Hacker News Reader

Comment by stavros | Hacker News Reader

Yes, but if you were planning on exercising just to burn calories, just don't eat them in the first place.

Why? Exerting yourself and pumping out the watts forces your body to adapt to that and become stronger. Certainly better than being "efficient" and letting your body adapt to being sedentary.

Imagine eating French fries all day and then exercising to burn the calories. It would be better to not eat them in the first place.

Imagine thinking that human bodies are CICO machines with no other function or utility

Imagine not being able to comprehend the sentence "if you were planning on exercising just to burn calories, just don't eat them in the first place."

Imagine continuing the argument when you've been repeatedly, definitively, and elaborately told you're missing the point

Yes, apparently I'm missing the point I made myself.

More in and more out is better than less in and less out.

Certainly not from an environmental standpoint, but why from an exercise standpoint?

Humans evolved to move around a lot. Avoiding exercise to save food will lead to a host of ailments. Sarcopenia is a hidden epidemic among older people in developed countries.

But we aren't talking about avoiding exercise, we're specifically talking about exercise as a way to burn calories.

Depending on what you eat you could still be well below the average environmental impact of a resident of an industrial nation. If you're vegan/vegetarian then 4000 calories a day from beans would be far less impactful than a 2000 calorie diet of meat.

Fit people need to eat more. Muscle takes calories to maintain. You can't maintain muscles without exercise. Your body expects that you're running down prey on a periodic basis. If you don't meet those expectations not everything will work as it should.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com