15 ms·

As someone who's struggled with weight loss, and have known others to struggle with it well, I think we colloquially called this "slow metabolism". It always d

• skirmish 1y ago
  It is well known that if you gain muscle then lose it, it is easier to regain it than the first time (IIRC, the cells store extra nucleii?). This could be a similar effect but with fat cells.
  • joncrocks 1y ago
    I believe that is the latest theory regarding the mechanism, yes. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3892465/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3892465/
  • deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
  • beejiu 1y ago
    As well as the "cell memory", the total number of fat cells you have in your body is set during adolescence, then it remains constant for the rest of your adult life. (https://www.nature.com/articles/ncpgasthep1189 https://www.nature.com/articles/ncpgasthep1189). During adolescence, if you gain weight, you create new fat cells. During adulthood, the fat cells themselves just get larger. Arguably the best thing you can do is avoid obesity during childhood and adolescence at all costs.
    • BlackFly 1y ago
      Interested parties may want to read the original article https://doi.org/10.1038/nature06902 https://doi.org/10.1038/nature06902 in place of the highlight https://doi.org/10.1038/ncpgasthep1189 https://doi.org/10.1038/ncpgasthep1189.
    • fao_ 1y ago
      > During adulthood, the fat cells themselves just get larger. While true, it's also important to note that the lifetime of a fat cell is around ten years. Maintaining a decent diet for around ten years (no mean feat!) should be sufficient to leave you bereft of the actual adipose cells. I also wonder how this intersects with transgender stuff — there's a reason why HRT is referred to as "second puberty", as it resets and changes a lot of underlying biological mechanisms and produces a lot of interesting epigenetic effects (While it does boil down to "replacing the sex hormone", both estrogen and testosterone have major effects on the body's immune system, etc. — actually this is one of the reasons I suspect that there's such a high comorbidity of autoimmune diseases within transgender people pre-HRT — their immune system is all out of wack! Mine calmed down a lot after starting and a year in I no longer get seasonal allergies). There's a huge lack of data in this regard though because transgender bodies are generally not felt to be worth studying outside of "health risks", even though there's a huge amount of information we could glean about how everyone's* body functions from it. Personally, I wonder whether second-puberty "resets" what the body decides is the baseline for fat storage. * — and for anyone in doubt, we have around 90 years of HRT now that shows it's essentially completely safe (outside of the mid-80s when the estrogen being given was synthetic and non-bio-identical, and outside of the health risks of various things for trans women changing to be roughly equivalent of cis women's health risks).
• paulpauper 1y ago
  metabolism is orthogonal . It's possible to have a fast metabolism and still be obese if you're eating at a surplus. But it's also possible people with faster metabolisms may be more successful at weight loss if already obese. So a 300-lbs person who eats 10,000 calories/day to be weight stable will find it easier to lose weight compared to to a 300 lbs person who is stable at 4,000 cal/day. This can also explain how some people lose tons of weight on GLP-1 drugs, whereas others lose less. The guy eating 10,000 calories/day will lose much more weight more rapidly owning to having a much bigger metabolic furnace, as soon as he restricts eating and his body is no longer getting 10,000 calories/day. Unfortunately, there are no studies that investigate the link, if any, with metabolism and dieting success.
  • sethammons 1y ago
    10k calories a day is what a black bear eats preparing for hibernation. And it is what Michael Phelps would eat daily when training in the pool for hours on end. Obese people can remain obese eating 1000 calories a day. I recall one episode of My 600lb Life and the show's featured person that day was at 900 or 1200 calories a day and still didn't lose weight. Might have still been gaining. It is a dynamic system. People tend to only consider the CI in CI/CO.
    • ykonstant 1y ago
      >Obese people can remain obese eating 1000 calories a day. I recall one episode of My 600lb Life and the show's featured person that day was at 900 or 1200 calories a day and still didn't lose weight. Might have still been gaining. How is that possible? There is a lower bound on calories needed (on average across say six months) to maintain life. Adding to that the calories needed to maintain the weight, I don't see how an obese person could stay alive with "CO" significantly lower than 1200 kcal.
      • eftpotrm 1y ago
        And yet it happens. A doctor in my family told the story of a patient they were treating in hospital who medically needed to lose weight, and who they found unable to get any reduction until they dropped below _200_ calories a day. Metabolism is _significantly_ more complex than CI/CO, from experience.
