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

81–90 of 238 posts

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

#81

Post by astrange »

mhd wrote: post #14

The problem here seems that discussions about this are sooo littered with personal biases. "Bro science" is just one aspect of this, far more common is expecting that one's personal achievement is universally reproducible. Yes, person A may eat all the burgers and twinkies, because he's going to the gym all the time and swimming laps like there's no tomorrow. But as a general rule to combat obesity, that's probably n…

> Yes, person A may eat all the burgers and twinkies, because he's going to the gym all the time and swimming laps like there's no tomorrow.

But as you learned just from reading this headline, that counts as "exercising more" and he'd hardly lose weight! I'll take swimming, though, that really is effective calorie burning if you do it for long enough.

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

#82

Post by kfk »

dylanjermiah wrote: post #64
kfk wrote: post #24

Yeah, that is true, but I hold that being overweight and exercising (real exercise, not the fake gym training programs) is far better for your health and your well being overall. At least you keep a functional body - you can do long walks, runs, climbing, etc. - which is a much better life if you ask me, but that's only my opinion, I repeat, only an opinion. Edit. Just to be clear, of course being slim and exercising…

>but I hold that being overweight and exercising How is being overweight 'far better' for health or well being? (assuming you're talking about excess adipose tissue). Please define 'function' and how excess adipose increases ones ability to walk, run and climb.

I have seen plenty of overweight people back in Italy that were able to do tough 10 hrs hikes or caving explorations with heavy loads or else. They looked far more healthy to me than slim people that do no exercise. I am just very skeptic of using weight as a measure of health or even as a universal goal. That said, being very overweight is a problem and being slim and doing exercise is a better option.

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

#83

Post by gitaarik »

Htsthbjig wrote: post #77

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…

Nobody says you need to be hungry to keep a healthy weight, but if you are overweight, and you want to lose that weight, there's no way around being hungry sometimes.

You know why? Your fat cells only start giving off their fat to the blood when your blood sugar level is too low, and when that happens, your brain gets a signal you should eat, thus you're hungry.

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

#84

Post by tjogin »

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?

Yes, it has been scientifically proven about a bajillion or so times that a caloric deficit causes weightloss, and a caloric surplus causes weight gain, irrespective of the source of calories.

However, eating 3000kcal of "healthy food" is a lot harder than eating the same amount of "junk food", because "junk food" has a higher caloric density -- that is the very thing that makes the food "bad".

A person can easily eat 3000kcal of junk food in a day and still not be satisfied, while a person who eats as much healthy food as they can may still fall shy of 3000kcal.

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

#85

Post by vidarh »

gitaarik wrote: post #78
weavie wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

And this is why it in practice would be different: Different foods makes you feel different, and affects your willingness to be active and your ability to do hard exercise.

If you do control for activity (incredibly hard), then there's no reason why it would be different. If you don't, there are plenty of reasons why it would.

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

#86

Post by [deleted] »

dspillett wrote: post #75
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.

> 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 part…

[deleted]

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

#87

Post by TheAceOfHearts »

I lost 40lb, and the only exercise I do is walking / running occasionally around my apartment complex.

My trick? I slowly reduced the size of my portions and I limited myself to eating only when I felt hungry.

I didn't do any sort of strict calorie counting, I just tried to have a rough idea of how much food I was eating. Seriously. That's it. If you eat fewer calories, you will lose weight. It's that simple.

At no point did I starve myself or force myself to undergo harsh dietary conditions.

Here's the thing, I think a lot of people fail to lose weight because they try doing too many drastic changes all at once. This is REALLY difficult! But if you just do it really slowly... You don't even notice the change. Sure, the downside is that you won't see super fast changes, it'll take longer to manifest itself. On the other hand, this is probably the easiest possible way to lose weight, because it requires very little effort on your part (you just have to have enough self control to not stuff your face every day).

Just serve yourself a smaller portions than you'd normally consume, eat it, and wait a few minutes. Then if you still felt hungry, go get some more. Otherwise, you've had enough and you're satisfied.

At the beginning of this year I read an article that made me realize something. The article basically said "If you're fat, it means that you're eating like a fat person. You are a fat person." Maybe it seem stupid... But it's correct. If you're fat, it means that you have the eating habits and lifestyle of a fat person. Ask yourself, is that who you really want to be? For me the answer was "no".

You can even cheat with your portions! Every time I go to a ramen shop I disregard all limits and just eat to my heart's content. Although doubtless it won't work very well if you do that every day.

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

#88

Post by lubonay »

roel_v wrote: post #48
lubonay wrote: post #18

It seems like the article downplays the role of exercise - maybe I'm nitpicking, but how is this a valid argument: "Over a six-month period, though, adding exercise made no difference." I mean who wants to lose weight over six months only to be more likely for them to gain it back? Also, looking at weight alone is misleading. All other factors being equal, a person burning 2500 kcal per day and consuming 2000 would b…

"All other factors being equal, a person burning 2500 kcal per day and consuming 2000 would be worse off than if they burn 3000 kcal and consume 2500." I have tried every possible generous interpretation of this that I can think of, but I just have to ask I guess: what's the idea behind this?

Regarding the 2500 vs 3000 kcal thing: move around, lift weights, knock uglies with your partner multiple times per day, do whatever floats your boat in order to increase your BMR by 500 kcal per day. Regarding the "worse off" part: I assume having less strength and endurance is worse for the average Joe compared to having more strength and endurance. Sorry that it wasn't clear in my post, I guess I assumed it was self-explanatory.

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

#89

Post by sorenbs »

jsmthrowaway wrote: post #52
joelrunyon wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nothing I said was "indignant." Just stating that there's other things besides such strict calorie counting. On top of the fact that when practically put into play for people in real life, "calorie counting" feels restrictive, doesn't account for satiety (which then causes hunger & tends to lead to binges). Re: better - tons of vegetables, high quality meats, low-sugar fruits, nuts and seeds. Carbs when-appropriate p…

I've practically put calorie counting into play in real life, it doesn't feel restrictive, and I ignore hunger. It's almost like broad, sweeping generalizations are tough to make about human bodies and people. You didn't answer my question about "better." EDIT: You still didn't answer my question about quantifying "better."

There exists a group of people for whom ignoring hunger is not an option. I have been interviewing a bunch of nutritionists here in London about this and if they are to be believed this group make up a large percentage of obese people, which kinda makes sense :-)

Hence the advice to eat foods that make you feel full before you reach your desired calorie intake.

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

#90

Post by johnchristopher »

learnstats2 wrote: post #53
mhd wrote: post #14

The problem here seems that discussions about this are sooo littered with personal biases. "Bro science" is just one aspect of this, far more common is expecting that one's personal achievement is universally reproducible. Yes, person A may eat all the burgers and twinkies, because he's going to the gym all the time and swimming laps like there's no tomorrow. But as a general rule to combat obesity, that's probably n…

> Yes, person A may eat all the burgers and twinkies, because he's going to the gym all the time One major problem with the standard BMI definitions is that any athlete in a sport that vaguely requires muscles will be classed as 'overweight' or 'obese'. Although there may be some justification for this categorisation, these are people we normally consider at the peak of fitness. One of the best things you can do for…

> > > Yes, person A may eat all the burgers and twinkies, because he's going to the gym all the time

> One major problem with the standard BMI definitions is that any athlete in a sport that vaguely requires muscles will be classed as 'overweight' or 'obese'.

Oh, what a major problem it is for the vast majority of overweight people changing their diet and lifestyle. This really is the most important point they have to keep in mind: BMI don't apply to athletes who regularly train and practice. What a bummer.

/s

Post reply on HN