10 ms·

I think a big part of the issue is that popular fitness and weight loss advice has perpetuated the wrong way to exercise to loose weight. When most people think

by _9omd 5y ago

I think a big part of the issue is that popular fitness and weight loss advice has perpetuated the wrong way to exercise to loose weight. When most people think about exercise for weight loss, they imagine long exhausting sessions on the treadmill, dripping with sweat, and a high calorie burn number. While the short term results may seem great based on the immediate calories burned, it's actually a terrible strategy for several reasons. 1) You become more efficient at repeated exercise, so the calories burned number on the machine is not accurate. 2) Your hunger will increase to compensate for the calories burned and you'll subconsciously eat more if not carefully tracking. 3) Excessive cardio and reduced calories can increase daytime cortisol levels and reduce resting metabolic rate. 4) Excessive cardio and reduced calories can cause muscle wasting and further reduce metabolic rate. A better long term strategy is a strength training program with short cardio sessions. You'll build muscle which will increase the resting metabolism and avoid the over exertion stress that can lead to decreased metabolic rate. Of course, at the end of the day it really is calories in calories out (despite the naysayers). But, the devil is in the details, because measuring calories out is extremely difficult unless you're willing to live in a sealed room that monitors your exhaled CO2 24/7. Diet (not how much but what you eat), sleep, and stress can have a large impact on the metabolic rate, and thus drastically change the CICO calculation.

