Japanese people stay fit for life without visiting a gym | Hacker News Reader

Japanese people stay fit for life without visiting a gym

kokumura.medium.com

59 pointsvoisin105 comments

I think it's more likely diet rather than exercise that makes the difference. Can't outrun (or outwalk) a poor diet, and you can be a healthy bodyweight while eating "unhealthy" food and not exercising by just limiting the quantity you are eating.

I would argue that to be healthy you should exercise a reasonable amount and have some muscle rather than just being at a good weight. Gives you a stronger body, and helps your mental health (which Japan seems to struggle with).

There are limits to diet. In Eastern Europe people just eat potatoes with tons of fat and occasional piece of chicken, arguably the worst diet, and obesity is far lower than in the US.

Diet isn't just types of food consumed but also the amount. Also fat isn't 'unhealthy' but that's a different misconception.

Fat is indeed quite healthy as long as its calorie count does not exceed daily recommended, which is extremely easy to do with fat as its energy rich.

I don't think being rich in energy has anything to do with how easy it is not to over-indulge in it. Plenty of fatty foods that people overeat very very easily.

I was saying exactly the opposite of what you thought I was saying! We agree!

Have you tried eating only potatoes for a longer period? Its basically impossible to eat too much.

Have you tried subsisting on potatoes? I literally grew up in EE and that was my food for breakfast, dinner, and supper. It's insane how many people in these comments are chiming in "OH ACTUALLY they are great food if consumed properly."

> It's insane how many people in these comments are chiming in "OH ACTUALLY they are great food if consumed properly."

Because maybe they have a different opinion than you? I grew up on potatoes (plain, cooked), too, but I like them a lot.

You have some weird unhealthy vendetta against potatoes going on here, judging by your other comments in this thread.

> You have some weird unhealthy vendetta against potatoes going on here

This is the funniest thing---I absolutely don't! I love mashed potatoes. I am just pointing out they are not the healthiest food. It's okay to like foods that are not healthy. I love cake for example. It's just weird to me how lots of people here seemingly convinced themselves that potatoes are super-healthy while the are actually carb bombs.

The worst diet is one abundant in ultra-refined packaged foods. At least chicken and potatoes have nutritional value, even if it's not complete.

But you have a point, there was a study revealing that the red meat and fat consumption in Hong Kong was relatively high, and yet longevity ranks among the top of the world. It is a very walkable city.

It's all about quantity and calorie density. You'd have to eat 27 potatoes a day to get to 3k calories, which is on the low end for obese people. Unless they're eating every potatoe baked with heaps of cheese, sour cream and bacon bits then it's not that bad for your weight, at least

Thank you. Potatoes get such a bad reputation as a staple.

I think it has to do with the fact that there’s zero marketing budget for a food sold for $1/kg and, like anything else, can be prepared in a healthy way or horribly unhealthy way.

Well, I'd say it comes down to the fact that most potato preparations are horribly unhealthy.

Not the potato's fault, just the meals that surround it. Probably the only tradition potato prep that has a chance of being sort of healthy is mashed potatoes. Even then, those often get loaded up with milk, butter, and gravy.

Take rice on the opposite end. Just as unhealthy as potatoes yet a ton of traditional rice meals are super healthy.

I cube them, boil them, and eat them with mustard or hot sauce. Even with ketchup isn’t that bad. Or I toss them into a soup or stir fry.

Mash potatoes involve peeling them. That’s a waste of time and nutrients.

Call me crazy, I like the skin on in mashed potatoes. I think it adds to the flavor.

I think that depends on the potatoes. On some it'll feel like you're just chewing on and swallowing paper.

same. unfortunately my wife and now the kids do not :-(

Not crazy at all because I also like the skin on a mashed potatoes

Simple boiled potatoes, especially fresh ones, are delicious, with a little piece of butter. They have delicate flavor. However, nobody likes them in the US... potatos have to be at least deep fried and better yet dipped into some crap. Reminds me of when I was in Munich with some American friends and they thought pork (and potatoes etc.) were flavorless... it just had the flavor of pork :)

I feel like the worst parts of the US diet are not the staples or the meats or anything like that, it's all the additions - too much butter, ketchup, dressings, syrups, sauces, cheeses, added bread (crusts, buns and crumbs) etc. on everything. When your taste buds are nuked by this stuff all the time it's hard to appreciate subtle flavors.

