Inactivity 'kills more than obesity' • Hacker News Board

Re: Inactivity 'kills more than obesity'

#51

Post by lloeki » Thu, Jan 15, 2015, 11:27 AM UTC

learnstats2 wrote: post #45

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. I disagree strongly with this part of what you're saying. This seems exactly what human civilisation has traditionally done: conserve physical energy until it's the right time to hunt, do some very intensive hunting, spend a lot of mental energ…

Possibly, but this pattern has been shifted at such a dramatical rate since the last 10k years and the advent of agriculture that evolution and genetic selection may not had time to catch up. It's even possible that some forms of applied science (via medical care) is introducing a bias against natural selection by relieving some pressure bu it's possibly too short a timespan to judge that, although evolution sometimes can operate at very short timescales. (Short term I'm OK with that but lacking data I can't decide if long term this is good for us humans... Well we'll end up merging with our metal overlords anyway!).

Re: Inactivity 'kills more than obesity'

#52

Post by eli_gottlieb » Thu, Jan 15, 2015, 11:32 AM UTC

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.

Weird. I usually burn about 400 kilocals in a 30-minute run on an elliptical machine. Technically, I am programming it to push my heart-rate to the top of the safe "cardio zone", but, well, exercise is all about pushing yourself, no?

Re: Inactivity 'kills more than obesity'

#53

Post by gadders » Thu, Jan 15, 2015, 11:33 AM UTC

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.

Weight loss is a poor metric. I don't really care what I weigh. I'm primarily concerned with increasing my strenght and building muscle, so if my weight goes up but my %fat goes down I'm more than happy.

Re: Inactivity 'kills more than obesity'

#54

Post by stinos » Thu, Jan 15, 2015, 11:39 AM UTC

rndn wrote: post #47

stdbrouw wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

Here are the recommendations from the Wikipedia page on Paleolithic lifestyle [1]: - Adopt a Paleolithic diet as much as possible: plenty of fruit, fish, vegetables, nuts, and meat while avoiding most forms of food not in existence in paleolithic time. It implies avoiding all processed food, and in particular junk food and food with a high glycemic load, such as sweets and cultivated crops like potatoes and cereal gr…

Nice. First time I hear about this but it certainly contains lots of things which make a lot of sense to me or which I do already myself and/or are backed up by reserach. Except the part of the squatting position :P

Not everybody accepts this though. Especially about point 2 and 3 I've had discussions, almost religious fights sometimes. People sometimes get offended when I question if just going to the gym and train a couple of standard groups or just jogging are sufficient exercises. They might be, just from the point of 'getting enough exercise', but I somehow believe it is better for your body in general to have way more types of movement trained, like the third point says. Not sure if this is backed up by research but it just seems logical to me? Another impression I have: the body of a person doing all kinds of sports always looks way more natural and healthy to me than persons doing only one or two sports where not all muscle groups are trained.

Re: Inactivity 'kills more than obesity'

#55

Post by jokoon » Thu, Jan 15, 2015, 11:50 AM UTC

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?

I don't think a hunter really sits around, not using his muscles. Hunters are not inactive like people working in an office. Hunters roam. So they still do physical exercise and do spend more energy.

Re: Inactivity 'kills more than obesity'

#56

Post by exodust » Thu, Jan 15, 2015, 11:52 AM UTC

I recall overweight professional cricketers and rugby players. They drank a lot of beer.

Alcohol, chicken and sugar. Cut those three for effective weight loss.

Activity doesn't need to mean Gladiator training at the gym. It should mean what you want it to. I started learning and messing around with wood-working/craft recently. Good amount of non-mouse and keyboard activity, lots of standing up and moving short distances, clamping things, sawing and drilling. Won't give me a six-pack but keeps blood flowing.

Re: Inactivity 'kills more than obesity'

#57

Post by jokoon » Thu, Jan 15, 2015, 11:57 AM UTC

learnstats2 wrote: post #45

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. I disagree strongly with this part of what you're saying. This seems exactly what human civilisation has traditionally done: conserve physical energy until it's the right time to hunt, do some very intensive hunting, spend a lot of mental energ…

> This seems exactly what human civilisation has traditionally done: conserve physical energy until it's the right time to hunt, do some very intensive hunting, spend a lot of mental energy figuring out better tools and systems.

Civilization is pretty young when you compare it to the evolution of humans. I think you're also missing out the difference of energy spent when comparing hunting versus agriculture. Even when you're not hunting, there is still a lot of physical activity around it. Not to mention automation.

Re: Inactivity 'kills more than obesity'

#58

Post by jeltz » Thu, Jan 15, 2015, 11:58 AM UTC

eli_gottlieb wrote: post #52

IndianAstronaut wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

Weird. I usually burn about 400 kilocals in a 30-minute run on an elliptical machine. Technically, I am programming it to push my heart-rate to the top of the safe "cardio zone", but, well, exercise is all about pushing yourself, no?

How much you burn depends a lot on your body weight. I am small (~55kg) so I burn about 600 kcal/h when jogging. Someone weighing 75kg will burn about 800 kcal/h if he runs at the same speed.

Re: Inactivity 'kills more than obesity'

#59

Post by m348e912 » Thu, Jan 15, 2015, 11:59 AM UTC

exodust wrote: post #56

I recall overweight professional cricketers and rugby players. They drank a lot of beer. Alcohol, chicken and sugar. Cut those three for effective weight loss. Activity doesn't need to mean Gladiator training at the gym. It should mean what you want it to. I started learning and messing around with wood-working/craft recently. Good amount of non-mouse and keyboard activity, lots of standing up and moving short distan…

>>>Alcohol, chicken and sugar

One of these things is not like the others. Are you thinking of KFC or the lean skinless chicken breasts that bodybuilders almost exclusively use as their main source of protein (aside from shakes/supplements) when cutting?

PS. I have been effectively able to lean out by dropping added sugar and alcohol from my diet. It sucks going out when relegated to drinking soda water instead of beer, but it's a relatively easy diet to maintain.

Re: Inactivity 'kills more than obesity'

#60

Post by jokoon » Thu, Jan 15, 2015, 12:03 PM UTC

exodust wrote: post #56

I recall overweight professional cricketers and rugby players. They drank a lot of beer. Alcohol, chicken and sugar. Cut those three for effective weight loss. Activity doesn't need to mean Gladiator training at the gym. It should mean what you want it to. I started learning and messing around with wood-working/craft recently. Good amount of non-mouse and keyboard activity, lots of standing up and moving short distan…

Exactly, blood flowing is very important. Biology is a slow process, and it only deal with long term mechanisms.

Tissues can't deal with intensive tasks very well. They can, of course, but I'll always think of death as a progressive slow down of activity. Biology works best when it's being used at a minimum. "Use it or lose it" has some kind of truth.