I never understood why it is regarded as "terrible". I bike to my workplace daily. It a little over 10k each way and is taken at a quite leisurely pace of 20kph in moderately hilly terrain.
Most calculators and my pulsewatch agree it's around 800-900 kcal, which is almost a quarter of my TDEE.
Someone eating at maintenance and started cycling to work would lose almost a kilogram per week without any adjustment in diet.
Because studies are made by fat scientists who have no clue about that shit. It's like orthopedics and physiotherapists, if you don't go to sports oriented ones you're totally fricked.
Exercise is extremely important to losing weight. But not weightlifting. Real exercise. Cycling is one of them, but fit is fat and is scared of cardio. When you talk about exercise they only think about their powershitting.
>I eat in between 3800-4000kcal and the unless I have some freak malabsorption disease I am burning them somewhere.
That's probably the case. I recommend you to see a doctor.
4000kcals is a diet of some bodybuilders
Bodybuilders who do resistance training... Which burn almost no calories. Anybody with a decently active lifestyle will easily burn through over a thousand calories per day of physical activity. Especially if you are tall and pack on a lot of muscle mass those numbers will run away.
I am often physically struggling to eat at maintenance when doing mountain trekking or ski-hikes since 6-8 hour and a 1000m altitude gain will shoot you into 5-6000kcal TDEE range.
This is a weird question but how should I start biking for fitness? Should I just hop on and ride around random roads? I work remotely so I don’t have a commute.
I am already walking 10k to 20k steps a day and it is doing absolutely nothing for me besides making my heels hurt
>Most calculators and my pulsewatch agree it's around 800-900 kcal, which is almost a quarter of my TDEE.
damn guess that means you can drink 4 sodas and still lose weight since that's less
>Exercise is still important though.
For the average dyel it's at best extra credit and at worst is something that will cause them to feel miserable and burn out.
If your diet sucks your entire bodily makeup is completely fricked. That means your hormones are messed up, your brains messed up, your body struggles to control itself, your hunger is out of whack, your emotions are out of whack, you do things you dont even think are related to diet but are, you basically are trying to swim against the tide if your diet is shit but you exercise a lot. You will feel like a lazy piece of shit because your body is completely fricked from the bottom up
Lifting burns plenty of calories. Your body needs calories to repair the damaged muscle tissue, so you're burning calories days after lifting as well. Also, the more muscle you have, the more calories your body needs to maintain.
Cutting breakfast and eating light at lunch and dinner makes it really easy. Actually, if you eat a big lunch (within reason) and skip dinner it makes it even easier. I'm at like ~1k calories a day by skipping breakfast and eating a light dinner and I'm cutting well
More or less.
Obese people are basically stuck in this cycle of mobilizing and storing the same fat over and over again because they never get their bloodsugar low enough to burn fat. So a deficit and carb regulation is going to be what's most effective for them.
Normal bodyfat people have no issue switching between fat and carb metabolism so all they realistically need is a deficit to lose weight.
Lean people as in under 14% bodyfat have progressively harder time mobilizing fat to oxidize at which point this is where exercise would be the most beneficial to burning fat before this point diet is all that really matters. You should still exercise to retain lean mass but it's not for the sake of burning more fat. If anything exercising too much on a deficit can push your protein demands past where your diet can realistically meet them because of protein synthesis being impaired and can lead to issues like connective tissue degradation.
Here is the logic regular people use
Scenario 1: >workout >have shit diet >dont lose weight or gain more
Scenario 2: >have good diet >lose weight >therefore working out does not help with weight loss
But what normal people doesn't understand is that your health is more than just your weight. These people can still ahve shit cardiovascular system, cns, flexibility, skeletal system, muscular system, etc.
Normal people are dumb as shit when it comes to the basics of anything
>eat at maintenance >start working out >losing weight and lifts are not progressing as quickly >Nah, this doesn't mean you are spending any energy. Its something totally different
this anon has never worked out on a cut in their life
What this says is that if people do one thing, they are too lazy to do something else.
The claim you are making is false, and this is horseshit science. >women ran for x minutes and then they were too lazy to do anything else >we made some mice sedentary then put them on a wheel >this means exercise is useless
Women and mice. LMAO
>Exercise doesn't increase energy expenditure
You are unimaginably moronic.
So why do animals hibernate, dumbass?
