News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on John Carmack on shorter work weeks (2016). Parent comment

Re:John Carmack on shorter work weeks (2016) by pizzapill on Friday June 16, 2023 @07:51PM (#36365563)
I don't think that's how you lose fat. You get rid of the exhaust generated during the chemical fat burning process. If you couldn't exhale you would still burn fat.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:John Carmack on shorter work weeks (2016) by FredPret on Friday June 16, 2023 @08:41PM (#36365911)
In: O2

Out: CO2

That extra C atom comes from your metabolism. If you're in a calorie deficit, it has to come from your C atom reserve storage.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:John Carmack on shorter work weeks (2016) by palata on Saturday June 17, 2023 @02:09AM (#36367743)
You miss the point of the parent, which is that exhaling is not a chemical process. The point being that the CO2 you exhale is "somehow produced by something", and once it's there you have to exhale it.

That's a way of saying that breathing faster won't burn more fat just because of the breathing: burning fat is a bit more elaborate than that.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:John Carmack on shorter work weeks (2016) by dragonwriter on Saturday June 17, 2023 @02:43AM (#36367909)
> That's a way of saying that breathing faster won't burn more fat just because of the breathing

Which is wrong, since breathing involves pumping air with your muscles.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:John Carmack on shorter work weeks (2016) by palata on Tuesday June 20, 2023 @12:43PM (#36406752)
Not sure if you got my point but wanted to be pedantic, or didn't get my point at all.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:John Carmack on shorter work weeks (2016) by onion2k on Saturday June 17, 2023 @02:33AM (#36367861)
If you're in a calorie deficit, it has to come from your C atom reserve storage.

Yes, and that will be your muscle mass as well as body fat if you're not exercising and maintaining a decent protein intake.

[ Parent | on HN ]