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

Diet, not lack of exercise, drives obesity, a new study finds

npr.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 396 posts

Re: Diet, not lack of exercise, drives obesity, a new study finds

#71

Post by diath »

JKCalhoun wrote: post #20

I have been, rather lazily I suppose, trying to tweak my diet in such as way as to lose weight; and with little to show for it. I'm not sure that there is much if any processed food still in my diet (maybe just the English muffin in the morning?). I stopped buying/drinking soda pop decades ago (a low-hanging fruit indeed — I lost almost 10 pounds within a month of making that dietary change alone). And since I have t…

The first problem with people unable to lose weight is simply not counting calories and trying to "switch to healthier food and eyeball it". You have to have a kitchen scale and measure portions. Track every meal in an app. It's annoying at first, but once you get in the habit, it's just part of preparing the meal. When you do that, you will be able to tell which meals in your diet are high calorie (which, some are surprisingly calorie dense contrary to what a lot of people think), and find replacements or downsize the portions accordingly.

The second problem is people simply not being honest with their calorie tracking. You may only eat 3 meals but then when you're hungry you will eat a handful of raisins, peanuts, or something else, a lot of people will think to themselves "well, it's just a handful, so it can't be that many calories" - but repeated habit of eating those adds up, and most people don't account for that in their calorie tracking app. Similar to adding a small bit of, say, butter to your pan before making scrambled eggs. You may think, "it's only about 10 grams of butter, it's not much so why bother tracking it", but that 10 grams of butter is 75 calories, over the course of a month of preparing scrambled eggs every morning for breakfast, that's 2250 kcal, after 3 months, that's an entire KILO of bodyweight fat that you either gained or could have lost - small things add up.

Sometimes (but less frequently) it's also hormonal issues, you may want to go to a clinic to do a bloodtest (specifically thyroid hormones and diabetes markers).

Also, low intensity cardio (slow pace incline treadmill/stairmaster) can go a long way in aiding weight loss.

Re: Diet, not lack of exercise, drives obesity, a new study finds

#72

Post by palmfacehn »

naikrovek wrote: post #62
palmfacehn wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can confirm the same from my messenger days. On days when deliveries were sparse, we found ourselves moving from cafe to bakery, eating more pastries than a doctor would recommend. Regardless of the day's activity levels we would generally drink large amounts of beer after work and sometimes during. Maintaining weight and satisfying our appetites was always a more pressing concern. I'm not a dietician, but when I r…

what is "processed" versus "highly processed" versus "ultra processed"? the way these things are described feels very much like people are using a dowsing rod to find where to dig a well, or something. mumbo-jumbo. I'm sure even "super ultra giga processed" foods are fine for you so long as you don't eat a lot of them. I'm not even sure that "processed" is bad at all. I don't want to eat raw cashews, I'll die (as wil…

>Wise Cheez Doodles Honey Bbq Cheese Flavored Corn Snacks, Honey; Bbq; Cheese

>CORN MEAL, VEGETABLE OIL (CONTAINS ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING: CORN, COTTONSEED, SUNFLOWER, OR CANOLA OIL), SUGAR, SALT, HONEY, CORN STARCH, FRUCTOSE, WHEY, DEXTROSE MONOHYDRATE, MONOSODIUM GLUTAMATE (FLAVOR ENHANCER), TOMATO POWDER, CHEDDAR CHEESE, (CULTURED MILK, SALT ENZYMES), ONION POWDER, BUTTER (CREAM, SALT), BLUE CHEESE FLAVOR, BUTTERMILK SOLIDS, MALTODEXRIN, YELLOW 5 LAKE, YELLOW 6 LAKE, GARLIC POWDER, PAPRIKA EXTRACT, NATURAL FLAVORS (CONTAINS CELERY), SOYBEAN OIL, LACTIC ACID, CITRIC ACID, SODIUM PHOSPHATE, ENZYME MODIFIED BUTTER OIL, YELLOW 5, YELLOW 6, AUTOLYZED YEAST EXTRACT, THIAMIN HYDROCHLORIDE (VITAMIN B1), DISODIUM GUANYLATE, DISODIUM INOSINATE

Re: Diet, not lack of exercise, drives obesity, a new study finds

#73

Post by baseballdork »

goda90 wrote: post #33
BJones12 wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That's why you can have competitive eaters that can eat a weeks worth of food and not be overweight. Nope, they do gain weight, or avoid gaining weight by counting calories [0] [0] https://youtu.be/SVS0ioOdfuE?t=225

That's exactly the point the grandparent comment was making though. Because they aren't chronically eating at competition levels is the reason they aren't overweight. They have a high calorie moment, followed by low calorie stretches.

That wasn't my takeaway from that comment.

> Your body adjusts its metabolism based on the amount of food you eat as long as it's not chronic.

Suggests that your metabolism is changing, as though your body becomes more or less efficient at burning calories because you're eating more or less. Instead, these guys eat a huge surplus of calories and then go into a deficit to get back to their standard weight.

Re: Diet, not lack of exercise, drives obesity, a new study finds

#74

Post by nightski »

Delphiza wrote: post #32

Unsurprisingly, the title is sensationalist and not representative of the study. The study compares energy expenditure across different economic groups i.e. western people sitting in offices versus hunter-gatherers in Africa, and found that difference in energy expenditure does not account for differences in obesity, so points to consumption as the likely reason. The sample dataset explicitly excluded 'athletes', so…

I feel you are precisely making the opposite point. Athletes eat more because of their energy expenditure. The same happens with people trying to lose weight. It dramatically increases your hunger making a cut that much harder.

I've found that engaging in simple activities like walking is a sweet spot for weight loss. Anything more rigorous and I just can't do it. But that is very anecdotal and may not apply to many people. I would not say I have the strongest willpower when it comes to hunger, especially when stressed due to work or life.