>science is... LE FAKE >my feelings and anecdotes are... LE REAL
you are too fricking braindead to even be able to grasp the extent of your stupidity
Reduces metabolic calorie burn until food becomes plentiful again
3 months ago
Anonymous
>Reduces metabolic calorie burn
How does that happen? Are you really going to try to say the following two statements are true: >Lack of exercise reduces metabolism >Exercise doesn't increase metabolism
3 months ago
Anonymous
notice he sopped replying to you
if he doesn't apologize his entire family dies tonight
>eat at maintenance >start working out >losing weight and lifts are not progressing as quickly >Nah, this doesn't mean you are spending any energy. Its something totally different
this anon has never worked out on a cut in their life
>posts pictures with no abstract >expects people to read some nerd shit instead of giving a case >still believes energy is fake and can do unlimited reps of every lift at any weight >weight loss is not real
What this says is that if people do one thing, they are too lazy to do something else.
The claim you are making is false, and this is horseshit science. >women ran for x minutes and then they were too lazy to do anything else >we made some mice sedentary then put them on a wheel >this means exercise is useless
Women and mice. LMAO
What it says is that daily energy expenditure is limited. Just like a gas generator has a maximum capacity for generating energy. Plugging more stuff into the generator doesn't cause it to exceed its energy generation capacity.
Organisms have a fixed daily energy budget. Spending more on exercise doesn't allow you to exceed your budget, it just takes budget from one thing (e.g. brain function) and moves it elsewhere.
Why don't Hadza who walk for 10 hours every day use more energy than sedentary Americans?
>Why don't Hadza who walk for 10 hours every day use more energy than sedentary Americans?
Because their body mass is so low. Can you not read your own fricking chart? Walking is an extremely efficient exercise, and if you actually understood Pontzers work you'd know that time spent walking has no impact on calories burnt. It's the distance that determines calories burned.
It's actually simpler. Our bodies learn to do tasks more energy effeciently the larger and less novel the expenditure is. Particularly those related to cardio. I think it's misleading representing bmr/other as getting smaller when it's pretty close to static and is overlapping heavily because of heat generation.
Don't believe this homosexual. Meta-analysis says no. Even best evidence for the constraint case isn't complete, merely diminishing returns. All demoralizers must hang.
total energy expenditure still increased, it just fell short of the additive model. What that homosexual is arguing is that you'll magically fall to coma tier BMR levels. 0 met change.
Any of the actual literature around this is going on about "neither constrained nor additive is complete picture."
"High dose" falls short by a wider margin than "low dose" which shows that constrained DEE is reality. They are reaching the upper limit of their DEE, because it is constrained. Additive DEE is impossible.
Here's your constraint effect bro. Notice how it's absolutely dwarfed still by the calories from activity?
You're just like the vegans trumpeting red meat causing "18% higher incidence rate of cancer" when it's really 1.2 out of 1000 instead of 1. Technically true, but who gives a shit?
This study also concludes that constrained DEE is reality, additive DEE is false.
>we find evidence for an alimentary energy supply limit in humans of ~2.5× BMR; greater expenditure requires drawing down the body’s energy stores.
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.aaw0341
This is technically true, but extremely misleading. In humans, this "constrained DEE" effect only starts making a significant difference when you burn more than 2.5x your BMR daily.
You even admit that yourself here
This study also concludes that constrained DEE is reality, additive DEE is false.
>we find evidence for an alimentary energy supply limit in humans of ~2.5× BMR; greater expenditure requires drawing down the body’s energy stores.
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.aaw0341
You're mad.
And considering that BMR is around 1500 kcal for the average guy, who has a sedentary TDEE of about 2000 kcal, this would mean that that person would have to burn 1750 kcal (1500*2.5=3750; 3750-2000 = 1750) through exercise every single day for this "constraining" to make a difference. This is the equivalent of running at a moderate pace for 2.5 hours every single day. That's the level of exercise of an athlete, not that of the average Joe trying to lose his beer gut.
Plus your body cannot infinitely adjust your metabolism downwards, it has to expend a certain amount of energy to keep you alive, whether you want it or not. So it's possible to burn as many calories as you want (with the only limit being you dropping from overexhaustion), it's just that it will be somewhat less efficient after a certain point.
Exercise is really good for two things if you're fat. It helps to get your body metabolising properly and it helps you to make good decisions through the day. A person who is consciously dieting and walking or using the row machine 3 times a week is much less likely to binge out on a dozen donuts or bucket of frid chicken. But, just exercising and not changing your diet is not gonna make you lose weight.
