Slashdot Mirror


'Social Jetlag' May Be Making You Fat

sciencehabit writes "A new study suggests that, by disrupting your body's normal rhythms, your alarm clock could be making you overweight. The study concerns a phenomenon called 'social jetlag.' That's the extent to which our natural sleep patterns are out of synch with our school or work schedules. When we wake up earlier than we're supposed to — or spend all weekend sleeping in and then get up at 6 am on Monday — it makes our body feel like it's spending the weekend in one time zone and the week in another. For people who are already on the heavy side, greater social jet lag corresponds to greater body weight."

54 of 197 comments (clear)

  1. Thank God! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Thank God! All this time I thought it was the Coke and Fritos doing it to me!

  2. Just one more round... by Defenestrar · · Score: 4, Funny

    And here I thought it was staying up late (and eating snacks) while doing things online with friends in a different time zone.

  3. Not Much You Can Do About That by Githaron · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If your biological schedule doesn't match up with the rest of your area, it will be hard to find a job that matches your schedule. All I can do is watch my weight and eat/exercise accordingly.

    1. Re:Not Much You Can Do About That by CastrTroy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Actually, there is something you can do about it. Keep the same schedule on the weekends that you do during the week. And ensure you get enough sleep every night. The problem as described in the summary is that people will stay up late and sleep in on the weekends, but will go to be early and get up early on the weekdays. The problem isn't some "biological schedule" it's that your schedule changes between the weekends and the weekdays. Your body can't adjust fast enough.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    2. Re:Not Much You Can Do About That by Anrego · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yup.

      Made a comment about this below. I used to run through the week on 4 or 5 hours a night, then crash on the weekends. It's tough to do, but if you force yourself to get a decent amount of sleep through the week, and cut back on the sleeping in (I still do sleep in a few hours.. ) it makes a huge difference. It's hard to give up that extra "winding down" time at the end of the day.. but not feeling like a zombie all the time is worth it.

    3. Re:Not Much You Can Do About That by jeffmeden · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If your biological schedule doesn't match up with the rest of your area, it will be hard to find a job that matches your schedule. All I can do is watch my weight and eat/exercise accordingly.

      Controlling when you sleep (making it consistent) and when you are exposed to bright light (again, consistency PLUS avoiding it 3 hours before bed time) will get you on track without a heroic effort, unless of course you work a non-traditional shift like 8pm-5am and can't avoid being awake from 5am to 1pm on some days (if you are in the rhythm to sleep those hours 7 days a week you can get along just fine). That kind of schedule swing is a serious bitch.

    4. Re:Not Much You Can Do About That by Githaron · · Score: 2

      My biological schedule doesn't change between weekends and weekdays. It stays the same. The only difference is that I am forced to fight my biological schedule on weekdays and I am not on weekends. Also, before anyone says it, my body will not get used to a new schedule if I stick to it long enough. I have tried multiple times in my life and failed. I simply do not function at 100% in the mornings. My mind also does not want to turn off until between 12:00am to 2:00am. It is a fight to get up and a fight to get myself to bed.

    5. Re:Not Much You Can Do About That by locopuyo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Same here, if only the days were longer. We need to find some way to slow the rotation of the earth.

    6. Re:Not Much You Can Do About That by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      Getting more exercise early in the day can often help with getting to bed.

    7. Re:Not Much You Can Do About That by T-Bone-T · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It happened to me with kids. I haven't slept-in in years because my kids get up right after the sun comes up.

    8. Re:Not Much You Can Do About That by CSMoran · · Score: 2

      Have you considered an alternative sleep pattern? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyphasic_sleep

      --
      Every end has half a stick.
    9. Re:Not Much You Can Do About That by Defenestrar · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It may not be possible, but exposure to bright light in the morning can help a lot - it's best if it's sunlight or at least a fair solar spectrum approximation. The older you are the brighter the light needs to be (due to decrease of eye transmission with age).

