Ireland is richer than it has ever been. Poverty and housing difficulties have nothing to do with reducing emissions.
Ireland partly got rich by being a massive CO2 polluter per capita. Now we are rich it’s only fair we lead in transitioning to renewables. Renewables are cheaper now than most forms of energy production. Grids need investment.
I despair at these short sighted and fairly wrong on the facts views.
Isn't that more about big tech companies using Ireland as a tax dodge, rather than a sign of average people doing well?
For less-well-off people, energy costs in the UK are a huge issue, they're more than twice what they were pre-Covid. Energy bills are second only to housing costs when it comes to the cost of living crisis. Although grocery price inflation/shrinkflation has been pretty shocking too.
Sorry I missed your question.
While being a tax haven was part of Ireland’s strategy, given we have little natural resources for export or refining for heavy industries, we also have a well educated workforce which spoke English as a first language and were once cheaper than British workers and also, enthusiastically part of the EU. So we built up a service industry and high tech and high value industries like pharmaceutical and IT. We no longer are the (in my view once somewhat shameful) tax haven we were but now are low tax in a much more fair way (probably could be better but all countries are working the system). Opinions differ. But Ireland is genuinely wealthy and productive. We have serious problems with inequality and a stupid housing problem in the bigger cities. Nevertheless, compared to most of the world and compared to the Ireland of my youth it’s a great if imperfect place where you can have a great quality of life.
21% of all energy is now being consumed by data centers with not enough investment in new forms of energy generation.
This is a policy decision by the government. More realistically it is a decision to not proactively do anything and instead rely on market prices to encourage new entrants to the market.
It's not a free market in Europe since there is vast amount of planning regulations involved etc. If you want to see free markets in action, look at the electricity prices in Texas, where ironically renewables are also the dominant source.
https://www.gridstatus.io/live
Texas is an interesting example because they allowed true unregulated rates for residential consumers. Consumers liked getting lower rates until that winter storm a few years ago had bills for some in the $thousands. Then they didn't like the free market so much.
It did suck, but even when we factor that spike into the equation (including the outages), Texans end up paying for less for electricity in aggregate. Texas has also beefed up winter hardening requirements since then.
weird, because wouldnt part of the price for electricity include the network?
Are you telling me that the electricity purchasing is like me purchasing from amazon, but but never charges shipping, or factor it into the products, and then suddenly cant ship because all trucks are used and no money to buy new?
Demand has gone up largely because of data centers. Supply has not increased enough so expensive options are the marginal supplier. Grids costs are also build into tariffs.
A very fair question and the answer is complicated. Production costs and transmission costs are separate. Also demand changes the market rate. And even if renewables are cheaper to produce in a market usually the highest price regardless of source sets the price. This is to incentivise the cheapest production methods to be invested in.
It’s a massive topic and I encourage everyone to go and dive into it. It’s endlessly fascinating and also one of the really positive stories in the world right now which can help balance your emotions in a sometimes depressing world. At least for me it does.
> This is to incentivise the cheapest production methods to be invested in.
It's also just a rule of economics. The price is set at the cost of the most expensive production necessary to meet demand.
So if solar could fulfill 100% of energy demand, price would be the cost of solar, and any other more expensive generation would either lose money, shut down or idle.
But if we shut down or idle those today we wouldn't have enough electricity, so the price rises until the more expensive plants can stay open and demand is met.
Because at the moment wind has been the winner in the Irish climate, especially when you look backwards long enough to account for the time scales over which energy buildouts occur. Renewables have grown to 40% of the overall supply, resulting in the most expensive plants (currently coal plants, and before that peat) closing. Solar is entering the market rapidly though, it grew from like 1% to 4% in the last 3 years. So I wouldn’t be surprised to see some gas plants closing in the next few years, given the more expensive options are now already gone
That rule is a rule of free markets. Electricity is not a free market, so it only partially applies. Texas is closer to a free market, and unsurprisingly it is adopting solar faster than most.
It is. But solar produces most around midday and then tapers off toward dawn/dusk, so it might supply 100% of demand at midday but only 10% around sunset.
If you build more solar it'll meet 100% of demand for a larger portion of the day, which is what we're doing.
