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

231–240 of 284 posts

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

#231

Post by aantix »

treyd wrote: post #144
paulpauper wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

With something as essential as metabolism it's likely to be a combination of factors. Some might not cause a change when present in isolation but cause a large change when present simultaneously.

As she outlines in the article:

"Adenovirus infection statistically increases the risk of obesity quite a bit more than eating sugar, refined carbs, not exercising, or eating too much omega-6 fat. However, stacking all of those reasons together likely adds up to quite a bit of weight gain as well. There is no simple answer, but rather is a complex picture of multiple reasons for weight gain."

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

#232

Post by aantix »

inglor_cz wrote: post #222
aantix wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is genetic susceptibility, as outlined in the article.

The slimmest country on Earth is probably Viet Nam. Travelers from all around the world tend to remark that once they arrive to Viet Nam, they start losing weight effortlessly. Upon arrival to the US, the very opposite tends to happen. Adenovirus/population genetics must be a minor influence compared to cuisine.

As stated in the article:

"Adenovirus infection statistically increases the risk of obesity quite a bit more than eating sugar, refined carbs, not exercising, or eating too much omega-6 fat. However, stacking all of those reasons together likely adds up to quite a bit of weight gain as well. There is no simple answer, but rather is a complex picture of multiple reasons for weight gain."

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

#233

Post by glonq »

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.

I applied CICO to lose weight and keep it off.

It's sad to see what nonsense (like "metabolic damage") people will invent to justify failing at weight loss (or worse, never even attempting weight loss).

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

#234

Post by chiefalchemist »

agos wrote: post #210
chiefalchemist wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed. But that's a weight *loss* issue. The more basic "Why has there been a rise in obesity?" keeps being asked, and that's already answered. The idea that people are falling asleep next to a pod and waking up with too much weight for some mysterious reason is a false narrative. It's not making anyone any more aware or any healthier.

> The more basic "Why has there been a rise in obesity?" keeps being asked, and that's already answered. to my knowledge, it has not. Researchers are still trying to understand why.

That's a different why. That a:

Why are people eating so many calories?

Why aren't people getting off the sofa and moving?

The actual "mechanic" of weight gain are well known. That's not up for debate. But for some reason, it is. And the gains keep on coming.

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

#235

Post by chiefalchemist »

DiscourseFan wrote: post #153
chiefalchemist wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In those two case, sure extra weight seems like a positive. But have back problems? Or leg issues? And that extra weight will make you even less mobile. Can't move? That'll get you bed sores and perhaps eventually an infection. The body didn't evolve to carry so much extra weight. You're on the wrong side of history.

Don't bring history into this! In any case, thousands of years of evolution, boom and bust cycles of metabolism, show that having excess fat stores is very, very useful when you have to go months without regular sustenance. Those are the people we're descended from, not the ones who have "fast" metabolisms. It leads to problems later in life, sure, but not before one reproduces!

> "Don't bring history into this"

Why? How we came to be impacts how we deal with today. This is one of the problems...denial. That is, denial that where we came from has little to do with where we are.

> "when you have to go months without regular sustenance"

And this happens how often in modern times? Most people can't skip a meal, let alone go a couple of days or more without eating.

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

#236

Post by lookACamel »

carlmr wrote: post #218
Snow_Falls wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The correlation between vegans and health is muddied by the fact that vegans put far more thought into their diet than the average person. Its entirely possible not eating meat is orthoganal to health and its just that they actually care about what they eat. No evidence of this, but I also suspect that vegans care more about their health in other weights too (e.g. exercising, not smoking, etc). If they can keep up wi…

Not just care about health, but they're on a very restrictive diet. Many of my vegan friends can barely find something to eat when we're going out. As an omnivore you can eat anywhere, as a vegetarian, you can eat almost anywhere. As a vegan, at least in Germany, it's still somewhat restrictive. If you're consistently refraining from eating, then you're likely to just consume a lot less calories. Another factor here…

> they're on a very restrictive diet.

I'd argue it's basically entirely this. The modern food environment is incredible (over)-stimulating. Food is ubiquitous and abundant, with a dizzying array of novel variations. Food cues enticing you to eat are ever present.

Being vegan has the accidental side effect of counteracting much of this. A lot of the built-up food infrastructure suddenly becomes non-existent.

Imagine. You're walking into a busy mall in a foreign country. On your left, there's a café advertising a variety of tempting pastries. Your sister told you about that cafe. She loves their cream cheese cake. To your right, the sizzling flames from a steakhouse grab your attention. Moving to another level, you spot an ice cream parlor showcasing a new flavor: Strawberry Daifuku. But all this has to wait, because you're heading straight for the ramen shop you've heard so much about. They're known for their amazing pork bone broth. It's why your foodie friends have chosen to meet up here.