    10. Re:Not Much You Can Do About That by SomeJoel · · Score: 4, Funny

      Same here, if only the days were longer. We need to find some way to slow the rotation of the earth.

      That sounds like a lot of work, and I'm pretty tired.

      --
      <Complete your profile by adding a signature!>
    11. Re:Not Much You Can Do About That by Chrisq · · Score: 5, Funny

      It happened to me with kids. I haven't slept-in in years because my kids get up right after the sun comes up.

      Wait until they're teenagers - it will be you telling them its time to get up.

    12. Re:Not Much You Can Do About That by Terrasque · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Delayed sleep phase disorder

      Yeah, it's exactly what it sounds like. My natural sleeping pattern makes me go to bed around 3-4am. And sleep for ~8-9 hours. And no, just waking early in the weekend does not help. This has been going on since before I started school, and nothing tried the last 20 years have changed that one bit.

      I'm tired of friends and complete strangers saying stuff like "Just change your rhythm" or "You're just lazy, I did it just fine!" - I have tried, it Does Not Help. It does not change a thing.

      In fact, the disorder is sometimes referred to as "social jet lag" - it might even be the exact disorder the article is hinting at.

      Your comment sounds like an asshole seeing a guy in wheelchair, and saying "He's just lazy. Look, I can walk just fine, and so can my friends!"

      --
      It's The Golden Rule: "He who has the gold makes the rules."
    13. Re:Not Much You Can Do About That by geekoid · · Score: 2

      well then, enjoy dying 10 years sooner then you need to.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    14. Re:Not Much You Can Do About That by geekoid · · Score: 2

      That is a failure of your mind, not your body.

      Get some will power

      " My mind also does not want to turn off until between 12:00am to 2:00am."
      That because of your sleep schedule, and possible health issues.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  4. Yeah sure by doston · · Score: 4, Informative

    Has nothing to do with the italian grinder you went to bed on, just the rhythmic imbalance. Fix that, change nothing else and the fat will literally melt away. Articles like this pander to the ever expanding population of morbidly obese...probably consciously. Editor's meeting: "Write more stories fat people will like, since everybody's fat".

    1. Re:Yeah sure by Beardo+the+Bearded · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You are correct.

      Look, there's only one way to lose the weight, and that's this:

      Eat less and exercise more.

      I know, it's impossible, right? Well, I started out being unable to bike to the end of the block and weighing a dangerous 250 pounds. I ate crap all the time -- working in a mall I'd often eat NYF poutine, a donair, and an Orange Julius for lunch. I didn't get much exercise. I'd also eat a chocolate bar every single day. The odds were against me and the situation was grim.

      I kept on the bike though. I biked to school, eventually got all the way (2km!) without a rest, biked all the way through school, and biked to work once I graduated (B.Eng.). I still bike to work.

      In addition to that, I did thousands of pushups on the Wii Fit, pulling a lot of weight from my gut and putting muscle onto my chest. I changed my diet, eating a lot more fruit and veggies and cutting out a lot of the chocolate and fast foods. I still eat treats, and lots of them, but nowhere near what I used to scarf down. I drink mostly water, with some sodas as an rare treat.

      Now I weigh 160 pounds, 10% BF, and teach spin classes. The only real problem is that my wife isn't happy with my fitness; she's pretty insecure about it.

      --

      ---
      ECHELON is a government program to find words like bomb, jihad, plutonium, assassinate, and anarchy.
    2. Re:Yeah sure by doston · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You are correct.

      Look, there's only one way to lose the weight, and that's this:

      Eat less and exercise more.

      I know, it's impossible, right? Well, I started out being unable to bike to the end of the block and weighing a dangerous 250 pounds. I ate crap all the time -- working in a mall I'd often eat NYF poutine, a donair, and an Orange Julius for lunch. I didn't get much exercise. I'd also eat a chocolate bar every single day. The odds were against me and the situation was grim.

      I kept on the bike though. I biked to school, eventually got all the way (2km!) without a rest, biked all the way through school, and biked to work once I graduated (B.Eng.). I still bike to work.

