9 ms·

The Efficient Frontier of Fat Loss

17 points by exfatloss 4y ago

paulddraper 4y ago
It's often overlooked that a massive component of fat loss is psychological. That's why people will get results doing such wildly different approaches.... All of them work to done extent; the big question is what you can stick to
Panzer04 4y ago
The idea is interesting, but I’m not sure about the presented fat loss options.. just eating less always works, and fairly well, but it’s presented as the worst option in this chart. Probably the biggest issue is compliance when it comes to fat loss - people convince themselves they are eating way fewer calories than they actually are, etc.
- exfatloss 4y ago
  Hey there! Just eating less never really worked for me. I think it works if your metabolism is in a good place, but mine hasn't ever really been. So eating less just resulting in feeling shitty, losing 3lbs, and then rebounding. The issue with compliance is that you can't drive with an empty gas tank. I think most diets can't be complied with and then we blame the dieter when the body's feedback system activates.
  - voldacar 4y ago
    It works for everyone, due to conservation of mass and conservation of energy
    - ac2u 4y ago
      It's obvious even from the message you're replying to that they meant "works" in a manner that encompasses compliance. But don't let you already knowing that get in the way of a pointless quip implying that they need educated in thermodynamics.
      - voldacar 4y ago
        If you try and fail to eat less food, the correct conclusion is not that eating less food "doesn't work"
        paulryanrogers 4y ago
        There is more to trying than being told. Also the level of effort/sacrifice to have the same impact with vary by age and individual.
        exfatloss 4y ago
        Trust me, I'm the most OCD guy ever. I literally just ate the same meal every day for 5 months. I've tried the craziest diets. Compliance is not the problem in people like me. It's something metabolic.
        orangepurple 4y ago
        I tried and failed to eat less food for decades. Ultimately it was total abstinence for many hours at a time that proved to be sustainable and actually easy after 3 months.
        exfatloss 4y ago
        I think it is, if it is being recommended to the person to lose weight.
    - exfatloss 4y ago
      You're thinking of CICO, not eating less. They have nothing to do with each other.
  - orangepurple 4y ago
    The feeling of hunger has three components the majority of people cannot untangle unless you have a lot of experience. 1. dehydration (feels like you are hungry/dying) 2. insufficient electrolytes (feels like you are hungry/dying) 3. high ghrelin (feels like you are hungry/dying) The trick is to stay on top of #1 and #2 and power through #3. Eventually #3 will go way down.
    - exfatloss 4y ago
      I think there could be even more components. For example eating some foods actually makes me way more hungry than I was before. Take yogurt or (stevia) sweetened, flavored whey protein powder. I'm ok, then I eat some, then I'm ravenous. I'm literally way hungrier after eating those foods than before. Cheese has it, too. Most carbs as well, especially sweet ones I think it might be something about insulin being released from dairy and from sweet taste. Even if it's zero-caloric sweetener like stevia or monk fruit, I feel a spike in appetite 15-30 minutes later.
    - saurik 4y ago
      FWIW, I went like two months managing to barely eat anything and not feeling hungry--using electrolytes, supplements, and careful decisions about fat vs. carbohydrate intake with respect to satiety--but I swear my body started breaking down and it led me to panic. I am considering trying again and bulk-loading protein at the same time... but I feel like I haven't even recovered yet from trying to eat less the last time. At least I haven't gained back much weight... but I only lost (net) 10 pounds. Honestly, I just don't understand how people lose weight by simply not eating, as it feels like you have remarkably little control over what your body spends its remaining energy on or even how much energy it chooses to spend. To flip this: up until a few years ago for me--when a switch flipped and I started rapidly gaining weight for some reason--it was also hard for me to gain too much weight, despite how I cared absolutely not for how much I ate. Like, people act like eating is some choice and that's what causes you to gain or lose weight, but if you try to eat too much it isn't trivial that you just gain weight. My experience is that I'd get full and just not want to eat as much for days after I ate too much, I'd get feelings of more energy leading me to burn more without realizing I was doing so, and I swear your digestion changes somewhat and you absorb less. Like, what actually causes this mysterious engine to stop regulating itself is crazy. You know what has correlated with my gaining weight? I started feeling cold a lot. I used to never feel cold, but I started getting cold all the time and now I sleep under a giant stack of blankets and it is difficult for me to sleep without them... it is actually ridiculous how cold I get now. My body has clearly decided to stop spending much energy on raising its body temperature. So like, I can eat less, but there are a ton of ramifications to that and my body starts automatically trying to correct and fight against it and inherently is making energy tradeoffs that I disagree with ("just burn the fat already!" ;P). People do these weird diet regimes--like keto--because it makes them think (maybe correctly!) that it gives them some control over how their body spends that energy budget. I honestly frankly think maybe I just need "more sun" or something stupid like that and I'll lose weight without even trying so hard.
  - borroka 4y ago
