Live data from Hacker News

The biggest losers: Metabolic damage or constrained energy?

physiqonomics.com

201–210 of 284 posts

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

#201
post #77

Thoughts on Adenoviruses as being a root cause of obesity? https://www.geneticlifehacks.com/weight-loss-genetics-obesit... "Interestingly, animal studies show that the gain in fat mass is not due to eating more or moving less… Animals ate the same amount of chow, but those infected with adenovirus 36 increased fat tissue by 60-80%." https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17135605/ "A 2004 twin study showed that the Ad-36 an…

In some cases it may be the root cause, but... is 42% of the US population infected by adenovirus? I think it's unlikely.

In my opinion, it's mostly the excess carbohydrates now compared to what we ate 100 years ago. Occam's razor and all that.

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

#202
post #194
post #159

I'm a participant in runner groups. I was surprised to meet several exceptional runners with stories of moving from very unhealthy/overweight to their current level of marathoner+. Several of them had success not just with intermittent fasting, but prolonged fasting. Humans can run when they feel like you have no energy. It's hard to believe that this isn't a psychological and behavioral issue: >A 30 percent reductio…

With obesity there is a constant refrain that people should be able to deal with it by willpower alone. Here is an analogy to explain why this is unrealistic: A while back I had a massive immune reaction in my skin, which brought with it the constant urge to scratch. A lot of people idly comment that the solution is to just not scratch, but it turned out that I had a skin infection, and under those circumstances the…

> There's a bit of cognitive dissonance in seeing a hugely fat person and trying to imagine that their nervous system is for some reason acting like they are starving. It's a lot easier to imagine that they just don't have the willpower to resist that extra snack, which is a situation a lot more familiar to most of us. But it seems likely that the further is more correct.

yes, 100% this. Your analogy with scratching the itch is spot on. And you know that the itch that you can't scratch will continue forever until the end of your life. How depressing is that? It's not like running a marathon - with a marathon, it's long and hard, but there is a finish and you can rest after that. With being hungry all the time, there is never a finish. You just gotta keep on running. And running's kinda hard - and if you stop resisting and eat a few big meals, you offset weeks of weight-loss. Losing 100 calories a day for 20 days is hard, but gaining 2000 calories a day is real damn easy, and also feels great!

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

#203
post #200
post #159

I'm a participant in runner groups. I was surprised to meet several exceptional runners with stories of moving from very unhealthy/overweight to their current level of marathoner+. Several of them had success not just with intermittent fasting, but prolonged fasting. Humans can run when they feel like you have no energy. It's hard to believe that this isn't a psychological and behavioral issue: >A 30 percent reductio…

For the first 43 years of my life I was kind of always overweight. Not always obese but there were periods. I've also always known that it would be healthier to have less fat, so it was always a thing on my mind. But, I was also always hungry. Mostly not starving, but just hungry. I could eat a big meal, that made my stomach feel physically full, even painfully so and still have the feeling of hunger. Of course, I al…

>the opposite is true for some people, who have better regulation of whatever chemical makes you hungry. Apparently there are lots of people for whom feeling hungry after eating a large meal seems impossible. And since this is something they have never experienced, it's not really reasonable to expect them to understand or be able to imagine it.

I don't know, I found the idea of "what if I was hungry, but too much instead of too little" pretty easy to wrap my head around I think. I also wouldn't call feeling full necessarily as being the same thing as being well regulated, anorexics can feel full but they're hardly well regulated.

I once knew this fairly average weight bodybuilder that hated fat people with a passion and practiced a strict diet. During one of his many anti fat people rants, he started ranting about how fat people have no discipline, I sort of snapped back at him and pointed out my many struggles with eating and asked him "why it is that you complain that fat people are undisciplined but don't criticise me in the same way when you know I don't have a good diet and struggle to put on weight?" He didn't have a response to that and the conversation awkwardly ended.

For me, it was pretty easy to come to essentially the same conclusion you did from the opposite starting point. That it's possible for everybody to change their weight by committing, but for some people like this bodybuilder they're going to be able to maintain a healthy weight without struggling, and for others it's going to be a slog.

It's those who seemed to control their weight at will I couldn't empathise with, fat people were relatively relatable.

