The Dutch have the lowest obesity rates in the developed world, at 8%, and 35% of their trips are taken by bicycle. Is that just a coincidence? I mean,technically, sure, you got to eat less than you burn to lose weight, but observably, people who regularly get moderate exercise as an ongoing practice tend to have their weight under control.

I had one winter where I didn't cycle and I gained 15 pounds before I even noticed. It took a little under a month to lose, which I did by eating less, but I also got back on the bike. That's the only time I've gained weight, and losing it wasn't some special act of will or anything, I decided to do it and I did it.

The rest of my family is sedentary, and fat. They're always talking about how they've got to lose weight but they're intimidated by it and they never stick with their diet plans for long. They don't have the intimate relationship with their metabolism that someone who excercise daily has.

This is another case of correlation != causation. The lifestyles that people choose to lead can heavily affect their dietary choices. A sedentary couch lord is more likely to binge on pizza than a daily bike commuter, perhaps.

This is why nutritional studies in the past need to be taken with a grain of salt. We all know from studies that too much red meat can have deleterious consequences on your health. But what we don't know is what type of lifestyles these participants led. Did they also eat junk food while rapaciously devouring heaps of sugar and soda on the side?

We're not working in a strict lab environment here so there are lots of variables that we can't possibly account for.

The Dutch presumably also eat a Dutch diet so it's going to be tricky to disentangle. For what it's worth, the French rank right behind the Netherlands in obesity rate but I wouldn't say most people are very physically active.

My own experience and studies I have seen show that exercise leads to some early weight loss but then plateaus quickly. To lose further, diet has to be involved.

> The Dutch have the lowest obesity rates in the developed world, at 8%

Source? According to [1], obesity rate in NL is 19.8%, with some other European countries being lower.

[1] https://renewbariatrics.com/obesity-rank-by-countries/

> I have now been seeing from numerous sources that in order to lose weight, diet dominates exercise

Indeed, and it goes the other way around too: not even counting weight in, any competent trainer will tell you that the first step to proper efficient exercise is a proper healthy diet. Losing weight then comes as a side effect, exercise being a catalyst to the diet that comes with it.

> One of the reasons is that exercise is associated with compensatory behaviors (such as increased hunger)

Personal experience: exercise comes with increased, yet highly self-regulated hunger, whereas it would slowly go unregulated when not exercising. Also, the things my body craves for are fundamentally different when I exercise than when I don't.

This, to me, comes from two types of very different feelings of what we call "hunger" (and its opposite "replete"): one that comes from stomach emptiness/fullness, and one that comes from the energy/material one needs to or has absorbed. The former is a downright lie, and exercise has a tendency to shut it down while lack thereof makes you forget the latter in favour of the former, which is then boundlessly growing because the stomach is highly elastic and is easily trained to expand more and more.

Also there seems to be a fundamental difference between both as I find the former also seems to aim to compensate some lack of dopamine/adrenaline/whatevs (this stuff is way over my head) that I get when exercising. The hunger I get when exercising is more genuine and truthful, while the one I get otherwise is more deceitful and addictive.

Moreover, exercise is frequently associated with muscle gain, and muscle tissue being heavier than fat tissue introduces a great deal of uncertainty into tracking one’s weight.

Yeah, weight is an overly simplistic measure in determining one's health.

E.g. if my resting heart rate is lower, my blood work is "better", and my body fat percentage has gone down, I'll take the weight gain, duh.

You also have to do an awful lot of exercise to burn a substantial amount of calories.

Every day the human body burns a substantial amount of calories just being alive. You have to simply not eat insulin-raising bullshit for a couple days, and start eating less or even fasting so your body starts burning the bodyfat it's been storing all that time. Worked for me (-8kg in approx 2 weeks) no exercise involved..

I ran 16 miles this morning, burned over 2000 calories. But I won't lose any weight, I am going to eat those calories right back.

That is indeed a substantial amount of exercise! Awesome work.

