Poor Sleep Alters Metabolism and Boosts Body's Ability To Store Fat, Study Finds (theguardian.com) 233
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Guardian: The latest study provides new evidence that sleep deprivation has a direct influence on basic metabolism and the body's balance between fat and muscle mass. In the study, published in the journal Science Advances, 15 healthy volunteers each attended a testing session on two occasions, once after a normal night's sleep and once after staying up all night. During the visit, they gave samples of fat and muscle tissue and blood. After sleep deprivation, people's fat tissue showed changes in gene activity that are linked to cells increasing their tendency to absorb lipids and also to proliferate.
By contrast, in muscle the scientists saw reduced levels of structural proteins, which are the building blocks the body requires to maintain and build muscle mass. Previous epidemiological studies have also found shift workers and those who sleep less have lower muscle mass. This may be in part down to lifestyle factors, but the latest work shows that there are also fundamental biological mechanisms at play. The study also found an increase in inflammation in the body after sleep deprivation, which is a known risk factor for type 2 diabetes.
By contrast, in muscle the scientists saw reduced levels of structural proteins, which are the building blocks the body requires to maintain and build muscle mass. Previous epidemiological studies have also found shift workers and those who sleep less have lower muscle mass. This may be in part down to lifestyle factors, but the latest work shows that there are also fundamental biological mechanisms at play. The study also found an increase in inflammation in the body after sleep deprivation, which is a known risk factor for type 2 diabetes.
Not surprising, but good data to have. (Score:5, Informative)
Sleep deprivation is a source of chronic stress at a basic level. It's not all that surprising that it causes neurological effects, but ALSO systemic stress-related effects.
Something I've been wondering (Score:5, Insightful)
As long as I've been alive one of the central narratives in my life has been that people who fail at life did so because they lack good moral character. It's been pretty well pounded into my skull. Sometimes overtly ( "Welfare Queens" and folks convinced panhandlers are making a kililng ) and sometimes less so ("You can be do anything if you put your mind to it!" and "Pull yourself up by your bootstraps!").
Science is challenging that. There really are "born losers". Folks for whom nothing ever seems to go right because it doesn't. Moreover life really does kick you when you're down.
What I'm wondering is if we're going to change anything in response. I don't expect the public at large to. But, well,
I'm not so sure. Yeah, this is a science oriented forum, but it's also a forum with an aging population. And as people get older they get more conservative. Less emphatic. Funny that; I read somewhere science has found that the part of your brain associated with empathy atrophies in old age...
Re:Something I've been wondering (Score:4, Insightful)
It is *also* true that certain character flaws will lead to one being a failure. People who refuse to take responsibility and self-motivate are never going to achieve as much.
So, a fat person may be fat because of their combination of metabolism and gut bacteria and so on. Such that when they eat a normal and reasonable amount of food, and even get some exercise, they stay fat. That happens. But it *also* happens that some people just over-indulge in unhealthy food and they don't exercise at all.
And further, in the former case, the person is not doomed. If the person is truly motivated, they can bust their ass, eat super-healthy, and even do things like get a fecal transplant to favor the correct gut bacteria, and make significant improvement. The temptation is to point at the science and throw up one's hands in defeat, using it as an enabler of continued bad behavior.
This doesn't mean that wisdom and morality will fix one's problems. Depending on details, it is simply not enough. But neither is the opposite extreme true. Personal problems are still very heavily influenced by one's character, and the need for personal responsibility is still present.
What really hurts me is that huge numbers of people, most people, in fact, are born into poverty. The hand they are dealt is bad from the get-go. Even if they somehow manage to be brilliant saints, the sheer lack of economic opportunity keeps them trapped forever. It is unfair, and it is the most common case. I support poverty-fighting charities but there is only so much that can be done. Poverty *sucks,* and I consider it to be the greatest evil that flourishes within our species (though it is not unique to us, of course).
Maybe, someday, we will find a better way. It hurts me that the current state is still the best we can do.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
the person is not doomed. If the person is truly motivated, they can bust their ass, eat super-healthy, and even do things like get a fecal transplant to favor the correct gut bacteria, and make significant improvement.
