19 ms·

Numbers without which it's impossible to talk about weight loss

85 points by red369 3y ago

jmpman 3y ago
Can you lose fat if you still have calories available in glycogen storage? Or do you need to first burn through the glycogen? Will only carbs work to replenish glycogen storage, or will also fat and protein?
- v7engine 3y ago
  "Your body burns a mixture of fat and glycogen where the glycogen decreases over time. But it does appear to deplete pretty quickly." This is mentioned in the article.
- tim-fan 3y ago
  I believe in some conditions fat and/or protein can be used to restore glycogen via Gluconeogenesis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gluconeogenesis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gluconeogenesis I remember reading that for keto diets it's important to not eat too much protein, otherwise the excess protein may be converted to glucose, replenishing glycogen and knocking you out of ketosis.
  - Blackthorn 3y ago
    Gluconeogenesis can't really turn fat into glucose, humans lack a key enzyme for that.
    - arcticbull 3y ago
      This is not accurate. If that were true people who fasted would die after about 3 days, but of course, the longest fast lasted about 350 days. The reality is after 3 days of fasting, your blood glucose level stabilizes. Your body must perform gluconeogenesis to survive because a few types of tissue require glucose to live - those without mitochondria. This means red blood cells and about 30% of the energy requirements of your brain. Pathway is here if you're curious. [1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gluconeogenesis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gluconeogenesis
      - Blackthorn 3y ago
        There's the glycerol part of the fat, sure. But your body can make glucose from a lot more stuff. Namely, proteins.
        arcticbull 3y ago
        I think when people say "fat" they mean triglycerides - not free fatty acids - which includes the glycerol backbone. So it's not right to say that humans can't turn fat into sugar, they can. Per the wikipedia article 90% of gluconeogenesis happens from lactate, glycerol, alanine and glutamate.
        Blackthorn 3y ago
        Yeah, fair enough. That'll maybe teach me to not type abbreviated nonsense on my phone.
        deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
        Aerroon 3y ago
        >Per the wikipedia article 90% of gluconeogenesis happens from lactate, glycerol, alanine and glutamate. That's interesting! Glutamine vs glutamate ratio is supposedly something that affects motivation.[0] I wonder if (enough) gluconeogenesis thus boosts motivation? [0] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41386-020-0760-6 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41386-020-0760-6
        wuiheerfoj 3y ago
        Is there an obvious way to modify that ratio?
        Aerroon 3y ago
        The "word on the street" is that oral glutamine supplementation works for this purpose. My personal experience agrees with this (but the effect probably isn't very large). In the morning I mix a tablespoon of glutamine into a glass of water and drink it. You can buy glutamine in supermarkets next to all the other protein supplements (glutamine is the most abundant amino acid in the body). It's also helpful to your immune system. --- That being said, that's 'hearsay'. I am not aware of any studies that show that oral supplementation of glutamine improves motivation. That might just be due to time though. The original study showing that glutamine-to-glutamate ratio in the nuclear accumbens affects motivation was published in 2020.[0] We do know that glutamine does pass the blood brain barrier.[1] There's probably a decent chance that oral supplementation of glutamine works. Some downsides: it can make seizures worse. There's some worry about it having some effect on cancer, although that seems to be mixed - some seem to think it would increase the risk of cancer, others say it decreases it (cancer cells use glutamine as fuel). [0] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41386-020-0760-6 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41386-020-0760-6 [1] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12933350/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12933350/
  - dawnerd 3y ago
