The biggest losers: Metabolic damage or constrained energy? • Hacker News Board

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

#281

Post by paulpauper » Sun, Jan 14, 2024, 5:21 PM UTC

ninkendo wrote: post #244

paulpauper wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Now, whether it’s worth it for people, and whether the process is going to leave you utterly miserable or even extremely unhealthy as a result, I’m making no claim on. then CICO is not practical for weight loss. the "CO" becomes so small that you're screwed

If CICO isn't practical, what is ? If you're someone whose base metabolic rate plummets so much when dieting that you have to basically starve just to lose weight, you're probably screwed no matter what. Why single out CICO as not being practical for these people?

it works until you run against the limit where it's not possible to cut more calories but are still overweight. I think this is mediated by genes. Even willpower is genetic.

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

#282

Post by arcticbull » Mon, Jan 15, 2024, 6:27 AM UTC

slothtrop wrote: post #225

arcticbull wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Absolutely not true. Please cite a study that shows that exercise results in long-term sustained, clinically meaningful (>5%) weight loss. I have looked extensively and found none. And that's not for a lack of extant studies. > It's energy balance. But just as increasing satiety helps (through food choices), exercise is a strong predictor of long-term WL success. As far as I can see, there aren't any successful lon…

> Please cite a study that shows that exercise results in long-term sustained, clinically meaningful (>5%) weight loss Those are not the words I used. Please engage in good faith. More accurately: exercise in addition to energy balance (and with a modest caloric deficit) is a strong predictor of WL success. Check google scholar for meta reviews, I don't have this bookmarked and I'm not doing homework for you. If you…

I’ve done plenty of research and have not found a study that backs your position. If you’d like to have a discussion in good faith I’d like you to present some data. I did my research and presented my data. I don’t need to do your work for you. But if you dig something up I will happily read it.

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

#283

Post by arcticbull » Mon, Jan 15, 2024, 8:50 AM UTC

com2kid wrote: post #166

arcticbull wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> And more recent studies have shown how to change it.

If you have a link I'd love to read it.

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

#284

Post by watwut » Sat, Jan 20, 2024, 8:40 AM UTC

chiefalchemist wrote: post #149

cmrdporcupine wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Encountering someone with a serious anorexic eating disorder, or watching a loved one with cancer -- who was formerly slim and healthy -- whither away their insufficient fat reserves while under treatment... can put things in an entirely different perspective. My mild obesity doesn't seem so bad now. I'd rather have a little too much and be fine with it... than be psychologically tortured by it, or not have enough in…

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.

All of those are lesser problems then eating disorder or hunger. And eating disorders are on the rise, particularly among young people.