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

201–210 of 238 posts

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

#201

Post by mikhailt »

Losing weight is easy. Most people can do it by eating less without exercise.

The biggest problem in weight loss (beside the fact that you shouldn't do any dieting as this should be a lifestyle change), is how to maintain the weight once you reach the healthy goal.

I'm having a hard time figuring out how to keep the healthy weight and the best way for me is to exercise in addition to a strict cal limit. Exercise will increase your burning rate, and you have to figure how to balance it with your eating habits because you won't know how your body is burning while at rest for a while. This is the main issue, it is harder to maintain this fight than to lose weight on a simple low-cal limit.

I met a lot of folks who successfully lost weight but gained it back and lost it again, it took them 3-4 times in a row to figure out how to maintain their healthy weight. I'm already in my second battle against this. I found the best method is 16/8 fasting method, eat 8 hours and 16 hours fasting and I already am losing far more weight than anything else. This is so much easy to maintain even when I'm reaching my goal.

It's kind of like people winning the lottery and most of them just bankrupt themselves in a year. There's no real good educational program in US that teaches both kids and adult how to focus on what you eat and how to maintain the weight.

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

#202

Post by norea-armozel »

snez wrote: post #12
joelrunyon wrote: post #5

Still amazed that people are still considering this a pure caloric issue and not a food quality issue. When you look at how various hormones (namely insulin) are affected by blood sugar & affect body composition, it seems you'd want to promote a method that bears that in mind. That said, I think the focus should be on "eating better" not just "eating less."

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.

Humans eat for taste and I believe some research has indicated that we depend on taste to convey what will satisfy our hunger (and nutrient requirements). The problem is that most of our food is caloric dense, but nutrient poor. So, we cover the metabolic calories needed to live, but not much else. It's one thing I've learned from getting back on a diet is how much 'diet' food is empty calories and how often I have to eat other foods to cover nutrient deficits (calories are easy, getting enough Vitamin A is hard if you keep eating the 'diet' food).

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

#203

Post by jsmthrowaway »

vilmosi wrote: post #189
tjogin wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, I'm talking about actual scientific evidence published in peer reviewed scientific journals. There are mountains of it available. Being in a caloric deficit is not starving yourself, it just means that over a period of time, usually a full day, you spent more energy than you consumed, and the difference is taken out of your energy storage, which is mostly adipose tissue. This is how fat loss happens.

Oh I get it now, there's a misconception here. A caloric deficit DIET is detrimental to you. But you can still obtain calorie deficit process by simply increasing the output (i.e. exercise). Eating quality food helps too.

Nope, still wrong. There is nothing detrimental about eating less than you need within reason.

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

#204

Post by vilmosi »

jsmthrowaway wrote: post #203
vilmosi wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh I get it now, there's a misconception here. A caloric deficit DIET is detrimental to you. But you can still obtain calorie deficit process by simply increasing the output (i.e. exercise). Eating quality food helps too.

Nope, still wrong. There is nothing detrimental about eating less than you need within reason.

Agree to disagree. Starving yourself should never be an option.

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

#205

Post by vilmosi »

tjogin wrote: post #186
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.

Being overweight is unhealthy, it can't be done in a healthy way; not in the long term. While it is possible for an overweight person to not have any of the common health problems associated with being overweight, that is temporary. If you are overweight, you will develop those health problems, it's just a matter of time. It's basically like smoking and cancer; not all smokers have cancer or get cancer, but there is…

>>> but there is no such thing as smoking in a healthy way

But there is a way to be overweight in a healthy. Basically everyone at the gym is overweight (officially anyway) because of their muscle mass.

>>> Exercise is great, it's terrific, but not over eating is much more important.

True. But there is a difference between over eating and under eating. I never said we should over eat, I just don't agree with under eating.

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

#206

Post by tjogin »

vilmosi wrote: post #205
tjogin wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Being overweight is unhealthy, it can't be done in a healthy way; not in the long term. While it is possible for an overweight person to not have any of the common health problems associated with being overweight, that is temporary. If you are overweight, you will develop those health problems, it's just a matter of time. It's basically like smoking and cancer; not all smokers have cancer or get cancer, but there is…

>>> but there is no such thing as smoking in a healthy way But there is a way to be overweight in a healthy. Basically everyone at the gym is overweight (officially anyway) because of their muscle mass. >>> Exercise is great, it's terrific, but not over eating is much more important. True. But there is a difference between over eating and under eating. I never said we should over eat, I just don't agree with under ea…

No, having muscle doesn't make you overweight, no matter how much of it you have. The word overweight means to have excess fat, specifically.

Im not sure what you mean by under eating, but eating fewer calories than you spend is the only way to lose fat, other than surgery.

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

#207

Post by tjogin »

vilmosi wrote: post #189
tjogin wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, I'm talking about actual scientific evidence published in peer reviewed scientific journals. There are mountains of it available. Being in a caloric deficit is not starving yourself, it just means that over a period of time, usually a full day, you spent more energy than you consumed, and the difference is taken out of your energy storage, which is mostly adipose tissue. This is how fat loss happens.

Oh I get it now, there's a misconception here. A caloric deficit DIET is detrimental to you. But you can still obtain calorie deficit process by simply increasing the output (i.e. exercise). Eating quality food helps too.

There is nothing detrimental about being on a caloric deficit diet if are overweight. It's not starving yourself, it's not bad for you, it's the ONLY way you can lose fat. Reducing intake is much more efficient than increasing output, as the article we are discussing elaborates on.

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

#208

Post by jsmthrowaway »

vilmosi wrote: post #204
jsmthrowaway wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nope, still wrong. There is nothing detrimental about eating less than you need within reason.

Agree to disagree. Starving yourself should never be an option.

This isn't "agree to disagree" territory, this is published and peer-reviewed science. You are wrong. There is no disagreement.

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

#209

Post by anigbrowl »

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…

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.

I'm kinda skeptical about this. As it happens, I am 68 inches tall and I do have a 27" waist. But I'm really skinny, and even then I feel a bit thicker in the middle than I used to - party l from some additional muscle, partly age (I'm 45 now). I'm very small-boned and have a slightly overactive thyroid, so while I do live a pretty healthy lifestyle I don't think my physique is a reasonable model for the general population.

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

#210

Post by dragonwriter »

tjogin wrote: post #207
vilmosi wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh I get it now, there's a misconception here. A caloric deficit DIET is detrimental to you. But you can still obtain calorie deficit process by simply increasing the output (i.e. exercise). Eating quality food helps too.

There is nothing detrimental about being on a caloric deficit diet if are overweight. It's not starving yourself, it's not bad for you, it's the ONLY way you can lose fat. Reducing intake is much more efficient than increasing output, as the article we are discussing elaborates on.

> There is nothing detrimental about being on a caloric deficit diet if are overweight.

Yes, there is. Sustained calorie deficit has a number of potential adverse effects. OTOH, if you are overweight, those detrimental effects may be justified by the expected long-term health benefits of weight loss.

Post reply on HN