The grandmaster diet: How to lose weight while barely moving • Hacker News Board

Re: The grandmaster diet: How to lose weight while barely moving

#311

Post by skygazer » Sat, Sep 14, 2019, 3:35 AM UTC

swat535 wrote: post #306

skygazer wrote: post #274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh, it's not that I find it controversial, favor an alternative or object to any of it. It seemed quite compelling, and I'm open to it. It's just that I've only read a single book on the topic, and health and physiology are fiendishly complex, and I long ago discovered that a single book, even if compelling and seemingly supported, may still not represent the whole picture.

I am sure for a claim of this magnitude, there would be plenty of references other than the book which shows our bodies somehow magically adopt and regain the lost weight. The burden of proof is on you to support this false claim

The burden of proof is on me to support what "false" claim? That I read the book? That I summarized my recollections accurately? That it's the only book on the topic I've read?

To clarify, I am not Jason Fung, the author of the book that I summarized, and I specifically said I don't endorse the content. I only recounted it because ancestor comments seemed confused about the book's central tenant, which I happen to have read.

Re: The grandmaster diet: How to lose weight while barely moving

#312

Post by vinceguidry » Sat, Sep 14, 2019, 3:51 AM UTC

dpark wrote: post #309

vinceguidry wrote: post #303

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The author claimed this was legitimate science, in which case there will be references in the book. I am avoiding the normal urge to go out and buy the book to verify and share the references to you. But it is something you could easily verify and find for yourself.

Then it should be easy for the thread originator to provide a citation. I’m not willing to buy the book to look for citations I don’t expect to be there. My bet is that the book doesn’t really say what was presented and that it gives a rather more reserved statement about metabolic adaptation.

Thank you for elaborating.

Re: The grandmaster diet: How to lose weight while barely moving

#313

Post by tsumnia » Sat, Sep 14, 2019, 4:28 AM UTC

jimmaswell wrote: post #310

tsumnia wrote: post #300

Earlier quoted context omitted.

First, I take issue with the cited article because the study referenced in the opening paragraph because they do not provide any discussion over limitations of their study. In particular, that members of the "Biggest Loser" show may have also been more extrinsically motivated by money and fame than intrinsically motivated to become healthy. Thus, when they failed to earn said money/fame, they returned to their normal…

There's a big difference willpowering yourself to stay at your natural state of skinnyness and willpowering through hunger-regulating systems in your body being permanently broken. Here's another reference if you didn't like the other study. https://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-weight-...

You still seem to confound skinniness and willpower and again, the second link I showed someone well into 40+ BMI changing. Secondly, this article has a few issues as well. The participants are older, which we know is difficult to lose weight at (which does support your claim, but not for the same reasons). The article also does not appear to compare the participant's appetite increases to those of "healthy" individuals. What does an "8" represent, and would any person show the same signs?

I will assume that formerly obese people have higher cravings. No doubt a former heroin addict has cravings. I will accept that it is harder for these individuals. But again, that does not mean you shrug your shoulders and say "that's the way it is".

Re: The grandmaster diet: How to lose weight while barely moving

#314

Post by AstralStorm » Sat, Sep 14, 2019, 5:11 AM UTC

Dylan16807 wrote: post #268

scarface74 wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is just CICO, whether you won the genetic lottery that makes the calculation simpler or not doesn't mean it's any less of a cop out than saying that it would be simpler for me to be a great basketball player if I were 6 foot 8 instead of 5 foot 5.

Something can be both true and used in a misleading manner. To use your same metaphor, there are people going around speaking as if height and total hours of training are the only things that matter for basketball skill.

Understand that there are necessary and sufficient conditions. A sufficient condition for obesity is too high chronic caloric intake. A necessary condition is retention of this surplus. Some people will feel correctly full when they overeat high calorie foods, others only if volume is too big, yet others have the distended stomach where even that does not work. Some have hormonal deficit that makes them retain more (e.g. hypothyroidism) or counters satiety signaling. Others have very wasteful metabolism or digestion where less is retained. Some really do highly strenuous activities that just demand more energy.

Ultimately you set a caloric target with a carefully constructed diet and watch the long term weight slope over months. That's the science of it. Even high fat ad lib diets ultimately resulted in caloric input restriction, stronger than other diets they tried. (see Cambridge study)

Re: The grandmaster diet: How to lose weight while barely moving

#315

Post by AstralStorm » Sat, Sep 14, 2019, 5:14 AM UTC

berdon wrote: post #271

partialrecall wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then I think berdon's concerns are misprioritized. It's very rare for the necessary reduction in CI to require medical supervision. The overwhelming majority of obese people in America are eating more than is reasonable to eat, and a reduction in consumption would improve their lives considerably with no real risk of malnutrition occurring. By focusing on obscure edge-cases, all we're really doing is to make it easie…

Partialrecall - my concerns are my own but the point I was attempting to make has nothing to do with what you're talking about. All of which I agree. My point is the body is very complex and any attempt to simplify it is doing a disservice to anyone listening to you. I was overweight for 20 years and lost the weight by calorie reduction. It works - clearly. But in a forum reserved for educational discussion I'm not O…

Nobody is glossing over it, it is subject of active research. Until that research produces any generally useful results (drugs, tests, treatments), the advice stays the same.

