#22

So basic biology is that many chronically obese people have their BMR reduce even more than what they restrict calories, leading to weight gain? That’s a ridiculous claim without a source.

#23

It’s called “body setpoint” theory. I believe it’s widely considered reflective of human biology. I cannot provide perfect references about it of the top of my head, but you can start reading about it here:

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/02/health/biggest-loser-weight-loss.html

(or just google it for actual references).

3 Likes
#24

Yes… the idea of body set point is long known.

Rapamycin supposidly releases that set weight number… lets you go down.
My son’s use of rapamycin helped him reset his weight point and lose about 25 pounds.

No exercising and crappy diet. Has maintained now for two years - no increase in weight. But, keeps his bad habits. Imagine if he gave some effort.

5 Likes
#25

The RMR went from 2600 to 2000 kcal at the end of the competition at 30 weeks, then it stayed there at the 6 year mark. No measurement between the 30 weeks and 6 years.

image
image698×302 15.7 KB

Do you think that is the reason for regaining most of their weight?

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/oby.21538

They could not eat 2000 kcal a day, if they didn’t exercise anything, if it was true their RMR didn’t increase. That is the reason.

They gained 0.5 kg of fat mass per month, which is 210 kcal per day, about a donuts worth.

#26

But is it calories you put in your mouth? Or calories your body is able to absorb? or the net calories “in” after the energy expenditure to absorb them?
And with calories out is that simply dependent on activity levels? Or are there other independent variables that determine how many calories out?
And does the “calories in and out” logic tells us anything about the best methods for optimizing weight.

The set point theory rings true to me because I vary my activity levels enormously from one week/month to the next, and i vary my calories in enormously too. And yet my weight remains the same as it did 20 years ago. Over the last 20 years it’s barely varied by more than a kilo in either direction, and yet some months I’ve trekked hundreds of km, others I’ve spent writing at a desk, some months I’ve eaten out in San Francisco every day, others I’ve lived on French market produce.

3 Likes
#27

I agree with pretty much everything you said, but it still comes down to calorie balance. I think there is some support to the set point idea, but that just comes down to the body using hormones and energy conservation to manipulate the calorie balance.

Clearly the way to lose weight is by reducing calorie intake, but your body will fight you all the way. Increased energy expenditure is usually met by the body becoming more efficient and saving calories elsewhere.

3 Likes
#28

Yes, i think if I had to lose weight I’d focus on the qualities of the food not the calorie count. Eliminating upf’s and increasing fibre seems to have a big impact partly through hormonal changes and partly by reducing calories in. And by changing gut flora it’s likely to lead to long term dietary changes without the need for willpower.
My issue with the “simple maths” approach is that it implies the answer is a simple act of willpower. When all my experience of humans is that willpower driven approaches are always unsustainable.

2 Likes
#29

I would not say “always” unsustainable. I don’t find controlling food input consciously unsustainable. I was obese for many years and when I got my BMI down from 35 to around 22 in 2021 I have stayed around the 22 mark.

6 Likes
#30

As long as it works to get visceral fat down without losing too much muscle…it’s all good. But the yo-yo (lose and regain) can be destructive, it’s true.

4 Likes
#31

As I’ve mentioned before I’m not the smartest guy in the group. I’m a little slow. So, please overlook my ignorance. I tried to watch the video, but it was so boring I just could not finish it. So, what is the point? Is it saying don’t exercise to lose weight because the body is too efficient at burning calories and it’s a waste of your time? Well, “DUH!” Exercise is for helping to maintain the body and mind. I’ve never considered it to be a path for losing weight. The best exercises for me are the ones that let me do the things I enjoy such as hiking or swimming. I try to avoid the boring ones. As for losing weight, well, for me, that’s a matter of controlling “calories in” with healthy foods that are satisfying which is not particularly easy. And, of course, genetics is a major factor in controlling everything about a person’s body and mind, including height, weight and musculature. But, that’s nothing new under the sun either. I accept what I have and I work with it. Am I on the right track or am I way out in left field on this? So, what is the paradox?

3 Likes
#32

Yes, a little afternoon rant: Forgodsakes, this is not rocket science.

Yes, I am biased, but I think weight loss is a little bit like stopping smoking, some people have the mental toughness to quit and others don’t.

