In a calorie deficit, scale isn't moving, Split
Options
Replies
-
BartBVanBockstaele wrote: »(snip)
In the end, this is the thing: an energy deficit WILL lead to fat loss. The way to do that, is to reduce intake to below what is needed. I often call that "less than you need to stay alive" because at the only reason that you don't die is that you have fat storage, the very thing you want to reduce.
Food energy content is relatively easy to measure but it is highly unreliable. One reason is simply that food is a natural product. Nothing in nature is constant. Look at an apple tree: no two apples are the same, no two apples look identical, no two apples taste exactly the same. Not even when they are hanging from the same branch. As a result, predicting how much fat one will lose in one day, is impossible and even over a few weeks, it is at best imprecise which is precisely why the tolerance margins on food labels are as high as they are.
The same is true for exercise. The numbers given may suggest precision but that is a false idea. The numbers are there because they are the result of experiments, but they are by no means precise, they are averages that indicate an idea of how much energy is consumed but nothing more.
I hope this whole epistle will give some type of an idea of what I mean by "undetectable".
Nobody denies that there is an effect, but you can say with almost absolute certainty that the effect is undetectable or unmeasurable or undeterminable.
Repeating myself: We don't need precision. We need a workable estimate.
Our BMR/RMR is an estimate (unless lab-measured, in which case it's still point in time, not invariant).
Our activity level from daily life is an estimate.
Our food logging, however meticulous, is - as you point out - essentially an estimate.
We just need workable estimates.
As far as I can tell - could be wrong - you don't exercise, outside of walking. Walking is a good exercise, but humans are quite efficient at it, so it's a relatively low calorie burner on the overall scale of common exercise. You've given no indication that you have any practical experience with more intense exercise in the context of weight management.
For exercise, as with the other factors, all we need is a workable estimate. Workable estimates are not out of reach, for many exercise activities, as a practical thing. Yes, the calories cannot be measured exactly outside a metabolic lab. Neither can any of those other things, in practical terms. We can succeed anyway, because workable estimates are plenty good enough.
As to whether normal, non-athlete people can exercise enough to be meaningful to what matters for weight loss - yes, energy deficit - there's ample evidence that they can. Even if we can't quantify the calories to the degree of exactitude you seem to want of exercise energy expenditure (but can't get for any other factor), there are ample indications from research that normal people can spend 10% or more of TDEE in half an hour to an hour of quite a few common exercises. That's a meaningful contributor to energy deficit (when losing weight) or to energy needs (when maintaining).
It is a disservice to say otherwise to others here, because that is misleading and inaccurate, when using normal, practical definitions of words like "undetectable".
I cannot "say with almost absolute certainty that the effect is undetectable or unmeasurable or undeterminable", because both my practical experience and my reading of research on the subject tell me that that is utterly untrue. "Unmeasurable" in the strictest sense, maybe. But capable of being estimated in a workable, practical, useable way.
5 -
I have never seen a meta-analysis that showed that weight loss specifically ascribed to exercise was more than about a kg or so in six months to a year. You cannot detect that at home, unless you really are prepared to work hard for several months to get a tiny result that you can't even reliably see on a scale until several months after starting the exercise.BartBVanBockstaele wrote: »(snip)
In the end, this is the thing: an energy deficit WILL lead to fat loss. The way to do that, is to reduce intake to below what is needed. I often call that "less than you need to stay alive" because at the only reason that you don't die is that you have fat storage, the very thing you want to reduce.
Food energy content is relatively easy to measure but it is highly unreliable. One reason is simply that food is a natural product. Nothing in nature is constant. Look at an apple tree: no two apples are the same, no two apples look identical, no two apples taste exactly the same. Not even when they are hanging from the same branch. As a result, predicting how much fat one will lose in one day, is impossible and even over a few weeks, it is at best imprecise which is precisely why the tolerance margins on food labels are as high as they are.
The same is true for exercise. The numbers given may suggest precision but that is a false idea. The numbers are there because they are the result of experiments, but they are by no means precise, they are averages that indicate an idea of how much energy is consumed but nothing more.
I hope this whole epistle will give some type of an idea of what I mean by "undetectable".
Nobody denies that there is an effect, but you can say with almost absolute certainty that the effect is undetectable or unmeasurable or undeterminable.
Repeating myself: We don't need precision. We need a workable estimate.
Our BMR/RMR is an estimate (unless lab-measured, in which case it's still point in time, not invariant).
Our activity level from daily life is an estimate.
Our food logging, however meticulous, is - as you point out - essentially an estimate.
We just need workable estimates.
As far as I can tell - could be wrong - you don't exercise, outside of walking. Walking is a good exercise, but humans are quite efficient at it, so it's a relatively low calorie burner on the overall scale of common exercise. You've given no indication that you have any practical experience with more intense exercise in the context of weight management.
