• Everythingispenguins@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    10
    ·
    9 months ago

    Yeah metabolism doesn’t work like that. When you eat less your base metabolic rate will go down. It is so much more complicated than just not eating.

    • hark@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      9 months ago

      How dramatically does the base metabolic rate change? Surely you can reduce caloric intake more than base metabolic rate would go down. I restrict my calories with great results, sometimes I’ll do a 24 hour fast if I’ve eaten too much junk and I feel great afterward. I’ve kept my weight in check for years while restricting caloric intake. This is all diet, since I don’t do exercise (I need to get better at that). I can see myself gaining all that weight back if I get into the mindset of “well, I lost that weight, I’m free to enjoy food without restriction again!” It’s kind of like sobriety, it takes continual diligence to keep your progress.

      • Everythingispenguins@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        9 months ago

        Well sadly the answer is it depends. There are a lot of environmental variables along with a few biological variables. It is much easier for men than women to lose weight simply by cutting intake. How fast you cut calories can trigger starvation mode. People who eat a lot of refined sugar have a harder time. What your down time looks like(do you sit all day or do you have an active job) and one that we know has an effect but don’t really know how much, is exposure to endocrine disruptors (like BPA). The biological machine is different for everyone.

        But the short answer to your question is for people who are of low activity levels and difficulty with weight. It is usually recommended for them to have a slow reduction in intake to keep from triggering a starvation response and a slow increase in activity until your body adjusts to its new normal.

        Oh and thank you for asking a question instead of just saying that you think this is dumb.

        • hark@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          9 months ago

          Thanks for the detailed response. Yeah, a lot of it varies from person to person which makes it tricky and prevents one-solution-fits-all advice. I looked up the change in starvation response and it seems like on average people will miss out on around 180 calories burned daily from this response. It’s significant, but may be manageable depending on the person. All I know is that this approach has been working for me for 5+ years now.

    • TurnpikeRangers@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      9 months ago

      It is the least complicated thing on earth. If you burn more calories than you consume, you will lose weight. It is a scientific law and while I’m no doctor, I’m certain that 99.9% of the population is beholden to it.

      • Everythingispenguins@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        9 months ago

        I assure you it is much more complicated than you suggest. To the point that is an active point of research and debate. It has been shown that a person’s base metabolic rate is not a fixed number which can be affected by things such as caloric intake, types of calories and exercise(independent of the calories consumed during exercise). A simple reduction in calories intake will often result in a crash in the metabolic rate and then the sequential rapid gain weight when normal calorie intake is resumed.

        In addition to this it has been shown that people are getting fatter on less food than they did 40 years ago. This is vastly more complicated than a Newtonian model of the body would suggest. Yes, diet and exercise can help reduce being overweight. But to merely suggest somebody should quote eat less is ineffective and is not shown to hold up in studies. Oh and sorry about the pay wall.

        https://academic.oup.com/fampra/article/16/2/196/480196?login=false

        https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2015/09/why-it-was-easier-to-be-skinny-in-the-1980s/407974/

        • Blue@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          9 months ago

          Magic fatties breaking the laws of thermodynamics, instead of a dietist they need a physicist.