
To Lose Weight, Eating Less Is Far More Important Than Exercising More - prostoalex
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/16/upshot/to-lose-weight-eating-less-is-far-more-important-than-exercising-more.html?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur&_r=0&abt=0002&abg=1
======
mhd
The problem here seems that discussions about this are sooo littered with
personal biases. "Bro science" is just one aspect of this, far more common is
expecting that one's personal achievement is universally reproducible. Yes,
person A may eat all the burgers and twinkies, because he's going to the gym
all the time and swimming laps like there's no tomorrow. But as a general rule
to combat obesity, that's probably not the way to go (we often get the same
personal non-exceptionalism in economic debates).

So I hope we'll have less "But it worked for me!" in this thread and more
thought about something a bit more universal and averaged out.

~~~
learnstats2
> Yes, person A may eat all the burgers and twinkies, because he's going to
> the gym all the time

One major problem with the standard BMI definitions is that any athlete in a
sport that vaguely requires muscles will be classed as 'overweight' or
'obese'.

Although there may be some justification for this categorisation, these are
people we normally consider at the peak of fitness.

One of the best things you can do for long-term health outcomes is to follow a
strength training programme. For an average person, that may result in weight
gain via muscle. This is not a bad thing.

~~~
johnchristopher
> > > Yes, person A may eat all the burgers and twinkies, because he's going
> to the gym all the time

> One major problem with the standard BMI definitions is that any athlete in a
> sport that vaguely requires muscles will be classed as 'overweight' or
> 'obese'.

Oh, what a major problem it is for the vast majority of overweight people
changing their diet and lifestyle. This really is the most important point
they have to keep in mind: BMI don't apply to athletes who regularly train and
practice. What a bummer.

/s

~~~
peteretep
My BMI is 30.1, which is obese. With a 36' waist, and usually fitting pretty
comfortably in to an American size M t-shirt, I am a little overweight, but
BMI is not a helpful measurement for any kind of diagnostic for me. I lift the
occasional heavy thing, but an athlete I am not.

~~~
johnchristopher
So you are overweight and your BMI correlates (and a single data point).

For what it's worth I used to wear EU M t-shirts a decade ago and I haven't
put on weight. But the same M t-shirt sold these days is way slimmer than my
old t-shirts.

------
smcl
This is one of the main themes of the documentary Fed Up - the food & beverage
industry have sold us a lie about the US obesity crisis (people are obese
because they don't exercise enough) - while downplaying their involvement
(hiding\obfuscating sugar in the nutrition information of "healthy" options,
lobbying to have Pizza classified as a "vegetable" portion in school meals,
etc). It's worth checking out:
[http://fedupmovie.com/](http://fedupmovie.com/)

------
KaiserPro
There really isn't that much science to it. On paper its really really simple.

To loose weight, you must expend more energy than you absorb.

However, conversely to get fit, you will need to eat a balanced diet, with
enough calories to replace damaged muscles.

However on the weight loss front here are the golden rules:

Some people exercise (exercise expends energy)

Some people reduce energy consumption (eat less, or eat less calorific food)

Some people combine both.

There are no other options.

Seriously, if you are on a diet and you are not loosing weight, its not
because you are unlucky, its because you are still absorbing more energy than
you are expending. Exercise more, or eat less.

There is _some_ evidence that efficiency can be altered by eating patterns,
however that's not enough to over come eating an extra 300calories a day.

Everything else, is literally junk science. The 4:2 only works if on arrogate
you consume less calories. Atkins only works if you can't absorb the extra
energy you have in fat and protein. Etc, etc, etc.

This part is the easy part. Weight in 90% of cases is a symptom of one's
environment. Changing environment is devilishly difficult.

~~~
NLips
Assuming that by "4:2" you are talking about intermittent fasting, does anyone
believe otherwise? Alternate-day fasting can help people lose weight not
because there's any magical effect, but because a faster is unlikely to double
their calorie intake the day after fasting - having fast days is just a
simple/easy way to reduce overall calorie intake.

Besides, the main benefits of alternate-day fasting are meant to be health
related, not explicitly weight-loss. Is it a main-stream weight-loss method?

~~~
Sammi
Intermittent fasting combined with weightlifting means you are more likely to
loose fat and not muscles while fasting. The weightlifting will tell the body
that the muscles are needed and it will then have less of a tendency to
metabolize them for energy.

