2 ms·

> What evidence is there for this? All the things that calculate approximate calories burned for various exercises tell me that it's not minimal. Minimal meani

> What evidence is there for this? All the things that calculate approximate calories burned for various exercises tell me that it's not minimal. Minimal meaning that the amount of exercise you need to do to burn substantial amounts of calories is quite high. Your example of 500cal would be something like an hour of moderate intensity jogging, which would be a lot of exercise for someone to do every single day. Meanwhile, eating 500cal takes like... 5 minutes? Less? > Obviously diet is the biggest factor, but if you just eat less and sit around all day, you body will adapt to the lower calorie intake and slow your metabolism down too and you will have to eat so little that you will never feel full or satisfied (so you will probably not be able to keep that up for long) and you will feel like crap and have no energy if you don't combine with exercise, at least in my experience. Metabolic adaption is largely overblown. You definitely will burn less calories as you lose weight, but that would happen exercise or not. The only difference there is that exercise tends to build muscle, which would burn more calories and offset some of that loss. The fact of the matter is, if you end up losing substantial amounts of weight, you will need to eat fewer calories to maintain that same lower weight forever. In my experience, if you're losing weight then you are often going to feel not full. It's just a natural human reaction to caloric deficit. There's tricks to making it not be as impactful (e.g., eat more whole foods, less junk, etc) or medication to make it less of a problem (i.e., GLPs), but expecting to be able to lose weight and always feel full just by adding exercise is wishful thinking.

SirMaster 1y ago
>which would be a lot of exercise for someone to do every single day. Well I already disagree here at this point I guess. For me that is like the minimum on average. When I'm playing pickleball I'm plying like 3 hours, if i'm cycling I'm cycling like 2 hours, and if i'm jogging i'm jogging like an hour. Humans are built to be active, not sitting in an office all day, and for a healthily lifestyle I don't think this asking too much IMO to do an hour of moderate exercise a day on average. I kind of feel like crap when I am not exercising and feel like I have a lot more energy when I do exercise nearly every day. That's my experience with it at least.
- Kirby64 1y ago
  For someone that is doing little to no exercise every day, asking someone to do an hour of moderate intensity jogging or possibly multiple hours of lower intensity activity (e.g., pickleball) is asking a lot. Advocating for folks to exercise is a worthy cause, but you're setting people up for failure by advocating for adding a minimum of 7 additional hours a week to their schedule. EDIT addition: Realistically, adding something like 30 mins of exercise a few times a week (3-4) is more achievable. And in that regard, it doesn't really burn meaningful calories. Maybe an additional 500-1000 a week if you're actually pushing yourself, but beginners often don't.
  - SirMaster 1y ago
    Well of course you don't just jump from 0 to that much a day/week. It would and should take a newcomer a few months to ramp up to that level, but I believe that most people can support that amount of activity. I mean sure I agree that 500-1000 cal a week in exercise would be minimal which is precisely why I think people should have a more ambitious goal to work into their life even if it takes months to get to that level.
    - Kirby64 1y ago
      Can vs. want to. You're suggesting people get a new hobby, essentially. Not everyone wants to do that much exercise. Also, like I said, if your diet isn't fixed then no amount of exercise is going to overcome that. You'll just eat more to compensate.

SirMaster 1y ago

>which would be a lot of exercise for someone to do every single day. Well I already disagree here at this point I guess. For me that is like the minimum on average. When I'm playing pickleball I'm plying like 3 hours, if i'm cycling I'm cycling like 2 hours, and if i'm jogging i'm jogging like an hour. Humans are built to be active, not sitting in an office all day, and for a healthily lifestyle I don't think this asking too much IMO to do an hour of moderate exercise a day on average. I kind of feel like crap when I am not exercising and feel like I have a lot more energy when I do exercise nearly every day. That's my experience with it at least.

Kirby64 1y ago
For someone that is doing little to no exercise every day, asking someone to do an hour of moderate intensity jogging or possibly multiple hours of lower intensity activity (e.g., pickleball) is asking a lot. Advocating for folks to exercise is a worthy cause, but you're setting people up for failure by advocating for adding a minimum of 7 additional hours a week to their schedule. EDIT addition: Realistically, adding something like 30 mins of exercise a few times a week (3-4) is more achievable. And in that regard, it doesn't really burn meaningful calories. Maybe an additional 500-1000 a week if you're actually pushing yourself, but beginners often don't.
- SirMaster 1y ago
  Well of course you don't just jump from 0 to that much a day/week. It would and should take a newcomer a few months to ramp up to that level, but I believe that most people can support that amount of activity. I mean sure I agree that 500-1000 cal a week in exercise would be minimal which is precisely why I think people should have a more ambitious goal to work into their life even if it takes months to get to that level.
  - Kirby64 1y ago
    Can vs. want to. You're suggesting people get a new hobby, essentially. Not everyone wants to do that much exercise. Also, like I said, if your diet isn't fixed then no amount of exercise is going to overcome that. You'll just eat more to compensate.