this post was submitted on 27 May 2024
767 points (97.2% liked)
Greentext
4342 readers
1525 users here now
This is a place to share greentexts and witness the confounding life of Anon. If you're new to the Greentext community, think of it as a sort of zoo with Anon as the main attraction.
Be warned:
- Anon is often crazy.
- Anon is often depressed.
- Anon frequently shares thoughts that are immature, offensive, or incomprehensible.
If you find yourself getting angry (or god forbid, agreeing) with something Anon has said, you might be doing it wrong.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Yet there's a whole bunch of people who can't understand that increasing the number of calories you burn without increasing how much you eat achieves the same result.
Not quite the same result, exercise has a whole host of health benefits aside from just the weight loss.
On the other hand, for most people, given a calorie deficit target, it is often much, much easier to eat less than burn more.
From a weight and calories perspective only the result is the same.
Also, dieticians would disagree with you and that's the reason why they put much more emphasis on starting with healthy life habits first and foremost instead of reducing calories, long term one sticks the other doesn't because it's the difference between making your life better vs making yourself miserable.
Whilst what you're saying is true, it's important to recognise that you can't out run a terrible diet.
You could eat well all week, run ten miles a day and then completely ruin it by eating and drinking 20,000 calories at the weekend.
To put it simply, it doesn't matter if you burn an amazing 5000 calories a day if you're consuming 5500 calories.
95% of losing weight is simply eating less, there's absolutely no need to complicate it by telling people they must radically change their diet or that they need to dedicate themselves to regimented exercise.
In this case you're not eating the same as you were before so it doesn't apply to what I'm saying.
If you are eating the same as before and your weight was stable then and you add exercise to the mix then you're going to lose weight, there's no magic to it, it's mathematics. If you were going to "cheat" like in your example then without exercise you would have gained weight so you still effectively lost weight by exercising.
That's true and I wasn't trying to refute that point.
The evidence linking excersise alone with weight loss is sketchy at best and rarely is there any significant difference between combined diet and excerise groups and diet-alone groups. Excersise alone rarely, if ever, shows any significant difference in weight loss.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5556592/
Theres a reason people say "you can't out run a bad diet" and there's a reason its called "cardiovascular" and not "weight loss" excersise.
The idea that you could out run a bad diet was pushed by food lobby groups who wanted people to eat more than they need to, under the pretence that they can excersise it off later.
We evolved as persistence hunters. As such, the pathway for excersise induced fat burning is greatly inhibited, so as to not be able to run yourself to death trying to get food.
Reading it they make it clear that it's because people end up eating more than they did before which isn't what I'm talking about.
By your logic there's no reason why athletes need to eat so much, their caloric needs should pretty much stay the same as if they didn't exercise.
You managed to pick out the one study, amongst all those that disagree with you, that you think proves you point while simultaneously ignoring the literature reviews conclusions. I'm not sure what to say to something so far beyond confirmation bias.
Its not MY logic. Its the logic of the lack of evidence agreeing with your premise. Its the logic of looking at our metabolic pathways and our evolution, instead of that of food lobby groups.
Even then, you're thinking about the release of glycogen and not fat burning/weight loss. Thats why athletes carb load, instead of keeping extra fat on them to burn off while competing. Its why people with fat on them stop due to exhaustion, despite having lots of energy they can use all over their body. Its why people have to go through so much to induce ketosis. Its why even professional marathon runners eat healthily and not too much.
Our fat reserves are for keeping us alive in an emergency, not a source of additional energy to dip into when we need it. I mean, I wouldn't go on about logic when you're here arguing for the idea of a species of persistence hunters who evolved to be able to run themselves to death easily.
Like most people, you wildly over estimate how many calories are burned by cardio vascular excersise, above bass rate metabolism.
80 to 140 calories per mile when jogging, even at the lower end it means that if you jog 6 miles you have your 500 calories deficit as long as you don't eat more than you would have otherwise.
It's. Not. Magic. If you needed 2500 calories to stay at the same weight then increasing your caloric needs to 3000 is the same as reducing your intake to 2000.
It's about consistency, just like cutting calories, you can cut all week and fuck it all up by eating a cake on the weekend that you wouldn't have if you weren't on a diet.
Edit:
From your own link
Problem with consistency
I agree, its not magic. Its you making up numbers and refusing to accept that glycogen exists. Probably because you don't know anything about it while massively over estimating your knowledge of bio chem.
