Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

It's not your age that's slowing your metabolism, new research says (2021)

cnn.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 123 posts

Re: It's not your age that's slowing your metabolism, new research says (2021)

#51

Post by raffraffraff »

throwaway22032 wrote: post #17
paulpauper wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think it's a s simple as inactivity. IF this were true, then being active would reverse the weight gains, but it does not, at least not for me and others. I was still as active in my 30s as I was in my late teens and 20s but still gained weight. Likewise, gyms are full of people in their 30s and 40s who are not losing weight despite regular attendance. Despite the popularity of fitness apps, people keep getti…

Counterpoint - everyone I know who counts calories is able to either lose or gain weight roughly according to their plan. This is borne out in essentially every sport which has weight classes at both the amateur and professional level. Part of becoming healthy is calibrating yourself against other healthy individuals. No, not genetic freaks, just that neighbour who actually looks after themselves.

My wife always says that her sister must have some type of "condition" that explains her obesity. PCOS, undiagnosed diabetes, etc. And I keep telling her that it's calories in vs calories out. Recently her sister got drunk with us and admitted candidly that she basically binge eats trash food, regularly eats McDonald's for dinner, and if she ever gets stomach cramps and bloating from overeating, the best "cure" is a litre of ice cream because it "helps settle her stomach". So yeah, no magic physics is happening here.

On the other hand me and the wife weigh out things like potatoes, rice, pasta and bread, eat all the fruit and veg we want and don't own a car. So we do minimum 25k steps per day, because we walk the dogs and then walk almost everywhere else we need to go, including buying groceries (which involves back-packing food about half a mile). I also run 3 to 4 times a week. Essentially, this is the same lifestyle I had when I was 18. And guess what? At 47 I'm wearing the same jeans size I wore at 18. It really is that simple.

What's hard? Trying to convince an obese lady who drives to the office, sits on her ass for 8 hours, eats chocolate bars and McDonald's for lunch and is too tired to use the gym, that her weight is 100% down to her life choices, and not magic.

Re: It's not your age that's slowing your metabolism, new research says (2021)

#52

Post by csa »

Detrytus wrote: post #48
csa wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Eating 2000 calories of carbs is super easy. Is it? That’s about 10 cups of cooked plain boiled rice. I think carbs only hit the “easy to hit 2k” mark when it’s sugar (maybe?) or when it’s added with fat, especially fried foods. > Eating 2000 calories of chicken breast is painfully hard. I think this is about 7 cups of boiled, skinless breast of chicken. I think this gets back to fat, or lack thereof. For me person…

>> Eating 2000 calories of carbs is super easy. > Is it? That’s about 10 cups of cooked plain boiled rice. Or two large milkshakes [1], or about 7 doughnuts or chocolate bars, such as Mars or Snickers, or about 500g of any random chocolate candies. [1] https://www.mcdonalds.com/ca/en-ca/product/triple-thick-milk...

> Or two large milkshakes, or about 7 doughnuts or chocolate bars

Plenty of fat contributing to the calorie count in all of those.

I did mention sugar is probably the easiest carb to consume large quantities of, but 2000 calories of even something carb heavy like frosted cake would be challenging for many people. You have to get back into heavy fat “cakes” like cheesecake before the quantity becomes less of an issue.

Re: It's not your age that's slowing your metabolism, new research says (2021)

#53

Post by throwaway22032 »

raffraffraff wrote: post #51
throwaway22032 wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Counterpoint - everyone I know who counts calories is able to either lose or gain weight roughly according to their plan. This is borne out in essentially every sport which has weight classes at both the amateur and professional level. Part of becoming healthy is calibrating yourself against other healthy individuals. No, not genetic freaks, just that neighbour who actually looks after themselves.

My wife always says that her sister must have some type of "condition" that explains her obesity. PCOS, undiagnosed diabetes, etc. And I keep telling her that it's calories in vs calories out. Recently her sister got drunk with us and admitted candidly that she basically binge eats trash food, regularly eats McDonald's for dinner, and if she ever gets stomach cramps and bloating from overeating, the best "cure" is a…

I hear you. When I was younger I used to try and convert everyone around me (if you want X, do Y). Back then it was personal finance stuff.

Now I just don't bother. My conclusion is that it's just some form of depression, learned helplessness, whatever. There are an infinite number of reasons why you or they are a special case. I don't let it get me down any more.

