11 ms·

The closest thing to a wonder drug is exercise

93 points by hvo 10y ago

nibs 10y ago
Move more, eat mostly vegetables, sleep enough.
- sandworm101 10y ago
  That is the mantra, but there is debate. Exercise puts the onus on the individual. So it's a great cop out for other problems. It's not the extra sugar they are seeking into our diets, it that's we don't exercise. I remember one pitiful interview with a MacDonald's rep who claimed that their food was healthy so long as customers exercised well enough. That's too much of an easy, cheap, answer. Imho the days of answering every health problem with exercise alone should end. We must acknowledge the approach has failed and we need to deal with the wider environment impacting individual choice. That means healthier foods, but I'd support tax deductions (preferably credits) for exercise-related costs. Make the money back with a tax on unhealthy foods/things, as we did with cigarettes.
  - tracker1 10y ago
    I'm not completely sure there... In the end, the onus is on the consumer to know how many calories they're taking in. That said, I do dislike a lot of the additives/preservatives that are being put into the food supply. Packaging meats in inert gases to preserve color, taste/preservation additives in bread, the widespread use of heavily subsidized and refined/perfumed/died vegetable oils. First get rid of subsidies... second might be a tax on products containing sugars not in their natural state (okay in whole apples, not in juice, or added to breads/candy/pasteries). Another large issue is simply education and advertising. Child-targeted advertising works surprisingly well. Also, people assume that "natural sugar" is significantly better for you than refined sugars. Once it's juiced/pureed and/or cooked, it's far more digestible and far more unhealthy than whole fruits.
- ryanobjc 10y ago
  Comments like this sounds like saying to a depressed person: "have you tried being happy instead?" In other words, it's pithy, not helpful and sounds smug and condescending. We should be able to support maximal health in everyone, regardless of if they live the ideal middle class lifestyle that gives them time to exercise, money to afford food, and the many things that go in to a good nights sleep.
  - Retric 10y ago
    For the most part good food costs less than crap food as long as you cook.
    - tracker1 10y ago
      Depends on where you live and what you are cooking... Living in Phoenix, produce is pretty expensive, as is fish. I can't speak for the rest of the country. I also tend to get produce from Sprouts, Whole Foods, Fry's (kroger) in that order, depending on what it is. I use celeriac, cauliflower, and parsnips regularly as a potato substitute, and it's pretty costly to do so. I could get my calories from the dollar menu for quite a bit less. My target intake is around 2400-2800/day (metabolic support for 3800 at my size), trying to lose about 2#/week. Though, I'm diabetic, so tend to avoid a lot of fast-food, and often when I do indulge, I get only the sandwich/burger without the bread, with tea and/or water. Though the baked cod at ljs (green beans and broccoli), and chicken and green beans at kfc are serviceable options. I also make soup a couple times a month, which gives me about a week's worth, give or take.... soup is usually suprisingly low in calories and glycemic load (even vichyssoise subbing the potatoes) but tend to have 3-4 cups to feel sated (usually coming in around 450-600 calories depending on the soup for 4 cups). A big thing for me is getting a couple snacks in, especially for the afternoon (apple, carrots, nuts, kind bar), which helps with the cravings to overeat later in the day.
      - Retric 10y ago
        For a baseline a micdouble has 390 calories, 10 of then so that's 6-7$ / day to hit 2,400-2,800 kcal. If you go for beans, rice, grain, that's under 1$ per day for 1/2 your calories. Leaving 5-6$ to for the other half. That's plenty for a 500-700 kcal in chicken breast / eggs / other cheap protean, and vegies etc. PS: 9oz of meat per day will generally cover your protean needs. But, less is fine depending on the rest of your diet.
- tracker1 10y ago
