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

191–200 of 238 posts

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

#191

Post by NLips »

KaiserPro wrote: post #164
NLips wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Assuming that by "4:2" you are talking about intermittent fasting, does anyone believe otherwise? Alternate-day fasting can help people lose weight not because there's any magical effect, but because a faster is unlikely to double their calorie intake the day after fasting - having fast days is just a simple/easy way to reduce overall calorie intake. Besides, the main benefits of alternate-day fasting are meant to be…

It is marketed as a diet. however its based on the idea that if you have a reduced calorie intake you'll live longer. However: a) its yet to be proved in humans (worms, flies and lemurs, yes.)[1] b) to get the benefit we're talking about ~1800 calories a day. Having accidental done something like that for almost a year, I cannot stress how terrible your quality of life is. [1] http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v43…

I don't believe we have the structures in place ever to 'prove' alternate-day fasting will extend human life.

In response to your point b), presumably you mean the deficit is ~1800 kcals per fast day? Why was this so terrible?

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

#192

Post by paulojreis »

gambiter wrote: post #190
paulojreis wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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) h…

> You yourself admit that it has shortcomings, but then defend it as what... 'better than nothing'?

No, I defend it as any other useful indicator (and there are publications on BMI usefulness), to be used by knowledgeable persons. You wouldn't blame "miles per gallon" as something bad because someone evaluated the SUV against the economy-class car standards, right?

A physician looking at a patient might decide to look at BMI, if the thinks it is adequate. A large institution (e.g. an university) might also use it to classify its population as a whole.

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

#193

Post by unprepare »

vidarh wrote: post #85
gitaarik wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you burn the same amount of calories in both situations, why would it be different?

And this is why it in practice would be different: Different foods makes you feel different, and affects your willingness to be active and your ability to do hard exercise. If you do control for activity (incredibly hard), then there's no reason why it would be different. If you don't, there are plenty of reasons why it would.

I think what you really mean is - healthier food makes you feel fuller, because it is less calorically dense Because of that, it is easier to consume less calories when you eat healthier foods.

http://www.boredpanda.com/what-200-calories-look-like/

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

#194

Post by [deleted] »

NLips wrote: post #191
KaiserPro wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is marketed as a diet. however its based on the idea that if you have a reduced calorie intake you'll live longer. However: a) its yet to be proved in humans (worms, flies and lemurs, yes.)[1] b) to get the benefit we're talking about ~1800 calories a day. Having accidental done something like that for almost a year, I cannot stress how terrible your quality of life is. [1] http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v43…

I don't believe we have the structures in place ever to 'prove' alternate-day fasting will extend human life. In response to your point b), presumably you mean the deficit is ~1800 kcals per fast day? Why was this so terrible?

[deleted]

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

#195

Post by unprepare »

lamby wrote: post #146
dylanjermiah wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> but there is an world of difference being How so (in terms of body composition)? Say TDEE = 3000 and one disregards macro/micros and eats at 2500 for 20 weeks opposed to one who ensures appropriate amounts.

Well, not eating protein will mean you lose more muscle mass.

losing muscle mass = losing weight

What you are defending is fitness, what we are discussing is weight loss

If you are 580 pounds heavy, restricting the number of calories you consume is far more important than making sure x% of your calories are from fats/carbs/proteins.

The only bearing food choice has on this matter is how full you will feel, and that is matter of personal preference and a small bit of choosing more protein rich foods, but if you don't mind feeling hungry you can lose weight just as well on 3 snickers bars as 3 chicken breasts with rice.

see http://www.boredpanda.com/what-200-calories-look-like/ for a visualization of how healthier foods will make you feel more full. for example, 200 calories of M&Ms is 40 grams, the same number of calories from apples is 385 grams - almost 10 times as much physical stuff occupying your stomach

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

#196

Post by unprepare »

vilmosi wrote: post #121
tjogin wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

having a caloric deficit is literally the ONLY way to lose weight, this is described by the laws of thermodynamics.

