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

181–190 of 238 posts

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

#181

Post by tjogin »

joelrunyon wrote: post #141
tjogin wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I never said anything to the contrary?

I just said nutrient timing is not important; i.e. the exact moment when you eat things, or don't eat things, is not important, for most normal people.

And they are not "my sources"; I'm refering to the available scientific evidence, they are everyone's sources.

And, lastly, the idea that you need to "break down" muscle in order to build it up is not really correct, either. Muscle breakdown happens yes, but it happens whether you workout or not, working out just elevates muscle protein synthesis, thus both the breakdown and build up of muscle protein. But it's not like the breakdown causes the build up, and it's not like there can't be buildup without breakdown, it's not a very good analogy and it's not a really good illustration of the mechanics at work.

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

#182

Post by angdis »

paulojreis wrote: post #180
gambiter wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We shouldn't assume other professionals are "dumb"; we shouldn't assume that we are a brilliant bunch, capable of seeing beyond an indicator, while doctors and nutrition professionals use them blindly. Um... what? If doctors and professionals are using BMI blindly, that absolutely classifies their opinion as 'dumb'. The fact is, 'boring' or not, the calculations for BMI most definitely give you skewed results becau…

> If doctors and professionals are using BMI blindly They aren't. > The fact is, 'boring' or not, the calculations for BMI most definitely give you skewed results because it doesn't consider muscle mass. They most definitely don't give you skewed results. How can the results be skewed if they are straightforward math from the body mass (independently of it being mostly lean or fat)? Wrong interpretation of the values…

Yes, BMI is practical because it relies on two simple measurements, weight and height, and it is most useful when you're talking about populations of people rather than individuals. There are other ways to measure body fat percentage which will give you a more accurate measure for individuals but they're not practical for large populations. The "gold standard" for body fat measurement involves dunking the body into water to measure volume-- this not done at a routine physical exam !

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

#183

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

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

#184

Post by vilmosi »

tjogin wrote: post #178
vilmosi wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Calorie deficit is harmful for you though, there's an imbalance. You tell your body it's starving. As soon as you have an extra calorie to spare, you're body will immediately store it as fat, making your hard work essentially meaningless in the long run.

None of what you just said is correct, not a syllable of it, really. You should read up on the available scientific evidence.

What scientific evidence? Let me guess, some blog post from a company that sells said diet? Give me a break.

Starving your body does indeed make you lose weight, that's true. It's just not a healthy way to do it. Nor is it long term. Your body will more than compensate for it as it regains all the weight you lost as soon as you eat like a regular person.

http://healthyenough.net/calorie-counting/ http://breakingmuscle.com/endurance-sports/calorie-restricti...

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

#185

Post by dspillett »

dspillett wrote: post #166
kittiepryde wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was simplifying of it as: Calories --> Weight Food quality & exercise --> health

That works in my head too, though I'd always add the caveat that you need both and should endeavour not to sacrifice one (even temporarily) in order to improve the other. Along that path (particularly compromising the health side in a pursuit of dramatic weight loss) fad diets and the like lie, and those things rarely work long term.

That works in my head too, though I'd always add the caveat that you need both and should endeavour not to sacrifice one (even temporarily) in order to improve the other. Along that path (particularly compromising the health side in a pursuit of dramatic weight loss) fad diets and the like lie, and those things rarely work long term.

One important factor that I've noticed (warning: anecdotal evidence approaching, be prepared to engage critical thinking) is that while exercise increases my appetite it doesn't seem to increase it as much as the extra I'm burning off. The difference isn't large but it is noticeable when watching closely and it seems to be relatively consistent: yes my body wants me to eat more when I exercise more, but it seems content with getting less extra in than the extra it has put out so if I just listened to my hunger I'd still slowly lose weight. This doesn't seem to be the case in periods when I do little or no exercise beyond my daily routine (walking to/from work and such) - I don't stop feeling hungry before I've eaten the right amount to stay at a stable weight.

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

#186

Post by tjogin »

vilmosi wrote: post #97

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.

Being overweight is unhealthy, it can't be done in a healthy way; not in the long term.

While it is possible for an overweight person to not have any of the common health problems associated with being overweight, that is temporary. If you are overweight, you will develop those health problems, it's just a matter of time.

