Hacker News Reader

Comment by throwaway09223 | Hacker News Reader

"Popular" scientific literature, dieticians and physical therapists are demonstrably, profoundly unreliable sources. Besides, if you look around for opinions about the "starvation mode myth" you will find there is actually a lack of consensus.

If you believe this is wrong then I suggest trying to articulate why you believe it is wrong, rather than appealing to cherry-picked non-authority opinions.

The vast majority of calories our bodies burn are upkeep related and this upkeep does not change significantly based on our diet.

Exercise is certainly a factor, but it is orthogonal to the question of whether our bodies somehow stop burning calories while continuing to operate itself. Most people in these extreme circumstances do not significantly exercise at all.

Calorie restricted diets in a clinical setting where calorie inputs are strictly controlled will reduce weight 100% of the time.

View on HN

> The vast majority of calories our bodies burn are upkeep related and this upkeep does not change significantly based on our diet.

I don't think people really appreciate this. Running only burns about 100 calories per mile. So if you run 5 miles, you've only burned the calories you would get from eating one muffin.

Many people will go for a walk around the block and feel like their getting into shape, but restricting calories is the only practical way to lose weight.

Er, are we talking about same order of magnitude here? I notice that in USA, notably on food packaging, "Calories" (captalised) equals "thousand calories" (lower case). Elsewhere (including Japan), it seems that the kCals is used, avoiding confusion capitalisation.

Yes, a muffin is usually 300+ Calories or kCals and running a mile is ~100 Calories or kCals depending on your speed and weight.

North Americans typically just use Calories for food and excerise contexts. Small c calories is really just used for science.

> Running only burns about 100 calories per mile

That’s only true for people who are both light and efficient runners.

A better rule of thumb, at least for men, is 1kCal/hour for zone 2 or light zone 3 training.

If you like metric, a good approximation is also 1 calorie per kilometer and kilogram of body weight. So a 80kg person running a 10k will approx. burn 800 calories.

Only an approximation but seems to roughly fit many "measurements" by smart watches for both males and females of different weight ranges.

Also said as “you can’t outrun the fork…”

>The vast majority of calories our bodies burn are upkeep related and this upkeep does not change significantly based on our diet.

Apparently it does if you went on too many yoyo diets. Look up reverse dieting to increase your sustaining calorie level again, it works in both directions. Its more or less the efficiency with which your metabolism functions

I liked Jeff Nippards Video with Eric Trexler on the topic https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xiYJW9pViaM https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Eric-Trexler

From 2019

> dieticians and physical therapists are demonstrably, profoundly unreliable sources

They're certainly far better sources than unqualified randos on the Internet being that they're educated in specifically this. If you don't agree with that, then you're epistemology is completely broken. Of course, it doesn't mean they're right, but it does mean they're the best first approximation for someone who isn't themselves an expert.

The claim was about where this information is propagated, so don't start fighting with me about whether it's true or not, which I specifically did not make a claim on. Your original claim about who is propagating this information is just false. You're disagreeing with experts, not just "people who believe they are on calorie restricted diets, but who are actually eating more than they think." It doesn't mean you're wrong, but it means you think you know better than people trained in this specifically, which you may or may not, throwaway09223.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com