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

111–120 of 284 posts

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

#111

Post by notfed »

nradov wrote: post #102
throwup238 wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This approach is generally referred to the calorie-in/calorie-out (CICO) model. While true to an extent, this perspective is too simplistic, given one key fact: leptin is primarily produced in adipose tissue [1]. This fact means body fat is actually an endocrine system organ. This part I think needs more explanation. The reason calories-in/calories-out model is too simplistic (I would call it almost useless if not…

I am skeptical about reports of people who don't seem to gain much weight despite reading a lot of food. Most of those reports are merely anecdotes, or at best observational studies, and we know that most people are terrible at accurately tracking their caloric intake. More rigorous studies that involved putting subjects into locked environments and carefully measuring their intake have consistently found that the CI…

Anecdote: throughout my life, on many occasions, I've gone on multi-month binges of over-consuming massive quantities (1500+ cals) of desserts on a daily basis, while retaining a sedentary lifestyle. I always seem to weigh the same weight (skinny).

I realized I've been doing this over the past month. I weighed myself yesterday. Same weight.

Clearly something is different about my body, at least when it comes to sugar calories. It just doesn't seem to readily convert it to fat.

Is it really that hard to believe that some people's bodies actually behave a little more rationally than most?

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

#112

Post by soulbadguy »

ninkendo wrote: post #98
waterheater wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>If my diet jacks up my leptin levels such that I don’t lose weight, that will show up on the scale, and I have to adjust my calories down to compensate. >With this system I am guaranteed to lose weight so long as I don’t cheat. Unfortunately, that's just not true. Here's some great quotes from the book "The Obesity Code" (which I've just recently found and find an excellent book): >The abrupt increase in obesity beg…

whoosh That was the sound of you zooming right past my argument and pretending I was saying something I wasn’t. I’m not saying CICO is a good idea. I’m not saying it’s healthy. I’m not saying it’s easy. I’m not saying it will have a high chance of success vis a vis people actually being able to stick with it. I’m merely saying IF you do it right, THEN you will lose weight. This is trivially and tautologically true (t…

Well if CICO is not a good idea, not really healthy not really applicable to most people, then why bring it up when we are talking about solution to obesity ?

The main problem with CICO is that it is confusing the description of a process with an intervention designed to modify said process. Both things a very different.

> I’m merely saying IF you do it right, THEN you will lose weight... > that it still works despite all of this...

That's the first part, the "works" include the IF... You mixing efficacy and effectiveness is here.

> 1. Will it work if you do it exactly as directed?

Try to apply CICO to water and hydration level : You can modulate your hydration level by driking more or less. BUT, you can go above a certain level or below a certain level independent of how much you drink.

The problem with CICO's is you fail to realize that CI and CO are not the control variables and you might be getting the causality wrong.

Much in the same way that you can change the temperature of a room by changing the value on a thermometer... You can't change the body set point and fat disposition by "just" changing CI/CO.

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

#113

Post by nradov »

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…

And yet I personally know several people who have dropped more than 10 pounds, and have kept it off (or even lost more) for more than 5 years. The statistical odds are meaningless on an individual basis. In most cases what it took was hitting some sort of low point and then making a major, permanent lifestyle change such as committing to a daily exercise program or quitting drinking (alcoholic drinks contain a lot of empty calories).

https://www.hubermanlab.com/episode/david-goggins-how-to-bui...

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

#114

Post by [deleted] »

nradov wrote: post #102
throwup238 wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This approach is generally referred to the calorie-in/calorie-out (CICO) model. While true to an extent, this perspective is too simplistic, given one key fact: leptin is primarily produced in adipose tissue [1]. This fact means body fat is actually an endocrine system organ. This part I think needs more explanation. The reason calories-in/calories-out model is too simplistic (I would call it almost useless if not…

I am skeptical about reports of people who don't seem to gain much weight despite reading a lot of food. Most of those reports are merely anecdotes, or at best observational studies, and we know that most people are terrible at accurately tracking their caloric intake. More rigorous studies that involved putting subjects into locked environments and carefully measuring their intake have consistently found that the CI…

[deleted]

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

#115

Post by Angostura »

voisin wrote: post #61
Angostura wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The calorific difference between an active and resting brain in negligible

Interesting! Source?

Quite a few, but

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/thinking-hard-cal...

https://www.sciencefocus.com/the-human-body/does-concentrate...