>it helps you to make good decisions through the day
lol no it doesn't. I know plenty of morons that make even worse diet decisions simply because they just worked out
I’m literally a scientist, got my PhD and everything, also a bit drunk. Honestly, anything that is totally counterintuitive and goes against the grain of how people have existed for thousands of treats, I’d take with a fricking massive scoop of salt.
Mostly it’s some shill journo or opportunistic company that extrapolates clickbait claims from a paper that drew a very specific conclusion from experiments in a very specific setting. Sometimes this is exacerbated by b***h ass researchers who are just desperate for their work to be acknowledged by more than the 14 people in the world with the exact same hyperfixation as them.
Most good scientists will pointedly disagree with overreaching claims based on their research, and go back to autistically obsessing about their favourite transcription factor.
Anybody who says “the science says we should…” is a moronic c**t. Science doesn’t give a frick what we do. “Should” requires vague judgements, which science can’t make. Science might be able to tell us how something (probably) happened, or what will (probably) happen if we do something. Saying “scientists say that we should…” is less incorrect, but scientists don’t have a monopoly on moral values or what our positive outcomes should look like. It’s just a slightly more educated version of “My mate Dave from the pub says that we should…”, and Dave might well be more in touch with real life on a holistic level.
I hate the midwit science groupies so fricking much bros…
They're right. Exercise makes me overeat. My body thinks it's cool to binge eat as long as my workout was intense. If I just focused on diet my fat would melt away and all the coping would be over.
>someone with no practical experience in fat loss writes article telling you that all the people who have actual firsthand experience and credentials are totally wrong and they are right
And you dumb goys spend the time reading this shit like the morons you are.
>burn fat
vs >build muscle
depends on what you do. Besides, I wouldn't trust shit like this. People treat science the way chicks treat horoscopes. They don't actually care about it, the word just has strength and they prostitute it for cheap validation.
>work out >get hungrier >eat more because "i burned calories"
There. Thats what the clickbait headline is hiding. They're not trying to say exercise HARMS weight loss, its just the usual >did you know morons are moronic? studies have shown that
>on a cut >workout 4-5x a week >cardio 3x a week >maintaining musculature while losing weight
If I were to cut the same weight each week while being sedentary, I'd whittle away to nothing >t.15 years lifting experience
lol at all these demoralizing dyel in this thread
This unironically is true. If you focus on exercise you’ll eat more and your body will compensate. If you eat way less your body can do whatever the frick it wants, you are going to lose weight
Why the frick isn't there a single comment itt mentioning the huge loss of musculature on a cut without resistance training? The loss of strength on a cut without lifting?
I literally am convinced there isn't a single person in this thread that lifts, not a single one. Just zoomers pretending kek
More or less.
Obese people are basically stuck in this cycle of mobilizing and storing the same fat over and over again because they never get their bloodsugar low enough to burn fat. So a deficit and carb regulation is going to be what's most effective for them.
Normal bodyfat people have no issue switching between fat and carb metabolism so all they realistically need is a deficit to lose weight.
Lean people as in under 14% bodyfat have progressively harder time mobilizing fat to oxidize at which point this is where exercise would be the most beneficial to burning fat before this point diet is all that really matters. You should still exercise to retain lean mass but it's not for the sake of burning more fat. If anything exercising too much on a deficit can push your protein demands past where your diet can realistically meet them because of protein synthesis being impaired and can lead to issues like connective tissue degradation.
but you're probably right this board is mostly fat people
What are your goals?
Are you purely here for weight loss?
Lifting will help you maintain muscle mass as you lose weight
If you literally just want to see number on scale go down and don't care if you're setting yourself up for future problems (low muscle mass, lower energy expenditure, when/if you can't maintain your diet you're going to be more likely to gain fat while having less muscle than before you started) then just eat less. Exercise is likely making you hungrier.
It's true,you will burn maybe 500 maybe 600 extra calories a day if you work a physical job that has you standing on your feet and then you hit the gym,meanwhile it's easier to just not eat 500 calories
This is complete bullshit. Sure diet is technically more important because you can consume way more calories at any point than you can reasonably burn, but that isn't to say exercise can't greatly accelerate the process. I follow a triathlon training schedule of about 10.5 hrs/week of running, biking, and swimming, and on my shortest workouts of an hour I am burning at least 500 kcal, which represents a 25% increase to my daily burn from my BMR alone. On my longer weekend workouts of 2-3 or more hours I am approaching a 200% or greater increase (4,000-5,000 kcal in a day including BMR). Any person following a reasonable diet would definitely burn like crazy under these conditions, but it takes time to be able to sustain my level of intensity for that long.
