In a calorie deficit, scale isn't moving, Split
Replies
-
There are tons of claims. No evidence.There is enough in this thread, Bart, for those who read it to assess the usefulness and basis of your argument, my argument, that of others. I'm sure you're quite comfortable with your own opinion, from how strongly you argue it. I'm quite comfortable with mine.
At this point, I'll leave it to others who may read this thread to judge from these posts which view is the more reasonable and practical for them to follow as guidance.
When I'm convinced I'm wrong in a discussion, I will say so clearly, no goal-post moving or waffling. That I'm leaving this where it sits now should not be mistaken for such a statement.0 -
BartBVanBockstaele wrote: »
Sure. I have nothing against the term "can". One "can" also win the lottery. Unfortunately, for every one person who actually wins it, there are millions who do not. I have yet to see credible studies that show meaningful weight loss demonstrably caused by exercise does actually happen in large-enough populations. How large, can be a matter for debate, what the meaningful weight loss can also be discussed, but as long as credible studies are no produced, weightloss by exercise will not be taken seriously by anyone in the field.We are saying that exercise calories can be a meaningful fraction of the calories a normal person (not super athlete) burns in a day, and that those calories need to be accounted for in managing one's energy balance.
We know diets work because we have the studies to show it. Surely, if something is effective, it cannot be hard to show it.
Dude. Really? You are saying that exercise does not burn calories for most people.
Please put this in context. When @AnnPT77 says that exercise CAN lead to a meaningful fraction of a person's daily calories, it's not one in 100 million people. It is each and every one of us. It means that exercise DOES burn calories, and depending on how much (and it doesn't have to be much, and if you would please read what @AnnPT77 wrote you'd see that she's not talking about "biggest loser" amounts of exercise), it IS a significant portion of daily calories burned. Many examples have been offered. You refuse to acknowledge them.
Why do you insist on this ridiculous contortion of language? I will try to use the word CAN in a different way. Maybe you'll understand. I CAN walk to the post office, or I CAN drive my car, or I CAN ride my bike. I CAN choose, and in fact, I do. If I ride my bike, I WILL use a little more energy (calories if you must) than if I drive my car. If I walk to the post office, I WILL use even more. It takes me an hour to walk to the post office and back. I should oxidize about 250 calories ACCORDING TO NUMBERS YOU PROVIDED. If I do not eat an additional 250 calories to put that energy back into my body versus what I would have eaten without taking the walk, I will be in a greater calorie deficit than if I had not taken the walk. DO YOU DISAGREE WITH THIS?
If I do that walk every day for seven days and do not add additional calories to my diet, I would expect to lose a half pound. Do you disagree with THIS? If I eat a pint of ice cream on the way home, that's different. Nobody is talking about doing exercise and undoing it by eating an additional amount of food that would exceed what just burned. People here are simply stating fact; moving your body burns calories. Calories are energy. Being in an energy deficit over time results in weight loss. DO YOU DISAGREE WITH THIS? Because that is what you keep repeating.
Here is a very direct question: Do you disagree with my statement above? I'll remind you what it said:
"If you are eating at your goal and you add some activity every day but don’t increase your caloric intake, your loss rate will be faster. If you do some activity, like walking for about an hour every day, that burns an additional 250 calories over whatever your loss rate is set to (or if you are maintaining), you should lose an ADDITIONAL half pound per week."
Not a single person who has responded to your drivel has suggested that the amount we eat is unimportant for weight loss. It is CRITICAL. It would be really easy for me to not only eat back those 250 calories, but an additional 250 and then gain a half pound a week. Fifty grams of pistachios would cancel that 250 calorie deficit. One ounce of cheddar cheese would too. So would 2.6 tablespoons of peanut butter. What we eat is important. Even you agree on that. What you can't seem to wrap your brain around is the fact that you can create a calorie deficit not only by reducing what you eat but also by increasing your activity. That defies logic. It's a pity you can't see that.
What you are saying over and over is that exercise does not burn calories to an appreciable extent. Many others continue to show you that it does. Guess what? It does.
I apologize. I should follow my own advice and do not feed the trolls.
13 -
BartBVanBockstaele wrote: »
There are tons of claims. No evidence.There is enough in this thread, Bart, for those who read it to assess the usefulness and basis of your argument, my argument, that of others. I'm sure you're quite comfortable with your own opinion, from how strongly you argue it. I'm quite comfortable with mine.
At this point, I'll leave it to others who may read this thread to judge from these posts which view is the more reasonable and practical for them to follow as guidance.
When I'm convinced I'm wrong in a discussion, I will say so clearly, no goal-post moving or waffling. That I'm leaving this where it sits now should not be mistaken for such a statement.
I don't think you will be convinced by evidence.
You are claiming that exercise does not burn calories. Who's evidence would you trust? Would you believe an article that the Mayo clinic published that states among other things, "When you're active, your body uses more energy (calories). And when you burn more calories than you consume, you lose weight." They do also state that what you eat has a stronger effect than exercise, but it's clear exercise uses fuel.
I guess you'll never believe that exercise actually uses energy.
Sorry dude. Best of luck in your fantasy world. Don't let yourself get confused by the facts.
7 -
@BartBVanBockstaele
If you choose to respond to those questions of whether you disagree with specific statements in my comments posted above, please provide a simple yes or no answer. I am not interested in convoluted language. Just a yes or now answer to those direct questions.4 -
Things I have learned from Bart:
- You can only lose fat by taking in fewer calories than you need to stay alive.
- You can't lose fat by exercising, because the calories burned are insignificant and can only be measured in a lab.
8 -
There is enough in this thread, Bart, for those who read it to assess the usefulness and basis of your argument, my argument, that of others. I'm sure you're quite comfortable with your own opinion, from how strongly you argue it. I'm quite comfortable with mine.
At this point, I'll leave it to others who may read this thread to judge from these posts which view is the more reasonable and practical for them to follow as guidance.
When I'm convinced I'm wrong in a discussion, I will say so clearly, no goal-post moving or waffling. That I'm leaving this where it sits now should not be mistaken for such a statement.
Can we start an @AnnPT77 fan club please? 😀
13 -
Retroguy2000 wrote: »Things I have learned from Bart:
- You can only lose fat by taking in fewer calories than you need to stay alive.
- You can't lose fat by exercising, because the calories burned are insignificant and can only be measured in a lab.
That is fine. After all, freedom of religion is guaranteed by most constitutions in the western world.
