[HN Gopher] South Asian people undergo type 2 diabetes remission...
___________________________________________________________________
South Asian people undergo type 2 diabetes remission with low
calorie diets
Author : PaulHoule
Score : 175 points
Date : 2022-11-27 17:08 UTC (11 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (medicalxpress.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (medicalxpress.com)
| chrisgd wrote:
| I read a transcript of an endocrinologist suggesting intermittent
| fasting (don't eat after 6 and wait as long as you can before
| your first meal - start with 10am and keep pushing back as long
| as you can). Then eat only veggies for your first meal, then
| veggies and a deck of cards serving of meat for dinner.
|
| Honestly, it sounds very difficult, but the doctor seemed very
| confident that this works. I have started trying this (not T2,
| but need to lose weight)
|
| Anecdotally, a lot of people have suggested keto and low-carb
| diets having been successful for them.
|
| The source was Tegus (https://www.tegus.com/) which my company
| had a free trial.
| bitwize wrote:
| C-f fasting
|
| You never disappoint, Hackernews.
| smcl wrote:
| Fad diets like intermittent fasting or keto will pop up
| _anywhere_ anyone's talking about weight loss or health
| issues sometimes associated with being fat. It's not
| particular to HN and it's sadly not going to go away :- /
| uberduper wrote:
| At what point would you stop considering intermittent
| fasting or keto to be fad diets?
| adrian_b wrote:
| When losing weight, it is important to continue to eat a normal
| amount of proteins, essential fatty acids, vitamins and
| minerals.
|
| Only either the carbohydrates or the (non-essential) fats or
| both must be reduced. It does not matter which of them is
| reduced, as long as the total calorie amount is restricted
| enough. It may matter only due to personal preferences, which
| may make one variant or the other easier to support.
|
| One must use some digital scales for measuring the weight every
| day at precisely the same moment, because the weight varies
| during a day by much more than the difference between 2
| successive days. An appropriate rate of losing weight is
| between 100 grams and 200 grams per day, e.g. about 1 kg per
| week. If the measurements show another rate, then the amount of
| daily food must be increased or decreased until the rate is in
| range.
|
| Regardless with which diet you start, if you adjust the amount
| of carbohydrates and fat according to the daily weight
| measurements, in a week or so you will converge to the right
| amount of daily food. However, this requires to measure by mass
| or by volume all the food eaten. Those who do not succeed to
| lose weight fail because they either do not measure what they
| eat or they cannot abstain from eating more than what they have
| planned to eat.
|
| Losing the weight is the easier part. More important is to plan
| a diet for after reaching the target weight, a diet that will
| keep the weight constant, i.e. which must still be calorie-
| restricted, but at a normal level, and which must be appealing
| enough, so that one would never be tempted to eat again in the
| way that caused the overweight in the beginning.
| fock wrote:
| > One must use some digital scales for measuring the weight
| every day at precisely the same moment, because the weight
| varies during a day by much more than the difference between
| 2 successive days.
|
| or just do a moving average over some days. Works better.
| doliveira wrote:
| Losing 1kg a week is not "about appropriate", it's pretty
| much the maximum.
|
| And water weight, fecal residues, etc vary so much day by
| day. Were yours so constant insofar to be able to track it
| accurately to the grams?
| adrian_b wrote:
| I have lost 1 kg per week during almost a year, with a
| considerable health improvement at the end and no negative
| effects, except obviously, the hunger.
|
| At the time I have studied a lot the existing medical
| literature, and this was the recommended rate, so I have
| adjusted the diet so that the weight loss per day would
| oscillate around 140 g per day.
|
| The weight must be measured every day in the same
| physiological conditions, i.e. in the same order
| relationship with respect to the various activities that
| modify the weight, like eating, drinking or eliminating
| their products.
|
| A good moment would be in the morning, immediately after
| waking up and relieving yourself.
|
| If one would eat in the evenings wildly varying amounts of
| food, then the weight in the morning could be affected by a
| noise due to variable amounts of food that is not
| completely digested yet. However that would not happen when
| one is eating a calorie-restricted diet for losing weight,
| when one would have to eat about the same minimal amount of
| food every day, which would be quickly digested.
|
| While I was losing weight, I could see very well every day
| its evolution to the grams, and the effect of any change in
| the diet. Sometimes I succumbed to the temptation of eating
| like before starting to lose weight, and after such days I
| gained weight in a day almost as much as I was losing in a
| week, which increased the time until reaching the target
| weight.
| ramraj07 wrote:
| The consensus from the most sensible people is, do the diet you
| can stick to, in the end just eat less. That's most important.
| theduder99 wrote:
| yep, same deal with exercise. Doesn't matter how, I just
| wanted some type of movement that I could get into the habit
| of. Tried a bunch of different activities but was not able to
| form a habit until I got a rowing machine and even then I
| still have days where I don't want to use it :)
| balls187 wrote:
| For those days, find something less, like light stretching,
| outdoor walk, skipping rope etc.
| imwillofficial wrote:
| My Candy diet isn't having the results I desire. It is,
| however, delicious.
| uberduper wrote:
| This isn't an exception. Eat less.
| dpdpdp wrote:
| This is definitely an exception, one would be deficient
| in just about every (micro)nutrient and therefore expire
| much faster than a normal human. While also being much
| more miserable.
| uberduper wrote:
| Oh, I guess we're taking this candy diet suggestion far
| more seriously than I originally thought.
|
| It wouldn't require a whole lot of thought to come up
| with an all candy diet that supplied the minimum
| necessary nutrition. How broad is our definition of
| "candy" for this? Are you willing to consider candied
| fruits, vegetables, and bacon? Chocolate covered things?
| How much dark chocolate would we have to add to something
| to consider it candy?
| throwaway821909 wrote:
| Mostly agree but if your diet is particularly bad, just
| eating less will mean existing nutrient deficiencies are
| magnified and (probably for this reason) you'll feel more
| hungry than you need to, increasing the chances you give
| up. IMO.
| chrisgd wrote:
| Not sure I agree
| yazaddaruvala wrote:
| > Then eat only veggies for your first meal, then veggies and a
| deck of cards serving of meat for dinner.
|
| > lot of people have suggested keto and low-carb diets
|
| Just always remember: while rice, pasta and bread are
| vegetarian they are not vegetables.
| panabee wrote:
| 1. the conclusions were based on 25 adults. is this a valid
| sample size?
|
| 2. why is liver fat a driver for diabetes? the article and the
| paper don't address this.
