An hour of exercise per day needed to avoid weight gain | Hacker News Reader

An hour of exercise per day needed to avoid weight gain

news.bbc.co.uk

9 pointsAndrewDucker21 comments

Of course, what it actually says is "the kind of people who do lots of exercise are less likely to gain weight", which isn't the same thing.

Personally, I can avoid weight gain if I just avoid sugar/heavily refined carbs and watch my intake.

That's exactly right. People whose fat metabolism is in working order tend to have more energy, simply because their fat cells aren't soaking up the glucose in their bloodstream and are able to release free fatty acids to power their muscles on demand.

There's good evidence that while the equation:

    energy consumed - energy expended = energy stored (as fat)

is true, tinkering with the left hand side is likely to leave you hungry, lethargic, or both.

If you can keep your insulin levels in check, you can manipulate the right hand side in your favor, allowing you to eat less, have more energy, or both.

I don't know about all of you...but for me even 1 hour of exercise a day is a high time commitment, especially when you have to look at the overhead (drive to gym, get clothes, change clothes, drive back)...it can easily turn into 2 hours a day

I find the whole 'drive to the gym' concept kind of funny from a cynical sense.

These folks are going to drive to the gym and then run on a treadmill facing a brick wall?

My wife's previous gym was a 20 minute drive on the freeway, and her neighborhood wasn't that safe. My neighborhood is fairly safe, but I still wouldn't want to jog to the gym at 10PM. 10PM is a great time for me, the crowds are much smaller than peak hours.

Secondly, my routine emphasizes weight training over aerobics, and I prefer to retain my energy for the weights and jog afterwards. Jogging to the gym does not fit my exercise routine.

I recently bought a recumbent bike for $215. It mostly nullifies the time expense. I can still read and work on my laptop, albeit at a less productive pace. I've been doing 3 hours a day for the past two months. (I broke my wrist so can't do much else with my time.) I have never felt so healthy.

I am hoping you mean a recumbent stationary bike, not a recumbent for bike commuting, which would also nullify the time expense. :)

Hah. Correct.

I work 9-5(ish) and go to the company gym after work with a friend every day. We do weight lifting and then usually a 2 mile run. By the time we leave the gym, it's been 1.5 hours, and I get back to my place around 7-7:30pm, depending on traffic, and still have to eat and shower before I can get to other things.

I'll admit, it's been difficult and can seem like a chore, but going with someone else is a real motivator - you don't want to let the other person down. In addition to a higher level of fitness, I always leave the gym feeling energized and happy.

I thought the same as you, and set up a home gym in response, which saved me half an hour's commute. After 4 years I'm going back to the gym. I found that being surrounded by cardio bunnies and muscleheads actually motives me, especially when you see people twice your age in better shape than you.

As with everything else, such as sleep and nutrition, you give it the time you think it deserves. If you put your health behind other priorities, no complaining when your body gives out before its time.

And finally, everybody and every body is different. I've found that a one hour weight training session three times a week is enough to maintain my current muscle mass (which I've earned the six years prior to switching to a maintenance workout). You might find that you need less than an hour a day once you get your body in shape.

Or just cut down on your calorie intake.... It's not rocket science.

I would go so far as to say that exercise is a red herring if your goal is simply to decrease your mass. I would also go so far as to say that simply decreasing your mass isn't a great goal to have.

True, there's plenty of skinny drug-addicts out there.

I don't understand why this article doesn't mention how much these women were eating. From my understanding, the number of calories eaten is just as large of a factor in weight regulation (if not more) as exercise.

The main thing is if calories eaten == calories burned, then you should maintain a stable weight. Exercise helps in this equation because it raises your metabolism (as well as other benefits), which in turn burns more calories.

This is correct. But my point is that while exercise is a contributor, it isn't the only factor in weight loss. So for this article to conclude that people need to exercise for an hour a day in order to avoid weight gain without mentioning how much they were eating seems very incomplete.

There is an additional subtlety that may interest hackers. It is actually if calories metabolized by the body == calories burned. Calories are mostly fungible, but they are processed differently (by the liver or by the cells themselves, for instance) and this has drastic effects on metabolic health. For instance, fructose is processed by the liver and does not trigger the satiety hormones as easily as glucose. So, while the total amount of energy available is the same for calorically similar amounts of fructose and glucose, the impact on fat storage and hunger is different.

For more about the biochemistry of metabolism see: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM

Misleading headline. Weight gain depends on how much calories you take and how much is burned. This two cannot be separated as suggested.

And the research was merely statistical, not biological: the average middle aged woman needs at least an hour a day to avoid weight gain. It might not hold for different age and gender groups, so unless you are an average middle aged woman, such a conclusion holds little weight with you.

I'm not sure if this can be truly generalized to the whole population, since this study was conducted on middle-aged women.

What the article (and perhaps the study) does not mention is the dietary habits of the women over the 13 year span. Exercise alone does not define your health, diet is very important, too.

I'm absolutely positive that this can not be generalized to the whole population. Furthermore, I am completely sure that this report has absolutely nothing to do with HN's primary, secondary nor tertiary audience. The submitter should be absolutely ashamed at himself for posting something that should not come within miles of a site like this. It is not even fit for Reddit.

Really? There are that many 54 year old overweight women who read HN?

My apologies.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com