For exercise, as with the other factors, all we need is a workable estimate. Workable estimates are not out of reach, for many exercise activities, as a practical thing. Yes, the calories cannot be measured exactly outside a metabolic lab. Neither can any of those other things, in practical terms. We can succeed anyway, because workable estimates are plenty good enough.
As to whether normal, non-athlete people can exercise enough to be meaningful to what matters for weight loss - yes, energy deficit - there's ample evidence that they can. Even if we can't quantify the calories to the degree of exactitude you seem to want of exercise energy expenditure (but can't get for any other factor), there are ample indications from research that normal people can spend 10% or more of TDEE in half an hour to an hour of quite a few common exercises. That's a meaningful contributor to energy deficit (when losing weight) or to energy needs (when maintaining).
It is a disservice to say otherwise to others here, because that is misleading and inaccurate, when using normal, practical definitions of words like "undetectable".
I cannot "say with almost absolute certainty that the effect is undetectable or unmeasurable or undeterminable", because both my practical experience and my reading of research on the subject tell me that that is utterly untrue. "Unmeasurable" in the strictest sense, maybe. But capable of being estimated in a workable, practical, useable way.
As I have said multiple times, no one claims that it is impossible for exercise to have results, only that in order to get really good results, you need to keep up an exercise regimen, such as in the Biggest Loser, and keep that up for long enough. That is something only a lucky few have even the privilege to attempt. Nevertheless, I thank you for the reactions, it has motivated me to once again spend several hours looking for a good meta-analysis that showed clinically significant weight loss due to exercise. I did not find any.
It has also led me to find this funny guy:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fCtn4Ap8kDM 0 -
As far as I can see, no one here is saying that exercise is the key to weight loss. 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.
I did lots of exercise (hundreds of calories per average day) for over a decade, and stayed fat. It was easy. I get that it's easy, that exercise alone doesn't produce miraculous weight loss results without considering calorie intake.
When I decided to lose weight by calorie counting, I didn't materially increase or decrease that exercise. I knew that I needed to account for those same average hundreds of calories daily - one way or another - in planning and accomplishing a sensible (adequate but not extreme) calorie deficit. That's simple common sense, I would think, for anyone who believes that energy balance is the key to weight loss.
The calorie burn from normal amounts of many common exercises is not a negligible number. It does not require "Biggest Loser" or super athlete amounts of exercise for the exercise calories to be a significant number.
Separately logging exercise calories, on top of a base calorie goal that already reflects a deficit, is one practical way of managing the calorie accounting in order to accomplish weight loss. Workable estimates for the exercise calories are achievable.
Speaking personally, because my exercise is variable, seasonal, and weather dependent, a fixed calorie goal every day is not as practical for me as logging exercise separately when I do it. Many people here on MFP have done this successfully, and continue to do this successfully. I am one.
The exercise calories I've accounted for in the past 365 days are unevenly distributed, but average out to around 240 calories per day. The exercise is not extremely lengthy or intense, it's in the normal range of things that average people can do, and many people do that much.
That's also around 10% of my TDEE, perhaps a bit more. That's a bit under half a pound a week of weight loss, if I don't eat those calories. In maintenance, I can't afford to lose nearly 26 pounds a year. Because my exercise in reality is quite unevenly distributed day to day, week to week, and season to season, I'd be under-fueling activity if I set a fixed calorie amount to eat every day. That would be likely to impair my exercise performance, and make me unhappy and possibly less healthy besides.
Exercise calories from normal people's normal exercise can make a material difference when planning a sensible calorie goal for weight loss and maintenance. You are misleading people here who are newly wrangling with these issues when you say or imply otherwise.
(Edited to correct minor error in arithmetic.)5 -
I am going to make a few statements I believe to be true.
TLDR: creating an additional energy deficit of 250 calories per day through exercise should lead to a fat/weight loss of about a half pound per week beyond what your loss rate may be currently.
First some definitions:- BMR = Basal Metabolic Rate. This is the energy your body uses just to be alive. If you were in a coma, you’d use this amount of energy. Your brain uses most of the energy required of your BMR.
- NEAT = Non-exercise activity thermogenesis. This is the number that MFP generates as your base calorie goal either from using the guided set-up or from you inputting it based on your experience. It is the energy your body uses including BMR but also to do the things you normally do, like walking to the kitchen to make coffee, getting the mail, riding your bike to work if you don’t count that as exercise, and contemplating your navel.
- TDEE = Total Daily Energy Expenditure. This is your NEAT plus any other energy you use, such as intentional exercise or things that aren’t part of your normal day, like running as fast as you can away from a charging bear or climbing Denali. Or just going for a swim. Or playing horseshoes.
