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

181–190 of 396 posts

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

#181

Post by mdtancsa »

swat535 wrote: post #109
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…

> The sample dataset explicitly excluded 'athletes', so would exclude people that _are_ outrunning a bad diet. You can't outrun a bad diet. This is such a myth and I have no idea where it's coming from. Perhaps it's a nice lie one can tell himself to continue eating junk and not feel guilty about it. Athletes, especially body builders require a lot of calories but their diet is surprisingly healthy. They eat plenty o…

For me, when I first started running, I thought going on a 5k run burnt scads of energy. At 100KG I was looking at about 400-500 cals-- Thats a fancy muffin basically. But when you start hitting 50k a week, you do have to start thinking about how to eat enough and enough of the right foods.

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

#182

Post by thewebguyd »

mritterhoff wrote: post #146
benabbott wrote: post #127

Whenever the topic of weight loss comes up, I always make the same recommendation: Lift weights. Lifting weights increases your muscle mass. Muscle burns calories, even at rest, which raises your TDEE. (A bodybuilder will burn more calories sitting on the couch than someone who doesn't lift weights). For most folks (myself included) cardio sucks. You _could_ jog for an hour every day and burn x-hundred calories due t…

I'm a fan of weightlifting, and agree that there are numerous health benefits to doing so, but I think the extra calorie burning is over-hyped. From what I've read you get 6-10 calories per pound of muscle per day, at rest. Not nothing, but for folks who aren't looking to body build I'm not sure it makes much of a difference. Or maybe over a long enough time span it does, I dunno.

It does matter over a long enough time span, but otherwise I agree - don't get into resistance training for the extra potential calorie burn/metabolism boost, it's a quick way to burn out. Get into it for the numerous health benefits that resistance training brings, the effects of which get especially important as you get older.

You can lose upwards of 3% of muscle pass per year at 60+, and this process can start as early as 30-35 years old. It gets harder and harder to build muscle as you age too, so the more you can build and maintain early on in your life, the better off you'll be in old age.

Other than aesthetic goals, that's most of what got me into weightlifting. I'd prefer not to be so frail when I'm older and want to maintain my independence as long as possible. Not to mention, being strong just makes general day-to-day tasks easier.

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

#183

Post by stouset »

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…

> anyone who has done extensive 'athletic' physical activity knows that if you don't up your calorie intake that you will lose weight.

Anyone who has done extensive athletic physical activity knows that you will up your calorie intake unless you take explicit and intentional effort not to.

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

#184

Post by nsxwolf »

SketchySeaBeast wrote: post #101
nsxwolf wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It does because you framed it as a matter of timing.

The timing makes me lose weight. The mechanism by which it does so is a black box.

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

#185

Post by BobaFloutist »

alberth wrote: post #131

I know this can be a touchy subject, but honestly, it shouldn’t be surprising. It’s just basic thermodynamics. The energy (calories) you take in has to go somewhere. Some of it gets used for daily activity, but if you take in more than you burn, your body has to store the extra—it doesn’t have any other way to deal with it. At the end of the day, it really is just a matter of calories in vs. calories out. Exercise ju…

Thermodynamics only apply to closed systems. Your body can easily expel unprocessed calories/sugar in urine and feces (hence diabetics historically being diagnosed by their characteristically sweet urine).

Whether it's more likely than the average human body to do so, to process them for immediate energy, or to process them for longer term storage in conjunction with how it benchmarks your hunger and satiation signals is colloquially known as your "metabolism".

Want to tell me next how the laws of mechanical engineering conclusively prove that no one human being can be stronger than another, since we all weigh the same?

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

#186

Post by tonymet »

cassepipe wrote: post #158
tonymet wrote: post #155

For most people, a 1 hour moderate run is only about 1-2 cookies worth (and only half a Crumbl cookie). Even a marathon run might only burn 2000 calories . a chipotle burrito is 1600 . In other words, for 95% of people doing activity, they shouldn't eat any surplus if their goal is to maintain or lose weight. It's actually best to do most of your activity undernourished, as it helps develop true intuitive nutrition f…

Eating while actually being hungry is a great sensation. That's why I stopped snacking/sugar treats, it always spoil my hunger for when it's meal time. On the other hand, when I have having my meal, no restriction on veggies/meat/fish, open bar, I eat as much as I want. I always welcome hunger knowing that I live in a society of calorie abundance. I generally tend to feel annoyed when people that are hungry start tre…

Plus everything tastes ten times better. Even white rice or a slice of bread tastes divine when hungry

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

#187

Post by tonymet »

procaryote wrote: post #171
tonymet wrote: post #155

For most people, a 1 hour moderate run is only about 1-2 cookies worth (and only half a Crumbl cookie). Even a marathon run might only burn 2000 calories . a chipotle burrito is 1600 . In other words, for 95% of people doing activity, they shouldn't eat any surplus if their goal is to maintain or lose weight. It's actually best to do most of your activity undernourished, as it helps develop true intuitive nutrition f…

You're right that it's easy to out-eat the running you can sustain as a regularly fit person, but there's no "only" about 2000 calories 2000 calories is pretty near the daily calory requirement for a healthy weight human. If you are of healthy weight and eat appropriately, you pretty much have to eat twice as much to compensate for that marathon

For fatties the benefit is even greater

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

#188

Post by Natsu »

stouset wrote: post #183
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…

> anyone who has done extensive 'athletic' physical activity knows that if you don't up your calorie intake that you will lose weight. Anyone who has done extensive athletic physical activity knows that you will up your calorie intake unless you take explicit and intentional effort not to.

> Anyone who has done extensive athletic physical activity knows that you will up your calorie intake unless you take explicit and intentional effort not to.

It also seems to be harder to dial your dietary intake back down if you cease that extra activity.

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

#189

Post by thewebguyd »

diath wrote: post #71
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 s…

Yep. It's almost always either not tracking or not being honest with tracking.

It's possible to overeat anything - whether a food is "healthy" or not, while important, isn't what matters for weight loss. Burning more calories than you consume is what is important for weight loss.

Where I see folks, particularly men, fail most often is in their mid-late thirties. Sedentary lifestyle, wants to lose the "dad bod." Someone in that situation, with no physical activity, would actually have a fairly low TDEE so a 500 cal/day deficit might look like eating in a range of 1500-1700 calories/day, which if they are like the average American and used to consuming 3500+ calories/day, will be quite the shock - so they are almost immediately super hungry, and might start out with good intentions with tracking what they eat but will frequently miss all the little snacks here and there, or just haven't developed the skill of meal prepping, and properly weighing out their food.

It's a lot of work, and requires a lot of dedication. Too many articles out there that just simplify it down to "Eat less, move more" but don't do enough to actually educate folks on what that really looks like.

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

#190

Post by pqtyw »

rufus_foreman wrote: post #157
pqtyw wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But nutritionally they are about the same as non lean chicken?

Chicken McNuggets Ingredients: Boneless skinless chicken breast, Water, Liquid vegetable oil shortening (canola oil, corn oil, hydrogenated soybean oil), Wheat flour, Yellow corn flour, Modified corn starch, Rice starch, Salt, Seasoning (wheat starch, yeast extract, salt, natural flavour), Spices, Baking powder, Sodium aluminum phosphate, Canola oil, Baking soda, Sugars (dextrose), Wheat starch, Corn starch. Cooked i…

Yes but the macros are more or less comparable? It's chicken breast with extra saturated fat and stuff.
Post reply on HN