Could you elaborate on that? Altering caloric intake and sleep schedule as a reaction to what? And how would you change between the two regimes? Increase/decrease how much? etc.
Kurzgesagt has a really interesting video on it: https://youtu.be/lPrjP4A_X4s
The caloric part quite blew my mind. I know its not the most scientific source but digging deeper in it it does seem to match up.
Spoiler alert: you burn basically the same number of calories per day sitting on your butt as you do being quite physically active.
> you burn basically the same number of calories per day sitting on your butt as you do being quite physically active
Can you provide more evidence for this, because it sounds entirely bogus. Perhaps you mean one's base metabolic rate? If you are physically active, you will consume more calories than sitting all day - because, you know, you are exerting yourself.
Also, an anthropology professor is not a credible source on diet, exercise, fitness and health.
Somebody else burns the same number of calories being active as you do sitting.
The article does not compare the the same individuals performing sitting vs. being active.
It says that members of hunter-gatherer tribes such as the Hadza on average consume as much energy per day as US-Americans sitting on their butt at home. It says the Hadza's bodies have adapted to perform a more exhausting task with less energy expenditure than US-Americans need.
But the same person (being a Hazda or US-American) will still need more energy being active than being inactive.
(Source: Read from "here's what we know so far" in the article.)
This is similar to finding that from N calories, an obese person may only run 1km while a professional marathon runner will run 5km.
Edit:
The Kurzgesagt video refers to the same Hazda people, and states that if you start working out after being sedentary for a while, you burn a lot more calories, until your body eventually adapts: https://youtu.be/lPrjP4A_X4s?feature=shared&t=212
It stems from a language difference, in Latin American Spanish, words like america and its relatives like americano, latinoamericano, panamericano, etc is inclusive of North and South America.
In English, globally, America refers to the USA. It is context dependent, but to describe the continents you would normally say "the Americas."
This distinction naturally annoys native Latin American Spanish speakers, especially because it is compounded by historical, geopolitical, and economic dynamics.
If someone chooses to be over-explicit in English, it's better to let it pass. Correcting the language can come off as dickish, especially when you consider the historical context. Additionally, the person on the other end is sometimes making this mistake on purpose, trolling for a pointless argument.
If it were up to me, I would add this topic to the list of things HN mods should ban.
You're not wrong, but I'd see it as the Americans who've adapted to more recent situations. Not walking ten miles a day is a relatively new phenomenon.
I think I’m missing your point. How do you explain weight loss from exercising?
As a big fan, I'd be interested in hearing more about the controversy and misinformation.
I'm not going to engage with that, go troll somewhere else. Bye :)
I can say having recently gone from coding at a desk 8 hours a day to working full-time on a farm with no heavy equipment, your food intake absolutely should increase. As long as I'm staying busy I can eat basically whatever I want and not feel sick or gain weight. That's not to imply that I don't still need to eat the right kinds of food as well, but volume and calorie count has no noticeable effect on me like it did when I had a sedentary job.
Yeah I think people are missing the transition phase of this equation.