sizzle 5y ago
Some very bold claims, would love some citations to give them more credibility. HIIT workouts are great for cardiovascular fitness and melted the fat off of me that I gained from a sedentary lifestyle spanning the last 2-3 years for example.
acchow 5y ago
> When most people think about exercise for weight loss, they imagine long exhausting sessions on the treadmill, dripping with sweat This is a major education/communication issue. When I switched to weightlifting, I started seeing rapid and significant results. And I don't even really sweat from it (except on leg day)
PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
> 2) Your hunger will increase to compensate for the calories burned and you'll subconsciously eat more if not carefully tracking. This is also a oft-made claim that doesn't have much backing. Part of the point of the research described in TFA is that humans who face specific periods of energy expenditure during the day may often simply reduce energy expenditure during the rest of the day so that TEE remains roughly constant. I know many endurance athletes (having been one) who would report that some levels of exercise actually result in appetite suppression.
- pjerem 5y ago
  Also anecdotal, but I’m not an athlete (like, the inverse of an athlete, I’m overweight and don’t move enough) and moderate exercising does, in my case, suppress some appetite. I eat les after exercising. My 2 cents theory is that it suppress the "stress induced" appetite.
  - bluecalm 5y ago
    It might also increase dopamine. I have ADHD and there are two things that let me focus better and feel less hungry: stimulants and exercise.
    - pjerem 5y ago
      Oh ! I have ADHD too so maybe it’s that.
- MayeulC 5y ago
  If you are low on sugar (therefore hungry) for a while, your body will start burning fat (lipolysis) to restore sugar levels. This will suppress apetite. It's easy to experience, although it can take longer for lipolysis to start if you're not used to. Of course, eating sugar during or before exercise delays it.
- lhuser123 5y ago
  I have a bias towards the idea that we are very different, and it really depends on many unknown factors that apply only to one specific individual.
nu11ptr 5y ago
If you fall into a routine CICO isn't that difficult in practice. First, while sleep/stress definitely impact the equation unless you are at an unusual life crisis, the ups and downs mostly balance out over time. Second, I don't recommend counting calories, at least not in the traditional way. Instead, eat a fairly standardized diet at least on a weekly basis, so roughly the same meals (doesn't have to be exact). Eat a quantity of food such that you neither gain nor lose weight over a period of time (a couple of weeks with daily weigh ins is sufficient to ensure a flat line on a chart). Adjust intake until the line is flat if you start seeing a trend up or down. Now, to lose weight simple subtract 500 calories per day from what you eat (if you eat packaged foods, assume an extra 20% from the calories on the label). You should now have near exactly 1 lbs. per week weight loss. The reverse also works if you want to put on some weight. I do each of these once per year as a "mini-bulk" and a "mini-cut". I track my weigh ins on my Fitbit - it is a near perfect diagonal trend line over the 2-3 month period I do this. NOTE: It is important to weigh in daily (at same time - I recommend first thing in morning after flushing the system) precisely because your weight fluctuates on a day to day basis by 2-3lbs. It takes a few days of weigh ins to see a trend change on the graph and you need to be able to adjust your intake if you are off.
- onethought 5y ago
  > Now, to lose weight simple subtract 500 calories per day from what you eat I appreciate you are trying to be helpful. But most of what you said assumes a certain level or privilege (resources time/money/ableness) that the vast majority of people don't have. People working long hour jobs, or double jobs, or balancing kids/parent responsibilities. Often fast food is the only obvious option, and people aren't buying it until well into the throws of a low blood sugar event. This coupled with metabolic/genetic differences can really muck up any given diet. What works of you doesn't just not work for everyone, it isn't even possible for everyone to follow. That said, I know you are being helpful - my words or more to help those that might read them and be saying: "I did all that and it didn't work!"
  - petesergeant 5y ago
    > Often fast food is the only obvious option Ironically fast food often has some of the most easily available calories and macronutrient ratio. Working out the calories and macro for a home-made meal can be much more time-consuming
waterhouse 5y ago
> measuring calories out is extremely difficult unless you're willing to live in a sealed room that monitors your exhaled CO2 24/7 Is even that sufficient? Like, would you be able to tell the difference between "oxidation done by the body to generate energy for human cells" and "oxidation done by bacteria that feast on calories your human cells didn't get"? Maybe you could tell by the mixture of other gases, but I suspect CO2 itself wouldn't suffice.
- hattmall 5y ago
  >"oxidation done by bacteria that feast on calories your human cells didn't get"? That would still be part of calories in.
- _9omd 5y ago
  Yeah, that's a very good point. This is kinda getting off into the weeds from the original point, but interesting weeds nonetheless :). This study[0] says that measuring CO2 is not enough, and that indirect calorimetry is the gold standard for measuring energy expenditure (EE). "Calculated EE based on CO2 measurement was not sufficiently accurate to consider the results as an alternative to measured EE by indirect calorimetry. Therefore, EE measured by indirect calorimetry remains as the gold standard to guide nutrition therapy." Google says "Indirect calorimetry is the method by which measurements of respiratory gas exchange (oxygen consumption, V O 2 and carbon dioxide production, V CO 2 ) are used to estimate the type and amount of substrate oxidized and the amount of energy produced by biological oxidation." So getting back to your point, if bacteria are feasting on part of the calories and producing CO2, it seems that it would throw off the results even using indirect calorimetry. At that point though are we kinda arguing semantics? While our microbiome isn't composed of human cells, you can still argue it's a part of our functioning organism. It seems it would be nearly impossible to measure human digested calories vs bacteria digested calories, so maybe the results are close enough. Also, many beneficial bacteria release calories that we can consume, like butyric acid, which further complicates things. [0] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/labs/pmc/articles/PMC5251283/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/labs/pmc/articles/PMC5251283/
  - Dylan16807 5y ago
nradov 5y ago
You have a few correct points but are mostly spreading misinformation. Repeated exercise will only improve efficiency by a few percent at most, and then only for certain activities. For cycling, efficiency hardly improves at all. The calories shown on gym equipment are often nonsense but the latest generation of fitness trackers are reasonably accurate and can be worn 24/7. You have to get into really long cardio sessions with no carbohydrate supplements before that has any significant catabolic effect. This is not a concern for casual athletes. Strength training is great, but it should be combined with some form of cardio in a comprehensive fitness program.
- leksak 5y ago
  > latest generation of fitness trackers are reasonably accurate and can be worn 24/7. I've heard claims of 30% inaccuracy. Not sure if that applies to the absolute latest generation but I'd be happy to know if my understanding is outdated
wolverine876 5y ago
> a terrible strategy It may be less effective for losing weight, but exercise, including and especially cardio, is a great and essential strategy for other health reasons.
isitmadeofglass 5y ago
> You'll build muscle which will increase the resting metabolism This is another myth. Even if you put on a serious amount of muscle, the change to your daily calorie burn is insignificantly increased in the larger scale of things. Don’t to strength training to lose weight, so Strength training to get strong.
- krona 5y ago
  The change in metabolic rate is a homeostatic adaptation of the body due to increased energy expenditure due to exercise. You can measure it in a metabolic chamber, and 200-300 calories per day during rest time is not unusual for male athletes.
- AngryData 5y ago
  I don't know if I can accept that offhand because high levels of muscle atrophy is a human adapted trait specifically to save calories for the brain. If muscle maintenance costs were so insignificant why would we have adapted a trait to make us physically weaker? This is anecdotal but the difference between what I can eat working on a farm with having lots of muscle mass and sitting around on a computer with that same muscle mass was not really significant. But the difference between sitting at a desk with a lot of muscle mass and sitting at a desk with noticeably less muscle mass is night and day in how much I have to eat. With small and inconsistent amounts of strength exercise to maintain a bit more muscle mass again, my caloric expenditure went back up, far beyond what is lost from the exercise itself.
confidantlake 5y ago
Meh idk. Look at any long distance runners. They are skinny. Based on my own ancedotal evidence when I am running often I tend to be 20lbs less than when I don't.

