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

To Lose Weight, Eating Less Is Far More Important Than Exercising More

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 238 posts

Re: To Lose Weight, Eating Less Is Far More Important Than Exercising More

#71

Post by weavie »

snez wrote: post #12
joelrunyon wrote: post #5

Still amazed that people are still considering this a pure caloric issue and not a food quality issue. When you look at how various hormones (namely insulin) are affected by blood sugar & affect body composition, it seems you'd want to promote a method that bears that in mind. That said, I think the focus should be on "eating better" not just "eating less."

Eating 3000kcal of "quality food" every day will still make you gross fat and give you heart problems. And did you know that protein also affects insulin? Insulin is essential for muscle building. Still find it hilarious how so many people still don't understand that a caloric deficit or surplus is the #1 thing to do when trying to cut or bulk.

It would make for an interesting experiment. Eat 3000kcal per day of doughnuts and cakes for a few months. See how much you weigh. Then switch to 3000kcal of organic meat, veg and healthy fats per day. Would your weight change in the same way? I can't say what the answer is. Has anyone tried experimenting with this?

Re: To Lose Weight, Eating Less Is Far More Important Than Exercising More

#72

Post by joelrunyon »

WildUtah wrote: post #47
snez wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Eating 3000kcal of "quality food" every day will still make you gross fat and give you heart problems. And did you know that protein also affects insulin? Insulin is essential for muscle building. Still find it hilarious how so many people still don't understand that a caloric deficit or surplus is the #1 thing to do when trying to cut or bulk.

"Eating 3000kcal of 'quality food' every day will still make you gross fat and give you heart problems" Eating 3000 kcal every day would make me shrivel away to skin and bones. "thing to do when trying to cut or bulk" Most adult males who lift enough weights to care about cutting and bulking are burning 3000+ kcals daily.

Yup. 3000kcal is my "maintenance" number.

Re: To Lose Weight, Eating Less Is Far More Important Than Exercising More

#73

Post by dylanjermiah »

joelrunyon wrote: post #5

Still amazed that people are still considering this a pure caloric issue and not a food quality issue. When you look at how various hormones (namely insulin) are affected by blood sugar & affect body composition, it seems you'd want to promote a method that bears that in mind. That said, I think the focus should be on "eating better" not just "eating less."

I could eat 4000cals of steamed brocolli and boiled chicken and very quickly become obese.

Quality of food is important, but an excess amount of quality macronutrients or micronutrients will result in excess adipose tissue.

Focus on eating at a deficit, with nutrient dense food.

Re: To Lose Weight, Eating Less Is Far More Important Than Exercising More

#74

Post by dylanjermiah »

jrapdx3 wrote: post #58

After years in the practice of obesity medicine, helping people lose excess weight, I'd say the thrust of the article is correct. The main key to successful (that is, sustained) weight loss is modifying food intake. Not for nothing do we call this "lifestyle modification", we should never underestimate the effort and courage it takes to adhere to the better plan. Thing is one can never exercise enough to "burn off" t…

>the practice of obesity medicine

Curious, what does that entail?

Re: To Lose Weight, Eating Less Is Far More Important Than Exercising More

#75

Post by dspillett »

snez wrote: post #12
joelrunyon wrote: post #5

Still amazed that people are still considering this a pure caloric issue and not a food quality issue. When you look at how various hormones (namely insulin) are affected by blood sugar & affect body composition, it seems you'd want to promote a method that bears that in mind. That said, I think the focus should be on "eating better" not just "eating less."

Eating 3000kcal of "quality food" every day will still make you gross fat and give you heart problems. And did you know that protein also affects insulin? Insulin is essential for muscle building. Still find it hilarious how so many people still don't understand that a caloric deficit or surplus is the #1 thing to do when trying to cut or bulk.

> Still find it hilarious how so many people still don't understand that a caloric deficit or surplus is the #1 thing to do when trying to cut or bulk.

But it is far from the only thing, which I think is the point being made by the post you replied to. If you take in your exact calorific requirement each day bot solely in the form of bacon and chips, you are going to be rather unhealthy. You may even gain weight partly because feeling bad makes you do less activity (so you should be eating less to account for that) and partly because the lack of certain nutrients in the balance (and over abundance of others) causes hormone and digestive changes which change the way your body uses those calories.

As you rightly point out the opposite is true too: more in than out will result in weight gain even if everything coming in is in a healthy balance, but there is more to being healthy than being in the recommended weight band for your height.

FYI: I'm no nutritionist, but I have completely changed my form in the last 18 months (dropping from ~15.5 stone to ~10.25 and now running 5K in the real world in ~24.5 minutes (22m27s is my PB on the treadmill, one of my regular routes in the great outdoors is 8K) from previously not being able to jog to the corner shop without being out of breath for the afternoon). All this change was achieved in a large part by monitoring and controlling my intake against activity, but I'm pretty sure changing diet balance and exercise has helped greatly.

I think people who work purely on calorie counting and ignore other factors are as deluded as those who think they can eat too much simply because what they are eating is in healthy ratios.

Re: To Lose Weight, Eating Less Is Far More Important Than Exercising More

#76

Post by tjogin »

joelrunyon wrote: post #49
snez wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Eating 3000kcal of "quality food" every day will still make you gross fat and give you heart problems. And did you know that protein also affects insulin? Insulin is essential for muscle building. Still find it hilarious how so many people still don't understand that a caloric deficit or surplus is the #1 thing to do when trying to cut or bulk.

