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

121–130 of 238 posts

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

#121

Post by vilmosi »

tjogin wrote: post #99
joelrunyon wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nothing I said was "indignant." Just stating that there's other things besides such strict calorie counting. On top of the fact that when practically put into play for people in real life, "calorie counting" feels restrictive, doesn't account for satiety (which then causes hunger & tends to lead to binges). Re: better - tons of vegetables, high quality meats, low-sugar fruits, nuts and seeds. Carbs when-appropriate p…

You are confusing "calorie counting", which is a method of losing weight, with a "caloric deficit" being the number one factor for losing weight, which is a fact. It doesn't matter if you count calories or not. What matters is that you achieve a caloric deficit. Any method that is applied successfully to achieve weight loss has resulted in a caloric deficit, whether or not that method was calorie counting.

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.

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

#122

Post by collyw »

mdemare wrote: post #57
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.

Good luck eating 3000kcal of lentils in one day.

Good luck the day after!

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

#123

Post by pjc50 »

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…

At time of writing, this is RIGHT NEXT to a comment saying "Still amazed that people are still considering this a pure caloric issue and not a food quality issue."

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

#124

Post by paulsutter »

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…

Percent body fat is a better metric to reduce than weight alone. Most men would even want to gain weight if it is muscle mass. If you want lean bodymass it's best to control your blood sugar (low glycemic diet) and exercise.

Calories in/out does control weight but there more to it if you don't want to end up skinnyfat. If you think calories is all that matters, try a diet solely of dextrose (glucose) and see how you end up.

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

#125

Post by DanBC »

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).

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

#126

Post by vilmosi »

gitaarik wrote: post #106
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.

But it doesn't mean that when you're healthy your automatically not overweight. You can be pretty healthy having a lot of fat. The point is that in the past you gained the fat by eating too much, so if you want to lose that, you should eat too less.

Who cares about overweight? It's about being healthy, but people forgot that. A lot of people from the gym are classified as overweight, with fat or not, but they are healthy as a horse and look good as well. This concern about losing weight has gone way too far.

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

#127

Post by agentPrefect »

peteretep wrote: post #116
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…

Different foods cause different levels of satiation. Knowing that eating less will make you lose weight is not the same thing as overcoming feelings of hunger to actually eat less in practice.

Absolutely agree with you, but that is an entirely different discussion. A good use case for the quality vs. quantity issue would be bodybuilders. Throughout a bulking cycle they make (or ... they should make) a concerted effort to do a "clean bulk" - which is healthy, good food. Ask any bodybuilder how difficult that is - which is exactly what you're saying. It's difficult because the food makes them full, satiated, etc.

BUT - they still bulk. They still put on the excess weight regardless of how clean they eat. Calories in, calories out.

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

#128

Post by vilmosi »

peteretep wrote: post #120
vilmosi wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Counting calories is definitely NOT the way to a healthy body. That's all marketing fluff. 500 calories from Macdonalds is not the same as 500 calories of fresh vegetables. And why did you put "quality food" in quotes?! The type of food you eat make a huge difference!

> 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.

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

#129

Post by agentPrefect »

pjc50 wrote: post #123
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…

At time of writing, this is RIGHT NEXT to a comment saying "Still amazed that people are still considering this a pure caloric issue and not a food quality issue."

Hahaha. Nice.

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

#130

Post by agentPrefect »

paulsutter wrote: post #124
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…

Percent body fat is a better metric to reduce than weight alone. Most men would even want to gain weight if it is muscle mass. If you want lean bodymass it's best to control your blood sugar (low glycemic diet) and exercise. Calories in/out does control weight but there more to it if you don't want to end up skinnyfat. If you think calories is all that matters, try a diet solely of dextrose (glucose) and see how you…

Remember this guy -> http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/207071.php
Post reply on HN