6 ms·

The article itself it insightful. But, brother hackers, can we allow an article whose title is a blatant lie to be voted to the top of Hacker News? Running is

by mr_luc 17y ago

The article itself it insightful. But, brother hackers, can we allow an article whose title is a blatant lie to be voted to the top of Hacker News? Running is exercise. Running 1600 meters, on average, burns 124 calories for a man. ("Energy Expenditure of Walking and Running", Syracuse Uni study). This only takes a few minutes. Even if a person is taking in massively more calories than their body needs -- let's say, overeating by 1000 calories a day -- they could burn it all off with a few miles of jogging. Increase the amount of running they do still further, and you won't find anyone who will seriously suggest that they won't get thinner. Or how do you think that cross-country runners got so skinny? Olympic marathoners? ... So ... Exercise CAN make you thin; thus, the statement that it won't is incorrect.

barrkel 17y ago
Only a stubbornly dense reading of the title is a lie, like the cliched way imaginary characters like Spock or Data take statements literally.
ohlol 17y ago
What calculator are you using? 1000/124 = 8 Eight miles is more than a couple.
- mr_luc 17y ago
  Bloops -- changed to "a few". At a leisurely 10 minutes per mile, that's 1.3.. hours of running. Well, overeating by a thousand calories is a lot. But even assuming you burned 0 other calories, still, the argument holds. You can, indeed, get thin by exercise. If one stubbornly insisted on ONLY getting thin by running, and steadfastly refused to take responsibility for what went into one's piehole, STILL -- it would be possible, if perhaps impractical, depending on just how irresponsible one's eating habits were and how much free time they had to exercise. But plenty of people get up early enough, for instance, to run for an hour. So it's not only doable, but EMINENTLY doable.
  - dkarl 17y ago
    Running an hour a day is a dicey proposition because of the possibility of injury. I would say it's impossible for the vast majority of people who are overweight, no matter how carefully they worked up to it. You'd have to be skinny, have excellent form, and not have any unfixable pre-existing injuries or weaknesses.
    - kscaldef 17y ago
      running an hour at a 10 minute mile (6 mph) is unlikely to lead to injury.
      - dkarl 17y ago
        Over forty miles per week with no rest days == too much for most people, way too much if you're overweight. Sure, some people do a lot more, but there are always exceptions. Every running trail and running club is disproportionately populated by people who have better resistance to injury. Steady running is one of the most challenging things you can do to your joints. (I find doing fartlek over a given distance a lot easier to recover from than steady running.) Running slowly isn't necessarily better, since a lot of injuries are caused by the up-and-down impact, and there's a limit to the extent you can reduce the up-and-down. The obvious solution is cross-training, but there aren't many things you can do by yourself that burn calories as well as running.
        Retric 17y ago
        "aren't many things you can do by yourself that burn calories as well as running." All activity's at your aerobic limit burn the same number of calories. You can run, dance, row, weigh lift, or just bail hay, and you will encounter the same limit. It's basically a question of how much oxygen you can absorb though the lungs and dump into your blood stream.
        billroberts 17y ago
        That's true, but you have to work pretty hard on a bike to get your pulse rate as high as you do by running. (I've done a fair bit of cycling and running over the years). For an inexperienced cyclist, tired leg muscles tend to limit the effort before their heart and lungs do. And it's always tempting to take a rest on the downhills. So I reckon in most cases, you burn significantly fewer calories per hour cycling than you do running. On the other hand most people are capable of cycling for say two hours (if they have time) whereas it takes a lot of training to be able to run for two hours.
codahale 17y ago
1,000 calories, considering the modern possibilities, isn't that much. I mean, that's a bit less than two slices of toast with Nutella. Weight loss programs have to focus on preempting and managing appetite. There's a wealth of studies connecting exercise to increased appetite (c.f. OP), especially focused, running-at-the-gym, doing-penance-for-those-donuts exercise. (Low-level activity—walking around, say—doesn't seem to provoke the same uptick in hunger. But it also burns way, way less calories.) Your counterfactual assumes that the runner isn't more likely to eat an additional 2,000 calories, which is to say, they're already managing their appetite. If you can manage your appetite, then go for a goddamn run already. You'll be happier for it. If you're not managing your appetite, work on that—exercise will not help you lose weight until you do. There's a great book—The End Of Overeating—which details the intersection of modern food science, evolutionary psychology, cognitive psychology, and human physiology. If you're interested, give it a go. (BTW, bringing up elite athletes doesn't help the discussion—elite athletes regularly have 1.5-2 times the VO² max of even extremely fit people. Hell, five-time Tour de France winner Miguel Indurain could circulate 7L of oxygenated blood per minute compared with the 5-6L of his competitors and 3-4L for the fitter of us regular people. Human physiology has a statistical distribution, and bringing up people many standard deviations from the mean doesn't help any of us regular schmucks. My mutant power certainly does not involve my metabolism.)
- nopassrecover 17y ago
  1000 calories for toast with Nutella!? I assume by calories you mean kilocalories in which case you are probably looking around 1000 KJ (kilojoules) for two slices of toast with Nutella. That's around 239 (kilo)calories.
  - codahale 17y ago
    Wheat bread's about 75 calories a slice, so 150 for just the bread. I don't know about you, but I put it on thick—maybe a serving-and-a-half per slice, which according to the Nutella website is 570 calories. So 720 total. Not 1,000, but closer to it than 239.
    - 17y ago
seasoup 17y ago
The article states that people compensate for increased bouts of exercise by either consuming more calories or decreased activity later in the day. It goes on to cite a number of studies showing this effect. Basically, if someone runs a few miles, they will reward themselves with a treat that negates or even overcompensates for the calories expended. Failing that, they will do less physical things later in the day... sit and watch TV instead of working in the garden for example. Sure, some people have the willpower to go for a run and not eat more to compensate, but the majority of people do not. Any those that do might not even notice that they decrease later exertions to compensate.
jodrellblank 17y ago
It is not incorrect because it does not claim that it can't make you thin. All it claims is that inside the article is an explanation of why exercise will not make you thin. Which there is. Even if you disagree with it, there is still one. Even if it was "because exercise has 8 characters and words with 8 characters are bad" it would still be an accurate title. It's not a lie or a blatant lie.
bokonist 17y ago
Or how do you think that cross-country runners got so skinny? My guess is that the causation is reversed. Skinny people find running more enjoyable. I used to enjoy running cross-country when I was younger. As I've gotten older, I've filled out. I'm not fat, but I'm no longer thin and scrawny. As a result, I find running much more straining. I can feel it pound away on my knees, and I tend to get shin splints pretty quickly. So now I no longer run. I enjoy exercise - biking, soccer, etc. - but pounding pavement for 3 miles a day is no longer enjoyable. Exercise CAN make you thin; thus, the statement that it won't is incorrect. The article does not claim exercise can't make you thin. It claims it won't make you thin. No matter how many calories you burn, your body will send you overwhelming urges to eat more, to compensate for the lost calories. These urges - known as hunger - are incredibly difficult to resist, and thus you will not get any thinner.
deleted 17y ago
[deleted]

