To Lose Weight, Eating Less Is Far More Important Than Exercising More • Hacker News Board

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

#141

Post by joelrunyon » Tue, Jun 16, 2015, 9:38 AM UTC

tjogin wrote: post #76

joelrunyon wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Eating 3000kcal of "quality food" every day will still make you gross fat and give you heart problems. Well, depending on your size, activity level and metabolism - maybe. Maybe not. > Insulin is essential for muscle building. Sure - post workout. If you get a massive insulin spike first thing in the morning (juice plus bagels and cereal), at the exact time where your body's hormone levels are optimal, you're not d…

The literature shows that a caloric deficit is what matters the most for weightloss, by an extremely large margin, so large that all other factors can safely be ignored for "normal people". Nutrient timing is completely irrelevant for normal people who want to lose weight, and only becomes relevant for bodybuilders with extremely low body fat levels, as well as athletes who train or compete multiple times a day, and…

How do you expect to build muscle without breaking it down to rebuild? Carbs are very important in that phase post workout (along with insulin).

I'd love to see what sources you have that say otherwise.

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

#142

Post by sheepmullet » Tue, Jun 16, 2015, 9:39 AM UTC

vidarh wrote: post #98

WildUtah wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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, ca…

This is why the human body is so fascinating. If my conversions are correct I weigh 88kg, perform about an hour of exercise a day and by limiting my calories to 2500/day I'm losing ~.8kg/week. I'm weighing all my food at home and at work so I doubt I'm out by more than maybe 100 calories.

Yet you are much larger, and fitter, but only need 2300 to maintain. I used to have more than 25% of your total daily intake in my coffees! And I've never been fat fat.

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

#143

Post by joelrunyon » Tue, Jun 16, 2015, 9:39 AM UTC

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.

No one ever talks about satiety or long term sustainability in these discussions. Thanks for bringing it up.

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

#144

Post by mhd » Tue, Jun 16, 2015, 9:41 AM UTC

DanBC wrote: post #125

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…

> So I hope we'll have less "But it worked for me!" in this thread and more thought about something a bit more universal and averaged out. HN fucking sucks at these discussions. There's a strong resistance to the evidence base (exercise doesn't help with weight lose and may make things worse; lifestyle changes of eating different does work; still recommend exercise because of other important health benefits).

We're a pretty egocentric bunch here, both startups and hacking mostly fall into that category. Seeing things from a more objective/statistical point of view is a rabbit hole one might not recover from ;)

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

#145

Post by empressplay » Tue, Jun 16, 2015, 9:48 AM UTC

gd1 wrote: post #119

antirez wrote: post #93

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 ea…

You do your math. Exercise isn't just about how many calories you burn during it. Add a kilo of muscle and it will be burning energy 24 hours a day, 365 days a year.

This. Someone who is out of shape will typically have a slower metabolism than someone who is in shape. Also, in defensive situations the out-of-shape person's body can rely more on adrenaline-based fight-or-flight mechanisms potentially leading to anxiety, which can then encourage comfort-eating and lead to cyclic weight-gain.

Once again, everyone wants to boil complex, intricate body and mind mechanisms down to "do this, don't do that." It's absurd. These are sophisticated systems full of roll-on cause and effect, tolerances, etc. not a toaster.

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

#146

Post by lamby » Tue, Jun 16, 2015, 9:52 AM UTC

dylanjermiah wrote: post #68

lamby wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Well, not eating protein will mean you lose more muscle mass.

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

#147

Post by empressplay » Tue, Jun 16, 2015, 9:52 AM UTC

mullingitover wrote: post #15

I found it ridiculously easy to lose weight by eliminating refined sugar and alcohol from my diet. 'Don't drink calories' is a great rule of thumb, sugared beverages are a plague on society. Keep your sweet tooth happy by eating fresh fruit--I don't think it's even possible to get or stay fat if your main sugar source is fruit.

_especially_ alcohol -- there's huge calories in booze. It also promotes being sedentary, and also over-eating if you drink with dinner.

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

#148

Post by bloat » Tue, Jun 16, 2015, 9:52 AM UTC

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…

I always see it presented this way, but calories is a measure of energy, not mass. Clearly a weight loss program is designed reduce the mass of your body.

Can anyone explain if there is a simple proportional link between "mass in/mass out" and "energy in/energy out" ?

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

#149

Post by dylanjermiah » Tue, Jun 16, 2015, 9:55 AM UTC

kfk wrote: post #82

dylanjermiah wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

I have seen plenty of overweight people back in Italy that were able to do tough 10 hrs hikes or caving explorations with heavy loads or else. They looked far more healthy to me than slim people that do no exercise. I am just very skeptic of using weight as a measure of health or even as a universal goal. That said, being very overweight is a problem and being slim and doing exercise is a better option.

>I have seen plenty of overweight people back in Italy that were able to do tough 10 hrs hikes or caving explorations with heavy loads or else. They looked far more healthy to me than slim people that do no exercise.

What do you define as 'overweight'? How did they 'look far more healthy' than slim people?

>I am just very skeptic of using weight as a measure of health or even as a universal goal. That said, being very overweight is a problem and being slim and doing exercise is a better option.

It's not weight per se it's excess adipose tissue. Any where past 20% for males and 30% BF for females will generally decrease performance to a significant extent.

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

#150

Post by peteretep » Tue, Jun 16, 2015, 9:58 AM UTC

vilmosi wrote: post #128

peteretep wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 500 calories from Macdonalds is not the same as 500 > calories of fresh vegetables You will find yourself in the "No True Scotsman" fallacy very quickly there. It is a microsecond of thought experiment to find 500 McDonald's calories that are better for you than a specific 500 fresh vegetable calories.

How is that No True Scotsman in any way? Seriously?! >> It is a microsecond of thought experiment to find 500 McDonald's calories that are better for you than a specific 500 fresh vegetable calories. Go for it. Take a whole second if you must.

    > Go for it. Take a whole second if you must.

McD's sells fresh fruit bags, grilled chicken, all manner of salads that you don't need to add dressing to, and so on. But you want a specific example?

I give you the Ranch Snack Wrap® (Grilled), Artisan Grilled Chicken Filet, mostly because if you eat two of them, you're near the 500kcal (580) mark, macronutrient ratio breakdown by calorie being 25% protein, 33% carbs, 41% fat, which ain't bad at all. Sugar by weight is 2%, by macronutrient calorie breakdown is 6%.

Let's say you ate 7 of them(!?!?) to hit your daily intake, which would be dumb, but whatever: your salt intake is 2x RDA, and you're probably shorter than you'd like to be of fibre.

If you ate exclusively this item for your calorific intake for a month, you might find you were passing your poop a little uncomfortably towards the end, but you'd find yourself significantly more healthy than most of the Western world. Take a multivitamin once a week, and if you eat exclusively this for the rest of your natural life, your only real concern is going to be potentially raised blood pressure and you'll probably get haemorrhoids.

Now let us consider the humble rutabaga (or swede), a root vegetable, allowed by the NHS to count towards your five vegetables a day. At 86% carbs, and 10% protein, it's pretty unbalanced, but whatever. Oh, did I mention? It's 64% (SIXTY FOUR) sugar by calories. Try living off that for a week.

    > How is that No True Scotsman in any way? Seriously?!

Sorry, I was pre-empting your response to this post where you find some reason that the Ranch Snack Wrap, fruit bags, etc aren't real McD's, and rutabagas aren't real vegetables.