Hacker News Reader

I think the missing pole in the tent of weight loss is that we don't acknowledge the psychology of it. Everyone who is overweight knows that they should eat less and move more. What always gets lost is the how. How do I consistently do this in the face a stressful life and constant time pressure? Everyone can walk past a tray of cookies once at the beginning of the day. After a stressful meeting where you were yelled at by your boss? No so easy and you may even eat two.

Like you said, exercise is important for overall health but is a horrible way to lose weight. We are going to eat cake at lunch because we claim we will workout later (but then don't). Exercising takes time to do, to change, to shower, to travel. People are likely to overeat after exercising because they feel famished even though they burned a fraction of the calories they think they did. I think people are probably better served with intermittent fasting and trying hard to control their grocery shopping to keep binge-able foods out of the house. The challenge here is if you are the only person in the house trying to lose weight.

We need a better life hack to lose weight in the 21st century. We are going to lie to ourselves about what we will do or why we didn't. This is actually the brilliance of the Planet Fitness pricing model. The majority of their customers barely go but for $10/month you can lie to yourself that you are "trying" and it is cheap enough to prevent cancellation. I think this is why people have initial success on WW or NutriSystem because it takes a lot of the mental load away. Don't think, just follow instructions.

Sorry for not having references, but to add to your very good comment: Working out triggers hunger in us, and I believe I've read somewhere (research?) that hunger overcompensates compared to how much was burnt, so working out (regardless if cardio or weights) is actually bad for losing weight.

Then of course it can be good for your overall health (in particularly your mental one) so that in turn might help you (and be good for you), but if your only goal is losing weight, I'm not sure this talk about exercising is so good.

No absolutely not. You may overcompensate initially, but your body re acclimates. The prevailing advice simply wouldn't be to start moving more for the obese/morbidly obese if this were the case

I don't disagree with you about the overall health benefits of regular exercise, but the entire point of the article was that the "prevailing advice" WRT weight management is often over-simplified to the point of worthlessness.

> The prevailing advice simply wouldn't be to start moving more for the obese/morbidly obese if this were the case

Considering the state of the obesity epidemic, maybe that prevailing advice is not working well?

I used soaked chia seeds to fill the extra hunger. Some days I was "hungry" with a full stomach. Can I take advantage of the low calories of chia seeds or do I have to depend on hunger acclimation?

I'm not sure if this is a common thing, but working out has a satiating effect on me. I simply have less hunger when I exercise. The only exception is when I swim. That does increase hunger.

I wish I understood the reason.

Working out too hard, i.e. anaerobically such as running or anything that gets you out of breath, can trigger hunger if you're not adapted to that level of exercise. It puts your body in high alert mode and you will have to balance out stress hormones and refuel immediate energy stores after. Pushing yourself to the limit is probably only a good idea if your body is already healthy enough to take the abuse.

If you want to lose weight, something less taxing that you can happily do for a longer time is a much better choice – work with your body and mind, not against them. Give your body time to hit those fat stores instead of putting it in overdrive and pulling energy from more direct sources of glycogen.

But now you’ve reduced a weight loss problem to a discipline problem, where you have access to a much wider array of techniques available.

> Cardio is important for overall health, but you aren't going to burn enough calories for it to be a major source of weight loss.

You need to build the stamina to keep it up. But assuming you can maintain a moderate to strenuous pace for 30 minutes you can burn off a small meal's worth of calories. An hour of moderate running can be around 600 calories for an adult male.

Agreed, but ability to adapt to exercise is also very personal. I have a natural endurance for things like running, but other people don't (just like some people can gain muscle mass just by looking at a barbell, while others -- like me -- need to put in consistent, hard work in the gym to slowly build strength.)

The same way people underestimate their caloric intake, I think unfortunately a lot of fitness apps and equipment overestimate calories burned. A recent 1 hr peloton class I did said said I burned a little over 1,200 calories. It was nearly 300 more than my Whoop band said I lost. I think both numbers were higher than what I actually did.