I prefer reality, but that is just me.1 -
Not a single person who has responded to your drivel has suggested that the amount we eat is unimportant for weight loss. It is CRITICAL. It would be really easy for me to not only eat back those 250 calories, but an additional 250 and then gain a half pound a week. Fifty grams of pistachios would cancel that 250 calorie deficit. One ounce of cheddar cheese would too. So would 2.6 tablespoons of peanut butter. What we eat is important. Even you agree on that. What you can't seem to wrap your brain around is the fact that you can create a calorie deficit not only by reducing what you eat but also by increasing your activity. That defies logic. It's a pity you can't see that.
I agree with the rest of your post (including the parts I omitted), but you could eat two ounces or a bit more of cheddar cheese for 250 calories. At least in the U.S. you could. Maybe elsewhere they make their cheddar cheese with a lot more fat.
2 -
People who wonder why they are not losing weight despite exercising [vigorously], should know this:
Based on the present literature, unless the overall volume of aerobic ET is very high, clinically significant weight loss is unlikely to occur.
Source: The Role of Exercise and Physical Activity in Weight Loss and Maintenance by Damon L. Swift et al.
You should go to a medical doctor (MD) before starting any weight loss programme or making any significant changes to your daily physical activity.
It is a good idea to read up a little beforehand so that you will be able to ask meaningful questions and a good place to start is here, on the site of the CDC:
https://www.cdc.gov/healthyweight/
This information of this site is put together for the general public by people who are experts in their field. The information has been checked and double-checked and while it is a bit general by its very nature, it is one of the best starting points you could possibly hope to find.0 -
I don't see your quoted text on that link. I don't see this "claim" you made ...but I'm not spending any more of my precious life on this. Your claim:
"Based on the present literature, unless the overall volume of aerobic ET is very high, clinically significant weight loss is unlikely to occur."
From the first few paragraphs on your link: https://www.cdc.gov/healthyweight/physical_activity/index.html
The following is a direct copy/paste, which is how this should be if you aren't just looking for a reaction.Achieving and maintaining a healthy weight includes healthy eating, physical activity, optimal sleep, and stress reduction. Several other factors may also affect weight gain.
Healthy eating features a variety of healthy foods. Fad diets may promise fast results, but such diets limit your nutritional intake, can be unhealthy, and tend to fail in the long run.
How much physical activity you need depends partly on whether you are trying to maintain your weight or lose weight. Walking is often a good way to add more physical activity to your lifestyle.
Managing your weight contributes to good health now and as you age. In contrast, people who have obesity, compared to those with a healthy weight, are at increased risk for many serious diseases and health conditions. See examples of programs that can help.
Helping people maintain a healthy weight is part of CDC’s work to achieve health equity.
and on a link:
https://www.cdc.gov/healthyweight/physical_activity/index.html
SEE NEXT POST ~~>>How much physical activity do I need?
When it comes to weight management, people vary greatly in how much physical activity they need. Here are some guidelines to follow:
To maintain your weight: Work your way up to 150 minutes of moderate-intensity aerobic activity, 75 minutes of vigorous-intensity aerobic activity, or an equivalent mix of the two each week. Strong scientific evidence shows that physical activity can help you maintain your weight over time. However, the exact amount of physical activity needed to do this is not clear since it varies greatly from person to person. It’s possible that you may need to do more than the equivalent of 150 minutes of moderate-intensity activity a week to maintain your weight.
To lose weight and keep it off: You will need a high amount of physical activity unless you also adjust your diet and reduce the amount of calories you’re eating and drinking. Getting to and staying at a healthy weight requires both regular physical activity and a healthy eating plan.
What do moderate- and vigorous-intensity mean?
Moderate: While performing the physical activity, if your breathing and heart rate is noticeably faster but you can still carry on a conversation — it’s probably moderately intense. Examples include—
Walking briskly (a 15-minute mile).
Light yard work (raking/bagging leaves or using a lawn mower).
Light snow shoveling.
Actively playing with children.
Biking at a casual pace.
Vigorous: Your heart rate is increased substantially and you are breathing too hard and fast to have a conversation, it’s probably vigorously intense. Examples include—- Jogging/running.
- Swimming laps.
- Rollerblading/inline skating at a brisk pace.
- Cross-country skiing.
- Most competitive sports (football, basketball, or soccer).
- Jumping rope.
How many calories are used in typical activities?
The following table shows calories used in common physical activities at both moderate and vigorous levels.
3 -
I mean, you literally just made OUR argument.
Not sure why you continue, unless you're just trolling.
(Here's the table from the bottom of my last quote for anyone who cares. The formatting is wonky when copy/pasted, go to this link for the table)
https://www.cdc.gov/healthyweight/physical_activity/index.htmlThe following table shows calories used in common physical activities at both moderate and vigorous levels.Calories Used per Hour in Common Physical Activities
Moderate Physical Activity Approximate Calories/30 Minutes for a 154 lb Person1 Approximate Calories/Hr for a 154 lb Person1
Hiking 185 370
Light gardening/yard work 165 330
Dancing 165 330
Golf (walking and carrying clubs) 165 330
Bicycling (<10 mph) 145 290
Walking (3.5 mph) 140 280
Weight lifting (general light workout) 110 220
Stretching 90 180
Vigorous Physical Activity Approximate Calories/30 Minutes for a 154 lb Person1 Approximate Calories/Hr for a 154 lb Person1
Running/jogging (5 mph) 295 590
Bicycling (>10 mph) 295 590
Swimming (slow freestyle laps) 255 510
Aerobics 240 480
Walking (4.5 mph) 230 460
Heavy yard work (chopping wood) 220 440
Weight lifting (vigorous effort) 440
Basketball (vigorous) 220 440
1 Calories burned per hour will be higher for persons who weigh more than 154 lbs (70 kg) and lower for persons who weigh less.Source: Adapted from Dietary Guidelines for Americans 2005, page 16, Table 4 [PDF-3.37MB].
To help estimate the intensity of your physical activity, see Physical Activity for Everyone: Measuring Physical Activity Intensity.
https://www.cdc.gov/physicalactivity/basics/measuring/index.html?CDC_AA_refVal=https://www.cdc.gov/physicalactivity/everyone/measuring/index.html
2 -
cmriverside wrote: »I don't see your quoted text on that link. I don't see this "claim" you made ...but I'm not spending any more of my precious life on this. Your claim:
"Based on the present literature, unless the overall volume of aerobic ET is very high, clinically significant weight loss is unlikely to occur."
From the first few paragraphs on your link: https://www.cdc.gov/healthyweight/physical_activity/index.html
The following is a direct copy/paste, which is how this should be if you aren't just looking for a reaction.Achieving and maintaining a healthy weight includes healthy eating, physical activity, optimal sleep, and stress reduction. Several other factors may also affect weight gain.
Healthy eating features a variety of healthy foods. Fad diets may promise fast results, but such diets limit your nutritional intake, can be unhealthy, and tend to fail in the long run.