What these people don't realize is that exercising, especially endurance sports but for really anything else too, is a skill that increases burn rate with experience. You just don't burn that much walking relative to runs of increasing paces, and yet walking seems to be the hallmark of exercise when it comes to evaluating fitness. Where is the biking, swimming, and running? It looks to me that fitness studies that actually emphasize high-intensity cardio ARE consistently successful at producing long-term weight loss.
This is all in addition to the glaringly obvious fact that exercise contributes to sustained strengthening which is equally important as weight control in maintaining health. Like another anon said above, if you're just losing weight via diet, you're going to end up regaining the losses in fat when you deviate from the plan at some point in the future. Building muscle directly and indirectly helps weight loss by burning calories and assisting you in becoming more efficient in your workouts, which in turn burns more calories.
Also these studies reasonably emphasize overweight if not obese individuals because they're the ones that the community is most concerned about when it comes to weight loss. For relatively fit people looking to cut but who demonstrate good performance otherwise, these results become even less relevant because you ARE capable of sustaining high intensity workouts that will ultimately shred calories while building strength.
One of the articles mentioned in the paper and a TIME article with the same message specifically referenced exercise periods of 30 minutes as being more than what the average person is willing to do. This is a pathetic limit and it's obvious why they think exercise isn't important as a result. A lifestyle that can't support an hour or more of working out per day will inevitably lead back into weight gain unless a person really does adhere totally to their diet for the foreseeable future.
I generally agree, but the last part of your argument is a bit shoddy. Not all exercise builds a lot of muscle, and specifically cardio builds only very little muscle because it mostly puts stress on your cardiovascular system, not your muscles. If we're going for maximum muscle built, resistive exercise would be the obvious choice.
That's fair. I would revise the original post to say that developing cardiovascular health and/or muscular strength. Both serve to optimize exercise and its outcomes.
let me give you a bit of insight op, a small nugget of truth from the perspective of a playable character
I do not lift because it's easy, I don't do it to be in shape or look good, I don't do it for the pussy or to live longer or as a hobby
the reason I lift is because I hate each and every one of you midwit npcs with such a fiery passion that if I were not lifting weights I would go on a murder spree
they would have to call in the national guard, tanks would run through the streets and cities would be one fire if people like me stopped lifting
I project all my hate and disdain towards our world and the people inhabiting it into lifting, it doesn't drive me, it pacifies me
I am just one price hike in eggs away from dismembering at least 10 thousand of you npcs
All of this nonsense is based on the premise that exercise doesn't burn all that many calories, and counting calories is considered the gold standard of weight. In reality whether you want to eat in the first place is largely determined by hormones, and exercise promotes hormones that make you want to eat less thus is a double whammy. You burn energy plus want to take in less.
This is only true because the body doesn’t like to lose calories. If you burn an additional 500 calories, you will subconsciously move around less to get them back. This is very very easy to circumvent by simply using a step counter.
read the sticky
weight loss in done in the kitchen, not the gym
thread should have ended here, locked, and stickied, and OP banned publicly.
OP forced to Goatse publicly with timestamp
Weight loss is probably mostly done in bed, during the overnight fast
fat burning happens mostly at night, why good sleep is important
do it in both
In general exercise is terrible for losing weight. Diet is way more important.
I never understood why it is regarded as "terrible". I bike to my workplace daily. It a little over 10k each way and is taken at a quite leisurely pace of 20kph in moderately hilly terrain.
Most calculators and my pulsewatch agree it's around 800-900 kcal, which is almost a quarter of my TDEE.
Someone eating at maintenance and started cycling to work would lose almost a kilogram per week without any adjustment in diet.
Because studies are made by fat scientists who have no clue about that shit. It's like orthopedics and physiotherapists, if you don't go to sports oriented ones you're totally fricked.
Exercise is extremely important to losing weight. But not weightlifting. Real exercise. Cycling is one of them, but fit is fat and is scared of cardio. When you talk about exercise they only think about their powershitting.
Weightlifting is the most important one. Not for the extra energy expenditure but preservation of lean mass.
Can you bench 2pl8?
>Most calculators and my pulsewatch agree it's around 800-900 kcal, which is almost a quarter of my TDEE.
They're not reliable.
The fact that I track calories periodically and had maintained my weight gives a pretty good indicator that it's quite accurate.
I eat in between 3800-4000kcal and the unless I have some freak malabsorption disease I am burning them somewhere.
