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

It's not your age that's slowing your metabolism, new research says (2021)

cnn.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 123 posts

Re: It's not your age that's slowing your metabolism, new research says (2021)

#61

Post by nradov »

thefz wrote: post #46
331c8c71 wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem with losing weight without exercising is that it's not only fat but also muscles that are lost.

Mostly bullshit as fat is the primary source for energy in the body and hard to earn protein are not. It's a myth mostly, do fast, do exercise, you will not lose muscle.

Fat is only the primary energy source at lower output levels. As power output increases, metabolism shifts increasingly away from fat and towards glycogen. The shape of that curve is different for everyone, but ironically the people who most need to lose fat typically have the least ability to metabolize fat (not fat adapted) and so with any exercise they're mostly running on carbs. Once the glycogen stores run low then their bodies start burning protein as well, even though it's less efficient.

Muscles will also just atrophy if not used, regardless of diet.

Re: It's not your age that's slowing your metabolism, new research says (2021)

#62

Post by mint2 »

paulpauper wrote: post #14
8f2ab37a-ed6c wrote: post #7

You see this often with middle class city people in their late 20s and 30s. You go from being athletic in high school and walking all day in college to suddenly being in your prime dating age, regularly out eating and drinking with friends or dates, hitting 2-3 cocktails a few nights a week. You start investing more into your ultra-sedentary career, which you drive to, which constantly requires more of your time to g…

I don't think it's a s simple as inactivity. IF this were true, then being active would reverse the weight gains, but it does not, at least not for me and others. I was still as active in my 30s as I was in my late teens and 20s but still gained weight. Likewise, gyms are full of people in their 30s and 40s who are not losing weight despite regular attendance. Despite the popularity of fitness apps, people keep getti…

2 to 3 hours in a gym, (especially casual weights) does not even come close to scratching the surface of all the reduced activity that comes with office jobs, commutes and screen oriented amusement.

Re: It's not your age that's slowing your metabolism, new research says (2021)

#63

Post by throwaway22032 »

paulpauper wrote: post #56
pitdicker wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On average man burns ca. 2500 kcal per day, mostly in rest. One hour of reasonably intensive cardio burns 500~600 kcal. If you have two such workouts a week it comes down to an increased energy use of 2*600/(7*2500) = 7%. Or a large meal. Just looking at the numbers it seems spending some time at the gym is not going to do much for loosing weight. Or said differently: eating 7% less is easier. Of course cardio and st…

One hour of reasonably intensive cardio burns 500~600 kcal. If you have two such workouts a week it comes down to an increased energy use of 2 600/(7 2500) = 7%. Or a large meal. Just looking at the numbers it seems spending some time at the gym is not going to do much for loosing weight. Or said differently: eating 7% less is easier. Not sure about this. Herman Pontzer's work shows that the body adapts by burning fe…

This is literally impossible. The calories exerted during exercise are real work done.

Athletes exist and are real. They are not all genetic anomalies. Most of us are normal people that got off our arse.

Literally every person who has ever tried to make a weight band is living proof.

Re: It's not your age that's slowing your metabolism, new research says (2021)

#64

Post by RoyalHenOil »

monero-xmr wrote: post #37
throwaway22032 wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree. A better way to word it might just be that I prioritise it. I find that a lot of people say "I can't do that because X". I see it more as, well, I have to do that, so I can't do X, then. As you say, scheduling time.

On Saturday night my kids went to sleep, wife goes to sleep, I work out for 2 hours at 10pm. What was everyone else doing? Watching Netflix? People pretend there’s no time but it’s all illusionary.

You answered your own question? It sound like everyone else was sleeping.

It's odd to suggest that people will have enough time to exercise if they just cut into their bedtime. Is the idea here that you sleep in the next morning, and then your wife wakes up earlier to take up your slack?

Is this your suggested solution for everyone? Increase your free time to exercise by reducing someone else's?

Re: It's not your age that's slowing your metabolism, new research says (2021)

#65

Post by cebert »

walthamstow wrote: post #33
cebert wrote: post #4

I wonder if employers will be more receptive to regular breaks for knowledge workers who are mostly sedentary. One befits of working from home before being mandated back to the office was being able to go on a walk during lunch and less-critical meetings.

What kind of office/work culture do you have where you can't go for a walk at lunch?

