251–260 of 284 posts
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 It's also likely that they simply eat less because vegan food just isn't very good.
Chips are vegan you know. As is most sauce.
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…
Could it be muscle loss?
"Protein-deficient vegans" is a joke among omnivores, who assume that anyone not eating meat must be malnourished, and among vegans, who find ignorance of that magnitude hilarious.
Thoughts on Adenoviruses as being a root cause of obesity? https://www.geneticlifehacks.com/weight-loss-genetics-obesit... "Interestingly, animal studies show that the gain in fat mass is not due to eating more or moving less… Animals ate the same amount of chow, but those infected with adenovirus 36 increased fat tissue by 60-80%." https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17135605/ "A 2004 twin study showed that the Ad-36 an…
In some cases it may be the root cause, but... is 42% of the US population infected by adenovirus? I think it's unlikely. In my opinion, it's mostly the excess carbohydrates now compared to what we ate 100 years ago. Occam's razor and all that.
"In the reviewed studies, there was a high prevalence of Adv36 in all age groups, which exceeded 64% among adults and 73% among children and adolescents with obesity and/or metabolic disorders. The vast majority of the reviewed studies have shown a statistically significant association between Adv36 and obesity, adiposity, and related alterations, whereas only a few studies presented divergent results."
Adenovirus 36 prevalence and association with human obesity: a systematic review
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…
> The correlation between vegans and health is muddied by the fact that vegans put far more thought into their diet than the average person It's also likely that they simply eat less because vegan food just isn't very good.
Most people would think these foods boring, but that's because they've only ever had the shitty, mass-produced versions.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
Well, thank you for telling me that I have understood my life all wrong. About 10 years ago I weighed 113kg. I decided to really tackle it hard and not give up. Threw out all the sugar at home and went on a weightwatchers diet. Over a period of 1.5 years I got my weight down to 97kg. It was very hard. It was a constant battle with hunger and feeling like crap. But I made it! I reached my goal and it was awesome! So I…
I am not giving you or anyone else advice. But the electro-chemical reaction is also happening in your mind and the software you choose to run there.
There is no finish line. Life is suffering.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Renaissance Periodization just did a video on calorie cycling https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QwZfryrVddY (the video is titled carb cycling, which he dismissed in the first few minutes and he moves on to calorie cycling) and in it he discusses some of the benefits and disadvantages of calorie cycling vs just eating at a deficit. The tl;dr is follow your body (e.g. not sleeping well, exhausted all the time, eat more f…
I highly recommend this article from the MacroFactor team on this: https://macrofactorapp.com/refeeds-diet-breaks/ Basically their view is that refeeding (aka cycling) probably doesn't do much physiologically speaking, but there may be advantages to adherence when people use diet breaks (typically longer than a cycle or refeed).
The problems I am seeing with all these studies is that the participates in the control groups (just regular dieting) are still losing weight throughout the study.
Instead, do a study where you have a bunch of people who are calorie restricted, and when the scale stops moving, have half the participants do a re-feed before trying to cut again, and the other half keep soldiering on as is.
Or to put it another way, we all know people plateau with diets. Running a study that where participants do not hit a plateau, and instead having science just go "oh well! Sorry can't help you!" aren't of much use.
(It is funny because the author of that article starts out talking about plateaus, and then runs a bunch of studies that.... don't encounter plateaus.)
I've met people, who are grossly obese, who after going from 400lb to 300lb, find that they aren't losing weight at even 2500 kcals a day. So they drop it to 2000kcal. 25 pounds later the scale stops, and they try 1500kcal, feel like shit, and they give up. Math says at 250lb they should be shedding tons of weight at 1500kcal, but they aren't.
I want to see a study that investigates that, instead of "oh someone lost 10kg, woohoo!"
10-15kg is a lot of weight to lose, but almost any dietary intervention will pull of a 10-15kg weight loss (which is what all the studies looked at show!)
> Theoretically, reverse dieting should be most effective in scenarios where metabolic adaptation is most extreme, and to my knowledge, the Minnesota Starvation Experiment reports some of the most dramatic metabolic adaptation ever observed in the scientific literature.
Except it was taking people at healthy weights and having them drop to an unhealthy low weight, and then having them regain weight.
The situation we are faced with now is people at unhealthy high weights, with all the hormonal problems that entails, losing a bunch of weight, and messing up their hormones in a different way, and now the goal is to stabilize their body at that new lower weight.
> As previously discussed, the available research hints at a number of subjective and behavioral improvements related to hunger, satiety, diet adherence, mood, and perceived energy level, in addition to improved performance
All of those "subjective" feelings have basis on the body's physiological systems. With better measurements, the underlying cause of those "subjective feelings" can be found.
Edit: FWIW I think the extreme weights we are seeing in developed societies have multiple underlying causes, and that pure dietary interventions are not the solution for everyone. From gut microbiome to environmental pollutants, to the # of ads for fast food on TV, IMHO the problem is multi-causal.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Perhaps you didn't read what I wrote. You really need to look at the parameters (as well as the data). A 5% weight loss for a 200-pound person equals 10 pounds. Anyone can achieve this by following a fad diet for a week or two.
Here is what you wrote: > 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%. Your sources indicate that your initial statement was wrong by a factor of ~100 at least.
The majority of these studies consider a weight loss of 10 pounds over two years to be successful. If you start with 100 pounds or more, that is almost nothing.
Many of them consider anyone who starts at 300, loses 100, and gains 80 back in five years to be a huge success. Is it really?
In healthcare, an obese person is typically considered successful if they lose more than 30% of their body weight permanently. This is extremely unlikely to happen without surgery or medication.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In some cases it may be the root cause, but... is 42% of the US population infected by adenovirus? I think it's unlikely. In my opinion, it's mostly the excess carbohydrates now compared to what we ate 100 years ago. Occam's razor and all that.
From the article: "The obvious reason for obesity is eating too much sugar and refined carbohydrates. But statistically how much does this add to the risk of obesity? A 2019 meta-analysis of different food intake studies and weight gain showed that consumption of refined grains increased the relative risk of obesity by 5% and the consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages increased the relative risk of obesity by 10%.…
From what I can gather, infection with adenovirus-36 basically improves glycemic control... ostensibly a good thing? I couldn't find whether adenovirus-36 was a persistent infection, or whether it only affected patients for a short time, but then they failed to lose weight after the infection had cleared.
This author states that the reason for obesity is eating too much sugar and refined carbohydrates. Why is there a distinction between refined and unrefined carbohydrates? There's no explanation for this, it's treated as given. It's the same chemical makeup, all that changes is the glycemic index. In other words, it's the same poison, it just takes longer to absorb.
The linked study backs this up, but makes no sense from a glycemic load point of view. I notice that vegetables are lumped in one category. Potatoes are not the same as celery. As are fruits, yet blueberries and mangoes have a vastly different sugar content. To add insult to injury, this is a meta-analysis of observational studies, which are notoriously unreliable.
Let me back all this up with a different meta-analysis of interventional trials which treats all carbohydrates the same.
Ketogenic Diet Benefits to Weight Loss, Glycemic Control, and Lipid Profiles in Overweight Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trails
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9408028/
Thanks for the discussion :)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you have first-hand experience with being overweight and/or losing a significant amount of weight? I think you're vastly overestimating how much of this (particularly "calories out") is under voluntary control. We're discussing an article that showed that extra active calories burned tend to lead to a compensatory reduction in resting metabolism. And there are some very strong psychological/physiological drives th…
yup. many of these people who are on weight loss drugs already tried dieting and it did not work.