Fat Loss Forever

What Hacker News says

1. slothtropJan 2024
   > Yes, but as I read it, they all lastingly changed the level of exercise they were getting, and the extent of the "bad" metabolic adaptation seemed to correlate strongly with how big of a lasting change they made in exercise.

   This doesn't contradict me.

   > I've seen several other studies that suggest the opposite: that diet is a stronger predictor than exercise of long-term weight-loss success

   That is not the opposite. I am not claiming that exercise is a stronger predictor than energy balance. I am claiming that it is a strong predictor.

   I am not going to dig them up. Go check google scholar and check out Layne Norton's book Fat Loss Forever.

   > there are diminishing returns from having a caloric deficit

   The evidence seems to suggest that it's better to lose weight slowly to mitigate metabolic adaptation. If that's what you mean, it appears to be correct.

   I would reiterate that I think the impact of exercise might be different with a small/modest caloric deficit.

   Show morethread
2. slothtropJan 2024
   > Please cite a study that shows that exercise results in long-term sustained, clinically meaningful (>5%) weight loss

   Those are not the words I used. Please engage in good faith. More accurately: exercise in addition to energy balance (and with a modest caloric deficit) is a strong predictor of WL success.

   Check google scholar for meta reviews, I don't have this bookmarked and I'm not doing homework for you. If you don't want to believe me then don't.

   I recommend Layne Norton's book Fat Loss Forever and his yt channel, he cites studies there.

   Show morethread
3. maerF0x0Nov 2022
   obviously the actual weight matters, but on average this advice is poor.

   Across the spectrum of over weight people (from mildly to extremely obese) there are a range of health markers from blood pressure, HDL/LDL/Triglycerides, insulin sensitivity, leptin/ghrelin, sex hormones (and PE/ED), blood sugar, cortisol, inflammation, arterial calcification (on and on the list goes) that are all positively improved by returning to healthy "normal" (not average) weights.

   Layne Norton's book "Fat Loss forever" and youtube channel are excellent resources to begin understanding.

   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XUxVCtScf8U

   https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/43596925-fat-loss-for...

   Show morethread
4. maerF0x0Jul 2022
   As I'm reading others' comments on here I'm shocked at the seemingly uneducated state of comments, I blame "influencers" and the fitness industry for spreading so much FUD + absolute nonsense. Most of them patterned like "I lost x lbs on Y diet, and you should too". I'm shocked at how few people realize that diets equated for protein + fiber are essentially identical.

   I highly recommend Layne Norton's book Fat loss forever, and his free content on youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X3ePbeZJzYA .

   Important tldr from his content:

   * protein and resistance training are key if you want to lose fat (and not muscle), not just "weight"

   * All restriction diets work when adhered to, the key is to find the one you will actually adhere to. This includes low carb, keto, intermittent fasting of various protocols (OMAD, 16:8, others), low fat, eat only soup, etc etc. They all work by causing a restriction on eating time or foods eaten. They all only work if there is a caloric deficit (net of cost of digestion for protein + fiber, or equal if equated for protein+fiber) .

   * Calories in - calories out ("CICO") is absolutely backed by science when the researchers are smart enough to actually account for known things like caloric cost of digestion (changes the "CO" part)

   Go DYOR on his content if you want the sources.

   Show morethread
5. maerF0x0Jun 2022
   Simply put, any form of restriction diet tends to cause people to eat less. That can be restricted time or restricted options. People who eat less tend to lose weight, and some of that weight comes from fat.

   People who lower their bodyfat have so many kinds of improved blood markers.

   To make a point this guy lost 27lbs on twinkies : https://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor...

   The only free lunch (pun intended) I think I've observed seems to be protein and unprocessed foods are harder to digest and thus cost some digestion calories (increase the out side of the equation).

   When someone tells you that "people lost weight on Diet X" you need to think "Did they lose more or less than on a standard diet equated for how processed it is (fiber), calories, and protein?".

   Source: This is all summarized well in the book Fat Loss Forever by Layne Norton and others

   Show morethread
6. slothtropJan 2024
   The more frequent the dieting and steeper the caloric deficit, the worse metabolic adaptation gets, and the longer it takes to return to normal. As I understand it that's the result discerned from more than just one paper. Layne Norton explores this at length in his book Fat Loss Forever and yt channel.

   The interesting thing in this link was the impact of change in exercise regimen. We know that exercise in itself can mitigate metabolic adaptation and leads to better outcomes, so maybe that should not be surprising (when they quit). The outsized impact is interesting. I wonder if those who sustained higher levels of exercise were actually in a steeper caloric deficit.

   It's possible to lose weight sustainably even without exercise, so perhaps it's fair to say that if you're going to exercise, you best sustain it.

   "damaged metabolism" was always kind of a semantic misnomer.

   Show morethread