>I eat in between 3800-4000kcal and the unless I have some freak malabsorption disease I am burning them somewhere.
That's probably the case. I recommend you to see a doctor.
4000kcals is a diet of some bodybuilders
Bodybuilders who do resistance training... Which burn almost no calories. Anybody with a decently active lifestyle will easily burn through over a thousand calories per day of physical activity. Especially if you are tall and pack on a lot of muscle mass those numbers will run away.
I am often physically struggling to eat at maintenance when doing mountain trekking or ski-hikes since 6-8 hour and a 1000m altitude gain will shoot you into 5-6000kcal TDEE range.
There is no fricking way on God's green Eart that a 10k bike ride at a leisurely pace burns 800-900 kcal.
Not even fricking close.
You're burning maybe 250 kcal. Maybe.
This is a weird question but how should I start biking for fitness? Should I just hop on and ride around random roads? I work remotely so I don’t have a commute.
I am already walking 10k to 20k steps a day and it is doing absolutely nothing for me besides making my heels hurt
Even if you burn that many calories, is still way easier to just skip a meal.
>Most calculators and my pulsewatch agree it's around 800-900 kcal, which is almost a quarter of my TDEE.
damn guess that means you can drink 4 sodas and still lose weight since that's less
Diet is more important to weight loss than exercise. Exercise is still important though.
>Exercise is still important though.
For the average dyel it's at best extra credit and at worst is something that will cause them to feel miserable and burn out.
If your diet sucks your entire bodily makeup is completely fricked. That means your hormones are messed up, your brains messed up, your body struggles to control itself, your hunger is out of whack, your emotions are out of whack, you do things you dont even think are related to diet but are, you basically are trying to swim against the tide if your diet is shit but you exercise a lot. You will feel like a lazy piece of shit because your body is completely fricked from the bottom up
Only a moron would think exercise before diet
Exersize isn't for losing weight. It's for being better than average
>better than others
I have 60+ studies that not having sex with me leads to alzheimers. Wheres my nobel prize?
Losing weight is 80% diet (CICO, deficit).
Cardio speeds up the process.
Lifting does shitall because it barely burns calories.
>Lifting does shitall because it barely burns calories.
It's true, I don't even lift, I take meth and sit at my computer all day, have a six pack.
>I take meth and sit at my computer all day
used to the same and gooning for the whole nights, ah sweet times
Lifting burns plenty of calories. Your body needs calories to repair the damaged muscle tissue, so you're burning calories days after lifting as well. Also, the more muscle you have, the more calories your body needs to maintain.
Fatty cope
I'm the opposite of fat. I literally hate fat people.
Exercise is good for gaining energy, cardiovascular health, and building muscles. Staying active is always better than being sedentary.
But 90% of weight loss comes from diet. You can’t outrun a bad diet. Working out for 20 minutes only burns 200-300 calories max.
This is true.
We should exercise to build muscle.
You should weight lift to increase muscle mass and BMR.
Cutting breakfast and eating light at lunch and dinner makes it really easy. Actually, if you eat a big lunch (within reason) and skip dinner it makes it even easier. I'm at like ~1k calories a day by skipping breakfast and eating a light dinner and I'm cutting well
Bye bye muscle
I eat 500 g protein per day
That's 2000 Calories by definition. Not ~1000. Checkmate atheists
Take steroids or you'll lose all your muscle mass
Unless you're a dwarf
More or less.
Obese people are basically stuck in this cycle of mobilizing and storing the same fat over and over again because they never get their bloodsugar low enough to burn fat. So a deficit and carb regulation is going to be what's most effective for them.
Normal bodyfat people have no issue switching between fat and carb metabolism so all they realistically need is a deficit to lose weight.
Lean people as in under 14% bodyfat have progressively harder time mobilizing fat to oxidize at which point this is where exercise would be the most beneficial to burning fat before this point diet is all that really matters. You should still exercise to retain lean mass but it's not for the sake of burning more fat. If anything exercising too much on a deficit can push your protein demands past where your diet can realistically meet them because of protein synthesis being impaired and can lead to issues like connective tissue degradation.
This. This is all it is but morons don't understand.
Diet makes you lose weight
Exercises will merely make it easier
Trust the studies goy
Exercise to lose weight is dangerous, your clothes might catch on fire.
Here is the logic regular people use
Scenario 1:
>workout
>have shit diet
>dont lose weight or gain more
Scenario 2:
>have good diet
>lose weight
>therefore working out does not help with weight loss
But what normal people doesn't understand is that your health is more than just your weight. These people can still ahve shit cardiovascular system, cns, flexibility, skeletal system, muscular system, etc.
