Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Inactivity 'kills more than obesity'

bbc.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–127 of 127 posts

Re: Inactivity 'kills more than obesity'

#121

Post by ars »

girvo wrote: post #22
ars wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I would say obesity implies inactivity It most definitely does not. You can be obese and active if your body weight setpoint is off - after activity you are simply very hungry and eat. The two things have some overlap but one does not imply the other in either direction.

Body weight "set point"? What's that?

The body has a desired weight built into it.

If you go over that weight it starts burning extra calories via thermogenesis, not absorbing as much, and making you not hungry.

If you go under it reduces thermogenesis, digests more efficiently and makes you hungry.

To try to change your weight you have to fight a VERY powerful feedback loop in the body.

Re: Inactivity 'kills more than obesity'

#122

Post by SixSigma »

king_jester wrote: post #104
thret wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Daily hard exercise - the panting, heart-pounding, drenched in sweat kind of exercise - increases your metabolism. You can eat whatever you want, as much as you want, and you won't gain fat. The 2nd law of thermodynamics has little if anything to do with calorie counting.

> Daily hard exercise - the panting, heart-pounding, drenched in sweat kind of exercise - increases your metabolism. This is not true for all people and can be highly variable between different people, let alone not necessarily possible for folks with metabolic disorders.

Highly variable, true, wide range - false

http://examine.com/faq/does-metabolism-vary-between-two-peop...

You should never take your health advice from someone trying to sell you a book supporting your poor choices.

i.e. Dr Bacon.

Re: Inactivity 'kills more than obesity'

#123

Post by girvo »

ars wrote: post #121
girvo wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Body weight "set point"? What's that?

The body has a desired weight built into it. If you go over that weight it starts burning extra calories via thermogenesis, not absorbing as much, and making you not hungry. If you go under it reduces thermogenesis, digests more efficiently and makes you hungry. To try to change your weight you have to fight a VERY powerful feedback loop in the body.

Right, I thought thats what you were talking about. It's only a theory, and it's not that well supported in the literature[1]. Even presupposing it's true, the literature shows that it can be changed -- you're not stuck for it for life[0]. The issue I have with set-point theory are rather numerous, to be perfectly honest, but the key part is that it's used by some to "give up" and assume that being obese is "natural", which considering the massive negative effects it has on your body, doesn't sit right with me.

I'm happy to be proven wrong, but all of the research I've read on it shows that for the most part it's not a given that it's a real phenomenon. Human nutrition and metabolism is super complex, for sure, but those sorts of twee "too easy" explanations are rarely correct.

[0] http://jn.nutrition.org/content/127/9/1875S.short [1] http://www.fasebj.org/content/4/15/3310.short

Re: Inactivity 'kills more than obesity'

#124

Post by johnchristopher »

awjr wrote: post #63

As somebody touching 20st (127kg) I recently started working on a client site and had a choice, drive by car or catch a train and cycle the 5 miles to the client site. Into my second week and finding the cycling is really making a difference and can get desk to platform in 31 minutes (unlocking of bike etc) down from 35 minutes at the beginning. I'll weigh myself at some point but honestly feel I'm physically getting…

Are you sweaty from the bike ride ?

If so, how do you handle it when you are on the client site ?

Re: Inactivity 'kills more than obesity'

#125

Post by ars »

girvo wrote: post #123
ars wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The body has a desired weight built into it. If you go over that weight it starts burning extra calories via thermogenesis, not absorbing as much, and making you not hungry. If you go under it reduces thermogenesis, digests more efficiently and makes you hungry. To try to change your weight you have to fight a VERY powerful feedback loop in the body.

Right, I thought thats what you were talking about. It's only a theory, and it's not that well supported in the literature[1]. Even presupposing it's true, the literature shows that it can be changed -- you're not stuck for it for life[0]. The issue I have with set-point theory are rather numerous, to be perfectly honest, but the key part is that it's used by some to "give up" and assume that being obese is "natural"…

I didn't say it can't be changed, just that it's very very difficult.

> but the key part is that it's used by some to "give up" and assume that being obese is "natural"

You are not born with any particular set point, you gain one based on your life (although there are tendencies). But once you have it, it's very hard to change.