    From personal experience you’d have to eat a LOT of protein to kick you out. I do a pretty high protein keto diet and it works great. What really gets people is all the keto blogs talk about eating lots of fat. That great if you are doing keto for a lifestyle choice but if you’re doing it for weight loss you already have the fat and don’t need to boost your intake. Eating a fraction of the suggested macros still maintains satiety.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
- bzjlvewivezw 3y ago
  Yes, I think so. This is most likely to happen with a high-fat diet and large amounts of low-mid intensity endurance exercise.
  - arcticbull 3y ago
    Studies show that exercise doesn't help you lose any appreciable amount of weight. It's good for you and you should do it, but it doesn't help with weight loss. Only what you eat does. At a high level, it's mostly because (a) exercise just isn't inefficient enough to lose a ton of weight unless you do insane amounts of it. To lose 10lbs through exercise you need to run from SF to LA. (b) humans are notorious compensatory eaters. If you work out, you'll be hungry, and you'll rationalize or sneak extra food, and one muffin un-does like 5 miles of running. [1] agrees, showing that moderate-intensity aerobic exercise done 5x weekly for 30m per day yields no measurable weight loss. [2] shows that adding exercise to diet yields no measurable difference between the diet and the diet+exercise group after 6 months, and after 12 months the difference was two pounds in favor of the exercise group. After a year. [1] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0033062018301440 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S00330... [2] https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1467-789X.2008.00547.x https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1467-789X...
    - PlunderBunny 3y ago
      Yes - nothing is more likely to make me start a spiel than hearing "eat less, move more".
      - arcticbull 3y ago
        It's interesting how persistent the 'just diet and exercise' thing is when any amount of research will show you that it just doesn't do shit. Your metabolism slows down to compensate for dieting, you eat more to compensate for exercise, etc. The studies that do show any benefit stop after 1 year, and don't really do follow-ups. By 'significant' benefit they mean statistically significant, as the weight loss numbers are really marginal. Then, if you look at 2-year follow-ups for weight-loss studies, they're fucking bleak. 9 in 10 fail and regain the bulk of the weight lost. Imagine a doctor regularly prescribing you pain medication that worked for 1 in 10 people - because that's basically the state of front-line weight management healthcare. The one that really put it into perspective for me was the one that revisited the Biggest Loser participants after 6 years and the mean regain was 70% of their lost weight (90 of the 127lbs average), and they were left with a 20% slower metabolism. [1] [1] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27136388/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27136388/
majkinetor 3y ago
There is no mention of - brown fat which dissipates calories. - state of other mater transition trough the body (food, water etc.) - procentage of fat vs muscle cells You don't need those numbers to lose fat, only a belt and knowing your carbs and micronutrients.
globular-toast 3y ago
I've been telling people for years how my weight can easily fluctuate 2kg over a single day. I knew it was water (we're mostly water anyway), but didn't know it was glycogen. I think a lot of salt increases water retention too. Some people say you shouldn't weigh yourself every day because fluctuations are disheartening. I wholeheartedly disagree. You must weigh yourself every day. Then you'll be able to see the trend. If the line isn't going where you want it to, eat less (or more). Having less water makes you look learner too. This is well known by bodybuilders, models, actors, fitness influencers etc. Every actor you see with their shirt off is dehydrated. Talk about unrealistic beauty standards...
- semi-extrinsic 3y ago
  Modern bodybuilding is so far gone off the deep end, it's insane. Competitors are so severely dehydrated at the time of competition that they can barely manage the exertion of standing on stage and posing. There are more deaths in bodybuilding than any other sport, even stuff like MMA.
zaptheimpaler 3y ago
It's cool seeing the numbers but on a practical level I think they're a distraction. To track weight loss, you only need to measure your weight at the same time every day (e.g morning before breakfast) and use a rolling 7-day average for good measure. The number on the scale is less real than the rolling average.
- ajuc 3y ago