Normal people are dumb as shit when it comes to the basics of anything
Anyone who believes additive DEE has been living a lie. Pic related.
Exercise doesn't increase energy expenditure.
Get out moron
You don't even lift
>science is... LE FAKE
>my feelings and anecdotes are... LE REAL
you are too fricking braindead to even be able to grasp the extent of your stupidity
Why do animals hibernate if exercise doesn't increase daily energy expenditures? Surely science has an answer to this.
Does every animal hibernate? Why or why not?
Doesn't matter. Mammals hibernate. Why?
Reduces metabolic calorie burn until food becomes plentiful again
>Reduces metabolic calorie burn
How does that happen? Are you really going to try to say the following two statements are true:
>Lack of exercise reduces metabolism
>Exercise doesn't increase metabolism
notice he sopped replying to you
if he doesn't apologize his entire family dies tonight
You used a nonanime female reaction image so your opinion is invalid
>eat at maintenance
>start working out
>losing weight and lifts are not progressing as quickly
>Nah, this doesn't mean you are spending any energy. Its something totally different
this anon has never worked out on a cut in their life
>work out
>brain is deprived of energy
>can't understand simple charts
>posts pictures with no abstract
>expects people to read some nerd shit instead of giving a case
>still believes energy is fake and can do unlimited reps of every lift at any weight
>weight loss is not real
>believing additive DEE
>lifts slow and stop progressing
Its almost like your Energy Expenditure plateaus over time.
This lines up so much my experiences lifting+running on dynamic calorie totals it's unreal.
What this says is that if people do one thing, they are too lazy to do something else.
The claim you are making is false, and this is horseshit science.
>women ran for x minutes and then they were too lazy to do anything else
>we made some mice sedentary then put them on a wheel
>this means exercise is useless
Women and mice. LMAO
What it says is that daily energy expenditure is limited. Just like a gas generator has a maximum capacity for generating energy. Plugging more stuff into the generator doesn't cause it to exceed its energy generation capacity.
Organisms have a fixed daily energy budget. Spending more on exercise doesn't allow you to exceed your budget, it just takes budget from one thing (e.g. brain function) and moves it elsewhere.
Why don't Hadza who walk for 10 hours every day use more energy than sedentary Americans?
>Why don't Hadza who walk for 10 hours every day use more energy than sedentary Americans?
Because their body mass is so low. Can you not read your own fricking chart? Walking is an extremely efficient exercise, and if you actually understood Pontzers work you'd know that time spent walking has no impact on calories burnt. It's the distance that determines calories burned.
It's actually simpler. Our bodies learn to do tasks more energy effeciently the larger and less novel the expenditure is. Particularly those related to cardio. I think it's misleading representing bmr/other as getting smaller when it's pretty close to static and is overlapping heavily because of heat generation.
Don't believe this homosexual. Meta-analysis says no. Even best evidence for the constraint case isn't complete, merely diminishing returns. All demoralizers must hang.
Both those studies are demonstrating constrained DEE is true and additive DEE is false.
total energy expenditure still increased, it just fell short of the additive model. What that homosexual is arguing is that you'll magically fall to coma tier BMR levels. 0 met change.
Any of the actual literature around this is going on about "neither constrained nor additive is complete picture."
"High dose" falls short by a wider margin than "low dose" which shows that constrained DEE is reality. They are reaching the upper limit of their DEE, because it is constrained. Additive DEE is impossible.
Here's your constraint effect bro. Notice how it's absolutely dwarfed still by the calories from activity?
You're just like the vegans trumpeting red meat causing "18% higher incidence rate of cancer" when it's really 1.2 out of 1000 instead of 1. Technically true, but who gives a shit?
Forgot image.
This study also concludes that constrained DEE is reality, additive DEE is false.
>we find evidence for an alimentary energy supply limit in humans of ~2.5× BMR; greater expenditure requires drawing down the body’s energy stores.
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.aaw0341
You're mad.
>Exercise doesn't increase energy expenditure
You are unimaginably moronic.
So why do animals hibernate, dumbass?
Because they are cold.
This is technically true, but extremely misleading. In humans, this "constrained DEE" effect only starts making a significant difference when you burn more than 2.5x your BMR daily.
You even admit that yourself here
And considering that BMR is around 1500 kcal for the average guy, who has a sedentary TDEE of about 2000 kcal, this would mean that that person would have to burn 1750 kcal (1500*2.5=3750; 3750-2000 = 1750) through exercise every single day for this "constraining" to make a difference. This is the equivalent of running at a moderate pace for 2.5 hours every single day. That's the level of exercise of an athlete, not that of the average Joe trying to lose his beer gut.
Plus your body cannot infinitely adjust your metabolism downwards, it has to expend a certain amount of energy to keep you alive, whether you want it or not. So it's possible to burn as many calories as you want (with the only limit being you dropping from overexhaustion), it's just that it will be somewhat less efficient after a certain point.
>Plus your body cannot infinitely adjust your metabolism downwards
sure it can, it's called "safe and effective"
Exercise is really good for two things if you're fat. It helps to get your body metabolising properly and it helps you to make good decisions through the day. A person who is consciously dieting and walking or using the row machine 3 times a week is much less likely to binge out on a dozen donuts or bucket of frid chicken. But, just exercising and not changing your diet is not gonna make you lose weight.
>it helps you to make good decisions through the day
lol no it doesn't. I know plenty of morons that make even worse diet decisions simply because they just worked out
I’m literally a scientist, got my PhD and everything, also a bit drunk. Honestly, anything that is totally counterintuitive and goes against the grain of how people have existed for thousands of treats, I’d take with a fricking massive scoop of salt.
Mostly it’s some shill journo or opportunistic company that extrapolates clickbait claims from a paper that drew a very specific conclusion from experiments in a very specific setting. Sometimes this is exacerbated by b***h ass researchers who are just desperate for their work to be acknowledged by more than the 14 people in the world with the exact same hyperfixation as them.
Most good scientists will pointedly disagree with overreaching claims based on their research, and go back to autistically obsessing about their favourite transcription factor.
Anybody who says “the science says we should…” is a moronic c**t. Science doesn’t give a frick what we do. “Should” requires vague judgements, which science can’t make. Science might be able to tell us how something (probably) happened, or what will (probably) happen if we do something. Saying “scientists say that we should…” is less incorrect, but scientists don’t have a monopoly on moral values or what our positive outcomes should look like. It’s just a slightly more educated version of “My mate Dave from the pub says that we should…”, and Dave might well be more in touch with real life on a holistic level.
I hate the midwit science groupies so fricking much bros…
>6 gorillion ~~*studies*~~
What a fricking joke. They want to kill us all, morons. Being weak will make you an easy mark.
They're right. Exercise makes me overeat. My body thinks it's cool to binge eat as long as my workout was intense. If I just focused on diet my fat would melt away and all the coping would be over.
>corporate globohomosexual art
a good indicator that you should ignore all associated information
holy meds schizo
>someone with no practical experience in fat loss writes article telling you that all the people who have actual firsthand experience and credentials are totally wrong and they are right
And you dumb goys spend the time reading this shit like the morons you are.
When I go on month long vidya binges where I literally do nothing but play vidya for 12 hours a day I lose weight.
and how the frick do you have time to do that? the money fairy pays your rent?
No, you do, with your taxes!
Thank you for your cervix
>burn fat
vs
>build muscle
depends on what you do. Besides, I wouldn't trust shit like this. People treat science the way chicks treat horoscopes. They don't actually care about it, the word just has strength and they prostitute it for cheap validation.
Yes, when I was chubby teenager I started losing weight really fast when I stopped drinking soda and switched to sugarless tea, water, and milk.
Why do leftists hate humanity so much?
Because they hate themselves and don't want to be alone in their loathing
>work out
>get hungrier
>eat more because "i burned calories"
There. Thats what the clickbait headline is hiding. They're not trying to say exercise HARMS weight loss, its just the usual
>did you know morons are moronic? studies have shown that
>on a cut
>workout 4-5x a week
>cardio 3x a week
>maintaining musculature while losing weight
If I were to cut the same weight each week while being sedentary, I'd whittle away to nothing
>t.15 years lifting experience
lol at all these demoralizing dyel in this thread
This unironically is true. If you focus on exercise you’ll eat more and your body will compensate. If you eat way less your body can do whatever the frick it wants, you are going to lose weight
Why the frick isn't there a single comment itt mentioning the huge loss of musculature on a cut without resistance training? The loss of strength on a cut without lifting?
I literally am convinced there isn't a single person in this thread that lifts, not a single one. Just zoomers pretending kek
I did here:
but you're probably right this board is mostly fat people
>experts say
What are your goals?
Are you purely here for weight loss?
