3 ms·

All of these studies are severely limited. Show me one that had study participants running an hour a day 6 days a week. I lost 40 pounds doing that and I've kep

All of these studies are severely limited. Show me one that had study participants running an hour a day 6 days a week. I lost 40 pounds doing that and I've kept it off because I kept running. It burns so many calories I actually need to make sure i eat more.

maxglute 2y ago
I think we have enough real world case studies now with previously stubborn fatties whom (allegedly) tried everything but finally lost weight on ozempic due to appetite suppression. 6 hours of running is 4000-8000 calories / 1-2lb week depending on body size. That's your basic 1-2% of BW deficit for weight loss. Except it's a much harder behaviour change to adopt.
WheatMillington 2y ago
That an unreasonable level of exercise for 90% of people.
- brigadier132 2y ago
  Once you lose the weight you only need to run 30 minutes a day for maintenance.
- voisin 2y ago
  Unreasonable by what standards? I suspect we evolved with a regime more rigorous than this. Perhaps our society has become unreasonable in how people are prevented from having the time to use their bodies to even a fraction of their full extent.
freedomben 2y ago
I think running 6 hours a day is not very representative of (or practical for) the vast majority of people. You can find plenty of studies on cases like that. IIRC there was a good one about Michael Phelps and his ~10,000 calories per day. But those sorts of extreme studies aren't going to be helpful for determining broad applicability. Edit: Please disregard, my reading comprehension skills failed me today. I read 6 hours a day but it was actually 6 hours a week
- lapcat 2y ago
  > I think running 6 hours a day is not very representative of (or practical for) the vast majority of people. The OP said 6 hours a week (1 a day), not 6 a day.
  - freedomben 2y ago
    Oh whoops, my mistake, thank you! (Unless it was edited, which is possible, especially given the sibling comment, but I don't remember well enough)

maxglute 2y ago

I think we have enough real world case studies now with previously stubborn fatties whom (allegedly) tried everything but finally lost weight on ozempic due to appetite suppression. 6 hours of running is 4000-8000 calories / 1-2lb week depending on body size. That's your basic 1-2% of BW deficit for weight loss. Except it's a much harder behaviour change to adopt.

WheatMillington 2y ago

That an unreasonable level of exercise for 90% of people.

brigadier132 2y ago
Once you lose the weight you only need to run 30 minutes a day for maintenance.
voisin 2y ago
Unreasonable by what standards? I suspect we evolved with a regime more rigorous than this. Perhaps our society has become unreasonable in how people are prevented from having the time to use their bodies to even a fraction of their full extent.

freedomben 2y ago

I think running 6 hours a day is not very representative of (or practical for) the vast majority of people. You can find plenty of studies on cases like that. IIRC there was a good one about Michael Phelps and his ~10,000 calories per day. But those sorts of extreme studies aren't going to be helpful for determining broad applicability. Edit: Please disregard, my reading comprehension skills failed me today. I read 6 hours a day but it was actually 6 hours a week

lapcat 2y ago
> I think running 6 hours a day is not very representative of (or practical for) the vast majority of people. The OP said 6 hours a week (1 a day), not 6 a day.
- freedomben 2y ago
  Oh whoops, my mistake, thank you! (Unless it was edited, which is possible, especially given the sibling comment, but I don't remember well enough)