Also muscles burn energy while you are sitting on your sofa. Increasing your
muscles mass by weightlifting means you will burn more energy all the time. I
think weightlifting is strongly overlooked for weight loss and especially for
loosing fat when combined with intermittent fasting.

~~~
KaiserPro
Do you have a source for that?

First, I'm talking about actual weight loss, not fat loss. They are two
different goals.

Weightlifting causes muscle damage that needs repairing. This requires energy.

Intermittent fasting will cause longer repair times and if done incorrectly
will cause muscle loss. (muscle bulk I assume is your end goal, as opposed to
a specific need for a sport)

However the common way to gain muscles is to take protein powder laced with
hormones, natural or otherwise. As a strategy for weight loss it is useless
unless you exercise enough to burn off the extra calories consumed. This
requires time and effort, both of which are difficult.

Loosing fat is not in its self weight loss.

------
nikiiv
As someone who recently lost 40 lbs, I should say that it is generally true. A
hard ergometer exercise can have a net effect of 240 kcal for one hour and
gross effect of 320 assuming 80 kcal per hour body burn. 240 kcal is not much
at all, provided that my body generally burns 2800 kcal a day. Not even 10%

However limiting food intake reduces not only the calories, but vitamins and
micronutrients plus minerals. Also not exercising at all means muscle loss and
not so much fat loss, which can have severe effects in 3-6 months. So regular
exercises are must, swimming for example 3 times a week plus some brisk walk
in the park twice a week will do miracles. Not to forget proper feeding is it
is as much important as reducing calories intake and creating calories
deficiency. If one can't balance his food to have proper vitamins and
minerals, one should resort to food supplements at least for calcium,
potassium, magnesium, vitamins C, B6, B12 and E if you want to keep you heart
and liver healthy during the process. Know what you eat and do the numbers. I
started with 39% body fat and 33% muscle.. Now I am 30% body fat and 35%
muscle with a lot of cardio. A close friend of mine reduced his food intake
and albeit he achieved serious weigh loss, that was on the expense of muscle
and tissue, rather then fat loss..

Personally I achieved my loss with the help of numbers and constant measures -
get a proper scale that can report body fat/muscle/tissue, cross check with
calipers, get a fitness tracker to track daily steps and calories, track you
food, exercise, calories and progress.. There are so many sites and
applications to do so.. And really important - do a blood work each 3 months
for you heart and liver. A few drops of blood can give you so much intel

Hope that helps

------
joelrunyon
Still amazed that people are still considering this a pure caloric issue and
not a food quality issue.

When you look at how various hormones (namely insulin) are affected by blood
sugar & affect body composition, it seems you'd want to promote a method that
bears that in mind.

That said, I think the focus should be on "eating better" not just "eating
less."

~~~
snez
Eating 3000kcal of "quality food" every day will still make you gross fat and
give you heart problems. And did you know that protein also affects insulin?
Insulin is essential for muscle building.

Still find it hilarious how so many people still don't understand that a
caloric deficit or surplus is the #1 thing to do when trying to cut or bulk.

~~~
WildUtah
"Eating 3000kcal of 'quality food' every day will still make you gross fat and
give you heart problems"

Eating 3000 kcal every day would make me shrivel away to skin and bones.

"thing to do when trying to cut or bulk"

Most adult males who lift enough weights to care about cutting and bulking are
burning 3000+ kcals daily.

~~~
vidarh
> Most adult males who lift enough weights to care about cutting and bulking
> are burning 3000+ kcals daily.

I very much doubt that. Most adult males that combine lifting 1 hour+ a day
with a physically demanding job and who is otherwise highly active, maybe.
That includes a very small proportion of people who "lift enough weights to
care about cutting and bulking".

I've done power lifting for ten years. I'm 108kg, carry around far more muscle
than the average man. I exercise hard 3+ times a week. That's enough that my
lifts according to strstd.com are all in the "advanced" range - much more than
that is a waste when doing power lifting unless you're aiming to compete
internationally. Yet my daily calorie need is on average ~2300kcal because I
have a sedentary office job.

Most guys I see that worry about cutting and bulking have no clue what they're
doing, and end up getting fat and bloated when bulking, so I tend to discount
what people think they need quite heavily. I gained most of my muscle early on
with a diet that saw me on 1600kcal-1800kcal. It's just the last few years
I've been able to increase my intake above that without adding too much fat
(and if you think I'm super defined and low body fat, think again)

~~~
sheepmullet
This is why the human body is so fascinating. If my conversions are correct I
weigh 88kg, perform about an hour of exercise a day and by limiting my
calories to 2500/day I'm losing ~.8kg/week. I'm weighing all my food at home
and at work so I doubt I'm out by more than maybe 100 calories.

Yet you are much larger, and fitter, but only need 2300 to maintain. I used to
have more than 25% of your total daily intake in my coffees! And I've never
been fat fat.

