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

The Obesity Era

aeonmagazine.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 96 posts

Re: The Obesity Era

#71

Post by DanBC »

glenra wrote: post #42
svdad wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, it isn't. Unless you're saying you gained weight again while still eating the same diet , you solved the problem, you just failed at implementing the solution.

A diet people consistently can't keep to doesn't constitute a solution to the problem. It's also worth noting that people who have gained a bunch of weight and lost it have a slower metabolism than people who stayed at the same weight. The Hacker's Diet - being based on calories in/calories out - did not account for this factor. The claim it made was that you could lose weight by keeping a calorie deficit for a while…

> But losing weight without reducing metabolism and thereby making yourself more likely to gain weight in the future, is not.

No, it is. Getting people to do it and stick to it is unsolved.

Lifestyle change, to reduce calories and restructure meals to include correct balance of proteins, carbohydrates and fats, and to raise awareness of when food is eaten and how many calories are being eaten, is tricky. But if people do it it works.

Re: The Obesity Era

#72

Post by magnusson »

enraged_camel wrote: post #69
magnusson wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Acylation Stimulating Protein

ASP stores fat in adipose tissue, but it's nowhere as effective as insulin. ASP secretion is controlled by chylomicrons, which are very short lived, and that makes it so that only a very limited amount of dietary fat can be stored as body fat.

>a very limited amount of dietary fat can be stored as body fat

In the complete absence of insulin, maybe, which is almost never the case in normal dietary conditions, since both protein and carbohydrate stimulate insulin secretion. But dietary fat is nonetheless the primary source of body fat; direct conversion of dietary carbohydrate to body fat is not a quantitatively significant process in humans except for in extreme conditions. See De novo lipogenesis in humans: metabolic and regulatory aspects. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10365981

"Only when CHO energy intake exceeds TEE does DNL in liver or adipose tissue contribute significantly to the whole-body energy economy."

Re: The Obesity Era

#73

Post by mixmastamyk »

nwhitehead wrote: post #25
mixmastamyk wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was thinking about that myself and came up with the idea that perhaps their diet is changing. I wouldn't be surprised if laboratory food was centralized around corporations just like human food. Meaning, I bet cheaper ingredients (more wheat/corn) have made their way into it over time. I can't imagine such peripheral industries not being affected.

This is an interesting hypothesis. It wouldn't even have to be changing percentages of ingredients, it could simply be the result of increased agricultural efficiency and yields. 100 calories worth of corn feed is quite likely to be subtly different in composition today than decades ago.

Yes, pesticides and packaging are thought to be possible factors too.

Re: The Obesity Era

#74

Post by mixmastamyk »

magnusson wrote: post #66
boneheadmed wrote: post #6

As a practicing Endocrinologist I will go out on a limb and say excess carbohydrates are the problem leading to obesity. Sugar (or sucrose) is a particular problem as it will stimulate insulin release from the pancreas. Insulin promotes storage of glucose and I am convinced, the growth of fat cells. I have seen patients lose a tremendous amount of weight (34 lbs over 7 months) and lower blood glucose and their amount…

As a practicing internet commenter I will go out on a limb and say that's nonsense. Sugar tends to promote overeating because it makes foods highly palatable and rewarding to eat, but it doesn't cause fat gain independently of an energy surplus. See Surwit et al, Metabolic and behavioral effects of a high-sucrose diet during weight loss. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9094871 Obese women consuming a hypocaloric d…

No one serious is saying it is uniquely responsible. Just that the more sugar and starch eaten, the less time the body can stay in fat-burning mode, which is well known. Perhaps the obese-hypercaloric would have lost more with less sugar.

All the other variables and laws of physics still apply.

Re: The Obesity Era

#75

Post by aaxe »

mixmastamyk wrote: post #74
magnusson wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a practicing internet commenter I will go out on a limb and say that's nonsense. Sugar tends to promote overeating because it makes foods highly palatable and rewarding to eat, but it doesn't cause fat gain independently of an energy surplus. See Surwit et al, Metabolic and behavioral effects of a high-sucrose diet during weight loss. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9094871 Obese women consuming a hypocaloric d…

No one serious is saying it is uniquely responsible. Just that the more sugar and starch eaten, the less time the body can stay in fat-burning mode, which is well known. Perhaps the obese-hypercaloric would have lost more with less sugar. All the other variables and laws of physics still apply.

> Just that the more sugar and starch eaten, the less time the body can stay in fat-burning mode

This is 100% bullshit.

Re: The Obesity Era

#76

Post by gummify »

nsxwolf wrote: post #52
gummify wrote: post #27

I saw on the news today that 70% of the US is a size 14 or larger now. Shocking. In addition to the need for sugar and starch reduction, a lot of grocery foods are not as natural as we think they are. Having lived in European and Asian countries I can say that the people there are less calorie conscious and sometimes eat more than Americans do but their food options and ingredients seem more wholesome and less proces…

What is a size 14? That's the size of a woman's dress in the United States, but certainly not anything for man (maybe very large shoes). What standard are you going by? Also, sizes in the US are pretty much all over the map. Pants sizes in the US are measured in inches, and they can easily be 4 inches different than what a tailor will measure with a tape measure.

