6 ms·

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 differ

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
  Agreed about the willpower rambling and the usefulness. This is the crux for me.
- evol262 5y ago
  I said that you may be an extreme outlier. You're also larger than every NFL player in history, everyone in World's Strongest Man, etc. A 10 mile jog (let's say 80-100 minutes of uninterrupted running) is the sort of "I could eat 50 eggs" number people pull out. At 6'5", you are an outlier. 2kcal is too low, much as it's too high for the average woman. This doesn't mean that metabolism is a "colloquial" term. It means that "the physical, psychological, and emotional components" is a long way of saying "it's hard", and "the experiential variance I'm describing" is "the payoff did not seem to be worth the cost". In general, my post wasn't intended to be an attack on you. It's that "I cut calories and I lost weight" is not anecdotal. It's factual. The anecdote, if any, is "I'm larger than the largest professional athletes and I can still perform". Since it's hard to stick with cutting calories for many people, throwing drugs at it with Fella is not the right answer. A holistic approach which addresses trauma, reasons for emotional eating, lifestyle replacements, recalibration of palate, satiation even at a deficit, and all the rest should be explored alongside drugs so "I cut calories and I lost weight" is easier to stick with.
  - luckylion 5y ago
    > It's that "I cut calories and I lost weight" is not anecdotal. It's factual. It simplifies the problem though, because for many, that approach has side-effects that seriously affect quality of life, like sleep, concentration, mood swings, depression etc. Speaking of depression, I often get a similar vibe in those threads, where undoubtedly someone will jump in and say "all you have to do is lift heavy weights and change your diet a bit". It feels like they haven't experienced what other people have, so their advice sounds tone-deaf, a version of "let them eat cake". > Since it's hard to stick with cutting calories for many people, throwing drugs at it with Fella is not the right answer. If it works, it's great. Because obviously the "just change your life to be like me and hope for the best" approach doesn't work for most people, or they'd do it.
rich-cartwright 5y ago
Unsure how helpful this slapdown is after the guy is sharing something pretty vulnerable.
- evol262 5y ago
  Diets don't fail because they're inherently flawed and the system is more complex than we think it is. Diets fail because people fail. "I tried and I failed, but I still do all this physical stuff or could if I wanted to" is dishonesty, whether intended or not. Asserting that, for some unspecified (but large) fraction of the population, tracking your caloric intake and energy expenditure versus the number on the scale is inherently flawed is dangerous, misleading, and probably false. At least partly because overweight people may lie to themselves. In this sense, and in the context of Fella, throwing more drugs at the problem isn't a solution any more than throwing additional hardware at an application because the developer insists that database indexes don't work everywhere. It's true, but requires extraordinary evidence, and should not be the baseline assumption.
  - donnythecroc 5y ago
    It does look like Fella is addressing psychological issues which I think are huge. The issue if you deny that calories in v calories burnt is the essential metric is you end up with the problem with bariatric surgery where people literally eat to the point of severe pain and don't lose weight. It's why responsible surgeon always require significant calorie restriction weight loss before surgery.
    - rich-cartwright 5y ago
      I'm sorry this isn't clearer. The core part of the coaching program is focused on psychology: we even call it "psychological coaching" internally! That's the stress eating side, then also diving deeper into why we make the food choices & portion size choices we do. My take: a approach focused only on changing behavior has good parts, but traditionally been way too much reliance on this and not enough on the psychological/cognitive side.
  - 5y ago
Zababa 5y ago
> 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. That sound a bit wrong to me. Fat needs energy to maintain itself? Isn't it just an energy store? If you're 465lbs with the same muscle percentage as someone 200lbs maybe that's how it works, but no one at 465lbs has less than 15/20% body fat.
- rich-cartwright 5y ago
  It's more that the muscles (assuming same muscle mass) have to do comparatively more work if they are carrying around more weight.
  - Zababa 5y ago
    That is true but I don't think that accounts for all the metabolism. There's probably something to say about having to maintain your temperature, but I don't know if it consumes more or less energy in general as fat isolates. Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basal_metabolic_rate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basal_metabolic_rate) says that 70% of the metabolism comes from the organs, 20% the muscles and 10% thermogenesis. All probably grow as you gain weight, but I seriously doubt that an obese person weighing 400lbs consumes twice as much energy as someone weighing 200lbs. What I'm trying to say is that the idea that you have to eat enormous quantities of food to maintain a high weight seems wrong to me, and that simply saying that the person must be missing some calories that they consume or lying about their level of activity seems condescending to me. To change the subject, do you plan on expending Fella to Europe at some point? I really like your approach.
    - rich-cartwright 5y ago
      Really nicely put. Yep we're British founders so would love to expand to Europe in the future. Sadly won't be for a couple of years though - lots of work to be done first in the US!

