3 ms·

“More important” is completely meaningless without also indicating what the reference priorities are assumed to be. In many “important” contexts, this title is

by xk_id 3y ago

“More important” is completely meaningless without also indicating what the reference priorities are assumed to be. In many “important” contexts, this title is very wrong. Prolonged caloric deficits often trigger an (irreversible) drop in thermogenesis [1]. In the long term, this adaptation leads to a new energetic equilibrium with a slower metabolic rate, which requires an even greater reduction in calories in order to lose any (more) weight – unless you exercise to prevent your metabolic rate from falling. This is one of the reasons (not necessarily the main one) why people find they need to eat less than the average person in order to not regain the weight they have lost. Also problematic in the article is normalising the perception that exercising is tedious. No, exercise is not tedious once you actually have some kind of aerobic base. But for someone who was sedentary beforehand, building this aerobic base for the first time takes a few months; most people give up before that and never get to a point where exercising is casual, pleasant and recreational (rather than a chore). Overall a contrarian article built on contrived arguments and incomplete contexts. [1] https://www.nature.com/articles/ijo2012124 https://www.nature.com/articles/ijo2012124

Fire-Dragon-DoL 3y ago
I have to disagree on the simple fact that for me exercising is always tedious. I could be doing something more interesting. I like the results, so i stick to it (started in august a 6 days/week: 3 hiit cardio, 3 days weight lifting). I sticked to it,exercising is way easier, my body got in great shape. it's still boring. I somewhat appreciate the shadow boxing, but I always have to push myself to go. the reason why it works for me is that by going 6 times a week, it feels weird not going, because I do it every day. Kinda like not brushing your teeth
strken 3y ago
Does that article indicate the drop in thermogenesis is irreversible? I can't find anything in it about measuring the participants past the "phase 2 to plateau" stage. One interesting note that I have from the article is that mean weights for baseline/phase 1/phase 2/plateau weights were 102.8kg/97.1kg/92.1kg/90.1kg. This corresponds to a 0%/-6%/-10%/-12% drop from starting weight, with a massive increase in adaptive thermogenesis between -10% and -12%. The standard body builder advice for losing weight[0] is to lose 10% or ideally less at a time, slowly work your caloric consumption back to maintenance each time, and then start again after at least as long as the time you took to diet. I can't find any academic studies about this but I believe the intent is to reverse or avoid adaptation. [0] E.g. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WZL1lGA9M3A&list=PLyqKj7LwU2RulAjHczohbx5OyJQ8TaFM0&index=9 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WZL1lGA9M3A&list=PLyqKj7LwU2... around the 1 minute mark
- xk_id 3y ago
  I based my comment on this: > Collectively, these results underline the possibility that the metabolic adaptations that occur in response to prolonged energy deficit persist in time and that constant efforts may need to be deployed in the form of increased energy expenditure from exercise or strict adherence to lowered EI, similar to the characteristics of successful long-term weight-loss maintainers. It references two studies which found that metabolic rate had not fully recovered at 12 weeks and 1 year after ending the caloric deficit/weight loss diet.
  - sn9 3y ago
    That isn't nearly enough time to conclude that the changes are irreversible and it's frankly irresponsible to make that inferential jump.
    - xk_id 3y ago
      I’m assuming you mean that purely on semantic grounds. Due to plasticity, regeneration or periodic cycles, in biology there is seldom irreversible change in the absolute sense; some kind of cut off point is implied. Another example is “irreversible enzyme inhibition” [0] - which is relative to the rate at which the protein is expressed and therefore could refer to a period of a couple of weeks. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enzyme_inhibitor#Irreversible_inhibitors https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enzyme_inhibitor#Irreversible_...
      - sn9 3y ago
        If you know that, then you were be unnecessarily hyperbolic in a way that was misleading.
  - strken 3y ago
    My bad, I was reading the wrong reference the whole time! Thank you. I've found the right paper now. A 5.1% reduction compared to predicted caloric expenditure over the long term seems quite believable. I wonder if it can go higher or if that's the maximum extent, and what refeeding does.
thefz 3y ago
> Prolonged caloric deficits often trigger an (irreversible) drop in thermogenesis [1]. In the long term, this adaptation leads to a new energetic equilibrium with a slower metabolic rate, which requires an even greater reduction in calories in order to lose any (more) weight But this is quite intuitive, isn't it. It's the lasagna paradox: feed a man three lasagna trays a day for his whole life, he will be very fat. But once you start feeding him two, still well over the TDEE of a normal man, he will lose weight until he will plateau again. If you condition your body to work with 2000Kcal from the 2400 it needs, it will adjust. If you then want to lose more fat once it is adjusted, you have to scale the caloric input even more. This does not mean that dieting is ineffective. It's just your body adapting to keep you alive. Besides, from the link: "Adaptive thermogenesis can make a difference in the ability of obese individuals to lose body weight" In OBESE individuals. I often find that weight loss discussion here on HN errs on the irrational side.
- rickydroll 3y ago
  > I often find that weight loss discussion errs on the irrational side. fify.

