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

Inactivity 'kills more than obesity'

bbc.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 127 posts

Re: Inactivity 'kills more than obesity'

#81

Post by arrrg »

awjr wrote: post #63

As somebody touching 20st (127kg) I recently started working on a client site and had a choice, drive by car or catch a train and cycle the 5 miles to the client site. Into my second week and finding the cycling is really making a difference and can get desk to platform in 31 minutes (unlocking of bike etc) down from 35 minutes at the beginning. I'll weigh myself at some point but honestly feel I'm physically getting…

Well … when I was still very obese (162kg, just as tall as you are) I was also struggling with high pulse (around 90) and high blood pressure as well as, you know, just a general discomfort, a feeling of shortness of breath, …

After I started restricting calories nearly a year ago I also started driving around 30 min every single on the ergometer bike (always the same amount of kilojoules per day to be consistent, first 1,000 and now 1,350, first at 120 Watt and with breaks, now at 210 Watt and with no breaks). I also started taking long walks every day, around 6km. (I know people have strong opinion about what is right and more correct to do and I know that my exercise plan is weird and unbalanced, but the most important thing to me is to have something that works and that I can easily get into the habit of doing. Habits are fucking powerful and wondrous things if you make them work for you, devilish, evil things if they work against you. For now I have something that works and that I’m very comfortable with. I can always make improvements, sure, and I want to. Just slowly and with consideration.)

To my astonishment my vitals started improving almost immediately, before I had lost any significant amount of weight. My pulse was down to around 60 (resting) or lower only a couple of weeks after I started, when I was still very much extremely obese. I’m a coward when it comes to measuring blood pressure, so I have no data on that, but I do know that it’s either optimal or normal right now that I’m merely very slightly overweight (94 kg). All the discomfort went away almost immediately, also before I had lost any appreciable amount of weight.

My dad also always has been struggling with his weight, but doctors have told him repeatedly that health wise he's actually doing relatively well, presumably because he also has a similar and very consistent exercise regiment (that also includes daily cycling).

The nice thing with exercise was that I felt its effects on my health more or less immediately. Weight loss is much, much harder to notice and a much more longer term process.

Re: Inactivity 'kills more than obesity'

#82

Post by arrrg »

victorhooi wrote: post #62
ars wrote: post #2

Normal exercise will not cause weight loss - countless studies have shown that. But it will make you healthier, so it's worth it anyway.

I do not agree with your statement. What do you even mean by "normal exercise"? I believe that most "normal" people are capable of doing enough exercise (combined with good eating choices) that they can lose weight. For example, say you have a 1-hour lunch break each day. During that lunch break, you could easily go for a 6km run (30-40 minutes), as well as have time for a shower, and grab food. If you're prepared to…

A BMI of 18 is not reasonably slim, it’s extremely slim, right (potentially unhealthy, depending on the individual)? Is that irony?

Re: Inactivity 'kills more than obesity'

#83

Post by rndn »

stinos wrote: post #71
rndn wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with everything you say. Unless it is particularily beneficial to do special exercises to counteract deficiencies of our modern life style, it should be sufficient to roughly simulate the movements our ancestors did. I'm wondering whether our ancestors did stretching exercises. I could imagine that the occasional yawn/stretch and a variety of different movements is sufficient to avoid contracture.

I do think ancestors did stretch: nobody ever learnt me to stretch yet I've been doing it when waking up before getting out of bed since I can remember and I'm definitely not the only one, on the contrary. Some other animals do so as well. I know these are mere observations and no hard evidence, but I would be surprised to learn I'm wrong on this point. Whether they did actual stretching exercises is another thing th…

I mean paleolithic hunters and gatherers. Which animals do streching apart from the occasional, visceral stretching I mentioned?

Re: Inactivity 'kills more than obesity'

#84

Post by kybernetyk »

rndn wrote: post #47
stdbrouw wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't think our bodies are prepared to that sort of pattern where you stay inactive for 5 hours, while your brain is still very active, and stop to run non stop for 1 hour. Isn't that pretty similar to the lifestyle of a hunter? Short periods of very intense activity separated by long periods of inactivity?

Here are the recommendations from the Wikipedia page on Paleolithic lifestyle [1]: - Adopt a Paleolithic diet as much as possible: plenty of fruit, fish, vegetables, nuts, and meat while avoiding most forms of food not in existence in paleolithic time. It implies avoiding all processed food, and in particular junk food and food with a high glycemic load, such as sweets and cultivated crops like potatoes and cereal gr…

    - Die with 22 years from measles.

Re: Inactivity 'kills more than obesity'

#85

Post by [deleted] »

victorhooi wrote: post #62
ars wrote: post #2

Normal exercise will not cause weight loss - countless studies have shown that. But it will make you healthier, so it's worth it anyway.