      In addition to that, I did thousands of pushups on the Wii Fit, pulling a lot of weight from my gut and putting muscle onto my chest. I changed my diet, eating a lot more fruit and veggies and cutting out a lot of the chocolate and fast foods. I still eat treats, and lots of them, but nowhere near what I used to scarf down. I drink mostly water, with some sodas as an rare treat.

      Now I weigh 160 pounds, 10% BF, and teach spin classes. The only real problem is that my wife isn't happy with my fitness; she's pretty insecure about it.

      I knew a guy like that when I worked at AT&T wireless. He was probably 300 lbs when we worked together, but he transferred from engineering to IT. I didn't see him for a couple of years. Ran into him again and I didn't even recognize him. He went from this just lump of cottage cheese to a literal marathon runner. Never seen anything like it in my life. It's super rare and I (of course) have a theory about it. I think he (and probably you) were likely natural athletes and for whatever reason (life happening, depression) got caught in a rut. You're probably just being yourself. Who knows though. You probbaly have a theory of your own on what motivated you. Fear? A diabetes diagnosis? Your wife is right to be insecure about your fitness, if she isn't fit. I'd join in, if I were her; it's like having a live-in life coach.

    3. Re:Yeah sure by eulernet · · Score: 4, Informative

      Another suggestion: eat slowly !

      We eat tons of food without even realizing.
      The satiety comes after a few moments eating, and it differs from people to another one.

      Eating in the shortest amount of time doesn't allow the satiety mechanisms do their job.

    4. Re:Yeah sure by Dripdry · · Score: 5, Informative

      Actually, that's not entirely true.

      A lot of the science now is showing that eat less/exercise more doesn't produce much in terms of results over the long term.
      There have been studies done on eating less/deprivation, and the repeatedly conclude that it's bad. In extreme cases, of course (like eating a pound of bacon at each meal) there is room to cut back, but in general the whole idea of introducing fewer calories may not be the cure-all many think it is.

      Obesity is actually a sign that we're not giving our body the nutrients it needs, so it stores fat. So eating better (read: more nutritious food) is likely to fix things more easily. Of course, exercise isn't bad or anything, it's just not a cure-all.

      --
      -
    5. Re:Yeah sure by manu0601 · · Score: 2

      Eat less and exercise more.

      I agree for exercice, but for nutrition, there is no need to eat less. You can start eating better food. Less high glycemic index carbohydrates, no trans fats, more fruits and vegetables.

  5. Causation/correlation counterpoint by Shoten · · Score: 4, Insightful

    From the article:

    Previous work with such data has already yielded some clues. "We have shown that if you live against your body clock, you're more likely to smoke, to drink alcohol, and drink far more coffee," says Roenneberg.

    From the slashdot post:
    "or spend all weekend sleeping in and then get up at 6 am on Monday"

    These look to me like behaviors of people who don't take care of themselves and/or who are lazy/inactive. I don't see how sleep is the cause. It makes more sense to me that it'd be the other way around...that inactivity tends to help cause obesity, and also correlates with sleeping in whenever you can, for example.

    --

    For your security, this post has been encrypted with ROT-13, twice.
    1. Re:Causation/correlation counterpoint by Anrego · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I think it's more the behavior of people who grind away on 4 or 5 hours sleep a night through the week then crash on the weekend. I used to be one of them. When I forced myself into getting more sleep through the week, I noticed a huge difference in how I felt and how much energy I had. Also weekends are much more enjoyable when you get up at 10 (so still sleeping in for a few hours) and feel great vice waking up at 2am and feeling groggy.

      If anyone is in the same place I was, I seriously recommend trying it. Set a consistent bed time. It's well worth losing a few hours of "minecraft time" for the extra energy (and probably health benifits). At the very least try it for a week.

    2. Re:Causation/correlation counterpoint by DerekLyons · · Score: 2, Insightful

      These look to me like behaviors of people who don't take care of themselves and/or who are lazy/inactive.