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

#204

I can't remember the source, but I remember hearing that the two demographics in society who average at a healthy BMI were endurance athletes and vegans. I struggled through my 20s to keep my weight under 200 lbs at 6ft tall. Then I went vegan 4 years ago, and started running during the pandemic. Nothing crazy, just 5-8 km once or twice per week when it's nice out, and lots of beans and tofu in place of meat and dair…

The correlation between vegans and health is muddied by the fact that vegans put far more thought into their diet than the average person. Its entirely possible not eating meat is orthoganal to health and its just that they actually care about what they eat.

No evidence of this, but I also suspect that vegans care more about their health in other weights too (e.g. exercising, not smoking, etc). If they can keep up with a vegan diet, they likely also have the discipline to keep up with exercise regimes and keeping good habits.

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

#205
post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For the first 43 years of my life I was kind of always overweight. Not always obese but there were periods. I've also always known that it would be healthier to have less fat, so it was always a thing on my mind. But, I was also always hungry. Mostly not starving, but just hungry. I could eat a big meal, that made my stomach feel physically full, even painfully so and still have the feeling of hunger. Of course, I al…

>the opposite is true for some people, who have better regulation of whatever chemical makes you hungry. Apparently there are lots of people for whom feeling hungry after eating a large meal seems impossible. And since this is something they have never experienced, it's not really reasonable to expect them to understand or be able to imagine it. I don't know, I found the idea of "what if I was hungry, but too much in…

Thanks for sharing your perspective!

Usually in debates around weight, people focus on the message of counting calories and metabolism, but the psychological aspects are not usually discussed and based on how I felt and what you said, it is a super imprtant important aspect of the puzzle. After all, the feeling of hunger only exists in your head, not in the cells of your stomach.

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

#206
post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There’s the issue of not being able to decide what gets burnt. I’ve read that under certain circumstances, the body can actually burn the muscles faster than it burns the fat. Which obviously makes exercise harder.

Why would the body touch anything else when it has a preferential energy storage?

because the body is not a perfect machine. If it were, all this discussion would be moot

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

#207

Metabolic damage is mostly a myth. Fat, muscle, and activity burn calories. If you lose weight you’re probably burning fewer calories unless you replace it with muscle. Activity levels also vary over our lives. We tend to be more active when we’re younger.

an extra 10 pounds of muscle, which is average for someone who has never trained, maybe burns only 100 extra calories. The problem also is that muscle hypertrophy also entails gaining some fat too.

I have a history of scale measurements with body fat shooting down and muscle mass going up that would disagree. If I'm doing muscle hypertrophy, I'm burning more calories, but I'm not necessarily eating more.

You might need to put on some fat to gain muscle EFFICIENTLY, but it's not a requirement for putting muscle on at all.

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

#208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The only plausible explanation is that it's at a cost of other functions that are vital long-term but can be turned down temporarily? Such as reduced creation of new blood cells etc.

Couldn't your body burn more or fewer calories passively and release the energy as heat? Or you could make more or fewer micro movements throughout the day, in a way that adds up to whatever your body thinks energy expenditure should be?

yes, both of these things happen! I don't have the studies at hand, I remember I read this as part of Slime Mold Time Mold series on obesity

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

#209
post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t understand how this needs anything beyond surface level complexity… you have fat people who for show reasons were tightly controlled on exercise and food intake - which works for well understood reasons - then they took that away and left the people to their lifelong established habits. Of course they regain the weight. These people didn’t magically create mass from nothing. They ate too much for their activi…

Welcome to weight loss discussion on HN, where any rational point like "eat less" or "calories in, calories out" gets downvoted and discussed to death. Apparently for this crowd taking medicines is better than stopping stuffing yourself, because you know, if you take a medicine you can keep stuffing yourself. Oh, and also "it's more complicated than that" is always a nice escape from the harsh reality of thermodynami…

it gets downvoted because there are tons of research telling it's more complicated than that.

it's also a very poor point because it's presented as a solution without addressing the fact that it's really, really, really hard for people to eat less.

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

#210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It might be that simple from a high level conceptual standpoint, but when the amount of calories you burn passively adjusts up or down as your body fights to maintain its weight, it is much more complex.

Agreed. But that's a weight *loss* issue. The more basic "Why has there been a rise in obesity?" keeps being asked, and that's already answered. The idea that people are falling asleep next to a pod and waking up with too much weight for some mysterious reason is a false narrative. It's not making anyone any more aware or any healthier.

> The more basic "Why has there been a rise in obesity?" keeps being asked, and that's already answered.

to my knowledge, it has not. Researchers are still trying to understand why.

Post reply on HN