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

91–100 of 396 posts

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

#91

Post by dragonwriter »

nunez wrote: post #88

Maybe I'm reading the study wrong, but it doesn't seem like they accounted for caloric intake at all? https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2420902122 They accounted for total EE and basal EE, but the data they've supplied in the appendix doesn't track caloric intake. This seems like a huge miss to me, as it is absolutely possible to have a sky-high TEE while being insanely fat (American football linebackers) and als…

> This seems like a huge miss to me, as it is absolutely possible to have a sky-high TEE while being insanely fat (American football linebackers)

Linemen would be a better example than linebackers here. Linebackers tend (like most positions other than line, and especially offensive line, positions) to have body fat percentages at the high end of the normal range, rather than being “insanely fat”.

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

#92

Post by 71153750 »

Somewhat orthogonally related, I saw post on X by Nassim Taleb [1] concerning the idea that if you are very active then your heightened consumption of food may cover your nutrient bases better. So perhaps, loosely paraphrased, you could outrun and thus out-eat your nutrient imblance?

1: https://x.com/nntaleb/status/1684885140093206528

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

#93

Post by EvanAnderson »

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.

It would be interesting to know what amount of the calories from the 70 hot dogs is actually absorbed, versus how much is excreted without being absorbed.

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

#94

Post by naikrovek »

palmfacehn wrote: post #72
naikrovek wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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, BU…

[flagged]

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

#95

Post by palmfacehn »

naikrovek wrote: post #94
palmfacehn wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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, BU…

[flagged]

You seem to have projected a fear or intent into the comment which wasn't intended or explicitly described. I mostly agree in that taste is subjective, "There's no accounting for taste". Personally, I find those things unappetizing. As I said above, this is my bias. You asked for an example of something which I would regard as a highly processed food. I provided one. I cannot satisfy your other inquiries.

Although I will say that I have suspicions around the industrial processes for food additives and dyes. Yellow 6 for example is petroleum or coal tar derived. I'm sure the relevant regulatory bodies have approved these things, but I am not convinced that it is something I would like to consume personally.

Perhaps the burden should be on the manufacturer? I'm not sure where the discussion would lead if I had to rationalize every industrial by-product I preferred not to eat?

Again, there's no accounting for taste.

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

#96

Post by const_cast »

robertlagrant wrote: post #18
coffeefirst wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, this is a scale problem. You can hop on a plane and go from a driving-city to a walking city, look around and see the difference. I can't accept that this doesn't matter. But if you take the common American diet where the bread of your sandwich is shelf-stable because it's packed with sugar and oil, and that's before we even talk about portion size, "more running than most people want to do" quickly becomes "re…

> I can't accept that this doesn't matter. It's not that it doesn't matter, it's the asymmetry. You can eat a small chocolate bar that costs $1 (or whatever) in about 15 seconds, and it will take you 2 hours of walking to wear off the calories.

It's more complicated than this, because muscle raises your basal metabolic rate.

If you look at bodybuilders, they're buring 400 calories a day, regardless of exercise. Having an extra 100 pounds of muscle means your body just burns A LOT of calories doing absolutely nothing.

This is part of the reason why men burn more calories than woman just right out of the gate.

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

#97

Post by 0x737368 »

mvieira38 wrote: post #82
0x737368 wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can't take this Luka slander. The guy carried the ungrateful Mavericks team for 6 seasons averaging 35mpg. He's not out of shape. Same thing with Jokic, 10 seasons of 32mpg average. Their mpg also go up in the playoffs. People need to stop thinking about I do agree with regards to Shaq, the guy coasted in his talent later in his career and let himself go. Had he a better work ethic he could have been in the convers…

I'm a Luka fan, but he does look a (hehe) little chubby these past 2 seasons and it has impacted his game noticeably. Just compare the explosiveness from his first seasons to now

Doesn't matter how you look, if you can play those kind of minutes and perform like they do you're in athletic shape. Luka and Jokic don't need to be super slim like Edwards, Morant and Westbrook because they don't rely on supernatural athleticism - they rely on other facets of their game where having a bit more mass is advantageous or at the very least not detrimental.

In any case, Doncic got bullied and embarrassed by Mavs FO's comments about his weight and work ethic(complete lies to try and save face for their terrible and shady trade) so you can look forward to a slimmer Luka next season.

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

#98

Post by tartoran »

redox99 wrote: post #30
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…

A good diet only helps so much. Of course with enough self control, a caloric deficit will make you lose weight, but you need to make yourself perpetually hungry. Eating clean without measuring and limiting portions is not enough for people whose appetite is naturally higher. Ozempic was the only thing that actually solved my hunger. I would eat healthy, do exercise, but without ozempic my appetite was unstoppable an…

Aren't you worried at all about side effects from ozempic and what happens when you stop taking it?

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

#99

Post by BJones12 »

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.

A 21K deficit over 3 weeks would be 1000 Cal/day of deficit. For comparison, this is the amount of deficit required to lose 2 pounds per week, which many people do.
Post reply on HN