  A lot of research has shown that you need at least a certain amount of protein, 60-120g/day on average depending on your lean muscle mass. You should have at most about 100g sugars/day. Beyond that, barring a medical condition (diabetes, pku, etc) calories are calories, for the most part. You need some fat (balance is surprisingly important here), and avoiding overly processed/refined foods is generally a good idea. That said, mostly vegetables, maybe by volume, but if you are counting grains/cerials/starches as a separate category, then mostly wouldn't get you enough calories, and often not enough protein on average. Not to mention those mildly allergic to soy. In general, the practice of even tracking everything you take in tends to make you very mindful of the calories in everything. Knowing what you should probably be taking in on average in combination with tracking can go a long way. I would suggest getting a variety of foods in to your diet, this should include some vegetables, but the majority of your calories will come from protein, carbs or fats. The sources may be vegetable based, but vegetable fats, specifically refined vegetable oils aren't so great a lot of the time. If you stick to fats/oils that are either cold-pressed or animal based, you're better off.
  - tracker1 10y ago
    Also, if you drive everywhere, park at the opposite end of the parking lot... this gives quite a bit of boost to your activity per day. Though harder to do in Phoenix at the end of Jone, when it's in the high 1-teens.
drzaiusapelord 10y ago
Wait until we get the pill that does what exercise does. Supposedly, many groups are trying to create a pill off this research: http://www.cell.com/cell-metabolism/abstract/S1550-4131%2815%2900458-1 http://www.cell.com/cell-metabolism/abstract/S1550-4131%2815...
- waterphone 10y ago
  Just exercise. People are so lazy in that regard it baffles me.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - syntheticnature 10y ago
    Well, should such a pill be created, if the time required to generate money for the pills is less than the time required to exercise at an equivalent level... I mean, heck, I don't think it's at all likely I'll exercise beyond a certain level, but take a pill and poof?
  - marssaxman 10y ago
    What's to be baffled about? Exercise is tiring, time-consuming, and sometimes painful. People generally avoid such activities, absent any overriding motivation.
    - alistairSH 10y ago
      You're doing it wrong. Exercise can certainly be tiring, if you're training for performance, or rehabilitating an injury. But, a basic yoga class, a few laps of the pool, or walk around the block isn't going to noticeably tire an otherwise healthy adult. Time-consuming? That's likely short-sighted when you account for reduced longevity, time spent ill, etc. A few hours a week isn't that much time in the overall scheme of things. And exercise should almost never be painful. The only exceptions would be rehab or training for a specific event.
sandworm101 10y ago
No. Youth is the real wonder drug. Exercise is a fallback once that stops being effective.
- superplussed 10y ago
  So true. In my 20s I did drugs and played in bands. In my 40s I build startups and run marathons. There's nothing like "the countdown" to kick your motivation into gear.
  - sandworm101 10y ago
    Im in my 30s now and am very happy to have skipped the 20s drinking/drugs/smoking phase. Too many of my 30-something friends look like 50-somethings. I just had a full eye exam as part of a security clearance thing for a new job. Supposedly my retinas look like a teenager's. The doc chalked it up to a lack of drugs/alcohol. When I was 20 nobody told me that was a thing. They should.
    - JTon 10y ago
      Apologies if this comes off as harsh, but I don't understand how this comments adds value to anyone but yourself. And to me, it seems like you're feeling rather inadequate about the possibility of missing out on experiences many tend to sensationalize.
      - chrishacken 10y ago
        When did he say he missed out on experiences? I must have missed that part.
      - sandworm101 10y ago
        Because this is a forum about sharing knowledge. Young people don't understand the damage certain behaviors can do to their bodies. Some people relate this by demonstrating how past errors are now effecting them later in life. That's the norm. Others explain it by showing that good decisions can actually pay off. I had no idea that eye health was tied to drugs/alcohol use. It's not the sort of thing discussed as once the damage is done there is little point. So I assume others here were equally oblivious.
beamatronic 10y ago
I've had a few occasions where I had to perform some strenuous work even when I was unwell, and in most cases, after the physical labor was concluded, I felt almost miraculously better. On one specific occasion I had a migraine type headache that 3 200 mg Advil's wouldn't touch, but then I was in a situation where I had to walk several miles carrying 50 lbs of gear. Headache was gone after a few miles.
- the_watcher 10y ago