| nradov wrote:
| Fatty liver disease is closely linked to type-2 diabetes.
|
| https://www.healthline.com/health/fatty-liver-disease-and-di...
| panabee wrote:
| interesting. thanks for sharing! the article unfortunately
| doesn't delve into the mechanics beyond claiming an increase
| in glucose from more liver fat.
|
| why would more liver fat increase glucose production? if
| anything, i would expect a negative correlation.
|
| what hypotheses do you think are persuasive?
| anon291 wrote:
| South Asian diets are too high in carbs and seed oils and too low
| in animal fat and meat.
|
| I say this as a south Asian man.
| wrycoder wrote:
| Isn't this obvious?
| yjftsjthsd-h wrote:
| Why would it be obvious? For that matter, since I'm out of the
| loop, what's the mechanism for losing fat to improve insulin
| control?
| chasebank wrote:
| I thought this was common knowledge. Type 2 diabetes is 100%
| reversible through diet.
| Retric wrote:
| Early Type 2 is generally reversible through diet, but
| untreated you can suffer irreversible harm.
| oaktrout wrote:
| Simply put fat worsens insulin resistance. The mechanism is
| complex, basically fat causes inflammation that causes cells
| to not respond appropriately to insulin. This leads to
| elevated blood glucose and all the effects of diabetes.
| Remove the fat, decrease inflammation, improve insulin
| resistance.
| JPLeRouzic wrote:
| > _Isn't this obvious?_
|
| Please consider wondering why no doctors/scientist know how to
| heal people with diabetes. Do they miss something obvious?
| Vt71fcAqt7 wrote:
| While not exactly obvious, this has been known for a while
| now. It even became the position statement of the American
| College of Lifestyle Medicine to restrict calories as a way
| to induce remission:
|
| > _Studies with therapeutic dosing typically used very low
| energy diets (600-1100 kcal /day) with a weighted mean
| remission rate of 49.4%, while studies with subtherapeutic
| dosing typically used more moderate caloric restrictions
| (reducing energy intake by 500-600 kcal/day) and the weighted
| mean remission rate was 6.9%. Conclusions. Remission should
| be the clinical goal in T2D treatment, using properly dosed
| intensive lifestyle interventions as a primary component of
| medical care for T2D patients._[0]
|
| So while not exactly _obvious,_ it isn 't true that "no
| doctors/scientist know how to heal people with diabetes." The
| real issue is that people with DMT2 _generaly_ will not
| accept low calorie diets. But those that do have a high rate
| of remission and almost all have improved symptoms and
| decreased progressions.
|
| Edit: I should note that obviously the American College of
| _Lifestyle_ Medicine would advocate for this. My point is
| that there is sufficient liturature to back this up.
|
| [0]Type 2 Diabetes Remission and Lifestyle Medicine: A
| Position Statement From the American College of Lifestyle
| Medicine (2020) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC
| 7692017/?report...
| PuppyTailWags wrote:
| Wait, how long are people expected to be on 600-1100
| kcal/day? Just for a little worse than a coin flip? That
| sounds really miserable. Isn't that basically a crash diet
| and no one stfus about not doing those because they can
| mess you up long term?
|
| I'm really confused how T2D are special such that crash
| dieting doesn't mess them up further and put them further
| in a hole. They're already messed up because of the T2D,
| aren't they?
| Vt71fcAqt7 wrote:
| VLCDs are very safe, much safer than say all the co-
| morbidities of obesity. The important thing is to chose
| the right things to eat for those few calories. It also
| assumes a sedantary office lifestyle with only minimal
| exercise. If you work out or run you will need more. With
| these caveats it is safe and effective and works for
| obesity, type-2 diabetes and some metabolism problems.
|
| It really is that simple. The first law of thermodynamics
| doesn't go away so simply. Combine that with the
| evolutionary preassure that favors those who can save and
| expend energy and this all makes perfect sense. For
| example, increased insulin sensitivity on a low calorie
| diet makes sense evolutionarily. The only drawback is
| that muscle will be consumed as well. The amount varries
| by person, diet and exercise but it is minimal with a
| high protien diet. So say eating 500 kcal of chicken
| brest everyday and the rest of the calories spilt between
| carbs and lipids would be a good way to do this diet.
|
| "Crash diets" _do_ work as long as you do it for a few
| months. People generaly do a few days and then start
| binging >200 TDEE. Obviously that won't work:
|
| > _The active stage is characterized by a very low-
| calorie diet (600-800 kcal /day), low in carbohydrates (<
| 50 g daily from vegetables) and lipids (only 10 g of
| olive oil per day). The amount of high-biological-value
| proteins ranged between 0.8 and 1.2 g per each Kg of
| ideal body weight in order to preserve lean mass and to
| meet the minimal daily body requirements. This stage is
| further divided in 3 ketogenic phases: in phase 1, the
| patients eat high-biological-value protein preparations
| five times a day, along with vegetables with low glycemic
| index. In phase 2, one of the protein servings is
| replaced by natural proteins such as meat/egg/fish either
| at lunch or at dinner. In the phase 3, a second serve of
| the natural protein low in fat replaced the second serve
| of biological protein preparation. Being a very low
| caloric nutritional pattern, it is recommended to
| supplement patients with micronutrients (vitamins, such
| as complex B vitamins, vitamin C and E, minerals,
| including potassium, sodium, magnesium, calcium; and
| omega-3 fatty acids) according to international
| recommendations. This active stage is kept until the
| patient loses most of weight loss target, about 80%.
| Therefore, the ketogenic phases are variable in time
| depending on the individual and the weight loss target.
| The active stage generally lasts between 8 and 12 weeks
| in total._[0]
|
| [0] _The management of very low-calorie ketogenic diet in
| obesity outpatient clinic: a practical guide_ (2019)
|
| https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6820992/
| PuppyTailWags wrote:
| They sound miserable, though, is what I'm saying. How are
| VLCD people expected to do any sort of fitness or do any
| sort of mentally taxing labor if they're hungry and
| running on little nutrition basically all of the time for
| months? That seems totally unreasonable unless we send
| obese people to some kind of clinic like we do for
| addicts, and then how do they adapt back into the real
| world? Are there any actual studies of people doing this
| long-term and how this affects their bodies?
|
| I was always told crash diets fuck you up for years. How
| can this be true and also people are apparently starving
| for months and that's totally fine?
|
| EDIT: Wait, is my understanding is that you have to
| starve for up to 4 months for a worse-than-coinflip
| chance at diabetes? Do we know if it stays off for 5
| years? 10 years? Do you have to coinflip again? What
| happens if it doesn't work?
| uberduper wrote:
| > I was always told crash diets fuck you up for years.
| How can this be true and also people are apparently
| starving for months and that's totally fine?
|
| It is not true.
| ddorian43 wrote:
| Pretty easy to do it with low carb diets. See virtahealth
| that is FDA approved
| CyberDildonics wrote:
| Robert Lustig has been giving the same presentation for over
| a decade showing statistics that people who stop eating sugar
| can reverse their type 2 diabetes.