      Yeah. Despite decades of research showing that poor sleep patterns can effect your health... it's all about the lazy people.
       

      It makes more sense to me that it'd be the other way around...that inactivity tends to help cause obesity, and also correlates with sleeping in whenever you can, for example.

      Does inactivity correlate with sleeping in? Get back to me with your cites and studies.

  6. I don't have a cosmo account by 0racle · · Score: 3, Funny

    What's going on here? The url says slashdot but the summary looks like cosmo.

    --
    "I use a Mac because I'm just better than you are."
  7. No alarm clock here by cpu6502 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The buttons on my clock stopped working ~11 years ago, and I never bothered to replace the clock. So now I just wake up when I wake up. My internal clock is pretty reliable, waking me between 5 and 6 am each morning. (Assuming I go to bed at a decent hour like 9 or 10..... if I stay up late then naturally I sleep late.)

    --
    My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
    1. Re:No alarm clock here by BennyB2k4 · · Score: 2

      That only works if your body's natural clock is fairly close to 24h and your rhythm can sync in with the clock. I think average is around 24.5h. I'm in around the 25h mark. I can sync with 24h for a few days, but if I leave it natural I'll add an hour every day (vacation or on flex time).

    2. Re:No alarm clock here by KhabaLox · · Score: 2

      Same here. Ever since our kids started sleeping through the night (about 2.5 years ago), my wife and I don't usually have a problem waking up at pretty close to 6 every day (weekends included). Our two toddlers (3 and 4) usually come into our room and climb in bed between 5 and 6. The younger falls asleep again easily, and can sleep through until 7, while the other is itching to get out of bed (but we make him stay until 6).

      --
      Ceci n'est pas un sig.
    3. Re:No alarm clock here by ArsonSmith · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I noticed this after I had an accident as was in recovery for about 9 months. I noticed my best feelings were if I was on a ~30 hour day with 10 hours of sleep and 20 hours of awake doing stuff. Still wish I could go back to that schedule.

      --
      Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
    4. Re:No alarm clock here by periodic · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I find this kind of attitude is very elitistic from persons that seem to have a 24h day and tend to be morning persons. I agree with the former poster, I love to stay awake for a longer period and then sleep for more then eight hours, I can usually do that in the summers since my work is in academia and there is usually no students to sync up with.

      What I mean is that there is an attitude that one are disciplined and productive if one goes to bed early and get up early. If you are a night person or have a longer than 24h natural cycle, this means going to bed when you feel the most alert and productive and having to torture yourself every morning to stay in sync with the society. And still you will feel like piss the entire morning until maybe about lunch, after which your body starts waking up.

      Just don't say that evening persons lack discipline, they are just on a different internal clock. And maybe they are the most disciplined since they constantly have to work against what their bodies are telling them.

    5. Re:No alarm clock here by Onymous+Coward · · Score: 2

      There's a difference between time-of-day and length-of-day and you appear to be conflating the two.

      So-called "evening persons" could, if they were disciplined, get to bed every 4AM and wake at noon (or when their body is ready), and not suffer a "rolling forward" or other putative lag or length-of-day effects.

      I'm not saying that evening persons lack discipline nor am I implying that morning persons don't. I'm saying that "forward-rolling sleep cycle" persons lack discipline.

      If it's elite not to be abusive to one's self through sleep cycle negligence, then I agree with you that I'm elitist.

    6. Re:No alarm clock here by cpu6502 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If your body needs 10 hours sleep, then that's what you should do.

      --
      My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
  8. Just do it by digitalaudiorock · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The news is way too full of all these studies etc that just seem to distract from the simple truth that you just plain must exercise...vigorously, and regularly...period. I'm so sick of everything I keep hearing...like all this new stuff about how horrific it is that I sit down at my job. Give me a break...and don't get me started about all these recommendations regarding walking. The main reason people have for not exercising it not having time, and walking...in addition to being neither a good cardie-vascular workout, or a good strength training workout...is the worst bang for your buck timewise. I have the aerobic fitness of someone 30 years younger than I...can do 100 pushups, and have about 10% body fat (at 58)...and I don't kill myself working out either...a total of about 5 hours a week...20 minutes of intense aerobics three times a week and extensive weight training twice a week.