  I've had similar experiences, going back to college when I'd wake up hungover and would sweat it out at the gym. It's pretty rare that I wake up feeling like that anymore, but working out continues to be effective for me whenever I'm not feeling great.
- waterphone 10y ago
  That has been my experience as well, going hike when sick usually makes me feel much better during and after. I also recently broke a toe but continued to hike on it and found its level of pain much reduced after each hike compared to a day spent not moving around much. Assuming it wasn't my imagination (I could theorize that it felt better after because it felt worse while hiking on it) I imagine walking increases the bloodflow to the area and may assist with healing faster.
  - dpark 10y ago
    Depending on the type and location of the fracture, mobility can aid in healing.
    - ZeroGravitas 10y ago
      I think the modern thought is that it helps almost anything, there's a technical term for this I can't remember, but basically resting up after nearly all injuries is considered worse than than moderate usage as part of the healing process.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
moultano 10y ago
"23 and 1/2 hours: What is the single best thing we can do for our health" https://youtu.be/aUaInS6HIGo https://youtu.be/aUaInS6HIGo
- hackaflocka 10y ago
  I skimmed the video and couldn't figure it out -- what is it please?
  - dpark 10y ago
    Exercise. 30 minutes a day. Mild intensity (e.g. walking).
hugh4life 10y ago
I don't like the "diet, not exercise, is the key to weight lose" matra because exercise goals(run a 5k in X minutes, bench press X lbs 6 times) in my experience are the far bigger motivators(though I've never been severely overweight).
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- tetraodonpuffer 10y ago
  key and motivation are not the same thing, if you have good genetics you can run fast even if you are overweight, as they say after all, you can't out-exercise a bad diet
  - hugh4life 10y ago
    ", if you have good genetics you can run fast even if you are overweight, as they say after all, you can't out-exercise a bad diet" My entire point is that you won't want to have a bad diet if you're setting serious athletic goals.
    - dsq 10y ago
      Excellent point. I find that in a period when I exercise regularly I am more conscious of just how hard it is to burn 500 calories, while in more slothful periods it's really easy to take another piece of cake without thinking about it.
- johnchristopher 10y ago
  You might not like it but abs are made in the kitchen. No amount of exercises can balance out a bad diet in the mid and long term.
- the_watcher 10y ago
  > in my experience are the far bigger motivators While I agree with you that it's a much more compelling motivator, that still doesn't change the actual fact that diet is (oftentimes substantially) more important to weight loss.
whack 10y ago
I particularly found the following section in the article very compelling. "Many people will be surprised at how little you need to do to achieve these results. Years ago, in an effort to get in shape, I tried the P90X routine. It proved too hard for me. Later, when I tried Insanity, it beat me so badly that people at work kept asking me if I was ill. Two years ago, I tried P90X3. It was a bit more manageable, but I still couldn’t keep it up. I’m not alone in thinking that physical activity to improve health should be hard. When I hear friends talk about exercising, they discuss running marathons, participating in cross-fit classes or sacrificing themselves on the altar of Soul Cycle. That misses the point, unfortunately. All of these are way, way more than you need to do to get the benefits I’ve already described. The recommendations for exercise are 150 minutes per week of moderate intensity physical activity for adults, or about 30 minutes each weekday. Moderate intensity is probably much less than you think. Walking briskly, at 3 to 4 miles per hour or so, qualifies. So does bicycling slower than 10 miles an hour. Anything that gets your heart rate somewhere between 110 and 140 beats per minute is enough. Even vacuuming, mowing the lawn or actively walking your dog might qualify." A lot of people abstain from exercise because they think it's "hard" and "scary," when really, 30 minutes of brisk walking to and from the grocery story would do just fine.
- ellyagg 10y ago
