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

131–140 of 238 posts

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

#131

Post by moomin »

peteretep wrote: post #112
glandium wrote: post #91

"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…

> weight loss is largely a commitment issue Yes, but it's a "commitment issue" in the same class as "stopping drinking", "stopping smoking", and "getting out of debt" for a lot of people; there's a very large mental/compulsive/dependency component.

To the extent that scientists who've studied it reckon that only 5% of the population are _capable_ of keeping weight down long term through diet.

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

#132

Post by DanBC »

agentPrefect wrote: post #109

I'm absolutely floored to see comments here still nit-picking at FOOD QUALITY vs FOOD QUANTITY vs WHAT DEFINES EXERCISE vs ETC. Whilst I fully enjoy reading some of the opinions on SOD, the myriad of needless front-end frameworks, etc. - this really is not subjective at all. Calories in, calories out. You eat 5000cal of the most nutritious, well balanced meal & run 10km - you will still put on weight (given you're no…

You're right, so let's move the discussion on.

Most people know what they should be eating: why aren't they eating it? Why do some people find it so hard to avoid excess calories?

Or, is 2,000 calories of chocolate as satiating as 2,000 of carrot and potato?

Or how relevant is gut flora? (Some people have gut flora that helps them stay slim; other people have gut flora that help them stay fat); how easy is it for someone to change their gut flora?

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

#133

Post by sorenbs »

omnibrain wrote: post #92
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.

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.

Plus your salmon, bacon, vegetables and eggs diet will provide micronutrients needed for proper functioning of organs and immune system. A micronutrient deficit might not be obvious on the short run but can do serious harm to the body long term.

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

#134

Post by nomomatta »

agentPrefect wrote: post #109

I'm absolutely floored to see comments here still nit-picking at FOOD QUALITY vs FOOD QUANTITY vs WHAT DEFINES EXERCISE vs ETC. Whilst I fully enjoy reading some of the opinions on SOD, the myriad of needless front-end frameworks, etc. - this really is not subjective at all. Calories in, calories out. You eat 5000cal of the most nutritious, well balanced meal & run 10km - you will still put on weight (given you're no…

Is it really so simple? Doesn't that ignore all other bodily responses to food and assume that food has only one characteristic, to be used for energy? Isn't it possible that some food creates hormonal conditions that result in a body with a higher/lower metabolic rate? Isn't it also possible that some calories are lost through waste? I think it's naive to simplify such a complex process.

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

#135

Post by agentPrefect »

paulsutter wrote: post #124
agentPrefect wrote: post #109

I'm absolutely floored to see comments here still nit-picking at FOOD QUALITY vs FOOD QUANTITY vs WHAT DEFINES EXERCISE vs ETC. Whilst I fully enjoy reading some of the opinions on SOD, the myriad of needless front-end frameworks, etc. - this really is not subjective at all. Calories in, calories out. You eat 5000cal of the most nutritious, well balanced meal & run 10km - you will still put on weight (given you're no…

Percent body fat is a better metric to reduce than weight alone. Most men would even want to gain weight if it is muscle mass. If you want lean bodymass it's best to control your blood sugar (low glycemic diet) and exercise. Calories in/out does control weight but there more to it if you don't want to end up skinnyfat. If you think calories is all that matters, try a diet solely of dextrose (glucose) and see how you…

I also should say, that I do agree with you. If it is more that losing weight you want, then the caloric deficiency is not the best way go - like if you're doing resistance training. But somebody who is obese? Eat cleanly yes ... but most certainly eat less.

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

#138

Post by gitaarik »

weavie wrote: post #117
gitaarik wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you burn the same amount of calories in both situations, why would it be different?

Hormones?

What do you mean, that hormones have effect on how efficient your body burns calories?

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

#139

Post by KaiserPro »

There really isn't that much science to it. On paper its really really simple.

To loose weight, you must expend more energy than you absorb.

However, conversely to get fit, you will need to eat a balanced diet, with enough calories to replace damaged muscles.

However on the weight loss front here are the golden rules:

Some people exercise (exercise expends energy)

Some people reduce energy consumption (eat less, or eat less calorific food)

Some people combine both.

There are no other options.

Seriously, if you are on a diet and you are not loosing weight, its not because you are unlucky, its because you are still absorbing more energy than you are expending. Exercise more, or eat less.

There is some evidence that efficiency can be altered by eating patterns, however that's not enough to over come eating an extra 300calories a day.

Everything else, is literally junk science. The 4:2 only works if on arrogate you consume less calories. Atkins only works if you can't absorb the extra energy you have in fat and protein. Etc, etc, etc.

This part is the easy part. Weight in 90% of cases is a symptom of one's environment. Changing environment is devilishly difficult.

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

#140

Post by gitaarik »

vilmosi wrote: post #126
gitaarik wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But it doesn't mean that when you're healthy your automatically not overweight. You can be pretty healthy having a lot of fat. The point is that in the past you gained the fat by eating too much, so if you want to lose that, you should eat too less.

Who cares about overweight? It's about being healthy, but people forgot that. A lot of people from the gym are classified as overweight, with fat or not, but they are healthy as a horse and look good as well. This concern about losing weight has gone way too far.

Well, whether you call it overweight or not, some people just want to lose fat, for whatever reason.
Post reply on HN