How much physical activity you need depends partly on whether you are trying to maintain your weight or lose weight. Walking is often a good way to add more physical activity to your lifestyle.
Managing your weight contributes to good health now and as you age. In contrast, people who have obesity, compared to those with a healthy weight, are at increased risk for many serious diseases and health conditions. See examples of programs that can help.
Helping people maintain a healthy weight is part of CDC’s work to achieve health equity.
and on a link:
https://www.cdc.gov/healthyweight/physical_activity/index.html
SEE NEXT POST ~~>>How much physical activity do I need?
When it comes to weight management, people vary greatly in how much physical activity they need. Here are some guidelines to follow:
To maintain your weight: Work your way up to 150 minutes of moderate-intensity aerobic activity, 75 minutes of vigorous-intensity aerobic activity, or an equivalent mix of the two each week. Strong scientific evidence shows that physical activity can help you maintain your weight over time. However, the exact amount of physical activity needed to do this is not clear since it varies greatly from person to person. It’s possible that you may need to do more than the equivalent of 150 minutes of moderate-intensity activity a week to maintain your weight.
To lose weight and keep it off: You will need a high amount of physical activity unless you also adjust your diet and reduce the amount of calories you’re eating and drinking. Getting to and staying at a healthy weight requires both regular physical activity and a healthy eating plan.
What do moderate- and vigorous-intensity mean?
Moderate: While performing the physical activity, if your breathing and heart rate is noticeably faster but you can still carry on a conversation — it’s probably moderately intense. Examples include—
Walking briskly (a 15-minute mile).
Light yard work (raking/bagging leaves or using a lawn mower).
Light snow shoveling.
Actively playing with children.
Biking at a casual pace.
Vigorous: Your heart rate is increased substantially and you are breathing too hard and fast to have a conversation, it’s probably vigorously intense. Examples include—- Jogging/running.
- Swimming laps.
- Rollerblading/inline skating at a brisk pace.
- Cross-country skiing.
- Most competitive sports (football, basketball, or soccer).
- Jumping rope.
How many calories are used in typical activities?
The following table shows calories used in common physical activities at both moderate and vigorous levels.
It helps to actually read a text:
And here is an interviw with Kevin Hall, one of the people at the NIH:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eXTiiz99p9o&ab_channel=Vox
What I say, is the consensus position in medicine. Whether I like it or not is completely unimportant. Whether you like that I bring that message or not is completely unimportant. What is important is that this is the current medical position.0 -
Retroguy2000 wrote: »Things I have learned from Bart:
- You can only lose fat by taking in fewer calories than you need to stay alive.
- You can't lose fat by exercising, because the calories burned are insignificant and can only be measured in a lab.BartBVanBockstaele wrote: »That is fine. After all, freedom of religion is guaranteed by most constitutions in the western world.
I prefer reality, but that is just me.
Yeah, you've made the first claim multiple times. Here's the first one I found, but not the thread I was thinking of:BartBVanBockstaele wrote: »
Wise words. For the rest, even if there is something to it, it is going to be minimal. The reality remains that the only way to lose fat weight is to ingest less energy than needed to stay alive, and the only way to gain fat weight is to ingest more energy than needed to stay alive. While other factors may influence that process somewhat, the fundamentals will not and cannot change. Only quacks claim something else, and they have zero evidence to back it up.the_real_me_lissa wrote: »Fasting? Oh, you mean privileged starving!!
Way over hyped & totally unnecessary!!
There is, of course, fat removal surgery, and that is just about the most ill-advised thing one can do.
And you're making the second claim on this thread.2 -
BartBVanBockstaele wrote: »cmriverside wrote: »I don't see your quoted text on that link. I don't see this "claim" you made ...but I'm not spending any more of my precious life on this. Your claim:
"Based on the present literature, unless the overall volume of aerobic ET is very high, clinically significant weight loss is unlikely to occur."
From the first few paragraphs on your link: https://www.cdc.gov/healthyweight/physical_activity/index.html
The following is a direct copy/paste, which is how this should be if you aren't just looking for a reaction.Achieving and maintaining a healthy weight includes healthy eating, physical activity, optimal sleep, and stress reduction. Several other factors may also affect weight gain.
Healthy eating features a variety of healthy foods. Fad diets may promise fast results, but such diets limit your nutritional intake, can be unhealthy, and tend to fail in the long run.
How much physical activity you need depends partly on whether you are trying to maintain your weight or lose weight. Walking is often a good way to add more physical activity to your lifestyle.
Managing your weight contributes to good health now and as you age. In contrast, people who have obesity, compared to those with a healthy weight, are at increased risk for many serious diseases and health conditions. See examples of programs that can help.
Helping people maintain a healthy weight is part of CDC’s work to achieve health equity.
and on a link:
https://www.cdc.gov/healthyweight/physical_activity/index.html
SEE NEXT POST ~~>>How much physical activity do I need?
When it comes to weight management, people vary greatly in how much physical activity they need. Here are some guidelines to follow:
To maintain your weight: Work your way up to 150 minutes of moderate-intensity aerobic activity, 75 minutes of vigorous-intensity aerobic activity, or an equivalent mix of the two each week. Strong scientific evidence shows that physical activity can help you maintain your weight over time. However, the exact amount of physical activity needed to do this is not clear since it varies greatly from person to person. It’s possible that you may need to do more than the equivalent of 150 minutes of moderate-intensity activity a week to maintain your weight.
To lose weight and keep it off: You will need a high amount of physical activity unless you also adjust your diet and reduce the amount of calories you’re eating and drinking. Getting to and staying at a healthy weight requires both regular physical activity and a healthy eating plan.
What do moderate- and vigorous-intensity mean?
Moderate: While performing the physical activity, if your breathing and heart rate is noticeably faster but you can still carry on a conversation — it’s probably moderately intense. Examples include—
Walking briskly (a 15-minute mile).
Light yard work (raking/bagging leaves or using a lawn mower).
Light snow shoveling.
Actively playing with children.
Biking at a casual pace.
Vigorous: Your heart rate is increased substantially and you are breathing too hard and fast to have a conversation, it’s probably vigorously intense. Examples include—- Jogging/running.
- Swimming laps.
- Rollerblading/inline skating at a brisk pace.
- Cross-country skiing.
- Most competitive sports (football, basketball, or soccer).
- Jumping rope.
How many calories are used in typical activities?
The following table shows calories used in common physical activities at both moderate and vigorous levels.
It helps to actually read a text:
SHOW ME WHERE ON THAT LINK IT SAYS THAT.
Here is the link you posted. https://www.cdc.gov/healthyweight/
There is no study on that (Home) page. If you're going to link studies and make claims at least post the correct link.