In a thought experiment (where it's possible to know the exact amounts) -- do you think consuming exactly 2k kcal is perfectly even with burning exactly 2k kcal? IE, is there overhead to transform the energy? Does it account for physical/energy waste?

I don't know, anecdotally it seems that if I spent X calories exercising, my hunger will adjust until I consume roughly X extra calories.

The energy expenditure does account for waste, I think only about 20-25% of the energy spent is turned into mechanical output

2000? The standard estimate of net calories burned (cals above basal rate) is 0.98kgkm (i think it is 0.98, i usually round up to 1).

You might enjoy this: http://theoatmeal.com/comics/running

That should read 0.98 × kg × km

0.98 x 73 x 25.75 = 1842 kcal, not too far off

I have experienced the same issue when I burn larger amounts of calories. I've found burning about 500-800 calories (I run for about an hour) at the end of the day some time after dinner is my sweet spot.

If there's any exercise that has helped me shed weight, it's hiking. By being moderately active throughout the whole day you easily burn an extra 1500-2000kcals. Jogging has never really helped in shedding weight for me, just general fitness.

How many hours per day do you hike? You probably have to hike for an hour to offset just one chocolate bar.

I'm talking about proper hikes I do on the weekend. Like 6-10h. That's 6-10 chocolate bars, and I don't eat that much on these hikes.

Considering hiking is mostly walking, and calorie burn rates are dominated by distance, I'm guessing between 30 and 50 km? You generally burn about a quarter of what you would above basal metabolic rate per unit time walk versus running. So this would be equivalent to about a 1:30 to 2:30 run. Its very good,but certainly isn't at the level where you get to ignore food.

I don't know why people give a damn about loosing weight. You want to be healthy, which means having muscle that weighs more than fat. Never seen a thin guy and thought I would like to look like him.

I weigh 215lbs, 71" and I am 32 years old. I eat bread (which my wife makes from scratch), and other whole natural foods, vegetables, fruits, bacon, ribs, steak, fried chicken (made from scratch) etc... All my meat comes from a local farm, I actually bought a whole pig, half-cow and 50 chickens over the summer.

I powerlift, training between 6 - 8 hours a week. Resting heart rate is 58, blood pressure is 110/75. Being that I hadn't done any cardio training for about 2-3 years I wanted to ensure I wasn't in terrible shape - did a 500 yard swim in 11 minutes. I am not breaking records, but won't pass out trying to do simple things.

Eat natural foods they have been eating for hundreds of years and exercise hard. Now you can save money and time by not worrying about what the next overweight, smoking doctor will publish.

If you're an endurance athlete, weight is a pretty critical aspect of your performance. For the general population, most people really want to reduce body fat when they say "weight". Whether you want to "look like" someone is a different story

I've been told that if you exercise 3x an hour every week, then it will be very hard to gain weight, regardless of diet. But that came from a sports guy.

I do advanced weight training coupled with supersets, circuits, light gymnastics work, and some running. I get a solid work out for at least an hour at least 3 to 5 times a week (aside from odd ball weeks where I might get only 2 days in).

I have to be careful how I eat or I pack on the fat. I have to monitor my eating like crazy to lose fat. This gets more true as I get older. 5 years ago, it was stable at 4 to 5k calories a day (of healthy food). I've gained weight compared to then due to a less-strict diet coupled with a slower metabolism and I have to eat nearly half of what I used to to keep the scale from still sliding up. A couple weekends of my favorite pizza and beer, and I'm in for several weeks of highly restricted diet to get back to my previous weight. Sucks to not be in my twenties any more.

In an active week I might do 45-minutes of cycling per day plus three sets of 45-minute weights sessions, but I'll put on fat if I don't watch what I eat. Doing that amount of exercise can make me ravenously hungry.

How often do you have an "active week"? Perhaps you need more regularity?

According to my friend's theory, being hungry and eating a lot shouldn't be a problem if you sport often (and I suppose regularly).

3 out of 4 weeks are as above. 1 out of 4 weeks I might have a day or two where I take the bus instead of cycle, or feel a bit too run down / ill to go to the gym.