In my anecdotal experience my fitness apps generally underestimates calories burned while exercise equipment generally overestimates it. Like how my Garmin watch told me yesterday that I burned 300 kcal from running 10 km which is nonsense. It should be around 600 kcal if you do a rough estimation.

The problem with calorie counting and fitness trackers is that they assume all bodies are equally efficient, a calorie is a calorie but a person is not a person. It’s like driving for 2 hours and trying to estimate how much gas to fill for the next 2 hours without overflowing the tank, all this based on the mpg of a standard car.

I'd agree with that. A 3 hour bike ride in a moderately hilly area burns about 2000 calories, and that's a considerable number to bank. My lowest weight --and counting calories ruthlessly-- was when I was running regularly, even at just 2 or so miles, until my knee started giving me trouble.

Very few people who try to lose weight have the time or the stamina for an hour of strenuous cardio each day. For most people it's easier to not eat the calories than to burn them off.

I've found its easier to mentally separate them. Calorie restriction for weight loss, and cardio strictly for ... cardiovascular health.

Doing cardio for weight loss is fighting against whatever you are doing in the kitchen. It doesn't make much sense, unless you have the time and stamina to do it for the required duration and intensity (for me, weight loss happens only with an hour a day lap swimming non-stop).

Food is one of my sources of enjoyment and comfort. I've made it a point to notice that enjoyment. The enjoyment comes in the first few bites of food, so really that's all you need. Comfort is harder, I'm still working on that.

Also, YOU WILL BE HUNGRY at some points. That is normal. You will be hungrier if you eat a lot of sugar. (This is my experience and not medical advice)

I wonder if there have been 'good' studies into the human experience of hunger. It's extremely subjective, so I can't imagine it would be easy to do in the first place and near impossible to replicate.

> Cardio is important for overall health, but you aren't going to burn enough calories for it to be a major source of weight loss.

I am sorry but this claim doesn't make a great deal of sense. For example, running expends about 1 kcal/kg/km [1,2].

On a personal note, I went from 105kg to 75kg body weight by doing endurance sports (for the avoidance of doubt, it was all fat loss with localised gain of muscle mass). I have a record of all workouts and almost-daily weigh-ins for 6+ years, and there's a very high degree of inverse correlation: during periods when I run/bike more, the weight goes down, and vice versa.

[1] https://bjsm.bmj.com/content/bjsports/11/3/116.full.pdf

[2] https://journals.physiology.org/doi/abs/10.1152/jappl.1963.1...

It’s important to note that all running (or similar exercise) is not created equal. If you are over weight and you start running to lose weight it probably won’t work because your heart rate will likely hit the roof when you start jogging and thus you will be using the anaerobic system - burning sugar. This is the opposite of what you want to be doing. Instead, unhealthy people who need to lose weight should firstly get a HR monitor and only exercise below their aerobic threshold. This burns fat which is what they need to do! If they continue doing this, they’ll be able to move faster at the same HR and also improve their fat burning capabilities. This is how they will lose weight. It will take a lot of time and patience because initially they won’t be able to run because the HR goes too high.

Those who start running with high heart rates likely won’t see any weight loss and furthermore, the sugar burning of the anaerobic system will guide you towards eating more carbs and sugars.

I’m not an expert by any means but weight lifting is the opposite of what you need to do to lose weight as it always uses the anaerobic system.

It's true there exists a "fat burn zone" where the ratio of fat burned to calories spent is higher. It's not true that's it's beneficial for people trying to lose weight to limit their calories burned to that zone, though. What governs weight loss is total calories in vs. total calories out: https://www.whoop.com/thelocker/fat-burning-heart-rate-zone/

Yes, to lose weight, one must burn more than they eat. That’s not in dispute! I’m also not saying you only need to run in aerobic zone to lose weight. My point was that, people who go for a run at a 160bpm+ HR are not doing themselves a favour because:

1) it stresses the body too much which releases cortisol and other hormones which don’t play well with weight loss 2) uses only the anaerobic system, so burns sugar, not fat 3) burning of sugar makes the body crave more sugar and refined carbs making it harder to eat healthier

They would be better off running at a slower pace for weight loss and eating a diet mostly comprising fat and protein (whilst keep in calories less then out calories). If you build up the aerobic system well, you’ll be super healthy, fit and find it difficult to put on weight!!