...and, what about all the rest of my post?
Your highlighted sentence? Sure, exercise alone is not the only factor. No one is arguing that. You're purposely cherry-picking to cause an argument.
3 -
kshama2001 wrote: »Retroguy2000 wrote: »Things I have learned from Bart:
- You can only lose fat by taking in fewer calories than you need to stay alive.
- You can't lose fat by exercising, because the calories burned are insignificant and can only be measured in a lab.BartBVanBockstaele wrote: »That is fine. After all, freedom of religion is guaranteed by most constitutions in the western world.
I prefer reality, but that is just me.
Yeah, you've made the first claim multiple times. Here's the first one I found, but not the thread I was thinking of:BartBVanBockstaele wrote: »
Wise words. For the rest, even if there is something to it, it is going to be minimal. The reality remains that the only way to lose fat weight is to ingest less energy than needed to stay alive, and the only way to gain fat weight is to ingest more energy than needed to stay alive. While other factors may influence that process somewhat, the fundamentals will not and cannot change. Only quacks claim something else, and they have zero evidence to back it up.the_real_me_lissa wrote: »Fasting? Oh, you mean privileged starving!!
Way over hyped & totally unnecessary!!
There is, of course, fat removal surgery, and that is just about the most ill-advised thing one can do.
And you're making the second claim on this thread.
You will hear the exact same claim, using different words in this video. I found it while looking for evidence of the exercise claim. It turns out it is not that easy to find comprehensive information about exercise for weight loss. The literature is generally quite pessimistic about it, which is, of course, precisely why I said what I said. People don't like it, and I appreciate that. But reality does not change because we don't like it.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eXTiiz99p9o&ab_channel=Vox 0 -
Giggle. That is *my* fault. I seem to have posted the same link twice. Here is the correct one:cmriverside wrote: »BartBVanBockstaele wrote: »cmriverside wrote: »I don't see your quoted text on that link. I don't see this "claim" you made ...but I'm not spending any more of my precious life on this. Your claim:
"Based on the present literature, unless the overall volume of aerobic ET is very high, clinically significant weight loss is unlikely to occur."
From the first few paragraphs on your link: https://www.cdc.gov/healthyweight/physical_activity/index.html
The following is a direct copy/paste, which is how this should be if you aren't just looking for a reaction.Achieving and maintaining a healthy weight includes healthy eating, physical activity, optimal sleep, and stress reduction. Several other factors may also affect weight gain.
Healthy eating features a variety of healthy foods. Fad diets may promise fast results, but such diets limit your nutritional intake, can be unhealthy, and tend to fail in the long run.
How much physical activity you need depends partly on whether you are trying to maintain your weight or lose weight. Walking is often a good way to add more physical activity to your lifestyle.
Managing your weight contributes to good health now and as you age. In contrast, people who have obesity, compared to those with a healthy weight, are at increased risk for many serious diseases and health conditions. See examples of programs that can help.
Helping people maintain a healthy weight is part of CDC’s work to achieve health equity.
and on a link:
https://www.cdc.gov/healthyweight/physical_activity/index.html
SEE NEXT POST ~~>>How much physical activity do I need?
When it comes to weight management, people vary greatly in how much physical activity they need. Here are some guidelines to follow:
To maintain your weight: Work your way up to 150 minutes of moderate-intensity aerobic activity, 75 minutes of vigorous-intensity aerobic activity, or an equivalent mix of the two each week. Strong scientific evidence shows that physical activity can help you maintain your weight over time. However, the exact amount of physical activity needed to do this is not clear since it varies greatly from person to person. It’s possible that you may need to do more than the equivalent of 150 minutes of moderate-intensity activity a week to maintain your weight.
To lose weight and keep it off: You will need a high amount of physical activity unless you also adjust your diet and reduce the amount of calories you’re eating and drinking. Getting to and staying at a healthy weight requires both regular physical activity and a healthy eating plan.
What do moderate- and vigorous-intensity mean?
Moderate: While performing the physical activity, if your breathing and heart rate is noticeably faster but you can still carry on a conversation — it’s probably moderately intense. Examples include—
Walking briskly (a 15-minute mile).
Light yard work (raking/bagging leaves or using a lawn mower).
Light snow shoveling.
Actively playing with children.
Biking at a casual pace.
Vigorous: Your heart rate is increased substantially and you are breathing too hard and fast to have a conversation, it’s probably vigorously intense. Examples include—- Jogging/running.
- Swimming laps.
- Rollerblading/inline skating at a brisk pace.
- Cross-country skiing.
- Most competitive sports (football, basketball, or soccer).
- Jumping rope.
How many calories are used in typical activities?
The following table shows calories used in common physical activities at both moderate and vigorous levels.
It helps to actually read a text:
SHOW ME WHERE ON THAT LINK IT SAYS THAT.
Here is the link you posted. https://www.cdc.gov/healthyweight/
There is no study on that (Home) page. If you're going to link studies and make claims at least post the correct link.
...and, what about all the rest of my post?
Your highlighted sentence? Sure, exercise alone is not the only factor. No one is arguing that. You're purposely cherry-picking to cause an argument.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3925973/
Sorry for the confusion.
The point here and in most of the medical literature is that exercise is highly recommended for health. It is often cited as the single most important thing people can do for their health. That is a bit of an exaggeration, but it does express how important it is. However, it is considered of trivial importance where weight loss is concerned.
That does not mean it is impossible, just look at the Biggest Loser, but it does mean that the vast majority of people cannot use exercise to lose significant or even detectable amounts of weight through exercise.0 -
cmriverside wrote: »I mean, you literally just made OUR argument.
Not sure why you continue, unless you're just trolling.
(Here's the table from the bottom of my last quote for anyone who cares. The formatting is wonky when copy/pasted, go to this link for the table)
https://www.cdc.gov/healthyweight/physical_activity/index.htmlThe following table shows calories used in common physical activities at both moderate and vigorous levels.Calories Used per Hour in Common Physical Activities
Moderate Physical Activity Approximate Calories/30 Minutes for a 154 lb Person1 Approximate Calories/Hr for a 154 lb Person1
Hiking 185 370
Light gardening/yard work 165 330
Dancing 165 330
Golf (walking and carrying clubs) 165 330
Bicycling (<10 mph) 145 290
Walking (3.5 mph) 140 280
Weight lifting (general light workout) 110 220
Stretching 90 180
Vigorous Physical Activity Approximate Calories/30 Minutes for a 154 lb Person1 Approximate Calories/Hr for a 154 lb Person1
Running/jogging (5 mph) 295 590
Bicycling (>10 mph) 295 590
Swimming (slow freestyle laps) 255 510
Aerobics 240 480
Walking (4.5 mph) 230 460
Heavy yard work (chopping wood) 220 440
Weight lifting (vigorous effort) 440
Basketball (vigorous) 220 440
1 Calories burned per hour will be higher for persons who weigh more than 154 lbs (70 kg) and lower for persons who weigh less.Source: Adapted from Dietary Guidelines for Americans 2005, page 16, Table 4 [PDF-3.37MB].
