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

What I learned from reading over 100 weight loss studies

intentapp.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 194 posts

Re: What I learned from reading over 100 weight loss studies

#171

Post by borski »

quicklime wrote: post #129
borski wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’ve been 118kg, and I’m 5’9’’. I started a keto diet 3 months ago and have lost 33 lbs. here’s the interesting part: I definitely feel full when I eat now, because fat and protein are just that much more satiating. It takes less food to make me feel full. Provided it’s high in fat.

The article references a few studies that conclude that there is "no significant difference" between a low carb and a low fat diet. It also suggests that whether a keto (or any other) diet will work is an individual thing: > In this regard, saying that “diet X is the best way to lose weight” is probably not a globally-correct statement given the evidence so far. Instead, it should be the much less interesting: “no di…

I am not saying anything about the diet being successful or not for you. It is, I agree, an individual thing.

I am saying that, in general, fat is more satiating than carbs. And, in addition, that that applies to everyone, not just people who have never been “their size” as parent puts it.

Re: What I learned from reading over 100 weight loss studies

#172

Post by sridca »

jki275 wrote: post #169
n4r9 wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That seems extremely dubious, given: > during my fast I refrained from any physical activity – no workouts or sports and: > for this experiment my Omron scale had to do since I didn’t have access to more accurate body composition tools

As someone who regularly fasts for a variety of reasons, I would agree -- it's nearly impossible to gain muscle while fasting anyway, and without working out in any way I can't imagine how that could happen at all. But most likely the tool is measuring inaccurately.

> it's nearly impossible to gain muscle while fasting anyway

Fasting may not affect muscle gain during the fast, but it may during the following refeed.

Re: What I learned from reading over 100 weight loss studies

#173

Post by whyShortLogins »

Under Medications he writes “Unfortunately, none of the drugs have generics yet, so they cost between $200-300 per month.” ...and they are not too effective. ...and amphetamine is illegal and addicting

So: read more studies and discover DNP. A molecule that once was. Safer than many meds (of course unless you are an idiot and overdose). More effective than anything on Earth. But one that will never come back because guess what, it can’t be patented. So happy research if interested. Just keep in mind there is plenty of misinformation (even on Wikipedia) that doesn’t have any ground in scientific trials.

Re: What I learned from reading over 100 weight loss studies

#174

Post by sl1ck731 »

claudiawerner wrote: post #162
sl1ck731 wrote: post #112

My anecdote: I lose weight very easily by CICO. Over the course of of a few months in college I ate a very strict diet of x calories. At the time it was something like 1100/day as a ~200lb 21 year old. Supposedly dangerous, but a lot of things are. Anyway, by keeping an excel sheet of the exact calories I ate every day, minus my calculated metabolic rate, I knew exactly what %/lb I lost per day/week. I kept such good…

I'm about 145lb 22 y/o, and also doing 1100 calories/day but usually in the form of one meal for dinner. How did you calculate the amount you should lose per day/week? I'm interested in filling such a spreadsheet myself.

When I started I used a metabolic rate calculator.

https://www.active.com/fitness/calculators/calories for example.

The amount of calories lost per day = the metabolic rate from the calculator - the amount of calories you eat that day.

The amount of pounds lost per day is: burned calories (above) / 3500 (number of calories in a pound of fat).

After a couple months of measuring my weight daily and knowing exactly what my caloric intake was, I calculated my real average metabolic rate by doing the reverse.

total calories lost in a period = lbs lost * 3500

calorie burn (metabolic rate) = total calories burned + total calories eaten

The above is per period so I calculated the average values for the days in a month and used them.

I didn't exercise much so the basal metabolic rate was fairly close to my real burn.

Re: What I learned from reading over 100 weight loss studies

#175

Post by dragonwriter »

sl1ck731 wrote: post #174
claudiawerner wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm about 145lb 22 y/o, and also doing 1100 calories/day but usually in the form of one meal for dinner. How did you calculate the amount you should lose per day/week? I'm interested in filling such a spreadsheet myself.

