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

311–320 of 396 posts

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

#311

Post by xedrac »

StanislavPetrov wrote: post #303
stouset wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

This depends on what you consider "extensive". About 10 years ago I started taking 45 minute daily walks with no other changes in my diet or activities and the extra weight (about 15 lbs overweight) melted away. I made absolutely no effort to eat less and didn't get any hungrier.

Walking is quite special in this regard, because it doesn't seem to result in the same compensatory eating that more intense exercise does.

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

#312

Post by snozolli »

Kirby64 wrote: post #246
snozolli wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 steroid…

> Incidentally, the terms "bulking" and "cutting" come from bodybuilders taking steroids. Since when? Are you sure you don't mean 'blast' and 'cruise', which specifically has connotations of steroid usage? > When you're not cycling anabolic steroids against metabolic stimulants like Clenbuterol, it really doesn't apply. Why wouldn't it apply?

Since when?

Since Internet dorks started usurping terms used by chemically enhanced bodybuilders.

Why wouldn't it apply?

Because of what I just said. If you're not chemically enhanced, then you just eat a consistent, slight surplus while hitting your macro goals. Bulking and cutting makes no sense, you're literally just making things harder for yourself.

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

#313

Post by snozolli »

cthalupa wrote: post #284
snozolli wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 steroid…

> 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. What. Even natural bodybuilders go through cut and bulk cycles. And plenty of enhanced bodybuilders don't use clen…

Even natural bodybuilders go through cut and bulk cycles.

Yeah, the ones who are actually prepping for competition. They sacrifice some of their gains to get as lean as possibly solely for the purpose of showing in a competition. Anyone else engaging in "bulking" and "cutting" is just wasting their time.

You have to be in a surplus to add muscle mass if you're no longer a novice lifter or significantly overweight.

This is why you eat a slight caloric surplus while hitting your macro goals.

Internet dweebs started usurping the terminology. Honestly, it's justification for undisciplined eating. It's just "dieting" with pseudo-technical justification. The ultimate form of self-delusion are the guys who "perma-bulk", like Cartman.

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

#314

Post by soheilpro »

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.

Reduced calorie intake is just an added benefit.

The main point of intermittent fasting is keeping your insulin levels low for the longest time possible, increasing insulin sensitivity, and forcing the body to use stored fat for energy.

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

#316

Post by rgoulter »

const_cast wrote: post #96
robertlagrant wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

> men burn more calories than woman just right out of the gate

Sure, but parent's point is that the energy input from sugary snacks like chocolate roughly equates to a significant amount of exercise. (Over an hour of walking). -- Maybe the caloric equivalent amount of walking is a little longer or shorter for different bodies.

How might you take action from this understanding, though.

Gaining an extra 100 pounds of muscle is hardly an easy/tangible feat.

"Reducing intake of sugary snacks" is going to be easier than "walk for over an hour".

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

#317

Post by rgoulter »

com2kid wrote: post #305
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…

You are technically correct that processed foods are no less healthy than any other foods. However they are engineered to be hyper palatable, meaning they taste way better than other foods and they will not satiate you even after eating and excessive amount. Or to put it simply, it is really damn easy to eat a thousand calories of potato chips and still be hungry for "a real meal" but most people will tap out before…

I think focus on satiation & calorie density makes good sense.

"Ultra-processed" is not completely precise, not completely accurate proxy for "hyper palatable, low satiation, calorie dense".

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

#318

Post by Crestwave »

harimau777 wrote: post #149
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 think you'd still need to adjust your diet signifiantly. Most powerlifters don't look particularly in shape.

Most powerlifters intentionally maintain a signficant caloric surplus in order to bulk up. Some bulkers even chug straight-up olive oil to meet their daily caloric goals.

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

#319

Post by nmfisher »

tonymet wrote: post #186
cassepipe wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I still remember how amazing an unsalted boiled egg tasted the first time I did a 72 hour fast.

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

#320

Post by bamboozled »

pqtyw wrote: post #145
71153750 wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know the reason and think your reasoning is probably sound. Although at the same I wonder if chicken nuggets were really the only option? I'll make a grand assumption that most athletes weren't on the chicken nugget diet.

Chickens nuggets aren't necessarily that unhealthy even? They have about as much saturated fat as generic chicken thighs. Inherently food at Mcdonalds isn't that bad for you as long as you don't overeat and take a few supplements.

Whenever I eat Mcdonalds it's the coke that makes me feel guilty, and the super salty fries, the burger or nuggets I'm usually not that fussed about.
Post reply on HN