Welcome to today’s daily kōrero!

Anyone can make the thread, first in first served. If you are here on a day and there’s no daily thread, feel free to create it!

Anyway, it’s just a chance to talk about your day, what you have planned, what you have done, etc.

So, how’s it going?

  • @absGeekNZ
    link
    English
    98 months ago

    Thought for the day.

    How easy is it for you to accept new information; when it contradicts an existing belief or view?

    e.g. from the book I am reading: it is not possible to exercise ourselves to weight loss; the body essentially has a fairly consistent energy use, weather sitting at a desk or going for a run. This is both interesting and counter intuitive, physical exertion seems like it should use more energy than sitting around. The book goes on to explain the both the mechanism for this and the push by various companies to equate exercise with weight loss. Exercise does a huge range of good things for us, but losing weight is not one of them.

    • @Fizz
      link
      58 months ago

      I can accept new information but if it goes against my current belief it needs to back itself up pretty well with multiple sources. In this case it does not sound correct or it sounds like they’re trying to refine the situation so that they can say a complicated version of calories in vs calories out and act like its something new.

    • @Ilovethebomb
      link
      48 months ago

      In that particular instance, I’d say it’s absolute bullshit, because it contradicts everything we know about exercise and energy expenditure.

      As an example, have a look at what a top athlete eats when they’re training, they’re often eating more than twice the amount a regular person will.

      How would you explain this?

      • @absGeekNZ
        link
        English
        38 months ago

        To not answer the question you posited, and instead look a the assumptions in your statement. The book goes into the specifics.

        because it contradicts everything we know about exercise and energy expenditure

        There are examples sited, to scientific articles in highly respected journals that show this effect. I also know of plenty of people who go to the gym and yet are not loosing weight, anecdotal I know, which point to the fact that exercise does great things for the body but burning fat isn’t one of them.

        Over the long term energy in vs energy out will cause weight loss, however the short and long term act in vastly different ways.

    • @eagleeyedtiger
      link
      English
      48 months ago

      It’s pretty well known in fitness circles that you should be using TDEE (Total Daily Energy Expenditure) to lose weight. Simply put it’s calories in vs. calories out. Doesn’t really matter if you exercise or not. If calories going in is less than what you use daily, then weight loss should happen.

      • @absGeekNZ
        link
        English
        28 months ago

        What if the TDEE is not really a useful measure?

        What if your body is working against you in that particular regard?

        • @eagleeyedtiger
          link
          English
          48 months ago

          In what way? What do you mean body working against you?

          It’s never going to be exact, but unless your a top 1% athelete who’s getting lab work done regularly, it doesn’t need to be.

          As long as you’re generally lower on intake than what you burn , weight loss should occur, barring illnesses or similar. There will also always be outliers who burn more or less at rest.

          • @absGeekNZ
            link
            English
            38 months ago

            Think of it like this.

            Your body has two energy users, the autonomic stuff that you have no control over (immune system, endocrine system, reproductive system etc…) and the conscious stuff that you do have control over, walking / running / working etc…

            Your body will dial back the autonomic functions to allow you to increase the conscious energy load, this is to stay inside your energy budget.

            The parts of you that you have no control over are working against you in subtle ways that you cannot know. I realize that the energy in vs energy out argument is good, because in the long run it works out, but on a daily basis it doesn’t. It would work much better if you changed daily to monthly or quarterly.

            Total Monthly Energy Expenditure vs Monthly Calorific Intake. Or more succinctly your personal Monthly Energy Balance.

            • @eagleeyedtiger
              link
              English
              2
              edit-2
              8 months ago

              The parts of you that you have no control over are working against you in subtle ways that you cannot know.

              I don’t know man, you’re getting into some woo woo broscience with talk like that.

              Yes illnesses, lack of sleep, thyroid issues etc. can affect weight loss. There is enough data out there to show how weight loss works. It doesn’t need to be an exact calorie number you hit each day. It’s about generally keeping better habits and being mindful of your nutrition. Some days you go over, some days are under. Some days you exercise more and some days less.

              I’m actually not sure what the point you’re making is in regard to weight loss. As you say it all works out in the long run anyway.

              • @absGeekNZ
                link
                English
                38 months ago

                The conversation went away from my original question about new information that conflicts with existing views, but that is the nature of conversation, you go where it leads.