For what it's worth I don't think my lifestyle is at all "hardcore". I have a number for calories and protein that I try to hit, and I have numbers for lifts and cardio that I try to increase. That's it. I have a car, I eat fast food, I drink on nights out etc.

Re: It's not your age that's slowing your metabolism, new research says (2021)

#54

Post by dukeyukey »

8f2ab37a-ed6c wrote: post #7

You see this often with middle class city people in their late 20s and 30s. You go from being athletic in high school and walking all day in college to suddenly being in your prime dating age, regularly out eating and drinking with friends or dates, hitting 2-3 cocktails a few nights a week. You start investing more into your ultra-sedentary career, which you drive to, which constantly requires more of your time to g…

I dunno about this - at least here in the UK, London (jam-packed with that demographic, including me and most of my friends) is the fittest, least overweight part of the country, with among the highest life expectancy.

Re: It's not your age that's slowing your metabolism, new research says (2021)

#55

Post by pseudocomposer »

dukeyukey wrote: post #54
8f2ab37a-ed6c wrote: post #7

You see this often with middle class city people in their late 20s and 30s. You go from being athletic in high school and walking all day in college to suddenly being in your prime dating age, regularly out eating and drinking with friends or dates, hitting 2-3 cocktails a few nights a week. You start investing more into your ultra-sedentary career, which you drive to, which constantly requires more of your time to g…

I dunno about this - at least here in the UK, London (jam-packed with that demographic, including me and most of my friends) is the fittest, least overweight part of the country, with among the highest life expectancy.

Do you and your friends in London all drive to work? Or do you walk/metro?

The lifestyle shift the grandparent poster was referring to is typical of suburban and rural areas, but not really urban areas. I suspect people in more rural parts of the UK are very different from your London cohort.

Re: It's not your age that's slowing your metabolism, new research says (2021)

#56

Post by paulpauper »

pitdicker wrote: post #43
paulpauper wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think it's a s simple as inactivity. IF this were true, then being active would reverse the weight gains, but it does not, at least not for me and others. I was still as active in my 30s as I was in my late teens and 20s but still gained weight. Likewise, gyms are full of people in their 30s and 40s who are not losing weight despite regular attendance. Despite the popularity of fitness apps, people keep getti…

On average man burns ca. 2500 kcal per day, mostly in rest. One hour of reasonably intensive cardio burns 500~600 kcal. If you have two such workouts a week it comes down to an increased energy use of 2*600/(7*2500) = 7%. Or a large meal. Just looking at the numbers it seems spending some time at the gym is not going to do much for loosing weight. Or said differently: eating 7% less is easier. Of course cardio and st…

One hour of reasonably intensive cardio burns 500~600 kcal. If you have two such workouts a week it comes down to an increased energy use of 2600/(72500) = 7%. Or a large meal. Just looking at the numbers it seems spending some time at the gym is not going to do much for loosing weight. Or said differently: eating 7% less is easier.

Not sure about this. Herman Pontzer's work shows that the body adapts by burning fewer calories later, so your energy expenditure is the same. Burning 600 calories with exercise means burning 600 fewer later, like burning fewer calories during sleep or fidgeting less.

Re: It's not your age that's slowing your metabolism, new research says (2021)

#58

Post by nrdxp »

paulpauper wrote: post #14
8f2ab37a-ed6c wrote: post #7

You see this often with middle class city people in their late 20s and 30s. You go from being athletic in high school and walking all day in college to suddenly being in your prime dating age, regularly out eating and drinking with friends or dates, hitting 2-3 cocktails a few nights a week. You start investing more into your ultra-sedentary career, which you drive to, which constantly requires more of your time to g…

I don't think it's a s simple as inactivity. IF this were true, then being active would reverse the weight gains, but it does not, at least not for me and others. I was still as active in my 30s as I was in my late teens and 20s but still gained weight. Likewise, gyms are full of people in their 30s and 40s who are not losing weight despite regular attendance. Despite the popularity of fitness apps, people keep getti…

A lot of people put minimal possible effort in at the gym or other kinds of exercising.

I often see people "jogging" that are basically just walking with a bit of a skip, for example.