Base generation is a cost optimization that's been irrelevant ever since peaking plants became cheaper to operate than continuous operation plants. Any grid that can handle peak loads can also handle base loads.
It is not that complicated. When the energy crisis in EU happened a few years ago, it demonstrated clearly that people and industry is willing to pay a years worth of energy bills for a single month to keep lights and machine operating. What this mean is that you could in concept give people free power for 11 months, and then increase electricity prices by 12x for the remaining month, and people would still pay it.
This also demonstrated through most countries in Europe that citizens will vote to have government that fix the energy market. Citizens do not want a free energy market that can raise prices to any degree, and its their tax money that fund grid stability.
This all mean that the cheapest form of producing energy do not result automatically in reduced energy costs for consumers and companies. The product that people pay for is not energy in a pure form, it is energy produced at a given time and given location. Make the energy free but the time and location expensive, and the total cost will still be expensive.
Transmission can help Ireland, but it can also hurt it by linking it to a larger market that can create a even higher demand spikes than exist in the current local grid. If the linked grid has locations which has higher energy costs than Ireland, then Ireland will subsidize those people by linking the markets together. Rules like highest price regardless of source sets the price, and higher amount of transmissions, also tend to result in more companies getting paid to maintain operations and thus more parties getting paid that is not linked to the marginal cost of producing energy.
It's really not. Energy grids are not designed for distributed generation. In my US state, that means billions of infrastructure investment.
The people using carbon to create forcing functions to transition to renewables conveniently forget to mention that. Which sucks, as solar in particular is almost a miracle product, but at this point my delivery charges to get electricity exceed the electricity supply by 10%. 20 years ago, delivery was 30% of supply.
My state, New York, decided it would be smart to turn off the nuclear plant that supplies 20% of NYC electricity, and replace it over a decade with a rube goldberg arrangement of gas, offshore wind, solar, and Canadian imports. The solar is hampered by distribution capacity, gas was slowed down by corruption and is being limited by environmental activists, we elected a president that believes that windmills give you cancer, and of course we are picking fights with Canada now.
If you don't have competent government, that's not the fault of renewables.
This is not snark. With forward-looking rational planning the transition could have started decades ago, and we could have had a low carbon energy economy by 2010 at the latest.
But fossils make so much money they can buy the policy they want, and here we are arguing about national tactics instead of planetary strategy.
In a vast over simplfication, the most expensive producer that gets to supply sets the overall price. So even if you supply 99% from wind and hydro, the 1% of power that comes from gas sets the price for 100% of the electricity in the market.
When gas gets more expensive, electricity from gas gets more expensive. The more you have to rely on gas (because you don‘t have batteries, not enough solar, etc), the more you pay high prices.
There are different ways to address these issues. Demand side load management, batteries, etc.
Solar is priced based on gas prices as a financial incentive to encourage producers to build solar. That’s because profiting from the difference between the cost of production for solar and the cost of production from gas is supposed to be the incentive to build solar.
The gas prices went up massively in 2022 with the war in Ukraine, and even though that subsided before the war in Iran a little, the existing supply companies are not going to give back an increase in the price they’ve gained because their prices dropped.
You would have to normalize against other costs and do a deep dive to really understand. My first question would be whether electricity (commercial and residential) has become relatively more expensive than gas, beer, and other commodities. If it's the same rate then it's more of an overall inflation thing. If electricity really is far and away higher than the rest over time then one would have to look at laws, the grid, demand, and of course supply too.
> You would have to normalize against other costs and do a deep dive to really understand.
The tricky part here is that energy is an input to basically everything. It's a major (through fertiliser) input to food, and then all of transport and stocking of said food which tends to be how energy changes influence downstream inflation. So I think you'd probably need a deeper analysis to tease out these issues.
> Ireland partly got rich by being a massive CO2 polluter per capita. Now we are rich it’s only fair we lead in transitioning to renewables. Renewables are cheaper now than most forms of energy production. Grids need investment.
Sorry, what? While I agree with you about reducing emissions, most of our transition from poor to rich(er) was driven by capital light businesses. To be fair, the pharma companies did come here because we refused to regulate spillovers up to EU standards, but that's less than half of the story.
tl;dr loads of golf courses, english speaking population, smart industrial plannng and tax dodging was really how it happened.
