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

111–120 of 127 posts

Re: Inactivity 'kills more than obesity'

#111

Post by Retra »

philh wrote: post #95
Retra wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

'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 s…

My point is that we distinguish species based upon their features, not timescale. So you cannot use this timescale-based differentiation to make a good argument to counter a feature-based differentiation.

How many generations would it take for some evolved feature to become part of homo sapiens has nothing to do with how many features are needed to not be homo sapiens anymore. Other than the fact that they both take time and are statements about evolution, there is no relation between the two.

Re: Inactivity 'kills more than obesity'

#112

Post by philh »

Retra wrote: post #111
philh wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 s…

My point is that we distinguish species based upon their features, not timescale. So you cannot use this timescale-based differentiation to make a good argument to counter a feature-based differentiation. How many generations would it take for some evolved feature to become part of homo sapiens has nothing to do with how many features are needed to not be homo sapiens anymore. Other than the fact that they both take…

> you cannot use this timescale-based differentiation to make a good argument to counter a feature-based differentiation.

I don't know what you mean by this. I don't know what feature-based differentiation I'm supposedly countering, and I don't know what it would mean to counter it.

What argument do you think I'm trying to make, exactly? Because all I'm saying is, "evolution makes significant changes on timescales significantly less than millions of years".

This thread isn't actually particularly interesting to me, so I may tap out now.

Re: Inactivity 'kills more than obesity'

#113

Post by jedrek »

arrrg wrote: post #80
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…

Well … when I was still very obese (162kg, just as tall as you are) I was also struggling with high pulse (around 90) and high blood pressure as well as, you know, just a general discomfort, a feeling of shortness of breath, … After I started restricting calories nearly a year ago I also started driving around 30 min every single on the ergometer bike (always the same amount of kilojoules per day to be consistent, fi…

Having lost a similar amount of weight (63kg), I want to give you a round of applause. That's just amazing work.

Re: Inactivity 'kills more than obesity'

#114

Post by Retra »

philh wrote: post #112
Retra wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My point is that we distinguish species based upon their features, not timescale. So you cannot use this timescale-based differentiation to make a good argument to counter a feature-based differentiation. How many generations would it take for some evolved feature to become part of homo sapiens has nothing to do with how many features are needed to not be homo sapiens anymore. Other than the fact that they both take…

> you cannot use this timescale-based differentiation to make a good argument to counter a feature-based differentiation. I don't know what you mean by this. I don't know what feature-based differentiation I'm supposedly countering, and I don't know what it would mean to counter it. What argument do you think I'm trying to make, exactly? Because all I'm saying is, "evolution makes significant changes on timescales si…

That's ok, I am not particularly invested in it either. You have a good point, I just think you didn't express it as solidly as you could have.

Re: Inactivity 'kills more than obesity'

#115

Post by arrrg »

jedrek wrote: post #113
arrrg wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well … when I was still very obese (162kg, just as tall as you are) I was also struggling with high pulse (around 90) and high blood pressure as well as, you know, just a general discomfort, a feeling of shortness of breath, … After I started restricting calories nearly a year ago I also started driving around 30 min every single on the ergometer bike (always the same amount of kilojoules per day to be consistent, fi…

Having lost a similar amount of weight (63kg), I want to give you a round of applause. That's just amazing work.

Congratulations to you, too!

But, to be honest, I feel like I can only start to be really happy about this when I manage to keep it steady for a couple years (though currently that is going quite well and I feel that my previous tendency to naturally overeat is seriously lessened, mostly probably through lasting and habitual diet changes, but probably also through consistent weight tracking).

Re: Inactivity 'kills more than obesity'

#116

Post by Terr_ »

easuter wrote: post #107
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.

What do you mean by "normal exercise"? For example, yesterday I burned ~750kcal on the treadmill. Are you trying to tell me this makes no dent in the calories I consumed throughout the day? If my objective was to lose weight, are you implying that doing such a workout couldn't lead to a calorie deficit and therefore expenditure of stored fat?

I suspect he meant something a bit more holistic/behavioral ("In a study of people who promised to X...") rather than in a purely mechanical/metabolic sense.

If the person is only thinking "exercise will make me weigh less", that outcome is unlikely because modern society makes it deceptively easy to wipe out all your gains with a "small" snack, and because the conversion of fat to muscle doesn't show much on a scale.

Re: Inactivity 'kills more than obesity'

#117

Post by fatpeopleh8 »

king_jester wrote: post #108
Shivetya wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 i…

> The latest fads of Fat Acceptance and Healthy At Every Size show the trend quite well. Fat acceptance is not a fad as you put. It is about people being able to accept and love themselves as they are. Fat people are bombarded with messages that they are not acceptable and they should not be exist. Fatness is described as a thing to be exterminated, which implies that fat people should be exterminated. This is not hy…

Found the fatty

Re: Inactivity 'kills more than obesity'

#118

Post by beachstartup »

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)

the problem with being pedantic like this is that you just come off as a huge nerd to everyone, even other pedantic nerds. that's why i said "easier to sell", not "technically more accurate."

Re: Inactivity 'kills more than obesity'

#119

Post by webnrrd2k »

YMMV, but I find that exercise is essential for me to loose weight. If I get a lot of aerobic exercise, enough to tire myself out with out casing too much pain or damage, then I sleep much better. I'm clear minded, and able to make better decisions about what I eat. Also, exercise helps me to control stress, which is a major factor in overeating. Oh, and when I exercise I don't like to get so full, so it's easier to control my portion size.

I can loose weigh through diet alone, but it isn't consistent. Diet and exercise together work much better in the long run.

Re: Inactivity 'kills more than obesity'

#120

Post by crpatino »

Someone1234 wrote: post #106
bacr wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 condit…

> That normal exercise can elevate your BMR is certainly plausible, and many people have conducted studies that have reached this conclusion. It is true that they have conducted these studies, it is inaccurate to claim that it any great impact on BMR, and the study you linked (which you can read in full [0]) supports that conclusion. The 48 hour improvement is inconsequential, and there are no improvements beyond tha…

I think you are ignoring the elephant in the room.

Active people have higher BMR because they build up bigger muscles. Not talking about bodybuilders - though that is the extreme of a continuous, but anyone who does regular exercise builds up some lean mass.

Off course, if you ever stop your body will pick up the signal and decide to not sustain the extra muscle anymore. If no change in diet follows immediately, you will pick up body fat pretty quickly.

Post reply on HN