Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Daily energy expenditure through the human life course

research.brighton.ac.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

251–256 of 256 posts

Re: Daily energy expenditure through the human life course

#251

Post by bennyelv »

missedthecue wrote: post #155
Fricken wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Strava tells me I burned 3,3000 calories this morning on my (4 hour)100km bike ride. About the equivalent of drinking 2 cups of melted butter, or eating 50 pounds of lettuce. When I'm doing exercise like that regularly it's hard to eat enough.

Humblebrag? Almost 100% of humans are incapable of doing a four hour 100km bike ride without a lot of prep and training. Nevermind doing this daily.

I think the numbers are more than you'd think - as a cyclist who's near the top end of "keen amateur" but still nowhere near what people are capable of at the elite level my experience is that anyone of moderate fitness can do a 4 hour 100k without too much trouble...

It could depend on how you define "almost 100%" of course. There's a big difference between 5% and 0.001%.

Re: Daily energy expenditure through the human life course

#252

Post by 0xfaded »

throwaway2037 wrote: post #246
0xfaded wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When I lived in Denmark I was riding 2x 5km to and from work. I then needed to start going somewhere ~80km away, and I was able to do it without special preparation. After a couple of times I was able to do it both ways in a day. Now I live in America need a car :(

Why did you leave Denmark? A job? University? That sounds like a terrible trade for quality of life, including raising a family.

Honest question, are you asking as someone who has experienced living in Denmark or a similar country? It is indeed a good place to live for the median person. But if you're a high achiever, it's a fact of life that the opportunity is in the US.

Re: Daily energy expenditure through the human life course

#253

Post by Auracle »

Pigalowda wrote: post #56
Auracle wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I had low testosterone due to a brain injury, and going on TRT was absolutely life changing. I do wonder if it could be largely beneficial for older men in the same way hormone replacement therapy for post menopausal women is. That said, permanently messing with your hormones as a younger person for no good reason is insane and I would try to talk anyone I knew out of it. Fun fact: I had an endocrinologist at the Uni…

Did you have hypogonadotropic hypogonadism from the brain injury? If you did the endocrinologist is right about the TRT. Without TRT you would have been infertile because you lacked GNRH/FSH/LH from disruption of your hypothalamic pituitary axis due to injury. Your Leydig cells would not be able to produce local testosterone in your testes for your Sartoli cells to utilize in spermatogenesis. With TRT you would have…

It was never ruled one way or the other and the brain injury is just a theory based on the start of my symptoms (along with losing height after), but to quote him "if TRT worked to reduce sperm counts enough we'd be using it as birth control." He wasn't talking specifically about me.

From what I remember my FSH and LH were normal. I don't recall GNRH being tested.

Re: Daily energy expenditure through the human life course

#254

Post by goostavos »

lkbm wrote: post #202
goostavos wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I'm not misremembering It's the easiest explanation. As a gym bro that regularly cycles weight, it's is remarkably easy over/under estimate intake just going off recollection. I always think I'm dialed in until I write things down (I'm almost always eating way fewer calories than I think).

Okay, so just to be clear: the OP is describing a phenomenon that is extremely widely reported, and is doing so in discussion thread about study that also reports finding this phenomenon , and your claim is that the simplest explanation is that OP is misremembering, and the research is just wrong? Do you have any evidence for this bizarre dismissal?

(This thread is now hella old, but only look at comments every once and awhile, thus the late reply).

I'll just say the same thing I always say in these kinds of "who are you to deny science!?" replies. For everyone championing how hard, complex, and subtle weight loss is, there's a "dumb" gym bro just weighing him self every day and dialing back calories until the scale starts going in the right direction. It works every single time. 100% of the time.

Re: Daily energy expenditure through the human life course

#255

Post by NavinF »

gjulianm wrote: post #125
hombre_fatal wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Show me their Cronometer.com food/calorie diary and we'll see if the proposition even holds. Until then I'm not even willing to grant it's a thing. In every case I guarantee they eat a normal amount of calories but feel like they eat a lot because they eat slightly more calories than normal in a single meal. Like me eating two entrees at dinner at 16 and wowing everyone even though I skipped breakfast before school t…

One time I tried to gain weight just to check if I was able to, as I have been unable to gain any significant weight in a variety of situation (sport, not sport; young, not that young, better/worse diet). I ate a calorie surplus diet (I don't remember the exact numbers, it was a few years ago), which meant eating more than usual but not too much either. This was measuring calories, weighting everything, all the drill…

> I gained maybe 10% of what I was supposed to gain

Multiply the lb/week you were supposed to gain by 450. Your TDEE calculation was incorrect by that amount.

Re: Daily energy expenditure through the human life course

#256

Post by Pigalowda »

Auracle wrote: post #253
Pigalowda wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did you have hypogonadotropic hypogonadism from the brain injury? If you did the endocrinologist is right about the TRT. Without TRT you would have been infertile because you lacked GNRH/FSH/LH from disruption of your hypothalamic pituitary axis due to injury. Your Leydig cells would not be able to produce local testosterone in your testes for your Sartoli cells to utilize in spermatogenesis. With TRT you would have…

It was never ruled one way or the other and the brain injury is just a theory based on the start of my symptoms (along with losing height after), but to quote him "if TRT worked to reduce sperm counts enough we'd be using it as birth control." He wasn't talking specifically about me. From what I remember my FSH and LH were normal. I don't recall GNRH being tested.

Usually with pituitary axis injuries the other hormones are affected as well and not just FSH/LH.

The FSH and LH being normal with low testosterone means there’s some kind of dysfunction. There’s an inverse relationship and if T is low LH should be higher to induce synthesis.

Sort of like in women’s menopause - when the ovaries run out of oocytes the ability to produce estrogen is gone and FSH/LH increase.

Anyways, obesity could be another issue. Adipose cells produce estrin and estrin has promiscuity with the estrogen receptor which reduces testosterone production. Another is elevated prolactin which has multiple causes and can reduce T production.

Anyways, my caffeine ranting is at an end. Good luck

Post reply on HN