When I started I used a metabolic rate calculator. https://www.active.com/fitness/calculators/calories for example. The amount of calories lost per day = the metabolic rate from the calculator - the amount of calories you eat that day. The amount of pounds lost per day is: burned calories (above) / 3500 (number of calories in a pound of fat). After a couple months of measuring my weight daily and knowing exactly what…

If you aren't exercising much,the assumption that all loss is fat is optimistic, and lean body mass has only 600 kcal/pound instead of 3,500 for fat.

Re: What I learned from reading over 100 weight loss studies

#176

Post by rdm_blackhole »

EForEndeavour wrote: post #165
kwanbix wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I also go to the gym 5 times a week. Run 5k in 25 minutes plus one hour of weight lifting. Nothing to intense mind you. You consider running 5 kilometers a day, and doing one hour of weight lifting to be non intense? wow.

Yeah, 5k in 25 minutes is by no means an easy jog for most people, and places OP in the average race pace, according to https://www.verywellfit.com/what-is-a-good-time-for-a-5k-291... (grain of salt, but they have more data than I do). Mind you, I interpret OP to mean that this is their current workout routine, after their dramatic weight loss and increase in fitness.

This is my current fitness level. When I first started going to the Gym I was averaging 2.5 km in 30 minutes. I should also add that I was a heavy smoker. Nowadays, my routine consists of 5 different exercises and 25 minutes of running but I am not looking to break a record or become completely ripped. Just toned. So when I say that it is not too intense, I mean it as of now. When I first started, the workouts were a pain but I finally got used to them after a while.

Re: What I learned from reading over 100 weight loss studies

#177

Post by taneq »

kortilla wrote: post #170
taneq wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Decide that you want to not be fat more than you want to over-eat. Then choose to sustain that decision by re-affirming it daily.

Well fuck, why didn’t anyone think of that?!

So you want to lose weight... without choosing to eat less? I hear amphetamines are helpful then.

Re: What I learned from reading over 100 weight loss studies

#178

Post by sl1ck731 »

dragonwriter wrote: post #175
sl1ck731 wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When I started I used a metabolic rate calculator. https://www.active.com/fitness/calculators/calories for example. The amount of calories lost per day = the metabolic rate from the calculator - the amount of calories you eat that day. The amount of pounds lost per day is: burned calories (above) / 3500 (number of calories in a pound of fat). After a couple months of measuring my weight daily and knowing exactly what…

If you aren't exercising much,the assumption that all loss is fat is optimistic, and lean body mass has only 600 kcal/pound instead of 3,500 for fat.

Yes that is also true. I accounted for about 20% of lean mass loss included and then had to hit the gym after the few month diet :)

Though it wasn't my biggest concern since I overshot my loss by about as much.

Re: What I learned from reading over 100 weight loss studies

#179

Post by jki275 »

sridca wrote: post #172
jki275 wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As someone who regularly fasts for a variety of reasons, I would agree -- it's nearly impossible to gain muscle while fasting anyway, and without working out in any way I can't imagine how that could happen at all. But most likely the tool is measuring inaccurately.

> it's nearly impossible to gain muscle while fasting anyway Fasting may not affect muscle gain during the fast, but it may during the following refeed .

I'm sure that's possible -- I've never experienced it. Perhaps if I were more disciplined about recovery.

Re: What I learned from reading over 100 weight loss studies

#180

Post by beagle3 »

bildung wrote: post #117
sridca wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Any references for that claim (assuming 5 days water fast or less)?

"[I]ntermittent fasting diets may actually damage the pancreas and affect insulin function in normal healthy individuals, which could lead to diabetes and serious health issues." ( https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/may/20/fasting-diet... ) The National Council Against Health Fraud "strongly advises against the use of prolonged fasting for health purposes, and believes that requiring children to fast is a form…

Your first link talks specifically of fasting every other day, and is about rats. That is completely irrelevant to 5 day fasting in humans, whereas [0] is.

Your second link is from 1995; A lot has happened since. Yes, children should probably not fast. Other than that, more recent data (as well as old, but ignored, data) show that water fasting is good for you. And Valter Lango's research (see [0], and google for more) shows that it's actually extremely beneficial in many cases, especially during chemotherapy.

[0] https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/02/five-day-fasting-die...

Post reply on HN