There’s managers who make assumptions if you’re not in your seat you’re not working, which is one of the reasons I liked WFH.

Re: It's not your age that's slowing your metabolism, new research says (2021)

#66

Post by acdha »

dukeyukey wrote: post #60
pseudocomposer wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you and your friends in London all drive to work? Or do you walk/metro? The lifestyle shift the grandparent poster was referring to is typical of suburban and rural areas, but not really urban areas. I suspect people in more rural parts of the UK are very different from your London cohort.

Nobody drives - they all either work from home (most), take public transport, or walk/cycle in. Parent comment explicitly called out "middle class city people" so I figure this is more than valid.

“City people” in the United States still often means people who drive anywhere more than a block away to avoid such extreme exertion. I think driving is really under-discussed in these discussions because once you raise the issue of so much sedentary time you realize we need to change so much of our culture and built environment.

Re: It's not your age that's slowing your metabolism, new research says (2021)

#67

Post by vl »

monero-xmr wrote: post #30
throwaway22032 wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Completely agree with this. I'm fitter (can run further, lift more, more aesthetic figure) than I was in my late teens / early twenties and it was all down to one decision - I stopped prioritising maximum income and started prioritising fitness and diet. Not everyone wants to do that, and with pre existing health and lifestyle choices it can be much more challenging for some than for others. But it's there as a choic…

You don’t have to stop maximizing income in order to get fit and healthy. I schedule time to work out in my calendar. My wife and I prioritize workouts as necessary time. You can eat at a restaurant and order healthy options and drink water. People who blame their work for being unhealthy are making excuses. I’ve worked 60 - 70 hours a week for 2 decades and I’m in excellent physical condition.

The problem is that top-level competitive work takes a lot of mental and emotional effort. So even if I’m spending time on health, I can’t do it work 100% effort, and so result is still suboptimal.

Re: It's not your age that's slowing your metabolism, new research says (2021)

#68

Post by alecst »

mint2 wrote: post #59
paulpauper wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One hour of reasonably intensive cardio burns 500~600 kcal. If you have two such workouts a week it comes down to an increased energy use of 2 600/(7 2500) = 7%. Or a large meal. Just looking at the numbers it seems spending some time at the gym is not going to do much for loosing weight. Or said differently: eating 7% less is easier. Not sure about this. Herman Pontzer's work shows that the body adapts by burning fe…

Not this again: “Burning 600 calories with exercise means burning 600 fewer later.” No it doesn’t. That work is highly misinterpreted. Because it doesn’t ELI5 how body mass and composition and steady vs unsteady state actually play into it, people take away a meaningless self serving interpretation. If you start running 4-5 times a week, I guarantee you’ll be eating significantly more and burning significantly more.…

So is your rebuttal to Pontzer et al that it doesn’t match your personal experience?

Re: It's not your age that's slowing your metabolism, new research says (2021)

#69

Post by paulpauper »

alecst wrote: post #68
mint2 wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not this again: “Burning 600 calories with exercise means burning 600 fewer later.” No it doesn’t. That work is highly misinterpreted. Because it doesn’t ELI5 how body mass and composition and steady vs unsteady state actually play into it, people take away a meaningless self serving interpretation. If you start running 4-5 times a week, I guarantee you’ll be eating significantly more and burning significantly more.…

So is your rebuttal to Pontzer et al that it doesn’t match your personal experience?

My own experience matches closer to Potzner's work. I see some initial loss on the after exercising but the rebound is really fast. Perhaps if you keep it up everyday there can be some long-term weight loss but it will not be continuous, and if you stop the weight will come back fast.

Re: It's not your age that's slowing your metabolism, new research says (2021)

#70

Post by monero-xmr »

RoyalHenOil wrote: post #64
monero-xmr wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On Saturday night my kids went to sleep, wife goes to sleep, I work out for 2 hours at 10pm. What was everyone else doing? Watching Netflix? People pretend there’s no time but it’s all illusionary.

You answered your own question? It sound like everyone else was sleeping. It's odd to suggest that people will have enough time to exercise if they just cut into their bedtime. Is the idea here that you sleep in the next morning, and then your wife wakes up earlier to take up your slack? Is this your suggested solution for everyone? Increase your free time to exercise by reducing someone else's?

My point is that everyone is lifting excuses instead of lifting weights! Get to the gym and stop complaining
Post reply on HN