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

The myth of outrunning your diet

williamjbarry.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 97 posts

Re: The myth of outrunning your diet

#81

Post by lucyjojo »

colechristensen wrote: post #62
rkomorn wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's a lot of activity to get to this point Yes. Like multiple hours a day lot. That's why it's a "myth". It takes an amount of time, effort, and focus, that isn't particularly reasonable for I'd say almost all people. Fundamentally, I agree with you that it's possible: I pretty much did it myself with ~12 hours of hard cycling a week, but I just think your take is wrong because it basically boils down to nitpickin…

We live in an age where some people will say they're not lying as long as what they said has the vaguest association with the truth. Let's not contribute to that. People in these threads are arguing aggressively this "myth" is not at all possible when the truth is lots of people experience it, including yourself. Let's not dilute the meaning of the word "myth" to mean "its somewhat difficult". A unicorn is a mythical…

it's not "merely difficult". it's impossible for vast swathes of the population. if i wanted to lose weight through exercising i'd have to be an absent father. well technically i can i guess.

fasting is simply way better and easier.

for many folks exercising is good to get healthy, not to lose weight.

Re: The myth of outrunning your diet

#82

Post by lucyjojo »

thefz wrote: post #35
colechristensen wrote: post #2

God, that's a lot of writing. One, you absolutely can "outrun" a diet. If you've known anyone a little bit too much into fitness then you've known someone who has struggled to eat enough to maintain and build weight. I had a friend who would drink a gallon of whole milk a day to maintain weight because he did so much at the gym. I'm not saying it's healthy, but saying it isn't possible to exercise so much it's diffic…

Yes, outliers gonna outlie. I also know runners that purposely eat at severe deficit to lose muscle mass and be lighter. Which is idiotic, like wanting to lose brain cells to win a chess competition.

i mean it makes sense.

endurance running is about efficiency, not raw power output. it would make sense that you would aim for a strong cardiovascular system, strong digestive system, and a limited amount of very efficient muscles.

looking at pro runners they're all kinda skinny. they optimized their body for the distance.

Re: The myth of outrunning your diet

#83

Post by TYPE_FASTER »

The one thing that has worked for me multiple times is using a calorie counter like myfitnesspal integrated with something like Apple Health and/or Strava. If it’s easy to enter food into the calorie counter and the exercise apps just track movement without having to do much, the rest is just ignoring the hunger pangs that go away after a couple weeks. That’s the hard part of course. :)

Re: The myth of outrunning your diet

#84

Post by PostOnce »

zargon wrote: post #70
invalidptr wrote: post #68

If you're a hobbyist runner, this equation very quickly gets flipped on its head. It's very difficult to make up the calorie deficit from a 20 mile long run every week . Throw two big races a year into the mix, and maintaining weight and muscle mass is the challenge. When I trained for ultramarathons, I sometimes ran two mountain long runs back to back. That put me 5000 calories in the hole every single weekend. I us…

If you’re a hobbyist runner who finds it challenging to eat an extra 5000 calories in a weekend, you’re in the socio-physiological upper 0.1%. It’s great for you, but not a very relevant anecdote to the majority of people seeking help with weight management.

It's interesting, though, even if it doesn't apply to you. It's something to think about, and something I do think about with some regularity -- how I'm going to schedule all the additional eating I'm going to have to do if I start a real exercise regimen at my height and weight.

Re: The myth of outrunning your diet

#85

Post by PNewling »

weird-eye-issue wrote: post #47
DLeyland wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm naturally skinny and trying to gain weight (muscle mass) and also do around 500 calories a day of movement so aiming for 3000 calories. It just goes to show what a big influence baseline appetite and food choices make because I find it really hard to eat that much and always wonder how people manage it in just three meals

The average American snacks on calorie-dense foods one or two times per day

I have no idea what your source is for this, but I'm shocked it's that low per day

Re: The myth of outrunning your diet

#86

Post by weird-eye-issue »

lucyjojo wrote: post #80
weird-eye-issue wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are completely wrong because over the long term, thermodynamics isn’t just a theory — it’s the governing principle. No matter how “inefficient” the body is at using or storing energy, it still obeys conservation of energy. If you consistently burn more calories than you consume, your body has to draw on stored energy (fat, muscle, glycogen, etc.) to make up the difference. That’s not up for debate — it’s been pro…

you are completely ignoring injuries, deficiencies and genetic particularities. the human body is not a linear system. it's markedly self-regulated and non-linear, and things can get pretty bad pretty quick.

