To Lose Weight with Exercise, Aim for 300 Minutes a Week • Hacker News Board

Re: To Lose Weight with Exercise, Aim for 300 Minutes a Week

#141

Post by bumby » Thu, Dec 10, 2020, 7:51 PM UTC

ogre_codes wrote: post #112

bumby wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I.e., “you can’t outrun your mouth”

> I.e., “you can’t outrun your mouth” Show me a guy who runs 10km/ day and weighs 250 pounds and I'll buy that.

In theory, that would be the same guy who eats more than 1200 kcal above their base metabolic rate.

A Whopper combo from Burger King comes in at a little over 1500 kcal.

So it's certainly possible, but I have a hunch those who run 6+ miles a day generally self-select themselves out of the population that overeats calorie dense food.

Regardless, like most colloquialisms, it isn’t meant to be taken so literally. It’s speaking to the general truth that it’s easier to limit calories in than increase calories out

Re: To Lose Weight with Exercise, Aim for 300 Minutes a Week

#142

Post by brodouevencode » Fri, Dec 11, 2020, 2:09 PM UTC

bumby wrote: post #140

brodouevencode wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah this floats around a lot in the bodybuilding/powerlifting/fitness community. The general rule is CICO works for everyone. Because it does. There are some "cheats" that you can do with macro profiles, especially with no or low carb diets (carnivore/keto), however these solutions rarely work long term, especially in athletic circles. For non-athletes it _might_ work a little longer term but if you look at those st…

Curious if you've ever heard of any scenarios that could cause long-term hormonal changes? I'm thinking of a Peter Attia podcast where he (anecdotally) noticed that after women have their third child (or so), there's a marked change in their ability for their body to bounce back.

I don't know of any scenarios. That certainly doesn't mean that there isn't any, but I haven't seen any in studies or anecdotally that could be directly attributed to change in diet (which is what I'm assuming what you are referring to). Even as I've gotten older I've noticed my cut phases tend to have to run a little longer than they used to, and any bulking I do has to contain better quality food (no more Chik-fil-A binging :(), and I'm pretty sure that is directly related to hormonal changes (free testosterone) for men between the ages of 40-50. It's been a couple of years since I've done a round of no carb, I should give it another round.

Re: To Lose Weight with Exercise, Aim for 300 Minutes a Week

#143

Post by CogitoCogito » Fri, Dec 11, 2020, 5:14 PM UTC

silicon2401 wrote: post #139

CogitoCogito wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Only when you know the solution can you work backwards to find the steps to get you there from where you are today I specifically said that the advice was _correct_. My point is that fact isn't that useful. Knowing the solution (i.e. eat less, drink less, think less) is the _easy_ part. It's the part these people have usually been told many times. It's rarely a lack of advice that is missing. It's true that empathy…

> My point is that fact isn't that useful. Do you think the fact isn't useful to the people who don't know it yet?

In fact I do. To the people who don't know it yet it is useful. However, to the people who already know it, it's really just useless information. Information they've heard many times before and potentially only makes them feel worse about themselves and less likely to follow the recommendations given. If you're making the argument that most people don't know that eating less leads to weight-loss, then okay. I admit I don't have statistics, but I find that quite suspect. If we can at least both agree that telling it to people who already know doesn't help anything, then I'm content here.

Re: To Lose Weight with Exercise, Aim for 300 Minutes a Week

#144

Post by dragonwriter » Fri, Dec 11, 2020, 5:31 PM UTC

silicon2401 wrote: post #101

CogitoCogito wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Eat less" is the correct advice for weight less just like "don't drink" is for alcoholics and "don't think of him" is for someone going through a breakup. It's just basically useless advice totally lacking empathy. People are different. They have different bodies, different psychological dispositions, different experiences, etc. I think more people should ask themselves some basic questions. What would need to happe…

> Eat less" is the correct advice for weight less just like "don't drink" is for alcoholics and "don't think of him" is for someone going through a breakup. It's just basically useless advice totally lacking empathy. People are different. They have different bodies, different psychological dispositions, different experiences, etc. None of what you described changes the example solutions you gave. An alcoholic does ne…

> An alcoholic does need to not drink to improve their health

Pretty much everyone who drinks needs to not drink to improve their health, but whether alcoholics have a particular need to not drink is controversial and largely widely accepted because of quasi-religious doctrine that has been well marketed.

> Only when you know the solution can you work backwards to find the steps to get you there from where you are today

Yes, but here’s the thing. Lots of research has actually gone into the steps for weight loss, its not something people need to work out from scratch. Its a lot more productive to follow a path that works even without deep understanding of the rationale than to start with a target and try to work it out from first principles, which most people will fail, and fail very badly, with.

Sure, “eat fewer calories” might be generally part of a solution (and “eat fewer calories than you use” definitely will be). But neither of those are particularly useful advice on their own for people who want to lose weight.

Re: To Lose Weight with Exercise, Aim for 300 Minutes a Week

#145

Post by silicon2401 » Mon, Dec 14, 2020, 7:02 PM UTC

CogitoCogito wrote: post #143

silicon2401 wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> My point is that fact isn't that useful. Do you think the fact isn't useful to the people who don't know it yet?

In fact I do. To the people who don't know it yet it is useful. However, to the people who already know it, it's really just useless information. Information they've heard many times before and potentially only makes them feel worse about themselves and less likely to follow the recommendations given. If you're making the argument that most people don't know that eating less leads to weight-loss, then okay. I admit I…

I don't agree with that. 1) because knowing a fact doesn't mean that you really understand it or that it's really made an impact beyond a theoretical awareness. Repeated exposure can hammer it home. And 2) because a lot of people don't know things you know. Even the simplest thing you know, you didn't know until a certain point, and some people haven't reached that point yet. And every day people are born who don't know it yet, or people can be convinced that things are different. For these reasons I think it's important to keep broadcasting the message