People who say running is too hard are not doing it right. Running is easy when doing it below aerobic threshold. We are literally designed to be able to run long distances. Your body has enough fat stores to run for tens of hours (providing you don’t deplete your glycogen stores!)

I agree with everything you write, but this is very subjective:

> and it's a lot more fun than cardio.

I, too, try to lift weights regularly, and acknowledge that it's important for health. But I detest doing it. Running, on the other hand, is incredibly rewarding for me and gives my brain a wonderful "reset" that I sorely miss without it.

I feel the same, running is like meditation. Lifting weights feels downright stressful.

I suppose that is a very personal thing as well. As someone that was in cross country and hated it, I'm not a fan of cardio (but I still find ways to incorporate it). Conversely, I love lifting and look forward to it.

Sensible advice all around. I would just replace “gaining weight” by “gaining fat”. If you are lifting a lot then you may get heavier on the scale while losing fat. Attend to your waistline rather than the scale.

I sit all day in front of a pc or computer. If I don't work out, 400c calories is my weight gain threshold. You can even get away with guestimating calorie intake but what most people miss is when they think everyone burns 2500 cal/day just being idle. I wish I could eat even a 1000 ! Also, for weight gain/loss, idle burn means nothing, what you do with the surplus or deficient calories is what matters.

> If I don't work out, 400c calories is my weight gain threshold.

Is this hyperbole? Putting some numbers in a TDEE calculator, if you were about 60 cm tall and weighted 15 kg (2 feet, 33 lbs), you would still have a maintenance at more than 400 cal.

> I wish I could eat even a 1000 !

Unless you have dwarfism it would be very hard for anyone to eat 1000 cal/day and not be severely underweight.

Maybe you mean per meal and you have 3 meals/day?

No, I mean per day. I measured this over a long time. That's why I said meausre and find out for yourself. That said 1000 veggie calories is nothing but a 1000 carb calorie means small but measurable weight gain for me. Perhaps I am supposed to be a herbivore? Lol

Cardio (especially running) is a major source of burn. Curious how you came to that conclusion. Yes, over the long term lifting is better because more muscle = higher resting metabolism = higher passive burn but in the short term, unless you’re doing high rep/highly hypertrophic exercises, cardio is the way to go.

> Cardio is important for overall health, but you aren't going to burn enough calories for it to be a major source of weight loss.

I beg to differ. I started running 10 km a day, and it made a world of difference!

> I used to be able to eat 3500 calories a day and not gain weight. Now in my 40's if I eat more than 2500 I put on weight.

Could it be that chronic calorie reduction has made your body adapt?

I have no idea, but I doubt it. I ate the same way for years, but as I got older I started gaining weight, when I didn't before. The weight gain preceded the calorie reduction.

We get more "motion efficient" as we get older LOL.

Without special efforts metabolism decreases naturally with age (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8361073/)

Even with special efforts, it’s only slowing/delaying the process, so progressively eating less is natural anyway.

Metabolism doesn't decrease with age.

https://www.everydayhealth.com/diet-nutrition/metabolism-may...

Body composition changes gradually over time. Going from healthy and fit at 20 to overweight and unfit at 40 can be reversed, it's not an inevitable decline.

Eventually aging catches up, but it may not be until 60s or 70s when metabolism takes a noticeable hit.

As with so much science, they got it wrong, but knowledge is getting better.

Intermittent fasting and the leangains regime show that what you eat, and when, is as important as how many calories you ingest.

To lose weight exercise is a 20-30%, and not even necessary under caloric restriction.

At the end it's all thermodynamics.