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

The biggest losers: Metabolic damage or constrained energy?

physiqonomics.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 284 posts

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

#31

Post by DiscourseFan »

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…

I've managed to keep a good amount of weight off for years, but only with vigilance, because even a couple weeks of unrestrained eating can be disastrous. I'm not at my lowest ever weight, that was during COVID, when I got hit with a nice Δ-variant, and lost my appetite for a month before force-feeding myself back to normal. That was the my first experience with truly unhealthy weight loss, and made me realize that while being nice and slim is good in the short term, in truth we aren't so far from the terrifying infectious diseases and famines that plagued humanity even last century, and if you aren't running around all the time desperate for something to eat, you probably don't need to be doing much moving anyway. Thinner people are healthier out of evolutionary necessity, the environment is working against them! It's desperation, all the other benefits of exercise still come to the heavy.

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

#32

Post by paulpauper »

CooCooCaCha wrote: post #5

Metabolic 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.

an extra 10 pounds of muscle, which is average for someone who has never trained, maybe burns only 100 extra calories. The problem also is that muscle hypertrophy also entails gaining some fat too.

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

#33

Post by awfulneutral »

pi-e-sigma wrote: post #21
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.

Couldn't your body burn more or fewer calories passively and release the energy as heat? Or you could make more or fewer micro movements throughout the day, in a way that adds up to whatever your body thinks energy expenditure should be?

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

#34

Post by ASalazarMX »

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…

That could be explained if you start with an inefficient body. If you suddenly start running 5K races, you'll likely won't finish the first one, and it will hurt a lot the following days. As your body becomes used to the new activity, you'll start finishing your races and getting less drained afterwards.

You're improving your fuel economy.

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

#35

Post by cbsmith »

slothtrop wrote: post #30

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 ca…

Wait. What this analysis seems to suggest is that the exercise (as long as it is a significant increase) actually encourages metabolic adaption.

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

#36

Post by chiefalchemist »

csours wrote: post #23
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

I'll check that out. Thanks.

Speaking of the brain, I've often wondered if less focus and thinking is also contributing to weight gain. The brain is responsible for ~20% of resting metabolic rate. If the brain consumes just a bit less calories per day, that's also going to add up.

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

#37

Post by paulpauper »

jay_kyburz wrote: post #27
paulpauper wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I wonder if there are ways you can improve your willpower.

stimulants

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

#38

Post by goostavos »

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…

Sigh. Exhibit A of lazy internet arguing.

The things you linked are completely irrelevant. First link: The calorie counts of food are wrong? Sure. Absolutely. No shock there. Treat them as rough estimates.

Second link: different people are different? Whoa. Wow. Oh man, mind blown.

What you naively describe as "not true", the universe itself would describe as bedrock reality.

Despite the bad scientism (i.e. coping) everyone hides behind, nothing changes the fact that if you burn more calories than you consume, you'll loose weight.

If you aren't loosing weight AND counting all of your calories, guess what: you've counted wrong. Dial them back more. Keep dialing back until results are achieved. The gym bros have truly found This One Weird Trick that works 100% of the time.

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

#39

Post by paulpauper »

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 body burns fewer calories later, like on immune system and digestion and other things

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

#40

Post by goostavos »

louwrentius wrote: post #17
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…

Sure, blame the people. Fat shame all you want. Problem solved. Done. It's so easy, just stop eating so much. As if fat people haven't heard that one a bilion times over. As if fat people havent tried time and time again. Personal responsibility! you put that stuff in your mouth, rah! rah! Personally I'm actually sick of people having no eye for the bigger picture, for many systemic reasons and larger society, and ju…

But... Not eating works, though?

How are statements about reality fat shaming?

Post reply on HN