4 ms·
I think you're arguing past each other - magicalhippo is arguing that it's easier, willpower-wise, to eat one less slice of pizza than it is to go to the gym an
by beaconstudios 8y ago
I think you're arguing past each other - magicalhippo is arguing that it's easier, willpower-wise, to eat one less slice of pizza than it is to go to the gym and run on a treadmill for 20 minutes. Either way it's less caloric surplus.
- craftyguy 8y agoI'm not arguing with anyone. I agree with their comment. They are addressing the 'calorie in' part, and I the 'calorie out' part. Obviously you can't focus only on one and not the other. Limiting intake is sometimes easier, but increasing usage of calories isn't as 'hard' as going to the gym all the time (e.g. walk to work, take stairs, etc)
- beaconstudios 8y agoThen ignore me :^) [edit]: > but increasing usage of calories isn't as 'hard' as going to the gym all the time (e.g. walk to work, take stairs, etc) Not all the time, but given some baseline of activity predicated on having a normal routine that's fairly good (ie including routine exercise like your listed examples), increasing activity further is likely to be more strenuous than lowering consumption. Or in other words, once you're past the quick wins that you can easily integrate into your day you're more likely to get results from decreasing/improving consumption.
- craftyguy 8y agoYea totally agree with your edit/point. I was originally advocating for adoption of the quick wins, since I still see lots of folks who want to lose weight but couldn't be bothered to, for example, walk up a flight of stairs (despite being physically capable of doing so).