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
Agreed about the willpower rambling and the usefulness. This is the crux for me.
evol262 5y ago
I said that you may be an extreme outlier. You're also larger than every NFL player in history, everyone in World's Strongest Man, etc. A 10 mile jog (let's say 80-100 minutes of uninterrupted running) is the sort of "I could eat 50 eggs" number people pull out. At 6'5", you are an outlier. 2kcal is too low, much as it's too high for the average woman. This doesn't mean that metabolism is a "colloquial" term. It means that "the physical, psychological, and emotional components" is a long way of saying "it's hard", and "the experiential variance I'm describing" is "the payoff did not seem to be worth the cost". In general, my post wasn't intended to be an attack on you. It's that "I cut calories and I lost weight" is not anecdotal. It's factual. The anecdote, if any, is "I'm larger than the largest professional athletes and I can still perform". Since it's hard to stick with cutting calories for many people, throwing drugs at it with Fella is not the right answer. A holistic approach which addresses trauma, reasons for emotional eating, lifestyle replacements, recalibration of palate, satiation even at a deficit, and all the rest should be explored alongside drugs so "I cut calories and I lost weight" is easier to stick with.
- luckylion 5y ago
  > It's that "I cut calories and I lost weight" is not anecdotal. It's factual. It simplifies the problem though, because for many, that approach has side-effects that seriously affect quality of life, like sleep, concentration, mood swings, depression etc. Speaking of depression, I often get a similar vibe in those threads, where undoubtedly someone will jump in and say "all you have to do is lift heavy weights and change your diet a bit". It feels like they haven't experienced what other people have, so their advice sounds tone-deaf, a version of "let them eat cake". > Since it's hard to stick with cutting calories for many people, throwing drugs at it with Fella is not the right answer. If it works, it's great. Because obviously the "just change your life to be like me and hope for the best" approach doesn't work for most people, or they'd do it.

rich-cartwright 5y ago

Unsure how helpful this slapdown is after the guy is sharing something pretty vulnerable.

evol262 5y ago
Diets don't fail because they're inherently flawed and the system is more complex than we think it is. Diets fail because people fail. "I tried and I failed, but I still do all this physical stuff or could if I wanted to" is dishonesty, whether intended or not. Asserting that, for some unspecified (but large) fraction of the population, tracking your caloric intake and energy expenditure versus the number on the scale is inherently flawed is dangerous, misleading, and probably false. At least partly because overweight people may lie to themselves. In this sense, and in the context of Fella, throwing more drugs at the problem isn't a solution any more than throwing additional hardware at an application because the developer insists that database indexes don't work everywhere. It's true, but requires extraordinary evidence, and should not be the baseline assumption.
- donnythecroc 5y ago
  It does look like Fella is addressing psychological issues which I think are huge. The issue if you deny that calories in v calories burnt is the essential metric is you end up with the problem with bariatric surgery where people literally eat to the point of severe pain and don't lose weight. It's why responsible surgeon always require significant calorie restriction weight loss before surgery.
  - rich-cartwright 5y ago
    I'm sorry this isn't clearer. The core part of the coaching program is focused on psychology: we even call it "psychological coaching" internally! That's the stress eating side, then also diving deeper into why we make the food choices & portion size choices we do. My take: a approach focused only on changing behavior has good parts, but traditionally been way too much reliance on this and not enough on the psychological/cognitive side.
- 5y ago

Zababa 5y ago

> 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. That sound a bit wrong to me. Fat needs energy to maintain itself? Isn't it just an energy store? If you're 465lbs with the same muscle percentage as someone 200lbs maybe that's how it works, but no one at 465lbs has less than 15/20% body fat.

rich-cartwright 5y ago
It's more that the muscles (assuming same muscle mass) have to do comparatively more work if they are carrying around more weight.
- Zababa 5y ago
  That is true but I don't think that accounts for all the metabolism. There's probably something to say about having to maintain your temperature, but I don't know if it consumes more or less energy in general as fat isolates. Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basal_metabolic_rate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basal_metabolic_rate) says that 70% of the metabolism comes from the organs, 20% the muscles and 10% thermogenesis. All probably grow as you gain weight, but I seriously doubt that an obese person weighing 400lbs consumes twice as much energy as someone weighing 200lbs. What I'm trying to say is that the idea that you have to eat enormous quantities of food to maintain a high weight seems wrong to me, and that simply saying that the person must be missing some calories that they consume or lying about their level of activity seems condescending to me. To change the subject, do you plan on expending Fella to Europe at some point? I really like your approach.
  - rich-cartwright 5y ago
    Really nicely put. Yep we're British founders so would love to expand to Europe in the future. Sadly won't be for a couple of years though - lots of work to be done first in the US!