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

The Myth of Moderate Exercise

time.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 69 posts

Re: The Myth of Moderate Exercise

#21

Post by chandler »

kingkongrevenge wrote: post #14
menloparkbum wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People also consume many more calories in places where they didn't in the past. For instance, a soy latte from Starbucks has 210 calories. If you don't change anything in your diet or exercise habits and drink one of these every work day, you'll gain 15 pounds in a year.

I don't know this for sure, but if I recall correctly people eat fewer calories now than they did in the 70s. I know it's not a dramatically different number either way. It's the composition of the calorie that has changed. I'm firmly convinced of the fat vs starch theory. People eat much less fat and oils now and eat more starch.

I doubt I'd recommend replacing fat with carbohydrates, but you're correct in that sugars (starches/carbohydrates break down into...) cause the body to store fat (more specifically, the elevated insulin levels that accompany this).

Regarding weight loss: I work & exercise with a variety of body types (these body types have people names too!), and, within this small sample, I've found that the dominating factor in overall weight is diet, not exercise.

Essentially, exercise controls muscle tone and how "tight" the skin is, while diet seems to control the overall body shape.

Re: The Myth of Moderate Exercise

#22

Post by chandler »

kingkongrevenge wrote: post #19
fallentimes wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interesting - do you happen to have a source? Here's some for me: http://docnews.diabetesjournals.org/cgi/content/full/3/10/8 http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2007-03-15-fruits-vegeta... http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/04/070415183652.ht... Regardless, I definitely agree with your starch points at the top of the thread.

I just quickly went through the references and every one of them is either: a pooled analysis (inscrutable), a relative risk factor analysis (worthless; assumptions piled on assumptions), or doesn't indicate anything about servings. I have in the past seen actual population studies, not pop media articles, looking at relative vegetable consumption and coming up blank. High rates of heart disease in indian vegetarians…

>> High rates of heart disease in indian vegetarians...

Have you ever been to an Indian restaurant and ordered a vegetarian meal? While incredibly flavorful, I wouldn't classify it as even moderately healthy--

Re: The Myth of Moderate Exercise

#23

Post by ars »

fallentimes wrote: post #5

Yankee apologists are bad enough. Now we have fat people apologists. It really isn't hard: exercise moderately, take walk breaks, get enough sleep, consume primarily vegetables then fruit then meat/carbs. Eat five small meals a day and focus on lower calories.

Did you actually read the article? Rather than "It really isn't hard" what you wrote does not work.

Re: The Myth of Moderate Exercise

#24

Post by ars »

kingkongrevenge wrote: post #2

> Research suggests that weight may largely be regulated by biology, which helps determine the body's "set point," So where did all the fatties come from? They didn't used to be here. This is ridiculous. There are big, obvious changes in diet and exercise levels since the 70s that have correlated well with rising obesity.

Well perhaps the food levels eaten during childhood determine the set point. By the time you're an adult it's too late.

Re: The Myth of Moderate Exercise

#25

Post by albertcardona »

kingkongrevenge wrote: post #2

> Research suggests that weight may largely be regulated by biology, which helps determine the body's "set point," So where did all the fatties come from? They didn't used to be here. This is ridiculous. There are big, obvious changes in diet and exercise levels since the 70s that have correlated well with rising obesity.

The number of fat cells becomes fixed by the end of adolescence. As a child, fatty cells proliferate, but remain rather small. Your daily food as a kid influences how many cells you'll end up having as an adult.

Kids nowadays have a horrible diet of sugary drinks and fatty pseudo-chocolate treats.

Fat cells are very much involved in total body weight control, both through enzymes and by hosting lipid-soluble hormones in their oil droplets. So an adult having a lot of fat cells is at a disadvantage in a McBurger world.

Re: The Myth of Moderate Exercise

#26

Post by a-priori »

kingkongrevenge wrote: post #2

> Research suggests that weight may largely be regulated by biology, which helps determine the body's "set point," So where did all the fatties come from? They didn't used to be here. This is ridiculous. There are big, obvious changes in diet and exercise levels since the 70s that have correlated well with rising obesity.

That paragraph in the article really got on my nerves, because the whole idea of a "set point" for weight is wrong. There is no set point for weight. The only reason people think there is one is because it's a nice, neat hypothesis. Unfortunately, it is directly contradicted by evidence.

Your body does not try to return to a some weight, but rather resists changes in weight. Given constant diet and exercise, weight will asymptotically settle at some value and stay there. Make a significant change to diet and/or exercise, and the asymptote changes accordingly.

Re: The Myth of Moderate Exercise

#27

Post by jamiequint »

Perhaps the problem is that the study only considered exercise is moderate.

I've found high intensity exercise for short periods of time (20-40 minutes, 3-4 times a week) has far more effect for me personally than moderate exercise (45-60 minutes, 5-6 times a week) I've seen more personal improvement doing CrossFit (www.crossfit.com) than I ever did previously going to the local gym.

Re: The Myth of Moderate Exercise

#28

Post by a-priori »

kingkongrevenge wrote: post #17
natrius wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One theory says that the food you eat can affect your set point. High-calorie, strongly flavored foods that are easily digested (which make up most of the modern American diet) raise your set point. Breaking the flavor-calorie association with flavorless calories supposedly lowers your set point. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Shangri-La_Diet

> High-calorie, strongly flavored foods that are easily digested I think French cuisine is WAY more flavorful and calorie dense, and they're thin.

The key is portion size. French cuisine may be more dense, but they eat less of it.

Re: The Myth of Moderate Exercise

#29

Post by a-priori »

albertcardona wrote: post #25
kingkongrevenge wrote: post #2

> Research suggests that weight may largely be regulated by biology, which helps determine the body's "set point," So where did all the fatties come from? They didn't used to be here. This is ridiculous. There are big, obvious changes in diet and exercise levels since the 70s that have correlated well with rising obesity.

The number of fat cells becomes fixed by the end of adolescence. As a child, fatty cells proliferate, but remain rather small. Your daily food as a kid influences how many cells you'll end up having as an adult. Kids nowadays have a horrible diet of sugary drinks and fatty pseudo-chocolate treats. Fat cells are very much involved in total body weight control, both through enzymes and by hosting lipid-soluble hormones…

"The number of fat cells becomes fixed by the end of adolescence."

Uh, reference? I think you're wrong there. From what I remember, new fat cells grow when weight is gained, and are "deflated", but mostly survive, when weight is lost.

Post reply on HN