    This is a rationalization of a natural impulse that chronic overweight people appear to be unwilling to curb. Just go back in time 30 years, and people were much thinner. Were they driving around with an empty tank? I don't think so, and neither did they. Now, weight loss is complex at the societal level, but very easy at the individual level. I am currently on a diet because I want to lose 10 or 15 pounds. Do I find it enjoyable? Not really. But I don't find it torture like I did when I had to have an urological exam. Good planning helps, choosing protein over carbs and fats helps, and after 3 weeks, more or less, the feeling of hunger decreases significantly. And if you go back in time -- not that they were necessarily better times, I'm just talking about the contexts I write about -- many more men wore a suit and many more women wore a dress. Today, asking someone to wear a dress or a suit seems like asking a stallion to wear a saddle for the first time. Were those who chose the attractiveness of certain more formal dresses over the comfort of sagging shorts and flip-flops foolish? It seems to me that when people are free from certain social expectations they tend, entropically, to choose maximum comfort, such as unlimited calorie consumption and sloppiness in self-presentation. And one could argue why this modern trend does not also see an explosion in the number of sexual relationships -- after all, sex should be one of our strongest urges. But it has just been replaced by pornography, just as physical performance -- showing one's muscles or strength, or sensitivity of soul and body -- has been replaced with watching professional sports played by others while gorging ourselves on chips and beer from the comfort of the couch.
    - exfatloss 4y ago
      Unwilling or unable?
      - borroka 4y ago
        I think, given current knowledge (perhaps in the future the difference between a simple desire and an irresistible impulse will be clearer), the question is philosophical rather than based on science. Is the violent person unable or unwilling to be nonviolent toward others? It is hard to say, but for violent people, we (Western democracies) have decided that they are unwilling to be nonviolent, not incapable. In fact, apart from a few "insane" cases, they are housed in normal prisons (separations from gen pop can take place for security reasons) and not in special institutions. As for addicts, the modern view in Western societies is that they are largely incapable of controlling themselves (when I was a teenager years ago, they were considered unwilling). Addiction is considered a disease, not a lifestyle choice. But cigarette smokers, for some reason, are considered unwilling to quit, not incapable (not: "they need help," but: "it's disgusting"). The jealous lunatic is considered unwilling, not unable to stop acting like a jealous lunatic: could they be addicted to love? (No, some say, that they are addicted to control, not love. But would the diagnosis of "addiction" change?). For fat people we are observing the same transition observed for addicts. When I was a teenager, being fat was a moral weakness. Today it is the fault of genes, broken families, seed oils, soils lacking magnesium: "they cannot lose weight, either because of genetics or soil and water", etc. Since more and more people are getting fat, which is bad, I don't think, from a consequentialist point of view, that the "addiction" approach for fat people is working.
- mrcrumb1 4y ago
  The numbers say eating less is not a sustainable way to lose weight for the vast majority of overweight people.
  - orangepurple 4y ago
    Time between meals is the strongest and most sustainable lifestyle choice to lose weight and keep it off. 18-24 hours between meals day in day out as an adult. You will asymptotically approach a natural weight by eating what you wish if you follow the timing rule.
    - exfatloss 4y ago
      Time between meals could actually be a factor in my success so far. I only eat 2 meals per day most days. I've done IF and OMAD before, but kind of "Ad lib in the window" which still made me gain weight typically. It could be that I'm minimizing insulin by only eating protein in one meal, and my other meal is energy-dense (heavy cream) but doesn't raise insulin at all. So in terms of insulin, it's an OMAD diet yet still allows me to eat to satiety.
1shox 4y ago
Is this article implying calorie deficits are not what cause weight loss? Or am I misunderstanding? He links to the idea that "we don't know what causes weight loss", but studies show calorie deficits do.
- orangepurple 4y ago
  Calorie restriction is a red herring. Real weight loss is caused by long term reduction of insulin levels. The foods, quantities, times, and times between meals you eat affect this.
  - 1shox 4y ago
    Try Calculating your TDEE (at sedentary) and eating 500 calories (accurately) below it for 12 weeks and come back, you'll weigh 12lbs less. I don't think that's a red herring.
    - orangepurple 4y ago
      Given two identical individuals eating an isocaloric diet the diet which stimulates insulin less will result in greater weight loss or lower weight gain.
      - 1shox 4y ago
        is the difference more than 5% - 10%? because there are differences between the efficiency of energy consumed during digestion of the different macros (Fat, Protein, Carbs). That could be the obvious difference here. Otherwise, it's not a red herring. For example, I've heard that if 100 calories is eaten of protein, you may only digest 80 calories, arbitrary number, but it may differ than carbohydrate's 90 calories per 100 eaten.
        orangepurple 4y ago
        I would like to give you a succinct answer, but I am not as well spoken as Robert Lustig, MD, a Professor of Pediatrics in the Division of Endocrinology at University of California, San Francisco, and the author of Fat Chance: Beating the Odds against Sugar, Processed Food, Obesity, and Disease. Is a Calorie a Calorie? Processed Food, Experiment Gone Wrong Presented by Stanford Health Care https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nxyxcTZccsE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nxyxcTZccsE
throwaway22032 4y ago
Literally everyone who lifts weight and trains properly for a decent length of time knows that bulking (eating more calories to put on weight) and cutting (eating fewer calories to reduce weight) work. The fact that this is even at all debated is bizarre. These people should stick to astrology.
- exfatloss 4y ago
  I've gained 20lbs over 3 months of Starting Strength. I wish it was all muscle but it wasn't.
  - throwaway22032 4y ago
    Of course it's not, that's not how the body works. You ate in a surplus and gained some muscle and some fat.
    - exfatloss 4y ago
      Just saying that what "everyone knows" isn't always true.
      - throwaway22032 4y ago
        Are you disappointed with the results of your eating and training, are you claiming that you gained weight despite reducing calorie intake, or is there some third option I'm missing? I also gain weight when I eat more and train, what's the confusing bit here?
        exfatloss 4y ago
        The first. People said "eat less" and it didn't work. People said "train more" and it didn't work. Then people said "Duh, you gotta do both at the same time!" which is obviously not sustainably possible.
        4y ago