by _9omd 5y ago

sizzle 5y ago

Some very bold claims, would love some citations to give them more credibility. HIIT workouts are great for cardiovascular fitness and melted the fat off of me that I gained from a sedentary lifestyle spanning the last 2-3 years for example.

acchow 5y ago

> When most people think about exercise for weight loss, they imagine long exhausting sessions on the treadmill, dripping with sweat This is a major education/communication issue. When I switched to weightlifting, I started seeing rapid and significant results. And I don't even really sweat from it (except on leg day)

PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago

> 2) Your hunger will increase to compensate for the calories burned and you'll subconsciously eat more if not carefully tracking. This is also a oft-made claim that doesn't have much backing. Part of the point of the research described in TFA is that humans who face specific periods of energy expenditure during the day may often simply reduce energy expenditure during the rest of the day so that TEE remains roughly constant. I know many endurance athletes (having been one) who would report that some levels of exercise actually result in appetite suppression.

pjerem 5y ago
Also anecdotal, but I’m not an athlete (like, the inverse of an athlete, I’m overweight and don’t move enough) and moderate exercising does, in my case, suppress some appetite. I eat les after exercising. My 2 cents theory is that it suppress the "stress induced" appetite.
- bluecalm 5y ago
  It might also increase dopamine. I have ADHD and there are two things that let me focus better and feel less hungry: stimulants and exercise.
  - pjerem 5y ago
    Oh ! I have ADHD too so maybe it’s that.
MayeulC 5y ago
If you are low on sugar (therefore hungry) for a while, your body will start burning fat (lipolysis) to restore sugar levels. This will suppress apetite. It's easy to experience, although it can take longer for lipolysis to start if you're not used to. Of course, eating sugar during or before exercise delays it.
lhuser123 5y ago
I have a bias towards the idea that we are very different, and it really depends on many unknown factors that apply only to one specific individual.

nu11ptr 5y ago

If you fall into a routine CICO isn't that difficult in practice. First, while sleep/stress definitely impact the equation unless you are at an unusual life crisis, the ups and downs mostly balance out over time. Second, I don't recommend counting calories, at least not in the traditional way. Instead, eat a fairly standardized diet at least on a weekly basis, so roughly the same meals (doesn't have to be exact). Eat a quantity of food such that you neither gain nor lose weight over a period of time (a couple of weeks with daily weigh ins is sufficient to ensure a flat line on a chart). Adjust intake until the line is flat if you start seeing a trend up or down. Now, to lose weight simple subtract 500 calories per day from what you eat (if you eat packaged foods, assume an extra 20% from the calories on the label). You should now have near exactly 1 lbs. per week weight loss. The reverse also works if you want to put on some weight. I do each of these once per year as a "mini-bulk" and a "mini-cut". I track my weigh ins on my Fitbit - it is a near perfect diagonal trend line over the 2-3 month period I do this. NOTE: It is important to weigh in daily (at same time - I recommend first thing in morning after flushing the system) precisely because your weight fluctuates on a day to day basis by 2-3lbs. It takes a few days of weigh ins to see a trend change on the graph and you need to be able to adjust your intake if you are off.

