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

To Lose Weight, Eating Less Is Far More Important Than Exercising More

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 238 posts

Re: To Lose Weight, Eating Less Is Far More Important Than Exercising More

#51

Post by collyw »

jsmthrowaway wrote: post #23
joelrunyon wrote: post #5

Still amazed that people are still considering this a pure caloric issue and not a food quality issue. When you look at how various hormones (namely insulin) are affected by blood sugar & affect body composition, it seems you'd want to promote a method that bears that in mind. That said, I think the focus should be on "eating better" not just "eating less."

Be amazed all you want, but you're conflating two different issues, as does everyone who discusses it the way you do. Your attitude on this is actually a public health risk, because you're implying eating "better" is necessary to lose weight, and eating "better" almost always puts "better" out of reach of low-income families. "Yes, you can lose weight, you just need to spend $60 more a week on things I consider bette…

> eating "better" almost always puts "better" out of reach of low-income families.

I learned to cook cheap, unprocessed, healthy food as a student, in order to save money. A big bag of potatoes doesn't cost much and can make the bulk portion of many meals. I currently cook a lot of beans in my pressure cooker - easy, cheap and healthy.

Admittedly, the preparation time increases, which may be a problem for lower income families, but I always see the cost argument as false.

Re: To Lose Weight, Eating Less Is Far More Important Than Exercising More

#52

Post by jsmthrowaway »

joelrunyon wrote: post #46
jsmthrowaway wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Be amazed all you want, but you're conflating two different issues, as does everyone who discusses it the way you do. Your attitude on this is actually a public health risk, because you're implying eating "better" is necessary to lose weight, and eating "better" almost always puts "better" out of reach of low-income families. "Yes, you can lose weight, you just need to spend $60 more a week on things I consider bette…

Nothing I said was "indignant." Just stating that there's other things besides such strict calorie counting. On top of the fact that when practically put into play for people in real life, "calorie counting" feels restrictive, doesn't account for satiety (which then causes hunger & tends to lead to binges). Re: better - tons of vegetables, high quality meats, low-sugar fruits, nuts and seeds. Carbs when-appropriate p…

I've practically put calorie counting into play in real life, it doesn't feel restrictive, and I ignore hunger. It's almost like broad, sweeping generalizations are tough to make about human bodies and people.

You didn't answer my question about "better."

EDIT: You still didn't answer my question about quantifying "better."

Re: To Lose Weight, Eating Less Is Far More Important Than Exercising More

#53

Post by learnstats2 »

mhd wrote: post #14

The problem here seems that discussions about this are sooo littered with personal biases. "Bro science" is just one aspect of this, far more common is expecting that one's personal achievement is universally reproducible. Yes, person A may eat all the burgers and twinkies, because he's going to the gym all the time and swimming laps like there's no tomorrow. But as a general rule to combat obesity, that's probably n…

> Yes, person A may eat all the burgers and twinkies, because he's going to the gym all the time

One major problem with the standard BMI definitions is that any athlete in a sport that vaguely requires muscles will be classed as 'overweight' or 'obese'.

Although there may be some justification for this categorisation, these are people we normally consider at the peak of fitness.

One of the best things you can do for long-term health outcomes is to follow a strength training programme. For an average person, that may result in weight gain via muscle. This is not a bad thing.

Re: To Lose Weight, Eating Less Is Far More Important Than Exercising More

#54

Post by collyw »

curiousDog wrote: post #44

So true. I've found that Intermittent fasting + a 500cal deficit (below TDEE) is the easiest/most-effective way because it fits into my life-style as a programmer. I eat my last meal at 8PM and go to bed at 1-2AM. So not eating anything until 1PM the next day is a breeze (with a couple of cups of coffee in the morning). I've lost 20 pounds over the last 3 months with zero exercise.

I like intermittent fasting, but I am already skinny, and I struggle to keep my weight up, despite having chocolate and crap beside me at work on my non fast days.