• dsmurrell 1y ago
  Please share your bro science video. I need it :)
  • sph 1y ago
    If you want the serious science about low carb/keto, I recommend the “Low Carb Down Under” channel on Youtube.
• nradov 1y ago
  A lot of people blame failure to lose fat on a "slow metabolism" but this is usually incorrect. Have you had an actual resting metabolic rate (RMR) test to quantity your baseline total daily energy expenditure? Fat adaptation is a real thing. Endurance athletes focused on longer events will target some of their training around that energy system. This is more complex than can really be explained in an online comment but basically you want to do long training sessions below your lactate threshold in a glycogen depleted state.
  • guerrilla 1y ago
    They didn't mean it was literally a slow metabolism. They meant that what the article is about is often refered to as a "slow metabolism". It's a misnomer since that is not the mechanism but there is definitely a phenomenon at play, which is what the article is about, the actual phenomenon rather than the bro science.
  • ngd 1y ago
    There is also a conflation of a slowing metabolism and low energy availability, which can reduce the amount of energy expended during the day (because you feel tired and do less). It can be quite subtle but when I've done some extended periods in a calorie deficit I start to notice subtle things, like a propensity to sit a bit longer, or to reduce my overall body movements. My resting metabolism is the same (I've had it measured a few times) but my body looks for ways to expend less energy.
    • gregoryl 1y ago
      Anecdotally (but an experience shared at by at least some other long distance runners), when I get quite far into a calorie deficit via exercise, my brain will start suggesting shortcuts - urges to cut the corner on a trail, take a shorter path back etc. Its quite interesting!
      • autoexec 1y ago
        Considering the amount of effort it traditionally took to get food it's a shame that our brains would want us to be less active when it could otherwise start suggesting that we be even more active to find/hunt food.
• sfjailbird 1y ago
  Insulin sensitivity is a real thing. The less sensitive to insulin you are, the more of it is produced to process a given amount of glucose. And the more insulin (anabolic) is produced, the less glucagon (catabolic) is. In other words, low insulin sensitivity means your body remains in the feeding (fat building) state more, as opposed to fasting (fat burning). Insulin sensitivity decreases with age, and with excessive intake of particularly simple carbs. It can be improved through fasting, certain dietary supplements, and low carb diet. All of this is, to the best of my knowledge, not disputed or 'bro science'.
• nikanj 1y ago
  If there really was a gene that allowed you to survive on substantially less food than your peers, pretty much all humans would have said gene. The history of humanity is rife with famine, and that gene would be a game-changer for survival
  • falcor84 1y ago
    It's all about tradeoffs. In this case, I wonder if there's an "efficient metabolism" gene that makes your body put a higher percentage of incoming nutrients into long-term storage (mostly in fat tissue). Carriers of this gene would be more likely to survive a famine, but less likely to outrun a predator or defend against an attack by another leaner human, who's genes allocate incoming nutrients to be utilized more effectively in the short-term.
    • 0_____0 1y ago
      Look into Polynesian peoples. They survived long sea voyages, and are known to be generally large people in modern day. Like the guy at my high school whose nickname was "Big Tonga"
  • Cthulhu_ 1y ago
    ...don't we? According to [0], the amount of food (by energy intake) people get is very diverse worldwide. People can survive famine situations for a long time, and people' problems with obesity is linked to exactly those survival genes. Granted, some animals are much better at it, crocodiles and bears and stuff can go without food for months. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_food_energy_intake https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_food_ener...
  • devmor 1y ago
    I think it’s quite the opposite because it would not be a gene that allows you to survive on less food - it would be a gene that favors replacing glycogen stores over lipid stores. That kind of mechanism would be pretty negative to survival until the modern era of sedentary civilization.
  • 1y ago
• throwup238 1y ago
  The physical mechanism is mitochondrial uncoupling proteins (UCP). They regulate how much energy is wasted as heat when converting ADP to ATP, determining how efficient one’s metabolism is. When you lose weight, your UCP proteins start wasting less and less energy when producing ATP, which is one of the things that makes dieting so hard. Actually affecting that pathway is largely beyond us at the moment (that’s the bro science) but the mechanism is relatively well understood.
  • krapht 1y ago
    Is this similar to what 2, 4 dinitrophenol affects?
