241–250 of 506 posts
Research is important for research sake. But can anyone explain why these studies are like cat nip to the public and tabloids? "Any and All exercise is worthwhile (up to a limit)" and "unhealthy food bad for you" Over and over and over again...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> without making your calorie intake less than your expenditure you will not loose weight I've asked on HN a couple times in the past for citations that support this meme and haven't yet found a good source on this. The connection between caloric restriction and weight loss isn't as straight forward as people seem to think, despite that being the standard correlation pushed since the 1950s. Calories seems to be the c…
I have the same question: People often calculate with calories as if it is really simple math. But - honest question - does my body really have to suck up every calorie or could it excrete some calories in the toilet and also vary that amount depending on my caloric intake? For example, I have read somewhere that you urinate superfluous proteins - which also have calories. Also, if I'm hungry I get cold. I might put…
External factors certainly come into play like environment. You're not a completely closed system as you point out based solely on food. You may sit in a cold office shivering throughout the day or in a hot room sweating, these factors will effect your energy expenditure (and even intake) differently just to maintain your existence.
It's 8 minutes, not one minute The people in the study were out of shape to start with The improved measures were insulin sensitivity index, peak oxygen uptake, and "skeletal muscle mitochondrial content" No change in body mass In conclusion, if you're out of shape, you can improve a limited number of fitness measures just as much doing 3x8 minutes of higher intensity exercise as much 3×45m less intense exercise over…
While you are somewhat dismissive about the results, they really only confirm many other studies which found that HIT (High intensity training, what is discussed in the article) training achieves the same effects as much longer endurance training at much shorter times. This has been found for both non-athletes and athletes and in fact training for professional endurance athletes has drastically changed in the last 5-…
It's a good tidbit for "something is better than nothing", but no more than that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> In conclusion, if you're out of shape, you can improve a limited number of fitness measures just as much doing 3x8 minutes of higher intensity exercise as much 3×45m less intense exercise over 12 weeks This seems like a pretty negative reading. How about: Sedentary people (who have the most issues and highest healthcare costs), can see significant improvements in health by exercising for a fraction of time normally…
It's a win _if_ the barrier to getting sedentary people to improve their health through fitness is time cost and not all of the other costs associated with habit formation. My guess is for most sedentary people the biggest thing is that they manage to talk themselves out of doing anything, or once they start, talk themselves into allowing cheating/skipping rather than drilling in the habit. (Not that this is bad news…
I had exactly opposite experience. Time cost is rather major thing. Especially in the beginning, because it makes organizing your day much harder. Add an hour of anything and suddenly you dont have time to shop or cook or socialize or simply for your favorite hobby. Small time investment make it easier to transition and change lifestyle.
And second, allowing myself to cheat and skipping does miracles for my ability to keep the activity long term. Whenever I set hard requirements on myself, following up became impossible in the long term. And since the attitude is all or nothing, it dropped to nothing.
And third thing that does miracle for gaining long term habit is to prioritize pleasurable exercise, the one I actually like, rather then theoretically most effective one that sux.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> without making your calorie intake less than your expenditure you will not loose weight I've asked on HN a couple times in the past for citations that support this meme and haven't yet found a good source on this. The connection between caloric restriction and weight loss isn't as straight forward as people seem to think, despite that being the standard correlation pushed since the 1950s. Calories seems to be the c…
You are very right to question this! While the thermodynamics aren't assailable, it turns out that the calorie system is in fact quite fallable and bad! There's a lot of good material on why, I like this talk: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aJQxadvsmEQ But simply put: - Our system for measuring how much "calorie" is in any given food is extremely problematic and unrelated to how the body captures energy - Our system…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Reading about the diet of DK Metcalf that is Low carb, Intermittent fasting, with plenty of vegetables is according to the latest science. Eddie Hall has goal based diets, Normal people wouldn't be able to process the amount of food he eats, can't be healthy to eat that much. But at the same time it's clearly working for him. Just saying genetics does a disservice to them.
Intermittent fasting contributes nothing to weight loss beyond the psychological effect, which may result in calorie restriction. This is the latest science.
Are you aware how calories are measured?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's a win _if_ the barrier to getting sedentary people to improve their health through fitness is time cost and not all of the other costs associated with habit formation. My guess is for most sedentary people the biggest thing is that they manage to talk themselves out of doing anything, or once they start, talk themselves into allowing cheating/skipping rather than drilling in the habit. (Not that this is bad news…
Actually speaking as someone who is trying to become less sedentary the issue for me is a lack of knowledge, not a lack of time or whatever. I literally didn’t know what exercise was appropriate or even how to perform the ritual around exercise and everyone’s “just do something” was supremely unhelpful. I didn’t know what was normal soreness and what was an injury. I didn’t know what’s an appropriate warmup or cooldo…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_energy Food (calories in) is just a form of energy your body is capable of utilizing. Fat is just a physical medium to store energy for use in your body. For your body to move and perform actions (live), you require energy. All things considered at this scale, if you expend more energy than you consume, you'll ultimately either die (due to lack of energy) or use other f…
Linking conservation of energy is just non argument. It has nothing to do with anything, because our bodies are not simple theoretical machine.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> without making your calorie intake less than your expenditure you will not loose weight I've asked on HN a couple times in the past for citations that support this meme and haven't yet found a good source on this. The connection between caloric restriction and weight loss isn't as straight forward as people seem to think, despite that being the standard correlation pushed since the 1950s. Calories seems to be the c…
If I cut my calorie intake by a moderate amount, I don't lose any fat. If I cut my calorie intake by an extreme amount, I start to lose fat. My hypothesis is that the equation that weight loss is related to calorie intake minus expenditure, but I think the conclusions one draws from it fail to take into account how much the body can control expenditure. My body seems to naturally drift up in fat weight, very slowly -…
My solution, and mine alone after trying oh so many different diets and strategies, went through regular aerobic exercise, at a rate of 3-4 hours per week. In my case it was swimming, because I like it; cycling or running would have had the same effect, I believe.
It worked. I lost almost 30kg over about 2.5 years. Why did it work? I don't really know. I can tell you that basal expenditure certainly has gone up, as I had to get into shape to swim 4-5km a week. Of course, swimming a few km introduces some expenditure of its own. However, I had already tried gym and other sports, which should have the same effects, with far worse weight control outcomes.
So, for me, regular aerobic sessions of longer than 45min did the trick. I don't know why, so I can't promise it will work for anyone else, but you might as well try it for a few months. Don't expect huge, rapid, losses in weight, just a very consistent downward trend.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_energy Food (calories in) is just a form of energy your body is capable of utilizing. Fat is just a physical medium to store energy for use in your body. For your body to move and perform actions (live), you require energy. All things considered at this scale, if you expend more energy than you consume, you'll ultimately either die (due to lack of energy) or use other f…
Linking conservation of energy is just non argument. It has nothing to do with anything, because our bodies are not simple theoretical machine.