5 ms·

Calorie counting always works - when you want to lose a lot of weight and lose it quickly. For maintaining long term you can't stick with it though, so you most

Calorie counting always works - when you want to lose a lot of weight and lose it quickly. For maintaining long term you can't stick with it though, so you most likely want to make lifestyle changes, including exercise. Exercise is fundamentally hard for weight loss. It takes a lot of time exercising in order to make a difference. Eating 600 calories less is not that hard - but from a bit of googling it looks like it would take 1.5 hours of continuous aerobics (plus time for changing and shower - that's over 2h every day). I'm not terribly out of shape, but I'm pretty sure I can't do 1.5h of aerobic and still stand. Also, I'd be famished afterwards. If you have good data for exercise, please share. Otherwise it's still anecdote vs anecdote.

likpok 17y ago
A few points about exercise: Some of the point I have heard is to change the metabolism, so that while you are doing other things, you are burning more calories. The other issue is that simply eating less will cause you to lose muscle, not necessarily fat. Lifting will let you keep the muscle.
- jamesbritt 17y ago
  Also, regardless of trying to lose weight or not, you can't sit on your ass all day, every day. So, maybe not an 2 hours of aerobics each day, but 30 minutes of something, for your heart and bones.
kingkongreveng_ 17y ago
Calorie counting doesn't even work well in the short term. Metabolism drops dramatically at the cellular level on restricted calories. Insulin levels are the key to fat catabolism/anabolism. Calories are secondary. You can get fatter in caloric deficit if you're just eating sugar, or injecting loads of insulin. The value of exercise for weight loss has little to do with burning calories. It's about hormones. Brief, intense exercise boosts growth hormone and testosterone, which make you shed fat independent of calories burned. Your body reconfigures. Note that endurance exercise doesn't really have this effect. Anaerobic exercise on an empty stomach directly burns fatty acids released from body fat. A quick lifting session (20m) while hungry followed by a one or two hour fast will burn a lot of fat. Aerobic exercise with a focus on calories is fairly useless, as you indicate. It simply burns down glycogen levels which are then replenished at the next meal with little impact on fat reserves, unless you go for a very long run or bike ride. But then this has the effect of dramatically boosting appetite, which can negate the effect.
- radu_floricica 17y ago
  I object that calorie counting doesn't work, especially coming from a summer of losing 6 kg with no exercise. Granted, I did pay attention to my insulin (lots of fat, no carbs for the first month or so). However what you say about anaerobic exercise sounds interesting. I'll google it more thoroughly when I have the time.
  - cschneid 17y ago
    It makes sense if you think about it. The body is like "I need energy!" and your glycogen stores are like "sorry dude, all out", so it goes and robs the fat-convenience store for its twinkies. The issue is working out hard enough to take out all the glycogen stores, and not eating for a while (which just replenishes them). Note, I have no idea what I'm talking about, but it sorta makes sense. Post any research you find here.
- Locke1689 17y ago
  As long as you're not doing anything drastic and your basal metabolism stays fairly constant, reducing your caloric intake works fine. Second law of thermodynamics.
  - jerf 17y ago
    "As long as you're not doing anything drastic and your basal metabolism stays fairly constant, reducing your caloric intake works fine. " But that's the entire point. Reducing your caloric intake causes your metabolism to drop, for reasons that ought to be fairly obvious if you think about it. If you think about it, it also should become obvious why that's the only possible direction of causality, too.
    - Locke1689 17y ago
      It doesn't necessarily cause your basal metabolism to drop. I just confirmed this with two physicians and a nutrition student.

likpok 17y ago

A few points about exercise: Some of the point I have heard is to change the metabolism, so that while you are doing other things, you are burning more calories. The other issue is that simply eating less will cause you to lose muscle, not necessarily fat. Lifting will let you keep the muscle.

jamesbritt 17y ago
Also, regardless of trying to lose weight or not, you can't sit on your ass all day, every day. So, maybe not an 2 hours of aerobics each day, but 30 minutes of something, for your heart and bones.

kingkongreveng_ 17y ago

Calorie counting doesn't even work well in the short term. Metabolism drops dramatically at the cellular level on restricted calories. Insulin levels are the key to fat catabolism/anabolism. Calories are secondary. You can get fatter in caloric deficit if you're just eating sugar, or injecting loads of insulin. The value of exercise for weight loss has little to do with burning calories. It's about hormones. Brief, intense exercise boosts growth hormone and testosterone, which make you shed fat independent of calories burned. Your body reconfigures. Note that endurance exercise doesn't really have this effect. Anaerobic exercise on an empty stomach directly burns fatty acids released from body fat. A quick lifting session (20m) while hungry followed by a one or two hour fast will burn a lot of fat. Aerobic exercise with a focus on calories is fairly useless, as you indicate. It simply burns down glycogen levels which are then replenished at the next meal with little impact on fat reserves, unless you go for a very long run or bike ride. But then this has the effect of dramatically boosting appetite, which can negate the effect.

radu_floricica 17y ago
I object that calorie counting doesn't work, especially coming from a summer of losing 6 kg with no exercise. Granted, I did pay attention to my insulin (lots of fat, no carbs for the first month or so). However what you say about anaerobic exercise sounds interesting. I'll google it more thoroughly when I have the time.
- cschneid 17y ago
  It makes sense if you think about it. The body is like "I need energy!" and your glycogen stores are like "sorry dude, all out", so it goes and robs the fat-convenience store for its twinkies. The issue is working out hard enough to take out all the glycogen stores, and not eating for a while (which just replenishes them). Note, I have no idea what I'm talking about, but it sorta makes sense. Post any research you find here.
Locke1689 17y ago
As long as you're not doing anything drastic and your basal metabolism stays fairly constant, reducing your caloric intake works fine. Second law of thermodynamics.
- jerf 17y ago
  "As long as you're not doing anything drastic and your basal metabolism stays fairly constant, reducing your caloric intake works fine. " But that's the entire point. Reducing your caloric intake causes your metabolism to drop, for reasons that ought to be fairly obvious if you think about it. If you think about it, it also should become obvious why that's the only possible direction of causality, too.
  - Locke1689 17y ago
    It doesn't necessarily cause your basal metabolism to drop. I just confirmed this with two physicians and a nutrition student.