Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why you shouldn't exercise to lose weight

vox.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 293 posts

Re: Why you shouldn't exercise to lose weight

#31

Post by vanderZwan »

maxerickson wrote: post #26
taiboku wrote: post #22

This article misses a key point: increased muscle mass correlates with increased calorie burn. Not all exercise is created equal. Exercise that doesn't build muscle is indeed ineffective at burning fat. But exercise that DOES build muscle has a compounding effect on burning fat. Your muscles require more energy to maintain, so they will burn more calories just by existing.

This effect is pretty small. Like 10 calories a day for a pound of muscle (which is quite a bit of muscle to add). It still matters, a few calories a day for a year ends up being pounds of weight, but adjusting calories out of the diet is going to be a better first strategy.

Not only that, but aerobic exercise also works better because your cells will burn energy for longer after working out - so I guess building muscle and getting it to burn more energy by running is the most efficient combination

Re: Why you shouldn't exercise to lose weight

#32

Post by lrei »

adrianN wrote: post #12
samfisher83 wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It you a eat a lot of fat you will get fat too. Its all about moderation. If you eat 4000 calories of FAT everyday you will get fat.

Eating 4000 calories of anything will make you fat.

Eat (drink) 4000 calories of gasoline. wont make you fat. point is: only calories you can convert into "human fat" will make you fatter. that process can not happen without certain chemicals (hormones) in your body, like insulin mentioned above. it's not as straightforward as that which was op's point.

Re: Why you shouldn't exercise to lose weight

#33

Post by carsongross »

falcolas wrote: post #8
mholmes680 wrote: post #2

But, wait.... #10 - eat less fat? That runs counter to science too... http://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/apr/07/the-sugar-con...

Fat is very dense in calories, so if your goal is to reduce caloric intake, reducing the fat will go a long ways towards that goal.

That is first order thinking.

If eating fat satisfies you for longer than salty carbs, the net calories will be better. If it keeps your insulin levels steadier, it will effect calorie absorption. And so on.

Humans are not bunsen burners: we are impossibly complicated chemical systems with massive reflexivity built into them.

Re: Why you shouldn't exercise to lose weight

#34

Post by maxerickson »

ZoF wrote: post #30
maxerickson wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This effect is pretty small. Like 10 calories a day for a pound of muscle (which is quite a bit of muscle to add). It still matters, a few calories a day for a year ends up being pounds of weight, but adjusting calories out of the diet is going to be a better first strategy.

Where are you getting 10 calories per day per pound? I find that surprisingly low, and that's even if we're talking 100% sedentary here.

https://www.google.com/search?q=muscle+mass+rest+calories

Re: Why you shouldn't exercise to lose weight

#35

Post by seanalltogether »

ZoF wrote: post #30
maxerickson wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This effect is pretty small. Like 10 calories a day for a pound of muscle (which is quite a bit of muscle to add). It still matters, a few calories a day for a year ends up being pounds of weight, but adjusting calories out of the diet is going to be a better first strategy.

Where are you getting 10 calories per day per pound? I find that surprisingly low, and that's even if we're talking 100% sedentary here.

This blog post cites 2 sources on the 6-10 calories per pound, haven't read through it myself though.

http://www.builtlean.com/2013/04/16/muscle-burn-calories/

Re: Why you shouldn't exercise to lose weight

#36

Post by imgabe »

greenwalls wrote: post #9

I guess it's just a coincidence that most athletes aren't overweight. It doesn't have anything to do with them exercising?

If you can dedicate 8-12 hours a day to exercising, sure. It takes years of training to even be fit enough to do that, though. You can't be 100lbs overweight and out of shape and expect to be able to do that without injuring yourself.

Re: Why you shouldn't exercise to lose weight

#37

Post by takno »

gaberpt wrote: post #6

This a harmful, eye-catching, title. Whereas exercise is not required to lose weight, you still can use exercise to optimize the process.

About half of the article deals with why attempting to use exercise to optimize the process probably won't help much with it and for some people will completely derail it. The title is exactly aligned with the article

Re: Why you shouldn't exercise to lose weight

#38

Post by e40 »

falcolas wrote: post #8
mholmes680 wrote: post #2

But, wait.... #10 - eat less fat? That runs counter to science too... http://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/apr/07/the-sugar-con...

Fat is very dense in calories, so if your goal is to reduce caloric intake, reducing the fat will go a long ways towards that goal.

But calories from fat are more satisfying and might very well let you eat less calories over all.

Re: Why you shouldn't exercise to lose weight

#39

Post by vanderZwan »

I'd like to see that last graph split out into "fat loss/gain" and "muscle loss/gain" - because reducing food intake can also make your body break down muscles, which is equally bad. Doing exercise to stimulate the body to make more muscles can counter that effect.

Re: Why you shouldn't exercise to lose weight

#40

Post by taiboku »

maxerickson wrote: post #26
taiboku wrote: post #22

This article misses a key point: increased muscle mass correlates with increased calorie burn. Not all exercise is created equal. Exercise that doesn't build muscle is indeed ineffective at burning fat. But exercise that DOES build muscle has a compounding effect on burning fat. Your muscles require more energy to maintain, so they will burn more calories just by existing.

This effect is pretty small. Like 10 calories a day for a pound of muscle (which is quite a bit of muscle to add). It still matters, a few calories a day for a year ends up being pounds of weight, but adjusting calories out of the diet is going to be a better first strategy.

Hm, You seem to be right!

I just spent the last several minutes reading reputable sources and they all seem to agree with you. In fact, they indicate a pound of muscle burns more like 6 calories.

You win, Internet.

Post reply on HN