Comment by wildmanx
3 years ago
Irony.
A linked article describing a scientist trying to rigorously find out how weight changes and energy expenditure and diet are connected, revealing the little we do know and the vast sea of what we do not know.
The discussion here: full of anecdotes and bro science berating one another "that's not how it works, it works like this", "I personally do this-and-that", "you just have to x-y-z, it's that simple".
Yes, but this is one study out of thousands. It's not because it's a paper by PhDs that you just have to take all their results as the new truth and ignore the rest of the literature. It's way way more "bro science"-like to just look at the latest controversial study/paper/research's results while ignoring everything else. Consensus is important and even more so with such a controversial result.
Also, how is it bad for people to contrast what they see in real life with what the study shows? Michael Phelps and other athletes actually eat more calories, that's a fact. So it makes sense to question why that would be the case if the conclusion we see here was true. Again, a scientific paper isn't the bible-you can actually question it, and you don't have to just accept it as truth.
This article is not a scientific paper. It's describing some effects that are observed in a lab.
The world is not so binary as you make it out to be. The article is not forming a "new truth". Of course elite athletes are eating a lot. Nobody was questioning that. Neither do anecdotes stating "I trained my butt off, it worked" negate what's in the article.
The topic is complex, too complex to be pressed into a simple slogan. The article is not "controversial" to anybody remotely knowledgeable about biology.
You can question that the world is complex, but that won't make it less complex.
The article itself mixes results of studies with strong opinions like:
> “You can’t exercise your way out of obesity,” says evolutionary physiologist > John Speakman of the Chinese Academy of Sciences. “It’s one of those zombie > ideas that refuses to die.”
Yes. And no. Bro science is more or less useless. But the article isn't super useful either. Calories burned are "adjusted for nonfat body mass." Adjusted how?
Fat stores energy. Food adds energy. Exercise uses energy. Those aren't "myths." The article (not talking about the scientist) is very difficult to understand, but it seems to come down on the "myth" side of that dilemma. Mostly. Kind of.
When you do the math, your body turns out to be extremely efficient. Two full hours of very hard exercise burns the equivalent of one average sized lunch meal.
Skipping meals/cutting calories is, by far, the easiest way to lose weight.
Let's get specific.
Maybe your suggestion might be a cataclysmic -1000 calories per day, either by (a) skipping a large lunch completely and not changing exercise, or (b) by doing those two hours of hard exercise and not changing diet. That person will tend to lose around two pounds a week either way over the long term. (Of course I don't really know what numbers you have in mind.)
But losing two pounds a week is insane.
So let's look at safer, more normal behavior. Call it -300 calories per day: either cutting diet by a medium order of fries each day (and keeping exercise fixed) or doing 40 minutes of moderate exercise (and keeping diet fixed). Then the person will tend to lose a pound about every 12 days over the long term. That is still rapid weight loss either way.
If the same person starts riding a bike 40 minutes a day but doesn't count calories, the results could be anything. They could easily put on weight. Who knows?
1 reply →
It's a popular science article. What did you expect? If you want all the details, read the actual published studies. For the general public, scientists need to simplify things.
I'd expect them not to call ordinary long-accepted facts "myths" without some kind of coherent explanation. That isn't simplification.
1 reply →
The problem is that the funders of scientific research (corporations, governments, military) see zero upside in finding simple answers. There's simply no money in 'better living'.
This sort of research is only of value in so far as it moves forward some sort of saleable treatment.
In the meantime, the more confused you are about what to eat and how to treat your body - the better. It is when people are damaged that the medical industry makes its money.
In summary, the incentives for health are in reverse (and perverse, IMO). People get paid for treating disease (and even keeping them unwell!) but not for keeping people healthy.
On the other hand, the incentives on Youtube are the other way around. No matter how complex an issue, "these 5 tricks will make you lose weight" or "avoid these 3 foods and you'll be as ripped as me" are what gets the most clicks. And is always total crap.
Much better, eh?
The military has no interest in figuring out how the body expends energy?
This. And it is brutal. It’s truly amazing how many Michael Phelps or “when I was twenty” responses there are.