  Yup, there's like 10 different factors that change on daily basis.
- iopq 3y ago
  You will have a lower 7 day rolling average on a low carb diet than on a high carb diet because of glycogen. A low carb diet will deplete it faster, so you will think it's working better, but in actuality the effect is temporary. You need to be cognizant of glycogen while dieting so you don't get fooled. Otherwise you will think your diet stopped working after a while
  - somenameforme 3y ago
    "Diets" don't really make any logical sense from a weight management perspective as a liminal thing. Your body will always trend towards a given weight for a given caloric input, because one of the biggest factors in your daily caloric burn is how much you already weigh. And as you lose weight, it goes down. In other words, your equilibrium caloric intake will decrease as you lose weight. So if you go on a diet, drop 30 lbs, and then go back to eating the same amount you were before, then you're going to regain those 30lbs right on back. The reason checking the scale is useful is because they can clue you in on where a given caloric input is taking you, up or down. The details and timeline aren't really relevant, because if you want the gains to stay then that "diet" is your new, permanent, lifestyle.
    - MattJ100 3y ago
      Your logic seems to imply that any given "diet" leads to either increasing or decreasing weight. If you were overweight but stable, a temporary restriction followed by a return to the original diet would suffice, right? That's where this article is helpful, as it explains how (and how much) weight gain can be expected when you end the temporary restrictions.
dougSF70 3y ago
I think about reduction in volume rather than reduction in weight as a goal. Burning fat will reduce your volume but adding muscle will increase your weight (potentially).
trabant00 3y ago
When I was 40 I went from ~16% body fat to ~9% while also gaining about 5% of my body weight in muscle. It took me 2 years during which I experimented a lot with nutrition. I also consumed every article, video, study, advice, etc that I could find. Looking back I was pretty surprised to understand that all that information did almost nothing in helping me get results. Getting "shredded" was mostly limited by finding out what works for me. What food I can easily buy and cook. What food I tolerated eating, because after 2 years I could not stand chicken breast any more. What fit into my schedule as I could not eat a big lunch because it made me sleepy at work. A big dinner meant I would sleep poorly. A big breakfast prevented me to train in the morning. I started by drinking almost a liter of milk a day but somewhere along those 2 years I became lactose intolerant. I ended up eating a lot of fat in the form of nuts, butter, cheese and that made my cholesterol go down somehow which puzzled my doctor. And so many other things I discovered about my body. I am not even talking about bullshit science in the fitness industry (which is a lot). Articles and information like the present ones, which I can find nothing wrong with, do absolutely nothing in helping lose weight. This rant was provoked by the title "Numbers without which it's impossible to talk about weight loss". I call bullshit even as I recently started another weight loss journey as I'm close to 20% BF now. And very little of what I discovered before applies as I'm older, switched lifestyles, live in a different country with completely different food, etc. But one thing I am sure of: I will not waste another moment reading stuff like this.
- eXpl0it3r 3y ago
  > I started by drinking almost a liter of milk a day but somewhere along those 2 years I became lactose intolerant. Well this isn't really surprising to me, assuming that you didn't drink raw milk. Processed milk doesn't have the lactase enzyme, so your body has to produce it in order to break down lactose. Consuming that much milk puts your lactase production into overdrive, until it eventually fatigues and you become lactose intolerant. It's rather ironic, that people who are lactose intolerant can actually consume raw milk, because it still contains the lactase enzyme, so your body doesn't have to produce (as much).
  - agos 3y ago
ffwd 3y ago
