3 ms·

> I can't accept that this doesn't matter. It's not that it doesn't matter, it's the asymmetry. You can eat a small chocolate bar that costs $1 (or whatever) i

> I can't accept that this doesn't matter. It's not that it doesn't matter, it's the asymmetry. You can eat a small chocolate bar that costs $1 (or whatever) in about 15 seconds, and it will take you 2 hours of walking to wear off the calories.

const_cast 1y ago
It's more complicated than this, because muscle raises your basal metabolic rate. If you look at bodybuilders, they're buring 400 calories a day, regardless of exercise. Having an extra 100 pounds of muscle means your body just burns A LOT of calories doing absolutely nothing. This is part of the reason why men burn more calories than woman just right out of the gate.
- 0cf8612b2e1e 1y ago
  A pound of fat burns ~3 calories, while muscle is ~8 per day. Sure, it is different, but unless you are the Rock, most people do not have enough muscle mass to make a difference.
  - const_cast 1y ago
    This is just not true, if you look at women and men of similar height men still burn significantly more calories. Hormones, I'm sure, play a role too but testosterone is sticky. More weightlifitng raises your testosterone - so you should be seeing that benefit.
- rgoulter 1y ago
  > men burn more calories than woman just right out of the gate Sure, but parent's point is that the energy input from sugary snacks like chocolate roughly equates to a significant amount of exercise. (Over an hour of walking). -- Maybe the caloric equivalent amount of walking is a little longer or shorter for different bodies. How might you take action from this understanding, though. Gaining an extra 100 pounds of muscle is hardly an easy/tangible feat. "Reducing intake of sugary snacks" is going to be easier than "walk for over an hour".
  - const_cast 1y ago
    You don't need 100 pounds of muscle to reap the benefits. My point is, yes eating a sugary snack takes 1 hour of walking. But it doesn't take 1 hour of weightlifting. It can take 0 hours of weightlifting, if you've already been weightlifting. Even with walking and running, you do build muscle. When the treadmill says 100 calories, you didn't actually burn 100 calories - you burned 100 plus the increased rate from the muscle you gained. So, if you're an athletic person, you're burning more calories regardless of if you work out. Just by existing, sleeping, whatever, you have a big head start. For some athletes, this head start is in the 1000s of calories range.
    - robertlagrant 1y ago
      Sure, but if you hadn't eaten the bar in 15s you'd have burnt other calories that are now being stored instead. Not that this applies to people with loads of muscle in general; the saying isn't particularly for people who focus massively on fitness. It's for people who don't do anything and think going for a walk a day will sort out their health goals.

const_cast 1y ago

It's more complicated than this, because muscle raises your basal metabolic rate. If you look at bodybuilders, they're buring 400 calories a day, regardless of exercise. Having an extra 100 pounds of muscle means your body just burns A LOT of calories doing absolutely nothing. This is part of the reason why men burn more calories than woman just right out of the gate.

0cf8612b2e1e 1y ago
A pound of fat burns ~3 calories, while muscle is ~8 per day. Sure, it is different, but unless you are the Rock, most people do not have enough muscle mass to make a difference.
- const_cast 1y ago
  This is just not true, if you look at women and men of similar height men still burn significantly more calories. Hormones, I'm sure, play a role too but testosterone is sticky. More weightlifitng raises your testosterone - so you should be seeing that benefit.
rgoulter 1y ago
> men burn more calories than woman just right out of the gate Sure, but parent's point is that the energy input from sugary snacks like chocolate roughly equates to a significant amount of exercise. (Over an hour of walking). -- Maybe the caloric equivalent amount of walking is a little longer or shorter for different bodies. How might you take action from this understanding, though. Gaining an extra 100 pounds of muscle is hardly an easy/tangible feat. "Reducing intake of sugary snacks" is going to be easier than "walk for over an hour".
- const_cast 1y ago
  You don't need 100 pounds of muscle to reap the benefits. My point is, yes eating a sugary snack takes 1 hour of walking. But it doesn't take 1 hour of weightlifting. It can take 0 hours of weightlifting, if you've already been weightlifting. Even with walking and running, you do build muscle. When the treadmill says 100 calories, you didn't actually burn 100 calories - you burned 100 plus the increased rate from the muscle you gained. So, if you're an athletic person, you're burning more calories regardless of if you work out. Just by existing, sleeping, whatever, you have a big head start. For some athletes, this head start is in the 1000s of calories range.
  - robertlagrant 1y ago
    Sure, but if you hadn't eaten the bar in 15s you'd have burnt other calories that are now being stored instead. Not that this applies to people with loads of muscle in general; the saying isn't particularly for people who focus massively on fitness. It's for people who don't do anything and think going for a walk a day will sort out their health goals.