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

91–100 of 127 posts

Re: Inactivity 'kills more than obesity'

#91

Post by randlet »

jeffasinger wrote: post #79
awjr wrote: post #63

As somebody touching 20st (127kg) I recently started working on a client site and had a choice, drive by car or catch a train and cycle the 5 miles to the client site. Into my second week and finding the cycling is really making a difference and can get desk to platform in 31 minutes (unlocking of bike etc) down from 35 minutes at the beginning. I'll weigh myself at some point but honestly feel I'm physically getting…

Biking to work is the number one thing I miss now that I work from home. I highly recommend it to everyone. I didn't used to bike to work this time of year, because the path I'd use is covered in snow, but even in upstate New York, riding in March and November is surprisingly enjoyable with the right gear.

Yup. It's totally feasible to bike year round in many places even in the winter. I rode a bike ~6km to work year round in Ottawa, Canada where temperatures were routinely lower than -10C (14F) (my coldest day riding was -31C (-24F)).

I find riding in a couple inches of snow to be quite enjoyable but it can become overly burdensome when it gets too deep.

The main thing is to just dress appropriately and take your time. There's quite a few blog articles you can find about tips for bike commuting in the winter.

Re: Inactivity 'kills more than obesity'

#92

Post by Retra »

philh wrote: post #38
magmadiver wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

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

'Homo sapiens' is a very rough category. If you would call a 250,000 year-old animal a homo sapiens, you'd probably call its grandparents one too. Time-frames used this way are only really applicable to talking about some static history, not active evolutionary processes.

Humans will still be Homo Sapiens in 1 million years as long as we still call them that. In other words, "how old" homo sapiens is is a rather arbitrary matter of convention, so it doesn't make a good argument.

Re: Inactivity 'kills more than obesity'

#93

Post by brational »

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…

> Maybe forcing people to work in 2 or 3 hour sessions, and ask them to go walk for 15min, might have some positive effects.

It's kind of funny that you put it this way because that is exactly what people do at my job and it is encouraged. A walking break every hour or two is accepted, managers do it, we were even encouraged to install something on our computers that would remind us every X minutes.

And I work for a giant corporate entity which you would think would never encourage this.

That said, when you're working on a hard problem its very easy to lose track of time. I kick myself on the days where my only walking break is at lunch.

Re: Inactivity 'kills more than obesity'

#94

Post by Someone1234 »

victorhooi wrote: post #62
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.

I do not agree with your statement. What do you even mean by "normal exercise"? I believe that most "normal" people are capable of doing enough exercise (combined with good eating choices) that they can lose weight. For example, say you have a 1-hour lunch break each day. During that lunch break, you could easily go for a 6km run (30-40 minutes), as well as have time for a shower, and grab food. If you're prepared to…

I'm going to side with the person above you.

Exercise is important for a healthy lifestyle, but it won't result in weight loss. The amount of calories burned are trivial.

For example:

- 30 minute run burns (150 pound individual) burns just 272 calories.

- 30 minute lap swim (150 pound individual) burns, again, just 272 calories.

A single Milky Way chocolate bar has 240 calories. A Big Mac has 530 calories. A McDonalds Chicken Classic Sandwich 350 calories. And so on. So you can exercise for an hour and then regain the weight in under a minute. That's how few calories exercise burns.

The primary way people lose weight is BMR (basal metabolic rate), this is calories burned just keeping you alive. You literally lose weight while you sleep due to BMR.

People often like to claim "'calories in' need to be lower than 'calories out'" and while that is true to a point, it is an over simplification (i.e. even with identical calories certain things, like sugar, are kept as fat to a greater extent than other things, such as fiber, which are "ejected").

So, yes, please exercise. You'll live longer, feel healthier, and it might even shed one or two pounds if you're already skinny. But if you're obese and need to shed 10+ pounds then your diet is the primary means by which you'll accomplish your goals, in fact you can lose all of your weight while in a coma on a hospital bed, so all you need to do is under-eat for your BMR (but consult your doctor, and try to eat a balanced diet).

I recommend using something like MyFitnessPal. It is free. Just set it up, it will track your BMR and what you eat, and as long as you stay in the "green" (below the BMR) you'll eventually lose some weight.