~~~
gadders
In livestock, they selectively breed for animals with good feed conversion
ratios. i.e. for two pigs of the same breed given the same food, one will put
on 1kg of mass and one will put on 1.5kg.

It would be daft to assume the same thing couldn't happen with people.

------
antirez
Everybody in the fitness circles (see Reddit Fitness) knows this. It's just
that normally doctors, TV & company misadvice you, telling something like
"walk more, be more active" when the task at hand is to lose weight. Actually
the exercise suggestion should be: do some strength training _while seriously
dieting_ in order to retain muscles. A 30 minutes run will burn ~400 calories.
The same amount of calories can be eaten in 10 seconds. Do your math.

~~~
gd1
You do your math. Exercise isn't just about how many calories you burn
_during_ it. Add a kilo of muscle and it will be burning energy 24 hours a
day, 365 days a year.

~~~
Erwin
You urged to do your math, but didn't present any of yours.

Muscle burns an inconsequential amount of energy -- 6-10 per pound depending
on sources. So if you were somehow to gain 10 pounds of pure muscle, you'd
have enough calories for a small apple per day (60 cal).

How fast can you gain 10 pounds of muscle? In an 18-week weight training
programme, a group of men gained 4.6 pounds of muscle:
[http://jap.physiology.org/content/82/1/298](http://jap.physiology.org/content/82/1/298)
\-- most of the gain in 8 weeks. So I would imagine increasing your lean mass
by 10 pounds (just to be able to eat an extra apple a day) would be quite an
effort.

One study:
[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3139779/](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3139779/)

So considering SOLELY weight loss, ignoring calory deficits from diet changes
and focusing on building up muscle mass does not seem effective. Instead of
building up muscle mass for a 60Cal deficit via BMR increase, take a 600 Cal
deficit via diet and lose the weight in 1/10th the time.

~~~
gd1
The point is though that you have shifted your daily equilibrium, and it takes
zero thought to maintain that. Choosing to eat 60 calories less a day is a
_choice_ , which takes mental effort. In contrast, once you have that 10
pounds of muscle, it is burning away regardless. 60 calories * 365 days =
21900 calories a year. Fat has 9 calories per gram, so if you maintain your
eating at the same level, that's ~2.4 kilograms (~5 pounds) a year you are
losing without even trying. Obviously in reality, your appetite goes up as
well, but the point is that once you are muscular enough you have to actively
try to eat more just to maintain your weight.

------
glandium
_" Far too many people, though, can manage to find an hour or more in their
day to drive to the gym, exercise and then clean up afterward — but complain
that there’s just no time to cook or prepare a healthful, home-cooked meal. If
they would spend just half the time they do exercising trying to make a
difference in the kitchen, they’d most likely see much better results."_

This. From my anecdotal evidence, weight loss is largely a commitment issue.
So when you spend as much time going to the gym and back as you spend
exercising there, motivation to continue the effort can disappear despite the
reward. So it's just best to find your own right balance between (what kind
of/how much) effort and reward.

~~~
peteretep

        > weight loss is largely a commitment issue
    

Yes, but it's a "commitment issue" in the same class as "stopping drinking",
"stopping smoking", and "getting out of debt" for a lot of people; there's a
very large mental/compulsive/dependency component.

~~~
moomin
To the extent that scientists who've studied it reckon that only 5% of the
population are _capable_ of keeping weight down long term through diet.

------
brohoolio
It's tough to lose weight. I've had success lowering my calorie intake.

I find that only implementing one change at a time conserves my willpower so
that I'm more likely to succeed. I'll either up my exercise a couple weeks
before I start cutting the calories or cut calories then wait a few weeks
before introducing exercise.

Controlling what I eat, for me at least, is easier than upping my exercise
levels.

------
jrapdx3
After years in the practice of obesity medicine, helping people lose excess
weight, I'd say the thrust of the article is correct. The main key to
successful (that is, sustained) weight loss is modifying food intake. Not for
nothing do we call this "lifestyle modification", we should never
underestimate the effort and courage it takes to adhere to the better plan.

Thing is one can never exercise enough to "burn off" the tremendous calorie
intake most people are subject to. After all around 75-80% of energy
expenditure occurs in the resting state, only 20-25% is ordinarily
attributable to physical activity.

However I fully agree with the article that exercise is far from useless,
certainly can contribute to well-being and has many indirect benefits that
assist in long-term maintenance of decreased body fat content.

Of course none of this is really new, it's been established wisdom in obesity
treatment circles for a long time. "Getting in shape" is hardly a trivial
project as it requires commitment, determination, knowledge and support.
Maintaining the benefit of hard won weight loss is not free, the price is
eternal vigilance.

