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

#11

Post by paulojreis » Tue, Jun 16, 2015, 8:17 AM UTC

huehue wrote: post #7

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."

Over eating on high quality bacon won't stop you from being a lard-ass.

He mentioned "eating better". Eating "high quality bacon" isn't eating better.

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

#12

Post by snez » Tue, Jun 16, 2015, 8:17 AM UTC

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.

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

#13

Post by emirozer » Tue, Jun 16, 2015, 8:18 AM UTC

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."

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

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

#14

Post by mhd » Tue, Jun 16, 2015, 8:18 AM UTC

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 not the way to go (we often get the same personal non-exceptionalism in economic debates).

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.

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

#15

Post by mullingitover » Tue, Jun 16, 2015, 8:19 AM UTC

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.

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

#16

Post by vacri » Tue, Jun 16, 2015, 8:19 AM UTC

venomsnake wrote: post #3

Isn't it obvious - you BMR is 2-3 times higher than your all other energy expenditures for the day. If you overeat nothing can save you ...

A lot of people don't know that you base metabolic rate consumes a ton of energy. One prof told me that exercising merely doubled your energy requirements during the exercise - half for the BMR, half for the exercise. Taken in that light, exercise for an hour a day didn't do much to change your energy consumption overall.

The numbers may be off, but the concept is there - it takes energy to maintain the billions of cells that make up your body. Even if they're 'doing nothing', they still live and excrete, for example.

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

#17

Post by joss82 » Tue, Jun 16, 2015, 8:21 AM UTC

It's a bit oversimplified, because exercising increase your burn rate (your basal metabolic rate), even when you don't exercice.

But anyway: eat food, not too much, mostly plants ;)

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

#18

Post by lubonay » Tue, Jun 16, 2015, 8:21 AM UTC

It seems like the article downplays the role of exercise - maybe I'm nitpicking, but how is this a valid argument: "Over a six-month period, though, adding exercise made no difference."

I mean who wants to lose weight over six months only to be more likely for them to gain it back?

Also, looking at weight alone is misleading. All other factors being equal, a person burning 2500 kcal per day and consuming 2000 would be worse off than if they burn 3000 kcal and consume 2500. The latter case leads to better body composition (as in the ratio of body weight to fat) and better athletic qualities like strength and endurance.

People doing regular exercise also report being more energetic than their sluggish 0-cals-per-day counterparts. On top of that, prolonged dieting regardless of exercise may lead to depression and moving around tends to alleviate that.

Source: My Ph.D. in Broscience and Anecdotal Evidence :P

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

#19

Post by rhaps0dy » Tue, Jun 16, 2015, 8:21 AM UTC

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.

Your point is right, but bear in mind everyone has different calorie requirements.

The "3000kcal" is just a placeholder, it means "1.5 times what you need".

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

#20

Post by paulojreis » Tue, Jun 16, 2015, 8:22 AM UTC

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."

Yeah, this looks like one of the (many) downsides of the quantifiable self.

Nutrition professionals almost always advocate for diversity, but the Internet-wisdom thing is this approach. I guess it's just easier to do the simple math of in minus out (instead of actually trying to understand the nutrition of a complex organism).