Is that realistic though? If they have to work full time, which not only takes up a lot of time and energy but requires them to not be super tired for months or years on end, is this super healthy diet and exercise regime a realistic option? That is assuming it even worked, which it doesn't...
Fecal transplant is very promising but not widely available and typically not available on socialised healthcare or insurance plans.
A friend of mine is getting a gastric sleeve fitted today, funnily enough, which is an
Re: (Score:2)
Avoiding to get fat is easy.
Getting down being slim is super hard.
It is easier to "cure" anyone from a drug addiction (regardless wich) than helping him to lose weight and after losing it staying on that level.
The amount of calories a human needs per day is ridiculous low in relation how easy you can intake them in our modern eating habits (emphasized by wrong died advices, artificial sweeteners, low fat yoghourts, corn sirup added into everything, hormones in meat etc.)
Re: (Score:2)
It is *also* true that certain character flaws will lead to one being a failure.... So, a fat person may be fat because of their combination of metabolism and gut bacteria and so on. Such that when they eat a normal and reasonable amount of food, and even get some exercise, they stay fat. That happens. But it *also* happens that some people just over-indulge in unhealthy food and they don't exercise at all.
I think that it's unfortunately more complicated than that.
Because first, if people are just indulging, it raises the question, why are they indulging? If it's just a character flaw, why do they have that character flaw? Really, there are only a few possibilities.
One is biology. Whether it's genetic or developmental, biology can contribute in all kinds of way. Maybe they're indulging because their brain chemistry at that moment is disposing them toward impulsive or self-gratifying actions. Or it coul
Re: (Score:2)
People who refuse to take responsibility and self-motivate are never going to achieve as much.
Really? Can you show me one failure that Donald Trump has taken responsibility for? He is constantly finding other people to blame. Even more so he constantly finds things to take credit for that are not significantly of his own doing.
Nature vs nurture (Score:3)
Can't people for a moment entertain the possibility that all of these factors contribute to individual behavior? Yes, life deals some people a better set of cards than others. But that doesn't mean you have no control. You still get to decide ho
Re: (Score:2)
"pretend that it's acceptable"
The fuck are you talking about? Just what other personal choices are you putting into that category?
Re: (Score:2)
If obesity is a health issues, treat it like one instead of as a moral failure
The only time in my adult life I have ever been leas than 10lbs overweight was when I literally could not afford to eat more than like a slice of bread a day for a year. I’ve almost always been much heavier.
In recent years I decided to really prioritize trying to lose weight more sustainably. Following my docto’s advice I skip breakfast, do a 600 calorie workout, eat a 200 calorie lunch (baked tofu), do another 600 cal
Re: (Score:2)
But neither should we pretend that it's acceptable. It's one of if not the biggest health risk most people face today. And the campaign against fat shaming seems to have overshot its mark, and is now killing people by making it socially acceptable to be fat.
The problem is the food, hence the food industry. If you have no laws against unhealthy food, how do you suppose to prevent people getting fat?
Or look at asian countries, they don't need laws, because the culture simply loathes unhealthy food. Perhaps yo
Re: Something I've been wondering (Score:2)
Finding out scientific truth and facing reality isnâ(TM)t defeatism. If anything it allows the situation to be rectified. Maybe the gene or chemical imbalance can be corrected or some sort of extra help gotten. DNA can be edited after all.
Re:Something I've been wondering (Score:4, Informative)
I have trouble with that, because, the obesity rate in the US is a relatively RECENT trend....
You didn't have this many fat people waddling around the US just prior to the 70's.
I don't think the humans in the US or the world have evolved such changes to the human metabolism, gut bacteria profile or anything else the give us the excuse that "its all genetics and we're pre-disposed to being fat, so why try to fight it?"
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
I'm pretty sure we're genetically pre-disposed to being fat as a species, when high calorie food is so affordable and easily accessible. It wasn't all that long ago that malnutrition was a common problem even in the USA. The other really obvious factor is that people are just far less active than they used to be. Our genetics haven't adapted yet to either of those factors. There are likely plenty of other factors but I think it's silly to discount such obvious things.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, then THIS is at least one thing that is to blame on the people themselves, this is something they CAN do to prevent obesity...start moving around and exercising more.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, it is something we can in theory do something about. However we're also genetically predisposed to conserve energy and avoid discomfort. That has played to our benefit as a species as we've progressed from being hunter gatherers fighting and scavenging for survival to where we are today.
The other problem is that people are bad at understanding long term risks.Most of the risk in being obese is very long term and nebulous. It is easy for a person to look at those risks and weigh them as essentially inc
Re: (Score:2)
Hey if you're so smart, you'd realize muscle weighs more than fat.
He also didn't mention anything about magic.
Why do you feel the need to be a complete asshole on the internet? I'm sorry life sucks that badly for you.
Re: (Score:2)
Your numbers do not hold up at all for diet changes.
You switch to a healthy diet and you can be as slim as you want, except you have the wrong gut bacterias, and that is only a very small percentage of society.
Re: (Score:2)
How about everyone else though? You could put them through an army style boot camp to get them to lose weight, but after that is over, how many will keep it off for an extended period?
The ones that keep exercising? You can't really complain otherwise.
Re: (Score:2)
You don't necessarily need causality defying magic. He was saying that there are some people who can change their situation with effort and there are those who can't. Since you don't know for sure which you are, being optimistic and trying to do something about it is a better approach than being a nihilist. The former has a chance of working while the latter does not.
That's the problem with saying that science predetermines your lot in the world exclusively. It's an excuse for those who face a little ad
Re: (Score:2)
The point is the discussion was that, given people with equal motive and opportunity, their means may still differ. And even if those means are something "inside" of them, a part of them, an ability that they have, something still caused them to have that ability.
Take physical strength for an analogy. There are heavy thing that need to be lifted. Two people have equal reason to want to lift them, and equal opportunity to do so. One of them takes advantage of that opportunity and lifts it with a modicum of e
Re: (Score:2)
I accused you of believing in magic and therefore abandoning rationality. Try to keep up.
Sure there are things we don’t understand. We may not know what exactly gives a person better executive control (what you seem to mean by ”will”) — though actually we do know quite a few things about that, but setting that aside for now — nevertheless something brought about whatever it is about that person that gives them that ability. To deny that is to invoke magic, an event without a ca
Re: (Score:2)
I'm going to go out on a limb and say that no, scientific evidence isn't going to change any significant number of minds. I've got a circadian rhythm disorder that doesn't respond to treatment, and though the disorder/syndrome is considered a disability (in the US) there aren't many who'll employ a programmer who arises at noon each day because he must.
Which is odd, because DSPD/DSPS is more common among those of higher IQ. So it goes.
FWIW, the older I get, the more accepting/tolerant/liberal I get.
Re:Something I've been wondering (Score:4, Informative)
Already in the 19th century a distinction was made between people who would not work and people who could not work; the deserving and the undeserving poor. Read Mayhew's brilliant London Labour and the London Poor.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Science is challenging that. There really are "born losers".
That's not my take. My take is that everyone has their own "challenges". My personal demons are stress eating ( drinking ), and as a result I'm a bit of a porker. I don't blame my genetics for that. I don't blame my employer for that, nor do I blame my family for it. *I* choose to eat and drink when I really shouldn't. I choose to stay up later than I should ( for some fucking peace and quiet. Just 30 minutes of it ). That's me. Were my ph
Re: Something I've been wondering (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You make good points, but I believe that empathy is like a muscle. The more you use it, the longer it stays active. There are few things in life that will rejuvenate the mind and body and renew the spirit like going
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Something I've been wondering (Score:4, Insightful)
This is why we have so much sympathy for unemployed steel workers...
We do. What we don't have is sympathy for people who are willfully ignorant. If you're sitting at a computer with access to the interwebs and you choose to use it to complain about how furriners terk your jerb instead of educating yourself about where them jerbs actually went, and someone explains the situation to you and you still don't change your ways, then there's no time to coddle you. It's time to move on to someone whose mind is not yet welded shut.
Um... a lot of those steel workers don't own (Score:2)
And, well, furriners did take a lot of jobs. Outsourcing is a thing and it's eroded the manufacturing base. If you're a blue collar guy you lost a lot of construction work to Mexicans here illegally. Same as white
Re: (Score:2)
And, well, furriners did take a lot of jobs. [...]
Moreover there's almost no attempt to discuss the real job killer: automation. In 40 years America has doubled it's manufacturing output while decreasing the number of jobs by 2/3rds
You could not have supported my point more enthusiastically if you tried. The real job killer is automation, and talking about foreigners taking jobs is a bad joke when those jobs were deliberately given to foreigners by the "job creators" in order to save money and/or to secure employees who could be abused.
Re: (Score:2)
The thing is, "furriners" *didn't* take a lot of jobs. American companies did. The wealthy did. They automated processes. They outsourced to other countries so that they could lower the labour cost but still charge the same amount, maximizing their profits. So they could maximize their personal bank accounts at everyone else's expense.
But the American public has been brainwashed into looking for a convenient scapegoat like "foreigners" or "illegal aliens", and the companies that are actually at fault a
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah! Because all a 54 year old father of three needs to do is move to New York City, call around to some friends, and get a job in publishing.
No, what he needs to do is to support political candidates who will at least try to keep corporate malfeasance in check, instead of candidates like Trump who will claim they will do and are doing great things for them while screwing them over. What he needs to do is support the social safety net that actually makes the state he lives in viable, since the corporations that exist there don't pay enough taxes to do so and California has to pick up the slack. What he needs to do is stop blaming foreigners for h
Re: (Score:3)
So...vote for Democrats?
Until a real leftist comes along? Yeah. It's better than voting for republicans, even if it's not that great.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Did Henry Ford stop innovating out of fear that buggy whip makers would be sad?
Re: (Score:2)
Right?! What an insensitive clod!
Re: (Score:2)
I know exactly where you're coming from. You have no idea how long I've battled with myself to accept that no, I'm not just lazy... I actually do seem to have less energy at my disposal as some other people and the fact that I am where I am is actually not a detriment because I could have done so much more if I had just applied myself...
No, it's a damn miracle I am this functional despite it all.
It also changed, more often than before, how I look at people that fail. I've become much more forgiving and less
Re: (Score:2)
What you have learned may not be as universal as you expect it to be. A quick glance at countries like the nordics indicates that in those countries, even at the lawmaking level, it is clear what you just learned :p
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That people sleep less as they age due to hormonal changes and now that lack of sleep leads to weight gain (gut bacteria play a big role too).
That's not really what it found. What it found was that it changes the metabolic pathways to prefer the formation of fat tissue and retard the formation of muscle mass, so it will change the ratio between lean and fat body mass. Of course, this muscle consumes more energy than fat does, so this will end up decreasing the energy you burn, which will promote weight gain unless you change your diet.
But here's the thing: you can fix both those problems. Exercise will promote the formation of muscle mass, eatin
Re: Something I've been wondering (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you want changes and a better future for your kids and grand kids, move to a place that has those problems more checked. ... I doubt I/we will see any improvements in the many problems during my remaining lifetime (~40 years). It probably will end up somewhere between Russia and Venezuela in terms of quality of life and human rights issues.
The USA is probably a lost case
Re: (Score:2)
Well then, you've been paying undue attention to those who came out on top, because it's not being pounded into your skull by any of the rest of us.
Do I smell envy? Or is that just burnt toast?
sleep affects hormones (Score:2)
"Fat: people do not get fat by eating it, they get fat by not being able to burn it. And, that is 100% controlled by hormones, leptin & insulin." @DrRosedale http://bit.ly/2h0Xmg1 [bit.ly]
"...the mobilization of fat from adipose tissue is inhibited by numerous stimuli. The most significant inhibition is that exerted upon adenylate cyclase by insulin." @medicalbiochem http://bit.ly/2LiPkNE [bit.ly]
"The underlying theme of the glucose-fatty acid cycle is that the utilization of one nutrient (e.g. glucose) directly inhibi
Re: sleep affects hormones (Score:5, Informative)
you're pretty smug for someone that is so terribly fucking wrong
'100 calories' is not the exact immutable block you think it is. calories as it pertains to human diet are an inexact & best-guess science. 100 calories for you may not be 100 calories for someone else.
differences in gut bacteria can have drastically different effects in nutrient & energy absorption. differences in metabolism can affect the amount of calories burnt by two individuals performing the same actions.
two different people could eat the exact same food, perform the exact same physical activities, and one could gain weight while the other lost weight.
Re: (Score:3)
100 calories is not 100 calories TO THE PERSON EATING IT and that is the only fucking thing that matters. everyone will shit some of those calories out, and the amount they shit out can vary significantly from person to person.
i never argued against the conservation of energy.
capitalizing the first word of sentences is for little bitches. and work emails. since you're not paying me, you don't get capitalization.
Re: (Score:2)
nobody will get 101 calories from 100.
but nobody will get 100 calories from 100, either. you are not 100% efficient. you poop calories out.
some people poop out more calories than others. get it now?
George Carlin (Score:2)
Eat right, Excercise and DIE ANYWAY!
So, your boss is making you fat (Score:2)
Poor sleep - all the calls and texts from your bosses are disturbing your sleep habits, interfering with your life *outside* work, leaving you stressed out while you do sleep.
Tell your bosses that you can't answer after hours, because it's making you fat. (And how fat are your bosses, anyway?)
Re: (Score:2)
While you can consume calories, what gets absorbed by the body, and then how it is used by the body varies greatly. I'd love to see tests that count calories before consumption and then check for calories when it comes out the other end.
Bacteria in the gut plays a huge role in this. Here's an example: "Woman Becomes Obese After Fecal Transplant From Overweight Donor" https://www.iflscience.com/hea... [iflscience.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Here's the part that you're missing:
While you can consume calories, what gets absorbed by the body, and then how it is used by the body varies greatly. I'd love to see tests that count calories before consumption and then check for calories when it comes out the other end.
They already did, and the result is called calories. Its called the modified atwater system. The case study of gut floras effects are interesting, but they are not breaking physics and creating energy from nothing.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
nobody can create energy out of thin air.
but some people can extract more energy from the same amount of food as other people.
100 calories is not the same for everyone. no machine is 100% efficient. for a quantity of food that we think of as '100 calories,' the average adult may only be able to absorb 80 calories of energy from it. other individuals might be able to get 90 calories of energy from it, due to differences in gut flora.
now factor in metabolism as well. some individuals burn more calories than o
Re: (Score:2)
Does that excuse the short female from eating herself into obesity? You tell me.
Re: (Score:2)
you're way too hung up on assigning blame, as if that is the only thing that matters here - pointing fingers at folks.
you're also still ignoring the impact of gut bacteria, which we are learning is incredibly influential in how you absorb nutrients and put on weight. TDEE is only the second half of the equation - calories burned - but calories absorbed is just as important.
yes, anyone can eat less, exercise more, and lose weight. that is not under debate. but it will take some people WAY, WAY more effort th
Re:External locus of control (Score:5, Insightful)
Calories eaten and absorbed minus calories burnt from exercise and resting metabolism will be stored as fat, sure. You might note that some parts of that sentence describe things not under voluntary control. I've italicized them for you in case your obvious mental deficit makes them hard for you to find.
You know there are literally drugs that will make people just drop weight off, right? Problem is they have a bunch of terrible side-effects. These things were sold, and then problems with them found, and lawsuits were had over all of that. If you can put a chemical into a fat person and that will make them thin (so long as you don't care about the other health issues it causes) there are obviously factors at play besides just gluttony and sloth.
Research like this is looking to what else, aside from those kinds of drugs, might affect those factors.
Devil is in the details. (Score:4, Insightful)
Calories eaten and absorbed minus calories burnt from exercise and resting metabolism will be stored as fat, sure.
Calories eaten is under everyones voluntary control. I'm not sure what your point is here.
His point is that the sentence is running for a bit longer than that.
Yes, "calories eaten", i.e.: things that you put into your mouth and chew on is more or less under voluntary control (though might be influenced by impulsive behaviours, etc.)
But then you don't necessarily control how much of what's in there will get absorbed by the body. (though you can slightly influence the body's ability to uptake stuff, by changing the mix of what you eat. e.g.: Food's content of fiber has an influence of how fast it goes through your gut).
You can voluntarily decide to burn some calories by doing exercice, but you don't have a direct control of how much the body will decide to burn for the rest.
Some might have indirect influence (doing lots of exercice on a regular basis, body will use more energy to make and maintain muscle mass, even while you rest), (your body burn calories to maintain temperature and you can influence that), but there are tons of other processes, where the body could decide to burn energy instead of storing it long term, on which you don't have lots of direct control.
That what the " {food eaten} - {calories burned} = {remaining fat} " crowd doesn't get.s
When you look into the details, there are gazillion of various energy consuming processes going inside a body, most of which will have some impact on body mass distribution type, but which you can't directly control necessarily.
Your basic mistake boils down to thinking of the body as a "bathtub" model : water (=food) goes in through the faucet (=eating), water (=burned calories) goes out through the drain (=exercice), the balance determine how much water there's in the tub (=fat storage).
It's a bit too oversimplified.
Something more realistic would be to imagine it as a conveyor belt. The belt rolls from your mouth (and the food on your plate) to the ass hole (and your toilet).
Along the way there are dozens of worker on station, sometime picking things up (absorbing), sometime putting things down (excreting) and most of the time passing stuff among each other.
Fat is just one guy making a pile of reservers, when instructed so (= include influence of tons of hormonal messages), and who can occasionally handle out packs or reserve whenever/if asked so by other guys working on the same chain.
Physical effort is just one of the client that might request reserves from the fat guy.
Re: (Score:2)
Proper handling of obesity (Score:2)
$other_person has an easier time staying skinny than you. Lucky them.
Yup, I personally happen to have a broken thyroid gland (which can have very real impact on weight uptake).
But I don't complain, I just compensate it properly so I can stay fit despite it.
and you can absolutely prevent yourself from gaining weight
Yes, you can indeed DO stuff to help staying away from morbid obesity...
by not eating more than you burn.
Even if you feel a conservation of energy explanation, is too simple, it doesn't make it wrong.
And there lies the problem.
By oversimplifying, you're reducing all overweight people to cry babies who simply lack the self discipline to not eat 2 gallon-sized buckets of mayonnaise per day, and the only step they walk in a day are to reach their car
Bathtub again (Score:2)
If your excuse is that fat fucks magically get double energy from the regular calories regular people eat,
No, I'm arguing that the amount of fat you store is only a small amount compared to all the calories in the food.
There's a lot of these calories which will end up elsewhere (which includes, spending more energy (re)building/repairing the body, or even simply wasted).
Some people have slightly broken metabolism which might lead to slightly more fat storage that others.
Blaming these people be calling them "fat fucks" won't help.
The proper way would be to get adapted professional advice, from real specialists (
Re: (Score:2)
"Calories eaten is under everyones voluntary control. I'm not sure what your point is here."
Spoken like someone who's never experienced weight problems. There's a real pattern here with you.
Do you think that people desire to be obese? Do you think it's only you who's figured out the obvious? Is it really as simple as a character flaw that makes everyone else not as good as you?
Re: (Score:2)
Spoken like someone who's never experienced weight problems.
Ah another one doubting me personally [dropbox.com]
There's a real pattern here with you. Do you think that people desire to be obese?
No
Do you think it's only you who's figured out the obvious?
No, lots of people understand basic physics.
Is it really as simple as a character flaw that makes everyone else not as good as you?
Yes. Taking responsibility of the only body they get in life.
Re: (Score:2)
People cling to these articles out of nothing but confirmation bias for their continued gluttony. Its not hormones, insulin, genetics, PCOS, or medications. Just gluttony.
So hypothyroid doesn't exist. Cool.
Re: (Score:2)
Another article, another piece to a solved puzzle. If you want to gain weight, what does google say? You have to eat more calories than you expend. The excess will be stored as fat. And if you want to lose weight, you do the opposite. This will never stop working.
Indeed. If you have an equation with an equals sign in the middle you can force the equation on both sides just by pushing one of the many variables really really hard.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Metabolism is a big one, which itself is a wonderfully large equation with variables which among other things include calorie intake with some nice time dependent integration in the formula as well.
But by all means ignore science and continue thinking this complex topic can be simplified to calories in vs out.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you think I said something out of line with physics then you didn't read my post properly.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
That's complete and utter bull. I can make you gain fat tissue while you eat NOTHING, literally ZERO calories, all I have to do is inject you with lots of insulin. It will absolutely work. At least for the week or two until you die. When you're high on insulin, your body will first deplete its glucose, then its glycogen, then in desperation it will start breaking down muscles for protein to turn into glucose, WHILE STILL DESPERATELY STUFFING WHAT LITTLE ENERGY YOU HAVE INTO MORE FAT. And then you will liter
Re: (Score:2)
Re:External locus of control (Score:4, Interesting)
If it were as easy as eating less and doing more exercise then people wouldn't find it so hard to lose weight. Clearly it's more than just balancing the calorie chequebook.
The main problem is that once you have put on significant weight your body fights you to stop to taking it off. If you try to eat fewer calories it cranks up the feelings of hunger and reduces energy consumption, making you feel tired, which in turn has mental health consequences over the longer term.
Even if you don't believe that, you must surely accept that blaming people for "gluttony" doesn't work either. Berating and denigrating them for being overweight does not help or encourage them to lose weight. From a pure engineering point of view we need a better solution.
Re: (Score:2)
If it were as easy as eating less and doing more exercise then people wouldn't find it so hard to lose weight. Clearly it's more than just balancing the calorie chequebook.
Its not.
The main problem is that once you have put on significant weight your body fights you to stop to taking it off. If you try to eat fewer calories it cranks up the feelings of hunger and reduces energy consumption, making you feel tired, which in turn has mental health consequences over the longer term.
Got any sources for those bold claims?
Even if you don't believe that, you must surely accept that blaming people for "gluttony" doesn't work either. Berating and denigrating them for being overweight does not help or encourage them to lose weight. From a pure engineering point of view we need a better solution.
Yes I could have framed it better. How about this, you stop using food as entertainment and find something else. Also, vanity works far better as a reason to lose than health. Health is invisible.
Re:External locus of control (Score:4, Insightful)
Got any sources for those bold claims?
Why yes, I do.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.co... [wiley.com]
The NYT has a more readable summary with the key graphs: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/0... [nytimes.com]
How about this, you stop using food as entertainment and find something else. Also, vanity works far better as a reason to lose than health.
If you really believe that people are fat because they use food as "entertainment" then it rather undermines your advice to them. Also, if vanity worked then obesity would be cured by the magazines in the doctor's waiting room. The constant bombardment of images of thin bodies and the promotion of that standard of beauty would have fixed the problem long ago.
Shaming and depression are discredited as weight loss methods. In fact they tend to have the opposite effect. Fortunately medical science knows that and is making progress towards real solutions.
Re: (Score:2)
If they returned to eating more than they needed, on an individual basis, they would store the excess as fat. It doesn't say anything about making you feel tired or cranking up feelings of hunger.
This is not a valid excuse for gluttony.
Re: (Score:2)
If it were as easy as eating less and doing more exercise then people wouldn't find it so hard to lose weight. Clearly it's more than just balancing the calorie chequebook.
Easy isn't the proper term. I'd say *simple* makes more sense. Thing is, balancing your calorie "chequebook" and getting off your ass regularly to do something that's generally uncomfortable to do, like actual exercise, is pretty hard to do consistently for most people. It's not complicated though.
Your body will adapt to what you eat. If you over eat a lot and suddenly start eating less, you'll always feel starved. Staying within a solid routine is hard, and easy to break out of once you get going.
Nobody ne
Re: (Score:2)
Cute. I like your judgemental approach. It makes everything seem so clear.
Could you explain to me how I was so virtuous when I was younger? I could eat a whole pizza, a tub of ice cream, etc, essentially "pigging out" and not gain a single pound that would stay on my body. I was somewhat active. It was not unheard of for me to put on more than 100 miles in a day on a bicycle, but I could eat FAR beyond that and not gain weight.
So I could eat as gluttonously as I desired and not gain weight. The lack of gain
Re: (Score:2)
Cute. I like your judgemental approach. It makes everything seem so clear.
Could you explain to me how I was so virtuous when I was younger? I could eat a whole pizza, a tub of ice cream, etc, essentially "pigging out" and not gain a single pound that would stay on my body. I was somewhat active. It was not unheard of for me to put on more than 100 miles in a day on a bicycle, but I could eat FAR beyond that and not gain weight.
Easily. You were eating at or below your TDEE per day.
I am of the opinion that you should show some restraint in judging people regarding weight until you have hard evidence pointing towards your default judgements. It is not as simple as calories going in and calories burned.
My judgements are based on physical laws, you might as well be arguing with me about gravity here
That being said, I have seen a lot of "slobs" that are disgustingly huge because of lack of control. That does not mean that all weight gain is due to being a pig.
All weight gain is certainly not due to being a pig. Pigs actually know when to stop
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
A calorie deficit is not starving. Its called being a responsible adult and not a child that wants treats 24/7.
Re: External locus of control (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
A calorie deficit is not enough. You need to have a good balance or the weight will just pop back.
Its more than enough. The 'pop back' part is people that ignore their TDEE and stop counting. Its called a normal amount of food.
Re: External locus of control (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
No, you've never struggled with weight loss
Yeah about that [dropbox.com].
Body processes aren't static: if you drop 300 calories from your diet your body will adjust (mainly noticed by having no energy and wanting to sleep a lot), and you won't actually lose weight. Is it *possible* to lose weight? Of course, but it's not easy , and the limiting factor is knowledge not "will power."
Might want to look up homeostasis before you make the claim the bodies processes aren't static. I don't ignore the evidence, I've lived it. Weightloss is not easy, but its simple. I didn't suffer a lack of energy nor did I wish to sleep a lot. Sorry, people that are overweight or obese are doing exactly what I was doing; eating more than they need per day and having the excess stored as fat.
Re: External locus of control (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
"Weightloss is not easy, but its simple."
It's simple to a simpleton whose never lost weight in the real world. Anyone can be a weight loss champion on the internet but demonstrating a real understanding of weight loss is required to be convincing. You aren't convincing.
A calorie excess / deficit is necessary but is not sufficient and is only one of a large number of complex interacting elements that are only partially understood, less well understood by you than most of the public. Grow up.
Re: (Score:2)
Insult me all you like. That won't change the truth of peoples continued gluttony.
Re: External locus of control (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's definitely not enough and you fail to understand metabolism. As soon as you reduce your diet 100 calories, your body will adjust it's processes and you will not lose weight.
After your body adjusts then you no longer have a deficit. OP was right - you need to maintain the deficit as your metabolism changes, which means consuming fewer calories as you lose weight. I see very few people doing that.
If you're already overeating then your metabolism is already incorrect; once you go into a calorie deficit your metabolism changes to accommodate that deficit, which means that you then need to eat even less. At some point your metabolism can't be changed anymore and then you simply ma
Re: External locus of control (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No, it's just a mislabeling of "calorie deficit" and perhaps "weight gain" as well.
I would suggest you try harder to understand the complexity of the issue rather than assert useless and meaningless claims of spontaneous energy creation.
Re: (Score:2)
The human body can make its own energy, by breaking down those useful things it previously built - things like your eyes, muscles, and tendons and especially your brain. That's called starvation, which is the one and only result of permanent "calorie reduction" plans.
It's only going to do that after it's gotten all the energy it can from fat. If you've got no fat then you don't have to have a deficit.
Re: (Score:2)
No.
A calorie deficit means you're lacking the food you need to function properly. You need to balance, not deprive.
Re: (Score:2)
tipped heavily one way, requiring a course correction. Ergo, calorie deficit !
Re: (Score:2)
What a lovely argument you're having with yourself. Life sucks, and calories count. Even if you don't.
Oh wait thats right. They're controlling us through the food we eat. Its a global conspiracy cooked up by the food industry that is... oops, occams razor. People are overeating. Womp womp
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No excuses. If you are overweight or obese, its your fault for ignoring your TDEE.
Re: (Score:2)
You need sleep in order for the body to flush toxins out of the cellular tissues through the lymphatic system and into urine or perspiration. Cells just usually dump their waste products outside their membranes for the body to clean up. If the body can't get rid of these toxins, it wraps them up in lipid layers and stores them in fat cells until they can be removed. Vegetables have enzymes that help break up these toxins. Anything with lots of fatty chemicals will clog up your lymphatic system which in turn
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It seems clear that if you eat a diet with little processed foods and exercise a bit, you should be fine.
Please explain how there were fat people before processed foods on supermarket shelves, and before ubiquitous powered transportation. Those people ate a diet with little processed foods and they got a bit of exercise, and they were still fat.