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM
| oaktrout wrote:
| Most doctors know how to heal people with type 2 diabetes, at
| least if you catch it early enough. It is well known that if
| you lose weight and eat a healthy diet the insulin resistance
| is reversible (some others in this thread have provided
| citations showing this).
| abadger9 wrote:
| This happened to my grandmother! I frankly never believed it
| because we're taught one cannot go into remission, but one day in
| her 60s she no longer had to manager her diabetes.
| deterministic wrote:
| It has been known for a long time that low-carb diets (not low-
| calorie diets) is an effective way to reverse type-2 diabetes.
| lizardactivist wrote:
| It always amazes me that all types of nutrition are folded into
| the single "calorie" in these discussions.
| nixcraft wrote:
| In South India, they have a carbohydrate-rich diet. So when you
| get hit badly with T2D, you switch to fish, limited brown/red
| rice, and veggies. In most cases, all of your medication stop if
| you maintain your weight and diet with exercise. Unfortunately,
| only some maintain a diet and healthy weight. Even 10 kg weight
| loss gives far better control for T2D.
| myshpa wrote:
| Low calorie diet is not the only way how to reverse diabetes.
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tAiXvrIMIIE Neal Barnard, MD | A
| Nutritional Approach for Reversing Diabetes
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lSwL73evUdA Diabetes Reversal and
| Weight-loss with Neal Barnard, M.D.
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpRrD58Ah3Q Evidence-Based Weight
| Loss: Dr. Michael Greger
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7rNY7xKyGCQ How Not To Die : Dr.
| Michael Greger
| MuffinFlavored wrote:
| Eat to satiety while focusing on certain types of foods/drinks
| instead of others?
| myshpa wrote:
| Yes.
|
| I've removed that part of my comment, sorry - the linked
| experts will explain it better.
| knaik94 wrote:
| The amount of calories per day caught my attention, 850kcal/day
| with diet replacement products. I understand that with medical
| supervision, there is less risk of malnourishment or nutrients
| deficiencies.
|
| The general advice, even from my primary care physician, has been
| that anything less than 1200kcal/day is dangerous and is crash
| dieting. Looking around, I found this other study studying total
| diet replacement providing 810kcal/day as the sole food for 12
| weeks, showed significantly greater weight loss compared to
| standard counseling and modest energy restrictions. The
| difference in weight loss was measured at 12 months. (BMJ
| 2018;362:k3760 [1])
|
| 25 BMI, which the diabetes study used in addition to T2D, is not
| considered clinically obese in the US. 25 BMI is the line between
| clinically normal and overweight. I wonder if crash dieting is
| advised against on the assumption that most people will go back
| to unhealthy eating habits instead of changing their diet, and
| also become more likely to fall into binge-restrict cycles. It's
| easy to imagine that if someone is able to make meaningful
| changes, crash dieting is more effective than most other methods.
|
| [1] https://www.bmj.com/content/362/bmj.k3760
| xboxnolifes wrote:
| > The general advice, even from my primary care physician, has
| been that anything less than 1200kcal/day is dangerous and is
| crash dieting.
|
| Wouldn't this advise need to keep in mind absolute height? BMI
| tracks the ratio between the height and weight, but it does
| nothing to tell the difference between a short thin person and
| a taller heavier (but same BMI) person. The latter which would
| need more calories than the former. I know people who eat ~400
| kcal less than me per day, because they are shorter and
| similarly thinner. Following that why wouldn't their crash diet
| threshold be sufficiently lower?
| maximus-decimus wrote:
| The argument I've heard is that the other nutriments needs
| (vitamins, minerals, etc) don't scale as much with height. So
| even a very short person would have a vitamins/mineral
| deficit on less than 1200KCal per day.
|
| How true is it? I don't know. But even then I don't see why
| they couldn't take multivitamins.
| throwaway09223 wrote:
| Many American diets are calorie/energy rich and nutrient
| poor. If you're eating 400 calories of healthy food you're
| probably getting several times the vitamins and minerals of
| the average American eating 2500 of fried, sugary food.
|
| It's probably a mistake to connect the two.
| dragontamer wrote:
| Beef is very nutrient rich.
|
| Yes, we Americans overeat beef / Hamburgers, but I don't
| think anyone eating burgers is at huge risk of
| malnutrition... as much as a risk of heart problems,
| diabetes, cholesterol, etc. etc.
|
| It turns out that a standard burger with beef, ketchup,
| lettuce, onion, and bread covers most of your macro, and
| even micro-nutrients. It also is way overboard on salt
| and fats, but... that's not the particular problem here.
|
| One of the bigger problems vegetarians have is finding a
| proper replacement of meat and all of the easy nutrients
| meat contains. All amino acids, various vitamins, iron,
| etc. etc. There's a fair amount of nutrients here.
|
| And even the worst McDonalds burger contains a variety of
| lettuce / onions / ketchup that covers few nutrients that
| beef is missing (ex: Ketchup has Vitamin A, Potatoes /
| Fries has Vitamin C).
| throwaway09223 wrote:
| Yes, beef is an excellent nutrient, but my point is that
| the majority of calories in a typical burger meal do not
| come from sources like beef. A Big Mac meal only has 180
| calories from beef, and 1320 calories total. The vast
| majority of calories in the american diet are sugars and
| oils.
|
| If you eat only the beef and veggies from a Big Mac three
| times a day you'll get plenty of vitamins and minerals
| with minimal calories (~650 calories)
|
| If you eat the three entire Big Mac meals you won't get
| any more essential nutrients to speak of and you'll
| consume far too many calories (3960 calories)
|
| The average american has junk to cut from their diets
| with no nutritional loss whatsoever. Typically fried and
| sugary foods.
| holbrad wrote:
| "Yes, we Americans overeat beef / Hamburgers, but I don't
| think anyone eating burgers is at huge risk of
| malnutrition... as much as a risk of heart problems,
| diabetes, cholesterol, etc. etc."
