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

The biggest losers: Metabolic damage or constrained energy?

physiqonomics.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 284 posts

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

#211

Post by agos »

paulpauper wrote: post #161
liamwire wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

100 kcal is ~0.5 kg of fat per month, or 6 kg per year. Read that again. Six kilograms, per year. Every year. Given a person consuming near their total daily energy expenditure, that’s the difference between losing almost 20 kg since the start of COVID, and gaining 20 kg. Small changes over time compound in unintuitive ways, which is all the more reason not to dismiss them so flippantly.

But bodybuilders gain a lot of fat offseason even despite having lots of muscle mass.

bodybuilders are playing a completely different game from the person with 10 pound of muscle

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

#212

Post by F-W-M »

faeriechangling wrote: post #207
paulpauper wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Putting on muscle surely takes way more energy than maintaining it.

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

#213

Post by zilti »

belltaco wrote: post #6

> In 2016, Pontzer and colleagues published a study putting forward the constrained energy model: Energy expenditure does increase with more activity, but only to a point. Once physical activity gets really high, the body will adjust other components of the metabolism to keep your daily energy expenditure within a narrow range How do people who constantly repeat the mantra of thermodynamics in such threads explain th…

It says it right there in your quote. Your body neglects other stuff.

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

#214

Post by throwaway346434 »

tlow wrote: 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…

This is a really weird gate keeping comment re "commitment".

As someone who was an ultra endurance rider (IE audax rides of 200/300/400/600/1200 km, where you stop only to sleep for the shortest sustainable time on the longer events), you are very much wrong. Your statements around .

There are plenty who complete these events who are skinny, and plenty who complete these events who are fat. The training load to maintain this level of fitness/endurance is high. The mental commitment is high. The sheer amount of energy required both during the event and to repair muscle damage after is huge. The next level down is the physical discomfort (I don't like the taste of water but I know I need it); the hallucinations, fear or depression that can kick in... But you still have 25% of event to go. Let's not forget those who get injured or have equipment failure and either wisely decide to DNF or drag themselves over the line.

Pray tell me how your jogging for what, two hours a day? Makes you more committed and enlightened.

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

#215

Post by JackMorgan »

renewiltord wrote: post #28
belltaco wrote: post #6

> In 2016, Pontzer and colleagues published a study putting forward the constrained energy model: Energy expenditure does increase with more activity, but only to a point. Once physical activity gets really high, the body will adjust other components of the metabolism to keep your daily energy expenditure within a narrow range How do people who constantly repeat the mantra of thermodynamics in such threads explain th…

The straightforward hypothesis would be "by reducing other body functions". For the duration of a Barry's Bootcamp class, my watch (probably over-)estimates my calorific expenditure at 1000 kcal. I know that right after that, I could probably not do too much Mathematics. Frequently, I encounter visual snow. But most of the time, I can do Mathematics. And then there's healing, and saliva generation, and digestion, etc…

I definitely notice brain fog when exercising heavily or on caloric restriction. It's like my ADHD goes into hyperdrive. Probably great for hunting down food on the savannah though.

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

#216

Post by aantix »

refurb wrote: post #162
aantix wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A hypothesis is outlined in the article I linked to above. https://www.geneticlifehacks.com/weight-loss-genetics-obesit... "If the adenovirus infections are playing a role in our obesity epidemic, this would need to be due to infections rising, starting around the early 1980s, when obesity levels started steadily increasing. I mentioned above that obesity has doubled since 1980 — and that adenovirus seropositivity ha…

Yet obesity rates vary from very high globally. You'd expect a virus to eventually infect everyone.

There is genetic susceptibility, as outlined in the article.

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

#217

Post by aantix »

vallassy wrote: post #201
aantix wrote: 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.

From the article:

"The obvious reason for obesity is eating too much sugar and refined carbohydrates. But statistically how much does this add to the risk of obesity?

A 2019 meta-analysis of different food intake studies and weight gain showed that consumption of refined grains increased the relative risk of obesity by 5% and the consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages increased the relative risk of obesity by 10%. Eating more legumes, fruit, and fish all tilted the scales in the other direction, reducing the risk of obesity by 5-15%. The study concluded, “The dose-response meta-analytical findings provided very low to low quality of evidence that certain food groups have an impact on different measurements of adiposity risk.”"

Food Groups and Risk of Overweight, Obesity, and Weight Gain: A Systematic Review and Dose-Response Meta-Analysis of Prospective Studies

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6416048/

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

#218

Post by carlmr »

Snow_Falls wrote: post #204
at_compile_time wrote: post #172

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 wi…

Not just care about health, but they're on a very restrictive diet.

Many of my vegan friends can barely find something to eat when we're going out. As an omnivore you can eat anywhere, as a vegetarian, you can eat almost anywhere. As a vegan, at least in Germany, it's still somewhat restrictive.

If you're consistently refraining from eating, then you're likely to just consume a lot less calories.

Another factor here is that most restaurants cook for attractiveness, not for health. Adding copious amounts of butter, oil and sugar can make a lot of food taste better at the expense of a much higher caloric intake.

I have an overweight vegan friend. He eats fries everywhere. Fat and carbs makes vegans fat, too.

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

#219

Post by ninkendo »

GeoAtreides wrote: post #186
ninkendo wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

CICO doesn’t work across individuals for reason you outline (just because I lose weight with a certain level of calories, doesn’t mean you will, etc.) But for a single individual, working to establish your base metabolic rate by counting every calorie and weighing yourself regularly, you can always find a way to be successful with the CICO model. If you establish a baseline that your metabolic rate is (say) 2000 calo…

CICO simplifies dieting so much that 2000 calories from drinking cola are equal to 2000 calories from eating a stew of chickpeas, beans and nuts. The human body is not a furnace literally burning fuel, it's a complex chemical reactor in a tight feedback loop with what it actually processes.

I mean, it’s not that far off. Take this guy who ate only twinkies/nutty bars/donuts/doritos for a month (with some veggies added in for fiber/ruffage):

https://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor...

> His body mass index went from 28.8, considered overweight, to 24.9, which is normal. He now weighs 174 pounds.

> But you might expect other indicators of health would have suffered. Not so.

> Haub's "bad" cholesterol, or LDL, dropped 20 percent and his "good" cholesterol, or HDL, increased by 20 percent. He reduced the level of triglycerides, which are a form of fat, by 39 percent.

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

#220

Post by GeoAtreides »

ninkendo wrote: post #219
GeoAtreides wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

CICO simplifies dieting so much that 2000 calories from drinking cola are equal to 2000 calories from eating a stew of chickpeas, beans and nuts. The human body is not a furnace literally burning fuel, it's a complex chemical reactor in a tight feedback loop with what it actually processes.

I mean, it’s not that far off. Take this guy who ate only twinkies/nutty bars/donuts/doritos for a month (with some veggies added in for fiber/ruffage): https://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor... > His body mass index went from 28.8, considered overweight, to 24.9, which is normal. He now weighs 174 pounds. > But you might expect other indicators of health would have suffered. Not so. > Haub's "b…

I mean, yeah, of course if you eat less than your body needs, you will lose weight, nobody is denying that. You can lose weight drinking only coca cola every day. Now, how _easy_ that would be, how much hunger one would feel, the effect on health, mental health, energy, what the rebound is after the diet is done etc., that's a completely different discussion. And another discussion is how much the weight loss is sustainable/maintainable in the long term.

So yeah, in a vacuum, with a perfectly spherical cow, it's not that far off.

Post reply on HN