~~~
dylanjermiah
>the practice of obesity medicine

Curious, what does that entail?

~~~
jrapdx3
Among other terms for it are "medical weight management" and "bariatric
medicine". The idea is prescribing appropriate nutritional programs,
behavioral approaches, and yes, exercise to assist people to reduce excess
body fat content.

Where indicated, medications can be prescribed to reduce appetite and satiety,
perhaps increase metabolism in some instances. Probably obvious, but there are
many other aspects to treatment of obesity, not the least of which is
addressing other health conditions that contribute to excess adiposity.

There is substantial medical/science literature on all these topics, really
not too hard to find using search engines of choice.

------
sdrothrock
The phrase I always hear is that "abs are made in the kitchen."

Edit: Or the variation: "Abs are made in the gym, revealed in the kitchen,"
which I always thought sounded kind of gruesome if you take it literally.

~~~
vidarh
Abs particularly because abs don't get very big no matter what you do, and so
for most people abs won't really be very visible unless you dip below 10% body
fat. No amount of crunches etc. will work around that.

For larger muscle groups the body fat percentage matters much less.

------
mullingitover
I found it ridiculously easy to lose weight by eliminating refined sugar and
alcohol from my diet. 'Don't drink calories' is a great rule of thumb, sugared
beverages are a plague on society. Keep your sweet tooth happy by eating fresh
fruit--I don't think it's even possible to get or stay fat if your main sugar
source is fruit.

~~~
empressplay
_especially_ alcohol -- there's huge calories in booze. It also promotes being
sedentary, and also over-eating if you drink with dinner.

------
gadders
I think focussing on "weight loss" is the incorrect metric. They would be
better off using "body fat %".

It is possible to gain weight, and yet become more healthy. In addition, the
metric most often used to work out whether are people are overweight, the BMI,
is hopelessly inaccurate.

------
haydenhall
For myself at least its always been quite simple...

If you want to lose weight and be healthy - eat little and eat healthy.

If you want to lose weight and don't care too much for your health - eat
little.

If you want to be healthy - eat healthy.

If you just don't care - eat whatever you like.

~~~
kittiepryde
I was simplifying of it as:

Calories --> Weight

Food quality & exercise --> health

~~~
dspillett
That works in my head too, though I'd always add the caveat that you need both
and should endeavour not to sacrifice one (even temporarily) in order to
improve the other. Along that path (particularly compromising the health side
in a pursuit of dramatic weight loss) fad diets and the like lie, and those
things rarely work long term.

~~~
dspillett
That works in my head too, though I'd always add the caveat that you need both
and should endeavour not to sacrifice one (even temporarily) in order to
improve the other. Along that path (particularly compromising the health side
in a pursuit of dramatic weight loss) fad diets and the like lie, and those
things rarely work long term.

One important factor that I've noticed ( _warning: anecdotal evidence
approaching, be prepared to engage critical thinking_ ) is that while exercise
increases my appetite it doesn't seem to increase it as much as the extra I'm
burning off. The difference isn't large but it is noticeable when watching
closely and it seems to be relatively consistent: yes my body wants me to eat
more when I exercise more, but it seems content with getting less extra in
than the extra it has put out so if I just listened to my hunger I'd still
slowly lose weight. This doesn't seem to be the case in periods when I do
little or no exercise beyond my daily routine (walking to/from work and such)
- I don't stop feeling hungry before I've eaten the right amount to stay at a
stable weight.

------
agentPrefect
I'm absolutely floored to see comments here still nit-picking at FOOD QUALITY
vs FOOD QUANTITY vs WHAT DEFINES EXERCISE vs ETC.

Whilst I fully enjoy reading some of the opinions on SOD, the myriad of
needless front-end frameworks, etc. - this really is not subjective at all.
Calories in, calories out. You eat 5000cal of the most nutritious, well
balanced meal & run 10km - you will still put on weight (given you're not a
giant).

