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

Thinking hard burns almost no calories but destroys your next workout

vo2maxpro.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 151 posts

Re: Thinking hard burns almost no calories but destroys your next workout

#41

Post by Rapzid »

sdfhbdf wrote: post #15

I've also been interested for some time in how metabolism works and wanted to debunk the popular myth for my friends that exercise burns a lot of calories, since I was under the impression that around 80% of energy we burn is just by "living" - breathing and thinking. Reading this article I'm a little confused by the author's conflation of brain energy and the energy expenditure of the body as a whole. In the beginni…

Chess lol. Playing a competitive arena FPS a the highest levels will get your brain cooking.

Re: Thinking hard burns almost no calories but destroys your next workout

#42

Post by lebuin »

jahnu wrote: post #31
sdfhbdf wrote: post #15

I've also been interested for some time in how metabolism works and wanted to debunk the popular myth for my friends that exercise burns a lot of calories, since I was under the impression that around 80% of energy we burn is just by "living" - breathing and thinking. Reading this article I'm a little confused by the author's conflation of brain energy and the energy expenditure of the body as a whole. In the beginni…

> debunk the popular myth for my friends that exercise burns a lot of calories Can you expand on that please? Because I can tell you as a matter of fact that when I go for a run for an hour I burn well over 800 calories.

I think OP may be referring to the idea that the total number of calories burned in a day doesn't meaningfully change under a workout regime. Working out does burn calories, but after a few session your body starts to compensate by burning less calories in other areas (e.g. immune and reproductive system). The net result is close to zero, except in very demanding workout regimes.

I don't have the background to fully evaluate how true that is. I read "Burn" by Herman Pontzer, which at least makes a very good case for it.

Re: Thinking hard burns almost no calories but destroys your next workout

#43

Post by matwood »

nomel wrote: post #23
matwood wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That seems like a lot to take daily. Most studies have settled on loading isn’t needed and 5g/day is enough. I just take 5g/day with my morning coffee/water.

> I also don’t eat meat This is probably an important difference from the average participant of those studies.

Meat is one of the primary sources of dietary creatine, but still provides overall very little (~2g/pound of uncooked red meat). There isn't much to make up for in a non-meat eater and the 5g should still be fine.

Re: Thinking hard burns almost no calories but destroys your next workout

#44

Post by thinkingemote »

andai wrote: post #30
aaronbrethorst wrote: post #26

I found the AI writing of this post to really detract from its message. Give your agent meaningful writing samples of your own work and use those as a ‘style transfer’ basis for blog posts to get something far more true to your own voice.

I wanted to test my theory that "don't use cliche'd language" helps with that, but incredibly the essays ChatGPT is giving me today don't have any of the tells. How do I get it to give me slop? I asked "Can you give me a short essay on the history of fire." Maybe the type of writing requested has a massive effect on the language used?

Possibly. As for this blog post and for most slop the prompt itself will contain the material. The material will be very short.

"Here is one paragraph of an idea, an abstract of a report. Write a blog post."

Whereas a "history of fire" contains no article in the prompt and so might have more material from its own auto complete database to draw from.

Re: Thinking hard burns almost no calories but destroys your next workout

#45

Post by xnorswap »

nick486 wrote: post #36
jahnu wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> debunk the popular myth for my friends that exercise burns a lot of calories Can you expand on that please? Because I can tell you as a matter of fact that when I go for a run for an hour I burn well over 800 calories.

I think it sort of depends on how you look at it. If 800 is an hour of running - that's probably "a lot" for quite a few people. But 800 is also just a sandwich. Which isn't all that much. So if you view this from a time use perspective, just skipping that sandwich is way better than running for an hour. And many people can't spare an hour a day just to make up for a sandwich. Hence - "not a lot" - Its too expensive…

What kind of sandwiches are you eating? 800 calories is a ridiculously large sandwich.

Even Tesco's bacon & egg triple is only 550 : https://www.tesco.com/groceries/en-GB/products/260422235

I'm struggling to find anything I'd describe as a sandwich come close to 800 calories.

