Hacker News Reader

Comment by tofflos | Hacker News Reader

> This study determined if the interruption of prolonged sitting (i.e.; 8-h of inactivity) with hourly cycling sprints of only 4-s duration each (i.e.; 4-s x 5 per h x 8-h = 160-s per day; SPRINTS) improves PPL. The 4-s sprints employed an inertial load ergometer and were followed by 45-s of seated rest.

So you would need to take a 5 x (4-s sprint + 45-s rest) = 245 seconds exercise break from work every hour and in return you could get the following results?

> No differences (p>0.05) between interventions were found for plasma insulin or glucose AUC. However, SPRINTS displayed a 31% (408±119 vs. 593±88 mg/dL/6h; p=0.009) decrease in plasma triglyceride incremental AUC and a 43% increase in whole body fat oxidation (P=0.001) when compared to SIT.

Does "whole body fat oxidation" mean that the an average male calorie burn of 2500 per day would be multiplied with 1,43 to 3575 calories per day?

View on HN

> Does "whole body fat oxidation" mean that the an average male calorie burn of 2500 per day would be multiplied with 1,43 to 3575 calories per day?

It seems extremely unlikely to me. I hesitate to bring up the 2nd law of thermodynamics because I know if frustrates a lot of people in these discussions. However, bear with me.

"Calories" in this context refers to kilocalories. Burning 1 kilocalorie produces enough energy to raise 1 kg of water 1 degree C. So burning an extra 1000 kilocalories per day means producing enough heat to raise the body temperature of a 100 kg person 10 degrees over the course of a day. Although our bodies are really good at cooling, that's not an insigificant amount of heat. It's of a magnitude that is relatively easily measured.

If such a phenomenon were to exist, it seems inconceivable to me that the researchers would not try to measure it. I mean it is literally the holy grail of dieting. I think it is considerably more likely that the effect they are measuring is very interesting, but does not extrapolate out to this logical conclusion.

Your analysis seems to be in the right direction but I think that the body uses this energy in many more ways than just heat. Moving muscles, pumping blood, keeping ionic gradients in the kidneys, and in cells, producing waste products, do seem to take energy. Also, consider the water we lose due to evaporation just by breathing, we are constantly creating a significant amount of heat and dissipating it into the environment. This extra 1000Kcal would be roughly a 50 watt increase in average metabolic rate during a whole day.

It does seem a bit high but anecdotally, my body temperature is 1C higher on days I do some tennis early in the morning. And more importantly my oftenly cold hands go away, so radiating more of it away.

> This extra 1000Kcal would be roughly a 50 watt increase in average metabolic rate during a whole day.

This calculation makes the theory implausible. A resting human burns about 100 watts[0], this would imply 50% more energy output than that, over the whole day.

I too find that I'm warmer after a workout, and sweat lightly for up to a few hours after my heart rate returns to normal, which itself takes almost an hour. So burning more energy than the workout itself? Absolutely.

1000 calories extra seems high for ~4 minutes of cycle sprinting per hour. The HIIT pacing of it is probably ~just as good as spending the whole 4 minutes cycling steadily though.

All energy leaves the body as either work or heat, so of the processes you mentioned, moving things or yourself with your muscles is the only one that wouldn't raise temperature.

I'm not denying the 2nd law, but metabolism is more complicated than just heat or mechanical work. One example, the process by which the body transforms ammonia into urea, requires energy. Not 100% sure of the details but some of this energy might be captured chemically, not sure if urea has a higher (free energy? I don't remember the exact term). Furthermore with this example, since urine is hyperosmotic, the body has to do a process against normal ion/water diffusion, in order to excrete minerals and not excessive water. This osmotic pressure, contains some potential energy.

The thing is that because of the 2nd law of thermodynamics, that energy does not go away when we use it. Moving muscles, pumping blood, etc uses energy and transforms it to heat. It's a bit weird that energy doesn't go away when we "use" it, but that's how the universe works :-) What can happen is that energy is locked up in chemical structures (or, I guess as physical potential energy). So if you evaporate water, the energy goes into the water and stays there until the vapour condenses. Things like that. But it's pretty easy to isolate a person and measure the amount of heat they produce (to a gross level like we are talking about here).

But, yes. Exercise will drive your metabolism and cause you to be warmer.

It's easier to measure the volume of exhaled air and extrapolate calories from that, via CO2 expelled.

Different fuels create different amounts of CO2 per joule though. This is not just a truism in combating climate change but also a key tool when observing metabolism. Whenever someone gives numbers for how much of some exercise energy consumption is from fats and how much is from carbs it is determined by measuring CO2 output and comparing that to measured energy output.

Oh huh, I hadn't realized that, thank you!

Yeah, completely agree, no one is denying the 2nd law :) Let's just say biochemistry is quite complicated with myriad metabolic pathways. I find it plausible that the body does not necessarily use all calories ingested all the time. Some probably remain in the digestive tract.

You mean the 1st Law.

There are other places than heat (e.g. synthesizing muscle and other types of tissue) for the excess energy to go.

> I mean it is literally the holy grail of dieting.

Slightly related but I have recently visited the US and I have been shocked how supercharged high sugar (ie addictive) high calorie foods are everywhere, like desserts above 1000kcal alone. It takes much more effort than in the other countries to manage caloric intake here, even eating random junk food where I live it’s hard to go above 3000 per day.

There's definitely an obsession with a good value in America, so everything you find in a restaurant is ultra high in calories. Even seemingly innocuous foods are probably sauteed in pounds of butter and made as criminally unhealthy as possible. It's like they're engineered to make you fat.

That being said, if you're looking to stay inside your clothes while visiting America, avoid eating at restaurants entirely.

While kind of you to say, we Americans don't put butter on everything because we're looking for a good value.

I know, I was like wait where are these restaurants? I think most places use cheapo oil and margarine.

What I meant was, fat adds to the flavor, and blows up the calories, in turn making you fuller and thus you think you got a good value for your dollar.

how so much more effort? unless you’re in the worst parts of town there are plenty of food choices. choose the good ones.

Interestingly enough, a similar phenomenon does exist when using a compound called dinitrophenol. Naturally, like with every useful drug, it's been demonized and banned. What it basically does is make energy use inefficient, so a specific action (like clenching your fist) consumes more energy than normal.

Not all of those 2500 calories come from fat. Some will come from protein, carbs, and alcohol. Even if your body doesn't burn less of the others to compensate you would not get 1.43 times your normal calorie burn.

> Does "whole body fat oxidation" mean that the an average male calorie burn of 2500 per day would be multiplied with 1,43 to 3575 calories per day?

No, it means they burned (oxidized) more fat. This would mostly be a higher % with same calories. Doing those tiny intervals of total 2m40s shouldn't raise significantly the total calorie consumption.

No it means the amount of calories coming from body fat is increased by 43%, which may amount to nothing over the course of the day if it also simultaneously increases appetite. Almost all forms of weight loss suffer from this problem - the amount of fat lost is generally proportional to the long-term appetite increase, so that 95% of people regain the weight.

Well, presumably you can work while resting. Honestly, I haven't found that to be too hard (I take a mid-day bike ride up the hill here in SF).

I think we get energy directly out of carbohydrates and proteins, too. If so, that factor will be (¿much?) lower.

Fairly easy to incorporate this into a pomodoro cadence. Every other break do some high intensity bursts.

2500 calories is way over the average male rmr

Reply on news.ycombinator.com