I believe this is correlated with diet, which most people think is just nutrition, but it's a lot more complex now. There are petrochemicals and toxins in basically everything, avoiding them is expensive and incredibly difficult and you will still inevitably be exposed. There are many of these chemicals that have been shown to have a direct correlation to slow metabolism, so it can make it seem to make everything more difficult if you are consuming large quantities of say, glyphosate.

Most people also don't realize that the bioavailability of food is important. Probiotics, enzymes, etc are usually completely dead or stripped by the time they reach your mouth after the highly processed pipeline.

Another note, there are literally thousands of micronutrients that we barely know anything, so that's also another variable. This is also just not looked at often, so you have to actually know to look to even understand their are natural compounds that may be useful, and then you have to deal with the quality control problem in the industry, and find a reliable, preferably third party tested supplier.

And also just discipline, which is harder when you don't have good nutrition, or your body is constantly processing mass amounts of toxic material. It also just requires willpower though, and applying it will build will to wade through the complex landscape of not poisoning yourself constantly. If you want to get ahead, you are gonna have to push yourself to an uncomfortable position.

Most folks would rather walk for 2 hours than do sprints for 5 minutes, even the the later has been shown to have significantly more effect on your metabolism, and requires much less time.

So in a way I agree, it's not as simple as just activity, it is moreso intentional activity at a level that is just above your comfort zone enough to make consistent progress, and hopefully you can do that without constantly consuming mass amounts of toxins that makes that whole process harder.

Re: It's not your age that's slowing your metabolism, new research says (2021)

#59

Post by mint2 »

paulpauper wrote: post #56
pitdicker wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On average man burns ca. 2500 kcal per day, mostly in rest. One hour of reasonably intensive cardio burns 500~600 kcal. If you have two such workouts a week it comes down to an increased energy use of 2*600/(7*2500) = 7%. Or a large meal. Just looking at the numbers it seems spending some time at the gym is not going to do much for loosing weight. Or said differently: eating 7% less is easier. Of course cardio and st…

One hour of reasonably intensive cardio burns 500~600 kcal. If you have two such workouts a week it comes down to an increased energy use of 2 600/(7 2500) = 7%. Or a large meal. Just looking at the numbers it seems spending some time at the gym is not going to do much for loosing weight. Or said differently: eating 7% less is easier. Not sure about this. Herman Pontzer's work shows that the body adapts by burning fe…

Not this again: “Burning 600 calories with exercise means burning 600 fewer later.” No it doesn’t. That work is highly misinterpreted.

Because it doesn’t ELI5 how body mass and composition and steady vs unsteady state actually play into it, people take away a meaningless self serving interpretation.

If you start running 4-5 times a week, I guarantee you’ll be eating significantly more and burning significantly more. Unless you’re intentional about restricting your eating, weight will most probably stay the same, but you’ll be burning far more calories.

But keen eyed reader perhaps you object with “but you’ll move less and nap on the couch more, it will balance out like Pontzer’s work seems to say!” Haha, but no. Well yes to napping, but no to balancing out. It’s literally impossible. There’s no amount of napping that makes up for 13+ miles runs. There’s a lot of people who regularly do 10 to 20 mi runs on weekends. They can literally burn more calories just in the run than a sedentary person does in an entire day. And that’s their regular routine. Take a look at Boston to see 30ish thousand examples of it.

As one example, My weight has been steady state for decades, but I started running marathons two years ago. I had to start eating an extra meal. And when I take it easy for a couple weeks after each marathon, my appetite ramps down.

And if you don’t start eating more you’ll just get injured and be forced to stop running.

Pontzers work is bad. Ask any endurance sport club and they’ll laugh at it.

Re: It's not your age that's slowing your metabolism, new research says (2021)

#60

Post by dukeyukey »

pseudocomposer wrote: post #55
dukeyukey wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I dunno about this - at least here in the UK, London (jam-packed with that demographic, including me and most of my friends) is the fittest, least overweight part of the country, with among the highest life expectancy.

Do you and your friends in London all drive to work? Or do you walk/metro? The lifestyle shift the grandparent poster was referring to is typical of suburban and rural areas, but not really urban areas. I suspect people in more rural parts of the UK are very different from your London cohort.

Nobody drives - they all either work from home (most), take public transport, or walk/cycle in. Parent comment explicitly called out "middle class city people" so I figure this is more than valid.
Post reply on HN