Now if you were vegan, all of that is just ... gone. Possibly the foodie friends as well ;)

Non-vegans don't think about this but they recognize it subconsciously -- most non-vegans would balk at having to go vegan even for a short time, just due to the inconvenience alone.

Some of the aspects of the modern food environment come back when you figure out where to look of course, but even the even a savvy vegan consumer won't encounter the same level of choice, variety and catering and let's not forget cost-competitiveness that a modern omnivore experiences.

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

#237

Post by red-iron-pine »

inglor_cz wrote: post #222
aantix wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is genetic susceptibility, as outlined in the article.

The slimmest country on Earth is probably Viet Nam. Travelers from all around the world tend to remark that once they arrive to Viet Nam, they start losing weight effortlessly. Upon arrival to the US, the very opposite tends to happen. Adenovirus/population genetics must be a minor influence compared to cuisine.

could also be... the high humidity & heat, smaller portions of food (which are heavily fish and veg based), high rates of smoking, general poverty and simply eating less, etc.

I lost weight in Thailand and later in Australia, and it was mostly because of the heat, sweating a lot, and generally smaller meals. No magic secret here.

Plus the inevitable "Bali belly" that travelers get the first couple days there.

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

#238

Post by at_compile_time »

vallassy wrote: post #197
at_compile_time wrote: post #172

I can't remember the source, but I remember hearing that the two demographics in society who average at a healthy BMI were endurance athletes and vegans. I struggled through my 20s to keep my weight under 200 lbs at 6ft tall. Then I went vegan 4 years ago, and started running during the pandemic. Nothing crazy, just 5-8 km once or twice per week when it's nice out, and lots of beans and tofu in place of meat and dair…

Just be sure you're supplementing enough. If you've been vegan for 4 years, you're starting to enter the danger zone for running out of certain vitamins that your body stores. B12 is the big obvious one, but you should also check out vitamins K2 and A (beta-carotene is only converted by about 70% of people), as well as carnitine, zinc, iron and iodine.

I take zinc, B12, D, K2 and algal omega-3. B12 is the big one, you're just trading diabetes and heart disease risk for stroke risk without that one. And everyone in northern climes should be taking vitamin D. Our salt is iodized.

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

#239

Post by tlow »

ajb wrote: post #194
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…

With obesity there is a constant refrain that people should be able to deal with it by willpower alone. Here is an analogy to explain why this is unrealistic: A while back I had a massive immune reaction in my skin, which brought with it the constant urge to scratch. A lot of people idly comment that the solution is to just not scratch, but it turned out that I had a skin infection, and under those circumstances the…

You've missed my point entirely and moved to a different discussion. I am not arguing about will power. What do you think instinct is? Are we simply slaves to our desires? No. Yet many still feel this way.

Have you ever tried meditating? Is it easy to just sit?

TikTok users have a strong urge to watch more TikTok. Should they just give into their urge for a short term dopamine rush? Will it feel difficult to not listen to this urge? Can they overcome it or are they trapped forever?

"Now imagine how strong is the instinct to eat." Fasting is a methodology to reset your metabolism. Dopamine fasting is a way to reset your urge to doom scroll. Meditation is a way to clear your mind.

Metabolically fasting dramatically increases insulin sensitivity, has profound benefits and helps one to become a master of their urges. It is a practice, like dopamine fasting, meditation, anything else...

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

#240

Post by tlow »

terryf wrote: post #202
ajb wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

With obesity there is a constant refrain that people should be able to deal with it by willpower alone. Here is an analogy to explain why this is unrealistic: A while back I had a massive immune reaction in my skin, which brought with it the constant urge to scratch. A lot of people idly comment that the solution is to just not scratch, but it turned out that I had a skin infection, and under those circumstances the…

> There's a bit of cognitive dissonance in seeing a hugely fat person and trying to imagine that their nervous system is for some reason acting like they are starving. It's a lot easier to imagine that they just don't have the willpower to resist that extra snack, which is a situation a lot more familiar to most of us. But it seems likely that the further is more correct. yes, 100% this. Your analogy with scratching…

False premise. Fasting isn't forever, its for a set period of time. Running and fasting are very similar. When running you often feel the urge to stop and give up. You build up the strength over time to say no to that voice. Fasting is a method of short-term saying no to urges. As you learn to say no to that urge, you become better at saying no to that urge. A single prolonged fast can redefine ones relationship with eating. There are lots of reasons to eat, not all of them are the need for nutrition. There are lots of reasons to grab a phone, not all of them are necessary to function/social/work, yet many people feel the urge to pick up there phone 50+ times a day.
Post reply on HN