    • throwup238 1y ago
      Yes, sort of. DNP doesn’t affect uncoupling proteins directly but it moves protons across the mitochondrial membrane, causing more of the energy to be lost as heat as the uncoupling proteins waste more energy to restore the proton gradient. There are a bunch of such “protonophores” that move protons across membranes and they are universally toxic if they make it to the mitochondria. I don’t known of any compound that actually mediates the UCPs themselves.
• hnthrow90348765 1y ago
  >but I wonder how much of that is bro science and how much of it is grounded in reality It's probably bro science or contributing a small amount to any effort. The biggest problem is the food industry serving shit in large portions, which can be hard for populations to psychologically resist (see: America). Most things in the grocery store are shit too. I don't think you can effectively teach people to resist it though, you'd have to get rid of the shit being there so it's not even an option.
  • djmips 1y ago
    That's how my brother lost weight finally. He just never bought any of the stuff - so it wasn't even in his house. But he lives alone right now so if you live in a group setting you might be, in weak moments, snacking on bad things that other people brought in. It's kind of also why I don't think companies should provide candy machines etc.
• e40 1y ago
  For me, sugar was the reason I couldn't lose weight. I got a CGM (continuous glucose monitor) and got my blood sugar under control, and with very little effort I lost a lot of weight. I use 90% cacao Lindt to control my sweet tooth. 1/2 the bar has 4g of sugar, and I consume it over hours. It also has the side effect of reducing my hunger. If you eat much of 90% chocolate, it makes you feel nausea. The trick is to put a small chip in your mouth and let it melt. It's quite delicious and I've not had any sweets in 80+ days.
  • amonon 1y ago
    This also speaks to another point, when trying to lose weight: you must find new things to enjoy.
    • hn_throwaway_99 1y ago
      This is actually great advice for any bad habit you're trying to break. In general, just thinking "Stop doing this thing" (or "do less of this thing"), doesn't really work. It's usually more effective to find something else that you do enjoy (and is better for you), and try to do more of that thing and have it "crowd out" your bad habit. When it comes to eating, there is a nutritionist with a pretty sizable online following (Kylie Sakaida), and I love one of her mantras of "add, don't subtract". That is, don't think of abstaining from foods you like that might be unhealthy, but instead try to add more healthy things to that food to make it a balanced meal. For example, she gives the example of wanting a frozen waffle for breakfast. Instead of thinking "No, I can't have this frozen waffle", she instead makes a spread using Greek yogurt to add protein, then adds fresh fruit and nuts for more nutrients, fiber and healthy fats, so what started as an 'empty carbs' meal is turned into a pretty balanced, filling breakfast.
    • e40 1y ago
      So true. I've done this very often: - See some goodies my wife bought (for herself or me). - Thinks about having my 90% Lindt later/next day. - Walks away.
    • djmips 1y ago
      I was realizing that spicy food can be that.
• stefantalpalaru 1y ago
  [dead]
• johnisgood 1y ago
  > It always did feel like it was easier to gain weight than lose it, especially fat weight and not muscle weight for me. It is the exact, polar opposite for me. I cannot gain even if I eat junk all day.
  • throwaway98797 1y ago
    drink milkshakes
    • johnisgood 1y ago
      I drink a protein shake 2 times at least, and eat lunch (chicken & rice & broccoli casserole, so forth) 2-3 times a day. I do not eat small portions either.
      • gamblor956 1y ago
        That only looks like about 2000 calories a day, which is the recommended caloric intake for the average sedentary adult man. If you're trying to bulk, you need to be looking at 2500 or more calories a day, plus additional for any calories burned by exercise. (With a surplus of 1000/calories a day you'll be gaining more fat than muscle unless you're still in puberty. Sometimes that may be what you want.)
        • johnisgood 1y ago
          It just seems like I have to spend most of my day eating. :/
          • snapcaster 1y ago
            I think part of this can be solved by "hacks" the primary one being throwing olive oil on random stuff you eat. Another one is "drinking your calories". Basically all the things people tell you to do to lose weight, do the opposite
• JasserInicide 1y ago
  Jason Fung is probably the world's leading research expert on obesity. If you want videos to watch on it, it starts and ends with this guy. He has done a ton of lectures and blogposts going back over a decade, and also has the stereotypical clickbaity YouTube videos. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YpllomiDMX0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YpllomiDMX0
  • __float 1y ago
    He has surely dedicated a significant portion of his life to his own pet theories on obesity, but to consider him a well-regarded expert is very misleading. He has quite a few claims that are just...ridiculous, and his pop science books have some serious flaws (as reported by actual experts).
