5 ms·

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 una

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.

ykonstant 1y ago
For how long? Irregularities can persist for a small amount of time, no doubt; but for how long does one maintain weight and life on 300 calories a day?
phyalow 1y ago
Come on, this is ridiculous. CI/CO is a thing. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermodynamics https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermodynamics
- d4704 1y ago
  Agreeing and I found it interesting to learn more about caloric availability to the body. I.e. calories on the label vs what the body can actually access. Like drinking smoothies (high availability) vs raw fruit (lower availability) Dr. Greger (Nutrition focused) discusses some of this on calorie density and some referenced studies here if interested: https://nutritionfacts.org/blog/how-to-lose-weight-eating-more-food/ https://nutritionfacts.org/blog/how-to-lose-weight-eating-mo...
- inglor_cz 1y ago
  I don't believe that people can gain weight while eating almost nothing, but I believe that their internal distribution of energy may be out of whack. Proponents of naive thermodynamics model tend to assume that only "excessive" energy is stored into bodily fat, once all the other tissues have had their fair share. That is not really true in insulin resistant people, whose storage may be excessive and leave the rest of the body unsatisfied and hungry, which drives them to eat more than a healthy person would. To us, this looks like deliberate overeating, to them, it is a result of constant hunger caused by the fact that some part of the energy consumed is being immediately locked away in fat tissues by dysregulated metabolic processes. Notably, it isn't easy to "correct" this situation by just eating less, because that will leave those people feeling really starved. Insulin sensitivity must be restored first, then the fat stores will give up their excess willingly and that person won't suffer.
_Algernon_ 1y ago
You cant cheat thermodynamics, so something does not add up. Most likely the calorie estimates if they were self reported. To illustrate a single 37.5g snickers is slightly below 200kcal. I probably get that number of calories just from the milk in my coffee in an average day.
- throwaway2037 1y ago
  Whole milk (3.25% fat) is ~60kcals per 100grams. Are you really drinking 300+grams of whole milk in your coffee per day?
nom 1y ago
What is more likely: - a physics-breaking thermodynamic anomaly - a food addicted person is lying about their consumption 200 kcal a day.. yeah sure. A human body needs more than that just to breathe and pump blood. Even comatose a skinny person needs 5 times as much. Overweight people have a significantly higher metabolic base rate. Just breathing can easily be 1000kcal a day if your lungs have to move 30 kilos of upper body fat 10 times a minute. They also have more muscle mass compared to the average person their size, even when not physically active, which increases MBR as well. Weight loss and gain is a solved problem, but self control and human behavior is not. Perpetuating myths of impossible weight loss is not beneficial for our society and moves us further away from solving the underlying issues.
- guerrilla 1y ago
  It's insane how arrogant people can be about this. You have not accounted for all of the variables and that is blatantly obvious. The phenomenon is well known and there are multi-variable equations for it, many different models. One popular model is that NEET can decrease below the caloric deficit, meaning you still gain weight by becoming subconsciously lazier despite everything feeling equally difficult subjectively. There are several other more advanced models adding other variables, some depending on insulin sensitivity, for example. Anyway, no physics is broken, laymen are just naive to the complexity abd adaptability of biology.
  - _Algernon_ 1y ago
    200kcal/day is less than 10W. Since all energy the body uses is released as heat this puts the maximum sustainable heat radiation with such a diet at 10W. That's about the level of a typical household LED, which at most feels slightly warm to the touch. At that energy level you could not sustain weight while maintaining body temperature let alone having a healthy metabolism. That's just a plain fact. You will lose weight long before you reach 200kcal/day.
    - guerrilla 1y ago
      That's a good argument against what I said for this particular case. I didn't realize 200kcal was so little. Imagine my comment was written in reply to a higher number though because that criticism is definitely valid for a large number of posts people make in general. ;)
bowsamic 1y ago
1000 calories is already an unbelievable claim, absolutely no one is going to believe 200. That’s just absurd

ykonstant 1y ago

For how long? Irregularities can persist for a small amount of time, no doubt; but for how long does one maintain weight and life on 300 calories a day?

