7 ms·

This is what's known as an 'anecdote', and is at the crux of the issues surrounding men's weight loss. This approach, and other very obvious and straightforward

This is what's known as an 'anecdote', and is at the crux of the issues surrounding men's weight loss. This approach, and other very obvious and straightforward ones do indeed work perfectly well for a fair fraction of the population, but they perform poorly for another large fraction, and fail abysmally for yet a third. While there are no doubt plenty of people that could lose weight fairly readily if they gave it some basic effort, most of the people who are actively trying to do so (enough to pay for a service that supports that, for example) are in the second and third categories. And yet every time anyone posts in a non-dedicated forum anything about systems and plans to help that group solve their problems, there are a dozen people like you popping in to tell us "it's not that hard, just give it a try!" I regularly make 60 mile bike rides, I can jog 10 miles (though I can't walk the next day when I do), I play tennis about 7 hours a week. I weigh 465 pounds. Trust me, I've tried the approach you're describing here. I once managed to hold onto it for 8 months, during which I lost about thirty pounds and then plateaued, while constantly fighting my body. I was sick twice as often as usual, and I had to carefully micromanage my calorie intake to make sure I had available calories for any physical activity I wanted to engage in, all while constantly battling cravings for dozens of foods _I don't even like_. It would be a simpler world if all of us fat people were just fat because we're lazy, but the truth is that people vary really a lot, physically and metabolically. Your experience of the world is valid, but not universal.

rich-cartwright 5y ago
Really nicely put.
O_H_E 5y ago
Oh Wow, just wow. You just explained and expanded on my thoughts and conversations about my ADHD very well.
- rich-cartwright 5y ago
  Interesting parallel.
noduerme 5y ago
That's what's known as an anecdote. This is what's known as a counterexample. And one thing is certain: No method has 100% success. To me the more important question isn't what percentage of cases something addresses, but whether it's a self fix where the benefits outweigh the risks. The risks of intermittent fasting are relatively low, and it may have side benefits like prolonged lifespan and slower telomere degradation as shown in animal models. The risks of essentially hacking your own insulin production to upregulate it if you're not diabetic are not nearly as well understood. On an individual basis, whatever gets you to where you're happy is great. Personally I've fasted every day my entire adult life and still have to work to keep weight off. But when someone puts a slick marketing package on fasting or drugs or surgery or anything else, I have to question whether they really have my best interests at heart. And usually the answer is obviously not.
- nevinera 5y ago
  I'm not arguing in favor of any particular approach (in particular the one posed by the original poster, which I have done zero research into). If and when they launch in a meaningful way I'll bother doing that research, but I am also a cynic about people offering to make a difficult thing easy for a recurring fee.
  - noduerme 5y ago
    Sure. And well we should be. Identify what people view as a personal problem, then offer a solution. This is the second YC startup I've seen today that falls under the category of magic baldness cream.
    - rich-cartwright 5y ago
      Guess I gotta step in here to protest "magic baldness cream". We're not offering anything magic. The medication side has a compelling & growing evidence base: https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2032183 https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2032183 For the vast majority obesity doctors, a medication-assisted approach is now the gold standard. The program side is also no magic. We do tough work, but with a strong evidence base, a powerful support structure and we give ourselves enough time (12-month program). We focus on the root causes of poor metabolic health: stress, sleep, exercise, dietary. From both the behavioral & psychological angles. No magic here, just evidence-based interventions.
evol262 5y ago
This is what's known as an 'anecdote', and is at the crux of the issues surrounding weight loss. Virtually every _controlled_ study shows that metabolic differences between adults are within a margin of +/- 15%, with essentially no way to eat the same amount of calories as a 200lb person and stay at 465lbs. Not least of which because your basal metabolic rate is much higher at that weight. Virtually every study shows that overweight people significantly underestimate their input (whether intentionally deceptive or simply unaware) and overreport their physical activity, like "I can jog 10 miles", or "I play tennis about 7 hours a week", or "I regularly make 60 mile bike rides". If you do, you're the extreme outlier, and it doesn't change the data. Assuming you can do those things, you're almost certainly still in your 20s, and the health effects of your weight haven't really caught up with your body yet. Very simply, it's far more likely that you miss some of the calories you consume, either because you don't actually weigh your food or you discount the signficance of "small" things. A pound of fat is 3500 calories. That's more complicated inside metabolic processes, but it means that "an apple a day" is 10lbs per year. That isn't to say that "prescribe more medication instead of correcting the underlying issue" (trauma, self-medication, dopamine flush, whatever) is the answer, but that diets perform poorly for a large fraction and fail abysmally for another third because we are bad at tracking things, we are bad at being uncomfortable, and we bad at self control, etc. Diets do work. It's sticking to the diet and recognizing when you're off the rails which is difficult. It's also difficult to acknowledge that this "diet" is not temporary and you can go back to old eating habits once the weight is off. The new caloric consumption is forever, because that's what brought you to the new homeostatis.
- nevinera 5y ago
  > overreport their physical activity, like "I can jog 10 miles", or "I play tennis about 7 hours a week", or "I regularly make 60 mile bike rides". If you do, you're the extreme outlier, and it doesn't change the data. Assuming you can do those things, you're almost certainly still in your 20s, and the health effects of your weight haven't really caught up with your body yet I'm 37, and 6'5". and if you're calling me a liar, you can fuck right off. >within a margin of +/- 15%, with essentially no way to eat the same amount of calories as a 200lb person and stay at 465lbs. Not least of which because your basal metabolic rate is much higher at that weight. I was not trying to indicate that the actual metabolic burn rate of humans varies by huge factors, "metabolism" is a colloquial term that encompasses a poorly defined set of features. The physical, psychological, and emotional components of your experience of a calorie deficit are what causes the experiential variance I'm describing. Of course if I could eat a 2000 calorie diet consistently for a long period of time I would lose weight! I've performed that process numerous times, with various caloric deficits (my basal is a bit past 3k, so 2k is a pretty serious deficit - I wasn't able to hold that one past three weeks). This is when most thin people start rambling about "willpower", but maybe just skip that part this time? It's not useful to any of us actual fat people.

rich-cartwright 5y ago

Really nicely put.