I made a simple rule, but i'm not sure it will work for everyone, but I lost 77 lbs in 2022 due to a health issue and it seems to work. Basically I have to be hungry from 6 pm to 9 am (and not eat), for at least a week, preferably 2 weeks. If I feel hungry for a period, i lose weight or at worst stay at current weight. Usually i lose a few pounds. Then I can have periods where I can eat more and gain a few, then I just go back to not eating as much and it goes down again. The key thing is to just feel that hunger feeling relatively often and it's usually a good sign. I get used to the hunger feeling after awhile, so it's not that big of an issue after that.
- gumballindie 3y ago
  Isnt this called intermittent fasting?
  - ffwd 3y ago
    I didn't know that's what it was called but yes, it appears it is.
  - andreareina 3y ago
    The hunger is more important than the fasting.
- awestroke 3y ago
  Do you ever have trouble sleeping due to feeling hungry?
  - Filligree 3y ago
    Not OP, but I have trouble sleeping if I’m not hungry. The sensation itself disappears quickly when I lie down.
  - ffwd 3y ago
    I actually sleep better when not eating before sleep. Sort of a bigger point about this - last year when I was losing a lot of weight I was eating around 1500 calories per day, and I felt pretty amazing ironically. Felt a lot more energetic and lighter, but I basically ate no fast food or any food I enjoy, and it was only this year when I started to be able to eat my favorite food I started to realize I feel a lot worse (basically a little more bloated, heavier, not as energetic) when eating it (things like pizza, burgers, etc). I had to stop with chips and chocolate completely though. But my point is it feels like that's sort of the issue I'm dealing with right now is not eating much at all reduced my appetite to almost nothing, but I basically had to stop eating any food I enjoy (like pizza, burgers, etc), so I had to choose between food not being a part of my life much (and get stable blood sugar), or eat unhealthy in periods and then feel worse. I haven't come up with a perfect solution but I felt like I couldn't give up the food so... Edit: Also by the way, regarding sleeping hungry directly, my motivation was that I knew I was losing weight or "accomplishing the goal" when doing it, so mentally I felt good about feeling hungry. I couldn't wait till the next day came around and I had slept and knocked off those hours up until 9 am.
pif 3y ago
Don't give me numbers, I've already enough of them. Give me hunger suppressing pills and I'll give you gold in return!
- oezi 3y ago
  This is exactely what those Ozempic injections do.
nirui 3y ago
I'm not fat in most (if not all) measurements, but I can see my belly fat when I sit down. I've read quite a few articles/papers discussing weight loss, but it ended up helped me very little. The number provided in the articles (including this one) while important, is still too abstract to directly act upon. Guess what I wanted is a list of specific food/stuffs that I need to consume everyday in order to stay healthy and strong. Maybe some experts in the field can create an app/webpage which allow you "shop" consumables with your daily calories as budget. Also, as far as I understand it, calories is just one part of the game, the end goal is being healthy, not just weight loss.
- lloeki 3y ago
  > I'm not fat in most (if not all) measurements, but I can see my belly fat when I sit down. I've read quite a few articles/papers discussing weight loss, but it ended up helped me very little. Maybe the issue is not "being fat" then, one of the things I noticed in my journey to understanding my body is that since I sit a lot (I can't seem to be able to code while standing) my core would atrophy and lose natural tension. Without that wall viscera fall down because gravity, pushing outwards like jello resting on a flat surface, and making normal fat feel uncomfortably present. Doing planks and working on fixing posture usually solves that for me. YMMV though.
foxyv 3y ago
Doing rolling 72-hour fasts I found I can lose an average of 0.25 lbs of body fat per day. If you look at the daily numbers it looks like I'm gaining and losing weight really fast, but the trend line over a month is a perfect line with 0.25 slope. Instantaneous measurements of weight are worthless for understanding weight loss. A lot of people freak out when they see the scale go up on a carb heavy day thinking "Oh my god I ruined everything!" Keeping daily measurements in a log and reviewing it once a week makes more sense. Just write it down and forget about it. Keep to the routine and then adjust as necessary during the weekly review. Edit Note: I wonder if there would be a market for a "Encrypted Scale" that doesn't actually show a reading and just saves the weight to a server and gives you a report every once in a while.