None of those things were possible without the fossil fuel based energy underlying everything. Every single wealthy country used energy from fossil fuels to escape poverty. Some to a greater degree than others but that’s the basic reality. Now we have a way out of fossil fuels and we must take it or things will get even worse than they are already going to get anyway. And I did say it was only part of the story, albeit essential.
> Now we are rich it’s only fair we lead in transitioning to renewables
Unfortunately it's not the people/generation who reaped the rewards from cheap energy and polluting who are now being made to feel the pain of the transition.
> they know windpower and solar are not viable long term
That’s why they are installing it all over their country at the fastest pace of any country by far? That’s why they probably hit peak oil consumption?
The coal thing is complicated in China. They are replacing many old coal stations, local governments are fearful of being caught short in a cold winter which has happened. Rate of coal consumption increases is slowing. Peak coal may have happened last year.
>"China is the world's top electricity producer from renewable energy sources. China's renewable energy capacity is growing faster than its fossil fuels and nuclear power capacity.[1] China installed over 373 GW of renewables in 2024, reaching a total installed renewable capacity of 1,878 GW by the end of the year. The country aims to have 80% of its total energy mix come from non-fossil fuel sources by 2060, and achieve a combined 1,200 GW of solar and wind capacity by 2030.[1]
>Although China currently has the world's largest installed capacity of hydro, solar and wind power, its energy needs are so large that some fossil fuel sources are still used."
Seems more renewables came online than non-renewables, perhaps your take is outdated?
With its population and size, China will top production. But their coal plants have been coming up more than every other country combined. It's the percentages, not the absolutes.
People keep forgetting in all the China-posting that China is a country of 1.4 billion people, approximately 256 times the size of the Irish population, and therefore it's not really surprising when it tops a "top consumption" or "top production" list of any kind.
(second most populous after India)
Alternatively, if all Ireland was a city in China, it would not be in the list of top 50 cities by population.
While it's not surprising that's in the top, it's surprising by how much. ~1/7th of the world population, but ~55% of coal consumption is pretty unbalanced IMO. Of course, the real reason why is that China is the world's factory so the energy consumption is huge as well.
I think the real takeaway here is that the world depends on the industrial production of China, which is powered by coal. We are all using that coal to buy cheap Chinese manufactured goods, and the sooner we come to terms with this the better. Whether a single country uses coal or not is irrelevant for tackling carbon emissions, if we're all basically exporting our carbon emissions to China.
India is building 41 coal plant, China is building 289. India approved 5 more plants, China approved 405. China is building more coal power than all other countries combined including India.
This thread is crazy. guys just look at numbers first...
Believe it or not, you're both correct! China is closing more (old, inefficient, polluting) coal plants than anybody else, and opening newer ones than anybody else.
> "This argument that we have to self destruct to have the moral highground"
That's not the argument they made.
> "they know windpower and solar are not viable long term"
Thanks for the nonsensical, unsupported, right-wing talking points, throwaway account. Great contribution.
> "Web search how many Chinese coal plants came online in the last six months."
I web searched and found that "China installed a record 315 GW (AC) of new solar capacity in 2025". The entire UK national grid is currently providing 35GW of power from all sources combined. That's 1/9th of the power China deployed in just solar panels just last year. And China deployed 119GW of wind turbines in the same year as well.
And are you sure about your claim? Every time I hear anything about China and Solar the core of it is that solar in China is growing more than anywhere else on the planet ( 40% increase in 2025 and creating ~11% of China's energy already )
And that there is no sign of that trend slowing down anytime soon. And why would it. Solar panels are dirt cheap and they have more than enough space for it.
China is also really strong in the battery space, so they have everything they need to ditch oil/coal eventually
They also are building more coal, gas, and nuclear than anyone else at epic yearly increases.
That they have the internal political means to get large infrastructure projects done is laudible - they can actually build transmission lines that make unreliable energy sources like solar and wind feasible. In the US that is effectively impossible due to the NIMBY legal situation.
That they lead in battery production is going to be pretty interesting to watch. I admit I was skeptical that current battery tech could be scaled up enough to make it financially doable, but China is very close to making me wrong on the topic. If they can be the first to truly seasonal storage that works without hand-waving games like pretending you can "just use another source" when you run out of storage I'll be very impressed.