    • jdhendrickson 1y ago
      While I don't doubt you, it would be helpful if you cited these experts, so people can learn.
      • deleted 1y ago
        [deleted]
• sph 1y ago
  Fat adaptation is not bro science, it is what happens when you do not consume enough carbohydrates to meet your TDEE so your mitochondria “learn” to become really efficient at burning fatty acids. It’s the whole premise behind keto/low carb. When used to our modern high-carb diets, the adaptation takes some time for genes to activate, since we eat a lot and never have long enough fasting periods to be able to quickly switch between glucose and fatty acid metabolism.
• HorizonXP 1y ago
  I have had a slow metabolism since I was a teenager. I don't think I've ever experienced a day in my life where I haven't thought about my weight, body composition, or felt guilty about eating food. And I'm not even that big. I've just never had the physique I wanted, and I always attributed it to having a slow metabolism. I'm turning 40 in May, so since the start of February, I've finally pulled up my bootstraps and started taking my health seriously. I was likely 225 lbs at 5'10". Easily 32+% body fat. The first thing I did was a deep extended fast, drinking only water, electrolytes, supplements, bone broth, and black coffee. I was able to shed a good amount of weight, fast. However, the longest I could fast for was 6 days; No matter what I tried, I could not figure out how to get good sleep. I tried once more for 4 days, and saw no improvement, so I stopped trying to fast. Mentally I could handle it, but without quality sleep, there was no way I could continue. This was mid-March, and I was at 204.5 lbs. Also in mid-March, I did a VO2 max test, while fasted for 72 hours. It was very apparent that my metabolism was fat adapted. My VO2 max was very low at 33.8 ml/kg, which was to be expected. My RMR was found to be 1998 kcal/day, and my fat max HR was 161 bpm. Crossover to 100% carbs was at 179 bpm. Since then, I've done a 180, and started eating about 1800-2000 kcal per day. My first goal is to ensure I eat 170-200g of protein per day, through as much whole food as possible, using whey or protein when needed. The rest of my diet is very clean, with no real restrictions on fats, and keeping carbs as low as possible. It's a fairly ketogenic diet, but I don't get worked up if my net carbs go to 50+g. Foods are usually Greek yogurt, flax, pumpkin seeds, nuts, eggs, berries, fish, poultry, and green vegetables/salads. If I ever add fat to anything, it's extra virgin olive oil first, then maybe butter/cream (i.e. in coffee). I take a number of supplements like Omega-3 fish oils, multivitamins, magnesium, and make my own electrolyte drink. Creatine as well. I find that by the time I've done all of this, I have a very difficult time eating, and even trying to fit anything else in. I am never hungry, nor do I feel cravings for other foods. We just came back from Miami, and I had some ice cream with the kids, and some baked goods. I enjoyed them, but I was very excited to be back to my normal foods. Since then, I've been running 3-4 times a week, focusing on Zone 2 training. I do 4 days a week of weightlifting, focusing on the big compound lifts. I have a 10K race on May 11, and a sprint distance triathlon on July 27 that I'm training for. For this entire month, I have stayed at a constant 207.5 lbs +/- 0.5 lbs. I have been tracking other measurements like circumferences and body fat (using calibers and BIA scale), and it's apparent that I have gained strength, regained muscle mass, and improved my overall fitness. Running is still at a slow pace, but actually enjoyable now. My wearables estimate that my VO2 max is 37 ml/kg; they did show 33 ml/kg last month when I had the test, so they seem to be correlated. I think the hardest part of the last month has been the sheer amount of work I've put in, only to watch the scale stay steady. I track my intake rigorously, weighing everything I can and using MyFitnessPal to track it all. How are people able to eat anything else? I couldn't add rice or grains to my diet even if I wanted to, I would easily hit 2500+ kcal per day. People eat that much? Or rather, burn that much? I burn 2000 kcal per rest day, and maybe 2800-3200 kcal on workout days. I will stick with this, since it is working to improve my health and fitness. It would just be nice to see the scale move without having to fast for multiple days. Cursed slow metabolism.