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

141–150 of 293 posts

Re: Why you shouldn't exercise to lose weight

#141

Post by vonmoltke »

Cerium wrote: post #97
adrianN wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Eating 4000 calories of anything will make you fat.

Have fun eating 4000 calories of carrots, cabbage, broccoli.. even eating brown rice is hard! Carrots have about 200 calories per pound, so we are talking about 20 pounds of carrots per day. Brown rice (cooked) has about 200 calories per cup, so again, 20 cups of brown rice? Meanwhile a cup of vegetable oil has about 1900 calories.

The 7.4oz bowl of organic brown rice on the desk in front of me has 310 calories. It's roughly a cup by volume as well. I could easily eat 15 of them over the course of a day.

Re: Why you shouldn't exercise to lose weight

#142

Post by agumonkey »

thedz wrote: post #114

I've found online reaction to this article quite interesting. Normally data and study minded folks bring out the "anecdotally, this doesn't seem true" responses, and people seem think the article is attacking exercise as a concept. It's not. It's saying that if a person's goal is to lose weight, then adjusting to a good diet is far more important than (a reasonable amount of) exercise. The article does not claim that…

It's all interrelated. Exercise may (it did to me) shift your brain into seeking other kinds of food and drinks. I'm much more willing to drink simple water after a long soccer match. Exception being swimming, which makes me wanna eat all cakes in sight.

It also leads to a different lifestyle if I may say so. Being sedentary means low amount of sensation, leading to the eating for pleasure reflex, all this without a way to consume. Sport will keep you busy, probably make you feel weird, sore then not sore = good feeling. Hinting your mind that you can have good times this way.

Re: Why you shouldn't exercise to lose weight

#143

Post by ketogrammer »

avn2109 wrote: post #76
xlm1717 wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is why I can't see anyone eating 4000 calories of fat without feeling so full they'll throw most of it back up.

I have eaten 4000 calories of fat in an afternoon, mostly in cream and butter as part of a giant poundcake trifle [0]. I didn't throw up but I really regretted it all evening. This was at a time when I was very active and eating around 7000 calories a day. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trifle

Supposedly, this works if you eat fat and protein with very limited carbs, if any. For instance, I would gag if I had to eat those sticks of butter by themselves, but I can easily eat a lot of slices of cake. This all is the basis of a ketogenic diet, kind of like Atkins on steroids

Re: Why you shouldn't exercise to lose weight

#144

Post by thedz »

paulsutter wrote: post #136
thedz wrote: post #114

I've found online reaction to this article quite interesting. Normally data and study minded folks bring out the "anecdotally, this doesn't seem true" responses, and people seem think the article is attacking exercise as a concept. It's not. It's saying that if a person's goal is to lose weight, then adjusting to a good diet is far more important than (a reasonable amount of) exercise. The article does not claim that…

"Why you shouldn't /rely/ on exercise to lose weight" would be a less controversial title. Instead they chose a provocative, click-baity title and tone to the article. The most accurate title would be "Don't exercise in order to earn the right to eat junk food later". Which is the meager point they're actually making. The article deserves all the criticism - it has been designed specifically to provoke it. Journalist…

> The most accurate title would be "Don't exercise in order to earn the right to eat junk food later". Which is the meager point they're actually making.

Except that's not the only point the article makes. You might disagree with the title, but the article does attempt to back it up.

Many paragraphs are dedicated to explaining why for many people, exercising might actually be harmful to their weight loss goals, due to how we tend to overestimate how many calories were burned and other factors (such as studies showing that the body may attempt to balance energy output in other areas).

In that sense "Why you shouldn't exercise to lose weight" is precisely the thesis that the article is trying to support. You might disagree with it, but I don't really think its egregious clickbait. Even if the title is meant to be catchy and provocative. They clearly state why exercising could be detrimental to weight loss goals for some people.

Things that the article title doesn't say:

- You should never exercise to lose weight

- Exercise is bad for you

- You can only lose weight by dieting

Re: Why you shouldn't exercise to lose weight

#145

Post by curun1r »

fattylite wrote: post #103
Scramblejams wrote: post #78

FWIW, my experience disagrees with this. I was overweight, started running (starting around 9mi/wk, when I got bored and stopped I was up around 24mi/wk), and started losing weight quickly, lost a ton of it over a year, after which I was at a very good weight for me. Now, as the piece touches on, that exercise did change my eating, but the outcome of that isn't clear to me -- I stopped eating/snacking for a few hours…

It's just a bad title. The title should have been "Why you shouldn't exercise to lose weight without changing your diet". If you eat the same amount as you did before, assuming that was maintenance calories, you will lose weight if you begin exercising. The problem is when you're intaking 1500 more calories than necessary before you start exercising. You can't burn that off to the point of a deficit with exercise alo…

The problem with your line of reasoning is the counterintuitive results mentioned in the article that came from examining primitive cultures that lead a much more active lifestyle. Despite engaging in activities that were far more active, they didn't burn more calories.