It's basically like smoking and cancer; not all smokers have cancer or get cancer, but there is no such thing as smoking in a healthy way, and if you do it, then the best way to get healthier and to prevent developing health problems in the future is to stop doing it.

Some people can be overweight without developing health problems for a long time, even for a decade or two, but it's just a matter of time. Reducing your bodyweight is easily the best way to improve your health, and to make sure you don't develop health problems in the future.

And, vice versa, many of the things we associate with bad health don't become health problems at all for people who stay lean. Food that we know to have strong correlations with bad health, like eating red meat, sodium, cholesterol, etc, are only really problematic if you also over eat.

Exercise is great, it's terrific, but not over eating is much more important. The saying is true, "you can't outrun a bad diet".

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

#187

Post by tjogin »

vilmosi wrote: post #184
tjogin wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

None of what you just said is correct, not a syllable of it, really. You should read up on the available scientific evidence.

What scientific evidence? Let me guess, some blog post from a company that sells said diet? Give me a break. Starving your body does indeed make you lose weight, that's true. It's just not a healthy way to do it. Nor is it long term. Your body will more than compensate for it as it regains all the weight you lost as soon as you eat like a regular person. http://healthyenough.net/calorie-counting/ http://breakingmuscl…

No, I'm talking about actual scientific evidence published in peer reviewed scientific journals. There are mountains of it available.

Being in a caloric deficit is not starving yourself, it just means that over a period of time, usually a full day, you spent more energy than you consumed, and the difference is taken out of your energy storage, which is mostly adipose tissue. This is how fat loss happens.

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

#189

Post by vilmosi »

tjogin wrote: post #187
vilmosi wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What scientific evidence? Let me guess, some blog post from a company that sells said diet? Give me a break. Starving your body does indeed make you lose weight, that's true. It's just not a healthy way to do it. Nor is it long term. Your body will more than compensate for it as it regains all the weight you lost as soon as you eat like a regular person. http://healthyenough.net/calorie-counting/ http://breakingmuscl…

No, I'm talking about actual scientific evidence published in peer reviewed scientific journals. There are mountains of it available. Being in a caloric deficit is not starving yourself, it just means that over a period of time, usually a full day, you spent more energy than you consumed, and the difference is taken out of your energy storage, which is mostly adipose tissue. This is how fat loss happens.

Oh I get it now, there's a misconception here. A caloric deficit DIET is detrimental to you. But you can still obtain calorie deficit process by simply increasing the output (i.e. exercise). Eating quality food helps too.

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

#190

Post by gambiter »

paulojreis wrote: post #180
gambiter wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We shouldn't assume other professionals are "dumb"; we shouldn't assume that we are a brilliant bunch, capable of seeing beyond an indicator, while doctors and nutrition professionals use them blindly. Um... what? If doctors and professionals are using BMI blindly, that absolutely classifies their opinion as 'dumb'. The fact is, 'boring' or not, the calculations for BMI most definitely give you skewed results becau…

> If doctors and professionals are using BMI blindly They aren't. > The fact is, 'boring' or not, the calculations for BMI most definitely give you skewed results because it doesn't consider muscle mass. They most definitely don't give you skewed results. How can the results be skewed if they are straightforward math from the body mass (independently of it being mostly lean or fat)? Wrong interpretation of the values…

> > If doctors and professionals are using BMI blindly

> They aren't.

I see, I misread your original comment. The phrasing just threw me.

> How can the results be skewed if they are straightforward math from the body mass (independently of it being mostly lean or fat)?

That's splitting hairs. I think you knew I meant interpretation.

> this is not a problem with the indicator, nor the . It's a problem with (lack of) honesty.

In fact, it IS a problem with the indicator, because it's being used as basis for large decisions, and it has the backing of the medical industry in spite of it's limitations.

You conveniently skipped over the other issues I mentioned.

> people who really should look at BMI for their job (i.e. doctors an nutrition professionals) are aware of its shortcomings.

You yourself admit that it has shortcomings, but then defend it as what... 'better than nothing'? There are many examples if BMI being used incorrectly by those 'nutrition professionals', so it's hard to see your side of the argument.

Post reply on HN