    Way, way too much bullshit getting thrown around...just do it!

    1. Re:Just do it by osu-neko · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The news is way too full of all these studies etc that just seem to distract from the simple truth that you just plain must exercise...vigorously, and regularly...period.

      Yes, you must exercise. All these other studies, however, are additional information, and not distractions, and leave you better informed, not worse, unless you're simply too simpleminded to comprehend the idea that there might be more than a couple factors involved. Saying your schedule plays a factor does not in any way contradict or detract from the fact that exercise is the biggest factor. Useful information, not distraction...

      --
      "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
    2. Re:Just do it by dgatwood · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The problem is that most people don't get enough exercise for the same reason that they don't get enough sleep—there aren't enough hours in the day. I would kill to be able to carve out an extra five hours a week for aerobic exercise. However, that would mean giving up either my job, giving up sleep, giving up (at least) one of my hobbies, or never watching another minute of TV for the rest of my life.

      By contrast, I can walk on a treadmill while I'm watching TV (a pair of extreme isolation headphones helps), which means I don't have to give up other activities to do it. That makes it the best bang for my buck, time-wise.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    3. Re:Just do it by CraftyJack · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I would kill to be able to carve out an extra five hours a week for aerobic exercise. However, that would mean giving up either my job, giving up sleep, giving up (at least) one of my hobbies, or never watching another minute of TV for the rest of my life.

      Everybody is busy. It's a question of priorities. For you, exercise ranks below all of the things you mention there. For me, it ranks above TV, and it counts as a hobby. I have enough fat relatives to have a good idea of what will happen if I don't stay active, and it isn't pretty.

  9. This is crap. by Daryen · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Your weight is a result of calories in vs. calories out.

    Nothing else.

    Yes, disrupting your sleep patterns may affect the "calories out" department slightly, but that is not what is making you fat. It is food that is making you fat. If you have some kind of magical body that violates the law of conservation of energy, please let the scientific community know immediately, otherwise it's time to put down the sandwich.

    1. Re:This is crap. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      Look up sleep apnea. And stop spreading jaded ignorance.

    2. Re:This is crap. by GodfatherofSoul · · Score: 2

      What's with all the "just eat less" posts on this story? Are you reading what it's trying to tell you?

      --
      I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
    3. Re:This is crap. by data2 · · Score: 2

      Actually, less sleep is responsible for more calories in, as we tend to eat lots of sugary stuff to stay awake when tired.

    4. Re:This is crap. by Miamicanes · · Score: 5, Informative

      > Your weight is a result of calories in vs. calories out.

      Actually, it's not. There are plenty of studies demonstrating that chronic sleep-deprivation makes you MUCH more likely to gain weight from a given number of calories. Your body goes into 'crisis' mode, and becomes more aggressive and efficient about converting calories into fat. The fact that you're likely to end up ravenously hungry and fatigued multiples the effect, but even if you kept exercise and calorie count constant, you'd be more likely to gain weight after extended chronic sleep deprivation.

      The same phenomenon has been observed with some psychiatric drugs. In particular, one class of drugs used for treating schizophrenia. I don't remember the exact details, but I remember reading that there were a couple of them that *observably* slowed down the patient's metabolism for reasons that aren't entirely understood (and researchers are certainly trying, because if they can figure out what makes them slow somebody's metabolism down, they might be able to come up with a blockbuster drug that speeds it up and enables effortless weight loss. Assuming, of course, the drug doesn't end up having drug-induced mania or psychosis as a side effect).

    5. Re:This is crap. by nine-times · · Score: 2

      Your weight is a result of calories in vs. calories out.

      Nothing else.

