Why do people put on differing amounts of weight? • Hacker News Board

Re: Why do people put on differing amounts of weight?

#121

Post by Dylan16807 » Tue, Jan 26, 2016, 9:22 PM UTC

leshow wrote: post #107

xenadu02 wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Having been 330 lbs at one point and now being less than 220 you're both right and wrong at the same time. Your statement is the equivalent of saying its a heroin junkies own fault: Technically true but useless. It also has many parallels in the way you grew up, differing genetics, etc. If it were just a matter of willpower or simply eating less then I would already be my ideal weight. It isn't that simple. You can't…

> At least a drug addict doesn't have to take just the /right/ amount of the drug every day to stay healthy! spoken like someone with no experience with drug addiction. ever heard of a maintenance program?

That's an option, not a necessity. It also tends to involve restricted access.

But with food is it impossible to go to rehab and stop eating over a period of a couple weeks.

If lifelong drug maintenance programs were the only option to quit abusing, there would be a lot more relapses.

Re: Why do people put on differing amounts of weight?

#122

Post by BeowulfCluster » Tue, Jan 26, 2016, 9:27 PM UTC

defen wrote: post #88

BeowulfCluster wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed. But obese people need to understand the basics first (EAT LESS!) and then they can tweak their diets to make them more comfortable with fewer calories.

If it was really that simple, don't you think people would already do it? Your advice comes across as pretty sanctimonious. It's the equivalent of shouting at heroin addicts "STOP TAKING HEROIN!"

Heroin addicts don't usually go around saying that they're just as healthy and beautiful as non-addicts. And they don't promote Heroin Addiction in schools.

Re: Why do people put on differing amounts of weight?

#123

Post by Obi_Juan_Kenobi » Tue, Jan 26, 2016, 9:32 PM UTC

merpnderp wrote: post #96

jrcii wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Counting calories _always_ works for weight loss. If you simply eat fewer calories than your body needs each day, you will lose weight. Funny you should say that when this was just published today: http://arstechnica.com/science/2016/01/why-the-calorie-is-br...

Funny because eating 2000 calories of a carb rich diet maintains my weight, but eating 3000 calories of a carb poor diet and I lose weight. All calories aren't the same, and your body doesn't use them the same. Why is this still controversial?

Because the much more parsimonious explanation is that you're counting calories incorrectly, instead of a wide body of literature being completely false. Put simply, without very careful weighing of everything you eat and extensive tracking, it's impossible to get an accurate assessment of calories consumed.

Eating a caloric deficit will predictably result in weight loss, but there is some feedback between diet and resting energy expenditure (REE). The macronutrient balance you eat can affect REE.

https://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1199154#...

> Among overweight and obese young adults compared with pre–weight-loss energy expenditure, isocaloric feeding following 10% to 15% weight loss resulted in decreases in REE and TEE that were greatest with the low-fat diet, intermediate with the low–glycemic index diet, and least with the very low-carbohydrate diet.

Because diet can affect REE, you can change your diet isocalorically yet still gain or lose weight. Your particular example seems to be an example of this, but the effect is likely very exaggerated. Differences are on the order of 10%, not 30%.

TL;DR: eating less carbs makes you burn more energy.

Re: Why do people put on differing amounts of weight?

#124

Post by Obi_Juan_Kenobi » Tue, Jan 26, 2016, 9:47 PM UTC

BeowulfCluster wrote: post #69

This is interesting, but people shouldn't be misled. Counting calories _always_ works for weight loss. If you simply eat fewer calories than your body needs each day, you will lose weight. There was a very highly cited paper in the NEJM where they studied a group of people who believed they were "diet resistant" using a new technique--doubly labeled water--to determine how much they were really eating and exercising.…

A caloric deficit reliably leads to a reduction in weight, but the situation is more complicated.

Diet feeds back into resting energy expenditure (REE). Namely, a low-carb diet leads to higher REE than e.g. a low-fat diet.

Effects of Dietary Composition on Energy Expenditure During Weight-Loss Maintenance https://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1199154#...

> Conclusion: Among overweight and obese young adults compared with pre–weight-loss energy expenditure, isocaloric feeding following 10% to 15% weight loss resulted in decreases in REE and TEE that were greatest with the low-fat diet, intermediate with the low–glycemic index diet, and least with the very low-carbohydrate diet.

This is a change of REE on the order of ~10%, so not huge, but definitely significant.

When eating a similar diet, eating less certainly works. However, affecting TDEE through diet and exercise is an important consideration as well, and may be easier and more maintainable than caloric restriction. There are also issues with satiety and diet that are important for weight loss.

Calories In -> Calories Out should only be a response to people who claim to be unable to control their weight. If they control how much they eat, they can control their weight. It does not make it helpful weight loss advice, though.

Re: Why do people put on differing amounts of weight?

#125

Post by windexh8er » Tue, Jan 26, 2016, 9:55 PM UTC

OldSchoolJohnny wrote: post #62

windexh8er wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've commented a bunch of time on gut microbiome before and I'll say it again here who may have not caught it. If this article is interesting check out "The Good Gut" by Justin and Erica Sonnenburg, PhD. I've been experimenting with an ad hoc restorative process through ideas in the book and reading/research around a myriad of pro/prebiotics + diet change. For me the whole subject adds a lot of weight to the idea of…

I am in agreement about the microbiome and it's importance but I found the good gut to be a terrible book full of wild speculation and little facts to back them up. Many sections started with a few thin facts then the authors made jumps that didn't exactly connect to those facts in order to speculate as if that was a fact. I hope there is a better book out there on this topic or one coming soon.