Lifting will help you maintain muscle mass as you lose weight
If you literally just want to see number on scale go down and don't care if you're setting yourself up for future problems (low muscle mass, lower energy expenditure, when/if you can't maintain your diet you're going to be more likely to gain fat while having less muscle than before you started) then just eat less. Exercise is likely making you hungrier.
>globohomosexual artstyle
Opinion discarded
It's true,you will burn maybe 500 maybe 600 extra calories a day if you work a physical job that has you standing on your feet and then you hit the gym,meanwhile it's easier to just not eat 500 calories
>exercise doesn't help lose weight
This is complete bullshit. Sure diet is technically more important because you can consume way more calories at any point than you can reasonably burn, but that isn't to say exercise can't greatly accelerate the process. I follow a triathlon training schedule of about 10.5 hrs/week of running, biking, and swimming, and on my shortest workouts of an hour I am burning at least 500 kcal, which represents a 25% increase to my daily burn from my BMR alone. On my longer weekend workouts of 2-3 or more hours I am approaching a 200% or greater increase (4,000-5,000 kcal in a day including BMR). Any person following a reasonable diet would definitely burn like crazy under these conditions, but it takes time to be able to sustain my level of intensity for that long.
What these people don't realize is that exercising, especially endurance sports but for really anything else too, is a skill that increases burn rate with experience. You just don't burn that much walking relative to runs of increasing paces, and yet walking seems to be the hallmark of exercise when it comes to evaluating fitness. Where is the biking, swimming, and running? It looks to me that fitness studies that actually emphasize high-intensity cardio ARE consistently successful at producing long-term weight loss.
This is all in addition to the glaringly obvious fact that exercise contributes to sustained strengthening which is equally important as weight control in maintaining health. Like another anon said above, if you're just losing weight via diet, you're going to end up regaining the losses in fat when you deviate from the plan at some point in the future. Building muscle directly and indirectly helps weight loss by burning calories and assisting you in becoming more efficient in your workouts, which in turn burns more calories.
Also these studies reasonably emphasize overweight if not obese individuals because they're the ones that the community is most concerned about when it comes to weight loss. For relatively fit people looking to cut but who demonstrate good performance otherwise, these results become even less relevant because you ARE capable of sustaining high intensity workouts that will ultimately shred calories while building strength.
One of the articles mentioned in the paper and a TIME article with the same message specifically referenced exercise periods of 30 minutes as being more than what the average person is willing to do. This is a pathetic limit and it's obvious why they think exercise isn't important as a result. A lifestyle that can't support an hour or more of working out per day will inevitably lead back into weight gain unless a person really does adhere totally to their diet for the foreseeable future.
>People are too lazy to exercise at a level that burns enough calories
>Therefore CICO doesn't work
Fricking hate modern science.
Especially for people who consider themselves dedicated to weight loss, 30 minutes is absolutely not an unreasonable amount of time...
>if you burn more calories your metabolism will go down
semitic hands typed that article
I generally agree, but the last part of your argument is a bit shoddy. Not all exercise builds a lot of muscle, and specifically cardio builds only very little muscle because it mostly puts stress on your cardiovascular system, not your muscles. If we're going for maximum muscle built, resistive exercise would be the obvious choice.
Other than that, you're obviously right.
That's fair. I would revise the original post to say that developing cardiovascular health and/or muscular strength. Both serve to optimize exercise and its outcomes.
let me give you a bit of insight op, a small nugget of truth from the perspective of a playable character
I do not lift because it's easy, I don't do it to be in shape or look good, I don't do it for the pussy or to live longer or as a hobby
the reason I lift is because I hate each and every one of you midwit npcs with such a fiery passion that if I were not lifting weights I would go on a murder spree
they would have to call in the national guard, tanks would run through the streets and cities would be one fire if people like me stopped lifting
I project all my hate and disdain towards our world and the people inhabiting it into lifting, it doesn't drive me, it pacifies me
I am just one price hike in eggs away from dismembering at least 10 thousand of you npcs
Fat people cope as usual. Weight loss is exercise AND nutrition. People will do literally anything but cardio it's pathetic
All of this nonsense is based on the premise that exercise doesn't burn all that many calories, and counting calories is considered the gold standard of weight. In reality whether you want to eat in the first place is largely determined by hormones, and exercise promotes hormones that make you want to eat less thus is a double whammy. You burn energy plus want to take in less.
This is only true because the body doesn’t like to lose calories. If you burn an additional 500 calories, you will subconsciously move around less to get them back. This is very very easy to circumvent by simply using a step counter.