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

321–330 of 396 posts

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

#321

Post by Kirby64 »

snozolli wrote: post #312
Kirby64 wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Incidentally, the terms "bulking" and "cutting" come from bodybuilders taking steroids. Since when? Are you sure you don't mean 'blast' and 'cruise', which specifically has connotations of steroid usage? > When you're not cycling anabolic steroids against metabolic stimulants like Clenbuterol, it really doesn't apply. Why wouldn't it apply?

Since when? Since Internet dorks started usurping terms used by chemically enhanced bodybuilders. Why wouldn't it apply? Because of what I just said. If you're not chemically enhanced, then you just eat a consistent, slight surplus while hitting your macro goals. Bulking and cutting makes no sense, you're literally just making things harder for yourself.

> If you're not chemically enhanced, then you just eat a consistent, slight surplus while hitting your macro goals. Bulking and cutting makes no sense, you're literally just making things harder for yourself.

If you eat a consistent slight surplus without ever having a period of deficit, then you will just get fat over time.

The whole point of bulking and cutting is to increase your training volume during a caloric surplus to pack on muscle, followed by a period of lowered training volume (due to poorer recovery while in a deficit) eating at a deficit to cut fat while retaining as much muscle as possible. This has nothing to do with steroids, it's just basic body building.

What even would be your propose for someone who wants to change their physique, especially for reducing body fat?

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

#322

Post by Mawr »

red-iron-pine wrote: post #256
paulddraper wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Absolutely. This is one reason bodybuilders (the closest thing to professional dieters) will only do low intensity cardio -- walking etc -- when cutting weight. High intensity cardio burns calories but increases appetite disproportionately. Albeit otherwise excellent for overall health.

literally get on a tredmill, angle it, and walk for an hour or two

I don't wanna sound too daring, but going outside is also an option.

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

#323

Post by Mawr »

StanislavPetrov wrote: post #303
stouset wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> anyone who has done extensive 'athletic' physical activity knows that if you don't up your calorie intake that you will lose weight. Anyone who has done extensive athletic physical activity knows that you will up your calorie intake unless you take explicit and intentional effort not to.

This depends on what you consider "extensive". About 10 years ago I started taking 45 minute daily walks with no other changes in my diet or activities and the extra weight (about 15 lbs overweight) melted away. I made absolutely no effort to eat less and didn't get any hungrier.

That depends on your pace and your previous level of activity. If the pace is average and your previous level was ~0 then yes, you're expected to benefit a lot for not much effort.

But to answer your question, walking at average pace is not extensive exercise by any means. Walking at top possible speed would be closer but would probably still not meet the bar. You'd need to incorporate running at moderate pace with a few periods of all-out sprinting into your walking routine.

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

#324

Post by Mawr »

Der_Einzige wrote: post #252
stouset wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> anyone who has done extensive 'athletic' physical activity knows that if you don't up your calorie intake that you will lose weight. Anyone who has done extensive athletic physical activity knows that you will up your calorie intake unless you take explicit and intentional effort not to.

[flagged]

> You're full of shit

Just FYI, that's an instant downvote on this site.

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

#325

Post by rendaw »

Delphiza wrote: post #32

Unsurprisingly, the title is sensationalist and not representative of the study. The study compares energy expenditure across different economic groups i.e. western people sitting in offices versus hunter-gatherers in Africa, and found that difference in energy expenditure does not account for differences in obesity, so points to consumption as the likely reason. The sample dataset explicitly excluded 'athletes', so…

> Instead, it suggests "that dietary intake plays a far greater role than reduced energy expenditure in obesity related to economic development."

That sounds like more or less exactly what the title says to me.

> anyone who has done extensive 'athletic' physical activity

Yes, and there are few such people. Extensive athletic physical activity, becoming an athlete, are at odds with working an office job. You can get out of work and go play soccer for 2-3 hours every day instead of doing household chores, pursuing other hobbies, etc, but most people won't - it's a huge ask.