17 points by exfatloss 4y ago

It's often overlooked that a massive component of fat loss is psychological. That's why people will get results doing such wildly different approaches.... All of them work to done extent; the big question is what you can stick to

Panzer04 4y ago

The idea is interesting, but I’m not sure about the presented fat loss options.. just eating less always works, and fairly well, but it’s presented as the worst option in this chart. Probably the biggest issue is compliance when it comes to fat loss - people convince themselves they are eating way fewer calories than they actually are, etc.

exfatloss 4y ago
Hey there! Just eating less never really worked for me. I think it works if your metabolism is in a good place, but mine hasn't ever really been. So eating less just resulting in feeling shitty, losing 3lbs, and then rebounding. The issue with compliance is that you can't drive with an empty gas tank. I think most diets can't be complied with and then we blame the dieter when the body's feedback system activates.
- voldacar 4y ago
  It works for everyone, due to conservation of mass and conservation of energy
  - ac2u 4y ago
    It's obvious even from the message you're replying to that they meant "works" in a manner that encompasses compliance. But don't let you already knowing that get in the way of a pointless quip implying that they need educated in thermodynamics.
    - voldacar 4y ago
      If you try and fail to eat less food, the correct conclusion is not that eating less food "doesn't work"
      - paulryanrogers 4y ago
        There is more to trying than being told. Also the level of effort/sacrifice to have the same impact with vary by age and individual.
        exfatloss 4y ago
        Trust me, I'm the most OCD guy ever. I literally just ate the same meal every day for 5 months. I've tried the craziest diets. Compliance is not the problem in people like me. It's something metabolic.
      - orangepurple 4y ago
        I tried and failed to eat less food for decades. Ultimately it was total abstinence for many hours at a time that proved to be sustainable and actually easy after 3 months.
      - exfatloss 4y ago
        I think it is, if it is being recommended to the person to lose weight.
  - exfatloss 4y ago
    You're thinking of CICO, not eating less. They have nothing to do with each other.
- orangepurple 4y ago
  The feeling of hunger has three components the majority of people cannot untangle unless you have a lot of experience. 1. dehydration (feels like you are hungry/dying) 2. insufficient electrolytes (feels like you are hungry/dying) 3. high ghrelin (feels like you are hungry/dying) The trick is to stay on top of #1 and #2 and power through #3. Eventually #3 will go way down.
  - exfatloss 4y ago
    I think there could be even more components. For example eating some foods actually makes me way more hungry than I was before. Take yogurt or (stevia) sweetened, flavored whey protein powder. I'm ok, then I eat some, then I'm ravenous. I'm literally way hungrier after eating those foods than before. Cheese has it, too. Most carbs as well, especially sweet ones I think it might be something about insulin being released from dairy and from sweet taste. Even if it's zero-caloric sweetener like stevia or monk fruit, I feel a spike in appetite 15-30 minutes later.
  - saurik 4y ago
    FWIW, I went like two months managing to barely eat anything and not feeling hungry--using electrolytes, supplements, and careful decisions about fat vs. carbohydrate intake with respect to satiety--but I swear my body started breaking down and it led me to panic. I am considering trying again and bulk-loading protein at the same time... but I feel like I haven't even recovered yet from trying to eat less the last time. At least I haven't gained back much weight... but I only lost (net) 10 pounds. Honestly, I just don't understand how people lose weight by simply not eating, as it feels like you have remarkably little control over what your body spends its remaining energy on or even how much energy it chooses to spend. To flip this: up until a few years ago for me--when a switch flipped and I started rapidly gaining weight for some reason--it was also hard for me to gain too much weight, despite how I cared absolutely not for how much I ate. Like, people act like eating is some choice and that's what causes you to gain or lose weight, but if you try to eat too much it isn't trivial that you just gain weight. My experience is that I'd get full and just not want to eat as much for days after I ate too much, I'd get feelings of more energy leading me to burn more without realizing I was doing so, and I swear your digestion changes somewhat and you absorb less. Like, what actually causes this mysterious engine to stop regulating itself is crazy. You know what has correlated with my gaining weight? I started feeling cold a lot. I used to never feel cold, but I started getting cold all the time and now I sleep under a giant stack of blankets and it is difficult for me to sleep without them... it is actually ridiculous how cold I get now. My body has clearly decided to stop spending much energy on raising its body temperature. So like, I can eat less, but there are a ton of ramifications to that and my body starts automatically trying to correct and fight against it and inherently is making energy tradeoffs that I disagree with ("just burn the fat already!" ;P). People do these weird diet regimes--like keto--because it makes them think (maybe correctly!) that it gives them some control over how their body spends that energy budget. I honestly frankly think maybe I just need "more sun" or something stupid like that and I'll lose weight without even trying so hard.