onethought 5y ago
> Now, to lose weight simple subtract 500 calories per day from what you eat I appreciate you are trying to be helpful. But most of what you said assumes a certain level or privilege (resources time/money/ableness) that the vast majority of people don't have. People working long hour jobs, or double jobs, or balancing kids/parent responsibilities. Often fast food is the only obvious option, and people aren't buying it until well into the throws of a low blood sugar event. This coupled with metabolic/genetic differences can really muck up any given diet. What works of you doesn't just not work for everyone, it isn't even possible for everyone to follow. That said, I know you are being helpful - my words or more to help those that might read them and be saying: "I did all that and it didn't work!"
- petesergeant 5y ago
  > Often fast food is the only obvious option Ironically fast food often has some of the most easily available calories and macronutrient ratio. Working out the calories and macro for a home-made meal can be much more time-consuming

waterhouse 5y ago

> measuring calories out is extremely difficult unless you're willing to live in a sealed room that monitors your exhaled CO2 24/7 Is even that sufficient? Like, would you be able to tell the difference between "oxidation done by the body to generate energy for human cells" and "oxidation done by bacteria that feast on calories your human cells didn't get"? Maybe you could tell by the mixture of other gases, but I suspect CO2 itself wouldn't suffice.

hattmall 5y ago
>"oxidation done by bacteria that feast on calories your human cells didn't get"? That would still be part of calories in.
_9omd 5y ago
Yeah, that's a very good point. This is kinda getting off into the weeds from the original point, but interesting weeds nonetheless :). This study[0] says that measuring CO2 is not enough, and that indirect calorimetry is the gold standard for measuring energy expenditure (EE). "Calculated EE based on CO2 measurement was not sufficiently accurate to consider the results as an alternative to measured EE by indirect calorimetry. Therefore, EE measured by indirect calorimetry remains as the gold standard to guide nutrition therapy." Google says "Indirect calorimetry is the method by which measurements of respiratory gas exchange (oxygen consumption, V O 2 and carbon dioxide production, V CO 2 ) are used to estimate the type and amount of substrate oxidized and the amount of energy produced by biological oxidation." So getting back to your point, if bacteria are feasting on part of the calories and producing CO2, it seems that it would throw off the results even using indirect calorimetry. At that point though are we kinda arguing semantics? While our microbiome isn't composed of human cells, you can still argue it's a part of our functioning organism. It seems it would be nearly impossible to measure human digested calories vs bacteria digested calories, so maybe the results are close enough. Also, many beneficial bacteria release calories that we can consume, like butyric acid, which further complicates things. [0] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/labs/pmc/articles/PMC5251283/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/labs/pmc/articles/PMC5251283/
- Dylan16807 5y ago

nradov 5y ago

You have a few correct points but are mostly spreading misinformation. Repeated exercise will only improve efficiency by a few percent at most, and then only for certain activities. For cycling, efficiency hardly improves at all. The calories shown on gym equipment are often nonsense but the latest generation of fitness trackers are reasonably accurate and can be worn 24/7. You have to get into really long cardio sessions with no carbohydrate supplements before that has any significant catabolic effect. This is not a concern for casual athletes. Strength training is great, but it should be combined with some form of cardio in a comprehensive fitness program.

leksak 5y ago
> latest generation of fitness trackers are reasonably accurate and can be worn 24/7. I've heard claims of 30% inaccuracy. Not sure if that applies to the absolute latest generation but I'd be happy to know if my understanding is outdated

wolverine876 5y ago

> a terrible strategy It may be less effective for losing weight, but exercise, including and especially cardio, is a great and essential strategy for other health reasons.

isitmadeofglass 5y ago

> You'll build muscle which will increase the resting metabolism This is another myth. Even if you put on a serious amount of muscle, the change to your daily calorie burn is insignificantly increased in the larger scale of things. Don’t to strength training to lose weight, so Strength training to get strong.

krona 5y ago
The change in metabolic rate is a homeostatic adaptation of the body due to increased energy expenditure due to exercise. You can measure it in a metabolic chamber, and 200-300 calories per day during rest time is not unusual for male athletes.
AngryData 5y ago
I don't know if I can accept that offhand because high levels of muscle atrophy is a human adapted trait specifically to save calories for the brain. If muscle maintenance costs were so insignificant why would we have adapted a trait to make us physically weaker? This is anecdotal but the difference between what I can eat working on a farm with having lots of muscle mass and sitting around on a computer with that same muscle mass was not really significant. But the difference between sitting at a desk with a lot of muscle mass and sitting at a desk with noticeably less muscle mass is night and day in how much I have to eat. With small and inconsistent amounts of strength exercise to maintain a bit more muscle mass again, my caloric expenditure went back up, far beyond what is lost from the exercise itself.

confidantlake 5y ago

Meh idk. Look at any long distance runners. They are skinny. Based on my own ancedotal evidence when I am running often I tend to be 20lbs less than when I don't.