Live data from Hacker News

Scientist busts myths about how humans burn calories

science.org

691–700 of 753 posts

Re: Scientist busts myths about how humans burn calories

#691

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My own anecdote: I've been a cyclist and/or a runner pretty consistently for the last 20 years. This year I moved to a place where cycling wasn't an option (without driving a long way), and at the same time I injured my knee by overtraining on hills. So I was benched from my typical cardio. The results are unsurprising... I gained 15 pounds over the next 6 months, and am now overweight. Exercise obviously plays a rol…

The article seems to indicate that, counterintuitively, your Total Energy Expenditure (TEE) wouldn't have changed much after you stopped the regular cycling (see the section about how hunter gatherers walking 8-14 km a day had the same TEE as average US), so your weight gain may have been from second-order effects of coming back to your diet. Do you remember whether your diet changed at this time as well? Some other…

I'm starting to think that these kind of scientific studies, that focus on a single factor and rule every other variable aside, are not the best way to analyze weight loss.

Because following that logic, exercise supposedly does not work if you want to lose weight. But if every study around aerobic exercise arrives at that conclusion, why aren't the majority of athletes overweight? Where are the fat runners?

Is this a survivor bias? (Fat people even with great aerobic capacity end up hurting their joints so they stop running)

Is it because the addition of exercise generates other kind of changes in the body, like less insulin resistance, and overall more signals in the body to burn fat rather than store it?

Do runners spontaneously change their diets once they get used to their new lifestyle? Maybe the food they used to eat, both in amount and in composition, makes them uncomfortable so they start making lasting changes?

Yes, it does look like running a static amount every time has diminishing results. But, overall, people who run tend to be less overweight. And a lot of overweight people who start doing exercise and stick to it, tend to lose the weight, or at least they lose fat and gain muscle.

Re: Scientist busts myths about how humans burn calories

#692
post #627

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd love to count calories. I'm just too lazy to measure and research everything I eat, and the alternative is to have only processed foods that are labeled. It's too bad that we can't just live on Soylent (the actual beverage, not the thing from the book)

With a 10 dollar scale and an App like Lose It, it is pretty easy. They have both things with UPC codes for easy look up and standard foods, for example brown rice or salmon. I keep track and probably spend less than 5 minutes a day getting everything down. Obviously it will be difficult at a restaurant unless you want to bring a scale with you or beg the wait staff but largely they won't mind and if you're order gri…

A few years back I lost 30 lbs over the course of a year using Lose It. I didn't make any major dietary changes other than reducing total caloric intake. I found that ballpark estimating calories for restaurant food was fairly easy and close enough. I never weighed my food. I even went over my caloric budget fairly often and would just make up for it the next day. Overall, it was surprisingly simple to lose the weight but I did find myself hungry more often than I would have liked. After regaining that weight over the last two years, I recently bought an exercise bike. I'm hoping that the regular exercise it provides will help suppress my appetite. I have been thinking about picking up Lose It again, and this thread has convinced me.

Re: Scientist busts myths about how humans burn calories

#693
I am a scientist (biology field) and I have been exercising and playing competitive sports for more than 35 years at this point. I used to be a hard-nosed calorie counter and I got fantastic results by counting calories, which means I had visible veins in my belly area. I read Ancel Keys experiments, and I used to say that there were no fat people coming back from war back in the day: calorie reduction works. I used intermittent fasting, high protein, low-ish carb, daily variation in calories (e.g., 4 days at 1500-1800, 3 days at 2500).

The pandemic starts, I had surgery a month before the working from home mandates, I stopped smoking (5 cigarettes a day, we know they tend to suppress appetite, but it not like meth, there are plenty of fat smokers) and I quickly, say in two months, put on around 10 kg (90 to 100 kg+), and for the first time since I was an early teenager, I had a belly.

I was exercising less, not counting calories at all, I was not spending calories going outside (work, errands, nights out all got cancelled), and I was hungry all the time despite eating more than usual. All factors that can explain my weight gain.

This unfortunate situation goes on for one year more or less, then I started losing some weight by simply eating less and going out more, at least that was my explanation. But I noticed a visible change in body shape and composition after a two-week vacation in which my diet was McDonald's at nights and a huge breakfast in the morning with all calorie-dense food, basically.

Fast forward a few months, some improvement here and there, but I am still not at my pre-pandemic fitness level, still a bit fat, muscles not as visible as I like. I then go to NYC for a couple of weeks and my diet is McDonald's, ice cream and nothing of the healthy sort. Sure, humidity, heat, walking much more, they can all contribute to non-trivial increase in energy expenditure. But I come back looking like a million bucks, pre-pandemic fitness level if not better.

I keep in shape, then I get covid and I pretty quickly put some weight on (again...), say 5-10 pounds (sure, these swings are also water stored in glycogen, some of the weight quickly gained also goes away pretty quickly). I then go on a long-weekend vacation, walk much more than usual but no exercise (gym, running, combat sports), eat and drink more than usual, and, again, I observe a visible change in my body composition. I am leaner, I lost weight, I see (some) abs.

Someone could say, you are simply exercising more via walking and other non-exercise related energy expenditure, and MCDonald's two times a day can be at I have problems now accepting that our metabolism and our physiology is not a lot more malleable than I (and science) thought it was. I now start to believe that our "state of mind" (conscious or unconscious) can have a much bigger effect on our physiology, including metabolism, than expected according to "settled science". I am talking about our "mind" perceiving a new state of world (vacation for example) and very quickly adapting to the new perceived "stress" by changing my physiology, it could be different nutrient partitioning (decrease insulin resistance?) or simply higher metabolic rate. Or it could be the opposite, such as perceived "normal life" as stressful thus increasing, say, insulin resistance, and vacation as "relaxed mode", decreasing cortisol and insulin resistance etc. We all know we can "think" ourselves sick, but we "think" ourselves leaner?