To help estimate the intensity of your physical activity, see Physical Activity for Everyone: Measuring Physical Activity Intensity.
https://www.cdc.gov/physicalactivity/basics/measuring/index.html?CDC_AA_refVal=https://www.cdc.gov/physicalactivity/everyone/measuring/index.html
That should not puzzle you. I am merely trying to convey what the literature says. Sometimes, that literature will say something that seemingly and occasionally actually contradicts itself. It can have different causes, but that is not what is going on here. I recommend this website because it is one of the best websites anywhere for people who want to learn what weight management is about. Those numbers are based on laboratory experiments and are arguably as correct as they can possibly be in that context and with the possibilities of our current technology and the human resources we have.
The first problem I see here, for us, is that we do not know the exact circumstances of the tests, and that even if we did, we would be unable to replicate the exact same conditions.
Another problem is that next to not a single person would be able to do a type of exercise, any type of exercise, in exactly the same way for an exact amount of time. People specialised in nutrition often complain about how difficult it is to accurately find out what the energy content of a product is for several reasons. Knowing one's energy used is impossible. It can't be done, unless you do it in a room calorimeter and then - obviously - only for activities that can be done there. Just try to practice horseback riding in a room calorimeter. It is possible, but does such a calorimeter actually exist? And how useful would it even be? I am unaware of such calorimeters. It does not mean they don't exist, I am not omniscient, but it does mean that IF they exist, they are certainly not being advertised very much.
In short: all these numbers are idealised numbers. They are "best guesses", "rules of thumb", but do not take them at face value. Just because they look precise doesn't mean they are. They are guaranteed to be wrong. Your best guess is and remains to track your weight as precisely as possible for at least a month, weigh yourself daily several times, in order to reduce sampling error and increasing the probability that you "catch" the lowest weight of the day and then, change ONE thing, and repeat the whole procedure. At the end of the second month, you will have a very rough estimate of the impact of that one activity or dietary change or whatever. It is painstaking work, it is boring at best, you have to double and triplecheck your measurements...
In other words, disentangling the energetic impact of that dietary change or that physical activity from the rest of your energy use is impossible for most people. Just read about what Atwater went through to determine caloric availability of foods. He worked for some 20 years on that problem, and people are still criticising it for its lack of precision, and they are right.
Science is a messy business, even more so at the fringes.0 -
BartBVanBockstaele wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »Retroguy2000 wrote: »Things I have learned from Bart:
- You can only lose fat by taking in fewer calories than you need to stay alive.
- You can't lose fat by exercising, because the calories burned are insignificant and can only be measured in a lab.BartBVanBockstaele wrote: »That is fine. After all, freedom of religion is guaranteed by most constitutions in the western world.
I prefer reality, but that is just me.
Yeah, you've made the first claim multiple times. Here's the first one I found, but not the thread I was thinking of:BartBVanBockstaele wrote: »
Wise words. For the rest, even if there is something to it, it is going to be minimal. The reality remains that the only way to lose fat weight is to ingest less energy than needed to stay alive, and the only way to gain fat weight is to ingest more energy than needed to stay alive. While other factors may influence that process somewhat, the fundamentals will not and cannot change. Only quacks claim something else, and they have zero evidence to back it up.the_real_me_lissa wrote: »Fasting? Oh, you mean privileged starving!!
Way over hyped & totally unnecessary!!
There is, of course, fat removal surgery, and that is just about the most ill-advised thing one can do.
And you're making the second claim on this thread.
You will hear the exact same claim, using different words in this video. I found it while looking for evidence of the exercise claim. It turns out it is not that easy to find comprehensive information about exercise for weight loss. The literature is generally quite pessimistic about it, which is, of course, precisely why I said what I said. People don't like it, and I appreciate that. But reality does not change because we don't like it.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eXTiiz99p9o&ab_channel=Vox
This video doesn't say what you say. No one arguing with you is disputing "It's not impossible to lose weight through exercise, it's just a lot harder." We know it takes a lot more effort to burn 700 calories on a bike than to ingest 700 calories.
You're saying the calories burned though exercise are "virtually undetectable" whereas the video says, "for most people, physical activity accounts for 10-30% of energy use." That's not insignificant. And it's not a fixed number. We can increase it.
And the pitfalls they mention are not insurmountable: once we learn about "compensatory behaviors" we can stop them. @AnnPT77 has mentioned this plenty of times, plus how to increase NEAT. https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10610953/neat-improvement-strategies-to-improve-weight-loss/p1
People who are logging CI and CO know that if exercise makes them really hungry, they can budget for that. I cut back on swimming - an hour made me more hungry and tired than I'd like. Right now, 30 minutes is my sweet spot.
5 -
Sure. And that explains exactly why exercise has so little effect on weight loss. As the papers clearly say.kshama2001 wrote: »People who are logging CI and CO know that if exercise makes them really hungry, they can budget for that. I cut back on swimming - an hour made me more hungry and tired than I'd like. Right now, 30 minutes is my sweet spot.
And yes, the videos say exactly what I am saying, they are just using a slightly different wording. Again: the evidence for the claim that exercise is next to useless for WEIGHT LOSS is easy to find. The evidence it is useful isn't. As I said, it is not IMpossible, the Biggest Loser proves that. But if you have to accept small losses like int he paper I referred to, it is beyond negligible. Some people would not even live long enough to reach their goal. Don't forget that weight loss is not only about some privileged people who want to "lose a few kg". It is all too often about people in very underprivileged situations who have tens of kg to lose. If you have, say, 40 kg to lose, 2 kg a year boils down to 20 years of uninterrupted work. Very mild work, very doable work, but far from everyone is able to do it.0 -
lynn_glenmont wrote: »Not a single person who has responded to your drivel has suggested that the amount we eat is unimportant for weight loss. It is CRITICAL. It would be really easy for me to not only eat back those 250 calories, but an additional 250 and then gain a half pound a week. Fifty grams of pistachios would cancel that 250 calorie deficit. One ounce of cheddar cheese would too. So would 2.6 tablespoons of peanut butter. What we eat is important. Even you agree on that. What you can't seem to wrap your brain around is the fact that you can create a calorie deficit not only by reducing what you eat but also by increasing your activity. That defies logic. It's a pity you can't see that.
