"느린 신진대사"는 높은 다이어트 실패율을 설명하는 데 도움이 될 수 있습니다

Why does dieting have such a high failure rate, and what can be done about it? To the answer the second question, fortunately, GLP-1 drugs are highly effective, and better drugs are on the horizon. It’s possible obesity may be curable. But for the first question, the high failure rate of dieting is commonly blamed on “hyperpalatable foods” “loss of willpower” or “eating too much food”. Although it’s understood that slowed metabolism plays some role (e.g. adaptive thermogenesis) , as smaller people need fewer calories, I think the role of metabolism is greatly underestimated for the high failure rate of dieting. In my article, “Why the Minnesota Starvation Experiment Doesn’t Generalize to Modern Dieting,” I note that participants in the Minnesota starvation experiment lost significant weight on diets of around 1,600 kcal per day. These results are often cited on social media as evidence that dieting is highly effective. However, many obese or formerly obese people today struggle to reach similar levels of leanness on comparable calorie intakes. This suggests that the experiment’s subjects may have been atypical, and that their outcomes don’t generalize to today’s obese population. It’s possible that metabolisms have slowed over the past 100 years for reasons that are poorly understood, although my article does not investigate this. The assumption is that eating a “normal” amount of food–say, around 2,400 kcal/day for a male–will naturally lead to a normal weight. But for people who are or have been obese, simply matching that intake does not guarantee leanness. To the contrary, my research, based on studies and anecdotal evidence, has shown that the typical daily calorie consumption of a formerly-obese male to maintain a 170-200lbs bodyweight at a 23-26 BMI is only around 1,400-1,800 kcal/day. This is basically starvation rations, and is comparable to the Minnesota starvation experiment, but to maintain a 23-26 BMI, vs sub 19 BMI as during the Minnesota starvation experiment. It’s evident, based on my own research at least, why dieting fails for so many people. This isn’t much food. This is also corroborated by people on GLP-1 drugs eating similar low calorie counts, and in many cases still being overweight. Imagine having to maintain 1,400-1,800 kcal/day for life–it’s little wonder dieting has such a high failure rate. IQ and metabolism have a lot in common. I have likened metabolism as the opposite side of the “HBD coin,” but for the body instead of the mind. Like IQ, metabolism is innate, highly variable between otherwise homogenous individuals, and impervious to efforts to raise it. Just as there are slow and smart people or short and tall people , there are people with slow or fast metabolisms. (“Fast” in this context meaning relative to predicted metabolism for a person’s weight and height based on regression models.) Indeed, when controlling for FFM (fat free mass), BMR (basal metabolic rate) differs by as much as 1,000 kcal/day between individuals. That is huge: Like IQ, it’s hard to explain why otherwise identical people differ in metabolism so much–even when matched by height, lean body mass, age, sex, physical activity, or weight. There is no obvious explanation or mechanism…maybe something to do with the energy-hungry internal organs or involuntary movements, so-called “NEET” (non-exercise energy expenditure). But it’s understood to be heritable, and it holds for animals as it does for people. Factory farmers have found that profits can be increased by selectively breeding metabolically efficient animals that require less feed to reach the same weight. Basically, large segments of the population are in what can be described as a “permanent hibernation mode” and energy sparing that is also impervious to exercise, just as IQ is impervious to “brain training” to try to raise it. This is the “metabolism black pill,” just as there are harsh truths for other aspects of human biology, such as height or attractiveness. A 2015 study, “Dietary habits and weight maintenance success in high versus low exercisers in the National Weight Control Registry,” showed that participants who performed 3x as much physical activity had similar calorie counts (just 1,400 kcal/day) compared to subjects who exercised the least: In other words, 2-3x as much exercise amounted to merely 50 extra daily calories (1438 kcal/day vs 1385 kcal/day) allowance to maintain the same weight, which is pretty disappointing. This douses cold water on the common belief that exercise is effective for weight loss, and it debunks a common fitness influencer myth online that it’s possible to offset a higher calorie count with more exercise. Instead, the body adapts. This is in agreement with research by Dr. Herman Pontzer, who found that the body adapts to exercise by using fewer calories at rest and becoming more efficient in its movements. In explaining the discrepancy between popular people on social media who are successful with dieting and have large followings, versus “regular people” who fail when applying the same “commonsense” dieting advice as commonly espoused by those popular people–selection effects are everything. Guys you see on social media who stay lean on high calorie counts, are genetic metabolic outliers, just as there are outliers for IQ or height. That is why they have social media careers. Even when on steroids, the same principle applies, and many of those same people who stay lean on steroids despite consuming a lot of calories, were still able to eat a lot of food off steroids without becoming fat. To wit, I’m sure we all know people who are able to eat a lot without becoming fat, and then when those people try to become lean, the fat melts off despite consuming normal amounts of food. These cases aren’t representative of the average obese person, which is why using them as examples can be misleading. Those who cannot get lean without dropping the calorie counts absurdly low (below than predicted by calorie calculators), find this unsustainable and drop out.