I understand that weight loss can be difficult for some people. They eat less and less and yet seem to make little progress.

The reason is that as you eat less your body worries you are going to starve and slows
your metabolism down.

“When calorie intake is reduced, the body adapts by lowering its metabolic rate to conserve energy. This metabolic slowdown is a survival mechanism that helps the body function on fewer calories”

Calorie restriction and rapamycin are the only things proven in almost all animal models to extend lifespan.

The metabolism slowing down is a real thing. I have been at less than 180 lbs for many years and now I am closer to 170 lbs, and have maintained this level for ~2 years.

The thing is, as you eat less your stomach starts to shrink and your metabolism slows down.

I have steadily reduced my calories and still have not reached stasis. I am starting to wonder at what point my metabolism will quit slowing down. BTW: The only negative side effect I have found from a lower metabolism is a lower tolerance of cold.

That last few years before I retired I was tied to a desk job and went out to lunch every workday with my fellow workers. I ballooned to over 237 lbs. So, I have lost ~67lbs.

Of course, when I retired I realized what bad shape I was in and took measures such as going to the gym regularly and changing my diet. I started with Keto and now I am on a more omnivore diet.

Don’t let your food prejudices influence the diet you start on. You do not have to stay on any diet forever.

The primary diets that result in fairly rapid weight loss are Atkin’s and Keto or any version of a low to very low-carb diet.

Why, because higher fat higher protein diets are more satiating and keep you full longer.

There is some truth to the old saying, “Eat a Chinese (i.e. high-carb) dinner and you will be hungry an hour later.”

Your stomach will shrink and you will eat less and less without feeling hungry. Your metabolism will slow down, but you will continue to lose weight.

If you choose a low-carb diet for a while, like Atkin’s or Keto, you will not have to resort to such expensive and problematic solutions such as Ozempic, etc.

2 Likes
#33

Of course the Chinese have HALF of the obesity rates of Americans.
Keto makes sense in theory, but then go visit some Asian country like Japan where they eats TONS of carbs - noodles, rice, etc. and don’t get fat… things are not as simple as they seem.

5 Likes
#34

It’s just a saying, it wasn’t meant to be a comment on Chinese health or obesity.
But, I stand by the comment. I am hungrier sooner after a high-carb meal than a low-carb meal.

Maybe they are just less prone to gluttony than Westerners.
Perhaps by culture, nature, or resources.

3 Likes
#35

Agree. Keto only works for some of us up to a point. It’s hardly a magic bullet.

And some people have more active appetites than others. I have genetic mutations associated with increased hunger and I’m pretty much always hungry. I can eat a gigantic meal and be hungry a short while after. High dose tirzepatide has been the only thing powerful enough to shut this off. People without this problem have no idea how much constant willpower it takes to not eat non-stop. Even on a maintenance dose of tirzepatide I’m hungry most of the time.

4 Likes
#36

I am pretty sure you are an outlier, not the norm.

#37

Your original comment was rather definitive.

I didn’t say I was the norm, of course. And forums are full of people with the same experience. Frequency, I don’t know, but it’s not uncommon.

My wife is hungry without carbs. I don’t seem very carb sensitive either way. People are different.

3 Likes
#38

Yes, I do appreciate the fact that dieting is harder for some.

Of course, I have no medical expertise. From my personal experience this is how I would try an experiment to address your problems with weight loss:

This is not widely recommended, though it is advocated by some.
Eat several small meals throughout the day. Do not drink large amounts of liquids at one time.
The theory for doing this is that you allow your stomach to shrink and you will need increasingly smaller amounts to satisfy your hunger.

#39

If hunger is making people struggle to lose weight to a healthy range, then why shouldn’t the recommendation to be to just use a GLP-1 agonist, with or without some resistance exercise?

2 Likes
#40

  1. Cost

  2. "Patients frequently experience nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea, especially when starting treatment or increasing dosage. These effects are usually mild to moderate and tend to diminish over time as the body adjusts to the medication. Some patients may also experience headaches, dizziness, or injection site reactions. While less common, there have been reports of pancreatitis in some individuals taking GLP-1 agonists

1 Like
#41

Or try the opposite of this and fast. I have less trouble with hunger when I’m fasting than when I’m trying to eat a small amount frequently.

Everybody is different, and I try different things at different times.

4 Likes