> Eating 3000kcal of "quality food" every day will still make you gross fat and give you heart problems. Well, depending on your size, activity level and metabolism - maybe. Maybe not. > Insulin is essential for muscle building. Sure - post workout. If you get a massive insulin spike first thing in the morning (juice plus bagels and cereal), at the exact time where your body's hormone levels are optimal, you're not d…

The literature shows that a caloric deficit is what matters the most for weightloss, by an extremely large margin, so large that all other factors can safely be ignored for "normal people".

Nutrient timing is completely irrelevant for normal people who want to lose weight, and only becomes relevant for bodybuilders with extremely low body fat levels, as well as athletes who train or compete multiple times a day, and even for them it is not one of the most important factors.

Re: To Lose Weight, Eating Less Is Far More Important Than Exercising More

#77

Post by Htsthbjig »

To lose weight EATING WELL is the most important thing.

For me it is shocking to watch the calories argument, and almost saying that you have to starve in order to lose weight.

40 years ago Americans, or most Europeans did not starve, and being overweight was rare. They ate lots of fat, for example with consumption of butter(calories) three times what it is today.

Traveling around the world I see people that eat well(I have eaten their food) and nobody is fat there. They cook their food though.

People in the Western world eat very badly. Most of their food is precooked, frozen and stored in plastic. That alone removes lots of necessary components of food, like vitamins or fiber, or degrade it making them not usable by the body.

So when the body needs essential components, and could not get it the normal way, it enters panic mode and craves for more food.

One of the most overweight people I have seen in my life were native Americans Indians in reserves and in Alaska or native people from Hawaii. They are so poor and eat so badly no matter how much they eat their body never says enough. People in Hawaii were known for being slender before colonization.

There are natural limitations on industrial food, and we are paying for it.

Industry instead of solving he problems(which is hard) has tricked be body into believing the food is totally ok, with things like artificial flavoring.

Re: To Lose Weight, Eating Less Is Far More Important Than Exercising More

#78

Post by gitaarik »

weavie wrote: post #71
snez wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Eating 3000kcal of "quality food" every day will still make you gross fat and give you heart problems. And did you know that protein also affects insulin? Insulin is essential for muscle building. Still find it hilarious how so many people still don't understand that a caloric deficit or surplus is the #1 thing to do when trying to cut or bulk.

It would make for an interesting experiment. Eat 3000kcal per day of doughnuts and cakes for a few months. See how much you weigh. Then switch to 3000kcal of organic meat, veg and healthy fats per day. Would your weight change in the same way? I can't say what the answer is. Has anyone tried experimenting with this?

If you burn the same amount of calories in both situations, why would it be different?

Re: To Lose Weight, Eating Less Is Far More Important Than Exercising More

#79

Post by Robin_Message »

WildUtah wrote: post #36
venomsnake wrote: post #3

Isn't it obvious - you BMR is 2-3 times higher than your all other energy expenditures for the day. If you overeat nothing can save you ...

"you [sic] BMR[0] is 2-3 times higher than your all other energy expenditures" Maybe if you work sitting in an office and never go play outside or lift weights. Try lifting bricks or digging ditches or cutting wood all day and that BMR is just the beginning. Or climb a nice mountain or go on a hard bike ride or get nice and ripped and keep those muscles up. In the evolutionary environment where you were shaped everyb…

Yeah, I tried cutting trees down all day but then I got fired from my job as a software developer. I suggested that maybe we could turn the wood into paper to print the documentation on, but the documentation is all online, so they wouldn't give me a job. Then I climbed a mountain but there was no wifi up there so I missed my 3PM Skype interview for a new role. On the plus side, now the only job I can get is ditch-digger I am feeling much healthier.

People living standard western lives don't have a lot of time for exercise, so diet is going to have a much bigger impact on their calorific balance. That's the whole point of TFA.

It would be great if we all had a better life-work balance and could climb more mountains, but that doesn't mean people can apply that advice to their lives right now. They can start doing some fork putdowns and head shakes.

Re: To Lose Weight, Eating Less Is Far More Important Than Exercising More

#80

Post by sorenbs »

collyw wrote: post #51
jsmthrowaway wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Be amazed all you want, but you're conflating two different issues, as does everyone who discusses it the way you do. Your attitude on this is actually a public health risk, because you're implying eating "better" is necessary to lose weight, and eating "better" almost always puts "better" out of reach of low-income families. "Yes, you can lose weight, you just need to spend $60 more a week on things I consider bette…

> eating "better" almost always puts "better" out of reach of low-income families. I learned to cook cheap, unprocessed, healthy food as a student, in order to save money. A big bag of potatoes doesn't cost much and can make the bulk portion of many meals. I currently cook a lot of beans in my pressure cooker - easy, cheap and healthy. Admittedly, the preparation time increases, which may be a problem for lower incom…

Cooking healthy food can indeed be cheaper than buying junk if you go about it the right way. Buy kale, cabbage, sweet potatoes, carrots etc. in bulk and combine with chicken or meat when on offer. The thing many people miss about healthy food vs cutting calories is that all this green stuff fills your stomach with less calories than a traditional western diet making it easier to cut calories. The only difficult thing about eating better food is getting into a rhythm and setting aside 30 minutes a day to do it. Plus you obviously need a kitchen.
Post reply on HN