←back to thread

228 points curmudgeon22 | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.226s | source
Show context
rubyn00bie ◴[] No.26612442[source]
This is not surprising to anyone who has ever walked into a GNC, or other health food store... is it even news? They’ve been selling shit like “redline” for many years to do exactly this.

Power fat burner: caffeine + blood thinner. That’s most of what things like redline do. Is it going to work if you don’t exercise? Nope, but it sure as hell does help if you are exercising.

I’d really only recommend it to people focused on losing a lot of weight. If you’re trying to lose 10lbs it’ll never make a difference. If you’re trying to lose 100lbs though, then yeah, 6-12 months worth of slightly increased metabolic rate will probs have a net positive affect.

replies(6): >>26612495 #>>26612694 #>>26613029 #>>26613173 #>>26613275 #>>26615156 #
bserge ◴[] No.26613275[source]
And no amount of exercising will ever be better than just... eating less. The only surefire way to lose weight fast. People hate this one simple trick.
replies(3): >>26613941 #>>26615113 #>>26616262 #
1. rubyn00bie ◴[] No.26615113[source]
I 100% agree with you. I probably should have called out the "probably net benefit" is at most an extra 2-5% weight loss over an entire year with eating correctly and exercising making up 95%+ any potential weight loss.

When I lost a bunch of weight, I counted the calories of everything I ate for about a year (and still more or less do 15+ years later; calorie content of foods is generally the same). After a few weeks/months, you pretty much memorize the calories of what you're likely to eat regularly. It makes the cost benefit analysis a lot easier, "the next X I eat is 300 calories, is that 300 calories going to provide me the satisfaction the first did?" Personally, I found the answer is almost always no, and when it's not, you generally feel good about it.