  I actually found that part disappointing. I had sent this to my parents before I read to the end and now wish I could take it back. More and more research is pointing to strength being a leading predictor of mortality. My father has loss of mobility and strength from disuse of his limbs through their entire ranges of motion. Walking and jogging at the rates indicated do almost nothing for this. He walks 4 miles twice a week with my mom, but can barely stand up from the couch. Human walking is very efficient and requires hardly any strength and that through a fractional range of motion. Walking and jogging is better than not exercising at all, but on the walking and jogging regimen my father has steadily deteriorated in function as he approaches his 70s. His shoulders and knees have stiffened while his muscles are constantly sore from lack of conditioning. The other problem is the "brisk" qualifier. Walking "briskly" actually takes significant motivation, and involves either subjectivity or more monitoring than people like to do while their walking. People are rationalization engines, and if you give them a way to skirt the essence by being lazy, they will. In my experience, the objectivity of resistance training is more effective.
akeck 10y ago
When I get on an exercise kick and do it every day (intense 15 minutes and warm down), after about two weeks, my life gets very smooth. It's fascinating.
cm2012 10y ago
I like to post this as a PSA in HN weight loss threads. Every legitimate long term study of non surgical weight loss shows that it doesn't happen for the vast, vast majority of people. 1) ["In controlled settings, participants who remain in weight loss programs usually lose approximately 10% of their weight. However, one third to two thirds of the weight is regained within 1 year, and almost all is regained within 5 years. "](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1580453 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1580453) 2) Giant meta study of long term weight loss: ["Five years after completing structured weight-loss programs, the average individual maintained a weight loss of >3% of initial body weight."](http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/74/5/579.full http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/74/5/579.full) 3) Less Scientific: [Weight Watcher's Failure - "about two out of a thousand Weight Watchers participants who reached goal weight stayed there for more than five years."](https://fatfu.wordpress.com/2008/01/24/weight-watchers/ https://fatfu.wordpress.com/2008/01/24/weight-watchers/) 4) [The reason why it's impossible seems to be that although calories in < calories out works, the body of a fat person makes it extremely difficult psychologically to eat less.](http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/01/magazine/tara-parker-pope-fat-trap.html?_r=2&pagewanted=all http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/01/magazine/tara-parker-pope-...) This is borne out by the above data. 5) [The only thing that does seem to work in the long term is gastric surgery.](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1421028/ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1421028/) Moreover, you won't find any reputable study on the web where the average person lost 10%+ of their body weight and kept it off for five years. Not even one.
- maxerickson 10y ago
  You are talking about weight loss programs. That doesn't necessarily inform weight loss in general. It sort of points to external interventions not being hugely useful. Personally, I'm about 25% down from my heaviest and a bit more than 10% down from a decade ago. I've never gone on a program, I've just examined my habits and worked to improve them. I would say that it's taken many years to have my weight and habits stabilize at the new lower levels. But that's fine.
- jacques_chester 10y ago
  Most such studies are done with pathologically obese patients and aren't representative of the general population. I do, however, agree that it's easy for people to drift. The key is emphasising lifelong change, rather than "diets" per se.
ef4 10y ago
> Anything that gets your heart rate somewhere between 110 and 140 beats per minute is enough. There's a related point that people often get really wrong when they take up distance running: you can (and should!) actually run within that easy heart rate range. It may seem unbearably slow at first, but that just means you aren't ready yet to go faster. When the goal is "faster pace at low effort", it's tempting to think you can train at faster pace + high effort and wait for the effort to fall. But that doesn't reliably work. You're better off training at low pace + low effort and wait for the pace to rise, holding low effort constant. Mostly this is because you (definitely) reduce the risk of getting hurt and (probably) don't waste a bunch of energy training the wrong metabolic pathways.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

