ArsT: “Outrageously” priced weight-loss drugs could bankrupt US health care

[Califan007 The Constipated]

5 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

 

This got lost in the shuffle the other day.  Great your down to four poptarts for your meal and still easily putting on weight. Cut it to 2 poptarts.  You've now gone from 6 poptarts to 2 poptarts which means you're saving money that you can use to buy healthier food.  Even cut it to 1 poptart and use the saved money to add in some healthier food.

 

You're still gaining weight.  Great.  Eat 1/2 a poptart.

 

Sounds like you forgot--or missed--the point of the post.

[tshile]

2 hours ago, DCSaints_fan said:

 

Sorry if I come across as a naysayer but lifting more than an hour everyday, or even 6 days a week on average is going to be massive  overtraining for most people who aren't bodybuilders/power lifters on gear.  And even a fair amount of those don't put in that much work

Oh I understand that. I was just posting my personal experience,

specifically with regard to breaking habits and forming new ones. I’ve made and broken lots of good and bad habits - I know it’s hard but it’s surely not impossible and it comes down to how much you care. 
 

I think generally speaking within the conversation I’ve stuck to “exercise.” Which is very ambiguous. Walking, running, riding a bike, using your body weight or household furniture or going to a gym or building a gym in a spare room. Trainers, supplements… the options are endless. And yeah some of that really truly requires money and a lot of time. 
 

but some of it doesn’t require much of anything. It requires making it a priority. Anyone can walk/run. There’s a whole internet community around working out at home doing exercised that don’t require purchasing anything - and it’s very similar to what a were all taught in elementary school PE. Just like we’re taught how to eat right. 
 

We’re not talking about bulking up or building a bikini-suitable body. We’re talking about doing the basics such that you don’t require a pill every day to not be obese. 
 

no I don’t think it’s reasonable to expect someone to lift weights for an hour a day ever day.

 

but it is reasonable to expect people to develop habits that prevent them from getting to a point they need this pill. Everyone has rough weeks and months. But going years or over a decade with no basic exercise routine is a personal problem. No one is going to take care of your body for you. So if you’re not going to do it …

 

edit: that being said I’m aware someone that goes over 300 lbs (just as an example) as an adult has things about their body change that presents new and very difficult challenges. But that’s not everyone. 

Edited May 21 by tshile

[mcsluggo]

On 5/18/2024 at 11:23 PM, PeterMP said:

......

 

I just want to point out that exercise isn't really a good thing in terms of losing weight.  Exercise just generally makes you hungrier and/or more tired so you end up eating more or doing less work later and cancelling out the effect of working out.

 

i hear people often say that exercise isn't the way ... and your statement here really lays that view on the line.   

 

But it doesn't make any sense to me.

 

Your statement SEEMS to apply to an out of shape person that exercises once and never before or after.   then it MIGHT be true that the exercise would have minimal impact--- 500 calories burned, and then eat extra calories to make up for it, and sit on your couch recovering instead of doing whatever minor activity you might otherwise have done.     

 

But contrast that with a new steady state that involves exercising hard several times a week (for years)?   ------   you burn the direct calories from exercising.   you burn LOTS more calories building up (and eventually maintaining) 20 pounds of muscle that burn a lot of calories just existing.  and even beyond that you just plain increase your energy level.   Fit people have more energy, do more... and eat more.     The extreme case (not as an example of a target, just as an asymptotic boundary example) is football players that eat like 8,000 calories a day during the season, and STILL lose weight as the season progresses.     \

 

Muscle is "expensive" (in terms of calories)   

 

[tshile]

The worst is the yo-yo dieting and exercising 

 

you do it just long enough to freak your body out and not know what to do, and then stop so your body stores all new stuff in fear of the next time you decide to randomly start “starving” it. 
 

consistency is key. 
 

it’s a running joke for anyone that frequents a gym that come January just work out at home for 3-4 weeks. 
 

that’s all it takes for the flood of new people with New Year’s resolutions on giving a **** about themselves to give up cause its too hard or they don’t have time 

 

then you get your gym back for the next 11 months. 

Edited May 21 by tshile

[mcsluggo]

On 5/18/2024 at 11:07 PM, Califan007 The Constipated said:

 

 

It's largely a societal issue, which is why I think individualizing the solutions won't work ("you just need to make better decisions," etc). When I went to Australia, holy forkin' shirtballs lol...everyone was in shape, at least in Sydney. I walked downtown there one afternoon and was blown away at how many people were just...fit. From businessmen and businesswomen to cashiers to kids to senior citizens to bus drivers, they all just looked healthy. And I know it's not simply because individual Australians make better choices than individual Americans (although they probably do lol). And Australia was promoting and encouraging getting exercise and eating right like a mf'er all over the radio and commercials. And it wasn't being done because there was a profit to be made by doing so...it was just their society and culture. It was bizarre...