I agree with the rest of your post (including the parts I omitted), but you could eat two ounces or a bit more of cheddar cheese for 250 calories. At least in the U.S. you could. Maybe elsewhere they make their cheddar cheese with a lot more fat.
You are right; that was a typo. The cheddar cheeses I've been eating are 120 or 130 calories per gram. Ounce.
Mea culpa; that was clearly my error. And so was the second one. Thanks @AnnPT77. Edited to fix that. I'm still drinking my first cup of coffee.
Don't worry. I'm not claiming a gram is the same as an ounce.3 -
lynn_glenmont wrote: »Not a single person who has responded to your drivel has suggested that the amount we eat is unimportant for weight loss. It is CRITICAL. It would be really easy for me to not only eat back those 250 calories, but an additional 250 and then gain a half pound a week. Fifty grams of pistachios would cancel that 250 calorie deficit. One ounce of cheddar cheese would too. So would 2.6 tablespoons of peanut butter. What we eat is important. Even you agree on that. What you can't seem to wrap your brain around is the fact that you can create a calorie deficit not only by reducing what you eat but also by increasing your activity. That defies logic. It's a pity you can't see that.
I agree with the rest of your post (including the parts I omitted), but you could eat two ounces or a bit more of cheddar cheese for 250 calories. At least in the U.S. you could. Maybe elsewhere they make their cheddar cheese with a lot more fat.
You are right; that was a typo. The cheddar cheeses I've been eating are 120 or 130 calories per gram. Mea culpa; that was clearly my error.
🤣😉1 -
cmriverside wrote: »I mean, you literally just made OUR argument.
Not sure why you continue, unless you're just trolling.
(Here's the table from the bottom of my last quote for anyone who cares. The formatting is wonky when copy/pasted, go to this link for the table)
https://www.cdc.gov/healthyweight/physical_activity/index.htmlThe following table shows calories used in common physical activities at both moderate and vigorous levels.Calories Used per Hour in Common Physical Activities
Moderate Physical Activity Approximate Calories/30 Minutes for a 154 lb Person1 Approximate Calories/Hr for a 154 lb Person1
Hiking 185 370
Light gardening/yard work 165 330
Dancing 165 330
Golf (walking and carrying clubs) 165 330
Bicycling (<10 mph) 145 290
Walking (3.5 mph) 140 280
Weight lifting (general light workout) 110 220
Stretching 90 180
Vigorous Physical Activity Approximate Calories/30 Minutes for a 154 lb Person1 Approximate Calories/Hr for a 154 lb Person1
Running/jogging (5 mph) 295 590
Bicycling (>10 mph) 295 590
Swimming (slow freestyle laps) 255 510
Aerobics 240 480
Walking (4.5 mph) 230 460
Heavy yard work (chopping wood) 220 440
Weight lifting (vigorous effort) 440
Basketball (vigorous) 220 440
1 Calories burned per hour will be higher for persons who weigh more than 154 lbs (70 kg) and lower for persons who weigh less.Source: Adapted from Dietary Guidelines for Americans 2005, page 16, Table 4 [PDF-3.37MB].
To help estimate the intensity of your physical activity, see Physical Activity for Everyone: Measuring Physical Activity Intensity.
https://www.cdc.gov/physicalactivity/basics/measuring/index.html?CDC_AA_refVal=https://www.cdc.gov/physicalactivity/everyone/measuring/index.html
Textbook troll behavior, but Bart does have some relatively helpful things to say in some discussions. Just not this one... and most others. We are indeed feeding the troll.
How much of a troll food deficit does it take to lose a troll in the absence of exercise? Is there a better way to "exorcise?"
6 -
@BartBVanBockstaele
You still did not answer my questions. I'll ask again:
You say that exercise does not burn calories for most people. If I walk to the post office and back, it takes me about an hour. I should oxidize about 250 calories ACCORDING TO NUMBERS YOU PROVIDED IN THIS DISCUSSION. If I do not eat an additional 250 calories to put that energy back into my body versus what I would have eaten without taking the walk, I will be in a greater calorie deficit than if I had not taken the walk. DO YOU DISAGREE WITH THIS? Please provide a yes or no answer, not a bunch of convoluted language.
If I do that walk every day for seven days and do not add additional calories to my diet, I would expect to lose a half pound. Do you disagree with THIS? Please provide a yes or no answer, not a bunch of convoluted language. If I eat a pint of ice cream on the way home, that's different. Nobody is talking about doing exercise and undoing it by eating an additional amount of food that would exceed what just burned. People here are simply stating fact; moving your body burns calories. Calories are energy. Being in an energy deficit over time results in weight loss. DO YOU DISAGREE WITH THIS? Because that is what you keep repeating. Please provide a yes or no answer, not a bunch of convoluted language.
Here is a very direct question: Do you disagree with a statement I made earlier (yes or no answer, not a bunch of convoluted language) which said:
"If you are eating at your goal and you add some activity every day but don’t increase your caloric intake, your loss rate will be faster. If you do some activity, like walking for about an hour every day, that burns an additional 250 calories over whatever your loss rate is set to (or if you are maintaining), you should lose an ADDITIONAL half pound per week."
Not a single person who has responded to your drivel has suggested that the amount we eat is unimportant for weight loss. It is CRITICAL. It would be really easy for me to not only eat back those 250 calories, but an additional 250 and then gain a half pound a week. Fifty grams of pistachios would cancel that 250 calorie deficit. One ounce of cheddar cheese would too. So would 2.6 tablespoons of peanut butter. What we eat is important. Even you agree on that. What you can't seem to wrap your brain around is the fact that you can create a calorie deficit not only by reducing what you eat but also by increasing your activity. That defies logic. It's a pity you can't see that.
What you are saying over and over is that exercise does not burn calories to an appreciable extent. Many others continue to show you that it does. Guess what? It does. In spades if you pay attention.
3 -
Here is a very positive one about exercise-induced fat consumption. In order to burn 1 kg of fat, all one has to do is:
Source: Effect of Exercise Training on Fat Loss—Energetic Perspectives and the Role of Improved Adipose Tissue Function and Body Fat Distribution
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8497689/
You can even more or less safely ignore the comment on carbohydrate because that carbohydrate will ultimately be generated from fat anyway, just at a later time, so that simplifies the matter.