None of that changes anything that I said

Re: The myth of outrunning your diet

#87

Post by ehnto »

weird-eye-issue wrote: post #36
ehnto wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The thermodynamics argument misses the fact that our body is not a single input, output engine. The body will use energy from several different sources, with different efficiencies. It will store energy in different forms, with different efficiencies, and it throws away a lot of energy that you put into it. Yes, if you spend energy, it has to come from somewhere, but it's only in really specific scenarios that it com…

You are completely wrong because over the long term, thermodynamics isn’t just a theory — it’s the governing principle. No matter how “inefficient” the body is at using or storing energy, it still obeys conservation of energy. If you consistently burn more calories than you consume, your body has to draw on stored energy (fat, muscle, glycogen, etc.) to make up the difference. That’s not up for debate — it’s been pro…

In the same way that we don't rely on the assurance of entropy to mix stew however, thermodynamics is not something to base your diet and exercise plan on. We both know you are technically correct, but it doesn't help you to plan your lifestyle change to know it.

That's why it's a frustrating reduction of the problem, the knowledge inbetween helps us make good decisions that involve a lot more than just the physics of the problem.

For someone I know gets it I can just say "eat less than you move" and that is the whole fitness plan, makes sense, but that's because they are filling in all the details for me. When to eat, what to eat, how much to eat, how much and when to move etc etc.

Re: The myth of outrunning your diet

#88

Post by weird-eye-issue »

ehnto wrote: post #87
weird-eye-issue wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are completely wrong because over the long term, thermodynamics isn’t just a theory — it’s the governing principle. No matter how “inefficient” the body is at using or storing energy, it still obeys conservation of energy. If you consistently burn more calories than you consume, your body has to draw on stored energy (fat, muscle, glycogen, etc.) to make up the difference. That’s not up for debate — it’s been pro…

In the same way that we don't rely on the assurance of entropy to mix stew however, thermodynamics is not something to base your diet and exercise plan on. We both know you are technically correct, but it doesn't help you to plan your lifestyle change to know it. That's why it's a frustrating reduction of the problem, the knowledge inbetween helps us make good decisions that involve a lot more than just the physics o…

Of course details matter when you actually implement it in your life

But there are people arguing about the underlying concept of calories in/out being wrong which is just silly

> thermodynamics is not something to base your diet and exercise plan on

Except it literally is. You can use it to figure out exactly how much weight you'll gain/lose over the long term if you track things properly

Re: The myth of outrunning your diet

#89

Post by seec »

jokoon wrote: post #57
singularity2001 wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> physical activity is unnatural Very wrong way to put it

I mean spending energy for nothing

There is no physical output to acquire but it's not for nothing. In exchange you get a natural anti-depressant and a good load of positive hormones. On top of that you get fitness that can be used at any time for any situation and you get muscle mass (that has positive side effects) and hunger suppression.

All in all, it's not bad for something you almost get for "free".

But you can also choose to enjoy life, get fat (in moderation) and die a bit earlier. As far as I'm concerned that also a valid choice, depends on what you want from life...

Re: The myth of outrunning your diet

#90

Post by seec »

weird-eye-issue wrote: post #36
ehnto wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The thermodynamics argument misses the fact that our body is not a single input, output engine. The body will use energy from several different sources, with different efficiencies. It will store energy in different forms, with different efficiencies, and it throws away a lot of energy that you put into it. Yes, if you spend energy, it has to come from somewhere, but it's only in really specific scenarios that it com…

You are completely wrong because over the long term, thermodynamics isn’t just a theory — it’s the governing principle. No matter how “inefficient” the body is at using or storing energy, it still obeys conservation of energy. If you consistently burn more calories than you consume, your body has to draw on stored energy (fat, muscle, glycogen, etc.) to make up the difference. That’s not up for debate — it’s been pro…

Exactly. I'm amazed people are still contesting basic stuff like this. It's not open for debate, it has been proven in many ways. In fact, one can set out to prove it to himself, by just using an accurate enough smartwatch and precisely logging all calories. Over time, the math just math, even if it's off by a few percent that's largely irrelevant and can be attributed to measurement error.

I think people refuse to accept the truth because they feel like it should be a one-time thing when in fact it's a lifelong discipline. Some seems to have it easier but that's pretty much true of everything, people aren't equal in self-control and I think the constant propaganda about "equality" just mess with their heads.

Post reply on HN