Re: To Lose Weight, Eating Less Is Far More Important Than Exercising More

#55

Post by jsmthrowaway »

collyw wrote: post #51
jsmthrowaway wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Be amazed all you want, but you're conflating two different issues, as does everyone who discusses it the way you do. Your attitude on this is actually a public health risk, because you're implying eating "better" is necessary to lose weight, and eating "better" almost always puts "better" out of reach of low-income families. "Yes, you can lose weight, you just need to spend $60 more a week on things I consider bette…

> eating "better" almost always puts "better" out of reach of low-income families. I learned to cook cheap, unprocessed, healthy food as a student, in order to save money. A big bag of potatoes doesn't cost much and can make the bulk portion of many meals. I currently cook a lot of beans in my pressure cooker - easy, cheap and healthy. Admittedly, the preparation time increases, which may be a problem for lower incom…

The people who advocate healthy food will tell you that potatoes and beans were among your worst choices. Ask them. I have a 700 calorie thing of rice and chicken that I love, and I have been repeatedly told it's awful for my diet and I need to eat healthier, completely ignoring the fact that an entire race on the planet has done pretty okay with rice and meats for centuries.

The one thing I know for sure is that almost nobody who discusses this stuff on the Internet, particularly people who throw acronyms like TDEE and BMR around, have any clue what they're talking about and only you can listen to your own body. Weight loss and the Internet is a stupid, stupid place. I saw a thread once where people were sure beyond a shadow of a doubt that Jared from Subway was lying because there's no way such a diet could have ever worked. All he did was eat less. That's it. It's not hard. It worked. Look at him. But no, the Internet knows better.

Re: To Lose Weight, Eating Less Is Far More Important Than Exercising More

#56

Post by joelrunyon »

lubonay wrote: post #18

It seems like the article downplays the role of exercise - maybe I'm nitpicking, but how is this a valid argument: "Over a six-month period, though, adding exercise made no difference." I mean who wants to lose weight over six months only to be more likely for them to gain it back? Also, looking at weight alone is misleading. All other factors being equal, a person burning 2500 kcal per day and consuming 2000 would b…

As far as I can tell - it also didn't control for "type" of exercise.

Not all exercise is created equal.

Re: To Lose Weight, Eating Less Is Far More Important Than Exercising More

#57

Post by mdemare »

snez wrote: post #12
joelrunyon wrote: post #5

Still amazed that people are still considering this a pure caloric issue and not a food quality issue. When you look at how various hormones (namely insulin) are affected by blood sugar & affect body composition, it seems you'd want to promote a method that bears that in mind. That said, I think the focus should be on "eating better" not just "eating less."

Eating 3000kcal of "quality food" every day will still make you gross fat and give you heart problems. And did you know that protein also affects insulin? Insulin is essential for muscle building. Still find it hilarious how so many people still don't understand that a caloric deficit or surplus is the #1 thing to do when trying to cut or bulk.

Good luck eating 3000kcal of lentils in one day.

Re: To Lose Weight, Eating Less Is Far More Important Than Exercising More

#58

Post by jrapdx3 »

After years in the practice of obesity medicine, helping people lose excess weight, I'd say the thrust of the article is correct. The main key to successful (that is, sustained) weight loss is modifying food intake. Not for nothing do we call this "lifestyle modification", we should never underestimate the effort and courage it takes to adhere to the better plan.

Thing is one can never exercise enough to "burn off" the tremendous calorie intake most people are subject to. After all around 75-80% of energy expenditure occurs in the resting state, only 20-25% is ordinarily attributable to physical activity.

However I fully agree with the article that exercise is far from useless, certainly can contribute to well-being and has many indirect benefits that assist in long-term maintenance of decreased body fat content.

Of course none of this is really new, it's been established wisdom in obesity treatment circles for a long time. "Getting in shape" is hardly a trivial project as it requires commitment, determination, knowledge and support. Maintaining the benefit of hard won weight loss is not free, the price is eternal vigilance.

Re: To Lose Weight, Eating Less Is Far More Important Than Exercising More

#59

Post by rhaps0dy »

roel_v wrote: post #39
rhaps0dy wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your point is right, but bear in mind everyone has different calorie requirements. The "3000kcal" is just a placeholder, it means "1.5 times what you need".

Sure, but they don't vary that much between - and + 1 stddev. Eating 500 kcal / day less (or more) will affect the weight of pretty much everybody, over several months.

You are right, 500kcal is a significant chunk for most people. But eating 500kcal less is not (usually) the same as eating 3000kcal.

Re: To Lose Weight, Eating Less Is Far More Important Than Exercising More

#60

Post by FranOntanaya »

Exercise and the lowered depression levels may be a good trigger for lowering the amount of confort food eaten and increasing diet discipline. The lower calorie intake still gets the credit, but many people may never get there without the exercise first.
Post reply on HN