85 points by red369 3y ago

Can you lose fat if you still have calories available in glycogen storage? Or do you need to first burn through the glycogen? Will only carbs work to replenish glycogen storage, or will also fat and protein?

v7engine 3y ago
"Your body burns a mixture of fat and glycogen where the glycogen decreases over time. But it does appear to deplete pretty quickly." This is mentioned in the article.
tim-fan 3y ago
I believe in some conditions fat and/or protein can be used to restore glycogen via Gluconeogenesis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gluconeogenesis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gluconeogenesis I remember reading that for keto diets it's important to not eat too much protein, otherwise the excess protein may be converted to glucose, replenishing glycogen and knocking you out of ketosis.
- Blackthorn 3y ago
  Gluconeogenesis can't really turn fat into glucose, humans lack a key enzyme for that.
  - arcticbull 3y ago
    This is not accurate. If that were true people who fasted would die after about 3 days, but of course, the longest fast lasted about 350 days. The reality is after 3 days of fasting, your blood glucose level stabilizes. Your body must perform gluconeogenesis to survive because a few types of tissue require glucose to live - those without mitochondria. This means red blood cells and about 30% of the energy requirements of your brain. Pathway is here if you're curious. [1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gluconeogenesis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gluconeogenesis
    - Blackthorn 3y ago
      There's the glycerol part of the fat, sure. But your body can make glucose from a lot more stuff. Namely, proteins.
      - arcticbull 3y ago
        I think when people say "fat" they mean triglycerides - not free fatty acids - which includes the glycerol backbone. So it's not right to say that humans can't turn fat into sugar, they can. Per the wikipedia article 90% of gluconeogenesis happens from lactate, glycerol, alanine and glutamate.
        Blackthorn 3y ago
        Yeah, fair enough. That'll maybe teach me to not type abbreviated nonsense on my phone.
        deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
        Aerroon 3y ago
        >Per the wikipedia article 90% of gluconeogenesis happens from lactate, glycerol, alanine and glutamate. That's interesting! Glutamine vs glutamate ratio is supposedly something that affects motivation.[0] I wonder if (enough) gluconeogenesis thus boosts motivation? [0] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41386-020-0760-6 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41386-020-0760-6
        wuiheerfoj 3y ago
        Is there an obvious way to modify that ratio?
        Aerroon 3y ago
        The "word on the street" is that oral glutamine supplementation works for this purpose. My personal experience agrees with this (but the effect probably isn't very large). In the morning I mix a tablespoon of glutamine into a glass of water and drink it. You can buy glutamine in supermarkets next to all the other protein supplements (glutamine is the most abundant amino acid in the body). It's also helpful to your immune system. --- That being said, that's 'hearsay'. I am not aware of any studies that show that oral supplementation of glutamine improves motivation. That might just be due to time though. The original study showing that glutamine-to-glutamate ratio in the nuclear accumbens affects motivation was published in 2020.[0] We do know that glutamine does pass the blood brain barrier.[1] There's probably a decent chance that oral supplementation of glutamine works. Some downsides: it can make seizures worse. There's some worry about it having some effect on cancer, although that seems to be mixed - some seem to think it would increase the risk of cancer, others say it decreases it (cancer cells use glutamine as fuel). [0] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41386-020-0760-6 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41386-020-0760-6 [1] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12933350/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12933350/
- dawnerd 3y ago
  From personal experience you’d have to eat a LOT of protein to kick you out. I do a pretty high protein keto diet and it works great. What really gets people is all the keto blogs talk about eating lots of fat. That great if you are doing keto for a lifestyle choice but if you’re doing it for weight loss you already have the fat and don’t need to boost your intake. Eating a fraction of the suggested macros still maintains satiety.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
bzjlvewivezw 3y ago
Yes, I think so. This is most likely to happen with a high-fat diet and large amounts of low-mid intensity endurance exercise.
- arcticbull 3y ago
  Studies show that exercise doesn't help you lose any appreciable amount of weight. It's good for you and you should do it, but it doesn't help with weight loss. Only what you eat does. At a high level, it's mostly because (a) exercise just isn't inefficient enough to lose a ton of weight unless you do insane amounts of it. To lose 10lbs through exercise you need to run from SF to LA. (b) humans are notorious compensatory eaters. If you work out, you'll be hungry, and you'll rationalize or sneak extra food, and one muffin un-does like 5 miles of running. [1] agrees, showing that moderate-intensity aerobic exercise done 5x weekly for 30m per day yields no measurable weight loss. [2] shows that adding exercise to diet yields no measurable difference between the diet and the diet+exercise group after 6 months, and after 12 months the difference was two pounds in favor of the exercise group. After a year. [1] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0033062018301440 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S00330... [2] https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1467-789X.2008.00547.x https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1467-789X...
  - PlunderBunny 3y ago
    Yes - nothing is more likely to make me start a spiel than hearing "eat less, move more".
    - arcticbull 3y ago
      It's interesting how persistent the 'just diet and exercise' thing is when any amount of research will show you that it just doesn't do shit. Your metabolism slows down to compensate for dieting, you eat more to compensate for exercise, etc. The studies that do show any benefit stop after 1 year, and don't really do follow-ups. By 'significant' benefit they mean statistically significant, as the weight loss numbers are really marginal. Then, if you look at 2-year follow-ups for weight-loss studies, they're fucking bleak. 9 in 10 fail and regain the bulk of the weight lost. Imagine a doctor regularly prescribing you pain medication that worked for 1 in 10 people - because that's basically the state of front-line weight management healthcare. The one that really put it into perspective for me was the one that revisited the Biggest Loser participants after 6 years and the mean regain was 70% of their lost weight (90 of the 127lbs average), and they were left with a 20% slower metabolism. [1] [1] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27136388/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27136388/

majkinetor 3y ago

There is no mention of - brown fat which dissipates calories. - state of other mater transition trough the body (food, water etc.) - procentage of fat vs muscle cells You don't need those numbers to lose fat, only a belt and knowing your carbs and micronutrients.