Re: Scientist busts myths about how humans burn calories

#694
post #302
post #298

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I thought you never lose fat cells, they only shrink? Got a citation for that assertion?

It's been a while. IIRC, it was from an article discussing the fact that radioactive fallout allows critical measurements of cellular lifetimes and that in about 25 years the fallout levels will be too low to do the experiments. I'll see if I can cough it up. Sorry, medium link: https://prosetech.medium.com/what-nuclear-bombs-tell-us-abou... > The carbon-14 fat-cell study also revealed that fat cells don’t last forev…

Interesting, thanks for the links and info!

Re: Scientist busts myths about how humans burn calories

#695
post #626

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I get the impression that cardio affects some people differently. I'm taking some time off from my 30+ miles a week running habit to let my foot heal up. I'm now at about 10 miles + cycling and nordic skiing when I can but overall probably 1/2 to 2/3 the cardio than I've been used to for the past 4 or 5 years. But I've had no problem keeping weight off by just adjusting the amount that I eat. However, if I upped the…

Those "calories burned" calculators are also not very good, so you may just be in the margin of error. It's easy to calculate how much energy it takes to propel a given weight 5 miles. It's hard to tell how many calories a person burns to produce that energy. Your ratios of aerobic to anaerobic respiration are going to impact that wildly, which will depend on how much oxygen your body can absorb and how quickly you'r…

>> Running form probably plays into that as well, if you've got some kind of suboptimal gait or you're swinging your arms a lot or something like that.

Yep, my form is atrocious and inefficient due to bunions and Morton's toe which has evolved into hammer toe.

I'd argue that I burn calories more efficiently, however :)

Re: Scientist busts myths about how humans burn calories

#696
post #535

Earlier quoted context omitted.

calories in - calories out was debunked a while ago. Different types of food and diet cause different degrees of weight gain or loss. For an extreme example compare 100 calories of glucose to 100 calories of fibre, both are types of sugar. The fibre contains an extra electron that acts like a shell, and the body has to expend energy breaking that bond to make it digestible. So most fibre passes through you without af…

> calories in - calories out was debunked a while ago. No, it wasn't. It's the generally accepted model of human weight gain. It's what most scientists who study this topic believe to be true. (And really, it's the only model that makes any sense, and is incredibly easy to test) They only people who disagree with this model are considered to be outside the mainstream of science. They might be right (I don't think so…

Just because the USDA is 30 years behind the science doesn't make them right. There are hundreds of studies now debunking it. Do you really want to contend that 100 calories of fibre is the same as 100 calories of glucose? Ridiculous. In fact, the calories model never had broad academic support. Ansel Keys research is a joke today.

Re: Scientist busts myths about how humans burn calories

#697
I have always thought it pretty straight forward: you consume food and some of the carbon atoms become part of you. When you exhale, carbon atoms leave you in the form of CO2. When you exercise your breathing increases and thus you exhale slightly more carbon. You can only breathe so fast for so long.

Re: Scientist busts myths about how humans burn calories

#698

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My own anecdote: I've been a cyclist and/or a runner pretty consistently for the last 20 years. This year I moved to a place where cycling wasn't an option (without driving a long way), and at the same time I injured my knee by overtraining on hills. So I was benched from my typical cardio. The results are unsurprising... I gained 15 pounds over the next 6 months, and am now overweight. Exercise obviously plays a rol…

The article seems to indicate that, counterintuitively, your Total Energy Expenditure (TEE) wouldn't have changed much after you stopped the regular cycling (see the section about how hunter gatherers walking 8-14 km a day had the same TEE as average US), so your weight gain may have been from second-order effects of coming back to your diet. Do you remember whether your diet changed at this time as well? Some other…

There’s an idea in the fitness industry called “skinny fat”. Thin people who “look” and eat healthy but when you actually look at their body composition have no muscle and relatively high fat percentage.

I’m my experience people severely underestimate the effects of having more muscles mass and the changes it can cause when you lose some from lack of training.

It also bleeds into peoples thinking. People view exercise as a way to lose weight. And eating less is, rightly, a more efficient way of losing weight. But body composition really matters not just for losing weight, but just life in general.

Re: Scientist busts myths about how humans burn calories

#699
"He calculates that the ceiling for an 85-kilogram man would be about 4650 calories per day.

Speakman thinks that limit is too low, noting that cyclists in the Tour de France in the 1980s and ’90s exceeded it. But they were injecting fat and glucose directly into their bloodstreams, a practice Pontzer thinks might have helped them bypass the physiological limits on converting food into energy."

Is this really true, that cyclists are injecting fat and glucose directly into their bloodstreams? I can't believe that. I have never heard that before.

Re: Scientist busts myths about how humans burn calories

#700

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the sum of calories burned by all exercise was about 160 000 I believe you meant kilocalories

Can you show me a representative sample of places where English speakers refer to [unit of energy] burned by exercise and mean anything else other than kilocalories while saying anything else other than calories? No, you can't, you're showing hypercorrection and lack of fluency.

Actually, I noticed it because the OP wrote kcal in one place and calories in another and since they were using large units I had to read the sentence twice to make sure they meant the same thing. I don't have a problem with the fact that we have a unit that means something in one context and 1000xsomething in another as long we're consistent in naming (only calories or only kcal in the context of diet). And of course I didn't mean to be mean (no pun intended) to the OP - being consistent is good but this is such a minor thing that we could safely ignore and it won't affect our lives at all - now I even feel sorry I paid attention to that.
Post reply on HN