Hacker News Reader

Well sure people fail to maintain exercise schedules cause gym is freaking boring. Most people that manage find some way to get endorphins out of it - like if they get fit and like how they body looks, they can use that as a source of happiness, or find some other way to exercise that is fun on its own (martial arts, social dancing, cycling, hiking, sports etc…)

Exercise and diet is simply not fun enough to be its own thing for most people. But it can be a means to an end - and once you achieve that end you can “lock yourself” into a more energetic and fun life.

Those studies try to control for all of that but its really hard as its something that requires a lot of time to play out and its not entirely ethical to put humans into things like this.

My totally anecdotal advise would be to go to your local dance school - you’ll have so much fun you wouldn’t think you’re exercising when you could literally spend 6+ hours running squatting and jumping, 2-3 times a week. Whatever your diet you’ll probably get in shape, though by that point you will care little for that as there is surprisingly little body shaming in social dance communities :-D

I'm interested. When people say losing weight causes the metabolism to slow down, are they simply referring to the BMR going down as a result of the new weight/height/sex combination.

Between 65kg and 60kg of body mass, my BMR would go down about 50 calories, which given lifestyle and eating changes, wouldn't be such an issue.

Or is there something else I'm missing? How drastically does metabolism slow down? Has anybody calculated how much it does this by, or is there too many variables at play for any accuracy?

See section 4 on metabolic adaptation [1]

[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9036397/

So they were still weighed 37 lbs less on average? That would explain the lower metabolism

If you read the study, you'll find they say 17% below what you would expect for someone of their weight and activity level, so no, it doesn't explain the lower metabolism. That's kind of the point of the study.

What about before? Were they lower than expected before they lost the weight?

so, what is the solution?..

Based on my research, and I'm just a schmuck on the internet, the things that seem to work are: (1) not getting fat in the first place by maintaining a healthy weight through persistent diet and exercise (2) bariatric surgery (3) GLP-1 drugs, although they're very new and (4) fasting, although that would have to be an ongoing thing, and the evidence for this is promising but limited.

Re: (1) I'm not being glib, your body has a strong homeostatic drive and once you overcome it to put on the weight, you have to overcome it to lose the weight - and that's far less enjoyable. Unfortunately losing the weight can come with permanent metabolic adaptations that bias you towards regain, and you'll be fighting them for years.

> Unfortunately losing the weight can come with permanent metabolic adaptations that bias you towards regain, and you'll be fighting them for years.

my intuition is that if you add some intense exercises into the mix, they will boost your metabolism.

This is just my opinion, but I think one thing that I haven't seen mentioned much is that modern diets (by which I mean foods) leave your stomach more empty than it should be for a given amount of calories absorbed. If you eat lots of whole foods, prepared the right way (e.g. steamed instead of fried in oil or fat) you body will 'see' less calories for the same stomach 'fullness'. (I've done a bad job of expressing that - I hope someone will chime in with a better description and more information).

> I hope someone will chime in with a better description and more information

its called satiety index

this is my main tool in attempt to manage weight, but I feel it is still not enough with sedentary office work.

Find what works for your body without doing anything that makes you hate life.

I tried the "eat less, exercise more" routine for two years straight when I weighed over 340 lbs. Calorie restriction and walking everyday. I lost 50 lbs but had to quit because I was no longer able to motivate myself to keep doing it because I was absolutely exhausted.

Switched to keto on whim because I basically said "let me find something nutritious for my body that I can eat every day and satisfies me". The only option for me was paleo-related stuff.

No exercise, no calorie counting and I lost 90lbs in a single year. I felt healthier, slept better, had better hair, skin and joints, and several people thought I had a disease I lost so much weight so quickly.

10 years in and I still do not count calories. Ever. I eat meat, dairy and protein with as little sugar and carbs as possible. I am never hungry. I eat what I want, when I want as long as it is low carb.

I now consider this to be a solved problem for me. I'm not saying keto is for everyone, but find what works for you. It will be obvious to your body when you do.

It's just the protein IMO. I've only relatively recently began taking weight training seriously, and it really opened my eyes to how different nutrients really can affect you. When I hit my protein goals (which is 1g per lb of body weight) I'm left basically force feeding myself, in spite of maintaining approximately the same calorie intake as before. Eating proper levels of protein just leaves you so absurdly full. I always read the same was true of fiber, but never experienced this at all myself. I love broccoli and could eat it all day long, literally.

Notably just about the entire developed world is protein deficient. Factor in the DIAAS score [1] and the entire developed world is plainly malnourished as far as protein goes. DIAAS has to do with the fact that the digestibility (and amino acid balance) of protein varies by source. So, for instance to get the equivalent of 100 grams of protein from chicken breast, you'd need to consume 250 grams of protein from roasted peanuts.

Even if somebody isn't working out, bumping up the protein (and protein quality) would almost certainly show great things. I went from relying on intermittent fasting and some fairly cautious eating to maintain my weight, to a "diet" that culminates in "Oh god, I just can't eat anymore!" owing to nothing but dramatic shifts in my protein (and protein quality) intake.

---

The [rapidly diminishing] inverse correlation between veganism and obesity would seem to reject this, but I think that can be easily and entirely explained by the fact that vegans are people who have already voluntarily opted into ideologically motivated dietary restraint. If you're willing and able to not give into what your body wants, then you will have little to no difficulty controlling your weight. It just won't be pleasant.

[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digestible_Indispensable_Amino...

> Notably just about the entire developed world is protein deficient.

