post by [deleted] · · ? · GW · 0 comments

This is a link post for

0 comments

Comments sorted by top scores.

comment by Zvi · 2018-11-13T20:18:34.508Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

This is definitely not my experience. Once I got thin, I had to keep working hard every day to keep it that way. Knowing it was worth it made it easier, but I work way harder on it now than I ever did in the past.

Replies from: cousin_it, ingres, richard-meadows-1
comment by cousin_it · 2018-11-13T22:57:11.513Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

I think the virtuous cycles described in the post require having muscle mass, not just being thin.

comment by namespace (ingres) · 2018-11-13T22:51:53.736Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

Yup. Empirically, people who lose lots of weight and keep it off have a CONSTANT VIGILANCE mindset going.

This isn't to say that OP's post is untrue, but rather they're underestimating just how badly the odds are stacked against those who are obese.

HBO's The Weight Of The Nation documentary goes into the Weight Control Registry study on long term weight loss, and the common factors between people who manage to keep it off:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hLv0Vsegmoo&t=1h1m28s

Replies from: richard-meadows-1
comment by Richard Meadows (richard-meadows-1) · 2018-11-14T01:06:40.849Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

From the post:

Something like 95 per cent of people who lose weight put it all back on. Almost every attempt is doomed to fail.

Fat people who are trying to lose weight are heroes, engaged in a struggle worthy of Sisyphus. Every conceivable force is levelled against them.

Not sure what gave you the impression I'm underestimating the odds, or the difficulty of the endeavour? That was literally the whole point of the post. If it wasn't communicated clearly enough, my apologies- I'd be interested in any feedback on which bits were confusing.

Replies from: ingres
comment by namespace (ingres) · 2018-11-14T01:07:21.664Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

I missed that line and I apologize. A strong upvote for your troubles.

comment by Richard Meadows (richard-meadows-1) · 2018-11-14T01:04:03.207Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

One of the points I was trying to make here is the underappreciated importance of path dependence and homeostasis (so a person who has always been thin will have a much easier time than someone who had to get thin).

comment by CronoDAS · 2018-11-15T00:08:42.744Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

Can I get a source on that "six years to recalibrate a set point" thing?

Replies from: richard-meadows-1
comment by Richard Meadows (richard-meadows-1) · 2018-11-15T02:54:25.130Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

Sure.

Reading the original study, it seems like one problem is that even though leptin returned to normal, it was out of sync with resting metabolic rate, which meant appetite was no longer linked to energy requirements. There is some suggestion that a slower rate of weight loss might have more success in changing the set point, but that's also contentious.

comment by PeterMcCluskey · 2018-11-14T18:55:30.037Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

Being always hungry is a lousy way to loose weight. It means my body is always trying to conserve energy, as if this was a famine.

Part of the vicious cycle is addiction to food that doesn't make us feel full (see the Satiety Index for ideas about which foods). Remember that obesity is virtually unknown in hunter-gatherers, even when they have plenty of food available. It takes modern foods to make obesity common (see Stephan Guyenet).

Intermittent hunger can work somewhat well for weight loss, but mainly I need to eat food that's less addictive and that makes me feel full.

comment by ChristianKl · 2018-11-14T12:44:11.294Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Maybe he feels self-conscious about going to the gym at all. Maybe he feels like the guys lifting big weights are judging him. Quite possibly, they are judging him.

If that's what you associate with being at the gym, why go to the gym instead of buying free weights and exercising at home? It also saves travel time.

Replies from: Richard_Kennaway
comment by Richard_Kennaway · 2018-11-14T16:55:57.571Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

Not everyone has room at home. I have a barbell, a few dumbbells, a pull-up bar, and my own body weight, and go everywhere on my bicycle, but I also go to the gym because there are exercises I want to do that I can't do at home.

Gyms can also provide training (of variable quality, but everything on the market is of variable quality), and communal activities like Cross-Fit. A gym is a resource to be used.

The guys lifting big weights are seeing to their own business. They are not thinking about you, and you need not think about them, except as an inspiration to become them.

I see a lot of people at the gym much stronger than me, and and a lot much less strong. But we are all doing the same thing: what we can.