If you eat exactly as many calories as you burn, you will never gain nor lose weight. If you consume more calories than you burn you will gain weight.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caloric_deficit

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

#197

Post by kazinator »

learnstats2 wrote: post #53
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…

> 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'. Although there may be some justification for this categorisation, these are people we normally consider at the peak of fitness. One of the best things you can do for…

> 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'.

1. This is not a "major" problem, because those people are a tiny minority.

2. This is not a problem with the BMI itself; it's a problem with the "healthy BMI range" interpretation of the BMI value. Obviously, this range does not apply to special populations, like muscular athletes or people with missing limbs.

The BMI concept is valuable because it expresses weight in a way that normalizes for height. The BMI value is only as useful as raw body mass, but at least generalizes to different heights.

A better tool than anything derived from body mass (such as BMI) is a tape measure around your waist: keep your waist circumference less than around 40% of your height. That's it. For instance if you're 68 inches tall, you should have a 27" or narrower waist.

For BMI, by the way, I use the improved BMI formula: 1.3 * mass / (height ^ 2.5). The standard BMI's power of two gives taller adults excessively high BMI values, and is more lenient on shorter people.

https://people.maths.ox.ac.uk/trefethen/bmi_calc.html

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

#198

Post by gadders »

sheepmullet wrote: post #142
vidarh wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Most adult males who lift enough weights to care about cutting and bulking are burning 3000+ kcals daily. I very much doubt that. Most adult males that combine lifting 1 hour+ a day with a physically demanding job and who is otherwise highly active, maybe. That includes a very small proportion of people who "lift enough weights to care about cutting and bulking". I've done power lifting for ten years. I'm 108kg, ca…

This is why the human body is so fascinating. If my conversions are correct I weigh 88kg, perform about an hour of exercise a day and by limiting my calories to 2500/day I'm losing ~.8kg/week. I'm weighing all my food at home and at work so I doubt I'm out by more than maybe 100 calories. Yet you are much larger, and fitter, but only need 2300 to maintain. I used to have more than 25% of your total daily intake in my…

In livestock, they selectively breed for animals with good feed conversion ratios. i.e. for two pigs of the same breed given the same food, one will put on 1kg of mass and one will put on 1.5kg.

It would be daft to assume the same thing couldn't happen with people.

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

#199

Post by gadders »

vidarh wrote: post #98
WildUtah wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Eating 3000kcal of 'quality food' every day will still make you gross fat and give you heart problems" Eating 3000 kcal every day would make me shrivel away to skin and bones. "thing to do when trying to cut or bulk" Most adult males who lift enough weights to care about cutting and bulking are burning 3000+ kcals daily.

> Most adult males who lift enough weights to care about cutting and bulking are burning 3000+ kcals daily. I very much doubt that. Most adult males that combine lifting 1 hour+ a day with a physically demanding job and who is otherwise highly active, maybe. That includes a very small proportion of people who "lift enough weights to care about cutting and bulking". I've done power lifting for ten years. I'm 108kg, ca…

Offtopic: Most of my lifts are in the intermediate to advanced range, except my press. What did you do to get that to advanced?

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

#200

Post by cafard »

kazinator wrote: post #197
learnstats2 wrote: post #53

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'. Although there may be some justification for this categorisation, these are people we normally consider at the peak of fitness. One of the best things you can do for…

> 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'. 1. This is not a "major" problem, because those people are a tiny minority. 2. This is not a problem with the BMI itself; it's a problem with the "healthy BMI range" interpretation of the BMI value. Obviously, this range does not apply to special populations, l…

Well, 40% of height would be right around 30" for me. I'm not sure that I had a 30" waist back when I was running marathons in my twenties; 32", maybe. At this point, I don't think anyone this side of Procrustes could get me into trousers with a 30" waist; yet I think I'm reasonably fit for my age.

The USMC calculator for body fat uses neck and waist circumference both, and by that I was (last time I measured) in decent shape for body fat percentage.

Post reply on HN