They are 60-80% starch (carbs) by dry weight. They have a bad reputation for a reason.

That’s right up there with anything plant based (e.g. broccoli, chickpeas or kale)

Unlike broccoli or kale, potatoes have way lower vitamin and fiber content. Unlike chickpeas, potatoes have way lower protein content.

I feel like I'm in some kind of twilight zone with fifteen HNers attacking me for saying a pretty much accepted truth about potatoes (that it is an extremely starch-rich vegetable that's fairly low in other nutrients). I don't understand the reason for this. Is everyone here on a potato diet?

I think it's more that we're talking about obesity. You might not be the most nourished person in the world but noone is obese from eating too many potatoes, you get obese eating pure sugars and modern engineered refined foods.

> noone is obese from eating too many potatoes

You get obese from eating too many calories, source is irrelevant. Sugars and refined foods are dangerous because they are particularly addictive. But if you crave carbs, and think potatoes are a "healthy" way to satisfy that craving, you're very wrong.

I mean, source kind of does matter, because potatoes are pretty filling. You would be hard pressed to eat enough potatoes to become obese at 110 calories a pop, unless you cover them in cheese and sour cream and meats, in which case it's not really the potatoes fault. I'm not saying they're a healthy diet option but you can't blame potatoes for someone being obese, which is what we're talking about.

Potatoes have among the highest possible satiety values.

If plane, you basically can’t over eat them. You be full quickly.

As a French Canadian, I can assure you that with the right toppings you can without a doubt eat enough potatoes to reach insane amounts of calories. Granted, we put gravy and cheese on top and consider it a base for the actual toppings.

https://www.geeksaresexy.net/2013/02/05/poutinevilles-heart-...

> which is on the low end for obese people

do obese people burn more calories just by being fat or are you assuming that they are still getting fatter?

Obese people do need higher calories to maintain their weight. Given that severity of obesity rates in increasing its also true that most fat people are only getting fatter though.

Did a sweet potatoe diet For a month. Boiled or microwaved. Nothing added.

Felt Amazing after it. Was the most boring thing ever.

Quantity. In the US, many actually eat meat with every dinner and much of fast food is way outside of safe quantities with ease. Once you get used to the large amounts it gets really easy to feel underfed at safe quantities.

What is up with potatoes? Within somewhat recent history, humans ate diets composed almost entirely of potatoes...it did not kill people in large numbers.

Obesity in the case of countries like the US is largely due to an excess of calories...maybe other stuff is bad for you but the evidence for that is kind of hard to demonstrate when there is so much obesity. I feel like this is kind of why there are problems with obesity. People lose their mind over stuff like bread and soda, and not overall calories.

In the US, many popular ingredients or basic food like canned tomatoes etc have lots of sugar added. Eliminate the additives and you'll quickly shed the excess weight. For example it's fairly hard in PL to find canned tomatoes with added sugar or passata. If one really needs to sweeten them, he can can add sugar by himself.

I am in the UK and Heinz puts a ton of sugar in the national staple: baked beans. I incline against blaming companies but additives is definitely an exception because those ingredients often aren't evident to consumers. We know soda has a ton of sugar but baked beans...most consumers don't know.

But it is also true that if you tried to sell those products in PL, consumers wouldn't have it. Eastern Europeans tend to be very knowledgeable about the origins of food in a way that UK or US consumers aren't. The difference between bread in PL and the West being the example I hear most about.

Potatoes have a decent amount of water and fibre (almost as much as apples). There's some dumb internet idea that the type of macros are what really matter, so potatoes are bad because they're all carbs (not protein). Really, if you want to lose weight than less quantity and less energy density (which means replacing macros with water and fibre) is going to matter a bit more than whether the macros are carbs or protein.

That said, yes they'll lack some nutrients if that's what you were getting at. Some mixed veg would be a good idea.

Ever done starch extraction experiment in middle school? Potatoes are almost pure starch.