I'm not sure how this is so open to interpretation, it's rudimentary science
at best.

~~~
paulsutter
Percent body fat is a better metric to reduce than weight alone. Most men
would even want to gain weight if it is muscle mass. If you want lean bodymass
it's best to control your blood sugar (low glycemic diet) and exercise.

Calories in/out does control weight but there more to it if you don't want to
end up skinnyfat. If you think calories is all that matters, try a diet solely
of dextrose (glucose) and see how you end up.

~~~
agentPrefect
I also should say, that I do agree with you. If it is more that losing weight
you want, then the caloric deficiency is not the best way go - like if you're
doing resistance training. But somebody who is obese? Eat cleanly yes ... but
most certainly eat less.

------
mikhailt
Losing weight is easy. Most people can do it by eating less without exercise.

The biggest problem in weight loss (beside the fact that you shouldn't do any
dieting as this should be a lifestyle change), is how to maintain the weight
once you reach the healthy goal.

I'm having a hard time figuring out how to keep the healthy weight and the
best way for me is to exercise in addition to a strict cal limit. Exercise
will increase your burning rate, and you have to figure how to balance it with
your eating habits because you won't know how your body is burning while at
rest for a while. This is the main issue, it is harder to maintain this fight
than to lose weight on a simple low-cal limit.

I met a lot of folks who successfully lost weight but gained it back and lost
it again, it took them 3-4 times in a row to figure out how to maintain their
healthy weight. I'm already in my second battle against this. I found the best
method is 16/8 fasting method, eat 8 hours and 16 hours fasting and I already
am losing far more weight than anything else. This is so much easy to maintain
even when I'm reaching my goal.

It's kind of like people winning the lottery and most of them just bankrupt
themselves in a year. There's no real good educational program in US that
teaches both kids and adult how to focus on what you eat and how to maintain
the weight.

------
atemerev
This is obvious for anyone who tried both approaches and compared
efforts/results ratio.

~~~
rockdoe
Or just counted calories...

------
curiousDog
So true. I've found that Intermittent fasting + a 500cal deficit (below TDEE)
is the easiest/most-effective way because it fits into my life-style as a
programmer. I eat my last meal at 8PM and go to bed at 1-2AM. So not eating
anything until 1PM the next day is a breeze (with a couple of cups of coffee
in the morning). I've lost 20 pounds over the last 3 months with zero
exercise.

~~~
collyw
I like intermittent fasting, but I am already skinny, and I struggle to keep
my weight up, despite having chocolate and crap beside me at work on my non
fast days.

------
venomsnake
Isn't it obvious - you BMR is 2-3 times higher than your all other energy
expenditures for the day. If you overeat nothing can save you ...

~~~
pizza234
It's not obvious, actually; exercise also affects the BMR, as a matter of
fact, according to some theories, certain types of exercise increase the BMR
more than certain others (I don't express any support for this, just pointing
out).

Although we're not talking about huge amounts, when having a precise dieting
regime, even a few hundred calories of "good weight loss" matter.

Definitely nothing can save one from overeating, but that's why overeating
itself it's a completely different matter.

To wrap up, while of course in this field little or nothing is definitely
proven, definitely no, this is not obvious :-)

~~~
roel_v
"It's not obvious, actually"

Yes it _is_. Changes in metabolism are a second-order effect, at most. There
is only one first-order effect: fat = calories in - calories out. Once that
equation is OK, one can go look at all the other factors - BMR, how macros are
split, genetics, ...

------
spacko
Just watching documentation on people in none-1st-world-countries or even on
wildlife animals clearly shows that we are eating wayyyyyyyyyyyy to much for
the energy we are losing - that's one reason why I got into intermittent
fasting (8/16). This hunger feeling we sense at times has nothing to do what
so ever with actual hunger or nutrional depletion.

------
TheAceOfHearts
I lost 40lb, and the only exercise I do is walking / running occasionally
around my apartment complex.

My trick? I slowly reduced the size of my portions and I limited myself to
eating only when I felt hungry.

I didn't do any sort of strict calorie counting, I just tried to have a rough
idea of how much food I was eating. Seriously. That's it. If you eat fewer
calories, you will lose weight. It's that simple.

At no point did I starve myself or force myself to undergo harsh dietary
conditions.

Here's the thing, I think a lot of people fail to lose weight because they try
doing too many drastic changes all at once. This is REALLY difficult! But if
you just do it really slowly... You don't even notice the change. Sure, the
downside is that you won't see super fast changes, it'll take longer to
manifest itself. On the other hand, this is probably the easiest possible way
to lose weight, because it requires very little effort on your part (you just
have to have enough self control to not stuff your face every day).