 

After spending 10 days in Sydney and Hamilton Island, I came back to the States and went to El Pollo Loco like the next day. Every single person except me in that restaurant was obese lol...and when I say "everyone," I mean:

 

 

I remember just looking around and thinking holy crap, this really IS how the rest of the world sees Americans...as over-indulgent, lazy fat-asses. It was absolutely eye-opening experience for me. As a country and society, we don't prioritize eating healthy and exercise, probably because 1) there's no profit to be made from people handling their own bidniz, and 2) too large a segment of the population would see it as "socialist woke nonsense--you stay out of my fridge, Biden!!"

 

On 5/19/2024 at 9:21 AM, samy316 said:

I definitely have to agree with this fact.  I’ve been to Dubai and Paris in the past 7 months, and I’m always taken aback by what I see here in America after spending time abroad.  In Dubai, you have thousands of Europeans vacationing there during the holidays, so it’s always a shock to the system when I see them at restaurants and in normal settings eating portions that you simply don’t see American eating. Everyone there looks in shape, and they look like they could survive off of one meal per day if it was necessary.

 

When I go to restaurants now here in the states, the two things that stand out to me the most are the size portions of our meals and the clientele at these restaurants.  Americans are HUGE now, and it’s getting harder and harder to ignore.  Obesity is definitely a big problem here, and I’m not sure there’s a fix to this problem that isn’t complex and/or daunting.

 

i hear this ... but i honestly don't see it. 

 

when you go around the chi-chi (sui-sui?  xi-xi???   i have no idea how to spell that??? ) parts of DC or Arlington/ChevyChase/McLean/Bethesda you don't see many fat people.      but.... drive towards lexington Kentucky? ... !??    Cities for the most part (at least the financial districts) have bunch of fit people.   Poor areas are fat.  the people in this discussion that point to poverty and race as drivers of poverty...are right.    (there is probably some sociological feedback loop as well... fat people get shunned by the rich, have a harder time "making it" and end up poorer and eventually move out of the suisui areas.... )

 

there is no way to say this other than bluntly.... the rich part of DC is White, the poor part of DC is black.  if you are in the rich part of DC, then the obesity rate is 14.7% ... downright European.   on the other hand the poor (black) parts of DC have 37.5% obesity rates.    If you go to West Virginia then 40.5% of the white people are obese (its incorrect to equate "white is rich" in WV, but WV white people are relatively richer than WV black people-- a whopping 52% of whom are obese) 

https://www.kff.org/other/state-indicator/adult-obesity-by-re/?currentTimeframe=0&sortModel={"colId":"White","sort":"asc"}    

 

when you go to Australia/France/UAE as a tourist... you don't go to the Australian/French/UAE equivalent of Huntington, WV... you go to sui-sui Sydney/Paris/Dubai. 

 

Australia isn't fit... Sydney is fit (or at least the rich parts of Sydney)

https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSSYD295608/#:~:text=Around 4 million Australian adults,Institute released in Melbourne said.

https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/overweight-obesity/overweight-and-obesity/contents/overweight-and-obesity

 

[tshile]

I imagine there’s strong correlations between bad personal decision making and being poor, across the board. 
 

 

[mcsluggo]

11 minutes ago, tshile said:

I imagine there’s strong correlations between bad personal decision making and being poor, across the board. 
 

 

i don't think its that simple.   plus... luck plays a BIG role (in both).  

 

I'm a lawyer's kid, raised on the mean streets of McLean.   in addition, my mom had an 18 inch waist when she got married.   I got to be a **** up until i was around 20 and then make an immediate soft landing straight to a paid-for BA, and then scholarships (based on my lifetime of academic excellence...) paid for MA and PhD.   I also couldn't gain weight no matter HOW MUCH i tried until i was about 30....     as arrogant and elitist as i am, in quiet moments i have to admit to myself that its not all about my personal hard work and dedication  

[PeterMP]

2 hours ago, mcsluggo said:

 

i hear people often say that exercise isn't the way ... and your statement here really lays that view on the line.   

 

But it doesn't make any sense to me.

 

Your statement SEEMS to apply to an out of shape person that exercises once and never before or after.   then it MIGHT be true that the exercise would have minimal impact--- 500 calories burned, and then eat extra calories to make up for it, and sit on your couch recovering instead of doing whatever minor activity you might otherwise have done.     

