5 ms·

Walking "several miles per day" isn't sufficient enough to burn tens of pounds without a major diet change. Even at 5 miles per day, you'd be likely burning 35

Walking "several miles per day" isn't sufficient enough to burn tens of pounds without a major diet change. Even at 5 miles per day, you'd be likely burning 350-450kCal, which is not enough of an expenditure to make that much of a difference. For weight loss, even moderate exercise will not yield same results as significant diet changes will.

jjice 5y ago
The parent said > in part because I assume the other part is diet change from being in European countries.
- sasawpg 5y ago
  The parent implied diet was less impactful than walking.
DiggyJohnson 5y ago
It's hard to disagree with such a objective view, but I would like to validate that I've seen similar changes in my friends and peers that travel. A reduced diet and moderate exercise can really do more than you expect.
thebean11 5y ago
Walking burns more calories if you are carrying around lots of weight..
marginalia_nu 5y ago
The advice really should depend on where you are. There's an old adage that says "you can't outrun your fork", and that's very much true. Cardio alone will often be compensated by increases in hunger. If you aren't on top of your diet, then exercising probably won't amount to much. In general, if you are very heavy, you can usually get away with significant calorie deficits through diet alone, as your base metabolic rate is so high. You should still be active for other health benefits, but your weight loss is best accomplished from from eating better and less. But the lighter you get, the more cardio matters, because at some point you'll start to have problems getting nutrition from not eating enough. This is especially true if you are getting shredded. I think this is in part why there's so much conflicting advice on this. You have former fat people saying "nah, it's all diet", and you have very fit people saying "no way, it's totally cardio". They're both right, in their respective domain.
culturestate 5y ago
> Walking "several miles per day" isn't sufficient enough to burn tens of pounds...you'd be likely burning 350-450kCal [per day] Assuming your diet (and thus your caloric intake) stayed exactly the same, burning an extra ~450 calories per day should net a loss of ~4 pounds per month. Over, say, a six-month span, that'd be roughly 20 pounds lost - easily within the bounds of "tens of pounds after several months."
- sasawpg 5y ago
  And yet somehow walking alone does not seem to be a sufficient weight loss method for vast majority of people (nor does moderate cardio which burns considerably more).
- caeril 5y ago
  > Assuming your diet (and thus your caloric intake) stayed exactly the same Correct, but how many fat people are going to "reward" their efforts with a 450kcal treat? Answer: Most.
  - culturestate 5y ago
    Possibly, but the implication here is that you aren't specifically exercising - you're just being more active as a byproduct of being in a different environment. The impetus to "reward" yourself for that behavior would seem to be lower. On days that I go to an office, I don't (consciously) base my lunch decisions on whether I walked, took the train, or used a car service that morning, know what I mean?
    - caeril 5y ago
      > I don't (consciously) base my lunch decisions on whether I walked Emphasis on consciously. Your leptin/ghrelin balance will do that for you, and you won't even think about it.
- sasawpg 5y ago
  Unfortunately, weight loss is slightly more complicated than that, 450kCal/day for a month isn't quite 4lbs/month (even for fat) and my estimate of 350-450kCal/day for walking several miles is likely an over-estimate. I would find it quite unlikely for most people to lose even 20lbs only as a result of added walking in 6 months without diet changes.
anonymousab 5y ago
I think going from almost no exercise to walking a few miles a day probably has enough of a positive effect as to help some people break the "feel like crap > eat comfort and junk food to feel better > feel like crap later" death spiral. If they had reached some sort of "stable" level of obesity, that is if they had plateaud their weight gain naturally, then a sudden consistent 400kcal deficit would result in some change. Assuming they didn't eat more to make up for it.
syki 5y ago
Walking alone with no other changes will do little for weight loss. But exercise does affect diet and satiety. There are also changes in terms of mental well being. Keeping active has benefits well beyond mere calorie expenditure. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34869516/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34869516/
lkbm 5y ago
350kCal a day is about 30LBs of fat per month. The challenge is adding five miles of walking without your diet ramping up to offset it.
- sasawpg 5y ago
  You'll want to double check your math. 350kCal/day for a month is just over 10kCal. That's definitely not 30lbs of fat or even remotely close.

jjice 5y ago

The parent said > in part because I assume the other part is diet change from being in European countries.

sasawpg 5y ago
The parent implied diet was less impactful than walking.