They're high in starch, that's not necessarily a bad thing. Potatoes are a satiating food, and its starches can improve microbiota. However they're often consumed with excess fat which, on top of adding more calories quickly, can yield a higher insulin response. Potatoes themselves aren't low-GI foods either. Leptin resistance is often associated with weight gain. In general high fiber foods avoid those pitfalls.

Potatoes contain 60-80% starch. They are generally low in other nutrients, especially protein.

Then you say "however they're often consumed with excess fat" --- yes that's the only way they can be reasonably consumed because they taste like powdered chalk.

They're quite high in potassium, vitamin C, B6, niacin, folate, not to mention various minerals. To say it's low in other nutrients is just plain wrong.

When you say "quite rich," that means very little. Quite rich compared to what? Certainly not to any green leafy vegetable you find on a supermarket shelf.

Potatoes are typically boiled for a long time before eating. Boiling destroys vitamin C and many others as well. Now maybe boiling is not how you do consume potatoes but that's how most people consume them.

> Quite rich compared to what?

On par with meat, pulses, legumes, vegetables, fruit. Compare for yourself, it's not hard to find: https://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/vegetables-and-vegetabl...

> Certainly not to any green leafy vegetable you find on a supermarket shelf.

Yes, those too. They all have different profiles. Generally leafy green vegetables are NOT high in everything at once. They're high in vitamin K and C. That's not terribly unique - many plant foods share this characteristic.

Add to the fact, green vegetables are not as satiating as potatoes. The soluble fiber tends to be fermented quickly. They fulfill a different purpose.

> Boiling destroys vitamin C and many others as well.

Huge overstatement. We generally cook our vegetables as well, a good portion of the vitamins stay intact. In fact cooking increases bio-availability. It doesn't really matter that there is some loss in the process.

> Now maybe boiling is not how you do consume potatoes but that's how most people consume them.

I don't know where you get this idea. I roast potatoes, but all the same cooking in hot water is a gentler cooking method.

All of which to say, discounting potatoes entirely owing to some notion of a poor nutrient profile is absurd.

No, they're not almost pure starch. They are about 17% carbs (including 2% dietary fibre and 1% sugar, the rest being digestible starch).

For context, corn chips are over 60% carbs. Vegetables (even "bad" ones with less protein and more carbs) are actually often kinda healthy.

You are looking at wet weight, which is highly misleading. You should be looking at dry weight.

> In general terms fresh potatoes contain ~20% dry matter (DM) of which 60–80% is starch

That's 60-80% by dry weight. I assure you that the types of potatoes eaten in Eastern Europe contain approximately 109% starch by dry weight.

Nothing wrong with potatoes, or chicken for that matter. And yeah, tons of fat would be bad, but as you say yourself they are not terribly obese, so by definition the amount of fat (and anything else) can't be that huge.

You are inches away from grasping my point, which is that almost anything is a good diet as long as it is consumed in moderation and combined with regular exercise.

Stop talking sense.

For sure, I include how much you eat as a part of your diet. The vast majority of people could eat mcdonald's every day and be a healthy weight by just controlling quantity.

As Eastern European doctors will tell you, the traditional Eastern Europe diet is unhealthy. Yes, obesity is low, but heart disease is a problem. That the urban middle class now has access to new dining habits inspired from other cuisines or vegan fads, is considered a good thing.

Yes, but are they eating dried foods covered in salt out of foil-lined bags as an anxiety reflex, or are they eating at mealtimes when they're hungry?

Ultimately all causes of obesity must be mediated by changes in food consumption behavior or metabolic rate. Very few things alter the metabolic rate; it's relevant to many medical conditions and widely studied. So we're left with foods that affect food consumption patterns.

Really, when we talk about foods that cause obesity, we're talking about foods that undermine the normal psychological function of hunger, either by not making you full, making you eat when you're not hungry, or making you continue to eat beyond fullness. Many processed foods are specifically tested, re-tested and optimized to increase these kinds of effects because it generates profits and there's no law against it (yet). There are no traditional diets that can make people fat as effectively as Doritos, for basically the same reason that there are no traditional medicines that treat myelogenous leukemia as well as imatinib.

Potatoes+Meat/Dairy is one of the most well rounded diets you can get for only two components. Once you add animal products nutrition becomes incredibly simple.

