3 ms·

There was a recent discussion here about a nice article that went into this: https://physiqonomics.com/eating-too-much/ https://physiqonomics.com/eating-too-muc

There was a recent discussion here about a nice article that went into this: https://physiqonomics.com/eating-too-much/ https://physiqonomics.com/eating-too-much/ https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31381410 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31381410 I'll just quote the article: > The correct part: When you reduce calories, more specifically as you begin to get leaner, there is, in fact, some slowing of metabolic rate. > The incorrect part: Due to this low-calorie consumption your body decides fuck you and proceeds to enter this phantom zone of otherworldliness where the laws of thermodynamics cease to exist, resulting in no fat loss, or worse, gaining fat on some absurdly low number of calories. This 'low-power mode' seems consistent with the idea your metabolic rate can slow a bit. I read elsewhere that base metabolism varies between people by (iirc) ~15% even for a given weight/build due to genetics, weight training (as in its after effects, not the calories exerted during the workout itself), diet, etc. That's enough to be noticeable: 375 calories difference from a 2,500-calorie diet. It's not enough to back up "no matter how much I eat, I can't lose weight".

dx034 4y ago
The actual reason for many is probably that with a high enough deficit, you can feel so tired that it's hard to burn the same amount of calories. Walking 20k steps per day is no problem for most healthy adults, at such a deficit it becomes really hard.
- scottlamb 4y ago
  > The actual reason for many is probably that with a high enough deficit, you can feel so tired that it's hard to burn the same amount of calories. Maybe, but for the folks most in need of weight loss, how active are they to begin with? Even for a fit person, it's often impractical to be active enough to make up for overeating. So while it'd be ideal to decrease intake without further decreasing activity, they'd still probably lose more weight by decreasing intake even if that brings activity to near-0. > Walking 20k steps per day is no problem for most healthy adults, at such a deficit it becomes really hard. Google Fit on my phone says I don't get 20k steps in, even though I run/jog four miles most mornings. I'm physically capable of moving more, but I have a full-time desk job, family responsibilities, etc.

dx034 4y ago

The actual reason for many is probably that with a high enough deficit, you can feel so tired that it's hard to burn the same amount of calories. Walking 20k steps per day is no problem for most healthy adults, at such a deficit it becomes really hard.

scottlamb 4y ago
> The actual reason for many is probably that with a high enough deficit, you can feel so tired that it's hard to burn the same amount of calories. Maybe, but for the folks most in need of weight loss, how active are they to begin with? Even for a fit person, it's often impractical to be active enough to make up for overeating. So while it'd be ideal to decrease intake without further decreasing activity, they'd still probably lose more weight by decreasing intake even if that brings activity to near-0. > Walking 20k steps per day is no problem for most healthy adults, at such a deficit it becomes really hard. Google Fit on my phone says I don't get 20k steps in, even though I run/jog four miles most mornings. I'm physically capable of moving more, but I have a full-time desk job, family responsibilities, etc.