O_H_E 5y ago

Oh Wow, just wow. You just explained and expanded on my thoughts and conversations about my ADHD very well.

rich-cartwright 5y ago
Interesting parallel.

noduerme 5y ago

That's what's known as an anecdote. This is what's known as a counterexample. And one thing is certain: No method has 100% success. To me the more important question isn't what percentage of cases something addresses, but whether it's a self fix where the benefits outweigh the risks. The risks of intermittent fasting are relatively low, and it may have side benefits like prolonged lifespan and slower telomere degradation as shown in animal models. The risks of essentially hacking your own insulin production to upregulate it if you're not diabetic are not nearly as well understood. On an individual basis, whatever gets you to where you're happy is great. Personally I've fasted every day my entire adult life and still have to work to keep weight off. But when someone puts a slick marketing package on fasting or drugs or surgery or anything else, I have to question whether they really have my best interests at heart. And usually the answer is obviously not.

nevinera 5y ago
I'm not arguing in favor of any particular approach (in particular the one posed by the original poster, which I have done zero research into). If and when they launch in a meaningful way I'll bother doing that research, but I am also a cynic about people offering to make a difficult thing easy for a recurring fee.
- noduerme 5y ago
  Sure. And well we should be. Identify what people view as a personal problem, then offer a solution. This is the second YC startup I've seen today that falls under the category of magic baldness cream.
  - rich-cartwright 5y ago
    Guess I gotta step in here to protest "magic baldness cream". We're not offering anything magic. The medication side has a compelling & growing evidence base: https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2032183 https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2032183 For the vast majority obesity doctors, a medication-assisted approach is now the gold standard. The program side is also no magic. We do tough work, but with a strong evidence base, a powerful support structure and we give ourselves enough time (12-month program). We focus on the root causes of poor metabolic health: stress, sleep, exercise, dietary. From both the behavioral & psychological angles. No magic here, just evidence-based interventions.

evol262 5y ago

This is what's known as an 'anecdote', and is at the crux of the issues surrounding weight loss. Virtually every _controlled_ study shows that metabolic differences between adults are within a margin of +/- 15%, with essentially no way to eat the same amount of calories as a 200lb person and stay at 465lbs. Not least of which because your basal metabolic rate is much higher at that weight. Virtually every study shows that overweight people significantly underestimate their input (whether intentionally deceptive or simply unaware) and overreport their physical activity, like "I can jog 10 miles", or "I play tennis about 7 hours a week", or "I regularly make 60 mile bike rides". If you do, you're the extreme outlier, and it doesn't change the data. Assuming you can do those things, you're almost certainly still in your 20s, and the health effects of your weight haven't really caught up with your body yet. Very simply, it's far more likely that you miss some of the calories you consume, either because you don't actually weigh your food or you discount the signficance of "small" things. A pound of fat is 3500 calories. That's more complicated inside metabolic processes, but it means that "an apple a day" is 10lbs per year. That isn't to say that "prescribe more medication instead of correcting the underlying issue" (trauma, self-medication, dopamine flush, whatever) is the answer, but that diets perform poorly for a large fraction and fail abysmally for another third because we are bad at tracking things, we are bad at being uncomfortable, and we bad at self control, etc. Diets do work. It's sticking to the diet and recognizing when you're off the rails which is difficult. It's also difficult to acknowledge that this "diet" is not temporary and you can go back to old eating habits once the weight is off. The new caloric consumption is forever, because that's what brought you to the new homeostatis.

nevinera 5y ago
> overreport their physical activity, like "I can jog 10 miles", or "I play tennis about 7 hours a week", or "I regularly make 60 mile bike rides". If you do, you're the extreme outlier, and it doesn't change the data. Assuming you can do those things, you're almost certainly still in your 20s, and the health effects of your weight haven't really caught up with your body yet I'm 37, and 6'5". and if you're calling me a liar, you can fuck right off. >within a margin of +/- 15%, with essentially no way to eat the same amount of calories as a 200lb person and stay at 465lbs. Not least of which because your basal metabolic rate is much higher at that weight. I was not trying to indicate that the actual metabolic burn rate of humans varies by huge factors, "metabolism" is a colloquial term that encompasses a poorly defined set of features. The physical, psychological, and emotional components of your experience of a calorie deficit are what causes the experiential variance I'm describing. Of course if I could eat a 2000 calorie diet consistently for a long period of time I would lose weight! I've performed that process numerous times, with various caloric deficits (my basal is a bit past 3k, so 2k is a pretty serious deficit - I wasn't able to hold that one past three weeks). This is when most thin people start rambling about "willpower", but maybe just skip that part this time? It's not useful to any of us actual fat people.