|
| Pretty strongly disagree here. US Beef consumption is
| about the same as in early 1900's, which was a time where
| personal health in several metrics was far better.
| (Weight being the obvious one)
|
| Always very skeptical when people talk about cholesterol,
| it's a really nuanced topic, but the average person seems
| to be stuck in the 1970's with "cholesterol bad".
| Thinking high ldl is always bad is only slightly better.
| JamesianP wrote:
| It can be frustrating how studies always lump in
| processed meat with unprocessed meat. Unprocessed meat is
| nearly google-proof, since every media outlet is busy
| broadcasting the evils of "red and processed meat" like
| they're inseparable. Seems like the cholesterol argument
| regarding meat itself is basically the main one left.
| carlmr wrote:
| >And even the worst McDonalds burger contains a variety
| of lettuce / onions / ketchup that covers few nutrients
| that beef is missing (ex: Ketchup has Vitamin A, Potatoes
| / Fries has Vitamin C).
|
| The amount of lettuce, tomatoes and onions is so minimal
| I doubt it contributes to your vitamin intake in any
| useful manner. If you eat a salad you get 50x that amount
| of those vitamins.
| AmericanChopper wrote:
| You can supplement all your micronutrients with barely any
| impact on calories consumed, so this is going to depend
| specifically on what you're eating/supplementing.
| adrian_b wrote:
| It is possible to have an adequate intake of proteins and
| of most vitamins and minerals with only about 600 to 800
| kcal.
|
| Practically pure proteins can be provided by turkey breast
| or chicken breast, adding e.g. around 300 kcal for an
| adequate daily protein intake, and the rest of the food can
| be composed of non-starchy non-sweet non-oily vegetables,
| which provide only about 20 to 50 kcal per 100 grams. One
| could eat more than 1 kg of various such vegetables without
| exceeding 800 kcal.
|
| There remain a few things that would have to be taken from
| supplements, e.g. omega-3 fatty acids, vitamin B12, vitamin
| D3 and vitamin E (which is abundant only in high-caloric
| food, like olive oil or almonds). The simplest is just to
| take one pill per day of those offered by various vendors,
| which include all the essential vitamins and minerals, to
| be sure that none of them is insufficient.
|
| A little vegetable oil would be needed for linoleic acid.
| knaik94 wrote:
| My understanding is that 1200 kcal is independent of height
| or weight. I was told that the rough calculation was based on
| the lower estimate of basal metabolic rate and then
| subtracting a couple hundred kcal.
|
| We both come from a South Asian background and discussed how
| the number would change for a home cooked vegetarian diet
| which is more nutrient dense but low in protein, and I was
| told that would lower it below 1200, but he didn't feel
| comfortable recommending that diet unsupervised. He
| emphasized that I should decrease calories by removing carbs,
| then fats, then proteins. And that I should prioritize eating
| proteins above fats and carbs, especially if I planned on
| increasing the amount of exercise I did.
|
| I asked him if the 1200kcal was net or gross. For example if
| I did 2 hours of moderate exercise, should I eat back
| 400kcal+ to maintain a net 1200kcal. He didn't have an answer
| for me, other than saying, if I start to feel weak or
| lightheaded I should immediately stop exercising. I don't
| have pre-existing conditions related to blood glucose, but I
| imagine that would would change many of these guidelines. I
| was told to stay mindful of hydration.
|
| The stories I hear of fasted work outs is the reason I asked
| him about low calorie diets. My non professional intuition
| makes me believe that even intense cardio should be okay, but
| moderate or heavy resistance training should be avoided on a
| low calorie diet.
| nradov wrote:
| Your understanding is incorrect, and not based on any
| actual science. Energy needs are highly correlated with
| body size (and other factors like activity level and
| genetics).
|
| There is no reason to avoid resistance training.
| knaik94 wrote:
| The few times I have tried to do intensive resistance
| training, above 60% of my PR, I have started feeling weak
| after the second or third day. I don't use caffeine for
| pre-workout. This might not be common, but I personally
| experienced a significant increase in exercise induced
| syncope and near-syncope when fasted.
|
| I also imagined that muscle recovery would be less
| efficient or take longer from a fasted state. I have hit
| rowing/ERG goals and made time improvements so I feel
| comfortable saying that fasting doesn't hinder my cardio.
|
| I understand that energy goals are correlated with body
| size, we were discussing a general minimum kcal threshold
| for unsupervised dieting. I am unsure why you feel
| estimated BMR/RMR - 200 kcal is unscientific. I was told
| that without supervision, it would be hard to ensure
| proper nutrition on a very low calorie diet.
| Additionally, he expected that some people would fall
| into a binge-restrict cycle because they can't sustain
| their usual energy level.
|
| I was additionally curious because there have been days I
| forget to eat, and thinking back I realized my total
| calories for those 24 hours totaled less than 600 kcal.
| ForrestN wrote:
| My doctors have always said that losing weight too quickly
| results in the metabolization of one's muscles and other
| important, healthy tissue in addition to fat. Could it be that
| crash dieting works narrowly to solve, for example, diabetes
| via the loss of fat, but has other negative consequences for
| the body? Maybe it's not a "doesn't work" thing, but a
| "collateral damage" thing or a "makes it harder to keep the
| weight off" thing, which is another old saw of why you
| shouldn't lose weight too fast?
| nradov wrote:
| Weight loss always involves some loss of lean tissue in
| addition to fat. Dieters can mitigate this to an extent by
| protein intake high and maintaining an exercise program.
| selimthegrim wrote:
| For South Asians there has been debate about setting lower BMI
| breakpoints
| refurb wrote:
| "Dangerous"? How?
|
| I mean if you have some pre-existing disease sure. If you're on
| certain diuretics you may screw up your blood chemistry, but an
| otherwise healthy, overweight person eating less than 1200
| kcal/day? Maybe not the most efficient way to lose weight but
| it's far from "dangerous".
| sacnoradhq wrote:
| Evidence needed: define "dangerous" in terms of micromorts
| based on what BMR and demographics (i.e., age, BMI, FFMI,
| height, gender)?
|
| There are risks to ponder about how critical (e.g., time vs.
| dangers) it is to get to a healthy weight. If someone
| dangerously obese maintains hydration, electrolytes, vitamins,
| and enough lipids to empty the gallbladder, getting to a low
| adipose tissue state, resetting insulin, ghrelin, and leptin
| sensitivities, and reducing the likelier risks of cancer(s)
| seems like a good tradeoff than either lap-band surgery or
| slow/plateau weight reductions.