93 points by hvo 10y ago

nibs 10y ago

Move more, eat mostly vegetables, sleep enough.

sandworm101 10y ago
That is the mantra, but there is debate. Exercise puts the onus on the individual. So it's a great cop out for other problems. It's not the extra sugar they are seeking into our diets, it that's we don't exercise. I remember one pitiful interview with a MacDonald's rep who claimed that their food was healthy so long as customers exercised well enough. That's too much of an easy, cheap, answer. Imho the days of answering every health problem with exercise alone should end. We must acknowledge the approach has failed and we need to deal with the wider environment impacting individual choice. That means healthier foods, but I'd support tax deductions (preferably credits) for exercise-related costs. Make the money back with a tax on unhealthy foods/things, as we did with cigarettes.
- tracker1 10y ago
  I'm not completely sure there... In the end, the onus is on the consumer to know how many calories they're taking in. That said, I do dislike a lot of the additives/preservatives that are being put into the food supply. Packaging meats in inert gases to preserve color, taste/preservation additives in bread, the widespread use of heavily subsidized and refined/perfumed/died vegetable oils. First get rid of subsidies... second might be a tax on products containing sugars not in their natural state (okay in whole apples, not in juice, or added to breads/candy/pasteries). Another large issue is simply education and advertising. Child-targeted advertising works surprisingly well. Also, people assume that "natural sugar" is significantly better for you than refined sugars. Once it's juiced/pureed and/or cooked, it's far more digestible and far more unhealthy than whole fruits.
ryanobjc 10y ago
Comments like this sounds like saying to a depressed person: "have you tried being happy instead?" In other words, it's pithy, not helpful and sounds smug and condescending. We should be able to support maximal health in everyone, regardless of if they live the ideal middle class lifestyle that gives them time to exercise, money to afford food, and the many things that go in to a good nights sleep.
- Retric 10y ago
  For the most part good food costs less than crap food as long as you cook.
  - tracker1 10y ago
    Depends on where you live and what you are cooking... Living in Phoenix, produce is pretty expensive, as is fish. I can't speak for the rest of the country. I also tend to get produce from Sprouts, Whole Foods, Fry's (kroger) in that order, depending on what it is. I use celeriac, cauliflower, and parsnips regularly as a potato substitute, and it's pretty costly to do so. I could get my calories from the dollar menu for quite a bit less. My target intake is around 2400-2800/day (metabolic support for 3800 at my size), trying to lose about 2#/week. Though, I'm diabetic, so tend to avoid a lot of fast-food, and often when I do indulge, I get only the sandwich/burger without the bread, with tea and/or water. Though the baked cod at ljs (green beans and broccoli), and chicken and green beans at kfc are serviceable options. I also make soup a couple times a month, which gives me about a week's worth, give or take.... soup is usually suprisingly low in calories and glycemic load (even vichyssoise subbing the potatoes) but tend to have 3-4 cups to feel sated (usually coming in around 450-600 calories depending on the soup for 4 cups). A big thing for me is getting a couple snacks in, especially for the afternoon (apple, carrots, nuts, kind bar), which helps with the cravings to overeat later in the day.
    - Retric 10y ago
      For a baseline a micdouble has 390 calories, 10 of then so that's 6-7$ / day to hit 2,400-2,800 kcal. If you go for beans, rice, grain, that's under 1$ per day for 1/2 your calories. Leaving 5-6$ to for the other half. That's plenty for a 500-700 kcal in chicken breast / eggs / other cheap protean, and vegies etc. PS: 9oz of meat per day will generally cover your protean needs. But, less is fine depending on the rest of your diet.
tracker1 10y ago
A lot of research has shown that you need at least a certain amount of protein, 60-120g/day on average depending on your lean muscle mass. You should have at most about 100g sugars/day. Beyond that, barring a medical condition (diabetes, pku, etc) calories are calories, for the most part. You need some fat (balance is surprisingly important here), and avoiding overly processed/refined foods is generally a good idea. That said, mostly vegetables, maybe by volume, but if you are counting grains/cerials/starches as a separate category, then mostly wouldn't get you enough calories, and often not enough protein on average. Not to mention those mildly allergic to soy. In general, the practice of even tracking everything you take in tends to make you very mindful of the calories in everything. Knowing what you should probably be taking in on average in combination with tracking can go a long way. I would suggest getting a variety of foods in to your diet, this should include some vegetables, but the majority of your calories will come from protein, carbs or fats. The sources may be vegetable based, but vegetable fats, specifically refined vegetable oils aren't so great a lot of the time. If you stick to fats/oils that are either cold-pressed or animal based, you're better off.
- tracker1 10y ago
  Also, if you drive everywhere, park at the opposite end of the parking lot... this gives quite a bit of boost to your activity per day. Though harder to do in Phoenix at the end of Jone, when it's in the high 1-teens.

drzaiusapelord 10y ago

Wait until we get the pill that does what exercise does. Supposedly, many groups are trying to create a pill off this research: http://www.cell.com/cell-metabolism/abstract/S1550-4131%2815%2900458-1 http://www.cell.com/cell-metabolism/abstract/S1550-4131%2815...

waterphone 10y ago
Just exercise. People are so lazy in that regard it baffles me.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- syntheticnature 10y ago
  Well, should such a pill be created, if the time required to generate money for the pills is less than the time required to exercise at an equivalent level... I mean, heck, I don't think it's at all likely I'll exercise beyond a certain level, but take a pill and poof?
- marssaxman 10y ago
  What's to be baffled about? Exercise is tiring, time-consuming, and sometimes painful. People generally avoid such activities, absent any overriding motivation.
  - alistairSH 10y ago
    You're doing it wrong. Exercise can certainly be tiring, if you're training for performance, or rehabilitating an injury. But, a basic yoga class, a few laps of the pool, or walk around the block isn't going to noticeably tire an otherwise healthy adult. Time-consuming? That's likely short-sighted when you account for reduced longevity, time spent ill, etc. A few hours a week isn't that much time in the overall scheme of things. And exercise should almost never be painful. The only exceptions would be rehab or training for a specific event.

sandworm101 10y ago

No. Youth is the real wonder drug. Exercise is a fallback once that stops being effective.

