←back to thread

263 points paulpauper | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.205s | source
Show context
spoiler ◴[] 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 #
nikanj ◴[] No.43716111[source]
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
replies(4): >>43716200 #>>43716210 #>>43716213 #>>43716812 #
1. devmor ◴[] No.43716213[source]
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.