And walking helps digestion too.

"Most Japanese citizens live in very walkable cities where public transportation is convenient, safe, and affordable, and not many households own cars."

I want to believe that quote is true.

I know very very little about Japan and the people who live there. Internet says about 70% of people there own a car.

Doesn't that mean people who live in Manhattan (or other walk-able cities in the US) should have similar fitness levels? I also know little about fitness levels of people who live anywhere, but does it follow that if it's the walkable city making the difference, then people in Paris, NYC, London... any walkable city would have the same fitness level?

You are comparing an entire country with a single downtown. I will let you work out for yourself why that can lead to misleading results.

I will let you work out for yourself why that sounds condescending.

touche )

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modal_share suggests otherwise (compare tokyo/osaka to NYC, SF)

I don’t know much about the rate of car ownership in Japan. But I do know that public transit in Japan is insanely good and the cities are definitely walkable and all of it is quite safe. Trains are always on time. You can see small children riding them on their own. You can get almost anywhere you want to go using them. It’s actually phenomenal and it makes me angry to come back to the states after being there for any period of time because I suddenly need to drive again. (That said groceries would be more problematic if living there and I’m sure there are places you need to get to via car if living there, but most of the time a train has been fine for me as a visitor or when I was living on a military base. Only needed a car to get to the gate to leave and then walk to the train station)

Trains in Japan are generally really great if it exist (not enough trains except big city). Buses aren't generally great, often delays due to traffic. Anyway, most Japanese people outside big city have a car.

Most articles about Japan focus on Tokyo, and if you are lucky, the Osaka-Kyoto area. Even with their huge population, they account for less than half the population of Japan.

For those of us living in smaller cities or rural areas, where public transportation is not so good or outright non-existant, having a car is a must. Same as any other country, really.

I am doing a great job on the not-going-to-the-gym part; one of these days I need to get back to the walking part.

This is a clickbait title. It has as much information as (the more obvious) “Japanese People Say Fit for Life With This One Neat Trick”.

The HN title should be edited to mention the author’s conclusion that Japanese people stay fit by walking.

I find the discourse around exercise to be very peculiar.

Despite scant evidence, the belief that exercise is important to health [0] is extremely prevalent. Even in those cultures that aren't too athletic.

Anything to the contrary is highly controversial among both scientists and the general public. You usually only see this when politics are involved, and even then the opinion will be more evenly split. And this is such a benign subject!

Sometimes studies will find very little benefit or even negative effects, yet the conclusion will still include the obligatory paragraph talking about how exercise must be so great and necessary. Have to wonder how many don't get published because the result was "wrong".

Even without properly controlling for unrelated conditions [1], you'll have a hard time finding a credible study that gives you more than 3-4 extra years (vs absolutely zero exercise).

[0] As in life expectancy, rather than some subjective measures.

[1] Which would only make the projected life expectancy gain go down not up. The studies that we have so far almost certainly establish a ceiling for life expectancy gains. It could very well be 0. There are very few plausible scenarios under which it would turn out that we're actually underestimating gains. One would be that there's some specific form of exercise that gives you big gains and most people just do it wrong.

Is life expectancy the only benefit worth discussion? How about lower blood pressure, or benefits to various blood markers? Or denser bones?

Blood pressure on its own is not an issue, same for blood markers. I can see denser bones being a benefit, if it is proven to reduce the effects of getting a trauma.

No, but when you define it that way it's hard to have a discussion about "health". Generally if people aren't dying or aren't living in pain it's unclear what's a good measure or if it can be considered indicative of physical "health".

It's also pretty rare that something would cause great suffering without reducing life expectancy.

There's absolutely a ton of evidence showing improvement to some markers. But similarly you could "improve" them with many drugs and people would naturally be skeptical on whether there's a real improvement to health without trying to treat some specific condition. And you'd usually defer to life expectancy to make the determination.

I've lost a lot of weight through the pandemic which is surprising for me because I've basically stopped rigorous exercise.

I attribute this to lower appetite, regular walks and little to no alcohol. I did not expect to lose this much weight.

something similar happened to me. I returned to my target weight naturally just by being away from office snack temptations (and possibly additional stress from WFH).

