this post was submitted on 27 May 2024
767 points (97.2% liked)

Greentext

4437 readers
1401 users here now

This is a place to share greentexts and witness the confounding life of Anon. If you're new to the Greentext community, think of it as a sort of zoo with Anon as the main attraction.

Be warned:

If you find yourself getting angry (or god forbid, agreeing) with something Anon has said, you might be doing it wrong.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Early_To_Risa@sh.itjust.works
767
Anon figures out how dieting works (sh.itjust.works)
submitted 5 months ago by Early_To_Risa@sh.itjust.works to c/greentext@sh.itjust.works
172 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Kecessa@sh.itjust.works 1 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

Reading it they make it clear that it's because people end up eating more than they did before which isn't what I'm talking about.

By your logic there's no reason why athletes need to eat so much, their caloric needs should pretty much stay the same as if they didn't exercise.

[–] undergroundoverground@lemmy.world 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

You managed to pick out the one study, amongst all those that disagree with you, that you think proves you point while simultaneously ignoring the literature reviews conclusions. I'm not sure what to say to something so far beyond confirmation bias.

Its not MY logic. Its the logic of the lack of evidence agreeing with your premise. Its the logic of looking at our metabolic pathways and our evolution, instead of that of food lobby groups.

Even then, you're thinking about the release of glycogen and not fat burning/weight loss. Thats why athletes carb load, instead of keeping extra fat on them to burn off while competing. Its why people with fat on them stop due to exhaustion, despite having lots of energy they can use all over their body. Its why people have to go through so much to induce ketosis. Its why even professional marathon runners eat healthily and not too much.

Our fat reserves are for keeping us alive in an emergency, not a source of additional energy to dip into when we need it. I mean, I wouldn't go on about logic when you're here arguing for the idea of a species of persistence hunters who evolved to be able to run themselves to death easily.

Like most people, you wildly over estimate how many calories are burned by cardio vascular excersise, above bass rate metabolism.

[–] Kecessa@sh.itjust.works 1 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

80 to 140 calories per mile when jogging, even at the lower end it means that if you jog 6 miles you have your 500 calories deficit as long as you don't eat more than you would have otherwise.

It's. Not. Magic. If you needed 2500 calories to stay at the same weight then increasing your caloric needs to 3000 is the same as reducing your intake to 2000.

It's about consistency, just like cutting calories, you can cut all week and fuck it all up by eating a cake on the weekend that you wouldn't have if you weren't on a diet.

Edit:

From your own link

There is also evidence to support the notion that individuals who are less physically active are more likely to gain weight over time than those who exercise between 150 and 300 min/week

Although exercise contributes to multiple health benefits, and most of the research suggests that it can play a role in both short- and long-term weight loss and weight maintenance, patients often have a difficult time engaging in a regular exercise program and continuing that program as a lifestyle modification.

Problem with consistency

Consistently performing exercise of a duration greater than the basic recommendations for health (150 min/week of moderate-intensity exercise) does appear to be more likely to contribute to weight loss and weight maintenance efforts over the long term

[–] undergroundoverground@lemmy.world 0 points 5 months ago (1 children)

I agree, its not magic. Its you making up numbers and refusing to accept that glycogen exists. Probably because you don't know anything about it while massively over estimating your knowledge of bio chem.

Its not 80 - 140. Its like 5 -10 at best. Again, you epically over estimate the calorie burning effect of excersise, above bass rate, that cardio does. Its why its called cardiovascular and not weight loss excersise, just fyi, due to the fundamental lack of evidence proving it to cause weight loss. Funny that......

I mean, you might have a point, if insulin and glucagon didn't exist. However, they do. So, that ends that really. Well, it does it you understand metabolism.

There is also evidence to support the notion that individuals who are less physically active are more likely to gain weight over time than those who exercise between 150 and 300 min/week

Doesn't mean exceraise makes people lose weight. It could also mean people who do no excersise often eat more too. They would have said this in their report themselves. Dont just read what you want to from things.

Although exercise contributes to multiple health benefits, and most of the research suggests that it can play a role in both short- and long-term weight loss and weight maintenance, patients often have a difficult time engaging in a regular exercise program and continuing that program as a lifestyle modification.

It CAN, as in, in their opinion some of the research potentially could indicate that. But its not conclusive, as I keep saying. You just read what you wanted from that.