|
| Intense hunger goes away after about 72-80 hours of
| "starvation", however brain fog and low energy dominate.
| Careful "starvation" dieting down to slightly underweight isn't
| something one can do without several months of spare time,
| ready access to healthcare, and immense self-control.
| Afterwards, self-control is absolutely required to avoid binge
| cycles.
|
| GLP-1 agonists are expensive but interesting crutches to get
| there slowly.
|
| It is likely that over millions of years of natural selection,
| the human body is far more tolerant of borderline starvation
| conditions than being stuffed with HFCS. Many types of cancers
| associated with Western diets are likely due to the human body
| becoming more hospitable, whereas chemotherapy and starvation
| add cellular stress that kills off malfunctioning cells. It's
| likely no accident whereas CHD, gout, diabetes, high
| cholesterol, and cancers are the consequent of unnatural diets
| and lifestyles.
| Scoundreller wrote:
| > GLP-1 agonists are expensive but interesting crutches to
| get there slowly.
|
| Why stop at getting rid of glucose? Add some plasma donations
| and orlistat. Now you've got balanced macro loss!
|
| (don't do this)
| wincy wrote:
| Interesting, when I lost 80 pounds doing a ketogenic diet my
| appetite leveled off at exactly 1200 calories per day. I wasn't
| counting calories out of anything other than curiosity as I was
| losing weight anyway. Getting even lower would have been pretty
| difficult.
| mmmpop wrote:
| I did a lot of ketogenic diets when I was younger in an
| attempt to shed all of the weight that comes with being
| raised in Appalachia. It was my experience that it was a
| great kickstart to a weight-loss plan for someone who was at
| rock-bottom health and needed fast results while not feeling
| like you're starving.
|
| But I feel like it taught me to be bored with eating, and to
| establish a more healthy relationship with food. High-fat,
| mid-protein, low-carb sounds terrific for the first day or
| two but once you're two weeks in, you're so sick of it all
| that you'd just as soon drink some water and get back to
| whatever you're doing.
| wincy wrote:
| Well I mean it worked for me because if I eat sugar I end
| up consuming something on the order of 4000+ calories per
| day. Something about carbohydrates makes me absolutely
| ravenous for sugars.
|
| Also if I don't eat right as I feel hungry I'll feel as if
| someone has gut punched me. I get absurdly hungry.
| JamesianP wrote:
| Even artificial sweetener leads to craving carbs in my
| case.
|
| As for the "gut punch" though, sounds like gastritis or
| something. Unless you're being metaphorical. For me,
| water helps when I'm fasting and stomach pains start.
| matthewdgreen wrote:
| This feeling is so intense for me that I've come to
| believe it's something to do with the carbs and my gut
| microbiome changing. There's a 1-2 week delay between
| changing diets and having these hunger pains start/stop
| that makes this feel more credible to me than insulin
| response changes or diet boredom. But: one should not
| treat N=1 subjective experiences as having any real
| value.
| syntheweave wrote:
| My "hunger pain" is tied to the some combination of the
| gut biome and the blood sugar cycle. It initially insists
| that I should eat frequently. If I persist through it,
| then an hour or two later, it settles down.
|
| Likewise, I've noticed an effect develop with artificial
| sweeteners where I can have small amounts without
| difficulty, but if I start consuming it several times in
| a 48 hour span, I get cramps.
|
| In periods where I've become addicted to carbs hunger
| pain is much stronger, but I've been able to keep it down
| for many years now. So if you're getting it intensely,
| your gut is probably still reactivating to its old
| profile.
|
| I believe restriction in the regular diet is one way of
| correcting it while staying in a routine. But I have also
| experimented with fasting, intense exercise, hot/cold
| contrast in the shower, and breathing exercises, and the
| common theme to each is to challenge homeostasis in some
| fashion. Obviously there's always some danger in going
| too far, but if our norm is total comfort, we can
| definitely drop some aspect of it from time to time.
| eru wrote:
| > It was my experience that it was a great kickstart to a
| weight-loss plan [...]
|
| Part of that might be from less water retention early on.
|
| Your body holds on to more water when your diet is full of
| carbs. As your liver runs down its glycogen stores and you
| eventually go into ketosis, you lose a lot of water. That's
| also there the early 'keto flu' comes from, which is a bit
| like a hangover; plenty of fluids and electrolytes fix you.
|
| Losing water looks great on the scale. On the one hand, it
| doesn't actually do anything for you healthwise. On the
| other hand, losing that water ain't bad for your health
| either (assuming enough fluids and electrolytes), and is a
| great motivator for the kickstart you described.
| mmmpop wrote:
| Yup.
| MuffinFlavored wrote:
| dumb question: how easy is it for the average person to go from
| an "American" diet high in addictive things like bad fats, corn
| syrups, processed foods, etc. etc. to a "clean" 1200kcal diet?
|
| I was under the impression it was like trying to fight drug
| addiction and the chances of you sustaining it and not
| relapsing/making up the missed calories later as near
| impossible for most once you've become addicted enough to
| things like Diet Coke, Chik-Fil-A, etc.
| abecedarius wrote:
| I don't know. But instead of aiming for a calorie target I'd
| suggest trying https://www.mostly-fat.com/eat-meat-not-too-
| little-mostly-fa... for a month. Even if you decide not to
| stick with it, it's a very palatable break from your
| addictive foods. (I'm on basically that now, though I didn't
| come to it directly from a "standard American diet".)
| BirAdam wrote:
| I lost about 50 pounds in ~3 months simply by cutting my carb
| intake to about 20g/day (eating just non-starchy vegetables,
| meats, sugarless dairy). This was moving from an "American"
| diet overnight to an extremely low carb diet. My caloric
| intake actually went up slightly.
|
| As for being difficult... yeah. The transition sucked. Body
| aches, headache, and very slight case of the blues. It took
| willpower. After about 3 days, I was okay. It was similar to
| quitting smoking for me, except that quitting smoking didn't
| give me body aches.
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| How is Diet Coke related to the conversation? It has zero
| calories.
| thelittleone wrote:
| Zero calories but some research suggests the sweeteners
| still trigger an insulin response which is relevant.