by mr_luc 17y ago

barrkel 17y ago

Only a stubbornly dense reading of the title is a lie, like the cliched way imaginary characters like Spock or Data take statements literally.

ohlol 17y ago

What calculator are you using? 1000/124 = 8 Eight miles is more than a couple.

mr_luc 17y ago
Bloops -- changed to "a few". At a leisurely 10 minutes per mile, that's 1.3.. hours of running. Well, overeating by a thousand calories is a lot. But even assuming you burned 0 other calories, still, the argument holds. You can, indeed, get thin by exercise. If one stubbornly insisted on ONLY getting thin by running, and steadfastly refused to take responsibility for what went into one's piehole, STILL -- it would be possible, if perhaps impractical, depending on just how irresponsible one's eating habits were and how much free time they had to exercise. But plenty of people get up early enough, for instance, to run for an hour. So it's not only doable, but EMINENTLY doable.
- dkarl 17y ago
  Running an hour a day is a dicey proposition because of the possibility of injury. I would say it's impossible for the vast majority of people who are overweight, no matter how carefully they worked up to it. You'd have to be skinny, have excellent form, and not have any unfixable pre-existing injuries or weaknesses.
  - kscaldef 17y ago
    running an hour at a 10 minute mile (6 mph) is unlikely to lead to injury.
    - dkarl 17y ago
      Over forty miles per week with no rest days == too much for most people, way too much if you're overweight. Sure, some people do a lot more, but there are always exceptions. Every running trail and running club is disproportionately populated by people who have better resistance to injury. Steady running is one of the most challenging things you can do to your joints. (I find doing fartlek over a given distance a lot easier to recover from than steady running.) Running slowly isn't necessarily better, since a lot of injuries are caused by the up-and-down impact, and there's a limit to the extent you can reduce the up-and-down. The obvious solution is cross-training, but there aren't many things you can do by yourself that burn calories as well as running.
      - Retric 17y ago
        "aren't many things you can do by yourself that burn calories as well as running." All activity's at your aerobic limit burn the same number of calories. You can run, dance, row, weigh lift, or just bail hay, and you will encounter the same limit. It's basically a question of how much oxygen you can absorb though the lungs and dump into your blood stream.
        billroberts 17y ago
        That's true, but you have to work pretty hard on a bike to get your pulse rate as high as you do by running. (I've done a fair bit of cycling and running over the years). For an inexperienced cyclist, tired leg muscles tend to limit the effort before their heart and lungs do. And it's always tempting to take a rest on the downhills. So I reckon in most cases, you burn significantly fewer calories per hour cycling than you do running. On the other hand most people are capable of cycling for say two hours (if they have time) whereas it takes a lot of training to be able to run for two hours.

