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

61–70 of 238 posts

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

#61

Post by snez »

WildUtah wrote: post #47
snez wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

"Eating 3000kcal of 'quality food' every day will still make you gross fat and give you heart problems" Eating 3000 kcal every day would make me shrivel away to skin and bones. "thing to do when trying to cut or bulk" Most adult males who lift enough weights to care about cutting and bulking are burning 3000+ kcals daily.

You must be pretty strong, good for you :)

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

#62

Post by roel_v »

pizza234 wrote: post #21
venomsnake wrote: post #3

Isn't it obvious - you BMR is 2-3 times higher than your all other energy expenditures for the day. If you overeat nothing can save you ...

It's not obvious, actually; exercise also affects the BMR, as a matter of fact, according to some theories, certain types of exercise increase the BMR more than certain others (I don't express any support for this, just pointing out). Although we're not talking about huge amounts, when having a precise dieting regime, even a few hundred calories of "good weight loss" matter. Definitely nothing can save one from overe…

"It's not obvious, actually"

Yes it is. Changes in metabolism are a second-order effect, at most. There is only one first-order effect: fat = calories in - calories out. Once that equation is OK, one can go look at all the other factors - BMR, how macros are split, genetics, ...

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

#63

Post by kittiepryde »

haydenhall wrote: post #32

For myself at least its always been quite simple... If you want to lose weight and be healthy - eat little and eat healthy. If you want to lose weight and don't care too much for your health - eat little. If you want to be healthy - eat healthy. If you just don't care - eat whatever you like.

I was simplifying of it as:

Calories --> Weight

Food quality & exercise --> health

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

#64

Post by dylanjermiah »

kfk wrote: post #24

Yeah, that is true, but I hold that being overweight and exercising (real exercise, not the fake gym training programs) is far better for your health and your well being overall. At least you keep a functional body - you can do long walks, runs, climbing, etc. - which is a much better life if you ask me, but that's only my opinion, I repeat, only an opinion. Edit. Just to be clear, of course being slim and exercising…

>but I hold that being overweight and exercising

How is being overweight 'far better' for health or well being? (assuming you're talking about excess adipose tissue).

Please define 'function' and how excess adipose increases ones ability to walk, run and climb.

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

#65

Post by paulojreis »

snez wrote: post #35
paulojreis wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. Don't you think that there's more to human nutrition than "cut" or "bulk"?

Of course there is, but getting your priorities wrong is counter productive. Set the calories first based on your goal to cut/maintain/bulk, then you automatically figure out that junk food is a calorie thief and unconsciously start eating quality food, then you start adjusting your macros for body recomposition and the list goes on forever. Calories are #1 though.

I disagree, completely.

I workout, I do my best to keep my nutrition in order, but I think cut/maintain/bulk are the wrong priorities. It's just the Internet fitness community thing; it's not wrong per se but implies a focus on what is less relevant.

The priority should be your health, and I always saw nutrition and health professionals advocating diversity. Focusing on calorie balance almost always overlooks this.

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

#66

Post by vidarh »

sdrothrock wrote: post #4

The phrase I always hear is that "abs are made in the kitchen." Edit: Or the variation: "Abs are made in the gym, revealed in the kitchen," which I always thought sounded kind of gruesome if you take it literally.

Abs particularly because abs don't get very big no matter what you do, and so for most people abs won't really be very visible unless you dip below 10% body fat. No amount of crunches etc. will work around that.

For larger muscle groups the body fat percentage matters much less.

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

#67

Post by tjogin »

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…

There is too much mysticism around nutrition and health; people think it's about the method when it's rather about finding a method that works for you the way you apply it.

People seem to find it very hard to reason about dosages as well; so-and-so is "good for you" and so-and-so is "bad for you", again with the mysticism. Nothing is bad for you and everything is bad for you, all depending on the dose. And vice versa, foods that are supposedly good for you don't do shit if you don't dose it appropriately, and become bad for you if you overdose it.

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

#68

Post by dylanjermiah »

lamby wrote: post #26
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."

> considering this a pure caloric issue and not a food quality issue I'm sure this will get a bunch of "but calories in calories out" replies - nobody is doubting the laws of thermodynamics, but there is an world of difference being, say, 400kcal under your TDEE eating "better" foods versus junk, both in terms of your mental outlook, how your body will look at the end, and whether you will stick to the diet and there…

> but there is an world of difference being

How so (in terms of body composition)? Say TDEE = 3000 and one disregards macro/micros and eats at 2500 for 20 weeks opposed to one who ensures appropriate amounts.

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

#69

Post by paulojreis »

realharo wrote: post #45
paulojreis wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, this looks like one of the (many) downsides of the quantifiable self. Nutrition professionals almost always advocate for diversity, but the Internet-wisdom thing is this approach. I guess it's just easier to do the simple math of in minus out (instead of actually trying to understand the nutrition of a complex organism).

Most "Internet-wisdom" always tells you to at least roughly know and adjust your split of macronutrients.

Yes, of course, but - still - it's "Internet-wisdom". And mostly from fitness communities which may or may not be adequately knowledgeable.

The split thing could make one focus too much on macronutrients, possibly eating the same thing over and over to hit the desired macros, while overlooking micronutrients. Yet, if one followed the simplest nutritional advice (diversity) instead of Internet-wisdom, that would be addressed.

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

#70

Post by maknz »

jhh wrote: post #50
MrBuddyCasino wrote: post #40

This is true, but: when I exercise regularly, I find that I am less hungry and eat less. Anyone here made the same experience?

If I know I'll go for a run I am very hesistant to eat heavily, as I know I'll regret it. The more you exercise the more you push back heavy/unproductive meals in your schedule. You just know if you eat wrongly you won't be able to keep up with your own pace of execise. Eating and execise seem deeply connected to me. Certainly it is hard to put this kind of thinking into a controlled randomized trial.

So much this. If you include regular exercise you're way more motivated not to over-eat, you simply don't want to spoil the hard work you did since it's so easy to consume 500 cal but so much harder (relatively) to burn 500 cal. Combining both has certainly been effective for me.
Post reply on HN