I think of it like hysteresis - you need to work extra hard to get past it, but then it settles on a new value.

> I'm happy to be proven wrong

My personal experience of trying to change my weight for a full year, all sorts of methods, and eventually gave up for a while and one day weighed myself just to see how I ended up: The exact, to the 1/5 of a pound! weight I started with a year ago!

So I'm quite certain it's real, and yes, I'm giving up - somewhat.

Re: Inactivity 'kills more than obesity'

#126

Post by victorhooi »

Someone1234 wrote: post #94
victorhooi wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I do not agree with your statement. What do you even mean by "normal exercise"? I believe that most "normal" people are capable of doing enough exercise (combined with good eating choices) that they can lose weight. For example, say you have a 1-hour lunch break each day. During that lunch break, you could easily go for a 6km run (30-40 minutes), as well as have time for a shower, and grab food. If you're prepared to…

I'm going to side with the person above you. Exercise is important for a healthy lifestyle, but it won't result in weight loss. The amount of calories burned are trivial. For example: - 30 minute run burns (150 pound individual) burns just 272 calories. - 30 minute lap swim (150 pound individual) burns, again, just 272 calories. A single Milky Way chocolate bar has 240 calories. A Big Mac has 530 calories. A McDonald…

You're correct, those foods that you posted are very caloric dense - however, you don't necessarily need to choose to eat those foods. There are far healthier alternatives that will fill you up, and have way less calories.

E.g. my breakfast is 6 sticks of wheatbix + skim milk, 3 apples, 3 pears. Probably similar calories to a large chocolate bar, and way more satisfying =). My lunch is a wholemeal sandwich with fresh tomatoes, lettuce and some chicken breast, plus fruit. Very tasty, and not as caloric dense.

For me, during my lunchtime run or swim, I usually burn between 300-350 calories (Garmin GPS watch with heart-rate monitor, I'm assuming it has reasonable accuracy).

Then the cycle to work, 100 calories, the cycle back home, another 100 calories.

Then 2-3 nights a week, I go to a kickboxing or weights session, that's probably 400-500 calories (This is very much an estimate - I can't wear my heart rate band during those sessions).

Then weekends, you can go for a longer run/swim. It's fun! Ultimately though, you need to find activities you enjoy, otherwise you won't do them.

You just need to find the healthy food you like eating, and the exercises that you like doing.

Re: Inactivity 'kills more than obesity'

#127

Post by victorhooi »

king_jester wrote: post #103
victorhooi wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I do not agree with your statement. What do you even mean by "normal exercise"? I believe that most "normal" people are capable of doing enough exercise (combined with good eating choices) that they can lose weight. For example, say you have a 1-hour lunch break each day. During that lunch break, you could easily go for a 6km run (30-40 minutes), as well as have time for a shower, and grab food. If you're prepared to…

> I believe that most "normal" people are capable of doing enough exercise (combined with good eating choices) that they can lose weight. The point is there is there no set point of "enough" exercise to induce weight loss. It is highly variable between people and it is very unlikely that any individual can keep weight off in this fashion over a period of time. Linking exercise and weight is a time waster and, more im…

To be honest, I find exercise during the day to actually be helpful - it gets me out of the office, and lets me recharge.

However, you do need to find an activity that you enjoy - if it's running 10km, then do that. If it's swimming 2km, do that. Or maybe you like doing weights, then do that. Or rock-climbing after work. It can't be something that you hate. (There are days you just don't feel like it though - sometimes you just need to grit your teeth and do it).

Also, what is a "healthy amount" of exercise?

I argue that it is possible to combine good food choices with a reasonable amount of exercise that will help you lose weight.

The below calorie burn numbers are from myself, using a HR band and a sports watch.

E.g. your lunchtime run/swim will burn say 300-350 calories.

If you jog or cycle to work, you can easily burn another 100 calories each way, so 200 calories both ways.

And maybe after work, you go to the gym, or do kickboxing, or play a sport you enjoy (e.g. touch footy, hockey, water polo etc.) - that's another 300-500 calories. (I don't wear a band during my sports though, since it'd come off - so these are rough guesses). You might only do that 2-3 nights a week though.

Either way though, if you choose to, you can be very active.

Post reply on HN