globular-toast 3y ago

I've been telling people for years how my weight can easily fluctuate 2kg over a single day. I knew it was water (we're mostly water anyway), but didn't know it was glycogen. I think a lot of salt increases water retention too. Some people say you shouldn't weigh yourself every day because fluctuations are disheartening. I wholeheartedly disagree. You must weigh yourself every day. Then you'll be able to see the trend. If the line isn't going where you want it to, eat less (or more). Having less water makes you look learner too. This is well known by bodybuilders, models, actors, fitness influencers etc. Every actor you see with their shirt off is dehydrated. Talk about unrealistic beauty standards...

semi-extrinsic 3y ago
Modern bodybuilding is so far gone off the deep end, it's insane. Competitors are so severely dehydrated at the time of competition that they can barely manage the exertion of standing on stage and posing. There are more deaths in bodybuilding than any other sport, even stuff like MMA.

zaptheimpaler 3y ago

It's cool seeing the numbers but on a practical level I think they're a distraction. To track weight loss, you only need to measure your weight at the same time every day (e.g morning before breakfast) and use a rolling 7-day average for good measure. The number on the scale is less real than the rolling average.

ajuc 3y ago
Yup, there's like 10 different factors that change on daily basis.
iopq 3y ago
You will have a lower 7 day rolling average on a low carb diet than on a high carb diet because of glycogen. A low carb diet will deplete it faster, so you will think it's working better, but in actuality the effect is temporary. You need to be cognizant of glycogen while dieting so you don't get fooled. Otherwise you will think your diet stopped working after a while
- somenameforme 3y ago
  "Diets" don't really make any logical sense from a weight management perspective as a liminal thing. Your body will always trend towards a given weight for a given caloric input, because one of the biggest factors in your daily caloric burn is how much you already weigh. And as you lose weight, it goes down. In other words, your equilibrium caloric intake will decrease as you lose weight. So if you go on a diet, drop 30 lbs, and then go back to eating the same amount you were before, then you're going to regain those 30lbs right on back. The reason checking the scale is useful is because they can clue you in on where a given caloric input is taking you, up or down. The details and timeline aren't really relevant, because if you want the gains to stay then that "diet" is your new, permanent, lifestyle.
  - MattJ100 3y ago
    Your logic seems to imply that any given "diet" leads to either increasing or decreasing weight. If you were overweight but stable, a temporary restriction followed by a return to the original diet would suffice, right? That's where this article is helpful, as it explains how (and how much) weight gain can be expected when you end the temporary restrictions.

dougSF70 3y ago

I think about reduction in volume rather than reduction in weight as a goal. Burning fat will reduce your volume but adding muscle will increase your weight (potentially).

trabant00 3y ago

When I was 40 I went from ~16% body fat to ~9% while also gaining about 5% of my body weight in muscle. It took me 2 years during which I experimented a lot with nutrition. I also consumed every article, video, study, advice, etc that I could find. Looking back I was pretty surprised to understand that all that information did almost nothing in helping me get results. Getting "shredded" was mostly limited by finding out what works for me. What food I can easily buy and cook. What food I tolerated eating, because after 2 years I could not stand chicken breast any more. What fit into my schedule as I could not eat a big lunch because it made me sleepy at work. A big dinner meant I would sleep poorly. A big breakfast prevented me to train in the morning. I started by drinking almost a liter of milk a day but somewhere along those 2 years I became lactose intolerant. I ended up eating a lot of fat in the form of nuts, butter, cheese and that made my cholesterol go down somehow which puzzled my doctor. And so many other things I discovered about my body. I am not even talking about bullshit science in the fitness industry (which is a lot). Articles and information like the present ones, which I can find nothing wrong with, do absolutely nothing in helping lose weight. This rant was provoked by the title "Numbers without which it's impossible to talk about weight loss". I call bullshit even as I recently started another weight loss journey as I'm close to 20% BF now. And very little of what I discovered before applies as I'm older, switched lifestyles, live in a different country with completely different food, etc. But one thing I am sure of: I will not waste another moment reading stuff like this.

