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

Diet, not lack of exercise, drives obesity, a new study finds

npr.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

281–290 of 396 posts

Re: Diet, not lack of exercise, drives obesity, a new study finds

#281

Post by redox99 »

tartoran wrote: post #98
redox99 wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A good diet only helps so much. Of course with enough self control, a caloric deficit will make you lose weight, but you need to make yourself perpetually hungry. Eating clean without measuring and limiting portions is not enough for people whose appetite is naturally higher. Ozempic was the only thing that actually solved my hunger. I would eat healthy, do exercise, but without ozempic my appetite was unstoppable an…

Aren't you worried at all about side effects from ozempic and what happens when you stop taking it?

No. I believe the health benefits of not being overweight, both physical and self esteem, heavily outweigh the side effects.

I plan to keep taking it for life (or some equivalent drug).

Re: Diet, not lack of exercise, drives obesity, a new study finds

#282

Post by SketchySeaBeast »

nsxwolf wrote: post #265
SketchySeaBeast wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But this black box has "you eat less calories" written in whiteout across it.

But it doesn’t matter to me. One method makes me so miserably hungry 24/7 that I quit after a few weeks of agony, the other makes me forget all about food entirely. This seems to bother people, who always tell me to do it the “right” way, which to them apparently means using willpower to endure endless suffering.

That's fine, you can live in your world of magic. I don't care for intermittent fasting, it been easier for me to calorie count, but both of our systems are CI/CO. If we can acknowledge the core concept is that weight loss is done through caloric restriction we can then expand that to more implementations, because, as you've pointed out, the "right" way is very personal.

Re: Diet, not lack of exercise, drives obesity, a new study finds

#283

Post by redox99 »

JKCalhoun wrote: post #102
redox99 wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A good diet only helps so much. Of course with enough self control, a caloric deficit will make you lose weight, but you need to make yourself perpetually hungry. Eating clean without measuring and limiting portions is not enough for people whose appetite is naturally higher. Ozempic was the only thing that actually solved my hunger. I would eat healthy, do exercise, but without ozempic my appetite was unstoppable an…

Yeah, lat week switched to two eggs for breakfast (now ½ an English muffin so I have something to put the eggs on). But I wonder if Ozempic is not a bad idea. My BMI is below 30 — which is what my doctor said is her threshold for recommending something like Ozempic. So I feel like I should just keep working on the self-discipline a little harder. Intermittent fasting keeps coming up and I have not tried it. I think t…

I was slightly under 30 too. The mental focus and not having any food noise is so worth it. It was a constant struggle that just vanished.

Re: Diet, not lack of exercise, drives obesity, a new study finds

#284

Post by cthalupa »

snozolli wrote: post #77
siliconc0w wrote: post #41

If you eat 4k calories but burn 5k, you'll lose a lot more weight than if you ate 1000 and burned 2000. So running can help but you still need a calorie deficit. Eating and burning more boosts your metabolism - if you measure a body builder during a bulk they are like a furnace, burning 1-2k over baseline. They still put on fat but it's a lot less than what you'd think given the amounts they're eating.

If you eat 4k calories but burn 5k, you'll lose a lot more weight than if you ate 1000 and burned 2000. Each of those is a 1,000 Calorie deficit. if you measure a body builder during a bulk Incidentally, the terms "bulking" and "cutting" come from bodybuilders taking steroids. I know that non-chemically-enhanced people have started using these terms, but it's honestly foolish. When you're not cycling anabolic steroid…

> Incidentally, the terms "bulking" and "cutting" come from bodybuilders taking steroids. I know that non-chemically-enhanced people have started using these terms, but it's honestly foolish. When you're not cycling anabolic steroids against metabolic stimulants like Clenbuterol, it really doesn't apply.

What. Even natural bodybuilders go through cut and bulk cycles. And plenty of enhanced bodybuilders don't use clen or DNP, even IFBB pros.

Someone new to resistance training, significantly overweight, or both, can add pounds and pounds of lean body mass while in a deficit. But that stops when those things stop. You have to be in a surplus to add muscle mass if you're no longer a novice lifter or significantly overweight. And it is basically impossible to perfectly balance your diet so that you don't gain any body fat in this situation while still being able to efficiently add muscle mass.

For a non-enhanced person that doesn't have the benefits of strong nutrient partitioning effects from AAS and HGH it is even more difficult to do so.

Lean bulks are more popular than ever but they're still bulks and they're still followed by cuts - just cycled much less frequently.

Re: Diet, not lack of exercise, drives obesity, a new study finds

#285

Post by cthalupa »

nsxwolf wrote: post #265
SketchySeaBeast wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But this black box has "you eat less calories" written in whiteout across it.

But it doesn’t matter to me. One method makes me so miserably hungry 24/7 that I quit after a few weeks of agony, the other makes me forget all about food entirely. This seems to bother people, who always tell me to do it the “right” way, which to them apparently means using willpower to endure endless suffering.

No one in this thread cares about this being the "right" way, they care about being accurate in what we're discussing.

Intermittent fasting, keto, carnivore, sugar diet, etc., all work when they work because it is caloric restriction.

