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

Scientist busts myths about how humans burn calories

science.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 753 posts

Re: Scientist busts myths about how humans burn calories

#31

Post by basementcat »

nwiswell wrote: post #24
berdon wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anecdotally, I have absolutely ran off a bad diet. I burn ~150-250 calories a mile and have ran off 2000+ calories to eat what I wanted with no discernible increase in weight. Did this for years. In hindsight, it’s much easier on one’s knees to adjust your diet.

Yeah. Cyclists in the Tour de France typically eat 5000 calories a day, often more in particularly difficult stages. Obviously none of them have a weight problem. "Fun" fact: they also shit themselves on the bike. When you eat that much it's inevitable you're gonna have to poop it out, and it's a race -- you can't stop.

The reduction in mass undoubtedly makes it easier to complete the remainder of the stage.

Re: Scientist busts myths about how humans burn calories

#32

Post by thebigjewbowski »

learc83 wrote: post #7

How do his results line up real world data like soldiers needing about 5k calories a day when active. Or athletes like Michael Phelps consuming 8k-10k calories a day while training?

Those are anecdotes and I have one of my own that really has me questioning this;

I’ve lost 85 lbs since the beginning of May. I lost 40/85 just since the beginning of December through today.

When I exercise I clearly lose weight more quickly. Since December I’ve been running like crazy, at least 5-10km 5-6 days/week. When I lift weights I drop pounds even faster.

Edit: Makes me wonder, though, — if I walk in the morning and solve puzzles on leetcode, would I burn more calories? When I run at night if I solve random math problems in my head will I burn more calories?

Re: Scientist busts myths about how humans burn calories

#33

Post by digitcatphd »

Has anyone considered that every N years a scientific “discovery”in a given field invalidates a previous one?

Commonly in more theoretical sciences like nutritional science, psychology, and astrophysics?

In other words, is anything really truly reliable in these domains?

Re: Scientist busts myths about how humans burn calories

#34

Post by [deleted] »

basementcat wrote: post #31
nwiswell wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah. Cyclists in the Tour de France typically eat 5000 calories a day, often more in particularly difficult stages. Obviously none of them have a weight problem. "Fun" fact: they also shit themselves on the bike. When you eat that much it's inevitable you're gonna have to poop it out, and it's a race -- you can't stop.

The reduction in mass undoubtedly makes it easier to complete the remainder of the stage.

[deleted]

Re: Scientist busts myths about how humans burn calories

#35

Post by Terry_Roll »

voisin wrote: post #18
Terry_Roll wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> but by consuming that budget there is less budget to go around for unhealthy things like inflammation, excess hormone creation, etc (which is why exercise is so beneficial to health). You dont understand inflammation, inflammation is like a nuclear bomb going off, however certain chemicals found in the diet will turn that nuclear bomb into an array of guided missiles. We are complex chemical reactions, eat the wron…

He is referring to chronic low grade inflammation - not acute inflammation from specific chemicals. He cites studies. If you read them I would love to hear your take because you are correct - I am not an expert on inflammation!

What causes low grade inflammation? Generally Fat, what is fat and is anyone measuring what else is inside the lipid like fat soluble vitamins, hormones etc?

> He calculates that the ceiling for an 85-kilogram man would be about 4650 calories per day.

It still doesnt look at the what the short and long term effect is, he doesnt quantify it with this person can consume 4650cal but be dead next week does he? Its just a throw away statement, it means nothing and his ego/beliefs/followers are getting him into print before a larger audience. Because we are not able to quantify his statement properly, the media could be complicit in murder/manslaughter depending on what people know and remembered at the time.

Our lifespans are limited by the traditional domesticated foods we eat, ie farm grown foods. However now that we are seening labgrown foods like fungi meat replacements and lab grown meats, the questions with those are do they contain enough of the chemicals to be good for health or not? You only need a few chemicals to grow cancer lines in a test tube for example, but cancer cells are not that functional in the scheme of things are they? They are just cells which have lost their normal function in the body.

And I'm not qualified in anything, I cant even say if my GCSE are accurate because I never got my exam papers back to check my answers again the study books!

Re: Scientist busts myths about how humans burn calories

#37

Post by taeric »

dahart wrote: post #4

> “You can’t exercise your way out of obesity,” […] “you can’t outrun a bad diet.” While this article is being a bit dramatic and possibly understating the impact of exercise slightly, I feel a little dumb that I didn’t know this earlier. It took me several decades too long to understand the obvious, that exercise is for building strength, and losing weight happens by eating less. I tried for way too many years to ex…

Yeah... I don't know that it is that simple. In the summer when I bike twenty miles a day, I am eating far more, and still losing weight.

Don't get me wrong, I know that the easiest way to lose weight is to limit calorie consumption. I also know that a buffet of 1800 calories going to a bike ride helps a ton.

Re: Scientist busts myths about how humans burn calories

#38

Post by pverghese »

wesleywt wrote: post #19
dahart wrote: post #4

> “You can’t exercise your way out of obesity,” […] “you can’t outrun a bad diet.” While this article is being a bit dramatic and possibly understating the impact of exercise slightly, I feel a little dumb that I didn’t know this earlier. It took me several decades too long to understand the obvious, that exercise is for building strength, and losing weight happens by eating less. I tried for way too many years to ex…

You tracked what you ate was the key difference. Not the exercise. I did an experiment on myself. I deliberately did not do any exercise and changed my diet. I loss 5kg quicker on my diet than I did when I was running 10km regularly. I think its counter productive to see an obese person in the gym or running as this will certainly lead to injury. The narrative around weight loss should always be eat less calories and…

Not sure what was your starting weight. But 5 kg is within the realm of normal weight fluctuations over a week for an average American.

Re: Scientist busts myths about how humans burn calories

#39

Post by [deleted] »

basementcat wrote: post #31
nwiswell wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah. Cyclists in the Tour de France typically eat 5000 calories a day, often more in particularly difficult stages. Obviously none of them have a weight problem. "Fun" fact: they also shit themselves on the bike. When you eat that much it's inevitable you're gonna have to poop it out, and it's a race -- you can't stop.

The reduction in mass undoubtedly makes it easier to complete the remainder of the stage.

[deleted]

Re: Scientist busts myths about how humans burn calories

#40

Post by dugite-code »

learc83 wrote: post #7

How do his results line up real world data like soldiers needing about 5k calories a day when active. Or athletes like Michael Phelps consuming 8k-10k calories a day while training?

From my read of the article the data is heavily biased towards running as the exercise of choice, probably because measuring CO2 is easy and non-intrusive to do on a treadmill. They do mention utilizing doubly labeled water but don't say if they only used that for sedentary participants or measured a wider range of exercises.

Given I have always heard/read how efficient humans are at running if they didn't account for the differing exercise methods the conclusion being offered in this article may be flawed.

Post reply on HN