I do not agree with your statement. What do you even mean by "normal exercise"? I believe that most "normal" people are capable of doing enough exercise (combined with good eating choices) that they can lose weight. For example, say you have a 1-hour lunch break each day. During that lunch break, you could easily go for a 6km run (30-40 minutes), as well as have time for a shower, and grab food. If you're prepared to…

[deleted]

Re: Inactivity 'kills more than obesity'

#86

Post by awjr »

jeffasinger wrote: post #79
awjr wrote: post #63

As somebody touching 20st (127kg) I recently started working on a client site and had a choice, drive by car or catch a train and cycle the 5 miles to the client site. Into my second week and finding the cycling is really making a difference and can get desk to platform in 31 minutes (unlocking of bike etc) down from 35 minutes at the beginning. I'll weigh myself at some point but honestly feel I'm physically getting…

Biking to work is the number one thing I miss now that I work from home. I highly recommend it to everyone. I didn't used to bike to work this time of year, because the path I'd use is covered in snow, but even in upstate New York, riding in March and November is surprisingly enjoyable with the right gear.

That working from home can be an exercise trap. I spent the last 6 months with a startup and exercise started dropping off rather quickly towards the end. Ended up making sure I rode with friends twice a week...usually to a pub but it wasn't about losing weight, just keeping up a general level of fitness.

Re: Inactivity 'kills more than obesity'

#87

Post by rimantas »

victorhooi wrote: post #62
ars wrote: post #2

Normal exercise will not cause weight loss - countless studies have shown that. But it will make you healthier, so it's worth it anyway.

I do not agree with your statement. What do you even mean by "normal exercise"? I believe that most "normal" people are capable of doing enough exercise (combined with good eating choices) that they can lose weight. For example, say you have a 1-hour lunch break each day. During that lunch break, you could easily go for a 6km run (30-40 minutes), as well as have time for a shower, and grab food. If you're prepared to…

Just compare number of calories burned during excercise and number or calories you don't get if you restrain from eating something.

Re: Inactivity 'kills more than obesity'

#88

Post by thizzbuzz »

cncool wrote: post #30
IndianAstronaut wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>That's going to be have a pretty huge donut then Not really. One hour on the treadmill burns about 600 calories or so. A cream filled donut the gas station next door to me sells is listed at 630 calories.

I would say a 630 calorie donut is pretty huge. After looking at the calorie info for a bunch of Tim Hortons donuts, the average seems to be around 250 calories.

Are you in Canada? I wasn't familiar with Tim Hortons, but Wikipedia indicates its a Canadian bakery chain.

Come on down to the US and you will find 600 calorie donuts aplenty.

Re: Inactivity 'kills more than obesity'

#89

Post by dhimes »

DINKDINK wrote: post #6
ars wrote: post #2

Normal exercise will not cause weight loss - countless studies have shown that. But it will make you healthier, so it's worth it anyway.

>Normal exercise will not cause weight loss What do you define "normal exercise" as? You cannot break the 2nd law of thermodynamics: if you calories in is less than your calories burned you must lose weight.

That's the first law of thermodynamics, not the second (although you can't violate the second either).

In general, through my life, I've found the best way to think about it is exercise for fitness, diet for weight maintenance.

What happens to you once you have responsibilities to others (wife, kids, etc.) unless you are a professional-level athlete is that you really don't have the time and energy to burn enough calories. It's hard to burn 400 kcalories, but it's easy to not eat that piece of pie (or to have a small piece and no bread with your meal).

There are exceptions, and most of us who are somewhat active have probably gone through that phase of life where we do 5000 kcal workouts 5 days a week and so on, but it's a very time-and-energy consuming proposition. I have known some men who have made it a point to continue that lifestyle into middle age, but they are exceptional and almost to a person never married (gay I think) or several times divorced. In other words, it takes total self absorption and those of us with normal family and community responsibilities have to let it go eventually.

That's also the failure I see with people and their New Years' Resolutions to get fit: quit drinking, go to the gym twice a day, etc. It's not sustainable.

Re: Inactivity 'kills more than obesity'

#90

Post by stinos »

rndn wrote: post #83
stinos wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I do think ancestors did stretch: nobody ever learnt me to stretch yet I've been doing it when waking up before getting out of bed since I can remember and I'm definitely not the only one, on the contrary. Some other animals do so as well. I know these are mere observations and no hard evidence, but I would be surprised to learn I'm wrong on this point. Whether they did actual stretching exercises is another thing th…

I mean paleolithic hunters and gatherers. Which animals do streching apart from the occasional, visceral stretching I mentioned?

None that I know of, I also meant visceral stretching..
Post reply on HN