They seem to understand that you need to back unreliable sources with reliable sources - and have the political means to build a coal plant that will sit idle 95% of the time.
No other country is close - it's parlor tricks at the moment. China seems to understand how energy works, and that you need a reliable grid to run an industrial economy. They are very much being pragmatic in how they are building out everything they possibly can. The West has forgotten this.
They’re building more dirty plants than anyone, but they’re STILL making their mix cleaner at an impressive clip. Over 80% of new electric demand growth was met by renewables in 2024.
> They also are building more coal, gas, and nuclear than anyone else at epic yearly increases.
Are they really? Coal use for power generation stopped growing, so newly built coal plants are replacing older, not adding to them. Nuclear while still being built does not seem to be accelerating anymore.
There's plenty to criticize about China, but as far as energy production goes they are a leader and have demonstrated what can be done when the country is aligned (albeit by force in this case) to provide cheap and clean energy to power their economy.
The US, under the current admin, is literally the opposite of that.
if solar and wind is subsidized by europe or usa, selling solar and wind to them is great. taxpayer money goes east, everybody is happy, meanwhile china is constructing more coal plants than all the other countries combined https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/number-of...
China leads the world in solar energy, by a wide margin. Yes, they have hedged their bets somewhat with coal, but you cannot claim with a straight face that China believes renewable energy is nonviable.
Steelman: in the 2000's and 2010's China did not know if wind power and solar were viable in the long term. They put a lot of money in wind & solar, but also lots of alternatives: nuclear, coal, hydro, geothermal.
By 2020 it was obvious that wind & solar were viable long term, so investments in nuclear et al dried up. But they weren't convinced that batteries were viable long term, so they built a lot of coal peakers for night power.
By 2025 it became obvious that batteries were more viable and cheaper than coal peakers, so they've started to build battery storage at a vast scale.
So steelman is that the OP's viewpoint is ~10 years out of date.
The pro tip is pasting such long ToS into NotebookLM and asking it to list e.g. top 5 surprising clauses (if you ask just about surprising clauses it treats you like an idiot and lists everything)
“I’m very, very bitter that the likes of Savile and the rest of them were allowed to continue. I did my bit, I said what I had to. But they didn’t air that.”
> Can you expand on that please? Because I can tell you as a matter of fact that when I go for a run for an hour I burn well over 800 calories
Sure - how did you arrive at the 800 kcal figure? Most likely a wearable or an app, and those estimates are based on rough linear regressions from weight, age, sex, and heart rate - not actual calorimetry. The error margins on those numbers are significant, but the devices present them with false precision that makes people treat them as ground truth.
Even setting accuracy aside, the framing is the issue. Your basal metabolic rate - just keeping your organs running, blood circulating, cells maintained - accounts for 60-70% of your total daily energy expenditure. Add the thermic effect of food (~10%) and you're at roughly 70-80% of your energy budget spent before you even lace up your shoes [1]. Exercise typically makes up the remaining 20-30%. So that hour of running, while genuinely beneficial for a hundred other reasons, is a relatively small slice of your total daily burn. And not all calories are equal on the intake side either - your body spends 20-30% of the energy in protein just to digest it, compared to 0-5% for fat, so "800 kcal burned = 800 kcal of anything eaten" doesn't hold up.
That's what I mean by "myth" - not that exercise burns zero calories, but that the popular mental model of "I ran for an hour so I earned X calories of food" is built on inaccurate measurements, treats all calories as interchangeable, and overweights exercise relative to what your body spends just existing. Curious though - do you track your intake with the same rigour, and if so, do you find the numbers actually add up in practice?
> That's what I mean by "myth" - not that exercise burns zero calories, but that the popular mental model of "I ran for an hour so I earned X calories of food" is built on inaccurate measurements
Over the last few of decades there's been a lot of lab research calculating the gross efficiency of the human body with different factors (size, sex, fitness etc) and I think these estimates that sports apps give are very close.
If you cycle with with something that can measure power output you can calculate the mechanical work done by the body exactly during that exercise period and convert to energy "burnt" (1 watt/hour = 3.6 kJ = ~0.86 kcal). 220 Watts for an hour (I couldn't do that but a good cyclist can) is about 800 calories.