In short, all one has to do to lose 40 kg, is run 5,000 km while maintaining an energy intake that does not compensate for the energy used for running. Even better, no one says one has to do that in one go. Running 5 km a day for 2 years and 9 months will do the trick.0 -
BartBVanBockstaele wrote: »Here is a very positive one about exercise-induced fat consumption. In order to burn 1 kg of fat, all one has to do is:
Source: Effect of Exercise Training on Fat Loss—Energetic Perspectives and the Role of Improved Adipose Tissue Function and Body Fat Distribution
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8497689/
This is EXACTLY what everyone has been saying. Converting to miles and pounds for those of us who are less civilized, you would run 77 miles to burn 7700 calories to oxidize 2.2 pounds of fat. That works out to.... 100 calories per mile. That is the rate that we assume running burns. So you are confirming EXACTLY what everyone has been trying to get across to you. If you move your body, you use calories. If I ran 5K, that would be 3.1 miles. The math is easy; 310 calories. That would add a nearly 20% deficit to my personal day. Over the course of a month, if I ran 5K on eleven different days without adding to my fuel, I would burn about 3500 calories which would lead to.... A loss of about a pound of fat
Thank you for sharing some data to show exactly what everyone here is trying to get you to own up to. Now you have provided the data yourself. Yet you still keep your eyes closed and insist on hucksterism.
By the way, you still did not answer my questions. I'll ask again:
You say that exercise does not burn calories for most people. If I walk to the post office and back, it takes me about an hour. I should oxidize about 250 calories ACCORDING TO NUMBERS YOU PROVIDED IN THIS DISCUSSION. If I do not eat an additional 250 calories to put that energy back into my body versus what I would have eaten without taking the walk, I will be in a greater calorie deficit than if I had not taken the walk. DO YOU DISAGREE WITH THIS? Please provide a yes or no answer, not a bunch of convoluted language.
If I do that walk every day for seven days and do not add additional calories to my diet, I would expect to lose a half pound. Do you disagree with THIS? Please provide a yes or no answer, not a bunch of convoluted language. If I eat a pint of ice cream on the way home, that's different. Nobody is talking about doing exercise and undoing it by eating an additional amount of food that would exceed what just burned. People here are simply stating fact; moving your body burns calories. Calories are energy. Being in an energy deficit over time results in weight loss. DO YOU DISAGREE WITH THIS? Because that is what you keep repeating. Please provide a yes or no answer, not a bunch of convoluted language.
Here is a very direct question: Do you disagree with a statement I made earlier (yes or no answer, not a bunch of convoluted language) which said:
"If you are eating at your goal and you add some activity every day but don’t increase your caloric intake, your loss rate will be faster. If you do some activity, like walking for about an hour every day, that burns an additional 250 calories over whatever your loss rate is set to (or if you are maintaining), you should lose an ADDITIONAL half pound per week."
Not a single person who has responded to your drivel has suggested that the amount we eat is unimportant for weight loss. It is CRITICAL. It would be really easy for me to not only eat back those 250 calories, but an additional 250 and then gain a half pound a week. Fifty grams of pistachios would cancel that 250 calorie deficit. One ounce of cheddar cheese would too. So would 2.6 tablespoons of peanut butter. What we eat is important. Even you agree on that. What you can't seem to wrap your brain around is the fact that you can create a calorie deficit not only by reducing what you eat but also by increasing your activity. That defies logic. It's a pity you can't see that.
What you are saying over and over is that exercise does not burn calories to an appreciable extent. Many others continue to show you that it does. Guess what? It does. In spades if you pay attention.
2 -
Sigh.
Bart, trust me, I will join you in the multiple threads where the op says: "I started multiple exercise activities with the purpose of losing weight" and chime in with you that the majority of your results will come from controlling your food intake and that you can't outrun your diet.
However, I will also point out to you that the biggest loser doesn't prove anything about exercise causing weight loss by itself any more than anyone else has already advocated in this thread.
They control both food intake and increase exercise and activity. At the same time. To extremes. That backfire.
Yet you are willing to accept exercise there? Because it is at an extreme and thus detectable for your definition of detection?
I prefer sanity and moderation.
Neither starving till I die and exercising till I puke, nor sitting in my couch watching tv while eating the better part of a tub of Costco potato salad *and* a baguette appeal as much to me these days as making potato salad with Greek yogurt and mustard and going for a nice walk while chatting on the phone 🤷♂️
7 -
Thank you PAV8888. In my case, it mostly use mixed vegetables, sardines, soybeans and lupini beans ^_^.Sigh.
Bart, trust me, I will join you in the multiple threads where the op says: "I started multiple exercise activities with the purpose of losing weight" and chime in with you that the majority of your results will come from controlling your food intake and that you can't outrun your diet.
However, I will also point out to you that the biggest loser doesn't prove anything about exercise causing weight loss by itself any more than anyone else has already advocated in this thread.
They control both food intake and increase exercise and activity. At the same time. To extremes. That backfire.
Yet you are willing to accept exercise there? Because it is at an extreme and thus detectable for your definition of detection?
I prefer sanity and moderation.
Neither starving till I die and exercising till I puke, nor sitting in my couch watching tv while eating the better part of a tub of Costco potato salad *and* a baguette appeal as much to me these days as making potato salad with Greek yogurt and mustard and going for a nice walk while chatting on the phone 🤷♂️
I have always been willing to accept exercise and actually I have made that abundantly clear. I loathe "exercise" and "working out", but I am most definitely no couch potato.
I just do not accept exercise as a realistic way to lose weight because the science is not there and I am unwilling to accept it on faith. This should not be a religion. Unfortunately, it often is. The reality has always been, still is, and until new discoveries are made will remain, that exercise plays only a small role in weight loss and that "small" almost always will mean "undetectable" or as I have also tried to formulate it: negligible and impossible to disentangle from "not eating".
If somebody is in a privileged position (as the Biggest Losers clearly were), all bets are off, but that is the same for all things extreme. That includes "not-eating" (fasting ^_^) as Angus Barbieri has clearly shown.
Anyone who is truly interested in the subject of overweight and obesity, should read "Managing Overweight and Obesity in Adults" a "Systematic Evidence Review from the obesity expert panel, 2013"
It can be found here: https://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health-topics/managing-overweight-obesity-in-adults
This is a complicated matter and the document shows that. I have tried to find credible evidence, i.e. not "low quality" evidence of the usefulness of exercise for weight loss, and it is just not there. If it were, proponents would be eager to show it. Instead, I had to look for it. But the reality remains, to use the vernacular, that "there is no there there".
Since not everyone wants to read science literature, a more digestible brochure can be found here (The Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans (2nd edition)):
https://health.gov/sites/default/files/2019-09/Physical_Activity_Guidelines_2nd_edition.pdf
Unfortunately, a much thinner publication also means a lot less information, reality has its disadvantages, and it needs to be diplomatic to avoid criticism which, alas, also dilutes its message.
So, the guidelines don't explicity say that exerice is all but useless for weightloss except for the tiniest amounts, but if one reads them, they clearly say exactly that:
5% of a person's body is OK if you only have very little to lose. It is also an encouragement for others, but it also half-heartedly hides the pain and effort required, as shown.
