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

Inactivity 'kills more than obesity'

bbc.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 127 posts

Re: Inactivity 'kills more than obesity'

#21

Post by IndianAstronaut »

stinos wrote: post #16
beachstartup wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

while i agree, this concept is easier to sell if you approach it from a different direction - i.e. "you can't outrun your fork." this is much easier for most people to comprehend, since anyone who's ever been in a modern gym even once knows you can run an hour on a treadmill and wipe it out with a single donut.

Easier to sell, maybe, but "you can't outrun your fork." is also a false statement, whereas the OP's isn't (so much - at least it's open for interpreation). You can outrun your fork. run an hour on a treadmill and wipe it out with a single donut. That's going to be have a pretty huge donut then :P (or I'd have to be running at a rather slow pace)

>That's going to be have a pretty huge donut then

Not really. One hour on the treadmill burns about 600 calories or so. A cream filled donut the gas station next door to me sells is listed at 630 calories.

Re: Inactivity 'kills more than obesity'

#22

Post by girvo »

ars wrote: post #12
unimportant wrote: post #3

I would say obesity implies inactivity, so the headline is rather misleading.

> I would say obesity implies inactivity It most definitely does not. You can be obese and active if your body weight setpoint is off - after activity you are simply very hungry and eat. The two things have some overlap but one does not imply the other in either direction.

Body weight "set point"? What's that?

Re: Inactivity 'kills more than obesity'

#23

Post by jokoon »

I think the problem is that our civilization is built in the idea of comfort and economic specialization.

I don't think our bodies are prepared to that sort of pattern where you stay inactive for 5 hours, while your brain is still very active, and stop to run non stop for 1 hour.

So we either sit thinking about civilized work, or do short but very intense physical activity to compensate the accumulation of stress. I don't think our far ancestors' metabolism really saw that. So of course people are going to get sick. Nobody on earth has genes suited to work in an office. We're still wired to constantly move, searching for food.

Worst thing, I'm almost sure that this accumulation of stress can slow down productivity. Maybe forcing people to work in 2 or 3 hour sessions, and ask them to go walk for 15min, might have some positive effects. I'd love to try walking on a treadmill writing code. I already tried standing in front of a computer, but my ankles started swelling after 2 hours.

Re: Inactivity 'kills more than obesity'

#24

Post by rollthehard6 »

lobsterman wrote: post #14
SixSigma wrote: post #8

Number of deaths is a poor metric. Everyone dies. Obesity contributes significantly to the 70 man years spent by patients in dialysis every week in the US.

Yes, and a poor diet can cause diseases that will make your life miserable, e.g. autoimmune.

Where is the evidence that diet alone can cause autoimmune disease? As far as I am aware, development of autoimmune disease is a complex process involving many factors such as genetics and the effect of infections on the immune system. Certainly there is anecdotal evidence of people improving their symptoms or possibly eliminating them through diet but this is not the case for every patient.

Re: Inactivity 'kills more than obesity'

#25

Post by jokoon »

marincounty wrote: post #20

I used to run 7 neurotic miles a day since 8th grade. I did it to feel better, and control stress. I know have a heart murmer. No one in my family has a murmer. I think it was do to overdoing it? As I got older, in Order to control anxiety, while saving my knees--I walk/run. It's usually every other night. I don't exercise enough to work up a big appetite. I eat a basic diet, and don't eat a lot of sugar, or fat-- ou…

what do you mean by "neurotic mile" ?

I think the more you spread intensity, the better it is for your health.

Re: Inactivity 'kills more than obesity'

#26

Post by jeltz »

tribaal wrote: post #7
ars wrote: post #2

Normal exercise will not cause weight loss - countless studies have shown that. But it will make you healthier, so it's worth it anyway.

Yeah, it also seems to me people hear "diet and exercise" as if the second part was somehow optional :(

It is optional if the goal is only to lose weight. I personally found it harder to lose weight when I started exercising since then I could no longer fast as much.

Re: Inactivity 'kills more than obesity'

#27

Post by CmonDev »

thret wrote: post #15
DINKDINK wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Normal exercise will not cause weight loss What do you define "normal exercise" as? You cannot break the 2nd law of thermodynamics: if you calories in is less than your calories burned you must lose weight.

Daily hard exercise - the panting, heart-pounding, drenched in sweat kind of exercise - increases your metabolism. You can eat whatever you want, as much as you want, and you won't gain fat. The 2nd law of thermodynamics has little if anything to do with calorie counting.

Playing MOBA makes my heart pound and I lose a bit of weight - does it count?

Re: Inactivity 'kills more than obesity'

#28

Post by Matumio »

jokoon wrote: post #23

I think the problem is that our civilization is built in the idea of comfort and economic specialization. I don't think our bodies are prepared to that sort of pattern where you stay inactive for 5 hours, while your brain is still very active, and stop to run non stop for 1 hour. So we either sit thinking about civilized work, or do short but very intense physical activity to compensate the accumulation of stress. I…

I think the problem is that our civilization is built in the idea of comfort and economic specialization.

Agree. But in order to change that, we have to change our value system.

Worst thing, I'm almost sure that this accumulation of stress can slow down productivity.

That's the worst thing? As you can see, productivity is still our highest value. Health and well-being are not worthy goals on their own, but they are pursued to get more productive.

Re: Inactivity 'kills more than obesity'

#29

Post by jokoon »

Matumio wrote: post #28
jokoon wrote: post #23

I think the problem is that our civilization is built in the idea of comfort and economic specialization. I don't think our bodies are prepared to that sort of pattern where you stay inactive for 5 hours, while your brain is still very active, and stop to run non stop for 1 hour. So we either sit thinking about civilized work, or do short but very intense physical activity to compensate the accumulation of stress. I…

I think the problem is that our civilization is built in the idea of comfort and economic specialization. Agree. But in order to change that, we have to change our value system. Worst thing, I'm almost sure that this accumulation of stress can slow down productivity. That's the worst thing? As you can see, productivity is still our highest value. Health and well-being are not worthy goals on their own, but they are p…

> If that's the worst thing, then productivity is still our highest value, and health comes second.

But wouldn't better mental health increase productivity ? I mean a healthy horse might be more productive. Of course at some point, maybe better health doesn't increase productivity so much. But I tend to think that cerebral workers would work much better if they have less stress or better mental health.

Re: Inactivity 'kills more than obesity'

#30

Post by cncool »

IndianAstronaut wrote: post #21
stinos wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Easier to sell, maybe, but "you can't outrun your fork." is also a false statement, whereas the OP's isn't (so much - at least it's open for interpreation). You can outrun your fork. run an hour on a treadmill and wipe it out with a single donut. That's going to be have a pretty huge donut then :P (or I'd have to be running at a rather slow pace)

>That's going to be have a pretty huge donut then Not really. One hour on the treadmill burns about 600 calories or so. A cream filled donut the gas station next door to me sells is listed at 630 calories.

I would say a 630 calorie donut is pretty huge. After looking at the calorie info for a bunch of Tim Hortons donuts, the average seems to be around 250 calories.
Post reply on HN