Live data from Hacker News

Weight Loss Is Harder Than Rocket Science

wsj.com

41–43 of 43 posts

Re: Weight Loss Is Harder Than Rocket Science

#41
I don't know where I read it but this to me is the crux of the whole situation:

"If you hate having to burn off those extra calories, don't put them in your body in the first place."

By having a rough idea of what burning off off (say) 300 Calories takes in physical exercise, and what the Calorie-content of your foods are, you'll find it easier think of what you're eating in terms of hard work. A sushi roll is roughly 200 Calories, or 30 minutes hard work.

The choice then becomes - "Would you rather have that sushi roll? Or would you rather have to work out strenuously for 30 minutes? Choose now!"

Re: Weight Loss Is Harder Than Rocket Science

#42
post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're not really contributing to a better discussion environment with your attitude. How about you post rebuttals instead of a snide remark?

Because rebuttals will do nothing. From my past experience here offering rebuttals and considerate arguments, this definitely falls in the category of “rejecting that which doesn’t fit their world view”. Someone convinced of Keto’s efficacy will not believe you when you say “I tried that, I gained weight”. Instead, you’re just not doing it right. Someone convinced of the effacy of fasting won’t believe a claim of “I…

If you think you can't have a discussion here to the extent that you don't even want one anymore, then it's probably better if you stop posting. Being serious here.

Re: Weight Loss Is Harder Than Rocket Science

#43
If weight is proportional to volume and not area, then it should be a function of height cubed, not height squared. This is why I came up with CBMI -- the cubic body mass index. Just take your height in feet (expressed as a decimal, so that 5'6" = 5.5') and cube it. That's your ideal weight. Much simpler and much more forgiving than BMI.
Post reply on HN