 

But contrast that with a new steady state that involves exercising hard several times a week (for years)?   ------   you burn the direct calories from exercising.   you burn LOTS more calories building up (and eventually maintaining) 20 pounds of muscle that burn a lot of calories just existing.  and even beyond that you just plain increase your energy level.   Fit people have more energy, do more... and eat more.     The extreme case (not as an example of a target, just as an asymptotic boundary example) is football players that eat like 8,000 calories a day during the season, and STILL lose weight as the season progresses.     \

 

Muscle is "expensive" (in terms of calories)   

 

 

What the science says it doesn't help you lose weight for most people.  There are a couple of things:

 

1.  Most people don't burn most of their calories from exercise.  Most people burn about 1400 calories a day as a baseline metabolic rate independent of exercise.  But that can vary quite a bit (for reasons we don't really understand).  When you gain weight and then try to exercise to lose it, people's bodies slow down the baseline metabolic rate and so just their resting calorie burning goes down.

 

An increase in calories out in exercise doesn't equate to a true increase in calories spent in many cases.

 

(The people on the "Biggest Loser" are great an example of this in many cases.  In many cases, they ended up with baseline metabolic rates lower than when they went on the show.  The net effect is after being on the show in many cases they went back to their previous life and actually ended up heavier than they were.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/15/well/move/exercise-weight-loss-metabolism.html

 

Once your body achieves a certain weight it tries very hard to maintain that including seemingly lowering the number of calories you burn when your sleeping.)

 

2.  You can't out exercise your stomach/processed food.  Running a mile burns about 170 calories.  That's nothing to eat today.  That's a poptart.  You've exercised, lost weight, the body just starts flooding the system with signals that it's hungry.  

[tshile]

@mcsluggo I understand luck has a role. But again - we’re talking about basics here. 

 

But… I’m not a fan of everyone’s a victim of the system. Sorry, just not. There’s too much abdication of personal responsibility in our society. 
 

There are definitely people that are victims of circumstance or the system. I’m not stupid I’m aware that happens and it happens way too much in my opinion. 
 

But I see it the same way as I see the vaccine allergy people. Sure - they exist. But they’re a tiny fraction and most the people claiming it are full of ****. 
 

Everyone’s got an excuse for why their situation isn’t their fault. If you want to accept the excuses have at it, but I don’t. It’s one of my major gripes with the dems platform - they seem to literally think everyone’s a hard working person that’s simply a victim of circumstance. Conspiracy theories at their heart are coming up with reasons why you don’t control your situation and you can’t fix it. There’s a reason they’re so popular these days. The “conspiracy theories are for losers” article was a great read years ago when someone posted it here. 
 

My career has afforded me the opportunity to see it time and time again. When working with or leading groups, finger pointing is always a red flag that failure is imminent. 
 

People that admit their mistakes and focus on how to fix things - in my experience those people are generally successful. 
 

There’s also a “make your own luck” factor. I was lucky that we were looking for our first house when the housing crisis happened. Lots of people my age were unable to take advantage of it. We were able to do something with that situation because we had previous saved up enough money that we could afford to take advantage at a time credit was tightening. So we were lucky the market fell apart, but our ability to actually do something about it was based on decisions made prior with it being totally unforeseen that we would have the opportunity we had. None of my friends could cause none of them were responsible with their money.  That’s just one example. There are more. You all give “luck” way more credit than it’s worth. 
 

But it makes sense. If you can write something off as luck, well, then you really didn’t have any role in the outcome did you?

[tshile]

@PeterMPwhat you’re talking about sounds like a fancy way of saying yo-yo dieting/exercising, which I touched on earlier. 
 

I can’t read the article. But this research you keep brining up and stuff you keep linking - is this what they’re seeing with people that establish an exercise routine over 6 months and stick to it?

 

or is it something people are seeing as a short term result?

 

because it’s well known that starting/stopping exercise and dieting causes the problems you describe. And what I’ve always understood is that to actually get results you have to push through it. You have to make serious life style changes - from regular exercise, to eating less, to eating more healthy things, and other things about your life. 

[PeterMP]

The literature on whether poor people make bad decisions is mixed at best.  Some find no real relationship between decision making and poverty, especially when you take into account they have to consider more immediate financial needs.

 

https://healthpolicy.usc.edu/evidence-base/poverty-and-decision-making/

 

Even in cases where there appears to be bad decision making by people that are poor, teasing out what is the horse and what is the cart has turned out to be hard.

 

Are people poor because they made bad decisions or do they make bad decisions because they are poor?

 

https://www.chicagobooth.edu/review/does-being-poor-lead-to-poor-decisions#:~:text=One of the obstacles that,only make their situation worse.

 

 

[tshile]

4 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

Are people poor because they made bad decisions or do they make bad decisions because they are poor?

Or are they poor because of external factors? Or do they make bad decisions because of external factors (bad/absent parenting or single parenting which is very hard, or bad schools)?