If you want in-depth reading on this topic I would suggest The Okinawa Program. Excerpt from the amzn marketing blurb:

> scientifically documented twenty-five-year Okinawa Centenarian Study, a Japanese Ministry of health–sponsored study. This breakthrough book reveals the diet, exercise, and lifestyle practices that make the Okinawans the healthiest and longest-lived population in the world.

I can't offer any infomercial-like anecdotes about how life-changing the book is because it sits on my bookshelf. I need to get that off my bookshelf, re-read it and introduce some new habits.

It should noted that even salary in Okinawa is worst in Japan, they lives longer.

I have consistently lost weight on both trips I took to Japan despite not necessarily eating very healthily. I think a large part of it is all the stairs/passageways into and out of train stations. Obviously some have escalators but some don't or during rush hour it's easier to just take the steps. In the Bay Area we don't have a transportation system with that kind of infrastructure. New York City's subways would be a bit similar, but most of the stations I've been to there have much fewer stairways.

Anecdotal, but this mirrors my experience as well; without fail I lose weight on every trip. I’m not necessarily doing that much touristy stuff either but I walk significantly more than I do back home (I also work from home which probably doesn’t help). Part of it might be that I have more time as I’m in Japan for a holiday but I also find most of Japan more interesting to walk around and the cities are more densely packed with fewer stretches of empty land. I also don’t have a car which probably forces more walking but I often actively chose not to catch a train as well, even if it makes the trip a little longer.

Last time I checked Spain, japan, and singapore all had longest lifespans. I’m pretty sure people have to work till later than average in those countries. What if having “purpose” (a vocation) for longer is more important than dietary or exercise factors.

Are these step counts really as much as they sound like? My fitness tracker hits above 10,000 steps even the days I stay indoors, just from walking around the house doing things, although I do pace around more than most.

Adults in Japan walking an hour a day on average seems too high, seems like an exaggeration honestly.

If not - is their public transportation that bad? Or do they just skip public transportation for short trips?

They might walk 10 minutes from home to the train station platform, 10 minutes from the station to their office, and 10 minutes to lunch. Then reverse all of that for an hour total. Sometimes it’s a 15 minute walk, so that would make up for those who only have to walk 5 minutes.

Why is it "that bad"? Is great (public) transportation, one that takes your exactly A to B with no delay or energy expenditure? I thought the point of this article is to demonstrate how this arrangement (of walking enough between A and B) has positive aspects.

Tokyo at least, has one of the best urban public transportation systems in the world. I'd rank it at least one of the top 3 cities.

Walking is Amazing but clearly not the main factor here.

I recommend the book Deep Nutrition on this topic.

i dislike these kind of articles for it's click baitey'ness. worse..someone might take it seriously.

...by walking.

Never forget even if your gym free life style is keeping you fit, you would be so much more fit if you actually went to the gym.

over hyped , they have the largest suicide rates in the world , the japanese even have a forest where stressed people go to commit suicide.

every nation is fit

Unfortunately, the suicide rate in Korea is also high (as are many other nations). This is off topic from fitness.

This trope needs to die. They literally do not have the highest suicide rate in the world, far from it:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_suicide_r...

In fact, the US is very close to it. (14.3 vs 13.7)

There is also some overhyping of Japan's extended lifespans. A statistically significant number of japan's very old have been linked to various forms of fraud, enough to impact average lifespan calculations. After several horrific cases (deaths not being reported) a nationwide effort was made to locate the very old (>110). Many have not been located. Many of those small japanese villages with phenomenally old populations were a myth. People were staying on the books long after death.

"More than 230,000 elderly people in Japan who are listed as being aged 100 or over are unaccounted for, officials said following a nationwide inquiry."

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-pacific-11258071

It's amusing that every positive thing about Japan or Korea will have someone going "AcKtuALLY, Japanese/Korean kill themselves more, blah blah blah..." as if to invalidate them, whether or not it has anything to do with the subject. To that point, I'd rather take my life by my own free will than succumb to avoidable diseases/health complications as a result of the failure of my society and its institutions.

I think discussing suicide rate overall is almost a red herring. Rates are very low, statistically speaking. While it is often used as a proxy for major depression, depression is much more prevalent than suicide (7,000/100,000 in the US[1]) and the two don't have the same correlation when compared between countries.