I do not like to use myself as an example, it is clear that I fit in the higher end of the spectrum, but if I would take those numbers seriously, I would have had to do 3000 minutes of activity a week, or 7 hours a day... and that brings us to the Biggest Loser. Of course, this is a bit of a caricature, but caricatures can be helpful. To put it bluntly: I would not have survived the first day. Fat people have limitations. that is just how it is.
So, that is the only problem on my end. I am trying to show people that there is a way out, and that it does not entail what amounts to "suicide-by-exercise". Clearly, I would not be here whining about it, and neither would very many other people if that is what is needed. But heavier cases like this, nicely illustrate the problems that promising people the moon can cause.
Anyway, thank you and success!
0 -
Context is sometimes important. I don't have the time/ability/inclination/interest at this point of time to show the same amount of scientific rigor as you, and I am going from vague memories of a few years back when I may have skim read similar material as you. But, as I say, context and comprehension of the context is important.
Are you sure that your reading that 5% = 300 minutes is correct?
My reading of that guideline is that most people fail to maintain any weight loss long term, that 10% of weight loss confers significant health benefits and that 5% discussed above is the difference between a small amount of weight to lose and a lot of weight to lose definitionally. i.e. your 100lbs are also encompassed within the 5% and the prescription is not 300 minutes per 5% but more than 300 minutes for anyone who needs to lose 5%+
You may have noticed that I've deliberately chosen to not use the word "exercise" during this discussion but that I've referred to "activity" and "exercise".
Moderate "exercise" performed consistently by a person without physical impediments often becomes everyday activity as opposed to sweat inducing torture.
I also wasn't joking when I said that it took me three months of attempts to climb UP to 5,000 steps a day for each day of a month. I even had to resort to "tricks" such as NOT driving through the McDonald's drive through but, gasp, parking in their parking lot before walking in! Driving to and parking at the McDonald's parking lot 400 meters from my house.
The previous dog's "big weekly walk" consisted of going to a nearby secondary school's field. The same field where I take the current dog to quickly poo at 2:00am when I don't want to go very far because it's raining....
In all the documents you are going through... do you see a guideline that says that physical activity is meah and you probably shouldn't bother with it even if you can engage in some?1 -
BartBVanBockstaele wrote: »
I just do not accept exercise as a realistic way to lose weight because the science is not there
You still did not answer my questions. The "science" is there. I'll ask again now for the fourth time:
You say that exercise does not burn calories for most people. If I walk to the post office and back, it takes me about an hour. I should oxidize about 250 calories ACCORDING TO NUMBERS YOU PROVIDED IN THIS DISCUSSION. If I do not eat an additional 250 calories to put that energy back into my body versus what I would have eaten without taking the walk, I will be in a greater calorie deficit than if I had not taken the walk. DO YOU DISAGREE WITH THIS? Please provide a yes or no answer, not a bunch of convoluted language.
If I do that walk every day for seven days and do not add additional calories to my diet, I would expect to lose a half pound. Do you disagree with THIS? Please provide a yes or no answer, not a bunch of convoluted language. If I eat a pint of ice cream on the way home, that's different. Nobody is talking about doing exercise and undoing it by eating an additional amount of food that would exceed what just burned. People here are simply stating fact; moving your body burns calories. Calories are energy. Being in an energy deficit over time results in weight loss. DO YOU DISAGREE WITH THIS? Because that is what you keep repeating. Please provide a yes or no answer, not a bunch of convoluted language.
Here is a very direct question: Do you disagree with a statement I made earlier (yes or no answer, not a bunch of convoluted language) which said:
"If you are eating at your goal and you add some activity every day but don’t increase your caloric intake, your loss rate will be faster. If you do some activity, like walking for about an hour every day, that burns an additional 250 calories over whatever your loss rate is set to (or if you are maintaining), you should lose an ADDITIONAL half pound per week."
Not a single person who has responded to your drivel has suggested that the amount we eat is unimportant for weight loss. It is CRITICAL. It would be really easy for me to not only eat back those 250 calories, but an additional 250 and then gain a half pound a week. Fifty grams of pistachios would cancel that 250 calorie deficit. One ounce of cheddar cheese would too. So would 2.6 tablespoons of peanut butter. What we eat is important. Even you agree on that. What you can't seem to wrap your brain around is the fact that you can create a calorie deficit not only by reducing what you eat but also by increasing your activity. That defies logic. It's a pity you can't see that.
What you are saying over and over is that exercise does not burn calories to an appreciable extent. Many others continue to show you that it does. Guess what? It does. In spades if you pay attention.
While we're at it, you just posted:BartBVanBockstaele wrote: »
It does say that using both caloric restriction and physical activity are better than either alone. If that sounds familiar it's because it's what everyone here has been saying. You keep providing sources that say the same thing, but you keep repeating things that aren't supported there.
And please do take the 92 seconds to give a yes or no answer to the few questions I keep asking you.2 -
Good point, but yes, I am sure. You may not have noticed it, but I simply made a screen shot of that part, so that is exactly what they they printed.
For the rest, of course, you are completely correct. like I said, my calculation was meant as a caricature, but it does have a more serious (grim?) side. People who really need to lose a lot of weight, have the hypothetical advantage that they burn more energy to accomplish small goals, precisely because they are fat. Looking back in my spreadsheet, for example, I ate about 2.3 kg of vegetables a day four years ago. That has now shrunk to 750 g. I still ate small amounts of cheese and nuts at that time, no longer... The easiest way to lose weight fast, is simply to be fat.
So, if I would still be as fat as I was, I would probably (almost certainly) lose more that 5%, but it would also have been a lot harder to do. A big body needs lots of energy to live, but it also needs lots of energy to be active, and it it is already carrying unreasonable amounts of fat.
Unfortunately when the weight goes down, so do the energy requirements and there is often a (slight) reduction of RMR as well. In my case, I also have a dysfunctional thyroid that many people claim makes it impossible to lose weight, but that is, of course, just nonsense. All that happens is that you have to push down a bit further.
Because I track my data so faithfully, I should be able to make a detailed report concerning the last four years and a few months. That may well be of some medical interest.
I did indeed notice your use of the word activity. It is the one I prefer, because I don't "exercise" at all. I loathe "working out" and it is just not needed. Activity, or "PA" as it is often called in the literature, is really all we need. Anything more intensive could be deadly for someone who is/was very fat. And you are right, all that is needed is consistency, but a minimum intensity is still needed: otherwise we would need, say, five hours of activity a day. That is possibly great for someone who belongs to the leisure classes, but not for most of us.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 424 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions