Live data from Hacker News

Why Exercise Won't Make You Thin

time.com

21–30 of 109 posts

Re: Why Exercise Won't Make You Thin

#21
post #5

Let me summarise. If you exercise you'll feel hungrier and if you don't show some self-restraint, you'll probably eat more and either not lose anything or actually put on weight. As the saying goes "Abs are made in the kitchen, not in the gym."

"if you don't show some self-restraint" - the articles premise was that the brief bursts of activity reduce your ability to show self-restraint. I find it interesting that people think "self-restraint" is some magical ability that isn't weakened/enhanced like any other capability of people. The reality is that managing the "Self-Restraint" muscle is probably much more important than trying to manage other muscles.

Self-restraint is a hackable psychological phenomenon in one's brain. I agree that it is not an innate moral power, but I disagree that it is a distinct human quality that can be strengthened. Self-restraint boils down to optimism. People can put themselves through anything if they have faith that it will pay off in the end. Rational knowledge doesn't help, and it isn't a matter of simply being harsh with oneself, either: harshness and pessimism just produce a paralyzed, chubby, self-loathing person. If passing up a cheeseburger leaves you with a dead feeling inside -- "I'm deprived now and screwed in the long run anyway, what a waste" -- then you won't be able to keep it up. If you have faith that passing up the cheeseburger will have a long-term payoff, then your brain gives you a down payment of happiness that cancels out the displeasure of depriving yourself.

That's why thinking about a distant, glorious end result (like a smoking hot beach body) works for some people but is counterproductive for others. It's motivational if you really believe in it. For many people, though, it's just a reminder that they're making sacrifices for something that they don't believe in at all. Those people are better of thinking of less distant payoffs that they can really believe in, even if the payoffs are trivial by comparison.

Some people think that your brain will simply not accept passing up food that your body thinks it needs, that it's completely unnatural and therefore impossible. But you do things all the time that have energetic costs and distant, uncertain payoffs. Hard work, saving money, hell, even just getting out of bed: these are things that impose immediate costs. Your brain does emotional bookkeeping to incline you to avoid costs that have no payoff. If you've ever been depressed, you know that getting out of bed is sheer misery if you believe that nothing good will come of it. Yet it's normal to get out of bed, get to work on time, and work at a job for a payoff that comes a few weeks later. (Or, for a startup, months or years later.) In the same way, it can be normal to pass up food. You just have to have faith in the payoff. You might think that food has some special status in your brain, and it might, but your brain is surprisingly abstract and adaptable. (Consider the recent article about money!) Also consider that physical labor is basically the opposite of food, but people manage to habituate themselves to physical labor despite the complaints of their body (which are, initially, totally out of proportion to the physical cost.)

Having faith isn't easy; in fact, it's really hard. But it demystifies the question of why people eat or don't eat, and why they feel good or bad when doing so. I find it much easier to deal with my "faith" than to struggle directly with my impulses.

EDIT: Hmm, I got upvoted while in the process of making a major revision. Sorry about that. I should stop using the "edit" page for preview/composition.

Re: Why Exercise Won't Make You Thin

#22
post #20
post #16

The article itself it insightful. But, brother hackers, can we allow an article whose title is a blatant lie to be voted to the top of Hacker News? Running is exercise. Running 1600 meters, on average, burns 124 calories for a man. ("Energy Expenditure of Walking and Running", Syracuse Uni study). This only takes a few minutes. Even if a person is taking in massively more calories than their body needs -- let's say,…

What calculator are you using? 1000/124 = 8 Eight miles is more than a couple.

Bloops -- changed to "a few".

At a leisurely 10 minutes per mile, that's 1.3.. hours of running. Well, overeating by a thousand calories is a lot.

But even assuming you burned 0 other calories, still, the argument holds.

You can, indeed, get thin by exercise.

If one stubbornly insisted on ONLY getting thin by running, and steadfastly refused to take responsibility for what went into one's piehole, STILL -- it would be possible, if perhaps impractical, depending on just how irresponsible one's eating habits were and how much free time they had to exercise.

But plenty of people get up early enough, for instance, to run for an hour. So it's not only doable, but EMINENTLY doable.

Re: Why Exercise Won't Make You Thin

#23
post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is the exercise and eating habits combo that works. Weight gain = Calories In - Calories out. Exercising along with the judicious diet (not starving) is what works. I recently came across two books that throw light on the interesting and useful information about high intensity-low duration exercising to develop a great body: 1. Cardio Free Diet: http://tinyurl.com/cardiofreediet and 2. The Nautilus Bodybuilding bo…

> Weight gain = Calories In - Calories out Not true. People and lab animals can be made to get fatter while in caloric deficit with elevated insulin levels.

This comes up in Hacker News every time a health story comes up, usually quoting a pop-sci writer. You've stated it by far the clearest with no vagueness or handwaving so hopefully you can answer this (or provide pointers to research):

In this theory where does the stored energy (i.e. the fat) come from if not from the calorie intake? How can this be done for more than a short period of time (e.g. I know you can break down muscle for energy) without breaking laws of physics?

