8 ms·

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

by nick486 7mo ago

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.

BoppreH 7mo ago
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)!
- asimovDev 7mo ago
  Maybe the Elvis sandwich https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peanut_butter,_banana_and_bacon_sandwich https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peanut_butter,_banana_and_baco...
- mriet 7mo ago
  Lots of mayo.. and butter. It's more like a butterich, realistically. ;)
jahnu 7mo ago
That's a big sandwich :) Big Mac = 580 Cal. I'm going to eat lunch one way or another and for me it's going to be under 800. Skipping meals isn't really a good choice, imo, but ok.
- tsimionescu 7mo ago
  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.
  - jahnu 7mo ago
    > 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. That I absolutely agree with and so do my legs ;) I only found the suggestion that exercise _doesn't_ burn calories a bit weird. > you will feel hungry That I also agree with... all this talk of sandwiches!
    - Izkata 7mo ago
      > I only found the suggestion that exercise _doesn't_ burn calories a bit weird. I mean... No one said that? The very first comment was about how it's not a lot / not as much as people think, not that it's none.
  - sdfhbdf 7mo ago
    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.
    - topocite 7mo ago
      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.
xnorswap 7mo ago
What kind of sandwiches are you eating? 800 calories is a ridiculously large sandwich. Even Tesco's bacon & egg triple is only 550 : https://www.tesco.com/groceries/en-GB/products/260422235 https://www.tesco.com/groceries/en-GB/products/260422235 I'm struggling to find anything I'd describe as a sandwich come close to 800 calories.
- nick486 7mo ago
  Fair enough, but so is 800cal/h exercise. And I'd rather overestimate the intake.
- rpdillon 7mo ago
  Footlong Spicy Italian at Subway ($10 sandwich) is 1320 cals. EDIT: the trend holds pretty well at the footlong size (which is a big sandwich). 18/26 sandwiches they offer are >1000 calories.
  - xnorswap 7mo ago
    A foot-long sub is not "just a sandwich", it's a meal for 2. Secondly, I can't see how you can get to 1320 calories for a footlong italian going by this: https://www.subway.com/en-gb/-/media/emea/europe/uk/nutrition/uk-and-roi-nutritional-information-june-2025.pdf https://www.subway.com/en-gb/-/media/emea/europe/uk/nutritio... Even counting footlong bread + footlong Italian Sub it only comes to ~1100. And as it makes clear, a footlong is 2 6" servings, it's disingenuous to pretend that's a sandwich.
    - rpdillon 7mo ago
      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/ 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. EDIT: Another good source to browse: https://fastfoodnutrition.org/subway https://fastfoodnutrition.org/subway 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: https://fastfoodnutrition.org/panda-express https://fastfoodnutrition.org/panda-express Fried rice: 520 Orange Chicken: 370 Total: 890 And most Panda Express orders include two sides, so add an extra ~300 for that (1190). I think it's fair to say that it's pretty easy for the average American to go out and buy lunch and exceed 800 calories.

by nick486 7mo ago

BoppreH 7mo ago

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)!

asimovDev 7mo ago
Maybe the Elvis sandwich https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peanut_butter,_banana_and_bacon_sandwich https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peanut_butter,_banana_and_baco...
mriet 7mo ago
Lots of mayo.. and butter. It's more like a butterich, realistically. ;)

jahnu 7mo ago

That's a big sandwich :) Big Mac = 580 Cal. I'm going to eat lunch one way or another and for me it's going to be under 800. Skipping meals isn't really a good choice, imo, but ok.

tsimionescu 7mo ago
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.
- jahnu 7mo ago
  > 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. That I absolutely agree with and so do my legs ;) I only found the suggestion that exercise _doesn't_ burn calories a bit weird. > you will feel hungry That I also agree with... all this talk of sandwiches!
  - Izkata 7mo ago
    > I only found the suggestion that exercise _doesn't_ burn calories a bit weird. I mean... No one said that? The very first comment was about how it's not a lot / not as much as people think, not that it's none.
- sdfhbdf 7mo ago
  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.
  - topocite 7mo ago
    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.

xnorswap 7mo ago

What kind of sandwiches are you eating? 800 calories is a ridiculously large sandwich. Even Tesco's bacon & egg triple is only 550 : https://www.tesco.com/groceries/en-GB/products/260422235 https://www.tesco.com/groceries/en-GB/products/260422235 I'm struggling to find anything I'd describe as a sandwich come close to 800 calories.

nick486 7mo ago
Fair enough, but so is 800cal/h exercise. And I'd rather overestimate the intake.
rpdillon 7mo ago
Footlong Spicy Italian at Subway ($10 sandwich) is 1320 cals. EDIT: the trend holds pretty well at the footlong size (which is a big sandwich). 18/26 sandwiches they offer are >1000 calories.
- xnorswap 7mo ago
  A foot-long sub is not "just a sandwich", it's a meal for 2. Secondly, I can't see how you can get to 1320 calories for a footlong italian going by this: https://www.subway.com/en-gb/-/media/emea/europe/uk/nutrition/uk-and-roi-nutritional-information-june-2025.pdf https://www.subway.com/en-gb/-/media/emea/europe/uk/nutritio... Even counting footlong bread + footlong Italian Sub it only comes to ~1100. And as it makes clear, a footlong is 2 6" servings, it's disingenuous to pretend that's a sandwich.
  - rpdillon 7mo ago
    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/ 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. EDIT: Another good source to browse: https://fastfoodnutrition.org/subway https://fastfoodnutrition.org/subway 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: https://fastfoodnutrition.org/panda-express https://fastfoodnutrition.org/panda-express Fried rice: 520 Orange Chicken: 370 Total: 890 And most Panda Express orders include two sides, so add an extra ~300 for that (1190). I think it's fair to say that it's pretty easy for the average American to go out and buy lunch and exceed 800 calories.