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

161–170 of 284 posts

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

#161

Post by paulpauper »

liamwire wrote: post #155
paulpauper wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

100 kcal is ~0.5 kg of fat per month, or 6 kg per year. Read that again. Six kilograms, per year. Every year. Given a person consuming near their total daily energy expenditure, that’s the difference between losing almost 20 kg since the start of COVID, and gaining 20 kg. Small changes over time compound in unintuitive ways, which is all the more reason not to dismiss them so flippantly.

But bodybuilders gain a lot of fat offseason even despite having lots of muscle mass.

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

#162

Post by refurb »

aantix wrote: post #147
paulpauper wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So why is obesity getting worse recently when Adenoviruses has always existed?

A hypothesis is outlined in the article I linked to above. https://www.geneticlifehacks.com/weight-loss-genetics-obesit... "If the adenovirus infections are playing a role in our obesity epidemic, this would need to be due to infections rising, starting around the early 1980s, when obesity levels started steadily increasing. I mentioned above that obesity has doubled since 1980 — and that adenovirus seropositivity ha…

Yet obesity rates vary from very high globally. You'd expect a virus to eventually infect everyone.

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

#163

Post by waterheater »

screye wrote: post #154
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…

CICO works quite well at the extremes. It's effectiveness varies, but it is directionally correct. If someone is sitting at a 35+ BMI, then their caloric intake is so out of whack, that CICO helps ground them. Similarly, an anorexic who starves gets a clear directive for increasing weight by increasing calories. CICO also promotes calorie general calorie comparison. It helps you understand that a milkshake has the sa…

The key insight from leptin is that the carbohydrates in the milkshake actually causes weight gain, not the calories. Yes, you do need to know how many calories your specific body needs to properly operate. For example, taller people require more calories than shorter people. However, obesity is a hormonal issue stemming from leptin resistance, not a caloric intake issue.

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

#165

Post by Llamamoe »

tlow wrote: post #159

I'm a participant in runner groups. I was surprised to meet several exceptional runners with stories of moving from very unhealthy/overweight to their current level of marathoner+. Several of them had success not just with intermittent fasting, but prolonged fasting. Humans can run when they feel like you have no energy. It's hard to believe that this isn't a psychological and behavioral issue: >A 30 percent reductio…

> For the rest, are they 100% committed?

In poor health, willpower often fails long before physical performance, and there are many different possible barriers, like struggle to eat properly, poor nasal breathing, general fatigue, poor posture and running form, etc.

Personally, I can run for a longer time, but between having to push through mental fatigue and very poor nasal breathing, it's an extremely unpleasant, aversive experience. Even when I can do it, it's really harsh on me.

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

#166

Post by com2kid »

arcticbull wrote: post #127
com2kid wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Marathon runners apparently lose about 1lb, 50% of which is water. People doing those bike races lose tons of weight, both muscle and fat. That is the flip side of going balls to the way hard, it is easy to start eating into muscle, which is fine now and then for an event, but as part of a regular training regime it isn't the best idea. All of these factors are why the advice "you cannot outrun a fork" is true for th…

> Marathon runners apparently lose about 1lb, 50% of which is water. Yeah, you use about 100kcal running a mile, so 26mi gets you around 2/3 of a pound of fat. This is why I said to lose 10lbs you'd have to run from SF to LA, which is about 400mi. Without eating more than baseline. The problem isn't the micro. Yes, if you exercise a ton without compensatory eating and in excess of the expected drop in BMR that produc…

Yes, improved cardio results in a lower resting heart rate, which reduces BMR. Resting heart rate only gets as low as the 50s though, then it stops going down.

> Your body has a weight set point like it has a temperature set point.

And more recent studies have shown how to change it.

Eat at a moderate deficit for 4 months, then take up to 2 more months carefully eating at maintenance. Rinse and repeat to keep losing weight. This avoids the problems you are talking about.

But if someone has 100 lb to lose they don't want to hear "lose 1 lb a week for 4 months, then don't lose any weight for 2 months, repeat for a few years." Adherence to such a plan will be terrible, but it'd work.

Calorie cycling, as described in the video I linked to twice in this thread, also avoids the problems, and Dr. Mike explains how calorie cycling prevents the problems with hormone levels that a long term deficit can create.

Also

> Yeah, you use about 100kcal running a mile, so 26mi gets you around 2/3 of a pound of fat.