- borroka 4y ago
  This is a rationalization of a natural impulse that chronic overweight people appear to be unwilling to curb. Just go back in time 30 years, and people were much thinner. Were they driving around with an empty tank? I don't think so, and neither did they. Now, weight loss is complex at the societal level, but very easy at the individual level. I am currently on a diet because I want to lose 10 or 15 pounds. Do I find it enjoyable? Not really. But I don't find it torture like I did when I had to have an urological exam. Good planning helps, choosing protein over carbs and fats helps, and after 3 weeks, more or less, the feeling of hunger decreases significantly. And if you go back in time -- not that they were necessarily better times, I'm just talking about the contexts I write about -- many more men wore a suit and many more women wore a dress. Today, asking someone to wear a dress or a suit seems like asking a stallion to wear a saddle for the first time. Were those who chose the attractiveness of certain more formal dresses over the comfort of sagging shorts and flip-flops foolish? It seems to me that when people are free from certain social expectations they tend, entropically, to choose maximum comfort, such as unlimited calorie consumption and sloppiness in self-presentation. And one could argue why this modern trend does not also see an explosion in the number of sexual relationships -- after all, sex should be one of our strongest urges. But it has just been replaced by pornography, just as physical performance -- showing one's muscles or strength, or sensitivity of soul and body -- has been replaced with watching professional sports played by others while gorging ourselves on chips and beer from the comfort of the couch.
  - exfatloss 4y ago
    Unwilling or unable?
    - borroka 4y ago
      I think, given current knowledge (perhaps in the future the difference between a simple desire and an irresistible impulse will be clearer), the question is philosophical rather than based on science. Is the violent person unable or unwilling to be nonviolent toward others? It is hard to say, but for violent people, we (Western democracies) have decided that they are unwilling to be nonviolent, not incapable. In fact, apart from a few "insane" cases, they are housed in normal prisons (separations from gen pop can take place for security reasons) and not in special institutions. As for addicts, the modern view in Western societies is that they are largely incapable of controlling themselves (when I was a teenager years ago, they were considered unwilling). Addiction is considered a disease, not a lifestyle choice. But cigarette smokers, for some reason, are considered unwilling to quit, not incapable (not: "they need help," but: "it's disgusting"). The jealous lunatic is considered unwilling, not unable to stop acting like a jealous lunatic: could they be addicted to love? (No, some say, that they are addicted to control, not love. But would the diagnosis of "addiction" change?). For fat people we are observing the same transition observed for addicts. When I was a teenager, being fat was a moral weakness. Today it is the fault of genes, broken families, seed oils, soils lacking magnesium: "they cannot lose weight, either because of genetics or soil and water", etc. Since more and more people are getting fat, which is bad, I don't think, from a consequentialist point of view, that the "addiction" approach for fat people is working.
mrcrumb1 4y ago
The numbers say eating less is not a sustainable way to lose weight for the vast majority of overweight people.
- orangepurple 4y ago
  Time between meals is the strongest and most sustainable lifestyle choice to lose weight and keep it off. 18-24 hours between meals day in day out as an adult. You will asymptotically approach a natural weight by eating what you wish if you follow the timing rule.
  - exfatloss 4y ago
    Time between meals could actually be a factor in my success so far. I only eat 2 meals per day most days. I've done IF and OMAD before, but kind of "Ad lib in the window" which still made me gain weight typically. It could be that I'm minimizing insulin by only eating protein in one meal, and my other meal is energy-dense (heavy cream) but doesn't raise insulin at all. So in terms of insulin, it's an OMAD diet yet still allows me to eat to satiety.

1shox 4y ago

Is this article implying calorie deficits are not what cause weight loss? Or am I misunderstanding? He links to the idea that "we don't know what causes weight loss", but studies show calorie deficits do.

orangepurple 4y ago
Calorie restriction is a red herring. Real weight loss is caused by long term reduction of insulin levels. The foods, quantities, times, and times between meals you eat affect this.
- 1shox 4y ago
  Try Calculating your TDEE (at sedentary) and eating 500 calories (accurately) below it for 12 weeks and come back, you'll weigh 12lbs less. I don't think that's a red herring.
  - orangepurple 4y ago
    Given two identical individuals eating an isocaloric diet the diet which stimulates insulin less will result in greater weight loss or lower weight gain.
    - 1shox 4y ago
      is the difference more than 5% - 10%? because there are differences between the efficiency of energy consumed during digestion of the different macros (Fat, Protein, Carbs). That could be the obvious difference here. Otherwise, it's not a red herring. For example, I've heard that if 100 calories is eaten of protein, you may only digest 80 calories, arbitrary number, but it may differ than carbohydrate's 90 calories per 100 eaten.
      - orangepurple 4y ago
        I would like to give you a succinct answer, but I am not as well spoken as Robert Lustig, MD, a Professor of Pediatrics in the Division of Endocrinology at University of California, San Francisco, and the author of Fat Chance: Beating the Odds against Sugar, Processed Food, Obesity, and Disease. Is a Calorie a Calorie? Processed Food, Experiment Gone Wrong Presented by Stanford Health Care https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nxyxcTZccsE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nxyxcTZccsE

throwaway22032 4y ago

Literally everyone who lifts weight and trains properly for a decent length of time knows that bulking (eating more calories to put on weight) and cutting (eating fewer calories to reduce weight) work. The fact that this is even at all debated is bizarre. These people should stick to astrology.

exfatloss 4y ago
I've gained 20lbs over 3 months of Starting Strength. I wish it was all muscle but it wasn't.
- throwaway22032 4y ago
  Of course it's not, that's not how the body works. You ate in a surplus and gained some muscle and some fat.
  - exfatloss 4y ago
    Just saying that what "everyone knows" isn't always true.
    - throwaway22032 4y ago
      Are you disappointed with the results of your eating and training, are you claiming that you gained weight despite reducing calorie intake, or is there some third option I'm missing? I also gain weight when I eat more and train, what's the confusing bit here?
      - exfatloss 4y ago
        The first. People said "eat less" and it didn't work. People said "train more" and it didn't work. Then people said "Duh, you gotta do both at the same time!" which is obviously not sustainably possible.
        4y ago