4 ms·

> What does the O mean here, exactly? Doesn't matter. Ignore the O, focus on the I. If you want to weigh a certain amount, look up what the sedentary metabolic

> What does the O mean here, exactly? Doesn't matter. Ignore the O, focus on the I. If you want to weigh a certain amount, look up what the sedentary metabolic estimate is for that weight and consume that number that despite any additional exercise you are doing. The hard part is dealing with being hungry all the time, and despite the promises of fad diets everywhere, there is no solution to that that I have found that doesn't involve stimulants.

incrudible 3y ago
Metabolic rates are both individual and to some degree genetic. You can't just "look it up". In my text, I specifically mention research[1] showing caloric restriction can lower metabolic rate, which means that more weight will be gained for the same amount of I. This is a fundamental issue that would explain why diets don't work long-term. [1] https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/exercise-metabolism-and-weight-new-research-from-the-biggest-loser-202201272676 https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/exercise-metabolism-and-...
- rocket_surgeron 3y ago
  The dirty secret about "metabolism" is that, except for an EXTRAORDINARILY SMALL part of the population, the range of metabolic differences between individuals is approximately equivalent to a single candy bar's worth of calories. If you have a "slow metabolism" eat one candy bar's less worth of calories and you'll be fine. Nine out of ten humans will be within 10% (less than a candy bar) of what an online BMR calculator spits out based on their sex, age, weight, and height. The tenth out of ten humans is the person in the article you linked to, or an elite athlete. If you are one of those one out of ten humans, you are or should be under the care of a physician. Everyone else can count calories and adjust based on their observations. BMR has the same factoid-spouting prigs as BMI. Yeah, we get it, you're a powerlifter so BMI doesn't work with you. Shut up and let the 99.97% of the population for who it works use it.
  - incrudible 3y ago
    Yeah right, counting calories works for "99.7% of the population" but then everyone struggles with weight loss, somehow. Cutting out that candy bar may work on paper, but the body will adapt to that reduced intake. I'll cite the article I linked: "One show contestant lost 239 pounds and achieved a weight of 191 pounds, yet six years later, after regaining 100 pounds of that lost weight, had to consume an 800-calorie-per-day diet to maintain his weight." Now, you may argue that this person is an extreme outlier, and that's certainly true. However, it illustrates the principle. Differences as small as 10% can make a big impact over time.
    - elmolino89 3y ago
      I guess the subject in question was not put in a prison cell where 800 kcal was handled through a controlled opening? The 130kg person burning just 800kcal/day is something highly suspicious. I am not sure if would be enough to lie in coma in a +30C room with a severe thyroid hormones deficiency to get to that level. There are examples from hundreds of concentration/POW camps, periods of famine: if such extreme BMR lowering would be a thing, we would see it long time ago.
    - AnIdiotOnTheNet 3y ago
      > Yeah right, counting calories works for "99.7% of the population" but then everyone struggles with weight loss, somehow. Yes, because being hungry sucks. Why this has to be explicitly pointed out to you, I don't know.

incrudible 3y ago

Metabolic rates are both individual and to some degree genetic. You can't just "look it up". In my text, I specifically mention research[1] showing caloric restriction can lower metabolic rate, which means that more weight will be gained for the same amount of I. This is a fundamental issue that would explain why diets don't work long-term. [1] https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/exercise-metabolism-and-weight-new-research-from-the-biggest-loser-202201272676 https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/exercise-metabolism-and-...

rocket_surgeron 3y ago
The dirty secret about "metabolism" is that, except for an EXTRAORDINARILY SMALL part of the population, the range of metabolic differences between individuals is approximately equivalent to a single candy bar's worth of calories. If you have a "slow metabolism" eat one candy bar's less worth of calories and you'll be fine. Nine out of ten humans will be within 10% (less than a candy bar) of what an online BMR calculator spits out based on their sex, age, weight, and height. The tenth out of ten humans is the person in the article you linked to, or an elite athlete. If you are one of those one out of ten humans, you are or should be under the care of a physician. Everyone else can count calories and adjust based on their observations. BMR has the same factoid-spouting prigs as BMI. Yeah, we get it, you're a powerlifter so BMI doesn't work with you. Shut up and let the 99.97% of the population for who it works use it.
- incrudible 3y ago
  Yeah right, counting calories works for "99.7% of the population" but then everyone struggles with weight loss, somehow. Cutting out that candy bar may work on paper, but the body will adapt to that reduced intake. I'll cite the article I linked: "One show contestant lost 239 pounds and achieved a weight of 191 pounds, yet six years later, after regaining 100 pounds of that lost weight, had to consume an 800-calorie-per-day diet to maintain his weight." Now, you may argue that this person is an extreme outlier, and that's certainly true. However, it illustrates the principle. Differences as small as 10% can make a big impact over time.
  - elmolino89 3y ago
    I guess the subject in question was not put in a prison cell where 800 kcal was handled through a controlled opening? The 130kg person burning just 800kcal/day is something highly suspicious. I am not sure if would be enough to lie in coma in a +30C room with a severe thyroid hormones deficiency to get to that level. There are examples from hundreds of concentration/POW camps, periods of famine: if such extreme BMR lowering would be a thing, we would see it long time ago.
  - AnIdiotOnTheNet 3y ago
    > Yeah right, counting calories works for "99.7% of the population" but then everyone struggles with weight loss, somehow. Yes, because being hungry sucks. Why this has to be explicitly pointed out to you, I don't know.