This is very a countervailing claim against what you find when you google protein needs, so I'd like to see some sources for it. Especially for people who aren't even working out.

For example, top google results:

- https://www.health.harvard.edu/nutrition/when-it-comes-to-pr...

- https://www.dietaryguidelines.gov/resources/2020-2025-dietar...

"""Contrary to all the hype that everyone needs more protein, most people in the U.S. meet or exceed their needs. This is especially true for males ages 19–59. The Dietary Guidelines for Americans, 2020–2025 indicate that men in that age range are exceeding their protein recommendations, especially from meat, poultry and eggs."""

> Eating proper levels of protein just leaves you so absurdly full.

Let's say you eat 200g protein per day (1g/1lb weight). I can come up with wildly different dietary patterns that hit that goal. Frankly, the protein dense foods seem the least filling way to hit that number since they don't hit 2000+ calories.

- 260g protein powder: 920 calories

- 2100g tofu: 1800 calories

- 750g beef sirloin: 1875 calories

- 950g seitan: 1000 calories

- 730g chicken breast: 1340 calories

Not to say you should eat any one food item, but I think it's ancient broscience that protein is magically satiating, else you could easily fill up on protein powder and potatoes wouldn't be the most satiating food per calorie.

So I think you're in broscience territory unless you elaborate a bit more.

> Contrary to all the hype that everyone needs more protein, most people in the U.S. meet or exceed their needs. This is especially true for males ages 19–59.

did they back this claim by any sources? I somehow can't find this phrase there. Where did you find it exactly?

Also, actively exercising person's protein intake requirements are usually considered significantly higher.

Well, why not work the opposite direction?

How would you figure out how much protein you should eat starting with a google search bar? Which sources would you accept and what do those sources say?

I would enter something like "study daily protein intake weight lifting".

Top article is this: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5852756/ which says that intake below 1.6g/kg increases results, and effect is diminished above that number.

Peer reviewed studies are the best source of truth we have on this topic. Also they are obviously not perfect.

(btw, 1.6g/kg is 0.725g/lb, so still 73% of the person above's recommendation and only for hypertrophy results)

The person I replied to isn't talking about weight lifting nor optimizing hypertrophy. The actual context was weight management and satiety.

> Notably just about the entire developed world is protein deficient. Factor in the DIAAS score [1] and the entire developed world is plainly malnourished as far as protein goes. [...] Even if somebody isn't working out, bumping up the protein (and protein quality) would almost certainly show great things. I went from relying on intermittent fasting and some fairly cautious eating to maintain my weight, to a "diet" that culminates in "Oh god, I just can't eat anymore!" owing to nothing but dramatic shifts in my protein (and protein quality) intake.

If people are already getting enough protein, I don't see how macronutrient fixation will help with weight loss.

My own suspicion is that most people who are overweight probably need to replace less satiating foods like refined grains with more satiating foods like legumes, potatoes, whole grains, veg/fruits or anything more satiating than the food they are replacing on this index: http://ernaehrungsdenkwerkstatt.de/fileadmin/user_upload/EDW...

Meat is also more satiating than refined grains, but it's clear just looking at the satiety food index that satiety isn't directed by one magical macronutrient, yet the commenter above seems to purport that it's the case.

> If people are already getting enough protein

they likely defined "enough" as maintenance level for average american: overweight and low active.

To maintain healthy weight in long term with office job, person needs to actively exercise, and supply body with nutrition to exercise. Otherwise, methabolism will slow down, and likely overall health degradation will be observed.

> with more satiating foods

correct, and high protein food has high satiety index.

This seems like quite a stretch.

1. Daily protein intake for someone is directed by their body today, not what their body might be in the future nor what their body could be.

2. Daily protein intake isn't based on tiny hypertrophic optimizations even for athletes, so it's weird to double down that this would apply to average people.

Here's a morsel from your own study:

> However, even a 100 kg athlete can satisfy his/her daily protein requirements by consuming ~30 g of protein at each meal, which aligns with the per meal recommendations of 0.24–0.30 g/kg

0.24-0.30g/kg (0.11-0.14g/lb) is quite below 1.6g/kg (0.725g/lb).

Don't you have to bite the bullet here?

> 0.24-0.30g/kg (0.11-0.14g/lb) is quite below 1.6g/kg (0.725g/lb).

0.30g/kg is per meal, and they say meals should be taken every 3-5h, so I guess there are multiple meals per day.

If you would like to see science on it you can search for something like 'protein satiety study.' Brave search, at least, returns countless high quality looking results. [1] Suffice to say it's not even remotely controversial. In any case this isn't complex - just try it yourself, though remember to adjust protein intake vs DIAAS levels. What is controversial is my claim that the world, including the developed world, is largely protein deficient.

Yet we accept that protein not only has countless health benefits, but also significantly helps with things like satiety - in a world where obesity has become arguably the #1 public health crisis. And now pair this with DIAAS scores also emphasizing that many of the sources being used to pump up raw protein numbers (such as flour based products - bread, pasta, etc) are some of the worst possible sources of protein in terms of actual digestibility, let alone amino acid balance. The fact there isn't more focus on protein outside of e.g. body building nutritionists is quite odd.

[1] - https://search.brave.com/search?q=protein+satiety+study&sour...

> The [rapidly diminishing] inverse correlation between veganism and obesity would seem to reject this, but I think that can be easily and entirely explained

It's easily and entirely explained by fiber. Fiber, through gastric distension, is, along with protein, the primary driver of satiation. There are other factors too, like the fact that they eat more whole, unprocessed foods, which are harder for the body to digest (i.e., require more energy.)