5 ms·

Why is that low? One mile is very little. But running at least 3-4 miles it is about 500kcal for that person. Is that little? Even 150-200kcal daily will make b

by ssijak 8y ago

Why is that low? One mile is very little. But running at least 3-4 miles it is about 500kcal for that person. Is that little? Even 150-200kcal daily will make big difference in a year. And that is not even accounting for health benefits beside weight.

freehunter 8y ago
I doubt an overweight person is running 3-4 miles per day, that would be incredibly strenuous amounts of exercise.
- tsenkov 8y ago
  Sure, but they can probably walk at least that. And (not) surprisingly walking is comparable (usually about 1/2 from jogging) as energy expenditure. Low intensity exercise (cardio) is the biggest burner of energy, since you can sustain it for long periods of time. Try burning 500 Kcal with weight lifting. You will quickly see that an hour long walk is much easier thing to do.
  - AnIdiotOnTheNet 8y ago
    It's still easier to just not eat that 500kcal.
    - tsenkov 8y ago
      Is it? When you are losing weight for more than a month, I guarantee you, if you are a reasonable person, you wouldn't be losing a donut with those 500 Kcal. You'd instead be giving up 500grams (almost 2 pounds) of tomatoes + 80 grams of cheese + slice of wholegrain bread. That's a meal right there. BTW, training during weight loss (by caloric restriction, at least) is mostly done to keep your existing muscle mass + keep metabolic rate up. You wouldn't train to create a bigger deficiency. So every calorie you burn through training (even low-intensity) you should intake back as food. I will be walking for about an 1.5h tonight to "gather" some calories for dinner. I spend my rations for a bit more caloric lunch and now I will have to pay for it. :)
      - AnIdiotOnTheNet 8y ago
        Yeah, I lost and kept off half my body weight so clearly I have no idea what I'm talking about random internet know-it-all.
        tsenkov 8y ago
        Correction: 500 grams -> ~ 1.1 pounds, not 2. I've also done a substantial weight loss, while staying healthy (you can check my 1st-level comment in this same discussion). I guess the "random internet know-it-all" is supposed to be me. I am in no way anonymous, btw (you can check my profile for links, in case you want to learn more about me), so maybe you can search for something that I have EVER posted that you are 100% sure was a lie and then try to label me? I find your comment rude and your username appropriate, Ms./Mr. AnIdiotOnTheNet.
        AnIdiotOnTheNet 8y ago
        Half my bodyweight was roughly 160lbs, that's nearly 4 times what you seem to consider "substantial" so you'll forgive me if I think I have a somewhat different perspective on weight loss than you do. Besides which, here's what you've missed in your calculations: Precisely because there are lower calorie foods that you can eat, choosing not to eat 500 extra calories is much easier than 500 calories of walking. You can eat three of the meals you described every day (assuming your math is correct, I didn't check) and only consume 1500kcal, right? Since that's bound to be a deficit for pretty much anybody who actually needs this advice, you don't even need to walk at all. You probably should, just don't kid yourself into thinking that it makes up for poor dietary choices.
        tsenkov 8y ago
        160 lbs loss and that being half of your weight is a huge accomplishment. Congrats! I hope you did it in a healthy and sustainable way and now feel much better than before. If you don't mind me asking - how tall are you, how long did the weight loss last and for how long have you kept the new weight? 44 lbs is about 1/4 of what you needed to do, yes, but that doesn't mean that my accomplishment is not significant. I wouldn't call a 6-month-long starvation insignificant effort. And 1/4 from a billion dollars is still a lot of money, isn't it? In my case it was 19% of my body weight that I trimmed, I am 6ft 1 and I am about 6 lbs above that previous mark, 6 months after I finished my weight-loss sprint (and this year I will continue to go down). As I said - I wouldn't exercise to create a deficit. I would do it after I have achieved a big-enough deficit, and would replenish any calories expended through it with food. So I don't try to argue you should "work" instead of "starve" - I am arguing that you should "starve" to get that deficit in and then "work to preserve muscle; continue burning on a good rate; eat more". Does that make sense?

by ssijak 8y ago

freehunter 8y ago

I doubt an overweight person is running 3-4 miles per day, that would be incredibly strenuous amounts of exercise.

tsenkov 8y ago
Sure, but they can probably walk at least that. And (not) surprisingly walking is comparable (usually about 1/2 from jogging) as energy expenditure. Low intensity exercise (cardio) is the biggest burner of energy, since you can sustain it for long periods of time. Try burning 500 Kcal with weight lifting. You will quickly see that an hour long walk is much easier thing to do.
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 8y ago
  It's still easier to just not eat that 500kcal.
  - tsenkov 8y ago
    Is it? When you are losing weight for more than a month, I guarantee you, if you are a reasonable person, you wouldn't be losing a donut with those 500 Kcal. You'd instead be giving up 500grams (almost 2 pounds) of tomatoes + 80 grams of cheese + slice of wholegrain bread. That's a meal right there. BTW, training during weight loss (by caloric restriction, at least) is mostly done to keep your existing muscle mass + keep metabolic rate up. You wouldn't train to create a bigger deficiency. So every calorie you burn through training (even low-intensity) you should intake back as food. I will be walking for about an 1.5h tonight to "gather" some calories for dinner. I spend my rations for a bit more caloric lunch and now I will have to pay for it. :)
    - AnIdiotOnTheNet 8y ago
      Yeah, I lost and kept off half my body weight so clearly I have no idea what I'm talking about random internet know-it-all.
      - tsenkov 8y ago
        Correction: 500 grams -> ~ 1.1 pounds, not 2. I've also done a substantial weight loss, while staying healthy (you can check my 1st-level comment in this same discussion). I guess the "random internet know-it-all" is supposed to be me. I am in no way anonymous, btw (you can check my profile for links, in case you want to learn more about me), so maybe you can search for something that I have EVER posted that you are 100% sure was a lie and then try to label me? I find your comment rude and your username appropriate, Ms./Mr. AnIdiotOnTheNet.
        AnIdiotOnTheNet 8y ago
        Half my bodyweight was roughly 160lbs, that's nearly 4 times what you seem to consider "substantial" so you'll forgive me if I think I have a somewhat different perspective on weight loss than you do. Besides which, here's what you've missed in your calculations: Precisely because there are lower calorie foods that you can eat, choosing not to eat 500 extra calories is much easier than 500 calories of walking. You can eat three of the meals you described every day (assuming your math is correct, I didn't check) and only consume 1500kcal, right? Since that's bound to be a deficit for pretty much anybody who actually needs this advice, you don't even need to walk at all. You probably should, just don't kid yourself into thinking that it makes up for poor dietary choices.
        tsenkov 8y ago
        160 lbs loss and that being half of your weight is a huge accomplishment. Congrats! I hope you did it in a healthy and sustainable way and now feel much better than before. If you don't mind me asking - how tall are you, how long did the weight loss last and for how long have you kept the new weight? 44 lbs is about 1/4 of what you needed to do, yes, but that doesn't mean that my accomplishment is not significant. I wouldn't call a 6-month-long starvation insignificant effort. And 1/4 from a billion dollars is still a lot of money, isn't it? In my case it was 19% of my body weight that I trimmed, I am 6ft 1 and I am about 6 lbs above that previous mark, 6 months after I finished my weight-loss sprint (and this year I will continue to go down). As I said - I wouldn't exercise to create a deficit. I would do it after I have achieved a big-enough deficit, and would replenish any calories expended through it with food. So I don't try to argue you should "work" instead of "starve" - I am arguing that you should "starve" to get that deficit in and then "work to preserve muscle; continue burning on a good rate; eat more". Does that make sense?