Interesting. Do you have any specific examples you can remember? I read the book from the perspective that it wasn't verbatim research results, but example based results from their research. I found the connections between the test and result generally existed, although I would say the book got a bit muddy on reuse of a few key topic areas. It's definitely a dry book - it took me a while to get through as it didn't always hold my interest.

That being said I agree that I hope there's more to come.

Re: Why do people put on differing amounts of weight?

#126

Post by beachstartup » Tue, Jan 26, 2016, 10:16 PM UTC

wdewind wrote: post #97

beachstartup wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Outside of that, the importance of insulin levels in healthy people is extremely overhyped. These machine learning algorithms are cool, and may be useful for diabetic people, but for the general population monitoring your insulin levels is a waste of time. a waste of time? really? what does that mean? does this mean the difference between 10-20 pounds over the course of 10 years? because that's the vast majority of…

Sorry I think we agree! My point is it is a psychological issue. All things being equal (calories, nutrients etc.) the speed/magnitude of the insulin response is not important for overall health (in the non-diabetic population). The study mentions things like: > postmeal blood glucose and its long-term metabolic consequences. and the point is there aren't long term metabolic consequences. > but if we can put a finger…

how do you define 'metabolic consequences'? i would consider 'uncontrollaby wanting to eat more' a 'metabolic consequence'.

and how exactly do you know that the insulin response doesn't affect the psychology? that's begging the question, and that's exactly what i'm saying is erroneous about your mindset. the state of nutrition science is currently horseshit, any casual observer can see that - we need all the good science we can get.

Re: Why do people put on differing amounts of weight?

#127

Post by DonaldFisk » Tue, Jan 26, 2016, 10:57 PM UTC

On an individual level the study shows why some people are more prone to weight gain than others. But there's been an epidemic of obesity over the past few decades, and there's no reason to believe people's gut flora changed over that period. Even if it did, there must have been an underlying cause.

What has undoubtedly changed are people's lifestyles:

(1) Less smoking. (This is a good thing, but it has resulted in weight gain.)

(2) More driving and less walking/bicycling.

(3) Children playing games on computers instead of outside.

(4) More sitting at desks, and less moving about, at work.

(5) More eating out.

and probably a few other factors.

Re: Why do people put on differing amounts of weight?

#128

Post by therealdrag0 » Wed, Jan 27, 2016, 12:13 AM UTC

DonaldFisk wrote: post #127

On an individual level the study shows why some people are more prone to weight gain than others. But there's been an epidemic of obesity over the past few decades, and there's no reason to believe people's gut flora changed over that period. Even if it did, there must have been an underlying cause. What has undoubtedly changed are people's lifestyles: (1) Less smoking. (This is a good thing, but it has resulted in w…

Yep. Lifestyle change without dietary change.

I'm M27 6' 150lbs and mostly sedentary; calorie recommendations for me are 2300+.

Last time I counted my calories I was eating closer to 1600. My weight is maintained and I experience no lack of energy compared to peers.

I think people over estimate the amount of food they "need" and over estimate how many calories are burned for x-amount of activity.

Re: Why do people put on differing amounts of weight?

#129

Post by harryh » Wed, Jan 27, 2016, 12:28 AM UTC

vinceguidry wrote: post #106

rayiner wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In the 19th century, when painkillers first started becoming available, physicians would refuse to give them to woman in childbirth, because the Bible says childbirth is supposed to be painful. Women had sinned, therefore they must suffer. This is a great analogy. "It's your fault" is not a public health policy, it's a cop-out. And it doesn't even make sense. Obesity is rising dramatically in developed countries. I…

> This is a great analogy. "It's your fault" is not a public health policy, it's a cop-out. A cop-out from what, exactly? Does society have a responsibility to make everyone thin? Even if you say it does, how would you propose it goes about doing that? There's no scalable, organizable effort you can take that will make fat people thin. If you say we have to throw more money at research, I say, sure, we should! Along…

We managed to decrease smoking rates by 50%. It seems reasonable to assume that reducing obesity rates is a fairly similar problem.

Re: Why do people put on differing amounts of weight?

#130

Post by wdewind » Wed, Jan 27, 2016, 2:26 AM UTC

beachstartup wrote: post #126

wdewind wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry I think we agree! My point is it is a psychological issue. All things being equal (calories, nutrients etc.) the speed/magnitude of the insulin response is not important for overall health (in the non-diabetic population). The study mentions things like: > postmeal blood glucose and its long-term metabolic consequences. and the point is there aren't long term metabolic consequences. > but if we can put a finger…

how do you define 'metabolic consequences'? i would consider 'uncontrollaby wanting to eat more' a 'metabolic consequence'. and how exactly do you know that the insulin response doesn't affect the psychology? that's begging the question, and that's exactly what i'm saying is erroneous about your mindset. the state of nutrition science is currently horseshit, any casual observer can see that - we need all the good sci…

I actually think the insulin response 100% affects psychology (which is why I think we are in agreement here, still). At this level it gets very tricky to differentiate between "just the psychology" and a physical reaction, though, and so my point is there is no evidence of any bad health effects caused directly by the insulin response. An insulin blood spike is not unhealthy for you in and of itself, but sometimes it will cause you to eat too much and that's not good for you. That gets into will power, which is the place where the mental and physical meet, and where both groups of models tend to not work particularly well. It's not well understood and it's Complicated.

I agree with you about the sorry state of nutritional science, and when it comes to diet I'd love to see a lot more resources put into the psychological (especially reward pathway/will power) aspects of it.