phyalow 1y ago

Come on, this is ridiculous. CI/CO is a thing. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermodynamics https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermodynamics

d4704 1y ago
Agreeing and I found it interesting to learn more about caloric availability to the body. I.e. calories on the label vs what the body can actually access. Like drinking smoothies (high availability) vs raw fruit (lower availability) Dr. Greger (Nutrition focused) discusses some of this on calorie density and some referenced studies here if interested: https://nutritionfacts.org/blog/how-to-lose-weight-eating-more-food/ https://nutritionfacts.org/blog/how-to-lose-weight-eating-mo...
inglor_cz 1y ago
I don't believe that people can gain weight while eating almost nothing, but I believe that their internal distribution of energy may be out of whack. Proponents of naive thermodynamics model tend to assume that only "excessive" energy is stored into bodily fat, once all the other tissues have had their fair share. That is not really true in insulin resistant people, whose storage may be excessive and leave the rest of the body unsatisfied and hungry, which drives them to eat more than a healthy person would. To us, this looks like deliberate overeating, to them, it is a result of constant hunger caused by the fact that some part of the energy consumed is being immediately locked away in fat tissues by dysregulated metabolic processes. Notably, it isn't easy to "correct" this situation by just eating less, because that will leave those people feeling really starved. Insulin sensitivity must be restored first, then the fat stores will give up their excess willingly and that person won't suffer.

_Algernon_ 1y ago

You cant cheat thermodynamics, so something does not add up. Most likely the calorie estimates if they were self reported. To illustrate a single 37.5g snickers is slightly below 200kcal. I probably get that number of calories just from the milk in my coffee in an average day.

throwaway2037 1y ago
Whole milk (3.25% fat) is ~60kcals per 100grams. Are you really drinking 300+grams of whole milk in your coffee per day?

nom 1y ago

What is more likely: - a physics-breaking thermodynamic anomaly - a food addicted person is lying about their consumption 200 kcal a day.. yeah sure. A human body needs more than that just to breathe and pump blood. Even comatose a skinny person needs 5 times as much. Overweight people have a significantly higher metabolic base rate. Just breathing can easily be 1000kcal a day if your lungs have to move 30 kilos of upper body fat 10 times a minute. They also have more muscle mass compared to the average person their size, even when not physically active, which increases MBR as well. Weight loss and gain is a solved problem, but self control and human behavior is not. Perpetuating myths of impossible weight loss is not beneficial for our society and moves us further away from solving the underlying issues.

guerrilla 1y ago
It's insane how arrogant people can be about this. You have not accounted for all of the variables and that is blatantly obvious. The phenomenon is well known and there are multi-variable equations for it, many different models. One popular model is that NEET can decrease below the caloric deficit, meaning you still gain weight by becoming subconsciously lazier despite everything feeling equally difficult subjectively. There are several other more advanced models adding other variables, some depending on insulin sensitivity, for example. Anyway, no physics is broken, laymen are just naive to the complexity abd adaptability of biology.
- _Algernon_ 1y ago
  200kcal/day is less than 10W. Since all energy the body uses is released as heat this puts the maximum sustainable heat radiation with such a diet at 10W. That's about the level of a typical household LED, which at most feels slightly warm to the touch. At that energy level you could not sustain weight while maintaining body temperature let alone having a healthy metabolism. That's just a plain fact. You will lose weight long before you reach 200kcal/day.
  - guerrilla 1y ago
    That's a good argument against what I said for this particular case. I didn't realize 200kcal was so little. Imagine my comment was written in reply to a higher number though because that criticism is definitely valid for a large number of posts people make in general. ;)

bowsamic 1y ago

1000 calories is already an unbelievable claim, absolutely no one is going to believe 200. That’s just absurd