For example, despite Japan's slightly higher suicide rate of 14.3/100,000, the rate of depression is the US is 4X higher than Japan's %2 [2].

If one were to to consider some sort of absurd comparative value judgement about culture, they should address the following:

The difference in suicide rate between US and Japan is 6/1,000,000 (with Japan higher).

The difference in depression is ~50,000/1,000,000 (with US higher).

IF you had to pick between the two, which would you take?

https://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/statistics/major-depression.... https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/epidemiology-and-psy...

> I think discussing suicide rate overall is almost a red herring.

I agree, especially if people are comparing stats across countries without an understanding of how those stats are created. Are the numbers used age-standardised? If not you're going to see higher rates in countries with an older population. Are they using the same definition for death by suicide?

> Rates are very low, statistically speaking.

Rates for the US and for Japan are high. Suicide is a mostly preventable death. Suicide is most common among people who are 40 and older, so it takes people well before they'd die otherwise. Suicide has a large impact on survivors (eg, relatives of the deceased) -- it significantly increases their risk of dying by suicide and it degrades their quality of life.

We need to pay more attention to suicide, even if people think the rates are low.

What is the connection you are making between suicide and being fit from walking more? I think it has more to do with the long work hours crowding out leisure time, aging population, fewer job opportunities due to stagnant economy, and massive inflation in real estate turning people into debt slaves.

Please speak with your physician or another professional before undertaking any kind of advice like this.

Walking is a great calorie burning activity and can absolutely help when it comes to obesity and such. However, skinny != fit.

If you want to be fit, there's no shortcut. Eat healthy, hit the gym (or other real training activity), don't abuse drugs and delete social media.

> and delete social media

Interesting advice you snuck in there. Might not be a bad idea, but necessary for fitness? Not so sure.

> Might not be a bad idea, but necessary for fitness? Not so sure.

I agree, I'm not so sure as well, and anything that comes to making changes to your physical body should be consulted with a professional. That said, I have seen people using social media and they literally sit around on instagram/fb/twitter _all day_ with their neck and backs in some weird contorted position for 0 constructive/positive net gain for themselves or society.

Maybe instead of "delete social media" they should be encouraged to contribute. Use social media to foster good habits (rather than bad ones).

For example, starting/joining groups based around encouraging members to stick to fitness routines.

To an extent internet is a strong break to healthy activities. It sucks time and motivation.

As he says posting on HN... This place (like any messageboard) can be as toxic as anywhere else in it's own way.

Please speak with a medical professional before... walking?!?

Walking is the most basic, most fundamental human physical activity. Hitting the gym deserves a lot more scrutiny.

We live in a diverse society, and HN is just as beautiful as our society in its diversity. However, there are people who absolutely shouldn't walk without consulting with their physician.

And apparently they're so infantile and stupid that they need to pay a professional to tell them if they can stand up, or take a step.

No, but maybe they have a pre-existing condition and could be in danger if they walk too much or walk uphill--and may not possibly realize it?

A friend of mine, who is obese and takes a lot of medication, and also who has recovered from COVID, started getting really lightheaded when we walked uphill about a block to our parked car.

Sounds like your friend realized it. Listening to your body and seeking out professionals if it sends negative signals is probably a better strategy than asking a doctor before any activity, unless you already know you have serious medical conditions.

I was once in a similar situation where after recovering from surgery I found I could only walk short distances before becoming lightheaded and tired. I asked a medical professional for advice. He told me to get over it. I'm lucky I didn't have to pay for this information.

Who are these people that shouldn’t walk without consulting a physician? The only people who shouldn’t walk would be those who had explicitly been told not to walk (e.g. letting a bone heal), but I imagine anyone going to their doctor to ask if they can walk would be laughed out of the room.

I've known a few people where walking was physically just too much for them. Generally very morbidly obese and there was no way they could follow the walking advice even if they wanted to.

I'm talking about people that literally had spinal fractures from standing up (pretty sad really).

Is there actually any evidence to suggest someone who walks, say, an hour daily is less healthy, controlled for diet than any other physical activity?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com