3 ms·

Marathon runners apparently lose about 1lb, 50% of which is water. People doing those bike races lose tons of weight, both muscle and fat. That is the flip si

Marathon runners apparently lose about 1lb, 50% of which is water. People doing those bike races lose tons of weight, both muscle and fat. That is the flip side of going balls to the way hard, it is easy to start eating into muscle, which is fine now and then for an event, but as part of a regular training regime it isn't the best idea. All of these factors are why the advice "you cannot outrun a fork" is true for the general population, but it scientific fact that no amount of exercise leads to weight loss. A truer statement might be "at the level of efforts an untrained individual is able to maintain, and for the length of training sessions that are available to an average person with a job and a family, exercise does not contribute meaningfully to near term fat loss." But people who've been lifting weights for 5 or 6 years hard core may very well have increased their BMR by 500 or so calories, at which point they can eat a, reasonably sized, cookie each day.

arcticbull 3y ago
> Marathon runners apparently lose about 1lb, 50% of which is water. Yeah, you use about 100kcal running a mile, so 26mi gets you around 2/3 of a pound of fat. This is why I said to lose 10lbs you'd have to run from SF to LA, which is about 400mi. Without eating more than baseline. The problem isn't the micro. Yes, if you exercise a ton without compensatory eating and in excess of the expected drop in BMR that produces, you will lose weight in the near-term. The problem is your homeostatic mechanisms kick in and work against you making it extremely hard to maintain. Your body has a weight set point like it has a temperature set point. The follow-up study on the Biggest Loser showed basically every single one of them put on all the weight they lost. In some cases more. Here's the PubMed link. [1] The evidence seems to point to the opposite of your conclusion - a lot of exercise reduces your BMR, it doesn't increase it. Makes sense doesn't it? A lower BMR means you're more efficient. While your TEE might be higher, your BMR is probably lower. [1] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27136388/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27136388/
- com2kid 3y ago
  Yes, improved cardio results in a lower resting heart rate, which reduces BMR. Resting heart rate only gets as low as the 50s though, then it stops going down. > Your body has a weight set point like it has a temperature set point. And more recent studies have shown how to change it. Eat at a moderate deficit for 4 months, then take up to 2 more months carefully eating at maintenance. Rinse and repeat to keep losing weight. This avoids the problems you are talking about. But if someone has 100 lb to lose they don't want to hear "lose 1 lb a week for 4 months, then don't lose any weight for 2 months, repeat for a few years." Adherence to such a plan will be terrible, but it'd work. Calorie cycling, as described in the video I linked to twice in this thread, also avoids the problems, and Dr. Mike explains how calorie cycling prevents the problems with hormone levels that a long term deficit can create. Also > Yeah, you use about 100kcal running a mile, so 26mi gets you around 2/3 of a pound of fat. This is why I'm not a fan of running. I have recorded workouts (HR chest strap) of me burning 500 calories / hour. Then again when I'm in shape (currently recovering from a rib injury....) I spend an hour with my heart rate in the 150s to low 160s on a 3-1 interval cycle. Also it won't be 2/3 a lb of fat, it'll be carbs at first, some fat, and at those calorie burn numbers, some muscle mass as well. (This is where the keto people jump in, but sadly research studies on high level athletes who are long term keto adapted doing intense stuff are hard to come by)
  - arcticbull 3y ago
    > And more recent studies have shown how to change it. If you have a link I'd love to read it.

arcticbull 3y ago

> Marathon runners apparently lose about 1lb, 50% of which is water. Yeah, you use about 100kcal running a mile, so 26mi gets you around 2/3 of a pound of fat. This is why I said to lose 10lbs you'd have to run from SF to LA, which is about 400mi. Without eating more than baseline. The problem isn't the micro. Yes, if you exercise a ton without compensatory eating and in excess of the expected drop in BMR that produces, you will lose weight in the near-term. The problem is your homeostatic mechanisms kick in and work against you making it extremely hard to maintain. Your body has a weight set point like it has a temperature set point. The follow-up study on the Biggest Loser showed basically every single one of them put on all the weight they lost. In some cases more. Here's the PubMed link. [1] The evidence seems to point to the opposite of your conclusion - a lot of exercise reduces your BMR, it doesn't increase it. Makes sense doesn't it? A lower BMR means you're more efficient. While your TEE might be higher, your BMR is probably lower. [1] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27136388/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27136388/

com2kid 3y ago
Yes, improved cardio results in a lower resting heart rate, which reduces BMR. Resting heart rate only gets as low as the 50s though, then it stops going down. > Your body has a weight set point like it has a temperature set point. And more recent studies have shown how to change it. Eat at a moderate deficit for 4 months, then take up to 2 more months carefully eating at maintenance. Rinse and repeat to keep losing weight. This avoids the problems you are talking about. But if someone has 100 lb to lose they don't want to hear "lose 1 lb a week for 4 months, then don't lose any weight for 2 months, repeat for a few years." Adherence to such a plan will be terrible, but it'd work. Calorie cycling, as described in the video I linked to twice in this thread, also avoids the problems, and Dr. Mike explains how calorie cycling prevents the problems with hormone levels that a long term deficit can create. Also > Yeah, you use about 100kcal running a mile, so 26mi gets you around 2/3 of a pound of fat. This is why I'm not a fan of running. I have recorded workouts (HR chest strap) of me burning 500 calories / hour. Then again when I'm in shape (currently recovering from a rib injury....) I spend an hour with my heart rate in the 150s to low 160s on a 3-1 interval cycle. Also it won't be 2/3 a lb of fat, it'll be carbs at first, some fat, and at those calorie burn numbers, some muscle mass as well. (This is where the keto people jump in, but sadly research studies on high level athletes who are long term keto adapted doing intense stuff are hard to come by)
- arcticbull 3y ago
  > And more recent studies have shown how to change it. If you have a link I'd love to read it.