Re: Diet, not lack of exercise, drives obesity, a new study finds

#75

Post by chasd00 »

Barrin92 wrote: post #19

It ought to be obvious. A chocolate donut, large Frappuccino or pick your unhealthy food of choice are about equivalent to half an hour of running. Given how many people throw in a snack like that several times per day good luck burning that off with exercise. One of the most straight forward things to lose weight is just limiting yourself to two or three actual meals, black coffee, tea, etc.

I make coffee at home but have noticed how fast the sugar jar needs to be refilled. I'm the only one who drinks coffee, it's surprising how much sugar i consume drinking coffee. I bet i use 2-3 tablespoons of pure sugar from my coffee consumption alone.

Re: Diet, not lack of exercise, drives obesity, a new study finds

#76

Post by nsxwolf »

SketchySeaBeast wrote: post #10
a3w wrote: post #4

The timing of when I eat changes, if I gain weight. Eating pizza after jogging? Fat on belly. Eating as much pizza as I want, but going to bed after on empty stomach after running, or putting the running in the morning while doing about 12 to 16 hour slots of intermitted fasting? Hello, six-pack.

Can we all please acknowledge that intermittent fasting is just a form of calories restriction? If you ate a pizza after jogging, but that was all you ate all day, your results would probably be different as well.

Does it matter? Intermittent fasting is a form of calorie restriction I can be successful at, eating 3 tiny meals a day is one I fail at.

Re: Diet, not lack of exercise, drives obesity, a new study finds

#77

Post by snozolli »

siliconc0w wrote: post #41

If you eat 4k calories but burn 5k, you'll lose a lot more weight than if you ate 1000 and burned 2000. So running can help but you still need a calorie deficit. Eating and burning more boosts your metabolism - if you measure a body builder during a bulk they are like a furnace, burning 1-2k over baseline. They still put on fat but it's a lot less than what you'd think given the amounts they're eating.

If you eat 4k calories but burn 5k, you'll lose a lot more weight than if you ate 1000 and burned 2000.

Each of those is a 1,000 Calorie deficit.

if you measure a body builder during a bulk

Incidentally, the terms "bulking" and "cutting" come from bodybuilders taking steroids. I know that non-chemically-enhanced people have started using these terms, but it's honestly foolish. When you're not cycling anabolic steroids against metabolic stimulants like Clenbuterol, it really doesn't apply.

Re: Diet, not lack of exercise, drives obesity, a new study finds

#78

Post by bko »

baseballdork wrote: post #73
goda90 wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's exactly the point the grandparent comment was making though. Because they aren't chronically eating at competition levels is the reason they aren't overweight. They have a high calorie moment, followed by low calorie stretches.

That wasn't my takeaway from that comment. > Your body adjusts its metabolism based on the amount of food you eat as long as it's not chronic. Suggests that your metabolism is changing, as though your body becomes more or less efficient at burning calories because you're eating more or less. Instead, these guys eat a huge surplus of calories and then go into a deficit to get back to their standard weight.

Sure he cuts back his calories, but 70 hotdogs is about 21k calories. I don't think he goes into a 21k calorie deficit over the next few weeks. That's an insane deficit. That would be the equivalent of not eating for 8.5 days, which is not possible since it would mess with his training. He probably cuts it back some fraction of that, say 10k and his body's increased metabolism adjusts for the rest.

Re: Diet, not lack of exercise, drives obesity, a new study finds

#79

Post by taeric »

alistairSH wrote: post #67
taeric wrote: post #16

Reminds me of a video I saw recently that pointed out the absurd number of calories professional athletes burn. Upshot of that video was that you almost certainly can run to lose weight. Just don't expect it to be an easy task. At a personal level, I can also say that it is flat out hard to eat large amounts of food if you are staying active. The stereotype of wanting an after meal nap is legit. It is also somewhat i…

At a personal level, I can also say that it is flat out hard to eat large amounts of food if you are staying active. I've never had that problem. When I exercise a lot, my body just starts to crave a higher proportion of calorie-dense foods - ice cream, cheese, breads. The actual volume of food might not go up all that much, but the balance changes. Of course, "a lot" for me is 10-15 hours cardio/week plus 3-4 hours/…

I think it is safe to say that 10-15 hours of cardio a week is far far more than most people get. Hick, 6-10 hours of exercise a week is almost certainly multiples of what most people do. :D

But, yeah, I was meaning volume as well as certain types. As I understand it, at the elite levels, you actually have to train your body in how to consume enough to stay active for the full event. It isn't like you can just down a few cheese burgers and then head off to a race.

Ice cream remains an amusing one, to me. People are convinced it is among the worst snacks you can do, and yet I have yet to meet a very active person that doesn't love some form of ice cream on a regular basis.

Re: Diet, not lack of exercise, drives obesity, a new study finds

#80

Post by baseballdork »

bko wrote: post #78
baseballdork wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That wasn't my takeaway from that comment. > Your body adjusts its metabolism based on the amount of food you eat as long as it's not chronic. Suggests that your metabolism is changing, as though your body becomes more or less efficient at burning calories because you're eating more or less. Instead, these guys eat a huge surplus of calories and then go into a deficit to get back to their standard weight.

Sure he cuts back his calories, but 70 hotdogs is about 21k calories. I don't think he goes into a 21k calorie deficit over the next few weeks. That's an insane deficit. That would be the equivalent of not eating for 8.5 days, which is not possible since it would mess with his training. He probably cuts it back some fraction of that, say 10k and his body's increased metabolism adjusts for the rest.

Doesn't that beg the question of why anyone gets fat if your metabolism can just... increase to cover some arbitrary amount of calories?
Post reply on HN