superplussed 10y ago
So true. In my 20s I did drugs and played in bands. In my 40s I build startups and run marathons. There's nothing like "the countdown" to kick your motivation into gear.
- sandworm101 10y ago
  Im in my 30s now and am very happy to have skipped the 20s drinking/drugs/smoking phase. Too many of my 30-something friends look like 50-somethings. I just had a full eye exam as part of a security clearance thing for a new job. Supposedly my retinas look like a teenager's. The doc chalked it up to a lack of drugs/alcohol. When I was 20 nobody told me that was a thing. They should.
  - JTon 10y ago
    Apologies if this comes off as harsh, but I don't understand how this comments adds value to anyone but yourself. And to me, it seems like you're feeling rather inadequate about the possibility of missing out on experiences many tend to sensationalize.
    - chrishacken 10y ago
      When did he say he missed out on experiences? I must have missed that part.
    - sandworm101 10y ago
      Because this is a forum about sharing knowledge. Young people don't understand the damage certain behaviors can do to their bodies. Some people relate this by demonstrating how past errors are now effecting them later in life. That's the norm. Others explain it by showing that good decisions can actually pay off. I had no idea that eye health was tied to drugs/alcohol use. It's not the sort of thing discussed as once the damage is done there is little point. So I assume others here were equally oblivious.

beamatronic 10y ago

I've had a few occasions where I had to perform some strenuous work even when I was unwell, and in most cases, after the physical labor was concluded, I felt almost miraculously better. On one specific occasion I had a migraine type headache that 3 200 mg Advil's wouldn't touch, but then I was in a situation where I had to walk several miles carrying 50 lbs of gear. Headache was gone after a few miles.

the_watcher 10y ago
I've had similar experiences, going back to college when I'd wake up hungover and would sweat it out at the gym. It's pretty rare that I wake up feeling like that anymore, but working out continues to be effective for me whenever I'm not feeling great.
waterphone 10y ago
That has been my experience as well, going hike when sick usually makes me feel much better during and after. I also recently broke a toe but continued to hike on it and found its level of pain much reduced after each hike compared to a day spent not moving around much. Assuming it wasn't my imagination (I could theorize that it felt better after because it felt worse while hiking on it) I imagine walking increases the bloodflow to the area and may assist with healing faster.
- dpark 10y ago
  Depending on the type and location of the fracture, mobility can aid in healing.
  - ZeroGravitas 10y ago
    I think the modern thought is that it helps almost anything, there's a technical term for this I can't remember, but basically resting up after nearly all injuries is considered worse than than moderate usage as part of the healing process.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

moultano 10y ago

"23 and 1/2 hours: What is the single best thing we can do for our health" https://youtu.be/aUaInS6HIGo https://youtu.be/aUaInS6HIGo

hackaflocka 10y ago
I skimmed the video and couldn't figure it out -- what is it please?
- dpark 10y ago
  Exercise. 30 minutes a day. Mild intensity (e.g. walking).

hugh4life 10y ago

I don't like the "diet, not exercise, is the key to weight lose" matra because exercise goals(run a 5k in X minutes, bench press X lbs 6 times) in my experience are the far bigger motivators(though I've never been severely overweight).

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
tetraodonpuffer 10y ago
key and motivation are not the same thing, if you have good genetics you can run fast even if you are overweight, as they say after all, you can't out-exercise a bad diet
- hugh4life 10y ago
  ", if you have good genetics you can run fast even if you are overweight, as they say after all, you can't out-exercise a bad diet" My entire point is that you won't want to have a bad diet if you're setting serious athletic goals.
  - dsq 10y ago
    Excellent point. I find that in a period when I exercise regularly I am more conscious of just how hard it is to burn 500 calories, while in more slothful periods it's really easy to take another piece of cake without thinking about it.
johnchristopher 10y ago
You might not like it but abs are made in the kitchen. No amount of exercises can balance out a bad diet in the mid and long term.
the_watcher 10y ago
> in my experience are the far bigger motivators While I agree with you that it's a much more compelling motivator, that still doesn't change the actual fact that diet is (oftentimes substantially) more important to weight loss.

