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

91–100 of 238 posts

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

#91

Post by glandium »

"Far too many people, though, can manage to find an hour or more in their day to drive to the gym, exercise and then clean up afterward — but complain that there’s just no time to cook or prepare a healthful, home-cooked meal. If they would spend just half the time they do exercising trying to make a difference in the kitchen, they’d most likely see much better results."

This. From my anecdotal evidence, weight loss is largely a commitment issue. So when you spend as much time going to the gym and back as you spend exercising there, motivation to continue the effort can disappear despite the reward. So it's just best to find your own right balance between (what kind of/how much) effort and reward.

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

#92

Post by omnibrain »

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.

You have to see it from the other side. It's about sustainability of the diet.

Eating 1800kcal of white bread, salad and skinless chicken breast will leave you with a raging hunger. Sure, you have a caloric deficit but how sustainable is that going to be? On the other hand eating 1800kcal of salmon, bacon, vegetables and eggs is the same caloric deficit but (for most of us) with way less hunger involved.

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

#93

Post by antirez »

Everybody in the fitness circles (see Reddit Fitness) knows this. It's just that normally doctors, TV & company misadvice you, telling something like "walk more, be more active" when the task at hand is to lose weight. Actually the exercise suggestion should be: do some strength training while seriously dieting in order to retain muscles. A 30 minutes run will burn ~400 calories. The same amount of calories can be eaten in 10 seconds. Do your math.

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

#94

Post by learnstats2 »

johnchristopher wrote: post #90
learnstats2 wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> > > 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'. Oh, what a major problem it is for the vast majority of overweight people changing their diet and lifestyle. This really is the most important point they have t…

You seem to have misunderstood my point.

The general rule that muscle strength is positive for health applies to non-athletes just as well.

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

#95

Post by astrange »

paulojreis wrote: post #29
lubonay wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hey, it's better compared to low quality bacon.

I won't disagree with that - if I'm making wrong nutritional choices, let them be as tasty as possible!

Nothing wrong with bacon, fine source of macro calories. Maybe it's a little high in sodium.

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

#96

Post by glandium »

johnchristopher wrote: post #90
learnstats2 wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> > > 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'. Oh, what a major problem it is for the vast majority of overweight people changing their diet and lifestyle. This really is the most important point they have t…

BMI doesn't apply to all non-athletes either. My anecdotal evidence is that a few years back, my BMI was below average while I was clearly overweight.

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

#97

Post by vilmosi »

What a load of rubbish. First of all, losing weight is not the goal itself, it's one of the means to the real goal, which is to be healthy. It's not about eating less, it's about eating healthy. Exercise is absolutely essential to be healthy, regardless of weight.

Exercise is more important that eating less. What a dumb suggestion.

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

#98

Post by vidarh »

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.

> Most adult males who lift enough weights to care about cutting and bulking are burning 3000+ kcals daily.

I very much doubt that. Most adult males that combine lifting 1 hour+ a day with a physically demanding job and who is otherwise highly active, maybe. That includes a very small proportion of people who "lift enough weights to care about cutting and bulking".

I've done power lifting for ten years. I'm 108kg, carry around far more muscle than the average man. I exercise hard 3+ times a week. That's enough that my lifts according to strstd.com are all in the "advanced" range - much more than that is a waste when doing power lifting unless you're aiming to compete internationally. Yet my daily calorie need is on average ~2300kcal because I have a sedentary office job.

Most guys I see that worry about cutting and bulking have no clue what they're doing, and end up getting fat and bloated when bulking, so I tend to discount what people think they need quite heavily. I gained most of my muscle early on with a diet that saw me on 1600kcal-1800kcal. It's just the last few years I've been able to increase my intake above that without adding too much fat (and if you think I'm super defined and low body fat, think again)

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

#99

Post by tjogin »

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…

You are confusing "calorie counting", which is a method of losing weight, with a "caloric deficit" being the number one factor for losing weight, which is a fact.

It doesn't matter if you count calories or not. What matters is that you achieve a caloric deficit. Any method that is applied successfully to achieve weight loss has resulted in a caloric deficit, whether or not that method was calorie counting.

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

#100

Post by astrange »

rednukleus wrote: post #28
emirozer wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, the focus should be eating the right amount of healthy food.

That's exactly his point. The approach of merely counting calories ignores the fact that some foods such as diet soda are low in calories but can have an effect on body composition. You shouldn't just "eat less" you should "eat better", and that means eating an appropriate amount of healthy good.

What effect on body composition is that? Artificial sweeteners don't cause insulin resistance, so they should be fine for you.

The acid in Diet Coke is real bad for your teeth, but fruit juice is more acidic and has more sugar than diet soda and yet you probably think it's healthy, right?

Post reply on HN