To the degree the body diverts any housekeeping or thermogenic calories to exercise calories, which from basic biological adaptivity and thermogenic control must be true at some level, that math will be misleading.
Not that doing x work doesn’t burn y energy, but that +x work in exercise does not burn +y energy at the end of the day.
Exercise is an alternate heat source, approximately 1-to-1 with thermogenic heat (albeit, not distributed as evenly). So much so that our body has to switch to cooling strategies.
And the body can respond to exercise expenditures by reducing other expenditures and using calories more parsimoniously in other dimensions.
It is interesting that during periods in which I have a habit of daily low intensity exercise, I feel like I have more energy than periods I don’t do any exercise, even if my calorie intake is the same.
Another noticeable effect is any allergies from local plant life I get clear up quickly during and after exercise. My immune system runs a tighter, less reactive ship.
Those baseline calories are not just often underestimated in a static sense, but are also dynamically adaptable.
One reason may be is that we evolved to burn far more overt calories through a day than our extra-exercise day burns. Our body has mechanisms for storing surpluses but almost certainly raises baseline use as well. Which is easily diverted back to exercise.
On the other hand, beyond any net expenditure from regular lifting weights (as work), to the degree greater muscle mass is achieved and maintained, weight lifting directly raises the body’s baseline expenditures.
>It is interesting that during periods in which I have a habit of daily low intensity exercise, I feel like I have more energy than periods I don’t do any exercise, even if my calorie intake is the same.
In the same vein as much of the rest of what you're saying, the other thing that I feel like people always neglect with their "Calories in/calories out" and "Bodies can't violate thermodynamics" is that the human body can adjust how efficiently it processes food, colloquially known as a "slow" or "fast" metabolism.
While it's true that the human body has no answer to a true calorie deficit (except the incredibly powerful and effective one of tweaking satiety and hunger signals), as long as you're eating more calories than you're strictly burning, your body can simply take longer or less time to digest the food you put into it and extract more or less energy from what you're eating, which can make an enormous difference without you changing your intake at all. Which means that people can absolutely eat identically, have identical appetite levels, and have extremely different body types.
If you're exercising more, sure, your body will make you more hungry, but it will also work harder to squeeze every possible calorie out of what you're already eating. If you cut down on what you eat, your body will work even harder at it, to the point that you could literally eat less, work out more, feel hungry and tired all the time, while getting fatter, because your body is worried that you're in a famine and in a physically stressful environment and is desperately trying to signal to you to conserve as much energy as possible, eat as much as possible when you find food, and at the same time trying its best to make the most of the food you give it.
And at the same time, someone else's body might simply not do that. It's crazy!
I tracked intake, calories burned(from Apple watch with activity tracking turned on for any specific exercise) and weight for 12 weeks as part of 75 hard and found my daily weight decreases were exactly in line with what you'd expect given the estimated deficit 95% of days and 100% at the weekly level.
I don't track consistently anymore only when I'm working towards a goal but when I have more than 2 weeks data these days it seems pretty spot on to the point I can calculate the tracked captors to target to get the desired rate of change in weight pretty consistently.
Thanks for fleshing out your comment. Because initially it did kind of suggest to me you were saying it burns no calories or makes _little_ difference.
I agree with all you posted.
> Curious though - do you track your intake with the same rigour, and if so, do you find the numbers actually add up in practice?
To return the courtesy, for the purposes of discussion I picked a rough estimate and rounded down significantly the actual amount I typically run. More often it's 1.5 hours a run and supposedly >1000 calories given my weight, heart rate, terrain, and speed. I also assumed the calculations are way overestimating my actual calories spent so just went for something somewhat plausible for the sake of a HN comment. As you noted calories aren't accurately reported by devices. I do not pay attention to it in massive detail either. But in practice since I run an average of about 25km a week but can vary from 0 for some weeks to 50 for others and I keep relatively good eye on my diet I notice significant changes in weight over time that tallies with effort. Three months of below that 20ishk a week and I will put on 2-3kg. The next three months I increase to 35ish+ a week and it drops off again. Would I swear to it in a court of law that I'm not miscounting meals? No way. But I feel reasonably comfortable that this is an accurate description.