 

to me the problem is the need to paint with broad brushes. 
 

to me there are lots of reasons why any individual may be poor - and it could be any combination of those reasons. 
 

where it gets interesting is what they do about it. Just like there are many possible reasons for why someone is poor, there are many possible reasons why someone remains poor. 

 

Edit: and even more interesting (to me) - what role does the government have or not have in all of it (which is where most of my disagreement with our liberal posters lays - I don’t think the government is responsible for fixing nearly as many issues as they tend to seem they think (based on my interpretation of their posts))

Edited May 21 by tshile

[PeterMP]

8 minutes ago, tshile said:

@PeterMPwhat you’re talking about sounds like a fancy way of saying yo-yo dieting/exercising, which I touched on earlier. 
 

I can’t read the article. But this research you keep brining up and stuff you keep linking - is this what they’re seeing with people that establish an exercise routine over 6 months and stick to it?

 

or is it something people are seeing as a short term result?

 

because it’s well known that starting/stopping exercise and dieting causes the problems you describe. And what I’ve always understood is that to actually get results you have to push through it. You have to make serious life style changes - from regular exercise, to eating less, to eating more healthy things, and other things about your life. 

 

In cases, where people truly make the life stye change exercise and eat less and eat more healthy things, people can lose weight.

 

But that's rare.  Because once you've gained pounds most people's bodies start sending out all sorts of signals to counter act that (and doing things like lowering your base line metabolic rates).  For most people once they've put on weight losing that weight gets hard because their body fights them.  It is hard and stressful walking around feeling hungry all day even you if you intellectually understand that you don't need to eat.  Most people if they drop 5-10 pounds, the body starts making and sending out the your hungry signal even if you've eaten.  And sends out the your tired signal even if it shouldn't be and you've taken in enough calories that day.  

 

People yo-yo because their body is fighting them.  For short periods of times they can fight the your hungry/tired signals and lose weight.  But over longer periods of time, they fail.

Edited May 21 by PeterMP

[tshile]

@PeterMP

ok so you’re saying the same thing that’s been known for a long time. I’ve got a buddy and a wife I’ve been telling them both this for years. If instead of being extreme and doing something they can’t stick to (because it’s really hard and backfires as you said), they need to be more reasonable and consistent. 
 

yes. It’s going to be hard. Yes, it’s going to take time. And yes you need reasonable expectations and to accept where you are and how you got there and what you can get to with the effort you’re willing to put in. 
 

it’s the same reason we have poor people win the lottery and wind up poor again. If you want change you have to be honest with yourself about how you got there and what it takes to get where you want to be. 

[Skinsfan1311]

38 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

 

What the science says it doesn't help you lose weight for most people.  There are a couple of things:

 

1.  Most people don't burn most of their calories from exercise.  Most people burn about 1400 calories a day as a baseline metabolic rate independent of exercise.  But that can vary quite a bit (for reasons we don't really understand).  When you gain weight and then try to exercise to lose it, people's bodies slow down the baseline metabolic rate and so just their resting calorie burning goes down.

 

An increase in calories out in exercise doesn't equate to a true increase in calories spent in many cases.

 

(The people on the "Biggest Loser" are great an example of this in many cases.  In many cases, they ended up with baseline metabolic rates lower than when they went on the show.  The net effect is after being on the show in many cases they went back to their previous life and actually ended up heavier than they were.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/15/well/move/exercise-weight-loss-metabolism.html

 

Once your body achieves a certain weight it tries very hard to maintain that including seemingly lowering the number of calories you burn when your sleeping.)

 

2.  You can't out exercise your stomach/processed food.  Running a mile burns about 170 calories.  That's nothing to eat today.  That's a poptart.  You've exercised, lost weight, the body just starts flooding the system with signals that it's hungry.  

#2 is spot-on.

  Years ago the only thing I changed in my lifestyle was my diet and eating habits.  My exercise routine remains the same.    I lost 40lbs and have kept it off.    I firmly believe in the mantra, "If you eat it, you wear it"      

[PeterMP]

@tshile

 

I think many people over do it, and that makes it worse.  I'll talk about myself here some.  I'm 6-5 208 (thin), but if I get 215 my blood sugar levels will be high and I'll put essentially all the weight on at my stomach.  In may late 20s I got as high as ~225.  Staying 208 is a fight.  In college, I was like 190.  I'd love to get back to that, but that's just not practical (though I'm also stronger now than I was then).  

 

I still play full court basketball once a week at lunch with much younger guys.  I exercise other days, but that's easiest the hardest thing I do all week.  When I get done, I'm very hungry.  If I'm not careful, I can easily ending up weighing more the day after I played than the day I did play.  I'll go from 208 to 212 overnight.  No problem.  It's like ugh.  I did all of the exercise yesterday, and I've actually gained weight.  To fight this, I do a couple of things (some of it is backed by science but the science here gets pretty weak and there aren't a lot of good studies so take it for what it is worth.  I'm hoping the new weight loss drugs don't kill this as an area of research.  Hopefully people will still see value in helping people know how to lose weight without the drugs.)