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| I have seen this claim many times, but have never seen a
| credible source claim it is conclusively known, at least
| at the amount of low calorie sweetener that are in 1
| service if 8oz to 20oz of Diet Coke.
|
| It seems either this is extremely tricky to measure, or
| it is a myth (like aspartame or MSG or yellow 5 cause
| cancer or whatever).
| mensetmanusman wrote:
| Limit yourself to one meal per day; use caffeine as hunger
| suppression.
|
| The one meal per day limit makes it hard to over/eat.
| knaik94 wrote:
| It's not fair to assume every person is going to become
| addicted to things like diet coke or fast food. "American"
| diet has room for a lot of clean eating. Processed food
| shouldn't be considered the same as "American" food in my
| opinion. Convenience driven food choices is cultural in
| America but that doesn't make the chosen food American.
|
| I think something like Tex-Mex would easily allow for clean
| eating. Avocado toast, with whole grain bread is fairly
| healthy and was an absolute favorite of mine after workouts
| and I would consider it "American" food. Tacos are a great
| way to have good portion control and also feel filled.
| Allowing non-traditional recipes opens many options. Avocado
| grapefruit salad on tortillas with fried tortilla strips is a
| recipe I came across recently that I really enjoyed. I think
| non-traditional is the essence of true "American" food.
|
| For fast food, Popeye's Blackened tenders are not breaded, a
| 5 piece serving is listed at 280 kcal compared to the classic
| tenders being 740 kcal. Nuts or apple slices with peanut
| butter is a fairly filling snack and can easily fit within
| 200 kcal. The main thing you would have to look out for is
| sodium if cooking at home is difficult. I know most of my
| bodybuilder friends go to a diet of chicken breast and brown
| rice for dinner for months at a time when they want to cut.
| It's around 400-500 calories depending on how you prepared
| it.
|
| Vegetarian and vegan recipes are good starting points for
| cleaner eating too. Borrowing from other cuisine makes it a
| lot easier as well. I love preparing vegetable side dishes
| for dinner in the way it's prepared for Korean dishes. Miso
| soup is fantastic for when I have food cravings late in the
| night. It's not "American" but I'd argue there's nothing more
| American than making microwave miso soup at 3 am in my star
| wars mug. Coffee is popular too, and is very low calorie if
| you can get used to no milk or sugar, or only sugar
| alcohol/substitutes.
|
| For some context, I grew up and live in one of the most
| culturally diverse states and counties in the US. I know that
| not everywhere in the US has the same diversity of food
| options, but I would argue that Amazon has done a lot to make
| food accessible.
| thelittleone wrote:
| I usually eat very well back home keto and 16hrs fasting
| but I come to US and there's so many tasty temptations.
| Takes another level of discipline.
| andrekandre wrote:
| for me, it was just eating rich flavorful foods that also
| happen to be healthy
|
| what i did was cook for myself so i can reduce vegetable
| oils, salts, artificial flavorings etc, then cook things like
| fresh tomato sauces with fresh basil/oregano, fresh fish
| cooked slowly in plum sauce, chana masala curries with low
| sodium and delicious spices etc etc
|
| once you get used to healthy, satisfying and flavorful "good"
| food, carbs, salt, oil and junk food cravings faded away and
| buying snacks after that was just not satisfying at all...
|
| n=1 and all that, but that was my experience fwiw
| mjthrowaway1 wrote:
| You're hitting the nail on the head. Sustainable dietary
| changes require finding foods you like to eat. If you live
| in West Hollywood there is no shortage of delicious healthy
| meals you can go out and buy. Outside of similar
| environments you need to learn how to cook or the healthy
| meals available to buy at restaurants are going to taste
| terrible.
| LanceH wrote:
| It's a lot harder if you listen to the people that say it is
| impossible and you can't hope to do it because it is
| addiction.
|
| On the other side are people that say, "eat less, exercise
| more".
|
| Lots of people have chosen either one of these to be true. It
| is certainly possible, though.
| midhhhthrow wrote:
| Going on less than 200 calorie diets for days or even weeks on
| end was the norm in humanity for millions of years so how is it
| unhealthy all the sudden? It was a time of constant mass feast
| and famine alternating from one to other. The problem now is we
| have the feast part down pat but no famine
| chrisfosterelli wrote:
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_nature
|
| Being the norm historically does not imply it is healthy or
| optimal, only that it is at least survivable on average.
| harry8 wrote:
| In general something being normal for humans for millennia
| does not mean it was healthy. It was normal to have
| incredibly painful teeth, probably not healthy. It was normal
| to die before reaching adulthood.
|
| It is entirely possible that something that was done for a
| long time is a healthy thing just as it is entirely possible
| that it was a terrible thing that we conquered with knowledge
| and abundance. Evidence is what tells you if the thing falls
| into one of those categories.
|
| I like living in a time where we are outraged if children in
| our community die and in cases where there was nothing that
| could have been done we want to do research to find something
| we can do in the future. That was not normal for millennia
| until really very recently and it seems healthy to me?
| remarkEon wrote:
| > It was normal to have incredibly painful teeth, probably
| not healthy.
|
| Is this actually true? I thought archaic humans had much
| better dental outcomes because their diets had a small
| fraction of the sugars that modern diets do. Could be wrong
| but I was definitely under the impression that poor dental
| health was more a function of modern diet and not something
| that necessarily existed throughout history.
| lossolo wrote:
| Yeah, this seems inaccurate, tribes in Africa that still
| live hunter-gatherer lifestyle have good teeth without
| cavities. It changed after humans moved from hunter-
| gather to agriculture.
| harry8 wrote:
| I'm no expert, this could be wrong, what I was told by an
| ancient historian was even the Pharohs with all their
| wealth had terrible painful teeth from sand in food which
| was ubiquitous until fairly recently. I have
| recollections of dental records of pre-historic persons
| being reported as pretty nasty.
|
| Feel free to nit-pick that example, there are an absolute
| plethora of others. When did surviving appendicitis
| become a thing? What was the median life expectancy for a
| newborn baby at various times in history? Calling out the
| fetishism of humans in a "natural state" needs to be
| done. Just as there are things we can learn from our pre-
| historic existence. Evidence is obviously the required
| thing not just amusing anecdote about how we have totally
| "lost our way."
| remarkEon wrote:
| Yeah I should've made it clear in my comment that I agree
| with you, I think the fetishism of pre-historic humans is
| a little odd. Of course there's things to learn, but it's
| strange to think that a period when you died from
| something as trivial as a minor infection is somehow
| ideal. I was only nitpicking on the dental thing, because
| eating so much sugar really is relatively new in human
| history and is the source of a number of health problems,
| beyond bad teeth.
| arriu wrote:
| I agree but I think we're still working on understanding
| what a healthy human actually is. Other than the obvious
| signs, it's quite complicated.
