61–70 of 284 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
The calorific difference between an active and resting brain in negligible
> 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…
As someone that took three semesters of thermo. I don't understand thermo in a deep way and they have a Randall Munroe School of Science understanding.
> 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.
Or you can find out for yourself. Touch your stomach during a run on a hot day. Its cold. Digestion is slowed and blood pulled away from the gut.
N of 1. But I do not eat much more on the days I run 15 miles on the trail vs days off. I do not need to due to these adaptations.
OT, 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.
If you guys suggest (or submit!) some good submissions and let me know what they are, I can put them in the second-chance pool, which will accelerate the refreshing of the front page.
OT, 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.
It looks to me like HN has been in a massive censorship mode in order to remove ongoing stories about the Bitcoin ETF, the SEC and the Twitter/X hack of the SEC's account. That story was on the top by far yesterday and then it suspiciously disappeared, after the comments took a very decidedly (and very deservingly, in my opinion) anti-Muskian bent. Since then there has been no story about the bitcoin ETF on the front…
(Btw HN has plenty of "anti-Muskian bent". A glut in fact! So I'm a bit mystified how that, of all things, would trigger suspicion)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
My weight floats in a range that's 40-50 pounds lighter today than I was a decade ago. It's because I eat less and move more. Physically, weight-loss is utterly trivial. Literally everything that people say works, does. Eat less calories, eat less sugar, cut out snacking, cut out liquid calories, cut out processed food, reduce carbs, literally any and all of those work, choose whichever is most appealing to the indiv…
The science of body metabolism is hard. But the rules for weight loss are simple: move more, eat less. For some people it's just "Move more, eat the same".
"Eat less" means "less calories", volume can be the same - really helps.
PS chips are a crime against humanity
> 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 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…
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…
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…
[1] https://diet.mayoclinic.org/us/blog/2024/how-does-ozempic-af...