Just serve yourself a smaller portions than you'd normally consume, eat it,
and wait a few minutes. Then if you still felt hungry, go get some more.
Otherwise, you've had enough and you're satisfied.

At the beginning of this year I read an article that made me realize
something. The article basically said "If you're fat, it means that you're
eating like a fat person. You are a fat person." Maybe it seem stupid... But
it's correct. If you're fat, it means that you have the eating habits and
lifestyle of a fat person. Ask yourself, is that who you really want to be?
For me the answer was "no".

You can even cheat with your portions! Every time I go to a ramen shop I
disregard all limits and just eat to my heart's content. Although doubtless it
won't work very well if you do that every day.

~~~
glandium
Something related is that a lot of people are eating too quickly. I am guilty
of this. And that doesn't leave time to the brain to get the satiety signals,
leading to eat more than necessary. Eating more slowly can end up helping
reduce portions. It's a difficult habit to overcome, though.

------
MrBuddyCasino
This is true, but: when I exercise regularly, I find that I am less hungry and
eat less. Anyone here made the same experience?

~~~
jhh
If I know I'll go for a run I am very hesistant to eat heavily, as I know I'll
regret it.

The more you exercise the more you push back heavy/unproductive meals in your
schedule. You just know if you eat wrongly you won't be able to keep up with
your own pace of execise.

Eating and execise seem deeply connected to me. Certainly it is hard to put
this kind of thinking into a controlled randomized trial.

~~~
maknz
So much this. If you include regular exercise you're way more motivated not to
over-eat, you simply don't want to spoil the hard work you did since it's so
easy to consume 500 cal but so much harder (relatively) to burn 500 cal.
Combining both has certainly been effective for me.

------
vilmosi
What a load of rubbish. First of all, losing weight is not the goal itself,
it's one of the means to the real goal, which is to be healthy. It's not about
eating less, it's about eating healthy. Exercise is absolutely essential to be
healthy, regardless of weight.

Exercise is more important that eating less. What a dumb suggestion.

~~~
tjogin
Being overweight is unhealthy, it can't be done in a healthy way; not in the
long term.

While it is possible for an overweight person to not have any of the common
health problems associated with being overweight, that is temporary. If you
are overweight, you will develop those health problems, it's just a matter of
time.

It's basically like smoking and cancer; not all smokers have cancer or get
cancer, but there is no such thing as smoking in a healthy way, and if you do
it, then the best way to get healthier and to prevent developing health
problems in the future is to stop doing it.

Some people can be overweight without developing health problems for a long
time, even for a decade or two, but it's just a matter of time. Reducing your
bodyweight is easily the best way to improve your health, and to make sure you
don't develop health problems in the future.

And, vice versa, many of the things we associate with bad health don't become
health problems at all for people who stay lean. Food that we know to have
strong correlations with bad health, like eating red meat, sodium,
cholesterol, etc, are only really problematic if you also over eat.

Exercise is great, it's terrific, but not over eating is much more important.
The saying is true, "you can't outrun a bad diet".

~~~
vilmosi
>>> but there is no such thing as smoking in a healthy way

But there is a way to be overweight in a healthy. Basically everyone at the
gym is overweight (officially anyway) because of their muscle mass.

>>> Exercise is great, it's terrific, but not over eating is much more
important.

True. But there is a difference between over eating and under eating. I never
said we should over eat, I just don't agree with under eating.

~~~
tjogin
No, having muscle doesn't make you overweight, no matter how much of it you
have. The word overweight means to have excess fat, specifically.

Im not sure what you mean by under eating, but eating fewer calories than you
spend is the only way to lose fat, other than surgery.

~~~
vilmosi
>>> The word overweight means to have excess fat, specifically.

Dictionary definition "above a weight considered normal or desirable."

The WHO definition "a BMI greater than or equal to 25 is overweight"

Not sure what definition you use, most gym-heads are technically overweight.

But discussing semantics is not the topic here.

~~~
tjogin
Not being able to understand the difference between excess muscle and fat is
not semantics.

BMI is a tool applied to populations, used on individuals it can be very
inaccurate, which is why nobody does it outside of blogs and magazines.

~~~
vilmosi
The term "overweight" does not differentiate between muscle and fat, plain and
simple. You're wrong.

~~~
dragonwriter
> The term "overweight" does not differentiate between muscle and fat, plain
> and simple. You're wrong.

