431–440 of 753 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think they're written this way for seo optimisation.
That's funny. SEO optimization for keywords "woods" and "Appalachians"? :-) No, it's written that way to turn the person into a) a character, b) a relatable character. Regular people like stories, not dry facts piled up.
or
> launches into a time-honored method to boost her blood pressure: He gives her an oral math test.
Anybody else noticed this gem? I would like to see a list of topics like this - for just to be a better conversationalist.
(It reminds me of how people who don't have children (or don't understand children) when meeting a child they don't know often ask it the only thing they vaguely know about every's child life - how is school?)
In other words it challenges the idea that if you run today and not tomorrow, your TEE on day 1 will be 500kcal higher than day 2. The claim is that TEE on both days will be the same.
Ok, that is an interesting finding. But this sounds very specific to aerobic exercise.
The article then mentions how they monitored an active indigenous population, and were "surprised" to find out that "when controlled for non-fat body mass this active population had the same TEE as western sedentary populations" (emphasis mine).
Why is this at all surprising. We've known for ages that muscle increase leads to a basal metabolic rate increase.
The article tries hard to give a visual impression that two similarly rotund people (one from fat and one from muscle) would have an equal TEE, but if you dig into the claim, it's exactly the opposite. In order to get that non-fat body mass difference, you need to exercise. Its just that this needs to be anaerobic rather than aerobic.
We also know that obese people have higher BMRs than their thinner counterparts. Now if the claim in this article is true, then it would imply that the increase in BMR in obese people is exclusively due to a parallel increase in muscle. But we know that muscle increases with obesity. So again, not very surprising.
So, the claim "exercise doesnt work" indeed lacks nuance. Particularly in not addressing aerobic vs anaerobic exercise.
Has anyone considered that every N years a scientific “discovery”in a given field invalidates a previous one? Commonly in more theoretical sciences like nutritional science, psychology, and astrophysics? In other words, is anything really truly reliable in these domains?
Things like continuous glucose monitors are starting to proliferate, so the measurements are going to get better and more reliable, but it will still take a lot of time to come with some good long term studies where the self-reporting factor is no longer critical.
On the matter of food and weight... What of the people who tend toward being thin or lithe? I'm 181cm and 68kg (5'11.26" and 150 pounds) at 40 years old. I can eat and quantity of any food in perpetuity and not gain weight. Although they doesn't mean I don't feel unwell if I were to, say, eat way too much of something. If I lift weights I gain a small amount of muscle mass, but not much. What's the theory(ies) of wha…
He also has Crohn's disease. I don't want to say that you have, too, but perhaps your digestive system isn't completely OK. That may include composition of your microbiome. Have you ever seen any change after taking probiotics?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How is sugar and processed/empty calories a "western" thing? What do you mean by "west"?
"West" probably meaning the US which then also wants to include Europe for some reason, despite it making very little sense.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> What's so controversial about it? Your body burns incredibly more energy just "being there" than you burn moving about. Exercise certainly increases your calorific expenditure, but it's much easier to ingest less fuel than to run 5 more miles because you had a portion of fries. There are benefits in exercise, apart from the obvious ones the raising of the baseline metabolic expenditure, because muscles are expensiv…
While I agree with that excerice isn't a very efficient way to lose weight I think that you understate how many calories running burns. When I run consistently I need to eat what feels like a lot more food to maintain my weight. Running burns about 700-800 kcal per hour for me (I have a quite small build) which ends up quite a bit over a week (I run 5-8 hours per week).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, that's a very good point. This is kinda getting off into the weeds from the original point, but interesting weeds nonetheless :). This study[0] says that measuring CO2 is not enough, and that indirect calorimetry is the gold standard for measuring energy expenditure (EE). "Calculated EE based on CO2 measurement was not sufficiently accurate to consider the results as an alternative to measured EE by indirect ca…
Let's consider a specific example: Lactose intolerance. The Wiki page for it is pretty good. So, despite the name, lactose intolerance refers to lacking the enzyme lactase, which is used to break down lactose. If you have lactase, then your human cells can use the calories from lactose; if you don't, then the bacteria get the lactose. Wiki says "Symptoms may include abdominal pain, bloating, diarrhea, gas, and nausea…
Well, heat dissipation places a bound on that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is not accurate, weightlifting with a reasonably difficult weight for your strength level is one of the most effective ways to burn calories.
> This is not accurate, weightlifting with a reasonably difficult weight for your strength level is one of the most effective ways to burn calories. It wont make you loose weight however. It will likely make you gain weight as your muscles will grow. Which is explicit goal of many guys who start lifting weights.