Hacker News Reader

Comment by AnatMl2 | Hacker News Reader

I didn't exaggerate with a bar of chocolate, I've done that, not proud, but a huge fan of chocolate.

I understand what you mean and most people might do exactly as you say, I don't argue with that. My argument is that it is possible to lose weight if you do sports, even if you lose a very small amount of weight, it is still losing the weight. I'm not trying to stubbornly prove my point here, I just feel that I've been misunderstood. I don't advice anybody to leave doing what they are doing and start doing some sports because it is the only way to lose the weight, no it isn't. There are lots of other options and maybe more effective even. I just don't understand why we should deny the fact that sports also is one of the options, if, and I have to agree here, combined with a good diet (and by diet I don't mean starving yourself, but eating consciously).

I appreciate your answer, there is more for me to read and learn about the subject indeed.

View on HN

I hear you, and I understand your point. And you're right too. Exercise is a way to burn calories faster, there's no denying that. I've been coming down extra hard to emphasize my point. ;)

But just to be clear, because I'm not sure I've been completely understood either, and to answer your question "why we should deny the fact that sports also is one of the options"... I never lost weight at the gym in 20 years of going to the gym until I realized that sports is not a weight loss option for me personally. The reason is that our physiology compensates for excess calorie burn by making us hungrier, which is true for almost all humans & animals. If I don't track what I eat, then I will accidentally eat too much after I work out, just like I accidentally eat too much when I don't work out. I know that many, many people have the same problem. Once you see this, you realize that for many people, going the gym actually has nothing to do with the weight loss, even if they think is does. It's either a way to continue to eat 2k+ calories, or a way to get stronger, but only the intake control is what leads to weight loss. Without the intake control, the gym just leads to more intake and no weight for me, and for a lot of people.

I'd really like to read some unbiased statistics, which wouldn't be some sports propaganda or anything I've unknowingly posted above. Could you advice me any sources that I could read up on? I've looked through the article that scarface74 posted, but I'd like to have some more read.

For most people, weight loss is simply the wrong goal. Increasing activity levels and functional ability provides a much better return in quality of life and long-term health than weight loss.

As activity levels rise, weight loss starts to change from an extrinsic to an intrinsic goal, as it now directly impacts performance. It still requires diet change, but each incremental reduction produces more tangible effects than just a number on a dial.

When I was teaching and training for runs regularly, I would often purposefully eat more on my heavy work out days before a two or three hour work out session just so I could make it through the session. But I was in weight maintenance mode. I wanted my weight to stay in a certain range. If I were over a certain weight, I wouldn't look as toned and under a certain weight, I just felt "little".

I was in weight maintenance mode. But like you said, whT about all of those people who weren't purposefully trying to maintain and were compensating by eating more? I know people who actually gained weight by over compensating.

Heck if I hadn't known about the density difference in fat versus muscle, I would have felt really bad seeing my weight go down by only 15 pounds a long time ago after working out hard, with cardio and weights - even though my body fat percentage went down 12% and I lost 4-6 inches in my waist.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com