by xk_id 3y ago

Fire-Dragon-DoL 3y ago

I have to disagree on the simple fact that for me exercising is always tedious. I could be doing something more interesting. I like the results, so i stick to it (started in august a 6 days/week: 3 hiit cardio, 3 days weight lifting). I sticked to it,exercising is way easier, my body got in great shape. it's still boring. I somewhat appreciate the shadow boxing, but I always have to push myself to go. the reason why it works for me is that by going 6 times a week, it feels weird not going, because I do it every day. Kinda like not brushing your teeth

strken 3y ago

Does that article indicate the drop in thermogenesis is irreversible? I can't find anything in it about measuring the participants past the "phase 2 to plateau" stage. One interesting note that I have from the article is that mean weights for baseline/phase 1/phase 2/plateau weights were 102.8kg/97.1kg/92.1kg/90.1kg. This corresponds to a 0%/-6%/-10%/-12% drop from starting weight, with a massive increase in adaptive thermogenesis between -10% and -12%. The standard body builder advice for losing weight[0] is to lose 10% or ideally less at a time, slowly work your caloric consumption back to maintenance each time, and then start again after at least as long as the time you took to diet. I can't find any academic studies about this but I believe the intent is to reverse or avoid adaptation. [0] E.g. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WZL1lGA9M3A&list=PLyqKj7LwU2RulAjHczohbx5OyJQ8TaFM0&index=9 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WZL1lGA9M3A&list=PLyqKj7LwU2... around the 1 minute mark

xk_id 3y ago
I based my comment on this: > Collectively, these results underline the possibility that the metabolic adaptations that occur in response to prolonged energy deficit persist in time and that constant efforts may need to be deployed in the form of increased energy expenditure from exercise or strict adherence to lowered EI, similar to the characteristics of successful long-term weight-loss maintainers. It references two studies which found that metabolic rate had not fully recovered at 12 weeks and 1 year after ending the caloric deficit/weight loss diet.
- sn9 3y ago
  That isn't nearly enough time to conclude that the changes are irreversible and it's frankly irresponsible to make that inferential jump.
  - xk_id 3y ago
    I’m assuming you mean that purely on semantic grounds. Due to plasticity, regeneration or periodic cycles, in biology there is seldom irreversible change in the absolute sense; some kind of cut off point is implied. Another example is “irreversible enzyme inhibition” [0] - which is relative to the rate at which the protein is expressed and therefore could refer to a period of a couple of weeks. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enzyme_inhibitor#Irreversible_inhibitors https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enzyme_inhibitor#Irreversible_...
    - sn9 3y ago
      If you know that, then you were be unnecessarily hyperbolic in a way that was misleading.
- strken 3y ago
  My bad, I was reading the wrong reference the whole time! Thank you. I've found the right paper now. A 5.1% reduction compared to predicted caloric expenditure over the long term seems quite believable. I wonder if it can go higher or if that's the maximum extent, and what refeeding does.

thefz 3y ago

> Prolonged caloric deficits often trigger an (irreversible) drop in thermogenesis [1]. In the long term, this adaptation leads to a new energetic equilibrium with a slower metabolic rate, which requires an even greater reduction in calories in order to lose any (more) weight But this is quite intuitive, isn't it. It's the lasagna paradox: feed a man three lasagna trays a day for his whole life, he will be very fat. But once you start feeding him two, still well over the TDEE of a normal man, he will lose weight until he will plateau again. If you condition your body to work with 2000Kcal from the 2400 it needs, it will adjust. If you then want to lose more fat once it is adjusted, you have to scale the caloric input even more. This does not mean that dieting is ineffective. It's just your body adapting to keep you alive. Besides, from the link: "Adaptive thermogenesis can make a difference in the ability of obese individuals to lose body weight" In OBESE individuals. I often find that weight loss discussion here on HN errs on the irrational side.

rickydroll 3y ago
> I often find that weight loss discussion errs on the irrational side. fify.