You are being idiotic.
One hour of running is almost half of my minimum energy expenditure.
All the other movements in a typical day only account for about half that, unless I make sure to walk a lot more than most people would.
The brain does increase energy expenditure with activity, but as said in the article, it's quite minimal.
I have been tracking caloric input very precisely and energy expenditure with an Apple Watch (one of the most precise trackers) for a while, and I can guarantee you it all adds up.
In fact, once everything is calibrated, I could predict my weight loss/gain with a 5-10% margin of error at worst (mostly due to imprecision in food calorie accounting and inaccurate energy expenditure tracking).
Too many people try to mystify something that is extremely simple. There are some things to care about (like not going too low on the protein), but it really is all about getting the same amount of energy that you are spending, and that's pretty much all there is to it.
I think OP may be referring to the idea that the total number of calories burned in a day doesn't meaningfully change under a workout regime. Working out does burn calories, but after a few session your body starts to compensate by burning less calories in other areas (e.g. immune and reproductive system). The net result is close to zero, except in very demanding workout regimes.
I don't have the background to fully evaluate how true that is. I read "Burn" by Herman Pontzer, which at least makes a very good case for it.
I seems like it's only part of the story. If you increase exercise but also increase calorific input to match then you won't lose weight. But, the laws of energy conservation being what they are, I don't think anyone disputes that if you very significantly increase exercise but also maintain calorific input then you will lose weight as the energy must come from somewhere and there are only so many optimisations your body can make. You could of course maintain exercise levels and reduce calorific input for a similar effect, ignoring health benefits of exercise. Take an extreme case, Michael Phelps. He used to eat 12,000 cal a day because of the hours he spent swimming. Certainly not a small guy but pretty lean! So I'm totally prepared to accept there are bounds to all these statements but I still think I couldn't finish an 800 cal sandwich for lunch hehehe.
By the way, I feel the Wikipedia page there uses a lot of words suggesting that the paradox isn't at all fully understood and that there could be compensating mechanisms we aren't aware of. But I'm not in a position to dig deeper.
> I don't think anyone disputes that if you very significantly increase exercise but also maintain calorific input then you will lose weight
This is exactly what is disputed by the link you posted. They measured directly the energy expenditure (the number of calories burned by respiration) in a high-activity hunter-gatherer tribe, and in relatively low-activity industrialized societies, and found they were almost the same. So the number of calories the people consumed was not measured or relevant (and must also have been roughly the same if neither group was actively gaining weight).
Not quite, imho. The language used here is subtle and I could be clearer myself. It talks about the paradox that suggests the work _appears_ to come from nowhere, which we should all agree is impossible, thus a paradox, not that it does actually come from nowhere. Just that we don't know exactly where. The page doesn't offer an explanation for the appearance of the paradox.
For me the line "The studies suggest that controlling caloric intake may be more necessary for managing weight than exercise alone." is a possible conclusion for the apparent paradox. Note the words "may" and "alone" which indicate uncertainty. I deliberately used the phrase "very significantly" to suggest we would probably all agree that there is some bound on observing the paradox which is why I used Phelps as an example. To repeat and be clear, I think the paradox as described on the page does not say that with a very significant increase in energy expenditure there will be no weight loss with a constant calorific intake.
I guess when you say "work" you mean precisely mechanical work. If so, I don't think it is implied anywhere that the work "comes from nowhere". If a person is doing mechanical work then that work must come from respiration, ultimately. There is nowhere else for it to come from. If a person does 2000 calories of mechanical work and consumes 2000 calories of energy then there is nothing left over for anything else, and they would lose weight one way or another. But this is much more extreme than what was observed, or what happens when a person ordinarily does exercise.
The "Energy paradox" is not a logical paradox at all. It is just a confusing fact. The observed fact was that two different groups with apparently very different activity levels respire almost exactly the same amount. In other words, that an increased, but not necessarily extreme, level of mechanical work does not appear to correlate with an increased level of calorie burn. Not just that the relationship is non-linear, that the relationship does not seem to exist at all (at the measured level of exercise).
I was very careful with my words this time, hopefully there is no more misunderstanding. I think we still disagree unless by "very significantly increase exercise" you mean something like running multiple hours per day every day.