 

1.  pre-hydrate.  Make sure you start drinking water before you start and drink a lot after.  Don't let your body mix thirsty up with hungry.

 

2.  Have a plan to replenish electrolytes that doesn't mean taking in a bunch of extra calories, especially as carbs.  I also avoid artificial sweeteners.  I gave my normal lunch earlier.  The day I play I'll eat a different lunch.

 

3.  Give yourself some extra carbs.  Just control how many and how you take them in.  Waiting a while after exercising, slowly, and with other things is better.  I'll wait to eat "extra" until I'm home (by which time I'm starving).  And then I'll come home and have hot chocolate (with 2% milk and a little fiber supplement).  Yes, I'm counteracting some of calories from exercise, but it being hot makes me drink it slowly, I'm getting a mix of things, in a relatively large volume, and I end up feeling pretty full to get me through dinner.  My kids laugh at me because I'll be drinking hot chocolate in the evening during the summer.  But it works for me.

 

The getting tired thing is harder.  For me most times, it goes away after a day.  But not sitting down that night until I go to bed helps me not go to sleep early that night.  I just plan on doing whatever I'm going to do that day standing up.  If I sit down in a comfortable chair, I can go to sleep an hour earlier than normal easily.

 

The other thing I've found is I've had to change what I eat over time to maintain the weight.  When I was in my late 20s, cutting out sugary beverages (soda) got me down to 210.  Over the years, I've had to lose/substitute other things to stay under 210.  Today, I can't eat like I did at 40 and stay under 210.

Edited May 21 by PeterMP

[mcsluggo]

1 hour ago, tshile said:

@mcsluggo I understand luck has a role. But again - we’re talking about basics here. 

 

But… I’m not a fan of everyone’s a victim of the system. Sorry, just not. There’s too much abdication of personal responsibility in our society. 
 

There are definitely people that are victims of circumstance or the system. I’m not stupid I’m aware that happens and it happens way too much in my opinion. 
 

But I see it the same way as I see the vaccine allergy people. Sure - they exist. But they’re a tiny fraction and most the people claiming it are full of ****. 
 

Everyone’s got an excuse for why their situation isn’t their fault. If you want to accept the excuses have at it, but I don’t. It’s one of my major gripes with the dems platform - they seem to literally think everyone’s a hard working person that’s simply a victim of circumstance. Conspiracy theories at their heart are coming up with reasons why you don’t control your situation and you can’t fix it. There’s a reason they’re so popular these days. The “conspiracy theories are for losers” article was a great read years ago when someone posted it here. 
 

My career has afforded me the opportunity to see it time and time again. When working with or leading groups, finger pointing is always a red flag that failure is imminent. 
 

People that admit their mistakes and focus on how to fix things - in my experience those people are generally successful. 
 

There’s also a “make your own luck” factor. I was lucky that we were looking for our first house when the housing crisis happened. Lots of people my age were unable to take advantage of it. We were able to do something with that situation because we had previous saved up enough money that we could afford to take advantage at a time credit was tightening. So we were lucky the market fell apart, but our ability to actually do something about it was based on decisions made prior with it being totally unforeseen that we would have the opportunity we had. None of my friends could cause none of them were responsible with their money.  That’s just one example. There are more. You all give “luck” way more credit than it’s worth. 
 

But it makes sense. If you can write something off as luck, well, then you really didn’t have any role in the outcome did you?

 

 

 

I'm not a fan of "everyone is a victim" either.   i said it was more complicated AND luck played a role.   

 

 

 

 

in general I think that when rich/fit people look at the situation (metaphorically for ALL situations), they should be aware of the advantages that got them and keep them rich/fit rather than gloating about their own superiority....

 

  

 

on the other hand, when poor/fat people look at their situation (metaphorical for ALL situations) they should concentrate on what THEY can do to make the situation better for themselves  (rather than whining about what everyone else/the world has done to put them in this situation)

 

 

 

 

people in general spend too much time pointing fingers at others rather than recognizing and appreciating the advantages they were given AND recognizing and appreciating the fact that moving forward you alone hold the biggest role in making things better for yourself AND ALSO that no matter what your situation you can always help make things better for others -- and should strive do so.     

[mcsluggo]

 

(i TRY to think that way,,,, and very occasionally to act that way........ but at the end of the day i am simultaneously an elitist self-entitled snob, lazy as ****, and a grumpy old **** yelling at kids to get off my lawn.    My wife is a better person than i am, and i count on her to occasionally smack the side of my head to correct things a little.     don't ever tell her i said that.  -- neither that she is better than me, nor that i need her to smack me up the side of the head.   neither of them.) 

