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

The Myth of Moderate Exercise

time.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 69 posts

Re: The Myth of Moderate Exercise

#41

Post by flipbrad »

a-priori wrote: post #26
kingkongrevenge wrote: post #2

> Research suggests that weight may largely be regulated by biology, which helps determine the body's "set point," So where did all the fatties come from? They didn't used to be here. This is ridiculous. There are big, obvious changes in diet and exercise levels since the 70s that have correlated well with rising obesity.

That paragraph in the article really got on my nerves, because the whole idea of a "set point" for weight is wrong. There is no set point for weight. The only reason people think there is one is because it's a nice, neat hypothesis. Unfortunately, it is directly contradicted by evidence. Your body does not try to return to a some weight, but rather resists changes in weight. Given constant diet and exercise, weight w…

your theory is one theory, and it's the view held by society. does not hold that the set point theory is invalid. I would not be at all surprised if your (extremely complex) body system had an 'equilibrium' weight which it will attempt to normalise itself at, at the translational, post-transcriptional or homonal level. likely a mix of both.

Re: The Myth of Moderate Exercise

#42

Post by randallsquared »

flipbrad wrote: post #40
attack wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He's probably thinking of human muscle cells.

no - he's absolutely correct. this was discovered earlier this year, IIRC. cf: http://www.the-scientist.com/blog/display/54629/

This suggests that liposuction is actually an important step if you want to keep fat off.

Re: The Myth of Moderate Exercise

#43

Post by flipbrad »

randallsquared wrote: post #42
flipbrad wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

no - he's absolutely correct. this was discovered earlier this year, IIRC. cf: http://www.the-scientist.com/blog/display/54629/

This suggests that liposuction is actually an important step if you want to keep fat off.

not necessarily. if the body can somehow keep count, it may just replace the cells you remove. I'm not sure we know for certain either way yet.

Re: The Myth of Moderate Exercise

#44

Post by flipbrad »

kingkongrevenge wrote: post #19
fallentimes wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interesting - do you happen to have a source? Here's some for me: http://docnews.diabetesjournals.org/cgi/content/full/3/10/8 http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2007-03-15-fruits-vegeta... http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/04/070415183652.ht... Regardless, I definitely agree with your starch points at the top of the thread.

I just quickly went through the references and every one of them is either: a pooled analysis (inscrutable), a relative risk factor analysis (worthless; assumptions piled on assumptions), or doesn't indicate anything about servings. I have in the past seen actual population studies, not pop media articles, looking at relative vegetable consumption and coming up blank. High rates of heart disease in indian vegetarians…

Tinyurl next time?

Re: The Myth of Moderate Exercise

#45

Post by a-priori »

flipbrad wrote: post #41
a-priori wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That paragraph in the article really got on my nerves, because the whole idea of a "set point" for weight is wrong. There is no set point for weight. The only reason people think there is one is because it's a nice, neat hypothesis. Unfortunately, it is directly contradicted by evidence. Your body does not try to return to a some weight, but rather resists changes in weight. Given constant diet and exercise, weight w…

your theory is one theory, and it's the view held by society. does not hold that the set point theory is invalid. I would not be at all surprised if your (extremely complex) body system had an 'equilibrium' weight which it will attempt to normalise itself at, at the translational, post-transcriptional or homonal level. likely a mix of both.

It's not "my theory", but rather the theory I learnt in a Behavioural Neuroscience course. There was a chapter on hunger and eating that spent a good deal of time debunking set point theory. The textbook is "Biopsychology" by Pinel, chapter 12, if you're interested.

If there is such an fixed "equilibrium" weight, there's no evidence for it I know of. I find it curious you call the settling point model "extremely complex", since what I've described so far is very simple: body weight remains constant under constant conditions, and weight changes are dampened by negative feedback. Yours is actually the same so far, but adds a fixed, constant set point.

Re: The Myth of Moderate Exercise

#47

Post by dominik »

xlnt wrote: post #36

Just don't eat when not hungry. Most people eat large quantities of food all at once. Stop half way and wait 20 minutes and you might not be hungry anymore. If you eat too quickly then you don't know at what point you'd eaten enough to satisfy your hunger.

This only works for people who have their "hunger point" properly calibrated to when they should actually stop eating.

Some folks don't stop feeling hungry until well after they should have stopped eating, leading them to eat way too many calories.

John Walker explains this concept in his "The Eat Watch" chapter here: http://www.fourmilab.ch/hackdiet/e4/eatwatch.html

Re: The Myth of Moderate Exercise

#48

Post by scott_s »

I'm in good shape. To some people, it's a bit of a mystery how I'm much more physically fit than they are. They know I go to the gym, but, hey, they go to the gym sometimes, too, so what's the deal? Here's the secret:

I work really, really hard.

When I go to the gym, I push myself as far as I can take it mentally and physically that day. Some days it's more than others. But overall, I work much harder in the gym than most people I know.

Treat your exercise time as something to excel it, not a chore to do. It can make a world of difference.

Re: The Myth of Moderate Exercise

#49

Post by jcromartie »

ardit33 wrote: post #4
kingkongrevenge wrote: post #2

> Research suggests that weight may largely be regulated by biology, which helps determine the body's "set point," So where did all the fatties come from? They didn't used to be here. This is ridiculous. There are big, obvious changes in diet and exercise levels since the 70s that have correlated well with rising obesity.

I agree. White americans, are similiar to Europeans (more like a mix), yet they are a lot fatter. And how do you explain people in North California, or northern VA/DC/Maryland being a lot slimer than people just a state away. It seems more a enviroment/culturual/city walkability thing

The DC metro area has one simple advantage over the surrounding areas: money. There's a very strong correlation between lower and lower-middle income people and obesity. There are too many complex relationships involved to even begin to draw conclusions.

Re: The Myth of Moderate Exercise

#50

Post by [deleted] »

natrius wrote: post #8
kingkongrevenge wrote: post #2

> Research suggests that weight may largely be regulated by biology, which helps determine the body's "set point," So where did all the fatties come from? They didn't used to be here. This is ridiculous. There are big, obvious changes in diet and exercise levels since the 70s that have correlated well with rising obesity.

One theory says that the food you eat can affect your set point. High-calorie, strongly flavored foods that are easily digested (which make up most of the modern American diet) raise your set point. Breaking the flavor-calorie association with flavorless calories supposedly lowers your set point. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Shangri-La_Diet

[deleted]
Post reply on HN