This is why I'm not a fan of running. I have recorded workouts (HR chest strap) of me burning 500 calories / hour.

Then again when I'm in shape (currently recovering from a rib injury....) I spend an hour with my heart rate in the 150s to low 160s on a 3-1 interval cycle.

Also it won't be 2/3 a lb of fat, it'll be carbs at first, some fat, and at those calorie burn numbers, some muscle mass as well.

(This is where the keto people jump in, but sadly research studies on high level athletes who are long term keto adapted doing intense stuff are hard to come by)

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

#167

Post by vkazanov »

thefz wrote: post #74
vkazanov wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fully agree. 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

Not even that, if you change what you eat, you can have a dramatic effect as well. Try cutting out carbs and sugar as much as possible, results in two weeks. Changing when you eat is a factor too.

I would suggest to be careful with cutting out things, this leads to bouncing back, like all dramatic changes.

I noticed that carbs such as bread or pasta really help with food satisfaction, unlike fat-intence or protein foods.

Remove sugar in secondary things: tea, coffee, soda. Understand the calorie count in carbs such as chips. East to the mild calorie deficit. Compensate with moderate excercise. And so on, setup new dietary habits one by one.

It doesn't have to be painful!

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

#168

Post by waterheater »

paulpauper wrote: post #134
waterheater wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just looked up his book "The Obesity Code"; not sure if that's the one you're thinking of. Dr. Fung says obesity is a basically a hormonal issue, not a caloric issue. He discusses a "causality test": "If we inject this hormone into people, they must gain weight". According to Dr. Fung, leptin and ghrelin don't pass this test, but insulin and cortisol do. Still, leptin and insulin appear to have a close relationship.…

Then why are so many people who are insulin resistant overweight? Yet people with type 1 diabetes tend to be thin. I don't think the connection between insulin and weight is well known, assuming one even exists. It's a basic CICO problem. Whether there is insulin resistance or sensitivity does not change this much. IF his theories actually worked, they would work on general population at fixing obesity, but there is…

According to this article [1], many people with type 1 diabetes are also overweight. In fact, the article cites a research study showing that, for those with type 1 diabetes, higher blood glucose levels corresponded to higher weight gain. Clearly, this weight gain isn't CICO-related but is actually related carbohydrates.

As far as I understand, people with type 2 diabetes (insulin resistance) have excess glucose in their bloodstream, which becomes easily stored as body fat. Type 2 diabetes seems particularly caused by eating excessive amounts of carbs over a long period of time.

In both cases, excessive carbs leads to obesity. The type of calories matters more for obese people trying to lose weight than for healthy people maintaining their weight.

[1] https://www.dbl-diabetes.com/all-about-diabetes/food/type-1-...

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

#169

Post by com2kid »

waterheater wrote: post #160
voisin wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You focus on carbs specifically, but IF is about all calories being eliminated for periods, and it doesn’t necessarily mean you eat plenty on the break days (if you take break days at all - some people exist on 16:8 or 20:4 or whatever perpetually). I think you have something important here but the wording is ambiguous and I am wondering if you can clarify your thinking? Are you saying only carbs matter with respect…

Thanks for asking. I'll first explain the process (because I want to highlight why IF matters), and then I'll answer your question directly. It's going to take a little bit to properly elaborate, but I believe it's worth your time to read. We first need to choose which of the following macronutrients contribute most to weight gain: protein, fat, or carbohydrates. Proteins (or, rather, amino acids) are not known for c…

> Intermittent fasting should work as long as the specific protocol doesn't decrease leptin levels such that the obese body enters starvation mode. In my opinion, the most workable approach for people is to try their best to completely eliminate carbs Monday-Friday, eat all the carbs they want on the weekends, and do the bare minimum of a 10-minutes HIIT routine every other day.

This is just calorie cycling with extra steps.

It doesn't honestly matter if it is 5 days on, 2 days off, or 2 months on, 2 weeks off. It is up to a person's individual biology. When the scale stops moving, up calorie intake to the extent that the scale doesn't move up more than a smidge, wait a bit, then drop calories again.

TKD, CKD, intermittent fasting, dirty keto, keto with a once a month weekend pizza binge, whatever, almost any combo of "eat less for awhile, then eat normal for little bit, then eat less again".

Post reply on HN