                But the book is more about the way ultra-processed foods mess with out reward systems to encourage over-eating and that exercise is not a way to balance out excess consumption. As your body simply thinks it needs more food, even though you have blown your food budget for the day; the increased exercise doesn’t burn nearly as much as you would expect given the level of work you think you are doing, then eating a little more blows the budget even further.

                • @eagleeyedtiger
                  link
                  English
                  38 months ago

                  I agree with that in the sense that most people when getting in to fitness start to realise how much you have to exercise to burn off excess consumption. And that it’s already known that ultraprocessed food is usually very calorie dense but can be nutritionally empty. I’m sure most who get into it seriously are aware dietary habits also need to change.

                  In running circles there’s a saying “you can’t outrun a bad diet”. There’s also “Abs are made in the kitchen”.

            • @Ilovethebomb
              link
              18 months ago

              Your body will dial back the autonomic functions to allow you to increase the conscious energy load, this is to stay inside your energy budget.

              There is some evidence that the body will do that while you are undergoing intense exercise, IE at or above the aerobic threshold, but everything we know says it goes right back to normal once you slow down. The idea you will use the same amount of energy regardless is simply nonsense.

              • @absGeekNZ
                link
                English
                18 months ago

                What you said, is the same as what I said.

                • @Ilovethebomb
                  link
                  18 months ago

                  You do understand the “aerobic threshold” is the limit is your lung capacity, right? You need to be absolutely sprinting for this to take place.

                  • @absGeekNZ
                    link
                    English
                    18 months ago

                    aerobic threshold

                    I had to remind myself what AT was as your explanation differed from my memory. AT is the limit at which you can do exercise for hours; you have used the the glycogen in your muscles (moved from anaerobic exercise to aerobic); this is where oxygen from your lungs is supplying your muscles along with the fuel. This is much slower then using the stored glycogen; you don’t need to sprint to get to the AT; but you will get there much quicker if you do, consistent exercise at a lower level will use up the glycogen and force you into aerobic exercise mode.

    • ∟⊔⊤∦∣≶
      link
      48 months ago

      I would like to add some more detail to this. Its not actually the exercise that causes weight loss, its the panting and breathing that causes weight loss. You literally breathe out the weight as carbon dioxide.

      The most effective way to do this, is Sprint Interval Training.

      • @absGeekNZ
        link
        English
        78 months ago

        From the book’

        This is especially true when we look at longer timeframes of several days or weeks. In the case of the Hadza(tribe in Tanzania), when they rest, they really rest. And it’s true for athletes and everyone else who is active too. We can be very active for a period of time, but we claw back that energy debt later. It’s this reduction of energy usage in other ways inside the body that may explain why exercise is associated with improved physical health, even if it doesn’t lead to weight loss.
        Pontzer’s model posits that going for a long walk or run results in simply scaling back on routine non-essential bodily processes, reducing the amount of energy spent on your immune, endocrine, reproductive and stress systems. That may sound bad, but a bit of downtime actually seems to help to restore those systems to a healthier level of function. And it makes sense evolutionar-ily: throughout hominid history, there will have been significant periods during which food was scarce. Under the conventional model of calorie burning, that would mean using the most calories when food was least available because you would inevitably work harder to hunt or gather those calories. The fixed energy model means that energy use is consistent even if we do have to walk further to get food. And in a time of scarcity, it makes sense to borrow from – for example – the reproductive system to reduce fertility.
        According to Ponzter’s data, we burn around 2,500 calories per day at desk jobs, the same number of calories as if we were walking a long distance. Since we’re not spending that energy on walking, we spend it elsewhere, on things like being stressed. The hypothesis says that office workers will likely have increased levels of adrenaline, cortisol and white blood cells, all of which make us anxious and inflamed. 53 , 54 A sedentary life (of the kind you probably live if you’re reading this – although not necessarily) leads to higher levels of testosterone and oestrogen, which might sound good to some people, but which can increase risks of cancers. By contrast, the Hadza – who do around two hours of moderate and vigorous physical activity every day, many times more than typical people in the UK and the USA – have morning salivary testosterone concentrations that are roughly half those of western populations. 55This is a good thing, and it may explain why exercise is such an important treatment for many chronic conditions
        and seems to reduce depression and anxiety. 56

        • @SamC
          link
          3
          edit-2
          6 months ago

          deleted by creator

          • @absGeekNZ
            link
            English
            48 months ago

            The book is “Ultra Processed People, the science of food that isn’t food”

            The book is extremely interesting, I’m almost 1//2 way through. I am really interested; it is so cool.