| gip wrote:
| A proven treatment to reverse type 2 diabetes make use of the
| keto diet, a low carbs diet (not low cal) which may be less
| risky. For most patients with T2D, doctor supervision is
| advised.
|
| One company working to reverse diabetes in the US is
| https://www.virtahealth.com/ (disclaimer: I work there).
| browningstreet wrote:
| David Goggins lost 100 lbs in 3 months on an 800ish calorie
| diet. I'm not recommending that... but what you can accomplish
| when you own it versus doing it for other reasons is probably
| significant too. Especially for when the "diet" (or whatever
| word is preferred, a la "intervention") ends.
|
| I lost 60 lbs over a couple of years and set a state lifting
| record for my age group. I love what I do and kept the excess
| weight off. I got good at what I do and the intrinsic reward
| still burns, even though I'm not lifting for records anymore. I
| wake up every day ready to go hard for at least 50 minutes. It
| doesn't take me more time than that to stay in shape, but I do
| eat consistent with my goals.. which is the harder part.
|
| I personally think someone needs to really own their desired
| outcome and then there are many valid and healthy ways -- and
| even more "effective" ones -- to get there. Hard to measure
| "own" though. Measuring every different kind of modality is
| generally missing the point. We actually know how people get in
| shape and stay in shape. The problem is generally in the mind.
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| syrrim wrote:
| 100 lbs in three months is ~1lb/day, thus a deficiency of
| 3500Cal/day. His maintenance intake would have been
| 4300Cals/day. That seems insanely high - what was his weight?
| browningstreet wrote:
| He started north of 275 lbs if I remember. He was working
| out 3x a day. There are lots of videos out there about it.
| He was also overweight when he started, and he was going
| into hell week (military) so the first n lbs of weight
| would come off "easy".
| lhl wrote:
| There's a long history of studies showing Low-Calorie Diets as
| being effective for reversing T2D. The late Sarah Hallberg wrote
| a narrative review that I liked a lot a couple years back (see
| section 3.2 for the part on LCDs):
| https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6520897/
|
| Hallberg SJ, Gershuni VM, Hazbun TL, Athinarayanan SJ. Reversing
| Type 2 Diabetes: A Narrative Review of the Evidence. Nutrients.
| 2019 Apr 1;11(4):766. doi: 10.3390/nu11040766. PMID: 30939855;
| PMCID: PMC6520897.
| seltzered_ wrote:
| https://www.ncl.ac.uk/magres/research/diabetes/reversal/#pub...
| "Reversing Type 2 Diabetes and ongoing remission" was in my
| bookmarks on this, there's a book written about it too.
| 0xcde4c3db wrote:
| > Furthermore, long-term achievement of diabetes remission,
| adherence to the diet, and weight loss maintenance after the
| diet remain a challenge. Studies have also suggested that
| physiological and metabolic adaptation of the body in response
| to caloric restriction may shift energy balance and hormonal
| regulation of weight toward weight regain after weight loss
| [67,68]. Thus, it is crucial that future studies are directed
| towards assessing the long-term sustainability of diabetes
| remission led by LCD and feasibility of this diet on the
| physiological adaptation and body composition changes.
|
| The basic problem, which has been unchanged for decades, is
| that hardly anyone actually follows the "proper" diet on a
| long-term basis without some kind of surgical or drug
| treatment. Despite weight loss being a massive industry and a
| very common goal, researchers routinely struggle to find study
| subjects who have maintained significant long-term weight loss
| without medical interventions, to the point that there's a
| special registry to keep track of such people for scientific
| purposes [1].
|
| [1] http://www.nwcr.ws/
| Vt71fcAqt7 wrote:
| Most people don't announce to scientists that they've lost
| weight. Lot's of people _do_ lose weight and stay that way,
| it 's just that there are even more who don't.
|
| Consider that the rate of obesity continues to increase in
| the US. This shows that people are simply eating more and
| doing less exercise. And of course those that are already
| obese are the least likley to consume healthy ammounts of
| food and exercise as needed.
|
| In other words, yes, the issue with overeating is in fact
| overeating. The only way to solve this problem for the whole
| population (as in, not for a single individual) is to change
| society and how it views unhealthy food. Off the top of my
| head, fast food advertisments should be made illegal. The
| entire point of those ads to get people to eat fast food.
| This single step could reduce obesity in the US by a
| noticable amount and requires no loss of freedom to any
| individual. A sugar tax or the like is a more extreme
| solution. But this idea is not unfounded:
|
| > _Sugar, rum, and tobacco are commodities which are nowhere
| necessaries of life, which are become objects of almost
| universal consumption, and which are therefore extremely
| proper subjects of taxation._
|
| -Adam Smith
|
| Book V: On the Revenue of the Sovereign or Commonwealth
| Chapter III: On Public Debts
|
| https://www.adamsmithworks.org/documents/chapter-iii-of-
| publ...
| kortilla wrote:
| > Off the top of my head, fast food advertisments should be
| made illegal
|
| This is ridiculous. Nearly everyone I know who is
| overweight eats hardly any fast food.
|
| What I do see is lots of snacking throughout the day on
| high carb things (chips, breads, etc) and just way too many
| calories due to large serving sizes in both regular "slow
| food" restaurants and meals made at home.
|
| Fast food meals if you skip the sugared soda tend to be
| closer to proper per meal calorie targets than sit down
| restaurants because of how cheap they are.
|
| At sit down restaurants the price is higher to support a
| wait staff and lower throughput so they compensate with
| ridiculously huge portions.
| hombre_fatal wrote:
| Apparently one major issue with fast food is the
| hyperpalatability.
|
| For example, when I visited my family in the states, I
| ate two double cheeseburgers at a fast food joint at
| 1000+ calories per burger, and I figured I could probably
| eat two more in that sitting without issue.
|
| In other words I ate 2000+ calories in a few minutes and
| could have kept going. Even one burger has more calories
| than I eat in a single meal.
|
| Meanwhile, I couldn't eat 15 medium sweet potatoes (1000
| calories) in one sitting.
| JamesianP wrote:
| But why would you do that? I think it's just calorie
| density and behavior. You might just as well have eaten a
| bucket of ice cream as fast as you could. I.e. before
| your rising blood sugar has a chance to stop you.
|
| Though I do think the public would be better off if they
| replaced the bread with lettuce or something. It seems
| like they're willing to do that anywhere I've gone.
| syliconadder wrote:
| It doesn't help that these calorie dense food are
| hyperengineered to trigger our hunger more. A personal
| prohibition seems to be the only way to tackle this.
