4 ms·

Worth noting that the longer someone is in a caloric deficit, the more their non-exercise activity thermogenesis (NEAT) drops. NEAT is the caloric burn from thi

Worth noting that the longer someone is in a caloric deficit, the more their non-exercise activity thermogenesis (NEAT) drops. NEAT is the caloric burn from this like random movements and fidgeting, walking around the house, etc. Maintaining a baseline step count creates a NEAT floor, so you're more able to stay in a deficit towards the end of the diet.

em-bee 6y ago
translating this into basic english: burning calories through exercise causes you to move around less otherwise (because you have less energy?), but tracking your steps ensures that you keep moving around as much as before (compensating the lower non-exercise movement with more deliberate exercise movement) and therefore ensuring that you keep burning the same amount of calories. is that correct?
- ghufran_syed 6y ago
  That’s not quite correct. I think of non-exercise activity thermogenesis as being like the idle rate of an internal combustion engine car. If you increase the idle engine rate, it doesn’t affect the fuel consumption at higher activity speeds, but at times when the car is slow or stationary, it would burn more fuel than necessary. In a car, that’s a bad thing. The claim is that doing exercise increases your “idling speed” (NEAT) , or rather stops your body’s idling speed from dropping the way it would normally do during calorie restriction. If you are trying to lose weight, burning “more calories than necessary” would be a good thing
  - em-bee 6y ago
    so that actually means that more exercising has the additional side-effect of also burning more calories even when the body is not moving. but eating less causes the body to reduce burning calories because less calories are coming in. so eating less while exercising more maximizes the effect of weight loss because the body is forced to use up more of the stored fat reserves to compensate for less incoming calories while also needing to burn more due to the exercises.
    - ghufran_syed 6y ago
      that’s correct!
- porb121 5y ago
  no - if you are exercising but eating enough to stay at a maintenance or surplus caloric intake, you will not see any suppression of NEAT

em-bee 6y ago

translating this into basic english: burning calories through exercise causes you to move around less otherwise (because you have less energy?), but tracking your steps ensures that you keep moving around as much as before (compensating the lower non-exercise movement with more deliberate exercise movement) and therefore ensuring that you keep burning the same amount of calories. is that correct?

ghufran_syed 6y ago
That’s not quite correct. I think of non-exercise activity thermogenesis as being like the idle rate of an internal combustion engine car. If you increase the idle engine rate, it doesn’t affect the fuel consumption at higher activity speeds, but at times when the car is slow or stationary, it would burn more fuel than necessary. In a car, that’s a bad thing. The claim is that doing exercise increases your “idling speed” (NEAT) , or rather stops your body’s idling speed from dropping the way it would normally do during calorie restriction. If you are trying to lose weight, burning “more calories than necessary” would be a good thing
- em-bee 6y ago
  so that actually means that more exercising has the additional side-effect of also burning more calories even when the body is not moving. but eating less causes the body to reduce burning calories because less calories are coming in. so eating less while exercising more maximizes the effect of weight loss because the body is forced to use up more of the stored fat reserves to compensate for less incoming calories while also needing to burn more due to the exercises.
  - ghufran_syed 6y ago
    that’s correct!
porb121 5y ago
no - if you are exercising but eating enough to stay at a maintenance or surplus caloric intake, you will not see any suppression of NEAT