From September to December I was about this active (plus some pick-up ultimate or basketball here and there) and put on six or seven kilos. Some muscle, some fat. I've been eating quite a lot too; a weekday's eating is something like:

- Bran flakes cereal

- Cheese & ham sandwich

- Home cooked curry & brown rice (or equiv dinner)

- Two protein shakes (one with creatine)

- Two granola bars

- Dark chocolate bar

- Two oranges, an apple and a banana

Ok, I'm by no means an expert, so if I were you I'd research it a little more through other sources. It shouldn't matter how much you eat, with the given minimum amount of exercise. The things you list seem ok to me. Two things come to mind: you are still not exercising enough; or you are producing too much insulin for some reason. Don't be alarmed; perhaps talk about it with your doctor, get some blood tests done (?)

I'm not alarmed because this is what I expected and planned to happen. I've been interested in physiology and nutrition for a few years and the most credible sources I've read all say the same thing. If you eat above your calorific output, you'll gain weight. If you also lift heavy and eat protein, a decent proportion of that weight will be muscle. This is especially true if you haven't lifted weights for some time, which was true for me before last year.

Note, I just realised I actually gained about two or three kilos rather than six or seven, but I definitely gained a bunch. Also I'm below average height for my gender. My thigh and shoulder muscles have clearly filled out.

Perhaps there is some magical amount of cardio beyond which it's literally impossible to gain weight, but you'd probably have to be beyond a Michael Phelps level of training.

For what it's worth I had my blood tested recently and my glucose levels were fine, slightly below average. I appreciate your concern though.

> If you eat above your calorific output, you'll gain weight.

How does this account for the fact that lots of young people have difficulty gaining weight, no matter what they eat, until a certain age? Obviously not all young people, but lots even who play the Xbox or watch TV all day (i.e., little muscle mass and little physical activity).

By the way, one thing that helps me keep my weight and appearance under control is "planking", 3x 1.5 min a day (I also do it in the office, and I can read HN on my phone while doing it because I rest on my elbows). In times when I don't exercise enough, it keeps my belly flat, even when I have some fat in the mid-section. Combined with some simple yoga, it's also a nice way to de-stress during the day (keeping cortisol in check is an often forgotten factor in staying lean).

> young people have difficulty gaining weight, no matter what they eat, until a certain age

They're not actually eating above their calorific output. This is either because they're not eating as much as they think they are, or because their calorific output happens to be high. The number of calories your body burns at rest can vary a lot, even between people with apparently similar bodies, and over time in the same body. It can even fluctuate a little in response to what you eat. So, whilst calorific intake is the most reliable single indicator of weight gain/loss, it's not necessarily useful unless you are continuously tracking it and noting the effect of small modifications. Calorie counting is psychologically difficult - albeit conceptually straightforward - which is part of the reason why many people turn to fad diets or come up with creative reasons why they don't believe in calories.

I doubt those skinny young people are rigorously counting their calories. They probably have no need or desire to. They're just eating "whatever they want", which for those people at that point in time happens to be roughly equal to their calorific output. If you took that "whatever they want" baseline and added a gallon of (whole) milk per day, you would absolutely see them start to gain weight.

> planking ... keeps my belly flat, even when I have some fat in the mid-section

Right, the shape of your belly - just like the rest of your body - is determined by the amount of muscle and the amount of fat. Decreasing fat and/or (to a degree) increasing muscle will lend your belly a flatter appearance. Planking will stress your abs and obliques, which will produce more muscle in those areas. A larger effect can be achieved by heavy compound movements, especially deadlifts, or isolation exercises like weighted situps. But if you don't lift heavy weights, which I'm guessing you don't, then planking will have a significant effect.

It's all about finding what works for you. What keeps you happy and sane in the long run. For you I suppose it's an equilibrium amount of exercise in order to keep your appearance roughly steady. For me, I love to hit targets and seeing my squat, deadlift and bench numbers go up over the year is very fulfilling. But whatever our goals our, knowing more about the subject at hand can only be a good thing.