And also that the calorimetry from wearables is highly flawed and it seems to that we don't have super accurate data and what sort of activities burn the most energy.
I am also a big opponent of folks that start equating the "my wearable shows that i burned 300 kcal with that activity so it zero outs that sweet thing I ate earlier that was also 300 kcal" which is wrong on so many reasons but with a lot of workout apps and devices pushing the (inaccurate) kcal count front and center becomes more and more a of a thing.
I think it sort of depends on how you look at it. If 800 is an hour of running - that's probably "a lot" for quite a few people. But 800 is also just a sandwich. Which isn't all that much.
So if you view this from a time use perspective, just skipping that sandwich is way better than running for an hour. And many people can't spare an hour a day just to make up for a sandwich. Hence - "not a lot" - Its too expensive time-wise for the caloric balance effect it provides. Just skip the sandwich instead.
I'm talking about what happens in reality, not what the "serving size" is. Gobs of folks order a footlong at Subway and eat it for their meal.
As for nitpicking on calories: the Subway site is incredibly tough to navigate. Just use https://subwaymenupedia.com/, since averaging across location is really tough.
I wish my point were uncontroversial: millions of people buy footlongs that are over 1000 calories as a regular habit. I'm critiquing folks that are incredulous about this. Subway is just an example, you can also look at Quizno's (back in the day) and Jersey Mike's (the modern equivalent). Even my local deli serves sandwiches well beyond 800 calories as their special. It's not an interesting argument to have, though. Shops wouldn't offer these meals if folks weren't buying, and I don't believe everyone's doing take-out with the second half for dinner or lunch the next day.
You're really arguing about whether that 800 calorie run could be offset completely by a normal meal. I think it's fair to say that runners doing 800 calorie runs aren't going to Panda Express, but also at the same time:
I agree with the general message, but I'm curious what ingredients go in your 800 calorie sandwich. That's more than a double Big Mac with 4 patties (780 kcal)!
You need to eat roughly somewhere between 1300 and 2000 Cal every day to maintain your weight even if you are doing to exercise at all.
If you want to lose weight, it's far easier to remove 800 Cal from your diet, at least time wise, then it is to exercise 800 Cal's worth every day.
Either way, if you're losing weight at any appreciable rate, you will feel hungry (at least if it's not chemically induced in some way, such as chemo or GLP-1 inhibitors or similar). That's just something you have to get used to if you want to lose weight.
This is well-intentioned but I think it oversimplifies in ways that can actually be harmful. "Just get used to being hungry" is rough advice to give people - chronic hunger is one of the main reasons diets fail, and framing weight loss as a willpower contest against hunger ignores that satiety is heavily influenced by _what_ you eat, not just how much. A 400 kcal meal of protein, fat, and fiber will keep you full for hours; 400 kcal of simple carbs will leave you hungry again in 45 minutes, in part because of the insulin and blood glucose dynamics involved.
The calories in/out model isn't wrong exactly, but it's so reductionist that it becomes misleading in practice. It omits hormonal responses (insulin, leptin, ghrelin), the thermic effect differences between macronutrients (your body burns 20-30% of protein calories just processing them vs 0-5% for fat), gut microbiome composition, sleep quality, stress hormones, meal timing, and individual metabolic variation. Two people eating identical calorie counts can have very different outcomes. Telling someone "just eat less and accept the hunger" without any of that context can set them up for a miserable yo-yo cycle - or worse, a disordered relationship with food.
No, the common "wisdom" you are puppeting here is harmful because it just doesn't work.
We have been telling people for decades now to be worried that they might harm themselves by too much restriction and it is just wrong. What is harmful is being over weight. What is harmful is then confusing people that they are somehow going to lose weight without much restriction or being hungry.
This also scales really bad with age because as you age the CNS recovery gets worse and worse compared to muscle recovery.
At 55, there is simply no way for me to lose weight other than being hungry. It is impossible to recover from the amount of exercise that would be needed. The reality is that no one needs to worry about too much restriction until they are down to around 12% or so body fat. The fact a person's bodyfat % is never mentioned in this is exemplary of how bad the standard advise is.