Edited May 21 by mcsluggo

[mcsluggo]

1 hour ago, PeterMP said:

 

What the science says it doesn't help you lose weight for most people.  There are a couple of things:

 

1.  Most people don't burn most of their calories from exercise.  Most people burn about 1400 calories a day as a baseline metabolic rate independent of exercise.  But that can vary quite a bit (for reasons we don't really understand).  When you gain weight and then try to exercise to lose it, people's bodies slow down the baseline metabolic rate and so just their resting calorie burning goes down.

 

An increase in calories out in exercise doesn't equate to a true increase in calories spent in many cases.

 

(The people on the "Biggest Loser" are great an example of this in many cases.  In many cases, they ended up with baseline metabolic rates lower than when they went on the show.  The net effect is after being on the show in many cases they went back to their previous life and actually ended up heavier than they were.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/15/well/move/exercise-weight-loss-metabolism.html

 

Once your body achieves a certain weight it tries very hard to maintain that including seemingly lowering the number of calories you burn when your sleeping.)

 

2.  You can't out exercise your stomach/processed food.  Running a mile burns about 170 calories.  That's nothing to eat today.  That's a poptart.  You've exercised, lost weight, the body just starts flooding the system with signals that it's hungry.  

 

34 minutes ago, Skinsfan1311 said:

#2 is spot-on.

  Years ago the only thing I changed in my lifestyle was my diet and eating habits.  My exercise routine remains the same.    I lost 40lbs and have kept it off.    I firmly believe in the mantra, "If you eat it, you wear it"      

 

these again sound like short term changes (and drastic ones, at that).   AND ...they sound more descriptive of eating less than exercising more:   when you eat drastically less and lose weight, your body metabolism changes to try to protect the remaining fat, which is increasing cherished in the body's "value function. Your body starts to shut down things like building muscle and even starts breaking down muscle to preserve the remaining fat-stores.     Lethargy sets in and metabolism plummets.   

 

I'l just say i was born with a hummingbird metabolism (seems like @PeterMP was born with that too).   I had it until i was mid to late 20s.   I was hyper all the time, couldn't sit still and HAD to get up and run around just to burn off energy... and when i ate a lot i would get MORE hyper rather than that post-eating tryptophane-like food coma that is normal.   I couldn't gain weight to save my life.   I was 6'plus-ish and 140-something pounds  (my height also kept creeping up somewhere into my early to mid 20s... i am a little under 6'2 now).      It sucked when my metabolism started to die.   my weight started to creep up, but i had a LOT of slack space where gaining weight wasn't a bad thing....   i also stayed in college (and that world) for a looooooooong time.   i got my first "real" (9-5) desk job when i was mid thirties (and had kids, AND moved out of bike-friendly college town where i biked everywhere i went) .    final stakes in the heart of the hummingbird metabolism.    weight went up, cholesterol went up, blood sugar went up in the first 18 months or so (first time i had ever even CONCEIVED of those things) ............    so i slowly started to bike to work.  at first just to the metro (and taking the stairs everywhere), and then sometimes all the way in..... and then (over a couple of years) gradually all the way in to the office 5 days/week when the weather was nice.   

 

It was a LOT of exercise.   2 hours a day (my normal commute) probably on average 4 days a week march-ish through november-ish.   2500 to 4000 miles/year.   i bought 20 years of pretending to have a hummingbird metabolism (8 months of the year) that way.  

 

then ... pandemic.      truth be told... i had suddenly started to slow down right before the pandemic... but the pandemic (and working from home after the pandemic) has been a blow to the arrangement i had made with the hummingbird metabolism gods.    Now I'm on the wrong sine of 55 and for the first time in my life i am "overweight" on the BMI charts (i am 6'2 and a little under 200 pounds) and i've got a belly     now... for the first time i am seriously looking at portions (or at least staring to think about it sometimes), and i am mostly cutting out ice cream, and had cut out soda a long time ago.   

 

(as an aside... it is CRAZY to look at those BMI charts..... 6'2 and 148 is in the "ideal" weight group...?  really???? ) 

 

but those 20 years were NOT an aberration or a short term blip.    (there were cycles in those 20 years... i would gain weight in the winter, and then lose it again in the spring/early summer--- and by the end of those 20 years, it would be later and later in the summer before the pounds melted off).   but it was a good run.   and it was ALL exercise based (with some wiling genetics added-in).    I've eaten like a horse my whole life..... sadly it is a hard habit to kill on the doorstep of 60!     