Its not 80 - 140. Its like 5 -10 at best. Again, you epically over estimate the calorie burning effect of excersise, above bass rate, that cardio does. Its why its called cardiovascular and not weight loss excersise, just fyi, due to the fundamental lack of evidence proving it to cause weight loss. Funny that......
I mean, you might have a point, if insulin and glucagon didn't exist. However, they do. So, that ends that really. Well, it does it you understand metabolism.
Doesn't mean exceraise makes people lose weight. It could also mean people who do no excersise often eat more too. They would have said this in their report themselves. Dont just read what you want to from things.
It CAN, as in, in their opinion some of the research potentially could indicate that. But its not conclusive, as I keep saying. You just read what you wanted from that.
So, again, one that might "appear" to maybe actually agree with you and you ignored all the rest. Well the ones you didn't choose to missread that is.
Even then, they're very tentative and say its more likely, not something like "the evidence shows", as the evidence does show that. Again again, this so far beyond confirmation bias. If you want to die on this hill of no evidence and feeling like you can out run bad diet (which would have to be true, if it worked to way you're claiming it does), then more fool you.
Its not magic but it would be, if it worked how you seem to think it does. Behold, the magical persistence hunters who evolved to be able to run themselves to a starvation induced death.
You can't argue with that kind of "logic."
5 to 10?
Really?
https://www.acefitness.org/about-ace/press-room/in-the-news/8248/how-many-calories-do-you-burn-running-a-mile-healthline/#:~:text=A%20general%20estimate%20for%20calories,School%20of%20Medicine%20at%20UCLA.
5 to freaking 10???
Guess you haven't done any exercise in a while buddy!
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8365736/
Funny how it has an impact on weight loss even though, based on what you're saying, exercising barely increases your caloric expense.
Above bass rate metabolism, yes. They didn't adjust the data for that and you didn't bother to consider what was being said to you.
I hit the gym regularly, pal! Even then, me going or not has no bearing on this. Youre just being silly now.
This is just hilarious. If you look at reference 7, what they're quoting, you'll see its about stopping muscle atrophy in people in people on calorie reduced diets. They used resistance training to keep the weight up, via stopping muscle atrophy.
And, again, you choose to ignore the bits you don't like:
Like I said, its little to no effect. Its just BS pushed by food lobby groups and people who don't understand bio chem.
2400 calories a day, that's 100 an hour
I don't know the speed at which you jog but at 6 miles an hour let's say 600 calories an hour based on what I shared so you're telling me that what you believe is that the real impact is 5 to 10 per mile instead, let's be generous and it's actually 60 calories that those 6 miles added to your energy expenditure so that's 540 calories burnt during that hour (base metabolism as you said) + the 60 extra from the exercise.
Are you implying that your energy usage per hour now goes
2460 for the day, 600 burnt in an hour, 1860 for the rest of the day so you're suddenly burning 80 calories an hour the rest of the day instead of 100 like you would if you didn't exercise? You realize how this makes no fucking sense and there's no reputable sources that would agree with you?
"I hit the gym regularly pal!" Yeah, and you're falling for gym bro science buddy.
Again, not 100 calories above bass rate. Its not hard. You just have to accept that you're fundamentally wrong, as the data shows. I'll make it easier, its not 100 calories over what you burn, just to stay alive.
Based on the data you completely misssunderstood, we could "prove" almost anything. Unless you can show the part where they controlled for peoples base rate metabolism, they didnt control for it.
Pretty much, thats why the only data that you think agrees with you had to be wildly misread. We are incredibly efficient at moving while preserving energy, hence the whole persistence hunters thing you keep trying to ignore, despite its obvious effects on our metabolic pathways and this discussion.
Lol, so, if I don't go to the gym, I don't know how excersise works but if I do, I'm only speaking gym science. Youre hilarious! You didn't even know what glycogen was. Behave yourself. I know you didn't because all the people that do know what it is don't beleive the baseless old wives tale you beleive. I won't go any deeper than gymbro science because you clearly can't understand anything deeper than that.
Let's pretend you weren't wildly misreading what they said, even then, this is about weight loss and inducing fat metabolising pathways. Youre struggling on the calories part alone and we haven't even got the the metabolic pathways that also don't agree with you.
Theres a reason you had to reach so far and look so long for something you had to misread, in order to argue you point.