Consistently performing exercise of a duratio er than the basic recommendations for health (150 min/week of moderate-intensity exercise) does appear to be more likely to contribute to weight loss and weight maintenance efforts over the long term

So, again, one that might "appear" to maybe actually agree with you and you ignored all the rest. Well the ones you didn't choose to missread that is.

Even then, they're very tentative and say its more likely, not something like "the evidence shows", as the evidence does show that. Again again, this so far beyond confirmation bias. If you want to die on this hill of no evidence and feeling like you can out run bad diet (which would have to be true, if it worked to way you're claiming it does), then more fool you.

Its not magic but it would be, if it worked how you seem to think it does. Behold, the magical persistence hunters who evolved to be able to run themselves to a starvation induced death.

You can't argue with that kind of "logic."

[–] Kecessa@sh.itjust.works 1 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

5 to 10?

Really?

https://www.acefitness.org/about-ace/press-room/in-the-news/8248/how-many-calories-do-you-burn-running-a-mile-healthline/#:~:text=A%20general%20estimate%20for%20calories,School%20of%20Medicine%20at%20UCLA.

5 to freaking 10???

Guess you haven't done any exercise in a while buddy!

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8365736/

Compared to controls without exercise, aerobic training was consistently found to be effective on weight loss, which was not the case for resistance training.7

Funny how it has an impact on weight loss even though, based on what you're saying, exercising barely increases your caloric expense.

[–] undergroundoverground@lemmy.world 0 points 5 months ago (1 children)

5 to freaking 10???

Above bass rate metabolism, yes. They didn't adjust the data for that and you didn't bother to consider what was being said to you.

I hit the gym regularly, pal! Even then, me going or not has no bearing on this. Youre just being silly now.

Compared to controls without exercise, aerobic training was consistently found to be effective on weight loss, which was not the case for resistance training.7

This is just hilarious. If you look at reference 7, what they're quoting, you'll see its about stopping muscle atrophy in people in people on calorie reduced diets. They used resistance training to keep the weight up, via stopping muscle atrophy.

And, again, you choose to ignore the bits you don't like:

...Although the effect on weight and fat loss is of relatively small magnitude.

Like I said, its little to no effect. Its just BS pushed by food lobby groups and people who don't understand bio chem.

[–] Kecessa@sh.itjust.works 1 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

2400 calories a day, that's 100 an hour

I don't know the speed at which you jog but at 6 miles an hour let's say 600 calories an hour based on what I shared so you're telling me that what you believe is that the real impact is 5 to 10 per mile instead, let's be generous and it's actually 60 calories that those 6 miles added to your energy expenditure so that's 540 calories burnt during that hour (base metabolism as you said) + the 60 extra from the exercise.

Are you implying that your energy usage per hour now goes

2460 for the day, 600 burnt in an hour, 1860 for the rest of the day so you're suddenly burning 80 calories an hour the rest of the day instead of 100 like you would if you didn't exercise? You realize how this makes no fucking sense and there's no reputable sources that would agree with you?

"I hit the gym regularly pal!" Yeah, and you're falling for gym bro science buddy.

[–] undergroundoverground@lemmy.world 1 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

Again, not 100 calories above bass rate. Its not hard. You just have to accept that you're fundamentally wrong, as the data shows. I'll make it easier, its not 100 calories over what you burn, just to stay alive.

Based on the data you completely misssunderstood, we could "prove" almost anything. Unless you can show the part where they controlled for peoples base rate metabolism, they didnt control for it.

Pretty much, thats why the only data that you think agrees with you had to be wildly misread. We are incredibly efficient at moving while preserving energy, hence the whole persistence hunters thing you keep trying to ignore, despite its obvious effects on our metabolic pathways and this discussion.

Lol, so, if I don't go to the gym, I don't know how excersise works but if I do, I'm only speaking gym science. Youre hilarious! You didn't even know what glycogen was. Behave yourself. I know you didn't because all the people that do know what it is don't beleive the baseless old wives tale you beleive. I won't go any deeper than gymbro science because you clearly can't understand anything deeper than that.

Let's pretend you weren't wildly misreading what they said, even then, this is about weight loss and inducing fat metabolising pathways. Youre struggling on the calories part alone and we haven't even got the the metabolic pathways that also don't agree with you.

Theres a reason you had to reach so far and look so long for something you had to misread, in order to argue you point.