      I really think you should study the topic more, because a doctor or nutritionist would probably tell you that you're very wrong. There are lots of things that have been shown to contribute to weight gain and weight loss. It's true that eating fewer calories than you expend will cause you to lose weight, but it's neither the only way to lose weight, nor is it necessarily the healthiest guide to losing weight.

      For one thing, the same number of calories can be digested differently depending on the food. IIRC, foods with more fiber may be more difficult to digest. There have been recent studies suggesting that raw food is harder to digest than cooked food, and so even eating the same exact food, you absorb more calories after it's cooked. It's been suggested that fat storage is effected by stress levels, and by some of the hormones that impact angiogenesis. It's been found that the kinds of bacterial flora in your gut can have an effect on weight gain.

      The truth is we don't fully understand all of the various factors that impact weight gain, but a healthy body is theoretically capable of shedding excess calories rather than storing them as fat. Though for any given person, eating a small enough number of calories will result in weight loss, "calories in vs. calories out" doesn't explain why two people, eating the same number of calories, can have drastically different weights. Or even one person-- for example, I'm about the same weight as I was 10 years ago, even though I eat a lot less food and exercise much more.

    6. Re:This is crap. by Daryen · · Score: 2

      I've had 16 different responses from people telling me that I'm wrong. That it isn't calories in vs. calories out. They then go to list things that affect the total number of calories the body spend.

      I hate to tell you this, but I already knew that things could have an effect on the number of calories your body spends. That's what I meant by "calories out." It's not a fixed amount. Sleep, exercise, diet, genetics, environment, your childhood, your mood, and a number of other factors can change "calories out." Your best bet is to manage your "calories in." You have 100% control over that. Let me present you with a simple logic exercise:

      Weigh yourself. Wait one month. Weigh yourself again. Did you lose weight? If yes, keep doing what you're doing. If no, reduce calories. Repeat until desired weight.

    7. Re:This is crap. by kinnell · · Score: 2

      Your weight is a result of calories in vs. calories out.

      Nothing else.

      While that's technically true, it misses the problem completely because you ignore why people eat more than they need. People eat because they are hungry. Why would someone with enough body fat to power their sedentary lifestyle for weeks still feel hungry? That's the problem, and there's a ton of evidence that it's screwed up hormonal signalling from a poor diet and lifestyle which makes people hungry when they shouldn't be. Poor sleep patterns is part of the problem, even if an unhealthy diet and lack of exercise comprises the bulk of it.

      --
      If I seem short sighted, it is because I stand on the shoulders of midgets
  10. Mod parent up. by John+Hasler · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Conventional exercise recommendations are not based on what is best for you. They are based on what the physiologists think they have any hope of getting you to do, on the theory that anything is better than nothing.

    Get out there and run.

    --
    Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
    1. Re:Mod parent up. by digitalaudiorock · · Score: 2

      Get out there and run.

      Amen. For a long time I used my Concept 2 indoor rower religiously...great workout that you can do year round. Lately I've been doing this: I hold a pair of 20 pound weights and step up to the second step of my basement stairs and then back down...switching which leg I lead with every 10 steps. Last count I was doing 460 of those in 20 minutes...the equivalent of carrying 40 pound up and down 76 flights in 20 minutes...that does the job!

    2. Re:Mod parent up. by V.+P.+Winterbuttocks · · Score: 3, Funny

      I hold a pair of 20 pound weights and step up to the second step of my basement stairs and then back down

      Getting out of your parents' basement... you're doing it wrong.

      --
      I'm the real Vorokrytin P. Winterbuttocks.
  11. I'll just leave this here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-16964783

    "We often worry about lying awake in the middle of the night - but it could be good for you. A growing body of evidence from both science and history suggests that the eight-hour sleep may be unnatural."

    We may, in fact, ALL BE DOING IT WRONG. If an 8 hour sleep cycle is indeed unnatural, then we're fighting our biological clock much more than we thought. Even if you get plenty of sleep.

  12. Eating Makes You Fat. by edibobb · · Score: 2

    You gain weight if you eat too much. It's the law. Lots of things might make you hungry, but you don't have to eat every time you feel like it.

  13. how long is your day clock? by Onymous+Coward · · Score: 2

    If it's elite not to be abusive to one's self through sleep cycle negligence, then I agree with you that I'm elitist.

    Let me clarify this in case you get me wrong. I'm elitist in the regard that I support the elite (i.e., the persons who get to bed at a regular time, and more generally the disciplined practice of doing so). I personally share your problem of rolling my clock forward through lack of discipline.

    Note that length-of-day disorder ("Non-24") does exist. But you don't have it. You have lack of discipline.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-24-hour_sleep-wake_syndrome#Prevalence :

    The European portal for rare diseases, Orphanet, lists Non-24 as a rare disease by their definition: 1 person per 2,000 or more. There are about 140,000 sufferers of Non-24 in the European Union; a prevalence of approximately 0.03%, or 3 per 10,000.

  14. Well, it's not a simple system by Immerman · · Score: 3, Informative

    There is a bit of a sliding scale involved - as you lose weight you have less body mass to maintain so your BMR will drop. Likewise when operating in a calorie shortage for prolonged periods your body will adapt, getting more efficient and reducing the number of calories necessary to accomplish the same tasks, as well as being more aggressive about storing excess calories. Net result is that at a given calorie+exertion level you will at first lose weight, then plateau, and maybe even start to rebound. The solution, obviously, is you need to periodically update your plan slightly, either cutting more calories or burning them, until you stabilize within an acceptable range.

    The basic fact though is that 3000 Calories ~= 1lb of fat, that's chemistry. If you eat 100 calories less than you burn every day you MUST lose about a pound a month, that energy has to come from somewhere. The trick is to cut calories without cutting food and nutrients, which can be tricky if you need to do more than cut out the obvious junk food. Staying away from processed foods and eating lots of high-fiber alternatives can make that a lot easier - make your body have to work as much as possible for each calorie, and fiber has added the advantage that ~30% of the calories are in a form our bodies can't digest. Raw foods in general help too - we've evolved to let fire do some or digesting for us, breaking down complex starches into simpler things we can digest more easily - cooking can boost the human-accessible calories by 20-30%. If you're really desperate I suppose you could even start eating a lot of grass and sawdust - our bodies can't really process cellulose at all.

    There's also the problem of maintaining enough energy to keep exerting yourself when operating in a calorie deficit. Cutting back on fat can help, since your body normally burns a 50/50 blend of fat and carbs, and if you runs low on carbs you hit "The Wall" that endurance athletes speak of and your body doesn't like operating there and it takes serious willpower to keep going. The fact that it also rapidly switches to burning 90+% carbs for the first half-hour or so when you're strenuously exerting yourself doesn't help with the exercising either, at least not if trying to burn fat.

    And there are also certain long-term penalties for having been overweight - your body has special fat cells for storing fat, sort of like mini fuel tanks. When they fill up you grow more cells to handle the excess. However, when losing weight the cells don't die off, at least not quickly, they just all run nearer empty, and are more prone to filling up again. Remember these things evolved to help us survive through winter, famines, etc, if they're empty your body gets "worried" - obviously you needed them at some point in the past or they wouldn't have grown, if they're nearly empty then the next crisis to hit could kill you.

    Finally there's the personal variations in metabolism - some people just don't store much fat even when consistently overeating, while others seem to store every spare calorie. The latter was no doubt a great survival trait once upon a time, but makes maintaining a health weight a real challenge in a world of plenty.

    --
    --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    1. Re:Well, it's not a simple system by Lord_Naikon · · Score: 2

      3000 calories is only 1lb of fat when all of it is actually digested by the body. If I eat a whole pot of peanut butter right now I can guarantee you that I will just excrete almost all of it. So the notion that if you eat 100 cal less you will lose a pound in a month is simply wrong. The balance between the amount of calories burnt and the amount of calories extracted from the food we eat is very delicate and hard to influence (largely dependent on genetics), hence the problems people are having with losing weight unless they are willing to basically starve themselves.