eXpl0it3r 3y ago
> I started by drinking almost a liter of milk a day but somewhere along those 2 years I became lactose intolerant. Well this isn't really surprising to me, assuming that you didn't drink raw milk. Processed milk doesn't have the lactase enzyme, so your body has to produce it in order to break down lactose. Consuming that much milk puts your lactase production into overdrive, until it eventually fatigues and you become lactose intolerant. It's rather ironic, that people who are lactose intolerant can actually consume raw milk, because it still contains the lactase enzyme, so your body doesn't have to produce (as much).
- agos 3y ago

ffwd 3y ago

I made a simple rule, but i'm not sure it will work for everyone, but I lost 77 lbs in 2022 due to a health issue and it seems to work. Basically I have to be hungry from 6 pm to 9 am (and not eat), for at least a week, preferably 2 weeks. If I feel hungry for a period, i lose weight or at worst stay at current weight. Usually i lose a few pounds. Then I can have periods where I can eat more and gain a few, then I just go back to not eating as much and it goes down again. The key thing is to just feel that hunger feeling relatively often and it's usually a good sign. I get used to the hunger feeling after awhile, so it's not that big of an issue after that.

gumballindie 3y ago
Isnt this called intermittent fasting?
- ffwd 3y ago
  I didn't know that's what it was called but yes, it appears it is.
- andreareina 3y ago
  The hunger is more important than the fasting.
awestroke 3y ago
Do you ever have trouble sleeping due to feeling hungry?
- Filligree 3y ago
  Not OP, but I have trouble sleeping if I’m not hungry. The sensation itself disappears quickly when I lie down.
- ffwd 3y ago
  I actually sleep better when not eating before sleep. Sort of a bigger point about this - last year when I was losing a lot of weight I was eating around 1500 calories per day, and I felt pretty amazing ironically. Felt a lot more energetic and lighter, but I basically ate no fast food or any food I enjoy, and it was only this year when I started to be able to eat my favorite food I started to realize I feel a lot worse (basically a little more bloated, heavier, not as energetic) when eating it (things like pizza, burgers, etc). I had to stop with chips and chocolate completely though. But my point is it feels like that's sort of the issue I'm dealing with right now is not eating much at all reduced my appetite to almost nothing, but I basically had to stop eating any food I enjoy (like pizza, burgers, etc), so I had to choose between food not being a part of my life much (and get stable blood sugar), or eat unhealthy in periods and then feel worse. I haven't come up with a perfect solution but I felt like I couldn't give up the food so... Edit: Also by the way, regarding sleeping hungry directly, my motivation was that I knew I was losing weight or "accomplishing the goal" when doing it, so mentally I felt good about feeling hungry. I couldn't wait till the next day came around and I had slept and knocked off those hours up until 9 am.

pif 3y ago

Don't give me numbers, I've already enough of them. Give me hunger suppressing pills and I'll give you gold in return!

oezi 3y ago
This is exactely what those Ozempic injections do.

nirui 3y ago

I'm not fat in most (if not all) measurements, but I can see my belly fat when I sit down. I've read quite a few articles/papers discussing weight loss, but it ended up helped me very little. The number provided in the articles (including this one) while important, is still too abstract to directly act upon. Guess what I wanted is a list of specific food/stuffs that I need to consume everyday in order to stay healthy and strong. Maybe some experts in the field can create an app/webpage which allow you "shop" consumables with your daily calories as budget. Also, as far as I understand it, calories is just one part of the game, the end goal is being healthy, not just weight loss.

lloeki 3y ago
> I'm not fat in most (if not all) measurements, but I can see my belly fat when I sit down. I've read quite a few articles/papers discussing weight loss, but it ended up helped me very little. Maybe the issue is not "being fat" then, one of the things I noticed in my journey to understanding my body is that since I sit a lot (I can't seem to be able to code while standing) my core would atrophy and lose natural tension. Without that wall viscera fall down because gravity, pushing outwards like jello resting on a flat surface, and making normal fat feel uncomfortably present. Doing planks and working on fixing posture usually solves that for me. YMMV though.

foxyv 3y ago

Doing rolling 72-hour fasts I found I can lose an average of 0.25 lbs of body fat per day. If you look at the daily numbers it looks like I'm gaining and losing weight really fast, but the trend line over a month is a perfect line with 0.25 slope. Instantaneous measurements of weight are worthless for understanding weight loss. A lot of people freak out when they see the scale go up on a carb heavy day thinking "Oh my god I ruined everything!" Keeping daily measurements in a log and reviewing it once a week makes more sense. Just write it down and forget about it. Keep to the routine and then adjust as necessary during the weekly review. Edit Note: I wonder if there would be a market for a "Encrypted Scale" that doesn't actually show a reading and just saves the weight to a server and gives you a report every once in a while.