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

31–40 of 127 posts

Re: Inactivity 'kills more than obesity'

#31

Post by GigabyteCoin »

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 don't think our bodies are prepared

That may be true, but they will be soon enough thanks to evolution.

I am not advocating inactivity, in fact I enjoy walking every day very much.

Re: Inactivity 'kills more than obesity'

#32

Post by hrktb »

DINKDINK wrote: post #6
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.

>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.

> You cannot break the 2nd law of thermodynamics

There's a bit more happening than the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Our body does a lot of things.

I understand how comforting it can be to put it in "in -> out" terms, so simple. But it just doesn't reflect in any way the complexity of a living organism, and doesn't reflect the experiences of people trying naively to just eat less for instance.

Re: Inactivity 'kills more than obesity'

#33

Post by stdbrouw »

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 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.

Isn't that pretty similar to the lifestyle of a hunter? Short periods of very intense activity separated by long periods of inactivity?

Re: Inactivity 'kills more than obesity'

#34

Post by magmadiver »

GigabyteCoin wrote: post #31
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 don't think our bodies are prepared That may be true, but they will be soon enough thanks to evolution. I am not advocating inactivity, in fact I enjoy walking every day very much.

>soon

...

>evolution

So, a few million years?

Re: Inactivity 'kills more than obesity'

#36

Post by matthewmacleod »

stdbrouw wrote: post #33
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 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. Isn't that pretty similar to the lifestyle of a hunter? Short periods of very intense activity separated by long periods of inactivity?

That's a pretty good observation – I expect you're right, and it would probably play out like that in practice! Not sure of the background research though. Certainly there are likely to be complicating factors (e.g. the damage caused by sitting, specifically.)

Re: Inactivity 'kills more than obesity'

#37

Post by Shivetya »

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.

Obesity is an epidemic we are accelerating. Then to top that, far too many do not understand the difference between obesity and morbid obesity. The latest fads of Fat Acceptance and Healthy At Every Size show the trend quite well.

Then to make matters worse, in the US hospitals and doctors can be punished for trying to help obese, especially very obese patients. The ACA brought along patient satisfaction scores. So if you don't like what your being told you can score the hospital/doctor lower. While the economic impact might be measured in small percentages the tightness is costs makes this a big factor. You can guarantee this affects how the obese and very obese are treated, in many cases they will be coddled and never once will their weight be mentioned.

Finally we have far too many people inactive in this country and many others because government benefits programs are sufficient to allow them this lifestyle. Simply put, if you keep paying and feeding people not to work just what do you expect them to do? Idleness is not a good state, its worse when we institutionalize it.

Anecdotal but I am sure many have the same experience, there are two groups of co workers who are out the most, very obese people and smokers. Why should either be acceptable? If we can stamp out smoking we can stamp out obesity.

Re: Inactivity 'kills more than obesity'

#38

Post by philh »

magmadiver wrote: post #34
GigabyteCoin wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I don't think our bodies are prepared That may be true, but they will be soon enough thanks to evolution. I am not advocating inactivity, in fact I enjoy walking every day very much.

>soon ... >evolution So, a few million years?

Evolution isn't that slow. Homo sapiens is only about 250,000 years old.

Re: Inactivity 'kills more than obesity'

#40

Post by vidarh »

unimportant wrote: post #3

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

Obesity does not imply inactivity, though there is some correlation. From the article:

> Obesity and inactivity often go hand in hand. > > However, it is known that thin people have a higher risk of health problems if they are inactive. And obese people who exercise are in better health than those that do not.

And further down:

> "The greatest risk [of an early death] was in those classed inactive, and that was consistent in normal weight, overweight and obese people," one of the researchers, Prof Ulf Ekelund told BBC News. > > He said eliminating inactivity in Europe would cut mortality rates by nearly 7.5%, or 676,000 deaths, but eliminating obesity would cut rates by just 3.6%.

So the point is that irrespective of your weight, within your weight class you will be less likely to be healthy if you are inactive.

Exercising more may help you cut weight, but chances are that unless you specifically want to use it as an aid to cut weight you are likely to eat more to compensate for increased hunger. As such increased activity is by no means likely to drastically reduce obesity, but it can still reduce mortality.

Post reply on HN