Re: Why Exercise Won't Make You Thin

#25
post #12

The first thing that jumped out at me is that weight is the wrong metric in the first place. I'd rather be the same weight but have more, and better proportioned, muscle mass. (Muscle burns calories even when you're resting...it's a much better knob to tweak than the number of calories burnt during exercise.) The author might be better off by giving away his bathroom scale and thinking about his body as a system.

The article does address this to some extent. For example:

"According to calculations published in the journal Obesity Research by a Columbia University team in 2001, a pound of muscle burns approximately six calories a day in a resting body, compared with the two calories that a pound of fat burns. Which means that after you work out hard enough to convert, say, 10 lb. of fat to muscle — a major achievement — you would be able to eat only an extra 40 calories per day, about the amount in a teaspoon of butter, before beginning to gain weight."

Re: Why Exercise Won't Make You Thin

#26
post #16

The article itself it insightful. But, brother hackers, can we allow an article whose title is a blatant lie to be voted to the top of Hacker News? Running is exercise. Running 1600 meters, on average, burns 124 calories for a man. ("Energy Expenditure of Walking and Running", Syracuse Uni study). This only takes a few minutes. Even if a person is taking in massively more calories than their body needs -- let's say,…

1,000 calories, considering the modern possibilities, isn't that much. I mean, that's a bit less than two slices of toast with Nutella.

Weight loss programs have to focus on preempting and managing appetite. There's a wealth of studies connecting exercise to increased appetite (c.f. OP), especially focused, running-at-the-gym, doing-penance-for-those-donuts exercise. (Low-level activity—walking around, say—doesn't seem to provoke the same uptick in hunger. But it also burns way, way less calories.)

Your counterfactual assumes that the runner isn't more likely to eat an additional 2,000 calories, which is to say, they're already managing their appetite. If you can manage your appetite, then go for a goddamn run already. You'll be happier for it. If you're not managing your appetite, work on that—exercise will not help you lose weight until you do.

There's a great book—The End Of Overeating—which details the intersection of modern food science, evolutionary psychology, cognitive psychology, and human physiology. If you're interested, give it a go.

(BTW, bringing up elite athletes doesn't help the discussion—elite athletes regularly have 1.5-2 times the VO² max of even extremely fit people. Hell, five-time Tour de France winner Miguel Indurain could circulate 7L of oxygenated blood per minute compared with the 5-6L of his competitors and 3-4L for the fitter of us regular people. Human physiology has a statistical distribution, and bringing up people many standard deviations from the mean doesn't help any of us regular schmucks. My mutant power certainly does not involve my metabolism.)

Re: Why Exercise Won't Make You Thin

#27
post #22
post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What calculator are you using? 1000/124 = 8 Eight miles is more than a couple.

Bloops -- changed to "a few". At a leisurely 10 minutes per mile, that's 1.3.. hours of running. Well, overeating by a thousand calories is a lot. But even assuming you burned 0 other calories, still, the argument holds. You can, indeed, get thin by exercise. If one stubbornly insisted on ONLY getting thin by running, and steadfastly refused to take responsibility for what went into one's piehole, STILL -- it would b…

Running an hour a day is a dicey proposition because of the possibility of injury. I would say it's impossible for the vast majority of people who are overweight, no matter how carefully they worked up to it. You'd have to be skinny, have excellent form, and not have any unfixable pre-existing injuries or weaknesses.

Re: Why Exercise Won't Make You Thin

#28
post #13

I find it annoying that either through ignorance or a need to create an eye-catching headline the author interchangeably uses the words "thin" and "weight" to describe a metric used to measure some undefined-but-ideal body shape, There is an incredibly difference between being a 180lb man who exercises regularly and one who does not. Perhaps the author was never asked the "which weighs more, a ton of feathers or a to…

> ignorance or a need to create an eye-catching headline

What is it about being a hacker that makes us so surprised and/or upset when marketing works on us? As if we just lost an intellectual battle?

Marketing works, people. It's just hacking curiosity. You all read the article, didn't you? I finished it to the end.

Re: Why Exercise Won't Make You Thin

#29
The problem is that every few weeks an article comes out with some blanket statement like this, like "Excercise won't make you thin" which is only a partial truth. If you read many articles about fitness and nutrition you'll realize that there are no black and whites when it comes to nutrition and weightloss and there is no one easy answer.

Staying healthy and losing weight is a combination of good habits.

The reality is of course that exercise is a fantastic way to lose weight and stay healthy, but as this article says if you don't pair that healthy eating habits it means absolutely nothing.

Re: Why Exercise Won't Make You Thin

#30
post #22
post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What calculator are you using? 1000/124 = 8 Eight miles is more than a couple.

Bloops -- changed to "a few". At a leisurely 10 minutes per mile, that's 1.3.. hours of running. Well, overeating by a thousand calories is a lot. But even assuming you burned 0 other calories, still, the argument holds. You can, indeed, get thin by exercise. If one stubbornly insisted on ONLY getting thin by running, and steadfastly refused to take responsibility for what went into one's piehole, STILL -- it would b…

Your argument assumes invariant appetite and metabolism. Weight regulation is complex; see Gary Taubes's book _Good Calories, Bad Calories_ or this article: http://sethroberts.net/about/whatmakesfoodfattening.pdf
Post reply on HN