| Scoundreller wrote:
| > I ate two double cheeseburgers at a fast food joint at
| 1000+ calories per burger
|
| Where was this? A double quarter pounder BLT at McD with
| standard toppings is 830 calories. A McDouble is half
| that.
| kortilla wrote:
| Yeah, this doesn't pass the smell test. I love
| cheeseburgers and would be borderline sick after two
| double quarter pounders.
| AuryGlenz wrote:
| I know there are people out there that could eat 2 double
| quarter pounders, but I doubt any of them are at a
| healthy weight - except for professional eaters and
| possibly teenage boys.
|
| One, along with fries, is enough to fill me up for
| practically the whole day. I think fast food gets a bad
| rap. It's calorie dense but with all of the fat it keeps
| you pretty darn full.
|
| Compare that burger with a few candy bars or not all that
| much soda...
| Vt71fcAqt7 wrote:
| You are right that I should not have singled out fast
| food. Included would be grain based desserts, soda,
| alcohol and maybe others. Grain based desserts and soda
| together make up 12% of caloric intake alone[0] and serve
| almost no nutritional value while providing little
| satiety.
|
| Another point, while I did say that "The entire point of
| those ads to get people to eat fast food" what I really
| meant is that they make people want to eat in
| general[note 1]. What this means is that fast food ads
| can be harmful even if they do not cause the viewer to
| buy fast food. What this does is contribute to a culture
| of consumption which is part of what I meant when I said
| "The only way to solve this problem for the whole
| population [...] is to change society and how it views
| unhealthy food." I did not mention sit down restaurants
| because they generaly do not advertise. My suggestion was
| "off the top of my head" and not fully thought out. I'm
| glad you made your comment because I did not express my
| reasoning clearly.
|
| [0]https://epi.grants.cancer.gov/diet/foodsources/top-
| food-sour... page 77
|
| [note 1] That is, the "point" of the fast food ads
| collectivly are to generate a demand for fast food from
| the point of view of the advertisers, but the effect,
| while more pronounced for fast food, generates a general
| demand for caloric intake.
| adrian_b wrote:
| Seeing that there are more than 10 thousand US people in that
| database, which is unlikely to be complete, I do not think
| that "hardly anyone" is the right term.
|
| Nevertheless, I agree that such people might be a very small
| part of those who lose weight.
|
| About 15 years ago, I have lost about one third of my initial
| body weight during almost a year, and then I have kept my
| desired weight until today, without any kind of medical
| treatment, either surgical or drug-based.
|
| Nevertheless it was not easy and it required a lot of thought
| and experiments with the diet, until I have learned how to
| control my weight, after many years during which I had
| believed that this is impossible. It also required completely
| dropping many bad habits, for example drinking commercial
| juices or eating commercial mixes of yogurt with fruits or
| eating various kinds of "breakfast cereals" or any other such
| commercial products containing an excessive amount of sugar.
| I have never eaten or drunk again any of the products that I
| have blacklisted, even if they were among those that I had
| eaten or drunk daily, for many years.
|
| I believe that most people are not introspective enough to
| succeed in changing so much their habits by themselves so
| they need some kind of external help. The main obstacles for
| weight control are psychological, not physiological, i.e.
| those who need to control their weight must learn somehow to
| love to eat food that is different from what they had been
| eating, because if they will ever revert to their old eating
| style, then they will certainly also revert to their previous
| weight.
| PuppyTailWags wrote:
| > Seeing that there are more than 10 thousand US people in
| that database
|
| The census.gov says there are a little under 260 million
| adults in the united states, and we know obesity is
| something like approaching 40% of these adults, so 104
| million.
|
| 10,000 is not even one thousandth of a percentage point of
| the obese people of the untied states.
|
| For contrast, a disease is considered rare if it occurs 1
| in every 1500 people in the united states. A person who un-
| obesity's themselves into healthy weight is literally a
| magnitude rarer than this.
| ravenstine wrote:
| Link to the actual published article:
| https://www.thelancet.com/action/showPdf?pii=S2772-3682%2822...
|
| What doesn't make sense to me is what this diet was actually
| composed of.
|
| > The programme induces weight loss with a period of formula low
| energy TDR, providing all essential nutrients in around 850 kcal/
| day, creating a sizable energy deficit and therefore substantial
| weight loss.
|
| Given that Counterweight Plus can be many things (judging by the
| website), I don't know what this study actually demonstrates.
| Maybe the weight loss and remission is associated with the lower
| energy intake, or it may be associated with whatever diet may
| have been eaten. What were the subject's diets before? We don't
| know. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm not sure we can tell.
| givemeethekeys wrote:
| I'll add that reducing sugar, sweet fruits, intermittent fasting
| (8 hour feeding window) and daily walks made a big difference for
| a couple of South Asian senior citizens I personally know. They
| still eat bread and rice and potatoes and consume dairy - but
| even their relatively modest change in lifestyle has made a big
| difference.
| _JoRo wrote:
| ;TLDR: Anecdotally, I've found it easier to lose weight / harder
| to sustain weight after a few months of consistent exercise.
|
| Mostly unrelated to this article and perhaps naive, but I found
| it very difficult to gain weight (and even sustain my weight)
| about 2 months after starting a 5/6 day cardio routine.
|
| I started the routine walking at ~20 minute mile pace (3 mph) and
| just incrementing the speed by 0.1 mph each session. At the 2
| month mark I was ~8 minute mile (so about 7-8 miles a day).
|
| At this point I was probably burning an additional 750-1k
| calories a day from the running alone.
|
| Combined with a slightly less calorie dense diet and I was
| basically force feeding myself to try and maintain my weight.
|
| Background: Late 20s 5'11" Male ~180 lbs (obviously a more ideal
| situation)
| dpbriggs wrote:
| My parents, very much not South Asian, achieved the same thing as
| per their doctor's recommendation.
| oaktrout wrote:
| Yes, this has been shown in other populations already. I think
| the highlight of this study is that it worked in South Asians
| also, as some might question if genetics/ culture play a
| particular role. This adds to the evidence that weight loss
| works for diabetes in all ethnicities.
| PaulHoule wrote:
| It's worth checking that "obvious" advice works in different
| populations because it doesn't always.
|
| For instance African Americans have high blood pressure at an
| elevated rate and many of the medications that work well for
| other Americans don't work well for them. It's important that
| this population gets studies about treatments that work for
| them.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-11-28 05:01 UTC)