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

211–220 of 238 posts

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

#211

Post by rednukleus »

tjogin wrote: post #108
rednukleus wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Research has shown that, among dietary and health guidelines, switching soda for diet soda is the most effective guideline that exists. Eating better is obviously preferable, but the reason most people fail their diet is because it is too hard for them to comply with it. This is where the "switch to diet soda" is so effective; people can actually do it.

I wasn't comparing regular soda to diet soda, I was comparing having diet soda to not having diet soda. Diet soda affects gut flora and insulin levels. Calories are not the whole story.

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

#212

Post by vilmosi »

jsmthrowaway wrote: post #208
vilmosi wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agree to disagree. Starving yourself should never be an option.

This isn't "agree to disagree" territory, this is published and peer-reviewed science. You are wrong. There is no disagreement.

Fine then, show me. Show me some "science" that show how starving yourself is good for you.

Put up or shut up, this isn't productive.

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

#213

Post by vilmosi »

tjogin wrote: post #207
vilmosi wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

There is nothing detrimental about being on a caloric deficit diet if are overweight. It's not starving yourself, it's not bad for you, it's the ONLY way you can lose fat. Reducing intake is much more efficient than increasing output, as the article we are discussing elaborates on.

Yes you do lose weight, I don't disagree. If you do have a weight problem, it might be an option. But I don't think it's not detrimental for you or that it's a viable long term solution.

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

#214

Post by johnchristopher »

peteretep wrote: post #105
johnchristopher wrote: post #90

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'. 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…

My BMI is 30.1, which is obese. With a 36' waist, and usually fitting pretty comfortably in to an American size M t-shirt, I am a little overweight, but BMI is not a helpful measurement for any kind of diagnostic for me. I lift the occasional heavy thing, but an athlete I am not.

So you are overweight and your BMI correlates (and a single data point).

For what it's worth I used to wear EU M t-shirts a decade ago and I haven't put on weight. But the same M t-shirt sold these days is way slimmer than my old t-shirts.

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

#215

Post by johnchristopher »

glandium wrote: post #96
johnchristopher wrote: post #90

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'. 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.

But it's still anecdotal. BMI is a pretty good indicator of obesity for the general population.

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

#216

Post by johnchristopher »

learnstats2 wrote: post #94
johnchristopher wrote: post #90

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'. 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.

I am rebutting the point that BMI is useless because it doesn't always work as intended.

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

#217

Post by tjogin »

rednukleus wrote: post #211
tjogin wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Research has shown that, among dietary and health guidelines, switching soda for diet soda is the most effective guideline that exists. Eating better is obviously preferable, but the reason most people fail their diet is because it is too hard for them to comply with it. This is where the "switch to diet soda" is so effective; people can actually do it.

I wasn't comparing regular soda to diet soda, I was comparing having diet soda to not having diet soda. Diet soda affects gut flora and insulin levels. Calories are not the whole story.

That has only been demonstrated in mice, however, and only with semi-unrealistically large dosages of sucralose, if memory serves me right.

In humans, we have a lot of evidence that shows that the source of calories does not matter, for fat loss. Long term health is another issue, of course.

IMHO, putting focus anywhere but on calories is doing oneself a very big disservice, except for some athletes and bodybuilders for whom other factors are important as well.

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

#218

Post by tjogin »

vilmosi wrote: post #212
jsmthrowaway wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This isn't "agree to disagree" territory, this is published and peer-reviewed science. You are wrong. There is no disagreement.

Fine then, show me. Show me some "science" that show how starving yourself is good for you. Put up or shut up, this isn't productive.

You are making the claim that a caloric deficit is detrimental to health (although you choose to call it "starving yourself" for unknown reasons, even though starvation is something completely different), the onus is on you to show evidence for that.

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

#219

Post by vilmosi »

tjogin wrote: post #218
vilmosi wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fine then, show me. Show me some "science" that show how starving yourself is good for you. Put up or shut up, this isn't productive.

You are making the claim that a caloric deficit is detrimental to health (although you choose to call it "starving yourself" for unknown reasons, even though starvation is something completely different), the onus is on you to show evidence for that.

And I gave you links explaining the downsides. A calorie deficit diet does not guarantee fat-loss, it's more likely that your muscles break down before your fat. Your metabolism slows, making it even harder to lose weight, you'll be stuck in a vicious cycle. And finally, a big enough deficit can trigger starvation (medically) which tells your body to store fat as much as it possibly can. Meaning that as soon as you stop the diet, the weight will come right back, as fat. The proper way to lose weight is to increase the output (i.e. exercise) and eating more quality food. Not eating less.

I'm not against obtaining a calorie deficit because of more exercising or eating less sugar, I'm against having a calorie deficit diet by eating less, as the article suggests.

Hope I was more clear enough now.

Here's some more reading:

http://www.aworkoutroutine.com/how-to-lose-fat-without-losin... http://www.livestrong.com/article/518807-negative-side-effec... http://www.acaloriecounter.com/diet/daily-calorie-intake-cal...

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

#220

Post by tjogin »

vilmosi wrote: post #219
tjogin wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are making the claim that a caloric deficit is detrimental to health (although you choose to call it "starving yourself" for unknown reasons, even though starvation is something completely different), the onus is on you to show evidence for that.

And I gave you links explaining the downsides. A calorie deficit diet does not guarantee fat-loss, it's more likely that your muscles break down before your fat. Your metabolism slows, making it even harder to lose weight, you'll be stuck in a vicious cycle. And finally, a big enough deficit can trigger starvation (medically) which tells your body to store fat as much as it possibly can. Meaning that as soon as you s…

None of the claims you just made are correct.

You did not link to scientific evidence, you linked to articles on the Internet.

Post reply on HN