codahale 17y ago

1,000 calories, considering the modern possibilities, isn't that much. I mean, that's a bit less than two slices of toast with Nutella. Weight loss programs have to focus on preempting and managing appetite. There's a wealth of studies connecting exercise to increased appetite (c.f. OP), especially focused, running-at-the-gym, doing-penance-for-those-donuts exercise. (Low-level activity—walking around, say—doesn't seem to provoke the same uptick in hunger. But it also burns way, way less calories.) Your counterfactual assumes that the runner isn't more likely to eat an additional 2,000 calories, which is to say, they're already managing their appetite. If you can manage your appetite, then go for a goddamn run already. You'll be happier for it. If you're not managing your appetite, work on that—exercise will not help you lose weight until you do. There's a great book—The End Of Overeating—which details the intersection of modern food science, evolutionary psychology, cognitive psychology, and human physiology. If you're interested, give it a go. (BTW, bringing up elite athletes doesn't help the discussion—elite athletes regularly have 1.5-2 times the VO² max of even extremely fit people. Hell, five-time Tour de France winner Miguel Indurain could circulate 7L of oxygenated blood per minute compared with the 5-6L of his competitors and 3-4L for the fitter of us regular people. Human physiology has a statistical distribution, and bringing up people many standard deviations from the mean doesn't help any of us regular schmucks. My mutant power certainly does not involve my metabolism.)

nopassrecover 17y ago
1000 calories for toast with Nutella!? I assume by calories you mean kilocalories in which case you are probably looking around 1000 KJ (kilojoules) for two slices of toast with Nutella. That's around 239 (kilo)calories.
- codahale 17y ago
  Wheat bread's about 75 calories a slice, so 150 for just the bread. I don't know about you, but I put it on thick—maybe a serving-and-a-half per slice, which according to the Nutella website is 570 calories. So 720 total. Not 1,000, but closer to it than 239.
  - 17y ago

seasoup 17y ago

The article states that people compensate for increased bouts of exercise by either consuming more calories or decreased activity later in the day. It goes on to cite a number of studies showing this effect. Basically, if someone runs a few miles, they will reward themselves with a treat that negates or even overcompensates for the calories expended. Failing that, they will do less physical things later in the day... sit and watch TV instead of working in the garden for example. Sure, some people have the willpower to go for a run and not eat more to compensate, but the majority of people do not. Any those that do might not even notice that they decrease later exertions to compensate.

jodrellblank 17y ago

It is not incorrect because it does not claim that it can't make you thin. All it claims is that inside the article is an explanation of why exercise will not make you thin. Which there is. Even if you disagree with it, there is still one. Even if it was "because exercise has 8 characters and words with 8 characters are bad" it would still be an accurate title. It's not a lie or a blatant lie.

bokonist 17y ago

Or how do you think that cross-country runners got so skinny? My guess is that the causation is reversed. Skinny people find running more enjoyable. I used to enjoy running cross-country when I was younger. As I've gotten older, I've filled out. I'm not fat, but I'm no longer thin and scrawny. As a result, I find running much more straining. I can feel it pound away on my knees, and I tend to get shin splints pretty quickly. So now I no longer run. I enjoy exercise - biking, soccer, etc. - but pounding pavement for 3 miles a day is no longer enjoyable. Exercise CAN make you thin; thus, the statement that it won't is incorrect. The article does not claim exercise can't make you thin. It claims it won't make you thin. No matter how many calories you burn, your body will send you overwhelming urges to eat more, to compensate for the lost calories. These urges - known as hunger - are incredibly difficult to resist, and thus you will not get any thinner.

deleted 17y ago

[deleted]