
How To Lose Weight And Influence People - nashequilibrium
http://www.mikealrogers.com/posts/how-to-lose-weight-and-influence-people.html
======
jacques_chester
> _After the first week, which is always the hardest, I'd lost 10 pounds._

Dropping carbohydrates from the diet causes a drop in retained water. For
instance, some energy is stored in the muscles as glycogen, which binds with
water on an approximately 1-to-3 basis. Each gram of glycogen binds ~3g of
water; so when you cut carb intake and begin to break down stored glycogen,
you unsurprisingly lose weight quickly.

Paleo and keto types call this a "signing bonus". It's generally not an
indicator of the long term trend because there's not much of your body mass
tied up this way. When people are overweight, it's usually fat. And fat is a
_stupidly_ dense store of energy compared to the glycogen/water mechanism.

Athletes in weight-class sports (boxing, powerlifting, wrestling,
weightlifting etc) have known about carbohydrate and sodium tricks for
manipulating water weight for a long time.

All the matters is: can you impose a long term deficit? Whether by paleo, keto
or any other dietary method, the _sole long term determinant of average body
mass is net caloric balance_.

I wrote about this simple physical fact last year [1], which prompted what one
friend called "the diet riot". It was good for lulz then. I bet it will be
again.

In the past year I've followed a diet called "Eating Less" (Intermittent
Fasting, to be all trendy about it[2]). So far this has put me down about 30kg
from my peak weight -- approximately 65lb.

[1] <http://chester.id.au/2012/05/26/fat-and-simple/>

[2] <http://chester.id.au/2012/04/17/my-diet/>

~~~
angersock
Read _The Hacker's Diet_ a while ago, and it seemed reasonable to my old
control-systems training. What's the current sort of counter-argument to the
abstraction presented there?

~~~
jiffyjeff
The Hacker's Diet hinges on: ((calories in) - (calories out)) / 3500 = (l lb
of weight loss)

The Hacker's Diet holds as an axiom that calories from fat, carbohydrate and
protein are equivalent in this formula. This assumption neglects the powerful
influence of the hormone insulin, which plays a key role in regulating fat
metabolism. Insulin release is very highly correlated with carbohydrate
consumption, and a diet that restricts carbohydrate will often lead to weight
loss.

~~~
jacques_chester
This sounds awfully ... _Taubesy_.

Problems with the Taubes' it's-all-carbs-and-insulin hypothesis:

* Protein consumption causes insulin spikes too.

* Insulin is not the only hormone involved in weight control system and energy system behaviour. Also involved: leptin, ghrelin, glucagon, cortisol and probably dozens of others neither of us will hear of in our entire lifetimes.

* Population obesity closely tracks calories-per-capita, apparently regardless of macronutrient breakdown ([http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com.au/2012/06/calories-st...](http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com.au/2012/06/calories-still-matter.html)).

~~~
wlievens
How about the argument that higher sugar intake causes you to be more hungry,
therefore making it easier to eat less calories on a low suger (high-fat)
diet. I know it's an entirely different argument from the "keto magic"
argument you are ranting against, but do you object to it?

~~~
jacques_chester
Firstly, it doesn't come up in proper trials (eg
<http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17413101>).

That's part of the general Taubes carbs-insulin hypothesis; that insulin
affects satiety (the feeling of fullness, or no longer wanting to eat).

As I said above, there are more hormones involved than insulin. For example,
one very influential hormone is leptin. It has a profound affect on appetite
and satiety; but we still only understand it poorly.

And leptin can be affected by all sorts of factors. Sleep deprivation, even
small amounts, really play merry hell with it. Next time you're running on
fumes, you may notice both that a) you're _starving_ and b) your ability to
resist the temptation to eat anything is greatly diminished.

And so on. The body _is_ more complex than the thermodynamic equation, but
ultimately that is _enough_ to control your mass. The additional details are
worth introducing as and when they are necessary (and a good dietitian will do
that), but not before. People are very good at giving themselves excuses and,
of course, analysis paralysis allows them to forestall any real change.

------
Peroni
Devils Advocate Time.

Technically I'm morbidly obese. I'm 6'3" and I weigh in just shy of 300lbs.
This shocks most people as I don't look like someone who weighs close to
300lbs although I'm very obviously overweight. I'm working hard to lose weight
purely to prevent myself from dying young so that my son has a Dad he can grow
old with.

In the mean time, let me dispel a myth: Fat != Lazy

I have absolutely no doubt that I will have more energy when I'm a healthier
weight however I sleep well, I feel good when I wake up, I can maintain focus
at a consistently high level throughout my typical 14 hour work day and I
still have plenty of energy to chase after my 2 year old boy for a couple of
hours in the evening when I get home. I have bags of confidence and as far as
I'm concerned, I'm successful.

Being overweight isn't always indicative of laziness, failure or a lack of
discipline. Sure you're better off being a healthy weight but beating yourself
up for being overweight is torture. Take responsibility for your weight and
health, commit to doing something positive to fix it and in the mean time just
get on with enjoying life.

~~~
forgottenpaswrd
I'm over 6,7, or as a European 2m height, and 90kilos.

Being tall means you could weigh more and be healthy, and it depends on your
body structure, like bones and so. But probably you need someone else and not
you to judge what is your ideal weight.