 _You 're_ wrong. The typical _diagnostic method_ for overweight and obesity
(BMI) does not differentiate between muscle and fat, because mechanisms that
do are too expensive/complex for the use, but the _term_ , in fact, does.

 _At their most basic, the words “overweight” and “obesity” are ways to
describe having too much body fat._ [0]

 _Overweight and obesity are defined as abnormal or excessive fat accumulation
that may impair health._ [1]

[0] [http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/obesity-prevention-
source/obesit...](http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/obesity-prevention-
source/obesity-definition/)

[1]
[http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs311/en/](http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs311/en/)

~~~
vilmosi
Both your quotes are followed by BMI index, which technically doesn't take
into account fat/muscle ration by definition.

But I do concede, overweight in that context does refer to excess fat.

------
lubonay
It seems like the article downplays the role of exercise - maybe I'm
nitpicking, but how is this a valid argument: "Over a six-month period,
though, adding exercise made no difference."

I mean who wants to lose weight over six months only to be more likely for
them to gain it back?

Also, looking at weight alone is misleading. All other factors being equal, a
person burning 2500 kcal per day and consuming 2000 would be worse off than if
they burn 3000 kcal and consume 2500. The latter case leads to better body
composition (as in the ratio of body weight to fat) and better athletic
qualities like strength and endurance.

People doing regular exercise also report being more energetic than their
sluggish 0-cals-per-day counterparts. On top of that, prolonged dieting
regardless of exercise may lead to depression and moving around tends to
alleviate that.

Source: My Ph.D. in Broscience and Anecdotal Evidence :P

~~~
roel_v
"All other factors being equal, a person burning 2500 kcal per day and
consuming 2000 would be worse off than if they burn 3000 kcal and consume
2500."

I have tried every possible generous interpretation of this that I can think
of, but I just have to ask I guess: what's the idea behind this?

~~~
lubonay
Regarding the 2500 vs 3000 kcal thing: move around, lift weights, knock uglies
with your partner multiple times per day, do whatever floats your boat in
order to increase your BMR by 500 kcal per day. Regarding the "worse off"
part: I assume having less strength and endurance is worse for the average Joe
compared to having more strength and endurance. Sorry that it wasn't clear in
my post, I guess I assumed it was self-explanatory.

~~~
roel_v
But then all other factors _aren 't_ equal. I.e., person P with x% muscle and
y% fat; eats 2500 and burns 2000; or that same person eating 3000 and burning
2500.

------
richardboegli
Just eat less. It is just that simple.

<SHAMELESS SELF PROMOTION>

My Weight Loss Story 40kg in 40 Weeks Without Exercise where I went from 120kg
to 80kg (79.6kg) / 265lb to 175lb.

[http://40in40book.com/](http://40in40book.com/)

This book was born out of the constant positive feedback and requests I
received that my story needed to be shared with a wider audience.

</SHAMELESS SELF PROMOTION>

EDIT 1: I wanted to do this as a Show HN when I published, but I've been a
longtime lurker without commenting and without an account with my real name.

EDIT 2: I've read the article and the points raised are the same as what I
noted when I lost my weight. Exercise can help, but you can lose the weight
with diet alone.

------
kfk
Yeah, that is true, but I hold that being overweight and exercising (real
exercise, not the fake gym training programs) is far better for your health
and your well being overall. At least you keep a functional body - you can do
long walks, runs, climbing, etc. - which is a much better life if you ask me,
but that's only my opinion, I repeat, only an opinion.

Edit. Just to be clear, of course being slim and exercising is a better
option. I am just saying that for health I would prioritize exercise over
weight.

~~~
dylanjermiah
>but I hold that being overweight and exercising

How is being overweight 'far better' for health or well being? (assuming
you're talking about excess adipose tissue).

Please define 'function' and how excess adipose increases ones ability to
walk, run and climb.

~~~
kfk
I have seen plenty of overweight people back in Italy that were able to do
tough 10 hrs hikes or caving explorations with heavy loads or else. They
looked far more healthy to me than slim people that do no exercise. I am just
very skeptic of using weight as a measure of health or even as a universal
goal. That said, being very overweight is a problem and being slim _and_ doing
exercise is a better option.

~~~
dylanjermiah
>I have seen plenty of overweight people back in Italy that were able to do
tough 10 hrs hikes or caving explorations with heavy loads or else. They
looked far more healthy to me than slim people that do no exercise.

What do you define as 'overweight'? How did they 'look far more healthy' than
slim people?

>I am just very skeptic of using weight as a measure of health or even as a
universal goal. That said, being very overweight is a problem and being slim
and doing exercise is a better option.

It's not weight per se it's excess adipose tissue. Any where past 20% for
males and 30% BF for females will generally decrease performance to a
significant extent.

------
joss82
It's a bit oversimplified, because exercising increase your burn rate (your
basal metabolic rate), even when you don't exercice.

But anyway: eat food, not too much, mostly plants ;)

~~~
snez
Did you not know that you can't outrun your mouth?