[mcsluggo]

1 hour ago, PeterMP said:

@tshile

 

I think many people over do it, and that makes it worse.  I'll talk about myself here some.  I'm 6-5 208 (thin), but if I get 215 my blood sugar levels will be high and I'll put essentially all the weight on at my stomach.  In may late 20s I got as high as ~225.  Staying 208 is a fight.  In college, I was like 190.  I'd love to get back to that, but that's just not practical (though I'm also stronger now than I was then).  

 

I still play full court basketball once a week at lunch with much younger guys.  I exercise other days, but that's easiest the hardest thing I do all week.  When I get done, I'm very hungry.  If I'm not careful, I can easily ending up weighing more the day after I played than the day I did play.  I'll go from 208 to 212 overnight.  No problem.  It's like ugh.  I did all of the exercise yesterday, and I've actually gained weight.  To fight this, I do a couple of things (some of it is backed by science but the science here gets pretty weak and there aren't a lot of good studies so take it for what it is worth.  I'm hoping the new weight loss drugs don't kill this as an area of research.  Hopefully people will still see value in helping people know how to lose weight without the drugs.)

 

1.  pre-hydrate.  Make sure you start drinking water before you start and drink a lot after.  Don't let your body mix thirsty up with hungry.

 

2.  Have a plan to replenish electrolytes that doesn't mean taking in a bunch of extra calories, especially as carbs.  I also avoid artificial sweeteners.  I gave my normal lunch earlier.  The day I play I'll eat a different lunch.

 

3.  Give yourself some extra carbs.  Just control how many and how you take them in.  Waiting a while after exercising, slowly, and with other things is better.  I'll wait to eat "extra" until I'm home (by which time I'm starving).  And then I'll come home and have hot chocolate (with 2% milk and a little fiber supplement).  Yes, I'm counteracting some of calories from exercise, but it being hot makes me drink it slowly, I'm getting a mix of things, in a relatively large volume, and I end up feeling pretty full to get me through dinner.  My kids laugh at me because I'll be drinking hot chocolate in the evening during the summer.  But it works for me.

 

The getting tired thing is harder.  For me most times, it goes away after a day.  But not sitting down that night until I go to bed helps me not go to sleep early that night.  I just plan on doing whatever I'm going to do that day standing up.  If I sit down in a comfortable chair, I can go to sleep an hour earlier than normal easily.

 

The other thing I've found is I've had to change what I eat over time to maintain the weight.  When I was in my late 20s, cutting out sugary beverages (soda) got me down to 210.  Over the years, I've had to lose/substitute other things to stay under 210.  Today, I can't eat like I did at 40 and stay under 210.

 

yeah... you have to know yourself.   i have a thin build.    the weight that works best for me is somewhere between 170 and 175 even though i am 6'2-ish.  that is way too skinny for many, but it is my build.      

[gbear]

I am 6'3. I did weigh 207...then a month in the hospital and 2 chest surgeries later to deal with my pneumonia and empyeema, and I come out 186. I assure you that is too little for my build. The question is does healing from surgeries and the pain of rehab actually burn more calories than what I used to do (run 3 to 5 miles 4 times a week and never go below 12k steps per day)? Now it is hard to just stand up, go to the bathroom and walk back to my chair. If I hit 500 steps in a day today, I would be surprised.

[PeterMP]

1 hour ago, mcsluggo said:

 

 

these again sound like short term changes (and drastic ones, at that).   AND ...they sound more descriptive of eating less than exercising more:   when you eat drastically less and lose weight, your body metabolism changes to try to protect the remaining fat, which is increasing cherished in the body's "value function. Your body starts to shut down things like building muscle and even starts breaking down muscle to preserve the remaining fat-stores.     Lethargy sets in and metabolism plummets.   

 

Look, you understand in science there are always exceptions.  If you've found that you can lose weight by exercise alone, good for you you're an exception.

 

The NYT article that I posted more recently and the Vox article that I posted before lay out the science pretty well.  But science at that level is based on the averages.  And some people will be exceptions.

 

Any time a topic like this comes up like this, I'm pretty careful to include things like for most people in most of posts.  Following the science is good, but if you've got something that works for you I'd say ignore the science and keep doing it.

Edited May 21 by PeterMP

[PeterMP]

Just to add onto the last thought, my mom's 77.  In her early to mid-30's she was overweight.  She's sort of short, but she was over weight and had to be at least pushing obese based on BMI and must have dropped at least 20 pounds.  And she's kept if off.  My mom today weighs less than she did in early 30's so pretty large weight loss and keeping it off is possible.

 

And my mom does it with a diet that I don't think anybody would expect to be key to weight loss.  Her #1 snack is pretzels (and even salted pretzels).  She takes pretzels every where with her.  She keeps a bag next to her bed.  @Califan007 The Constipated and I talked about diet soda earlier.  She drinks 2-3 bottles of diet soda a day and has done so ~40 years.  Her breakfast is cinnamon raisin toast with fake butter on it (and not a special whole/wheat whole/grain bread but whatever the cheap processed stuff you buy in the grocery store is).  That and pretzels get her through to lunch, and I don't think she eats any protein with lunch.  I think she has a salad, a piece of fruit, and goes back to eating pretzels.