I was going by a woman's US dress size. This would equate to a woman's Large and approx. 32" waist. For men, the average suit size is now a US 44.

Re: The Obesity Era

#77

Post by glenra »

magnusson wrote: post #65
glenra wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That implies TDEE doesn't change. But we know that TDEE does change when people diet. (One study found that a group of people who lost 10% of their weight through dieting had their resting metabolism decline by an average of 15%.) We don't actually know how TDEE reacts to weight loss in general - how much it declines or for how long it declines in response to a particular level of loss. We also don't know how subject…

>(One study found that a group of people who lost 10% of their weight through dieting had their resting metabolism decline by an average of 15%.) Can you post a link to this study? >We don't actually know how TDEE reacts to weight loss in general I don't think this is something "we don't actually know." Lots of weight loss studies have been done in which energy expenditure has been carefully measured, so there's plen…

Okay, this is a survey from 1998 - my google-fu was not strong enough to find one more recent:

http://fampra.oxfordjournals.org/content/16/2/196.full

Quote: "...the majority of the studies point to a reduction in short-term resting metabolic rates that is greater than can be explained by the loss of body mass or fat-free mass over the same time period. Unfortunately, there has been very little work done over the last few years regarding the duration of this phenomenon.

[...]

This is relevant for motivated patients who adhere to severe hypocaloric diets to achieve rather large weight losses. When they get to goal weight their metabolic rate is severely depressed, and they can experience almost immediate weight gain if they resume their prior higher calorie intakes. Recent studies have not continued to measure changes in resting metabolic rate for extended periods to determine whether the reductions are self-limiting. "

Re: The Obesity Era

#78

Post by schoper »

jacques_chester wrote: post #36
schoper wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

True. But what causes the overeating?

Cheap, tasty food.

Sure, that could be possible. However there are some issues:

1) Obesity isn't a disease of the rich. So the "cheapness" doesn't seem to be an obvious factor. This is in contrast to the 1600s and 1700s when obesity and gout were diseases of the rich in Europe.

2) In poor areas, especially the third world, we are starting to see a pattern obese mothers and malnourished children. This is bizarre. The usual pattern is to see malnourished mothers and malnourished children.

3) We can simulate the syndrome with insulin injections, which seems to suggest at least one hormonal pathway driving overeating (rather than simple psychology).

4) Women get fat after menopause (hence the estrogen supplementation industry, which turned out to be giving them cancer). Everybody starts to put on pounds at middle age. Kids seem to start eating a lot at puberty, but generally grow up rather than around. It seems like the whole system is much more complicated than "cheap, tasty food."

Re: The Obesity Era

#79

Post by encoderer »

mixmastamyk wrote: post #74
magnusson wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a practicing internet commenter I will go out on a limb and say that's nonsense. Sugar tends to promote overeating because it makes foods highly palatable and rewarding to eat, but it doesn't cause fat gain independently of an energy surplus. See Surwit et al, Metabolic and behavioral effects of a high-sucrose diet during weight loss. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9094871 Obese women consuming a hypocaloric d…

No one serious is saying it is uniquely responsible. Just that the more sugar and starch eaten, the less time the body can stay in fat-burning mode, which is well known. Perhaps the obese-hypercaloric would have lost more with less sugar. All the other variables and laws of physics still apply.

The latest research I've read (I'll edit with a link once I get back to my desk) and my own personal experience suggests that: A calorie is a calorie is a calorie.

All the fad diets that cut out a certain type of food all really just work because of calorie restriction. Look at the "cookie diet" for an example.

For me, I'm 6'2, I went from 210 to 175 over 10 months (while adding significant muscle mass, suggesting fat loss of 40+ lbs). I did this by changing my diet: I eat nothing for breakfast. One cup of coffee with cream. For lunch, I eat only fruit. Seasonal. Always an apple, sometimes two, berries and grapes, that sort of thing. Sure they're good for you in a non-processed-foods sense but they also are very high in sugar.

I eat a very large dinner.

I always, always eat dessert. Always.

I work out 3 mornings a week, those days I eat half my "lunch" right after my work-out.

Obviously I'm sharing an anecdote but I mention it just because it echo's the research I mentioned and as a testimonial that it works for me. I eat an absurd amount of sugars and carbs but my total calories are restricted and I'm in fantastic shape.

Re: The Obesity Era

#80

Post by encoderer »

enraged_camel wrote: post #49

The mechanics of weight gain and loss are fascinating. Every time I read an article like this it makes me appreciate the complexity of the human body even more. That said, the issue as a whole is not rocket science, and should not be treated as such. While it is very interesting to examine and discuss how the human body treats various types of calories, at the end of the day the closed system that is the human body i…

Would LOVE to know why people moded you down. Maybe because you're saying "it's up to an individual" and many individuals who have struggled with weight take umbrage to that? I don't know. But if so, I wish they'd mention that instead of just modding you down.
Post reply on HN