We know exactly one applicable test: thyroid hormone levels. This one is worth checking.

Eat less everything but more fresh vegetables, especially greens, exercise more. How much depends on how fat you are - not necessarily just overweight, body composition and fat percentage is more important and still reliably measurable.

"Toffee" kind of fat is a thing, where a thin looking and not very heavy person is actually fat inside, just lost muscle so weight stayed similar.

On the other hand, nobody wants people with big muscle mass to always cut diet to levels expected of show body builders.

Re: The grandmaster diet: How to lose weight while barely moving

#316

Post by Dylan16807 » Sat, Sep 14, 2019, 5:16 AM UTC

AstralStorm wrote: post #314

Dylan16807 wrote: post #268

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Something can be both true and used in a misleading manner. To use your same metaphor, there are people going around speaking as if height and total hours of training are the only things that matter for basketball skill.

Understand that there are necessary and sufficient conditions. A sufficient condition for obesity is too high chronic caloric intake. A necessary condition is retention of this surplus. Some people will feel correctly full when they overeat high calorie foods, others only if volume is too big, yet others have the distended stomach where even that does not work. Some have hormonal deficit that makes them retain more (…

> Ultimately you set a caloric target with a carefully constructed diet and watch the long term weight slope over months. That's the science of it. Even high fat ad lib diets ultimately resulted in caloric input restriction, stronger than other diets they tried. (see Cambridge study)

Agreed, but I'd characterize all that as focusing on the "Calories In" part. That's complicated enough itself, and avoids implying that the entire situation is some trivial function.

Re: The grandmaster diet: How to lose weight while barely moving

#317

Post by AstralStorm » Sat, Sep 14, 2019, 5:23 AM UTC

DanBC wrote: post #233

dpark wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> CICO is mostly nonsense, because you can't control neither CI no CO. This is a wholesale abdication of responsibility and an embrace of victimhood. Yes, there are elements of calories out that aren’t fully in your control. However these place a lower bound on calories out. You can absolutely increase your exercise and activity level. On the other side, you are very much in control of your calories in. You can choos…

> You can absolutely increase your exercise and activity level. Exercise is important for health. Exercise does not help people control weight, and it may make people heavier. The fact that people insist they're scientific while ignoring the evidence is particularly frustrating.

Gaining weight even when calorie controlled due to exercise is possible, but you will lose fat percentage while gaining muscle mass thus increasing base metabolic rate. Doubly good.

Which is why you should get one of the approximate fat percentage meters. (Clamp better than electric but less convenient.) And maybe run a DEXA or volumetric body composition scan sometimes.

Another good easy measure is the belt size, for obese people. Smaller is better. Or waist/hip ratio. Requires a tape measure, that's it.

If you exercise and weight stays the same but belt size goes down, you're on the right track.

Re: The grandmaster diet: How to lose weight while barely moving

#318

Post by AstralStorm » Sat, Sep 14, 2019, 5:42 AM UTC

bena wrote: post #230

partialrecall wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It was not my intention to strawman you. I apologize for misreading your intent.

Don't apologize. Regardless of his intent, he claimed "I've lost weight eating 900 calories/day and I've lost weight eating 3500 calories/day with the same level of exercise. The difference was the 900 were carbs, the 3500 was >90% protein" And if you're not trying to refute CICO, you better make damn clear that even though you're ingesting 3500 calories, you're essentially just crapping out most of it because our bo…

It's super rare though that anyone in the world not on a special diet consumes this much protein. That's really hard, volumetrically, as protein is calorie sparse. Which is why it's useful for dieting, to keep volume and water in while keeping caloric content low. (With potential side benefits for satiety.)

Re: The grandmaster diet: How to lose weight while barely moving

#319

Post by AstralStorm » Sat, Sep 14, 2019, 5:55 AM UTC

RandallBrown wrote: post #130

taurath wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your bodies absorbsion of nutrients and yes calories is not a system in a vacuum. Nor it’s decision to store excess calories as fat. There’s a wide range of how much different types of foods affect different people. I had a friend who would eat (we counted) 4000 calories a day and couldn’t get over 120lb. Turns out they had a soy allergy and their bodies didn’t absorb the food. Simplifying it to calories in calories…

Just because your friend was pooping out the calories instead of burning them for energy doesn't change that it was still calories in vs calories out. Like I said, calculating both ends of the equation is tricky.

Which is why it's just easier to tune and (as accurately as possible) monitor intake until expected results happen.

Which is weight loss and/or belt size loss.

And watch for side effects which may require dietary adjustments. (not necessarily caloric)

Variable you cannot control is relatively worthless. Focus on what you can control.

Re: The grandmaster diet: How to lose weight while barely moving

#320

Post by AstralStorm » Sat, Sep 14, 2019, 5:59 AM UTC

LameRubberDucky wrote: post #138

trophycase wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point is that the body adapts to burn more or fewer calories depending on how much you eat. Restricting calories can possibly have the side effect of just lowering your metabolism, rather than just losing weight.

Restricting your calories and causing lower metabolism only works for so long. Otherwise a person would not be able to starve to death, which is obviously not the case.

Why are you bringing extreme cases when they're not relevant?

Reduced metabolism when dieting is a thing, and it's also correlated to weight loss. Less weight, less base metabolic rate. Down to a point which is irrelevant.