whack 10y ago

I particularly found the following section in the article very compelling. "Many people will be surprised at how little you need to do to achieve these results. Years ago, in an effort to get in shape, I tried the P90X routine. It proved too hard for me. Later, when I tried Insanity, it beat me so badly that people at work kept asking me if I was ill. Two years ago, I tried P90X3. It was a bit more manageable, but I still couldn’t keep it up. I’m not alone in thinking that physical activity to improve health should be hard. When I hear friends talk about exercising, they discuss running marathons, participating in cross-fit classes or sacrificing themselves on the altar of Soul Cycle. That misses the point, unfortunately. All of these are way, way more than you need to do to get the benefits I’ve already described. The recommendations for exercise are 150 minutes per week of moderate intensity physical activity for adults, or about 30 minutes each weekday. Moderate intensity is probably much less than you think. Walking briskly, at 3 to 4 miles per hour or so, qualifies. So does bicycling slower than 10 miles an hour. Anything that gets your heart rate somewhere between 110 and 140 beats per minute is enough. Even vacuuming, mowing the lawn or actively walking your dog might qualify." A lot of people abstain from exercise because they think it's "hard" and "scary," when really, 30 minutes of brisk walking to and from the grocery story would do just fine.

ellyagg 10y ago
I actually found that part disappointing. I had sent this to my parents before I read to the end and now wish I could take it back. More and more research is pointing to strength being a leading predictor of mortality. My father has loss of mobility and strength from disuse of his limbs through their entire ranges of motion. Walking and jogging at the rates indicated do almost nothing for this. He walks 4 miles twice a week with my mom, but can barely stand up from the couch. Human walking is very efficient and requires hardly any strength and that through a fractional range of motion. Walking and jogging is better than not exercising at all, but on the walking and jogging regimen my father has steadily deteriorated in function as he approaches his 70s. His shoulders and knees have stiffened while his muscles are constantly sore from lack of conditioning. The other problem is the "brisk" qualifier. Walking "briskly" actually takes significant motivation, and involves either subjectivity or more monitoring than people like to do while their walking. People are rationalization engines, and if you give them a way to skirt the essence by being lazy, they will. In my experience, the objectivity of resistance training is more effective.

akeck 10y ago

When I get on an exercise kick and do it every day (intense 15 minutes and warm down), after about two weeks, my life gets very smooth. It's fascinating.

cm2012 10y ago

I like to post this as a PSA in HN weight loss threads. Every legitimate long term study of non surgical weight loss shows that it doesn't happen for the vast, vast majority of people. 1) ["In controlled settings, participants who remain in weight loss programs usually lose approximately 10% of their weight. However, one third to two thirds of the weight is regained within 1 year, and almost all is regained within 5 years. "](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1580453 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1580453) 2) Giant meta study of long term weight loss: ["Five years after completing structured weight-loss programs, the average individual maintained a weight loss of >3% of initial body weight."](http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/74/5/579.full http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/74/5/579.full) 3) Less Scientific: [Weight Watcher's Failure - "about two out of a thousand Weight Watchers participants who reached goal weight stayed there for more than five years."](https://fatfu.wordpress.com/2008/01/24/weight-watchers/ https://fatfu.wordpress.com/2008/01/24/weight-watchers/) 4) [The reason why it's impossible seems to be that although calories in < calories out works, the body of a fat person makes it extremely difficult psychologically to eat less.](http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/01/magazine/tara-parker-pope-fat-trap.html?_r=2&pagewanted=all http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/01/magazine/tara-parker-pope-...) This is borne out by the above data. 5) [The only thing that does seem to work in the long term is gastric surgery.](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1421028/ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1421028/) Moreover, you won't find any reputable study on the web where the average person lost 10%+ of their body weight and kept it off for five years. Not even one.

maxerickson 10y ago
You are talking about weight loss programs. That doesn't necessarily inform weight loss in general. It sort of points to external interventions not being hugely useful. Personally, I'm about 25% down from my heaviest and a bit more than 10% down from a decade ago. I've never gone on a program, I've just examined my habits and worked to improve them. I would say that it's taken many years to have my weight and habits stabilize at the new lower levels. But that's fine.
jacques_chester 10y ago
Most such studies are done with pathologically obese patients and aren't representative of the general population. I do, however, agree that it's easy for people to drift. The key is emphasising lifelong change, rather than "diets" per se.

ef4 10y ago

> Anything that gets your heart rate somewhere between 110 and 140 beats per minute is enough. There's a related point that people often get really wrong when they take up distance running: you can (and should!) actually run within that easy heart rate range. It may seem unbearably slow at first, but that just means you aren't ready yet to go faster. When the goal is "faster pace at low effort", it's tempting to think you can train at faster pace + high effort and wait for the effort to fall. But that doesn't reliably work. You're better off training at low pace + low effort and wait for the pace to rise, holding low effort constant. Mostly this is because you (definitely) reduce the risk of getting hurt and (probably) don't waste a bunch of energy training the wrong metabolic pathways.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]