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

231–238 of 238 posts

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

#231

Post by JoeAltmaier »

vilmosi wrote: post #227
tjogin wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That experiment does not support any of your claims.

Quoting: >>> Among the conclusions from the study was the confirmation that prolonged semi-starvation produces significant increases in depression, hysteria and hypochondriasis >>> Participants exhibited a preoccupation with food, both during the starvation period and the rehabilitation phase >>> There were marked declines in physiological processes indicative of decreases in each subject’s basal metabolic rate (the…

My experience is different. I can go days without eating, and not suffer. Food occurs to me, but I'm not preoccupied. I work normally or with extra concentration, for longer. Fasting is the route to focus for me.

Call nutrition science if you like, but begin by admitting each experience may vary. We're not all built the same.

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

#232

Post by vilmosi »

tjogin wrote: post #225
vilmosi wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>> The word overweight means to have excess fat, specifically. Dictionary definition "above a weight considered normal or desirable." The WHO definition "a BMI greater than or equal to 25 is overweight" Not sure what definition you use, most gym-heads are technically overweight. But discussing semantics is not the topic here.

Not being able to understand the difference between excess muscle and fat is not semantics. BMI is a tool applied to populations, used on individuals it can be very inaccurate, which is why nobody does it outside of blogs and magazines.

The term "overweight" does not differentiate between muscle and fat, plain and simple. You're wrong.

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

#233

Post by dragonwriter »

vilmosi wrote: post #232
tjogin wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not being able to understand the difference between excess muscle and fat is not semantics. BMI is a tool applied to populations, used on individuals it can be very inaccurate, which is why nobody does it outside of blogs and magazines.

The term "overweight" does not differentiate between muscle and fat, plain and simple. You're wrong.

> The term "overweight" does not differentiate between muscle and fat, plain and simple. You're wrong.

You're wrong. The typical diagnostic method for overweight and obesity (BMI) does not differentiate between muscle and fat, because mechanisms that do are too expensive/complex for the use, but the term, in fact, does.

At their most basic, the words “overweight” and “obesity” are ways to describe having too much body fat. [0]

Overweight and obesity are defined as abnormal or excessive fat accumulation that may impair health. [1]

[0] http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/obesity-prevention-source/obesit...

[1] http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs311/en/

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

#234

Post by vilmosi »

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #231
vilmosi wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoting: >>> Among the conclusions from the study was the confirmation that prolonged semi-starvation produces significant increases in depression, hysteria and hypochondriasis >>> Participants exhibited a preoccupation with food, both during the starvation period and the rehabilitation phase >>> There were marked declines in physiological processes indicative of decreases in each subject’s basal metabolic rate (the…

My experience is different. I can go days without eating, and not suffer. Food occurs to me, but I'm not preoccupied. I work normally or with extra concentration, for longer. Fasting is the route to focus for me. Call nutrition science if you like, but begin by admitting each experience may vary. We're not all built the same.

Yes, every person is different. But there are standards and averages and common approaches to these things. Otherwise medicine wouldn't exist since no two people have the same physiology. This is not an excuse to ignore scientific results.

Days without eating is not normal in any sense of the word.

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

#235

Post by JoeAltmaier »

vilmosi wrote: post #234
JoeAltmaier wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My experience is different. I can go days without eating, and not suffer. Food occurs to me, but I'm not preoccupied. I work normally or with extra concentration, for longer. Fasting is the route to focus for me. Call nutrition science if you like, but begin by admitting each experience may vary. We're not all built the same.

Yes, every person is different. But there are standards and averages and common approaches to these things. Otherwise medicine wouldn't exist since no two people have the same physiology. This is not an excuse to ignore scientific results. Days without eating is not normal in any sense of the word.

Well, depends. For the first million years it was the norm. In a sense we're designed for it. Modern city-dwellers are all soft and weak and think they have to eat three times a day. But there's absolutely no biological reason its necessary.

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

#236

Post by vilmosi »

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #235
vilmosi wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, every person is different. But there are standards and averages and common approaches to these things. Otherwise medicine wouldn't exist since no two people have the same physiology. This is not an excuse to ignore scientific results. Days without eating is not normal in any sense of the word.

Well, depends. For the first million years it was the norm. In a sense we're designed for it. Modern city-dwellers are all soft and weak and think they have to eat three times a day. But there's absolutely no biological reason its necessary.

That's just not true. If you are talking about hunter-gatherer societies, you'd be surprised to find out they didn't starve themselves regularly. They ate well and worked fewer hours than us, with a surprisingly high life expectancy.

"According to Sahlins, ethnographic data indicated that hunter-gatherers worked far fewer hours and enjoyed more leisure than typical members of industrial society, and they still ate well."

"Sackett found that adults in foraging and horticultural societies work, on average, about 6.5 hours a day, where as people in agricultural and industrial societies work on average 8.8 hours a day.[26]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunter-gatherer

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

#237

Post by JoeAltmaier »

vilmosi wrote: post #236
JoeAltmaier wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, depends. For the first million years it was the norm. In a sense we're designed for it. Modern city-dwellers are all soft and weak and think they have to eat three times a day. But there's absolutely no biological reason its necessary.

That's just not true. If you are talking about hunter-gatherer societies, you'd be surprised to find out they didn't starve themselves regularly. They ate well and worked fewer hours than us, with a surprisingly high life expectancy. "According to Sahlins, ethnographic data indicated that hunter-gatherers worked far fewer hours and enjoyed more leisure than typical members of industrial society, and they still ate we…

...and Japanese farmers work 10 hours a day. What a world.

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

#238

Post by vilmosi »

dragonwriter wrote: post #233
vilmosi wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The term "overweight" does not differentiate between muscle and fat, plain and simple. You're wrong.

> The term "overweight" does not differentiate between muscle and fat, plain and simple. You're wrong. You're wrong. The typical diagnostic method for overweight and obesity (BMI) does not differentiate between muscle and fat, because mechanisms that do are too expensive/complex for the use, but the term , in fact, does. At their most basic, the words “overweight” and “obesity” are ways to describe having too much bo…

Both your quotes are followed by BMI index, which technically doesn't take into account fat/muscle ration by definition.

But I do concede, overweight in that context does refer to excess fat.

Post reply on HN