This is one of the many problems with the calorie in, calorie out line of reasoning that seeks to treat the human body like an automobile that uses fuel solely based on pressing the accelerator. What we're finding is that this isn't the case. For one, the body isn't 100% efficient, so a lot of calories in are lost in ways that aren't "burned." It's also likely that the body of a sedentary person is burning calories fairly inefficiently, so a change to being more active without altering diet will just cause that body to be more efficient in how it burns calories rather that burning fat or muscle reserves.

Calories in, calories out is an attractive concept, especially to scientifically-minded people who love the simplicity of deriving the answer by applying a fundamental law of thermodynamics. But the more we dig into the subject, the more we're realizing that it's a wrong-headed approach. The body is much more complex than that. We need a much more nuanced approach to nutrition, though "carbs are bad" seems to be a pretty good approximation of it.

Re: Why you shouldn't exercise to lose weight

#146

Post by dpark »

Retric wrote: post #124
dpark wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is aerobic weightlifting? Weightlifting is an anaerobic activity.

Power lifting can quickly become anaerobic, when you run out of oxygen. But, weightlifting is used for more than just peak power. Many activity's benefit from pure strength, but most people are trying to improve both power and endurance. Longer cool down periods (3-5 min) helps build strength faster and let's each set be more anaerobic and higher weight, but short cool down periods and slightly lower weight adds endu…

If you're not in into the anaerobic zone, I don't think you're really weightlifting. You're dropping the weight so low that you're just doing cardio.

Re: Why you shouldn't exercise to lose weight

#147

Post by cushychicken »

yuzi wrote: post #43

I went from 190 lbs. to 138 lbs. over 6 or 7 months. The only exercise I did was jogging for 45 min a day. What I noticed was that jogging made me feel better, which somehow got me to consistently eat better. After a days jogging I didn't want to put crap food in me and ruin what I had accomplished and by doing it everyday I felt good enough, often enough to stick with it. So, based on my experience, I simply can not…

I think you're nitpicking the article's message. You're saying that exercise caused you to eat better, but the article (and the data) are suggesting that it was eating better, not exercising, that led to the weight loss.

We can agree to disagree regarding what decision gets the credit for shedding those pounds, but in any case, congratulations on your weight loss. That's a real accomplishment.

Re: Why you shouldn't exercise to lose weight

#148

Post by agumonkey »

yuzi wrote: post #43

I went from 190 lbs. to 138 lbs. over 6 or 7 months. The only exercise I did was jogging for 45 min a day. What I noticed was that jogging made me feel better, which somehow got me to consistently eat better. After a days jogging I didn't want to put crap food in me and ruin what I had accomplished and by doing it everyday I felt good enough, often enough to stick with it. So, based on my experience, I simply can not…

Came here to say this too (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11598339)

Forgot to mention what you did, 45 mins of continuous activity will trigger endorphins. Cheapest way to feel euphoria (even in low intensity).

Just last week I walked back from the grocery store, taking random turns, with a steep hill at the end. Google Fit[1] tracking some data. 5 miles only, but I felt sweating in a good relaxing way.

[1] Google Fit is a very low barrier way to start tracking your exercises. It interprets accelerations good enough to distinguish car, foot or bike move. And you're happy when you get that notification buzz telling you did your planned distance|time.

Re: Why you shouldn't exercise to lose weight

#149

Post by thedz »

agumonkey wrote: post #142
thedz wrote: post #114

I've found online reaction to this article quite interesting. Normally data and study minded folks bring out the "anecdotally, this doesn't seem true" responses, and people seem think the article is attacking exercise as a concept. It's not. It's saying that if a person's goal is to lose weight, then adjusting to a good diet is far more important than (a reasonable amount of) exercise. The article does not claim that…

It's all interrelated. Exercise may (it did to me) shift your brain into seeking other kinds of food and drinks. I'm much more willing to drink simple water after a long soccer match. Exception being swimming, which makes me wanna eat all cakes in sight. It also leads to a different lifestyle if I may say so. Being sedentary means low amount of sensation, leading to the eating for pleasure reflex, all this without a…

Oh, definitely. I've lost upwards of 30 pounds over the past year and a half. Much of it is related to changes in my diet, but exercising regularly has definitely helped my diet. Personally, I'm much less likely to eat in excess after exercising because I don't want to "waste" my efforts.
Post reply on HN