Daily energy expenditure through the human life course • Hacker News Board

Re: Daily energy expenditure through the human life course

#111

Post by adrian_b » Sat, Oct 14, 2023, 4:44 PM UTC

logicchains wrote: post #69

m3kw9 wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A lot of skinny people have high metabolism, how do you explain that?

I'm not saying metabolism doesn't vary among individuals, I'm saying for a given individual, their overall metabolism could decrease as they age due to having less muscle mass even if their rate per kg muscle didn't change.

What you say is true, but the main point of the paper is that they have measured a decrease of the metabolism after around 62 years even after correcting for the body composition, so the less muscle mass explains only a part of the decrease of the metabolism for older people.

The rest is likely to be due to slower rates of protein synthesis for the renewal of various body parts.

Re: Daily energy expenditure through the human life course

#112

Post by hombre_fatal » Sat, Oct 14, 2023, 4:49 PM UTC

paulpauper wrote: post #51

dp-hackernews wrote: post #7

No mention of how a persons lifestyle changes over that period though. Surely there is a correlation to the causation? The head-bone is connected to the neck-bone etc... You cannot study figures in isolation and expect them to yield some meaningful results while ignoring the influence of other figures upon those results. - Kids move around a lot, and they're still growing/developing - Teenagers move more constructive…

If inactivity was the explanation, it logically follows it would be possible to undo obesity by simply having people move more, but the evidence suggests exercise does not help compared to diet. https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/U1RxtW9oglcck-2g2X_SrKzIA44=...

With no further context that graph is simply showing that exercise increases/maintains lean mass which will slow down absolute weight loss during a calorie deficit.

Re: Daily energy expenditure through the human life course

#113

Post by diath » Sat, Oct 14, 2023, 4:50 PM UTC

reedf1 wrote: post #9

meindnoch wrote: post #3

Another sobering result for the fitness industry, that convinces 30 year old men to be on TRT.

Convincing men at basically peak testosterone production to permanently impair their natural ability to produce it. It's awful. Not to mention the side effects of taking exogenous hormones e.g. damage to your liver...

This seems to be contradicting your claim: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8451678/

Re: Daily energy expenditure through the human life course

#114

Post by adrian_b » Sat, Oct 14, 2023, 4:53 PM UTC

paulpauper wrote: post #84

dp-hackernews wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is likely down to the type of "food" that you are eating. Or you are eating more than is necessary. A diet that contains a high nutritional content will prevent you from over-eating due to satiety signals (unless you have a hormone issue) rather than eating to the point of feeling "stuffed" - if someone is eating to the point of feeling "stuffed" then it would suggest that they are not eating food with a high nu…

A diet that contains a high nutritional content will prevent you from over-eating due to satiety signals (unless you have a hormone issue) rather than eating to the point of feeling "stuffed" - if someone is eating to the point of feeling "stuffed" then it would suggest that they are not eating food with a high nutritional content, or that they have some disorder that is interfering with their normal eating process.…

Carbohydrates, including starch, are not effective in creating long-tern satiety.

The satiety after a few hours since a meal is mainly determined by the amount of proteins and of fat contained in it, not by the amount of calories.

For instance, after a meal including 50 g of proteins and 50 g of fat, most people would not be hungry for at least a half of day, or even for an entire day.

If you remove from your 1000 kcal loaf of bread 500 kcal of starch, which can be done by washing the dough before baking the bread, and you eat the result (i.e. a bread greatly enriched in proteins) together with 50 mL (46 g) of olive oil, you will eat less calories, but you will be satiated for many more hours.

Re: Daily energy expenditure through the human life course

#115

Post by hombre_fatal » Sat, Oct 14, 2023, 4:54 PM UTC

paulpauper wrote: post #28

I ain't buying it. There is a replication crisis in the sciences, and it would not surprise me if this is wrong too, or at least that the results do not mean what they are purported to mean. I have read many personal accounts here and elsewhere of men who were able to eat a lot in their late teens, 20s, and early 30s, and then suddenly by their 30s gain a lot of weight despite not changing their lifestyle or diet muc…

> Is he eating more? I doubt it.

So, four paragraphs all based on this assumption.

Why couldn't it be the case that a 20yo obsessive computer nerd eats less than a lavish billionaire?

Re: Daily energy expenditure through the human life course

#116

Post by marcosdumay » Sat, Oct 14, 2023, 5:02 PM UTC

paulpauper wrote: post #51

dp-hackernews wrote: post #7

No mention of how a persons lifestyle changes over that period though. Surely there is a correlation to the causation? The head-bone is connected to the neck-bone etc... You cannot study figures in isolation and expect them to yield some meaningful results while ignoring the influence of other figures upon those results. - Kids move around a lot, and they're still growing/developing - Teenagers move more constructive…

If inactivity was the explanation, it logically follows it would be possible to undo obesity by simply having people move more, but the evidence suggests exercise does not help compared to diet. https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/U1RxtW9oglcck-2g2X_SrKzIA44=...

There's no exercise-only group on your graphic. So even though it's some random data without any context, it still can't say what you conclude it said.

Re: Daily energy expenditure through the human life course

#117

Post by adrianN » Sat, Oct 14, 2023, 5:07 PM UTC

kenjackson wrote: post #77

trefoiled wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's good evidence that metabolic rate does vary, but not significantly. https://examine.com/articles/does-metabolism-vary-between-tw...

The article states the difference is small, but also notes “ The majority of the population exists in a range of 200-300kcal from each other”. All things being even 200kcal difference per day is about 20lbs per year attributed purely to metabolic difference. Now you can say to just eat 200kcal less per day, but those little differences on a daily basis add up.

Metabolic differences are why for a person of my height a weight of 68kg is normal but a weight of 86kg is also normal. Metabolic differences alone don't explain why many people of my height weigh 100kg and more.

Re: Daily energy expenditure through the human life course

#118

Post by detourdog » Sat, Oct 14, 2023, 5:22 PM UTC

strangesmells02 wrote: post #27

Anecdotally: I havent changed diet one bit, actually I eat way healthier than when I was younger. And still weigh much more than when younger.

USA based. I was born in 1968 rebelled against my organic gardening and bread baking mom every chance I got. I weighed around 135 pounds in college and currently weigh 143. I have been as heavy as 147ish that I noticed.

Re: Daily energy expenditure through the human life course

#119

Post by civilitty » Sat, Oct 14, 2023, 5:25 PM UTC

diath wrote: post #113

reedf1 wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Convincing men at basically peak testosterone production to permanently impair their natural ability to produce it. It's awful. Not to mention the side effects of taking exogenous hormones e.g. damage to your liver...

This seems to be contradicting your claim: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8451678/

Did you read the study? Or even the first line of the abstract? “Hypogonadal men with hepatic steatosis” is literally in the first sentence.

It’s a study on men with low testosterone and fatty liver disease. They already have damaged livers.

Re: Daily energy expenditure through the human life course

#120

Post by diath » Sat, Oct 14, 2023, 5:35 PM UTC

civilitty wrote: post #119

diath wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This seems to be contradicting your claim: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8451678/

Did you read the study? Or even the first line of the abstract? “Hypogonadal men with hepatic steatosis” is literally in the first sentence. It’s a study on men with low testosterone and fatty liver disease. They already have damaged livers.

If the presence of testosterone can improve the function of damaged liver, there's no reason to think that a healthy liver would get damaged by it. I can't even think of any mechanism that would be involved.