 

From what I know of the science, if you took somebody in their early 30's and said they are going on a weight loss plan that is mom's I'd tell you not only is that person not going to lose weight, but they are going to gain it.

 

Not an MD and obesity isn't close to what I do for research, but I'd say if you have issues with weight, there's nothing wrong with trying something new.  Especially if you have issues with yo-yoing where you try the same thing over and over and lose the weight just to regain it.   Science is great, but if the "normal" science stuff isn't working for you, then I'd say it might be worth trying something different.

Edited May 22 by PeterMP

[Skinsfan1311]

21 hours ago, mcsluggo said:

 

 

these again sound like short term changes (and drastic ones, at that).   AND ...they sound more descriptive of eating less than exercising more:   when you eat drastically less and lose weight, your body metabolism changes to try to protect the remaining fat, which is increasing cherished in the body's "value function. Your body starts to shut down things like building muscle and even starts breaking down muscle to preserve the remaining fat-stores.     Lethargy sets in and metabolism plummets.   

 

I'l just say i was born with a hummingbird metabolism (seems like @PeterMP was born with that too).   I had it until i was mid to late 20s.   I was hyper all the time, couldn't sit still and HAD to get up and run around just to burn off energy... and when i ate a lot i would get MORE hyper rather than that post-eating tryptophane-like food coma that is normal.   I couldn't gain weight to save my life.   I was 6'plus-ish and 140-something pounds  (my height also kept creeping up somewhere into my early to mid 20s... i am a little under 6'2 now).      It sucked when my metabolism started to die.   my weight started to creep up, but i had a LOT of slack space where gaining weight wasn't a bad thing....   i also stayed in college (and that world) for a looooooooong time.   i got my first "real" (9-5) desk job when i was mid thirties (and had kids, AND moved out of bike-friendly college town where i biked everywhere i went) .    final stakes in the heart of the hummingbird metabolism.    weight went up, cholesterol went up, blood sugar went up in the first 18 months or so (first time i had ever even CONCEIVED of those things) ............    so i slowly started to bike to work.  at first just to the metro (and taking the stairs everywhere), and then sometimes all the way in..... and then (over a couple of years) gradually all the way in to the office 5 days/week when the weather was nice.   

 

It was a LOT of exercise.   2 hours a day (my normal commute) probably on average 4 days a week march-ish through november-ish.   2500 to 4000 miles/year.   i bought 20 years of pretending to have a hummingbird metabolism (8 months of the year) that way.  

 

then ... pandemic.      truth be told... i had suddenly started to slow down right before the pandemic... but the pandemic (and working from home after the pandemic) has been a blow to the arrangement i had made with the hummingbird metabolism gods.    Now I'm on the wrong sine of 55 and for the first time in my life i am "overweight" on the BMI charts (i am 6'2 and a little under 200 pounds) and i've got a belly     now... for the first time i am seriously looking at portions (or at least staring to think about it sometimes), and i am mostly cutting out ice cream, and had cut out soda a long time ago.   

 

(as an aside... it is CRAZY to look at those BMI charts..... 6'2 and 148 is in the "ideal" weight group...?  really???? ) 

 

but those 20 years were NOT an aberration or a short term blip.    (there were cycles in those 20 years... i would gain weight in the winter, and then lose it again in the spring/early summer--- and by the end of those 20 years, it would be later and later in the summer before the pounds melted off).   but it was a good run.   and it was ALL exercise based (with some wiling genetics added-in).    I've eaten like a horse my whole life..... sadly it is a hard habit to kill on the doorstep of 60!     

Nope!

I didn't state that I ate less.  I stated that I changed my eating habits.  It took almost a year to lose those 40lbs   😉

[Die Hard]

21 hours ago, PeterMP said:

 

Look, you understand in science there are always exceptions.  If you've found that you can lose weight by exercise alone, good for you you're an exception.

 

The NYT article that I posted more recently and the Vox article that I posted before lay out the science pretty well.  But science at that level is based on the averages.  And some people will be exceptions.

 

Any time a topic like this comes up like this, I'm pretty careful to include things like for most people in most of posts.  Following the science is good, but if you've got something that works for you I'd say ignore the science and keep doing it.

All of your posts are pretty much identical of what I’ve read, learned (from others) and experienced.

 

And since I can’t even get people here to try my TV recommendations… I’ll be damned if I’m going to dispense medical/health advice/info 😂

 

It’s just healthier for me to observe/spectate now.