------
jensen123
I'm currently reading an interesting book - Food and Western Disease by
Staffan Lindeberg. Among other things, it talks about how gluten might
interfere with leptin (the hormone that makes us feel full). I don't think
this has been proven 100% yet, but I've noticed that there seems to be far
more fat people in the countries that eat lots of wheat, than in the countries
that rely on rice.

------
Htsthbjig
To lose weight EATING WELL is the most important thing.

For me it is shocking to watch the calories argument, and almost saying that
you have to starve in order to lose weight.

40 years ago Americans, or most Europeans did not starve, and being overweight
was rare. They ate lots of fat, for example with consumption of
butter(calories) three times what it is today.

Traveling around the world I see people that eat well(I have eaten their food)
and nobody is fat there. They cook their food though.

People in the Western world eat very badly. Most of their food is precooked,
frozen and stored in plastic. That alone removes lots of necessary components
of food, like vitamins or fiber, or degrade it making them not usable by the
body.

So when the body needs essential components, and could not get it the normal
way, it enters panic mode and craves for more food.

One of the most overweight people I have seen in my life were native Americans
Indians in reserves and in Alaska or native people from Hawaii. They are so
poor and eat so badly no matter how much they eat their body never says
enough. People in Hawaii were known for being slender before colonization.

There are natural limitations on industrial food, and we are paying for it.

Industry instead of solving he problems(which is hard) has tricked be body
into believing the food is totally ok, with things like artificial flavoring.

~~~
gitaarik
Nobody says you need to be hungry to keep a healthy weight, but if you are
overweight, and you want to lose that weight, there's no way around being
hungry sometimes.

You know why? Your fat cells only start giving off their fat to the blood when
your blood sugar level is too low, and when that happens, your brain gets a
signal you should eat, thus you're hungry.

------
FranOntanaya
Exercise and the lowered depression levels may be a good trigger for lowering
the amount of confort food eaten and increasing diet discipline. The lower
calorie intake still gets the credit, but many people may never get there
without the exercise first.

------
franciscop
"statistically significant". I ak spoiled for life since reading
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9714985](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9714985)

------
moomin
The fundamental problem with the research he's quoting is that "long-term"
means a year to him. Actual long-term, diets never ever ever work.

[http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2015/05/04/w...](http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2015/05/04/why-
diets-dont-actually-work-according-to-a-researcher-who-has-studied-them-for-
decades/)

------
boh
Articles like this are far too common, generic and pretty useless. X may be
better than Y! Here's a study that proves it. Oh wait no, Y is better than X
because this study proves it. Eat well and exercise. That's it.

~~~
tjogin
I understand that from the zoomed out perspective, when you learn about
advancements in the field from newspapers, magazines or blogs, it looks that
way. But this is mostly the fault of various media sensationalizing findings,
drawing their own conclusions and prioritizing shocking headlines over
levelheaded critique of scientific study results as well as framing it in the
proper context.

The total body of scientific evidence is not really in such disarray as the
reporting would have you believe.

However, your conclusion still hits the mark; eat well and exercise.

------
ryandvm
Thermodynamics saves the day...

------
farresito
And eating better is far more important than eating less.

------
agounaris
As always, balance is the key!

------
henrixd
Metabolism gets used to aerobic exercise quickly so it is not good for loosing
fat. High intensity training (HIT) burns more fat overall.

Timing on carbohydrates is important also. Eat them when you need them like
around exercise, before work or in the morning. After your glucose storage is
full extra energy will be stored as fat.

How well fat will burn depends mostly how good shape your metabolism is. If
your metabolism is slow when you start dieting it will only get slower and you
really have to starve yourself to lose weight.

Slowly increasing carbohydrates when not loosing weight and exercise is good
way to speed up your metabolism so you are able to loose that fat after you
gain some.

Cardio exercises are last resort at the end of the diet when your metabolism
is really slow and you want to eat something.

So while eat less than you use is good starting point to loose weight. You can
make it so much easier to your self with exercise and proper food.