- Calorie = a unit of energy. In the food world, it actually is 1000 calories. A calorie as a unit of energy is the amount of energy it takes to raise one gram of water (for water this is also one ml and also one cubic centimeter) one degree Celcius from standard temperature at atmospheric pressure. A Joule is another unit of energy that is an SI Unit (an internationally accepted unit of measurement). A joule is the energy required to produce one watt of power for one second. For food, a kilojoule, or kJ is about 0.239 “calories.”
- A calorie deficit = when the number of calories consumed is less than TDEE.
- A calorie surplus = when the number of calories consumed is greater than TDEE.
- A calorie deficit of 3500 calories should lead to the loss of one pound of fat; a surplus of 3500 calories should result in gaining a pound.
With that in mind:
It is generally a bad idea to consume fewer calories than your BMR. If you eat the same number of calories as your BMR, and if you do any activity at all, you should have at least a small deficit, and you should lose weight over time.
If you are using MFP to lose weight, you have set your daily calorie goal to be something lower than your TDEE. What you really did was likely to set your calorie goal to less than your NEAT with the expectation you would enter intentional exercise, and that would increase your goal. If you eat exactly the number of net calories (base plus intentional exercise), you will maintain the planned deficit and should lose about the intended rate.
The confounding factor is these are estimates. The energy your body uses for normal activity (BMR) and for non-exercise activity (NEAT) and for exercise (TDEE) may differ somewhat from these estimates. If you log completely and accurately for several weeks, you can adjust your goal to get to your intended loss (or gain) target. You can also observe how different levels of exercise impact your deficit and fine tune those.
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. If that puts you at an unhealthy weight loss rate, you should eat more calories! How many? Well, I’d say 250.
I really do think it’s that simple. Sorry it took so many words.
3 -
BartBVanBockstaele wrote: »I have never seen a meta-analysis that showed that weight loss specifically ascribed to exercise was more than about a kg or so in six months to a year. You cannot detect that at home, unless you really are prepared to work hard for several months to get a tiny result that you can't even reliably see on a scale until several months after starting the exercise. As I have said multiple times, no one claims that it is impossible for exercise to have results, only that in order to get really good results, you need to keep up an exercise regimen, such as in the Biggest Loser, and keep that up for long enough. That is something only a lucky few have even the privilege to attempt. Nevertheless, I thank you for the reactions, it has motivated me to once again spend several hours looking for a good meta-analysis that showed clinically significant weight loss due to exercise. I did not find any
You would have been able to eat more food had you been both able and willing to spent that same amount of time out walking instead.
Walking, by the way, especially when done "for exercise" and at a faster pace IS moderate exercise and DOES count towards your exercise "quota" that provides health benefits to you when you perform such.
Did I mention more food? I mean... I'm on MFP. I am definitely food motivated. Call me a girl puppy but if you ring a bell and dangle chocolate... chances are good I'll show up!
My BMR per Mifflin, MFP, and Fitbit, is... drum-roll... 1536! This means that most estimates will have my sedentary TDEE at 1843, with MFP including a tiny bit more and setting me up at 1920 for sedentary maintenance.
And yet... and yet my TDEE is actually closer to 2900 based on my own estimations.
By the way, Fitbit for the past 31 days says I averaged 17814 steps a day, for a total of 1755 calories from activities and a total of 2981 Cal burned a day (which would include the 1755). Fitbit makes this info available via data export from their web-site.
You will note two things here. Fitbit thinks I burn a few more calories per day than *I* do based on my food intake logging prowess and scale evidence. Not a lot more. But a few.
And sailrabbit considers 2918 Cal to be the expenditure for someone "extremely active, very heavy physical work or exercise every day, Professional/Olympic athlete.
i am not going to deny that I leave my computer chair and seek to get some activity. And 17814 steps a day is well above the number performed by your average cat.
But Olympic Athlete? Yeah right!
A quick look at my first year on MFP says I averaged 17970 steps. That would be your no longer Class III by that time; but still Class II obese, 48+ yo "Olympic" athlete that a few months prior could NOT manage to consistently hit 5,000 steps a day for a full month. Took three full months to work up to that and I already HAD a dog!
This increased to 19597 in year two. Decreasing to 19104 in year three and 18813 in year four. Sorry. No easily accessible details for years five, six or seven, or the beginning of year eight... just the past 31 days from year eight.
I mean I don't think that everyone can have the luxury, as you put it, to be very active. Time and privilege excluded, many people have actual health challenges that would preclude that.
But many people also spend a good three plus hours a day watching TV. Or surfing the internet. Or reading a book. Or gaming. Or...
And a pace of 100 steps a minute (6,000 steps an hour) has been validated a couple of times as being in the realm of moderate exercise for many participants.
So, 20 minutes before work. 20 at lunch. 20 after work. 20 after dinner and you're already at 8000 steps. With another 2000 thrown in randomly during the day to go to the bathroom and you've hit 10000 and you're operating at the equivalent to MFP "active" if you were to not log any of that activity separately.
