exerciseversusweightgain
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releas...00213160107.htm
Quote:
Quote:
2000 steps might be a mile, depending on stride length. So walk an extra 2500 steps or 5000, you're walking an extra 1.25 or 2.5 miles respectively. A calorie counter gives me 221 calories burned if I walk 2.5 miles an hour for an hour at my body weight. Subtract 70 calories from that, assuming that the alternative to walking was not suspended animation in some sort of sci-fi stasis field. So the biggest intervention for me might have amounted to a difference of all of 150 calories. I wouldn't be shocked if that didn't do much for me, since it's not much of an intervention. Much easier for me to have three tablespoons less heavy cream that day. In the study itself, they bring up vigorous exercise--yes. 10000 steps is enough volume to get any conditioning effects of walking versus indolence, at that point throwing some hills or speed in makes sense, not to burn calories so much but for the conditioning. |
I remain somewhat cynical when my extreme exhaustion is countered, even by medical professionals, with "Exercise!"
)~#*(&%)~ My problem is that I don't have enough energy simply to get through my day? Adding additional tasks which require additional energy is not a good idea! Plus, I lost all this weight WITHOUT increasing my minimal physical activity. I'm not against movement! I just saying people who feel good MOVE GOOD. Not, not. |
For about 6-1/2 years of the 7-1/2 years I worked in a grocery store, I was regularly putting in at least 10,000 steps daily. During busy times, twice that many. If that many years of that many steps actually helped in any way with weight loss, I should be bone thin. I'm not.
However, every time I exceeded about 10,000 steps, I was utterly exhausted - so IMO, that much exercise is really only good for one thing: if your goal is to be utterly worn out, it'll do that. |
Then again, there is runner's high. When I was doing my modest running schedule and did not feel clapped out when I started, I could reach mild euphoria in about 40 minutes. Also appetite suppression and a feeling of being in overdrive. Even as a walker I can achieve this around the 15 mile mark. Nothing beats a long hill walk on a sunny summer day. Even the daily 4 miles is, I hope, preventing the diseases caused by excessive sitting. But does not produce weight loss in the 65 year old female.
|
Just read this story on Diet Doctor; Crystal's Story
Quote:
Like Calianna, I've had job and living situations when I was very active. And didn't budge my weight. |
Quote:
I should have added to that post that if it had not been for doing LC for several years before starting that job, and sticking to it straight through (to retirement, and beyond), I would have never survived the first day there. It was exhausting (in part due to the stressful nature of the job), but no way could I have physically handled it during the decades I was all carbed up. |
Active job versus being more sedentary--due to social anxiety, I was underemployed for years. Full time kitchen work for almost two years now, very active position. Lost weight when I started. More people gain weight--but I don't eat most of the food there. Working in a kitchen doesn't seem to be as fattening, at least for me, as spending most of my time near my own kitchen, where I'm free to nibble and snack all day. I've always, even in my low fat dieting days, found it easier to lose weight during a work week, the day's more structured, I tend to go all Rainman and want to eat the same things at the same time every day.
https://www.fitnessblender.com/arti...oes-my-job-burn Quote:
Quote:
1020-1400 calories, five days a week--now we're sort of talking. Knock off about 600--let's not give activity credit for the basal metabolic rate. 420-800. That's more like it. I think my activity in my current job is closer to what a waiter would do than a cook on that site, it's hard to quantify. Social anxiety makes me twitchy when around people, that gives me a higher energy level than some people doing the same job. I'm a bit more sluggish at home. |
Quote:
I think this is the correct, realistic way to look at it. Yes, we all burn calories when not eating, but the amount is dynamic and has a lot to do with how our metabolisms respond. Metabolic adjustment is the variable that is hard to calculate, and one could hypothesize that metabolic rate is different based on the WOE one adopts. We are not engines with fixed rates that can be easily calculated. Burning fat, growing muscle, desiring to be active as opposed to desiring to be sedentary all play a role in this, and the food one eats can stimulate desire to be active or not over time. I'm kind of the reverse in that I'm active because my job is not physically demanding. Before I went low carb and started to burn fat as fuel, I was not motivated to get out do physical activity, despite the fact that I have participated in many sports over my lifetime. At times, activity was forced. Now, I can't wait to get out and work. My mindset is different. I've also come to realize how healthy workouts are critical to my overall well being. While I don't track steps or physical work, doing work on a regular basis makes me feel better. My assumptions based on recent observations about the importance of exercise? Physical activity is good at the cellular level, and mitochondria benefit, and when our mitochondria benefit, we feel better. Physical activity stimulates energy production, and those tired, fatigued feelings become memories over time. Based on my experiences, none of this was possible until I started eating correctly, started timing my meals optimally, and started improving my overall health. Even back in my former carb addicted days when I was running marathons (how many steps is 26.2 miles coupled with all the training required?), I didn't become thin as a rail as I had expected. Now I know why. |
Quote:
Another way to look at it--at 3.5 mph, this person burns 56 more calories than at 2.5 mph. So for that extra mile, 56 calories are burned. At that rate, 62.5 miles, and you've burned that supposed 3500 calories for a pound of fat. Whoopee. Metabolic compensation? To undo that extra mile--you'd only have to be 2.43 calories "lazier" or less twitchy, or less rolling around in your sleep or--per hour the other 23 hours in the day. I don't know if that's even measurable. And do you know if you ate an extra 56 calories on a given day? Even if you weigh everything you eat, that's little room for error. One reason very slow and steady in dieting just isn't practical, there's no way to tell you're even going anywhere. Maybe an ounce a week of fat loss would be ideal, but there's no feedback, so it's useless. Dr. Oz once asked Gary Taubes why people couldn't just eat 100 calories less a day and lose weight. Somehow he's a Doctor. |
If only it were truly just a numbers game ...
|
Quote:
OMG I laughed out loud when I read this teaser - I don't have anything agains Dr. Oz but your punchline and timing there killed me :lol: Thanks. |
Quote:
Assuming it even worked like that, good luck even figuring out exactly 100 calories less a day. I once looked up calorie counts for a bunch of very common foods, primarily with the idea that tiny differences in the size of a serving could add up to big differences in the total number of calories you ate. I only chose 7 items, but most people are likely to eat a dozen or more items. Some of those items were weighed, some were measured by diameter, some where the measurement was only a vague description: Potato: small (138g - 4.93 oz) 128 cals NLEA serving (148g - 5.28 oz) 138 cals - (10 g or approximately 1/3 oz difference in size) 10 cals diff butter: 1 Tbsp (14g - 0.5 oz) 100 cals 3 pats (15g - 0.5357 oz) 108 cals (1 g diff) 8 cals diff cheerios: 1 oz (28g - 1 oz) 103 cals NLEA serving (30 g - 1.0714 oz) 110 cals - (2 g, or slightly more than 7/100 oz diff) 7 cals diff chicken breast (meat only): "standard" 100 g serving - 3.57 oz ) 100 cals 1/2 breast (118 g - 4.214 oz) 130 cals (This assumes that your 1/2 breast weighs exactly 4.214 oz - many weigh 8 oz, 12 oz, or more these days) (slighly more than 1/2 oz diff) 30 cals diff (unless you have one of the 8 or 12 oz breasts, which could provide an extra 160-290 calories for this one item) corn: 1/2 c (82g - 2.928oz ) 72 cals 100 g ( 3.57 oz), 88 cals (less than 1/3 oz diff) 16 cals diff apple: 1 NELA serving (154g - 5.3214 oz) 80 cals 1 medium (182g - 6.5 oz) 95 cals - (less than 1-1/4 oz difference - less than 1/4" diameter difference in the two apples) 15 cals diff M&M's: Single serving box (42g - 1.48 oz) 207 cals Single serving bag (48g - 1.69 oz) 236 cals (6 g difference - less than 1/4 oz difference) 29 cals diff Just with these 7 items, you could eat exactly what is described in your diet, and your calories could still be off by a minimum of 115 calories, even though the measurements of each item (such as small potato vs NELA serving of potato) differs by only a few grams. Most of the time, diets specify a measurement that's not nearly as specific as the exact number of grams per serving - for instance 1/2 cup of corn - what if the kernels are smaller, and therefore naturally leave less air space in the measuring cup? That would weigh more, and therefore have more calories than 1/2 cup of larger kernels. Broken O's in your measuring cup of cheerios? You could end up with an extra few grams of cheerios, and therefore more calories than you realize. If your diet says you can have 1/2 chicken breast in this day and age where a 1/2 chicken breast is rarely anywhere near the 100 g serving size, and often well over 8 oz, you could be eating hundreds of calories more while still following the diet exactly. Do you take calipers with you to the store, so you can determine the exact diameter of an apple before purchasing it? Are you going to weigh the apple to the exact gram, and throw away any extra apple beyond the exact number of grams you're allowed for the exact number of calories of apple that fits into your diet? The idea of controlling weight by eating 100 calories less a day - or even the idea that you can accurately measure every single morsel you put in your mouth so that you come up with exactly 100 calories less per day - it's absolutely ludicrous. |
I once tried the "just eat smaller portions!" gambit. BUT I'M HUNGRY never got solved that way.
|
The calories-in/calories-out philosophy for weight control is a scam.
There is no way that a person can live a normal life and accurately track the calories that are eaten to a precision necessary to not gain or lose weight. As Calianna showed in her post, it is very easy to over or under consume without no clue. By slightly overeating by only 25 calories a day will result in a weight gain of about 3 pounds a year. The problem is even worse in trying to figure out the calories out component. It's impossible to track every movement and know how much energy the movements use. |
Interesting discussion. I can overeat by 150 calories a day, but I can also lose weight/ burn fat during that time depending on what kind of calories I'm consuming. CI/CO is a misguided notion, and the critical danger is that the hypothesis has been rendered plausible by the laws of thermodynamics. Counting calories, counting footsteps (presumed calories burned), and other measures of energy input/ output are based on the notion that it all makes sense in the calculations of energy stored and lost. It's never as simple as the same applied to the Briggs & Stratton engine in my lawn mower.
|
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:01. |
Copyright © 2000-2024 Active Low-Carber Forums @ forum.lowcarber.org
Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.