DiggyJohnson 5y ago

It's hard to disagree with such a objective view, but I would like to validate that I've seen similar changes in my friends and peers that travel. A reduced diet and moderate exercise can really do more than you expect.

thebean11 5y ago

Walking burns more calories if you are carrying around lots of weight..

marginalia_nu 5y ago

The advice really should depend on where you are. There's an old adage that says "you can't outrun your fork", and that's very much true. Cardio alone will often be compensated by increases in hunger. If you aren't on top of your diet, then exercising probably won't amount to much. In general, if you are very heavy, you can usually get away with significant calorie deficits through diet alone, as your base metabolic rate is so high. You should still be active for other health benefits, but your weight loss is best accomplished from from eating better and less. But the lighter you get, the more cardio matters, because at some point you'll start to have problems getting nutrition from not eating enough. This is especially true if you are getting shredded. I think this is in part why there's so much conflicting advice on this. You have former fat people saying "nah, it's all diet", and you have very fit people saying "no way, it's totally cardio". They're both right, in their respective domain.

culturestate 5y ago

> Walking "several miles per day" isn't sufficient enough to burn tens of pounds...you'd be likely burning 350-450kCal [per day] Assuming your diet (and thus your caloric intake) stayed exactly the same, burning an extra ~450 calories per day should net a loss of ~4 pounds per month. Over, say, a six-month span, that'd be roughly 20 pounds lost - easily within the bounds of "tens of pounds after several months."

sasawpg 5y ago
And yet somehow walking alone does not seem to be a sufficient weight loss method for vast majority of people (nor does moderate cardio which burns considerably more).
caeril 5y ago
> Assuming your diet (and thus your caloric intake) stayed exactly the same Correct, but how many fat people are going to "reward" their efforts with a 450kcal treat? Answer: Most.
- culturestate 5y ago
  Possibly, but the implication here is that you aren't specifically exercising - you're just being more active as a byproduct of being in a different environment. The impetus to "reward" yourself for that behavior would seem to be lower. On days that I go to an office, I don't (consciously) base my lunch decisions on whether I walked, took the train, or used a car service that morning, know what I mean?
  - caeril 5y ago
    > I don't (consciously) base my lunch decisions on whether I walked Emphasis on consciously. Your leptin/ghrelin balance will do that for you, and you won't even think about it.
sasawpg 5y ago
Unfortunately, weight loss is slightly more complicated than that, 450kCal/day for a month isn't quite 4lbs/month (even for fat) and my estimate of 350-450kCal/day for walking several miles is likely an over-estimate. I would find it quite unlikely for most people to lose even 20lbs only as a result of added walking in 6 months without diet changes.

anonymousab 5y ago

I think going from almost no exercise to walking a few miles a day probably has enough of a positive effect as to help some people break the "feel like crap > eat comfort and junk food to feel better > feel like crap later" death spiral. If they had reached some sort of "stable" level of obesity, that is if they had plateaud their weight gain naturally, then a sudden consistent 400kcal deficit would result in some change. Assuming they didn't eat more to make up for it.

syki 5y ago

Walking alone with no other changes will do little for weight loss. But exercise does affect diet and satiety. There are also changes in terms of mental well being. Keeping active has benefits well beyond mere calorie expenditure. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34869516/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34869516/

lkbm 5y ago

350kCal a day is about 30LBs of fat per month. The challenge is adding five miles of walking without your diet ramping up to offset it.

sasawpg 5y ago
You'll want to double check your math. 350kCal/day for a month is just over 10kCal. That's definitely not 30lbs of fat or even remotely close.