3 ms·
As I posted in the intermittent fasting thread (which has never worked for me: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30627290 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?
by dhimes 5y ago
As I posted in the intermittent fasting thread (which has never worked for me: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30627290 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30627290), fitbit was for me the game changer.
I've always lifted weights + cardio for exercise. Fitbit allows me to see that cardio >> weight lifting for calorie burn. Even the idea that "muscle burns more calories that fat" is a red herring because muscle burns about 4 calories per day per pound than fat. How much muscle fiber can someone build in a year? The most Arnold Schwarzenegger ever built was 25 pounds. That's full time professional with all the additives. Most 25 year old men can build maybe 8-10 pounds. Congratulations, you're burning half an Oreo cookie more per day.
Another thing that surprised me is how much more effective low-to-medium intensity exercise is that high intensity- for burning calories. Yes, even including the "afterburn." Now to be clear, the per minute burn of high intensity is more while doing it, but you can't maintain it (by definition of "high intensity"). So if you can do some light aerobics for 40 minutes you will burn more calories than a 20 minute High Intensity Interval Training (HIIT) workout. At least according to fitbit.
Also, at nearly 60 years old, by basal metabolic burn rate (according to online calculators, so YMMV) is only about 225 calories per day. At my weight that is like a 30-40 walk. That result surprised the crap out of me.
So: You make your most percentage gains simply by getting off the couch and walking. For me I go from about 1.25 kCal/min to 5 kCal/minute. Add some light intensity you can add 40% or more (calculated from the new burn rate; for me, 7 kCal/min). Increase the intensity and I can get to something approaching double that (12-13 kCal/min for me). The HIIT workout averages lower for me because I usually do 30 sec on and 30 sec off, and my recovery is decent.
- dhimes 5y agoI can't edit, so I'll add this reply. I see that I really mis-typed above. Also, at nearly 60 years old, by basal metabolic burn rate (according to online calculators, so YMMV) is only about 225 calories per day. At my weight that is like a 30-40 walk. That should read, Also, at nearly 60 years old, my basal metabolic burn rate (according to online calculators, so YMMV) is only about 225 calories lower __than my basal metabolic rate of 25-year-old-me (that is, at my current weight)__ per day. At my weight that is like a 30-40 walk. That result surprised the crap out of me.
- dhimes 5y ago^^ 30-40 minute walk. Sheeesh. I need to go back to writing comments in a text editor first.