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

#116

Post by nradov »

notfed wrote: post #111
nradov wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am skeptical about reports of people who don't seem to gain much weight despite reading a lot of food. Most of those reports are merely anecdotes, or at best observational studies, and we know that most people are terrible at accurately tracking their caloric intake. More rigorous studies that involved putting subjects into locked environments and carefully measuring their intake have consistently found that the CI…

Anecdote: throughout my life, on many occasions, I've gone on multi-month binges of over-consuming massive quantities (1500+ cals) of desserts on a daily basis, while retaining a sedentary lifestyle. I always seem to weigh the same weight (skinny). I realized I've been doing this over the past month. I weighed myself yesterday. Same weight. Clearly something is different about my body, at least when it comes to sugar…

It really is that hard to believe. Have you ever had a resting metabolic rate test? Have you ever gone several weeks carefully tracking everything you consume using an accurate food scale? I am skeptical that even during binge periods you were really taking in as many calories as you claim.

That said, there are limits to what the human digestive system can absorb from a single meal. Binge eaters do sometimes exceed that limit and just poop out the excess without storing it as fat.

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

#117

Post by hombre_fatal »

notfed wrote: post #111
nradov wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am skeptical about reports of people who don't seem to gain much weight despite reading a lot of food. Most of those reports are merely anecdotes, or at best observational studies, and we know that most people are terrible at accurately tracking their caloric intake. More rigorous studies that involved putting subjects into locked environments and carefully measuring their intake have consistently found that the CI…

Anecdote: throughout my life, on many occasions, I've gone on multi-month binges of over-consuming massive quantities (1500+ cals) of desserts on a daily basis, while retaining a sedentary lifestyle. I always seem to weigh the same weight (skinny). I realized I've been doing this over the past month. I weighed myself yesterday. Same weight. Clearly something is different about my body, at least when it comes to sugar…

You need more than vibes to know how many calories you're eating. Unless you have Cronometer / calorie tracker receipts, I would dismiss your calorie estimations and so should you.

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

#118

Post by soulbadguy »

nradov wrote: post #102
throwup238 wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This approach is generally referred to the calorie-in/calorie-out (CICO) model. While true to an extent, this perspective is too simplistic, given one key fact: leptin is primarily produced in adipose tissue [1]. This fact means body fat is actually an endocrine system organ. This part I think needs more explanation. The reason calories-in/calories-out model is too simplistic (I would call it almost useless if not…

I am skeptical about reports of people who don't seem to gain much weight despite reading a lot of food. Most of those reports are merely anecdotes, or at best observational studies, and we know that most people are terrible at accurately tracking their caloric intake. More rigorous studies that involved putting subjects into locked environments and carefully measuring their intake have consistently found that the CI…

They have been some studies where they showed that NEAT (Non-exercise activity thermogenesis) varies widely acros individual and even with the same individual at different time. I think variation as wide as 1500 have been observed. Enough to explain the people who eat a lot but don't gain weight .

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

#119

Post by nradov »

com2kid wrote: post #110
arcticbull wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. Exercise is for muscle gain and general health, not for weight loss. You have to exercise a truly absurd about to burn enough calories to lose any meaningful amount of weight. You'd have to run from SF to LA to lose 10lbs, and that's assuming you eat nothing else to comp…

> You have to exercise a truly absurd about to burn enough calories to lose any meaningful amount of weight. I mean, kinda, sorta? I can go to the gym and burn 1000 kcals, as measured by a chest strap. I used to do this 3x a week. That is nearly 1lb of fat burned through just exercise. In the context of someone who needs to lose 50 pounds, 1 pound seems small, but in reality 1-2lb of weight loss a week through diet i…

I generally agree, but the weight loss seen during endurance sports events is mostly just dehydration. I can do an Olympic distance triathlon and burn fewer calories than are stored in 1 pound of fat tissue (and I'm taking in carb supplements throughout the race).

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

#120

Post by [deleted] »

com2kid wrote: post #110
arcticbull wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. Exercise is for muscle gain and general health, not for weight loss. You have to exercise a truly absurd about to burn enough calories to lose any meaningful amount of weight. You'd have to run from SF to LA to lose 10lbs, and that's assuming you eat nothing else to comp…

> You have to exercise a truly absurd about to burn enough calories to lose any meaningful amount of weight. I mean, kinda, sorta? I can go to the gym and burn 1000 kcals, as measured by a chest strap. I used to do this 3x a week. That is nearly 1lb of fat burned through just exercise. In the context of someone who needs to lose 50 pounds, 1 pound seems small, but in reality 1-2lb of weight loss a week through diet i…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN