Most active commenters

    ←back to thread

    Adipose tissue retains an epigenetic memory of obesity after weight loss

    (www.nature.com)
    263 points paulpauper | 24 comments | 14 Apr 25 04:47 UTC | HN request time: 1.273s | source | bottom
    Show context
    spoiler ◴[17 Apr 25 06:53 UTC] No.43713850[source]▶
    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 did feel like it was easier to gain weight than lose it, especially fat weight and not muscle weight for me.

    I was recently sent a video about fat adaptation (basically teaching your body to be better at burning fat) by a very fit friend, but I wonder how much of that is bro science and how much of it is grounded in reality. Maybe worth looking into more deeply if it can counteract or balance out this.

    replies(14): >>43713945 #>>43714079 #>>43714515 #>>43715307 #>>43715412 #>>43716111 #>>43716196 #>>43716345 #>>43716696 #>>43716855 #>>43717325 #>>43717641 #>>43719049 #>>43721233 #
    paulpauper ◴[17 Apr 25 07:39 UTC] No.43714079[source]▶
    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.
    replies(1): >>43714447 #
    sethammons ◴[17 Apr 25 08:57 UTC] No.43714447[source]▶
    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.

    replies(4): >>43714480 #>>43714648 #>>43716847 #>>43720005 #
    ykonstant ◴[17 Apr 25 09:02 UTC] No.43714480[source]▶
    >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.

    replies(3): >>43714574 #>>43717109 #>>43718263 #
    1. eftpotrm ◴[17 Apr 25 09:22 UTC] No.43714574[source]▶
    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.

    replies(5): >>43714601 #>>43714617 #>>43714678 #>>43715625 #>>43715914 #
    2. ykonstant ◴[17 Apr 25 09:27 UTC] No.43714601[source]▶
    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?
    3. phyalow ◴[17 Apr 25 09:30 UTC] No.43714617[source]▶
    Come on, this is ridiculous.

    CI/CO is a thing.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermodynamics

    replies(2): >>43716167 #>>43716654 #
    4. _Algernon_ ◴[17 Apr 25 09:40 UTC] No.43714678[source]▶
    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.

    replies(1): >>43734234 #
    5. nom ◴[17 Apr 25 12:10 UTC] No.43715625[source]▶
    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.

    replies(5): >>43716097 #>>43717532 #>>43718610 #>>43719167 #>>43720799 #
    6. bowsamic ◴[17 Apr 25 12:37 UTC] No.43715914[source]▶
    1000 calories is already an unbelievable claim, absolutely no one is going to believe 200. That’s just absurd
    7. guerrilla ◴[17 Apr 25 12:53 UTC] No.43716097[source]▶
    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.
    replies(4): >>43716193 #>>43716517 #>>43716832 #>>43720052 #
    8. d4704 ◴[17 Apr 25 12:59 UTC] No.43716167[source]▶
    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-mo...

    9. _Algernon_ ◴[17 Apr 25 13:01 UTC] No.43716193{3}[source]▶
    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.

    replies(1): >>43728298 #
    10. krageon ◴[17 Apr 25 13:29 UTC] No.43716517{3}[source]▶
    But it is basic physics, which is in fact being violated. It's really very normal to require exceptional proof for this. Like literally any scientific study, not just an anecdote claiming magic.
    replies(1): >>43718650 #
    11. inglor_cz ◴[17 Apr 25 13:38 UTC] No.43716654[source]▶
    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.

    12. karn97 ◴[17 Apr 25 13:50 UTC] No.43716832{3}[source]▶
    Nutritional science is pseudo science at best. I had rather continue to believe in thermodynamics lmao
    replies(1): >>43718547 #
    13. raincom ◴[17 Apr 25 14:38 UTC] No.43717532[source]▶
    If you treat humans as biological machines, signaling system (hormones, endocrine system) is very important. When signaling system is messed up, your CI/CO model with self-control doesn't work at all. Signals need to be fixed.
    replies(1): >>43718433 #
    14. tekla ◴[17 Apr 25 15:38 UTC] No.43718433{3}[source]▶
    So? That doesn't disprove the premise of CI/CO. CI/CO is the notion that humans exist in the physical world and thus obey the laws of thermodynamics.
    replies(1): >>43739367 #
    15. ◴[17 Apr 25 15:46 UTC] No.43718547{4}[source]▶
    16. yakz ◴[17 Apr 25 15:50 UTC] No.43718610[source]▶
    > Weight loss and gain is a solved problem, but self control and human behavior is not.

    Semaglutide and tirzepatide address the self control and human behavior problems. They stop you from wanting to eat more.

    17. stonemetal12 ◴[17 Apr 25 15:53 UTC] No.43718650{4}[source]▶
    Basic physics says CI/CO applies to a closed system. Show me a closed system human and then it will be applicable.

    E=MC^2 is basic physics too. So eat a pea and have enough calories for the rest of your life and then some?

    replies(1): >>43770171 #
    18. iteria ◴[17 Apr 25 16:34 UTC] No.43719167[source]▶
    I can believe this as a human who fasts. I just don't eat every other day. I've fasted for multiple days. You would amazed at how much the scale doesn't move. I can lose zero weight after 36 hours of nothing but water entering me. The body is less CICO and more a system trying to maintain homeostasis as much as possible and pulling ever lever it can.

    Yes, eventually eating every other day I did lose weight, but we're talking a steady glide of 1-2lbs a week nothing as severe as people would expect a severely overweight person who only ate half the week to lose.

    19. bluecheese452 ◴[17 Apr 25 17:46 UTC] No.43720052{3}[source]▶
    It is the amazing the hoops people will jump through and the lies they will tell themselves and others rather than facing the obvious truth that they are consuming too many calories.
    20. djmips ◴[17 Apr 25 18:58 UTC] No.43720799[source]▶
    https://www.diabetes.co.uk/blog/2018/02/story-angus-barbieri...
    21. guerrilla ◴[18 Apr 25 14:14 UTC] No.43728298{4}[source]▶
    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. ;)
    22. throwaway2037 ◴[19 Apr 25 04:34 UTC] No.43734234[source]▶
    Whole milk (3.25% fat) is ~60kcals per 100grams. Are you really drinking 300+grams of whole milk in your coffee per day?
    23. raincom ◴[19 Apr 25 20:50 UTC] No.43739367{4}[source]▶
    CI + self-control or will --> CO (that's the hypothesis sold by many)

    CI + hormones --> CO (that's an alternative hypothesis)

    24. krageon ◴[23 Apr 25 09:29 UTC] No.43770171{5}[source]▶
    You are implying that humans receive energy from another source, which is an extraordinary claim that you should motivate somehow.