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

271–280 of 284 posts

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

#271

Post by Aaargh20318 »

at_compile_time wrote: post #254
Aaargh20318 wrote: post #223

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.

There's vegan food, the processed, pale imitations of animal products you'll find in the health food aisle, and there's vegan food: rich, hearty vegetable and bean soup, fresh rustic sourdough bread, and vegetables roasted until they caramelize. Most people would think these foods boring, but that's because they've only ever had the shitty, mass-produced versions.

> rich, hearty vegetable and bean soup

Add some fried bacon bits and tell me it's not infinitely better for it.

> fresh rustic sourdough bread

Which is great on its own, but much better with some butter and ham.

> vegetables roasted until they caramelize

Which is a great side dish next to a good steak.

Nothing wrong with vegetables, but none of these things are as satisfying as they would be combined with some animal products.

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

#272

Post by Aaargh20318 »

Snow_Falls wrote: post #229
Aaargh20318 wrote: post #223

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.

Good example. Fries used to be (when I was a kid) deep fried in beef tallow. Nowadays it's usually plant based fats and while still good, it's not nearly as good as those fried in beef tallow.

Also, fries need mayo, which is made with eggs.

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

#273

Post by Aaargh20318 »

hnra wrote: post #251
Snow_Falls wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Chips are vegan you know. As is most sauce.

Interestingly (at least in Sweden) most chips used to not be vegan, but it's getting better. A lot of chips contain animal based flavor enhancers.

> A lot of chips contain animal based flavor enhancers.

I think this is mainly as a response to people using plant based fats for deep frying. Traditionally they were fried in beef tallow, no need for any flavour enhancers if you fry them in beef fat.

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

#274

Post by Viliam1234 »

terryf wrote: post #200
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 first 43 years of my life I was kind of always overweight. Not always obese but there were periods. I've also always known that it would be healthier to have less fat, so it was always a thing on my mind. But, I was also always hungry. Mostly not starving, but just hungry. I could eat a big meal, that made my stomach feel physically full, even painfully so and still have the feeling of hunger. Of course, I al…

> Some time ago I took ozempic for the first time and that's when I realized that yes, in fact, it is possible to eat a salad and feel satisified and full after that.

I am currently taking semaglutide, and it's exactly the same.

Previously I suffered a lot with little effect. And everyone was giving me advice how I simply need to stop being lazy. Now I am losing almost 1 kg a week with zero suffering. The difference is not that I suddenly have more willpower; the difference is that I no longer have to spend all of it on fighting my hunger.

(By the way, it is also possible to have an opposite problem. I know a guy who is thin and wants to gain a little more weight, but he can't, because after he eats a little he feels so full that he is unable to eat more.)

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

#275

Post by waterheater »

mrmlz wrote: post #267
HEmanZ wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You will lose weight, in fact if you cut to 0 for long enough you are guaranteed to lose all soft tissue weight. Can I recommend you the “0 calories till you die” diet? The issue is that: - many people can cut from a diet of 2200 calories per day to 1800 calories per day and pretty quickly and sustainably lose weight. This kind of calorie reduction is very manageable, and anyone who has lost weight this way starts sa…

I get what you are saying. And you put forward a nice argument. The problem is that the ANTI-CICO-Crowd takes the stance that "CICO WONT WORK BECAUSE MY CO IS REDUCED HAH TAKE THAT CICO-FUCKTARDS" Which is stupid. If you want to loose weight and maintain a reasonable BMI during the long run you need 2 things. 1) A healthy diet, if you are in America this requires a bit of planning, if you live in Europe its easier. L…

Diet and exercise are indeed the keys to weight loss.

By focusing exclusively on CICO, one dismisses the fact that people dislike feeling hungry. To say it's simply an issue of willpower dismisses the importance role of hormones in driving behavior. When it comes to weight loss, some people are dominated by their hormonal responses, while others have more regulated responses.

I think I've found a good analogy: advocating CICO as primary strategy to lose weight is like saying all you need to do to complete a road track is to drive forward and stay on the track. The track shape analogizes to the unique dynamics of a person's hormonal feedback loops. Completing the race analogizes to hitting a weight loss goal, while going for fastest lap time is like a doing a 30-day weight loss challenge.

There's roughly 8 billion unique tracks in the world. Some tracks may be a drag strip, others may be Nurburgring-style circuits, and an unlucky few get the Baja 1000. Virtually everyone rides a normal car with gas, brakes, and a steering wheel, though performance characteristics do vary. At all times, you are the only driver on the track. Completing a drag strip track is trivial: just drive straight. Some tracks (like a NASCAR circuit) have banked turns which allow for high speeds with minimal focus on turning or braking. Many tracks, however, require different strategies. As an example, you MUST brake at turns on the Nurburgring because failure to break WILL cause you to leave the track, potentially causing a spinout or even a crash. If a racer aims for a specific lap time, they'll need to maintain a minimum average speed across the lap, which requires learning optimal driving, turning, and braking strategies specific to that course.

I think you can mine this analogy for more insight, but the primary point is: CICO is in all weight loss strategies, but because of personal hormone dynamics, not all weight loss strategies can be CICO.

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

#276

Post by vkazanov »

SV_BubbleTime wrote: post #266
vkazanov wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> It doesn't have to be painful! Agreed; but it is work. And for a great many people, that is an issue.

As many other things in life it cab be seen as work.

My journey to effective body weight control was 10 years long. Misinformation is everywhere these days...

But... it doesn't have to be hard. For me gamification of the calorie couting game and step counting worked surprisingly well.

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

#277

Post by CooCooCaCha »

F-W-M wrote: post #212
faeriechangling wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have a history of scale measurements with body fat shooting down and muscle mass going up that would disagree. If I'm doing muscle hypertrophy, I'm burning more calories, but I'm not necessarily eating more. You might need to put on some fat to gain muscle EFFICIENTLY, but it's not a requirement for putting muscle on at all.

Putting on muscle surely takes way more energy than maintaining it.

Lifting weights actually burns very few calories.

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

#278

Post by DiscourseFan »

chiefalchemist wrote: post #235
DiscourseFan wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Its not happening now, but I don't think its reasonable to expect that food shortages won't be a norm in the coming years if there isn't serious political change in the world.

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

#279

Post by SV_BubbleTime »

rustcleaner wrote: post #104
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…

Ah, moralism.

As opposed to the immoralism that has been making us fatter and fatter?

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

#280

Post by tlow »

tlow wrote: post #255
terryf wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Your toxic attitude illustrates your counter argument rather than you argument. 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.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?si=_fjTdiTLWjMGvdQb&v=84dYijIp...

further evidence refuting your claims

Post reply on HN