> not really useful for personal or localised health advice

It absolutely is useful. Becoming an athlete or doing extensive athletics takes a huge time commitment. Eating less does not.

I'm not claiming that there's zero issues with eating less, or that people shouldn't exercise, just that the arguments seem to be off base.

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

#326

Post by rendaw »

tonymet wrote: post #290
halfmatthalfcat wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

If someone would have eaten 3 meals for a sum of 2000 cal, with one being a 500 calorie meal, and they decide to switch that out with a 1600 calorie chipotle burrito, then the excess calories they need to burn are only 1100. Which a half marathon would more or less cover.

The situation you described only makes sense if they're eating 2000 calories worth of food during the day then adding an extra chipotle burrito.

Re: your 2nd marathon comment, if someone is eating two 800 calorie meals a day plus an extra 1600 calorie burrito, that comes out to 3200 calories. Minus the 2k resting expenditure, minus the 2k marathon expenditure, they're 800 calories short so they do need to consume more.

Is, I believe, the argument GP is making.

I don't disagree with you, I think the amount of exercise most people are capable of doing on a daily basis the extra calorie needs are insignificant. But I think your examples overstate the point.

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

#328

Post by xg15 »

Delphiza wrote: post #32

Unsurprisingly, the title is sensationalist and not representative of the study. The study compares energy expenditure across different economic groups i.e. western people sitting in offices versus hunter-gatherers in Africa, and found that difference in energy expenditure does not account for differences in obesity, so points to consumption as the likely reason. The sample dataset explicitly excluded 'athletes', so…

I think if the goal is to find out what strategies help average people lose weight - who are mostly not athletes or bodybuilders - then excluding athletes is exactly the right thing to do.

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

#329

Post by edanm »

rendaw wrote: post #325
Delphiza wrote: post #32

Unsurprisingly, the title is sensationalist and not representative of the study. The study compares energy expenditure across different economic groups i.e. western people sitting in offices versus hunter-gatherers in Africa, and found that difference in energy expenditure does not account for differences in obesity, so points to consumption as the likely reason. The sample dataset explicitly excluded 'athletes', so…

> Instead, it suggests "that dietary intake plays a far greater role than reduced energy expenditure in obesity related to economic development." That sounds like more or less exactly what the title says to me. > anyone who has done extensive 'athletic' physical activity Yes, and there are few such people. Extensive athletic physical activity, becoming an athlete, are at odds with working an office job. You can get o…

I'm going to push back on this a bit, though I agree with some of the sentiment.; to the average person wanting to lose weight, I think the best advice is obviously to eat less via whatever diet works for them (I personally recommend counting calories, but it's not for everyone).

That said, you write:

> Yes, and there are few such people. Extensive athletic physical activity, becoming an athlete, are at odds with working an office job.

First of all, office jobs are probably dominant in the industry, but there are still lots of jobs that aren't office jobs, and you seem to be excluding all of those.

Secondly, I know plenty of people with demanding careers (e.g. doctors), with kids, who nevertheless train for marathons and run almost every day. There absolutely are people who exercise enough to make a meaningful difference to their caloric expenditure.

> It absolutely is useful. Becoming an athlete or doing extensive athletics takes a huge time commitment. Eating less does not.

I'll reiterate that I agree with this and this is the correct advice for someone who wants to start losing weight. I just wouldn't discount the many people who do also exercise to the point of it making a difference.

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

#330

Post by ozgrakkurt »

There is a psychological method that I found to be very helpful. Thinking of companies that sell packaged foods as your adversary.

They want to take your health, make you addicted to what they are selling and also take your money. Not very different from a drug dealer.

When in this mindset, avoiding these things feels like winning and taking care of myself, don’t need to worry about if sugar is really bad or if eating these things is normal. Or if I deserve a treat after working hard all day etc.

After some time I just keep winning and losing weight and don’t really have any cravings to eat bad “food”.

And fruit tends to be cheaper than packaged food too.

Post reply on HN