BUT, as you said: you DON'T **NEED** any of this to lose weight. Truly, the 1.3kg box of cookies you don't eat will have more of an effect on your weight than the 10,000 steps you do, or do not, take.
But, at the same time, I hope you will forgive me if I continue to enjoy more than 95% of the 2981 Cal that Fitbit thinks I burned. And that I limit any deficits I engage in to no more than 10% to 20% of that.
And that I continue to believe that the good 1000 Cal difference between my being active and not so active is of significance to me. Even though I am NOT dedicating my whole day to activity.
I admit, however, to being 100% TV deficient other than when visiting relatives! And that IS a choice I've made. While also choosing a method of activity/exercise that offers the fewest barriers to entry and requires the least amount of preparation and planning8 -
All these words aside...Bart doesn't want to exercise. He admits he lost his impressive amount of weight without doing "exercise." He likes to split hairs and define things in extreme ways - like "detectable."
Technically (for internet forums at least,) everyone is right. "Detectable" to Bart means, "Ya can't exactly pin down a precise number." BUT that is true for all the weight management numbers. We do the best we can. Bart just uses more words and is willing to debate with anyone and everyone.
It is cutting the lawn with fingernail clippers, one blade at a time.
If someone doesn't like exercise and doesn't want to do it and loses XXX pounds without it - he/she is going to use any and all arguments to say, "Exercise is not the key to weight loss." We all know that YouTube will also tell us the world is flat and that you catch Covid from the vaccines, so of course there are those videos.
Exercise calories may be a bit of a gray area but there are so many other benefits to exercise that I don't even care - not the least of which is the FACT that I can eat within my calorie goal very comfortably if I do exercise and I don't/can't stay within calories if I don't. That extra 300 calories per day is huge to me. It's the difference between gaining weight and maintaining weight. The difference between good mental health and anxiety. The difference for my entire body and feeling of well-being I get from regular moderate exercise cannot be overstated. Am I burning 200 or 400 calories? Maybe. Doesn't matter to me. Close enough is good enough for my 15 years of Maintaining my healthy weight.
If Bart can do the same without exercise? Well, I'm not even sure I'd be bragging about that. At some point the body needs to move. It was created that way by design. Plus, sugar and milk in my tea is better than no sugar and milk.
11 -
. Call me a girl puppy but if you ring a bell and dangle chocolate... chances are good I'll show up!BartBVanBockstaele wrote: »I have never seen a meta-analysis that showed that weight loss specifically ascribed to exercise was more than about a kg or so in six months to a year. You cannot detect that at home, unless you really are prepared to work hard for several months to get a tiny result that you can't even reliably see on a scale until several months after starting the exercise. As I have said multiple times, no one claims that it is impossible for exercise to have results, only that in order to get really good results, you need to keep up an exercise regimen, such as in the Biggest Loser, and keep that up for long enough. That is something only a lucky few have even the privilege to attempt. Nevertheless, I thank you for the reactions, it has motivated me to once again spend several hours looking for a good meta-analysis that showed clinically significant weight loss due to exercise. I did not find any
This is my fave line on MFP ever! 🤣 I am totally nicking “girl puppy”!
5 -
I had a really wonderful boss when I started my last career. Not so much by the time I left; the good one retired.
That good boss always had something relevant to say. There was a time when I had been asked to give a presentation at an annual event. It was something I was an expert on. Another person I know and actually respect was going to be speaking in the same panel. That person actually asked me NOT to speak to a specific topic he was going to be speaking about. He was generally knowledgeable, he had a good intention, and he also had an agenda. He didn't want the people in the audience to hear conflicting information. His talk was going to say the opposite of what he knew I was going to say. I eveWn had data. Did I mention I was the local expert?
Anyway, before the event, I spoke to my boss about it. He smiled, looked me in the eyes and said, "Don't confuse me with the facts." I gave my talk as planned. People came and asked both of us questions. I don't think anyone was confused. What the other person had to say had validity, just not in all circumstances. In this case, our climate was such that what his agenda would have people do would not achieve the desired outcome. But it would feel good to do it.
I think that sometimes happens here.
Thank you @PAV8888 and @cmriverside for the well-reasoned and data-filled posts.
4 -
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.
As for how detectable weight loss by exercise is, it is the same problem: no one is saying that it is impossible, but we know that it is al but undetectable. How do we know that? Because if it were easy to demonstrate, we would have the data that proves it, and hardly anyone would doubt it.
Carl Sagan once said that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. I happen to disagree with that. Absence of evidence *is* evidence of absence, it is just not *proof* of absence.
The exercise claim reminds me of Dr. Oz who had to admit in the US senate that he had no proof for his claims but that he was giving people "hope". People are better off without hope and with proof or at elast evidence.0 -
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.12 -
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
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.7K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 395 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 959 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions