Re:Fat-fueled brain: unnatural or advantageous?
by collyw on Wednesday September 28, 2016 @03:24PM
(#12600515)
Physics, years of evidence and common sense down voted on HN where solyent is seen as a good thing.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Fat-fueled brain: unnatural or advantageous?
by rayiner on Wednesday September 28, 2016 @04:10PM
(#12600898)
The physics is that exercise burns so few calories it's not worthwhile from a weight loss point of view.
Re:Fat-fueled brain: unnatural or advantageous?
by jsprogrammer on Wednesday September 28, 2016 @05:41PM
(#12601583)
Where have those physics been documented?
I want to see the same person:
'immobile
'sitting most of the time, with short commutes and shopping trips
'intensely exercising 1 hr a day
'actively working out throughout the day
while maintaining their current diet and weight.
Re:Fat-fueled brain: unnatural or advantageous?
by schrodinger on Wednesday September 28, 2016 @10:01PM
(#12602835)
These aren't independent variables. The point is that a half an hour run only burns around 300-400 calories, a deficit which could more easily be accomplished by diet. Also, it's possible that the run would increase your appetite.
The point isn't that exercise _can't_ work, it's that aiming for dietary changes has a higher average ROI than exercise.
Re:Fat-fueled brain: unnatural or advantageous?
by jsprogrammer on Thursday September 29, 2016 @01:37AM
(#12603473)
"these"? I don't know what that refers to.
No one has argued that there is a lower than average ROI (you get paid for not eating?) from exercise.
Re:Fat-fueled brain: unnatural or advantageous?
by DrScump on Thursday September 29, 2016 @04:33AM
(#12603975)
It's not physics, it's biochemistry.
But it's more complicated than that. Genetics cause one's predisposition as to how responsive a person is to cardio; see the University of Bath study and/or Michael Mosley's "The Truth About Exercise".