"I can maintain focus at a consistently high level throughout my typical 14
hour work day"

I have yet to see a person that really works 10 h/d, let alone 14 hours a day,
but probably your definition of work is different than mine.

"Being overweight isn't always indicative of laziness, failure or a lack of
discipline."

I have a very close family member that is taller than you and also weights
more, agree with the laziness thing but I will call it a failure in some way,
thinking on the contrary is just deceiving yourself.

For me being morbid obese is the result of the culture and the way of living,
specially work routines and eating, everybody could see the statistics of 40
years ago in Europe and US, The only thing that significantly changed is that,
what we eat, pre made food with lost of sugar and bad quality fats(enormous
unbalance between Omega 6 and 3).

Discipline means nothing if you don't know what to do.

My advice to you is to develop different routines,improve what you eat, let
the torture thing for the masochistic fanatics. Start thinking that you are in
a hole and you need to get out of it and your life will be better when you get
out(if its so good it will be even better).

~~~
Peroni
_Start thinking that you are in a hole and you need to get out of it and your
life will be better when you get out(if its so good it will be even better)._

I think you missed my entire point. I've been heavier. I'm already losing
weight. I don't consider myself to be 'in a hole'. I consider myself to have
an affliction that's easily cured with a bit of discipline.

~~~
wlievens
A healthier attitude than the "stuck in a hole" one, I would think.

------
jaggederest
Honestly, any form of elimination diet (don't eat x, for any x) works, in
direct proportion to how many of your calories typically come from that x.

It's not _what_ you eat, in that regard. Pick anything you eat a lot of, and
stop eating it. You'll have a hard time matching that missing intake with
other foods, and so you'll eat fewer calories, and so you'll lose weight.

If your diet has a name, it's a fad.

------
zatara
"The most important piece of knowledge I took from 4HB and haven't seen
anywhere else is to eat a protein rich breakfast (I do 4 fried eggs) within 30
minutes of waking up. This was very hard for me to keep up with so I have
sample data from weeks where I was very consistent and weeks where I didn't
even make it out of the shower in 30 minutes. For me, eating that breakfast
within 30 minutes of first waking up more than doubles my weekly weight loss.
I still don't fully understand why this works, but it does, at least for me.
It's one of those things you read and don't believe until you actually do it
to yourself and measure often."

Anyone interested on this bit should have a look at Jack Kruse's leptin reset
diet (<http://www.jackkruse.com/my-leptin-prescription/>). His posts are
incredibly difficult to read, but as a dentist and neurosurgeon who has lost
tons of weight himself, he really seems to know what he is talking about.

------
Tichy
I've been a vegetarian since I was 18 and always was very slim, until a couple
of years ago (mid thirties - actually not a strict vegetarian anymore in
recent years). The vegetarian diet was of course very rich in carbs. I don't
see a way to go low carb as a vegetarian.

That I was slim with a "high carbs" diet for 20 years also makes me doubt the
carbs theory a bit. There seem to be other factors. I exercise less, but there
were stretches of time when I didn't exercise a lot, too. My wife having a
baby gave a big boost to my waistline, too. Might even have to do something
with hormones (men's hormones change during pregnancy, too)?

I've also heard that changing one's diet in any way is likely to cause weight
loss at first, so I'd be careful with evaluating anecdotal evidence.

I'm curious about the energy aspect, just wish there was another way. The
thought of eating 4 eggs for breakfast makes me sick. I just feel repulsed by
eggs and meat most of the time.

I actually have a hypothesis that human digestion might be very adaptable.
Humans managed to hold on in very diverse environments, from the arctic to the
desert. Presumably they had to dwell on different kinds of foods depending on
the environment. So it makes sense if digestion can adapt to a huge variety of
food. Might be that industrial food is a main culprit after all (lots of
sugary foods that have only been around for about 100 years).

Another thing: how did people manage to eat the equivalent of four eggs for
breakfast in paelo times? I've read that gathering was more effective than
hunting, so presumably they had more vegetables and fruit than meat on
average?

~~~
shaunxcode
Just my anecdote/experience - but I've been vegan since I was 18 (now 30). I
knew that as I got older my metabolism would drop off but a little over a year
ago I weighed 248 (I am 6'1") which was a wake up call.

To rectify things I picked up running on the reg again and cut the shit from
my diet e.g. no added/processed fats at all (you can get more than enough from
whole grains, legumes, and vegetables) and I am down to 185. Meaning I am
actually lighter, healthier and more "energized" now than when I was 16.

I can recommend the rave diet book and the mcdougal books for recipes/theory.
I also keep a photo blog if you want an idea of what my average diet looks
like on <http://www.stoicvegan.com>

~~~
Tichy
Very cool, thanks! I actually never really planned my diet, for most of the
time as a vegetarian I consumed a lot of dairy products and bread, both things
I'd rather cut out of my diet. It is not so easy to find suitable
replacements, though.

In recent years I have also consumed more and more sweets, which are probably
a factor, too. Currently I'd like to lose ~15kg (about 33lb I think?). 10kg of
that I gained in the last three years. It's not that bad, but it's scary that
I don't really know how to reverse the trend.

------
bjourne
I get the lose weight part, but what about influencing people? :)

~~~
jacques_chester
It's a blog post.

A finer and more effective mechanism for influencing people has yet to be
devised.