Replies from: ChristianKl
comment by ChristianKl · 2018-11-14T18:17:28.569Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

There are people for whom communal activities are valuable. When it however comes to people who feel uncomfortable with company while exercising I don't see why they would go.

Replies from: Richard_Kennaway, ryan_b
comment by Richard_Kennaway · 2018-11-15T00:15:43.979Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

If being fat is a problem for this hypothetical person, that makes embarrassment about using a gym also a problem. Maybe they can work around that problem instead of solving it, but it still would be valuable to them to solve it.

comment by ryan_b · 2018-11-14T19:46:32.049Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

They usually don't, which is sort of the thrust of the OP.

comment by ChristianKl · 2018-11-14T12:41:37.717Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Up to a point – if you’re a bodybuilder about to step on stage at 4 per cent body fat, your endocrine system is all kinds of messed up. The sweet spot for men seems to be around 10-15 per cent.

Given that my own body fat levels are less then 10%, do you have links that suggests that 10% is better then anything below?

Replies from: richard-meadows-1
comment by Richard Meadows (richard-meadows-1) · 2018-11-15T03:12:56.034Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

Can't find good sources, it mostly seems to be anecdotal based on the ranges that strength athletes choose to stay in. My guess is that if you went too low, you'd know about it (stage-ready bodybuilders are in a world of pain). Also, kudos for maintaining a single digit body fat percentage - impressive!

Replies from: ChristianKl
comment by ChristianKl · 2018-11-16T08:52:56.768Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

My body-weight is far from that of a stage-ready bodybuilder, so my biology is not the same.

comment by ChristianKl · 2018-11-14T12:38:35.387Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Simply eating more food is an underappreciated way of getting more micronutrients. If you’re taking in 3500 calories and aren’t a total slob, you’ll be over the RDI for most-everything without even trying.

I would be intersted in having more background on this claim. I always considered most RDI in the official documents to be values for the average person. If your body runs on much more foot you are likely also need more of a lot of micronutrients. Do you have a source that suggests my conception is false?

Replies from: richard-meadows-1
comment by Richard Meadows (richard-meadows-1) · 2018-11-15T03:27:35.555Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

There are no guidelines on this that I'm aware of, but it seems unlikely that the RDI scales linearly with lean body mass. Some proportion of micronutrient intake goes towards the likes of bones and organs and the brain, which is unchanged by having more muscle mass.

I'm less confident of this than I am of the opposite framing: people with a low caloric intake have to be more careful about eating nutrient-dense food.

Replies from: ChristianKl
comment by ChristianKl · 2018-11-16T08:54:11.289Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

http://blog.vitaminddrops.com/myth-reality-vitamin-d-dosing-body-weight/ suggests for Vitamin D3:

Typically, if you are “overweight” you can multiply your age’s RDI by 1.5, and if you are “obese”, you can multiply your age’s RDI 2-3 times, and these numbers are an idea of what your daily recommended amount should be.[3]  For example, the RDI for a 30-year-old is 600 IU.  If that 30-year-old is overweight, then they should be taking close to 900 IU daily.  If that 30-year-old is obese, they require 1200-1,800 IU daily. For an adult, doses up to 4,000 IU are considered safe.[4]
comment by ChristianKl · 2018-11-14T12:34:17.637Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
There is a superpower which allows people to eat an entire cheesecake in a sitting, and suffer zero negative consequences. I can’t believe we’re not talking about this all the time.

This seems like a strange sentiment and just because a person doesn't need to control their calorie intake doesn't mean that there aren't negative consequences from eating a cheesecake in a single setting. It will still mess up the insulin levels.

Just because my scale considers me having only 2.7 kg of visceral body fat doesn't mean that I would consider eating an entire cheesecake in a sitting a good idea.

Replies from: richard-meadows-1
comment by Richard Meadows (richard-meadows-1) · 2018-11-15T03:31:38.506Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

There are no negative consequences, because nothing happens in isolation. Obviously there'd be negative consequences if the average person did this, or if Berkhan ate an entire cheesecake every day. I'm not really sure what point you're making here.