Most people have too much leptin and leptin resistance. Then those same people get the same bad advise over and over to not restrict too much because you don't want to be like an anorexic or extreme athlete and have too low of leptin. Of course, ignoring that the anorexic and extreme athlete are going to have incredibly low bodyfat percentages.
I think the advice that everyone who is overweight or obese really needs is to experiment with different ways of reducing their food consumption while managing their hunger and cravings, and find out a method that works for them. I don't think there's any universal solution. Even saying "eat less simple carbs, those make you more hungry because of this and that chemical pathway" is not good universal advice, because food consumption is not strictly tied to hunger in all people. It is up to you as the one who wants to lose weight to experiment and figure out what motivates you and works for you longer term.
For example, I don't feel satisfied with my meal if I don't feel slightly full. So, what has worked for me is to generally have a single large meal per day, in which I will typically eat whatever I've been really craving since my last meal. In some days that might be steak and brocolli, in other days it might be a McDonald's meal, or some cake. When I get cravings, it's far easier for me to defer them to tomorrow's meal than it would be to just stop eating junk food entirely, or to eat half a burger and two fries from the bag. The exact opposite might be true for other people, and you won't really know until you've tried for yourself.
One thing I will note - I think one of the concerns of the poster you are replying to with focusing too much on enduring hunger is that it might lead some people to develop anorexia, which is indeed a huge problem, even when the person is really overweight (since their anorexia will not just go away once they've lost that extra weight, it will keep going until they get dangerously malnourished).
I don't think I implied that the only thing that matters to weight loss is CICO, and that you only need willpower to lose weight. I don't personally believe this at all.
My point was instead that whatever effort you can spend on weight loss is better spent on managing your diet than increasing your level of activity (though I should also say that fitness is important beyond weight loss). Even when I said you can reduce 800 Cal of food, that doesn't mean "just skip a meal" (though that is also a valid strategy for some people). It can also mean "eat different kinds of food".
However, I do strongly believe that for any weight loss at a significant pace (say, 1kg/month or faster), and assuming it's not just a correction after a short stint of overeating (as in, it's more than losing 1-2kg you put on over Christmas) - then some feeling of hunger is inevitable. Losing long-term accumulated weight is going against your body's "wishes" (especially in the lipostat model, where your body has a set fat% equilibrium that it seeks to maintain), and hunger is an inevitable response to that. How much hunger you will feel can be controlled by better food choices and so on, but you will have to also get used to feeling some level of hunger.
For cardio sure but for weight training you're burning calories and tearing muscle fibres to increase size/strength. Also depending on the running you're doing, you're likely staying fitter.
Sure it's easier to fast but you're missing out on the other benefits associated with exercise.
> Sure it's easier to fast but you're missing out on the other benefits associated with exercise.
This is very true, exercise is very important for health regardless of its effect on weight.
> For cardio sure but for weight training you're burning calories and tearing muscle fibres to increase size/strength.
True, but you need to spend even more time to rack up 800 Cal worth of exercise by weight training compared to doing cardio, as a beginner or even an intermediate level gym goer.
It is also true though that weight training, if you actually successfully build muscle mass, can significantly increase your BMR and thus help with losing weight in that way, even if you're not spending hours or lifting hundreds of kilos at every session.
Yeah, unfortunately back of envelope physics math about the kC burned for lifting weights is deeply disappointing. Luckily our bodies are quite inefficient compared to a bomb-calorimeter, because back of envelope gets me less than a (k)calorie per 3 sets of 5 lifts, if you just do lazy potential energy math.
A tiny technical note - Cal is the official symbol for a "large calorie", equal to a kcal, 1000 cal, if you want to be precise but concise on the exact type of calorie you're talking about.
Not running, but in cycling we have power meters, and some workouts (eg 2 x 20' threshold) will definitely burn in the range of 800 calories in an hour. The energy measured by the power meter for this workout is 800 kJ for me (my threshold being around 260W). Now it turns out the conversion factor from kJ to calories is 1/4, but the body is only 25% efficient when producing calories for cycling, meaning one has to burn 4x the amount measured by the power meter. So that's 800 calories for this kind of workout, for me. I wouldn't be surprised if runners of similar fitness doing similar workouts had the same energy expenditure.
So, listen to your heart.”
https://bsky.app/profile/merriam-webster.com/post/3mgkh6eycs...
reply