        • @Ilovethebomb
          link
          38 months ago

          I’ve read articles about the diet etc of top athletes, they’re often consuming 7,000 calories at the peak of their training regime, and clearly not getting fat.

          The idea that a sedentary office worker is burning as much energy as an athlete is just nonsense.

          • @absGeekNZ
            link
            English
            18 months ago

            That is interesting; what is their energy balance over an extended period?

            I assume they are not eating 7000 calories for months on end; I realize the idea seems nonsense at first glance; which is why I posited the question, how do you take new information that conflicts with an existing view point?

            • @Ilovethebomb
              link
              28 months ago

              I assume they are not eating 7000 calories for months on end

              That’s exactly what they’re doing. Michael Phelps, for example, would eat multiple whole pizzas a day.

              For a proposal like this, which contradicts a lot of knowledge I already have about exercise and nutrition, my response would be to reject it unless either multiple sources confirmed it, or the source was extremely credible.

              • @absGeekNZ
                link
                English
                18 months ago

                Assume the source is very credible; do you actively search for why it contradicts or do you just accept the new view point?
                Do you try to find common ground between the new information and the old?

                I try to get to the bottom of the difference and see how the new info relates to the old. I’ll look for corroborating sources if it still doesn’t seem correct / the explanation is not satisfying.

    • @liv
      link
      3
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      It’s quite hard if the existing information is there for solid reasons, but once I have, it’s an amazing feeling and I love it.

      Firstly, learning something truly new to me just feels really pleasurable. Not sure why.

      Secondly, realising my current belief is wrong may feel disconcerting, so if there’s other better information to replace it with, being able to grasp the new info and be right again is reassuring.

      With your weight loss example learning that was a relief, I’m in a situation where I had to lose weight without exercise or fasting, so I read around that quite a bit. As the old saying goes, “you can’t outrun your fork” ( this article is quite useful).

      But the counter-intuitive part for me was that all calories are not created equal. That was harder for me to get my head around because it goes against conventional wisdom, and I had to deep dive into liver function. I was very suspicious and had to look at multiple convincing sources before the “calories in = calories out is all there is to it” could be dislodged.

      Another example would be arsenic in rice. I eat rice all the time and I so wanted it to either be a myth of be something I didn’t need to care about. But facts are facts, if you want to be right, not knowing you’re wrong doesn’t make it so.

      Knowing the truth made the next step possible, finding a scientific paper on better cooking methods to remove arsenic from rice. So now it’s all good.

      • @absGeekNZ
        link
        English
        38 months ago

        If you can grab a copy of the book I’m reading.

        “Ultra Processed People, the science of food that isn’t food”.

        • @liv
          link
          28 months ago

          Yes I’m beginning to want to read it.

          I eventually lost over 20 kg without exercise or fasting (or surgery obviously) by the way. So I believe in it from an experience point of view as well.

          • @absGeekNZ
            link
            English
            38 months ago

            Well done; your achievement must be so satisfying.

            As someone who has never struggled with this burden; I realize that it must be very difficult for those that do. The social aspects of being heavy are also addressed in the book, a lot of blaming the person when there are so many factors at play.

            • @liv
              link
              3
              edit-2
              8 months ago

              Nah it was honestly just a relief. I’d never been overweight before in my life, and suddenly went through a 50% increase in body weight over about 11 months and it was terrifying.

              As well as barely recognising yourself (doesn’t help that you can’t fit any of your own clothes) and getting the sudden social stigma and blame of being fat, there’s also a host of health risks.

              So I was super motivated to learn about it.

              Took me years to get back down below the “obese” threshold because of the methods available to me, and it was such a relief to have all those risk percentages going down again.

              It’s crazy to me how mean people are to obese people. Surely no one wants to be at risk for strokes and heart disease and diabetes. There have got to be factors at play, like you say.

    • @KhanumBallZ
      link
      28 months ago

      I think the problem is moreso the fact that modern food is so energy-dense.

      But exercise makes a big difference between [being morbidly overweight] vs. just having a tummy - for people who otherwise have a problematic relationship with food.