Re: Diet, not lack of exercise, drives obesity, a new study finds

#286

Post by raydev »

Sohcahtoa82 wrote: post #153
milesvp wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I once worked a night shift stocking job just after college. I was in phenomenal shape without hitting the gym. I was at my lowest weight with a ton of lean muscle as a result of moving heavy loads and stocking paint every night. I also did the math at one point, and given the size of the warehouse I was probably walking quickly 8 miles during my shift. It became a chore to eat enough calories every day. Somewhere ar…

Reminds me of when I got my first job at 17...I worked at a large department/grocery store. My job primarily consisted of pushing karts from the corrals back to the store. In an 8 hour shift, I likely walked ~15 miles, with half of that time pushing up to a dozen karts. For lunch, I'd go to the McDonald's and get a Super Size (Since this was when that still existed) Double Quarter Pounder meal with a Coke. I'd chug t…

Your McD's meal was probably closer to 2000 calories, even with the giant Coke. For a short period I ate one meal a day, even when I thought I went over maintenance with a massive fast food treat, I'd still be 4-500 cals under if I was active that day.

Re: Diet, not lack of exercise, drives obesity, a new study finds

#287

Post by cthalupa »

hermitcrab wrote: post #258
cthalupa wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This isn't the first study to show that our bodies adjust to fairly set caloric expenditure - the constrained total energy expenditure model isn't new, and Ponztner and his team aren't the first to advocate for it, but we should be clear that he is an advocate for it, and has been for a while. Obviously, energy has to come from somewhere, so enough exercise will overcome any adaptations your body makes, but the curre…

My understanding is that the research shows that a highly active hunter gathering and an inactive office worker burn roughly the same number of calories per day. But I find that hard to believe. What is the office worker's body doing to make up the difference for all the movement and muscle contraction?

Lots and lots (and lots) of small subconscious movements throughout the day. Many thousands of them. Moving your heard around, tilting it a bit, wiggling your toes, rolling your shoulders, scratching an itch, etc.

Anecdotally, I believe I have a personal example of the sort of thing that changes. I went from being ultra-sedentary to exercising 5+ days a week over the past year. My body had enough of these tics that they had long since passed over the subconscious and unnoticed level into "why the fuck do I keep bouncing my legs around all the time when sitting or in bed." Now, I never do. After years of trying, I stopped making any sort of intentional effort to stop - and even things like weighted blankets, etc., in the past did nothing.

Now, I just don't do it. I fidget less at my desk while working. I make a whole lot less 'random' movements for no discernible reason.

Add up enough of all these tiny things over the course of a day, things you probably don't even realize you're doing, and each tiny fraction of a calorie expended eventually pushes you to the levels you see with more regular exercise.

(Now, of course, exercise is hugely important for a variety of other health factors)

Re: Diet, not lack of exercise, drives obesity, a new study finds

#288

Post by yoz-y »

procaryote wrote: post #171
tonymet wrote: post #155

For most people, a 1 hour moderate run is only about 1-2 cookies worth (and only half a Crumbl cookie). Even a marathon run might only burn 2000 calories . a chipotle burrito is 1600 . In other words, for 95% of people doing activity, they shouldn't eat any surplus if their goal is to maintain or lose weight. It's actually best to do most of your activity undernourished, as it helps develop true intuitive nutrition f…

You're right that it's easy to out-eat the running you can sustain as a regularly fit person, but there's no "only" about 2000 calories 2000 calories is pretty near the daily calory requirement for a healthy weight human. If you are of healthy weight and eat appropriately, you pretty much have to eat twice as much to compensate for that marathon

If you burn 2k calories daily exercising you are no longer gen pop. The case still stands, statistically nobody is out-exercising a bad diet.

Re: Diet, not lack of exercise, drives obesity, a new study finds

#289

Post by hermitcrab »

chasd00 wrote: post #75
Barrin92 wrote: post #19

It ought to be obvious. A chocolate donut, large Frappuccino or pick your unhealthy food of choice are about equivalent to half an hour of running. Given how many people throw in a snack like that several times per day good luck burning that off with exercise. One of the most straight forward things to lose weight is just limiting yourself to two or three actual meals, black coffee, tea, etc.

I make coffee at home but have noticed how fast the sugar jar needs to be refilled. I'm the only one who drinks coffee, it's surprising how much sugar i consume drinking coffee. I bet i use 2-3 tablespoons of pure sugar from my coffee consumption alone.

I used to have sugar in my tea. I gradually reduced it to zero and now I don't miss it at all.

Re: Diet, not lack of exercise, drives obesity, a new study finds

#290

Post by tonymet »

halfmatthalfcat wrote: post #259
tonymet wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fair enough but people are eating those daily plus 2 more meals. They don’t need any additional food , even if they were running a marathon every day

You're mistaking active calories as the only calories you burn a day. There's a reason the caloric intake recommendation is ~2kcal/day, because your RMR (resting metabolic rate) is ~2kcal/day. Meaning if you were to literally sit in bed all day, you are "burning" ~2kcal/day. On top of that you have your incidental energy expenditure per day (TDEE), aka walking to the fridge, taking a shit, general locomotion, etc. Yo…

Yes I’m advocating eating less. It sounds like we agree with each other. What did I miss?
Post reply on HN