Re: Thinking hard burns almost no calories but destroys your next workout

#46

Post by pcloadlett3r »

fifticon wrote: post #37
aaronbrethorst wrote: post #26

I found the AI writing of this post to really detract from its message. Give your agent meaningful writing samples of your own work and use those as a ‘style transfer’ basis for blog posts to get something far more true to your own voice.

Usually, I can easily tell bad AI slop, because it is just that - sloppy - the bullet points, the 'delving' and all that. But how can you tell this article was also AI-tainted? On a second skim, I can sort of sense some of it - the bulletpoint-enthusiasm, the idiosyncratic segues (?) that link sections/paragraphs of the text. But it didn't trigger for me immediately, or cause me concern..? I'm worrying that soon, I w…

You really couldn't tell? The overly dramatic transitions all over the place is such an obvious tell:

> Here's the part that surprised me:

Might as well have said "here's the kicker" and used emojis instead of bullets. Maybe you can share your reading sites as you seem rather undrrexposed to not recognize this immediately lol.

Edit: I mean come on man, how can you not tell?! I'm still cringing from this one:

> The incremental cost of actually thinking hard? Almost nothing.

Edit II

"This isn't one study"

Dum dum dum. Sooo dramatic. 100% slop.

Re: Thinking hard burns almost no calories but destroys your next workout

#47

Post by raincole »

aaronbrethorst wrote: post #26

I found the AI writing of this post to really detract from its message. Give your agent meaningful writing samples of your own work and use those as a ‘style transfer’ basis for blog posts to get something far more true to your own voice.

It's well-structured and the message is clear. Are we intentionally prompting LLM to write badly now? Do we have to manually write bad essays to avoid AI accusation?

Re: Thinking hard burns almost no calories but destroys your next workout

#48

Post by canucker2016 »

matwood wrote: post #22
derektank wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Second anecdote, I take between 10 and 15 grams. I don’t experience cognitive effects at lower doses (though my weightlifting endurance is still higher on lower doses). I also don’t eat meat so don’t have any incidental consumption

That seems like a lot to take daily. Most studies have settled on loading isn’t needed and 5g/day is enough. I just take 5g/day with my morning coffee/water.

Most creatine studies focus on the effects of creatine on physical activity, especially wrt resistance training.

Rhonda Patrick has made several YouTube videos about creatine and you can find more information about creatine at her website - https://www.foundmyfitness.com/topics/creatine.

One of her creatine videos mentions that your muscles will take up ingested creatine faster than the brain. So for any creatine to make its way to the brain, your muscular creatine stores must be topped up first.

I think dosage would depend on the amount of daily physical activity. If you work out a lot, you'd have to replenish your muscular creatine stores before the brain could access any/much.

She also mentions boosting creatine dosage after bouts of mental exertion.

Re: Thinking hard burns almost no calories but destroys your next workout

#49

Post by mriet »

BoppreH wrote: post #39
nick486 wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it sort of depends on how you look at it. If 800 is an hour of running - that's probably "a lot" for quite a few people. But 800 is also just a sandwich. Which isn't all that much. So if you view this from a time use perspective, just skipping that sandwich is way better than running for an hour. And many people can't spare an hour a day just to make up for a sandwich. Hence - "not a lot" - Its too expensive…

I agree with the general message, but I'm curious what ingredients go in your 800 calorie sandwich. That's more than a double Big Mac with 4 patties (780 kcal)!

Lots of mayo.. and butter. It's more like a butterich, realistically. ;)

Re: Thinking hard burns almost no calories but destroys your next workout

#50

Post by qmmmur »

fifticon wrote: post #37
aaronbrethorst wrote: post #26

I found the AI writing of this post to really detract from its message. Give your agent meaningful writing samples of your own work and use those as a ‘style transfer’ basis for blog posts to get something far more true to your own voice.

Usually, I can easily tell bad AI slop, because it is just that - sloppy - the bullet points, the 'delving' and all that. But how can you tell this article was also AI-tainted? On a second skim, I can sort of sense some of it - the bulletpoint-enthusiasm, the idiosyncratic segues (?) that link sections/paragraphs of the text. But it didn't trigger for me immediately, or cause me concern..? I'm worrying that soon, I w…

The sentences are all roughly the same length too
Post reply on HN