However please keep in mind "water weight" is a legitimate thing. Your body does gain and lose +-5 pounds "randomly" so you shouldn't weigh yourself excessively, you'll just lose motivation. Once a week MAX, every two weeks is better.

Re: Inactivity 'kills more than obesity'

#95

Post by philh »

Retra wrote: post #92
philh wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

'Homo sapiens' is a very rough category. If you would call a 250,000 year-old animal a homo sapiens, you'd probably call its grandparents one too. Time-frames used this way are only really applicable to talking about some static history, not active evolutionary processes. Humans will still be Homo Sapiens in 1 million years as long as we still call them that. In other words, "how old" homo sapiens is is a rather arbi…

> If you would call a 250,000 year-old animal a homo sapiens, you'd probably call its grandparents one too.

Sure, and conditional on that I'd probably call their grandparents H. sapiens too, and conditional on that, probably also their grandparents. But it doesn't take that many generations before all these "probably"s multiply out to a "probably not".

I don't think the distinction between homo sapiens and not-homo sapiens is so fuzzy that we can't distinguish between evolution working on 250,000 and 1,000,000 year timescales.

Re: Inactivity 'kills more than obesity'

#96

Post by pm90 »

lloeki wrote: post #49
cncool wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> I would say a 630 calorie donut is pretty huge Therein lies the rub: most people can't fathom they're eating way too much since they feel like it's normal because habit and social.

Sugar (and now HFCS) in everything magnify this problem. I wonder how much calories food would have if manufacturers reduced the amount of sweeteners. Probably makes the food taste worse though.

Re: Inactivity 'kills more than obesity'

#97

Post by jcromartie »

victorhooi wrote: post #62
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.

I do not agree with your statement. What do you even mean by "normal exercise"? I believe that most "normal" people are capable of doing enough exercise (combined with good eating choices) that they can lose weight. For example, say you have a 1-hour lunch break each day. During that lunch break, you could easily go for a 6km run (30-40 minutes), as well as have time for a shower, and grab food. If you're prepared to…

Energy is fungible. Eating less can result in the same caloric deficit as exercise over a "normal" diet.

Since fasting itself has some health benefits, it's probably better to do any exercise at all while reducing food intake, than it is to eat "normally" and try to make up for it with exercise which is not likely to confer much more marginal health benefit.

Re: Inactivity 'kills more than obesity'

#98

Post by jeltz »

thizzbuzz wrote: post #88
cncool wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Are you in Canada? I wasn't familiar with Tim Hortons, but Wikipedia indicates its a Canadian bakery chain. Come on down to the US and you will find 600 calorie donuts aplenty.

Dunikin' Donuts goes from 220 to 550 calories, with the average somewhere around 350, so 600 kcal seems like quite a bit.

Re: Inactivity 'kills more than obesity'

#99

Post by rndn »

stinos wrote: post #90
rndn wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean paleolithic hunters and gatherers. Which animals do streching apart from the occasional, visceral stretching I mentioned?

None that I know of, I also meant visceral stretching..

Oh, I see. But that lasts usually only maybe 2-5 seconds, not 15-60.

Re: Inactivity 'kills more than obesity'

#100

Post by bacr »

Someone1234 wrote: post #94
victorhooi wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I do not agree with your statement. What do you even mean by "normal exercise"? I believe that most "normal" people are capable of doing enough exercise (combined with good eating choices) that they can lose weight. For example, say you have a 1-hour lunch break each day. During that lunch break, you could easily go for a 6km run (30-40 minutes), as well as have time for a shower, and grab food. If you're prepared to…

I'm going to side with the person above you. Exercise is important for a healthy lifestyle, but it won't result in weight loss. The amount of calories burned are trivial. For example: - 30 minute run burns (150 pound individual) burns just 272 calories. - 30 minute lap swim (150 pound individual) burns, again, just 272 calories. A single Milky Way chocolate bar has 240 calories. A Big Mac has 530 calories. A McDonald…

Those are fair points regarding energy expenditure for specific exercises. However, that doesn't take into account the effects of regular exercise on BMR. That normal exercise can elevate your BMR is certainly plausible, and many people have conducted studies that have reached this conclusion.

Metabolism is a complicated thing, and there are conflicting answers on the subject. Results differ under a variety of conditions (human, animal, forced/voluntary, etc.). The abstract in this review summarizes the state of the research nicely: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14692598

Post reply on HN