, Jan 10, 2024, 7:48 PM UTC

SV_BubbleTime wrote: post #3

paulpauper wrote: post #2

But 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…

The bad food habits are only going to get worse as meat+dairy is forcibly taken away from us by the powers that be.

Fewer options for an appealing 'proper meal', more temptation to eat sugar-laden junk.

Re: The biggest losers: Metabolic damage or constrained energy?

#26

Post by chiefalchemist » Wed, Jan 10, 2024, 7:49 PM UTC

belltaco wrote: post #10

SV_BubbleTime wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 Pol…

> "certain Russian populations"

Yes, of course. There are always outliers. But 50+% of the American population doesn't fall into this bucket, do they? Nor did they suddenly become that after they were born (i.e., obesity is a relatively new problem and not so much driven by DNA else why didn't it exist so much even just 50 yrs ago?).

We keep looking for all kinds of "answers" to obesity but we already have the one that works for most people most of the time:

Take in more calories than you burn, and those extra calories will become added weight.

That's it. It is *that* simple.

But people refuse to change their diet and/or lifestyle. In fact they're being told it's not their fault, as if someone else is responsible for what goes in their mouth and their sedentary lifestyles.

Re: The biggest losers: Metabolic damage or constrained energy?

#27

Post by jay_kyburz » Wed, Jan 10, 2024, 7:49 PM UTC

paulpauper wrote: post #14

SV_BubbleTime wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

For those contestants, weight loss was a full time job, and they had trainers and dieticians. How is that supposed to work for average people who have jobs and families or do not have a lot of willpower? Weight loss drugs can make it easier, which I am all for. Availing oneself of medical technology is not cheating; it's why the technology exists in the first place.

I agree that people should accept help if they need it, and should not feel ashamed for doing it, but having a strong willpower is a superpower that will help people in all aspects of their lives. I wonder if there are ways you can improve your willpower.

Re: The biggest losers: Metabolic damage or constrained energy?

#28

Post by renewiltord » Wed, Jan 10, 2024, 7:49 PM UTC

belltaco wrote: post #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 th…

The straightforward hypothesis would be "by reducing other body functions". For the duration of a Barry's Bootcamp class, my watch (probably over-)estimates my calorific expenditure at 1000 kcal. I know that right after that, I could probably not do too much Mathematics. Frequently, I encounter visual snow. But most of the time, I can do Mathematics.

And then there's healing, and saliva generation, and digestion, etc. I'm sure there's a lot of room for energy savings.

Re: The biggest losers: Metabolic damage or constrained energy?

#29

Post by paulddraper » Wed, Jan 10, 2024, 7:50 PM UTC

arjie wrote: post #20

paulpauper wrote: post #2

But 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…

FYI the show was not an incontrovertible failure for most contestants > Six years after the competition, median weight loss in 14 of "The Biggest Loser" participants was 13% ... That means at least 7 of them lost 13%. That's pretty significant. On Ozempic, average weight loss is 11% after six months. The show worked for the majority, and the difference between the people who it worked for and the people for whom it d…

Tbf they were massively obsese so they "should" have lost like 30% of their body weight.

But yes, 13% is significant.

Re: The biggest losers: Metabolic damage or constrained energy?

#30

Post by slothtrop » Wed, Jan 10, 2024, 7:50 PM UTC

The more frequent the dieting and steeper the caloric deficit, the worse metabolic adaptation gets, and the longer it takes to return to normal. As I understand it that's the result discerned from more than just one paper. Layne Norton explores this at length in his book Fat Loss Forever and yt channel.

The interesting thing in this link was the impact of change in exercise regimen. We know that exercise in itself can mitigate metabolic adaptation and leads to better outcomes, so maybe that should not be surprising (when they quit). The outsized impact is interesting. I wonder if those who sustained higher levels of exercise were actually in a steeper caloric deficit.

It's possible to lose weight sustainably even without exercise, so perhaps it's fair to say that if you're going to exercise, you best sustain it.

"damaged metabolism" was always kind of a semantic misnomer.