If I do regular 20 minutes exercise and diet, how fast can I loose weight

FitAgainBy55 wrote: »

I never compared an in shape man to an out of shape women. I compared two average weight (overweight, btw) but fit individual calorie burns.

This is what I was thinking of: "I put my wife's stats into a calculator. We are both currently over weight, BTW. She's 3 years younger, I'm 5'7" and she is around 5'2"ish. We both weigh about the same right now."

You seem to be pretty fit, and there's a huge difference between a 5'7 man at (picking random weight that is slightly overweight for the guy) 165 and a 5'2 woman at that weight. I'd think it was -- unless the woman was quite fit and an experienced runner, which is possible but not the norm for someone here who is 5'2, 165, and looking to lose weight and no longer be sedentary. Thus, that you could both run the same distance for little difference in cals doesn't really say much when it comes to comparing a typical man or woman, all else equal.

Therefore, the conclusion: "So, the male advantage here is 8 calories per 1 hour run." Seemed quite off to me, and I am someone who mostly agrees with your underlying point here.

I never said it was 'easy', I just simply said it's feasible.

It's not realistic for everyone wanting to lose 2 lb/week (or whatever) to lose 50% of that by immediately increasing activity. This is because: (1) some people are already active (as Ann covered); and (2) they may not be fit enough yet to add a lot of activity and also burn out is a risk.

I agree with the underlying point that activity can be an important part of increasing activity and I also get frustrated when people say activity is irrelevant to weight loss, as if eating more and losing the same amount couldn't be helpful for weight loss. But that you find it not too hard to go from 2300 to 2800 doesn't mean some woman won't find it more difficult to, say, go from 1600 to 2100, especially if she's basically sedentary.

I think what you are actually trying to say and what I am actually trying to say is probably not much different, but the numbers you started with and the suggestion that there was no meaningful difference between your stats and a 5'2 woman (who could potentially burn 2800, but certainly not if starting from non fit and not without substantial activity, of course) kind of lost the track of the message, IMO.

janejellyroll wrote: »

The thing is, even if you love activity and think that people should generally shoot to be more active, it's undeniable that for the average sedentary person, running 10k a day (or similar exertion in another activity) is a big lifestyle change and setting it as goal is likely to result in burnout or injury.

Agreed, which is why I never at all recommended that.

But that I couldn't go from (hypothetically) 1600 cals as sedentary to 2100 cals daily by adding 500 running cals doesn't mean (if I am truly sedentary) that I couldn't go from 1600 to 2100 cals in other ways, without it necessarily being that burdensome.

More significantly, most people probably aren't really sedentary, and if they want to calculate (as I did) that their burn is, say, 1750 if sedentary, and then decide to add in 250 cals daily from activity and then cut some more from diet, that is certainly possible (as probably is adding more if one desires to do so).

The underlying discussion (it seems to me) is less about whether everyone can do intense exercise that burns 500 cals in an hour, and more about whether it makes sense to think of exercise/activity as important for weight loss in that someone with lots to lose (like me when I started) might say: "I will try to ramp up to an extra 500 cal burn off of sedentary (whether actually sedentary or not) and I also will eat 500 cal less than my sedentary maintenance." IMO, this is a sensible, valid approach (obviously not the only one), and if one takes this approach or something along these lines, the exercise IS part of the deficit.

Some seem to say that's inherently problematic, as it will have mental drawbacks or because it's so eat to eat 250 or 500 extra cals or on and on, and that might make it not good for them, but it doesn't make it not a good approach for some of us or mean that exercise can't be part of weight loss/part of creating a deficit.

That's what I think the real underlying dispute is about (such as it is), not whether anyone should add in a daily 10k.

I do think it is worth noting that someone who is actually sedentary and wants to be more active (like OP!) can do so easily and even aim for 500 extra cals WITHOUT running a daily 10K. First of all, someone with a lot to lose doesn't need to run 6 miles to burn 500 cals, probably. OP's stats are about 1750 cals per day (very rough estimate given what I don't know) at sedentary, and 2250 at moderate exercise. Moderate could be just aiming for 10K steps per day. And that ignores that in 20-30 min, one could do other exercise that would burn 150 cals or so without it having to be particularly intense. She could likely burn about 500 cals through exercise/activity.

So no, I don't see exercise as unrelated to weight loss in the case of someone who is sedentary and doesn't want to be sedentary, and I think someone who is truly sedentary can increase burn a decent amount without having to run or do anything particularly intense, if one wants to (again). The claim that the only way someone can increase burn much is doing intense exercise for an hour is simply inaccurate to start with, and I think it was that claim that got us all off-track somewhat.

(In case it's not obvious, I think this is all mostly miscommunication and people talking past each other.)

@lemurcat2 I'm assuming anyone that can run a 12 minute mile for one hour is fit. So when I compare 2 people running a 12 minute mile my assumption is both are fit. You are correct, however, that in my first example the two people weren't the same BMI. The more complete table I published as a followup, however, compared the AVERAGE weight and height male/female. My complete example with those data points compare an average male and female with the same BMI of 29. When I started 3 months ago, my BMI was 29.6, BTW.

lemurcat2 wrote: »

Therefore, the conclusion: "So, the male advantage here is 8 calories per 1 hour run." Seemed quite off to me, and I am someone who mostly agrees with your underlying point here.

It's not off at all -- because net (not including BMR) running calories are based on your weight. So the fact that I weigh 2 lbs less than the average women means I burn 8 fewer calories on a 1 hour run. If you see something wrong with the math, feel free to provide calculations that contradict those numbers. I created 2 profiles on loseit.com (which is where all my data is) which uses net exercise calories to generate the exercise numbers. The TDEE based on activity numbers just came from https://tdeecalculator.net/

lemurcat2 wrote: »

It's not realistic for everyone wanting to lose 2 lb/week (or whatever) to lose 50% of that by immediately increasing activity. This is because: (1) some people are already active (as Ann covered); and (2) they may not be fit enough yet to add a lot of activity and also burn out is a risk.

Agreed and I never suggested this. You aren't the first to misunderstand that, so it's definitely my fault for not stating it clearly. I've assumed that people have the entire thread context but I'll repeat this again -- in one of my first comments on exercise calories I stated that when I first started I only worked out 15 minutes per day, 1 day lift 15 minutes the next a brisk walk for 15 minutes -- no running. I built up to this over time. One month in, during my first fat to fit transition 10 years ago, I was burning around 300 calories per day -- which is good enough for .6lbs per week deficit. To me .6 lbs is not insignificant and took weeks to build up to, not months. For comparison, couch 2 5k is an 8 week program. I wouldn't recommend that for someone older and/or obese that has never been fit, but it's a popular program and many people follow it (caveat, I've never followed C25k). The fact is the more obese someone is the more calories they can burn just walking.

Theoldguy1 wrote: »

freda78 wrote: »

As said, weight loss is in the kitchen, but there are many people who have families, full time jobs and get 2 hours of exercise/activity a day.

Yes.

And for them it's usually an enjoyable hobby they are passionate about.

...Not people who were recently sedentary.

*I* get 2 hours of exercise every day. But I fell into it because I fell in love with a sport and was passionate about it. It took me about 8 years to go from doing it for an hour once a week to working at it a couple of hours a day most days.

And it earns me about 300 calories or so most days.