The takeaway here is that calorie management is WAY easier on the eating/drinking side of the equation.
Yep, absolutely. When people start exercising and find out how few calories they’ve actually burned, the solution is always simple. It’s much easier to limit the intake than burn it off later.
worth noting though that having more muscle mass does impact your daily energy expenditure
Keep in mind that the more muscle you build, the more energy it takes to move that muscle therefore the more calories you’ll burn during your activities through the day. It’s not necessarily about the calories you burn during the workout but the aggregate impact downstream.
I could be wrong though I don’t go to the gym lol.
What you learn quickly is that the effects of calorie burning are real but way less than what people think. You can go destroy yourself running to the point you’re half dead and that’s gonna burn like 300 calories (like, one protein bar).
But yes on topic of the gym there’s a few downstream effects, the bigger you get the more you eat to be on equilibrium. Also strength workouts keep your muscles “activated” for up to 48h during which you also burn a bit more calories at rest.
And finally of course there’s the whole bulking/cutting thing, the basics is that basically, no matter how much you lift you’re not gonna grow muscle unless you also have a calorie surplus in particular protein. During this process it’s unavoidable to also put on fat so you bulk for a while (eat a lot+ workout a lot and improve personal records) then you cut (eat at deficit, maintenance workouts) so the fat recedes and etc.
There’s a saying among body builders. Abs are made in the kitchen.
You get strength in the gym.
By that logic a morbidly obese person is exercising harder than anyone else by moving their 600lb ass around the living room.
They are.
A 600lb person walking a mile burns significantly more calories than a 200lb person doing the same thing. Im 200lbs and I can back squat 300lbs, a 600lb person squatting down and standing back up is moving more weight than I am… If they can manage it.
The statement was that the amount of moved muscle is related to the amount of calories that are burnt - an obese person does not have large muscles automatically. When they move the weight definitely has an impact on their muscles - a workout without additional weights would have a bigger impact on burnt calories as for a skinny person with same muscle mass. But the impact of moving through the living room on overall calorie balance should be neglectible.
Calories out just need to exceed calories in. Diets help do that easier but it’s all the same principle
Yeah, I just mean it’s easier to manipulate the intake side of the equation. Burning a couple hundred calories is a lot of work; choosing not to drink a soda is easy.
It’s important to note that “maintenance calories” are the vast majority of the energy you use on a daily basis. Exercise is just a small portion of the calories you burn.
By far. Is one can of coke worth a 1 1/4 mile run?
I’m gonna take. this opportunity to point out how stupid it is that 1 Calorie = 1kilocalorie. Actually my least favorite unit.
It took me a moment when I saw the pic to come to terms with the fact that, for as many times as I’ve seen kcal previously, I somehow never realized it was was short hand for kilocalories. 🤯
what?
what is typically called a ‘calorie’ is actually 1000 of the real unit.
the real size of a calorie is too small to used effectively, but saying ‘kilocalorie’ is too long or smth idk.
people just need to use kilojoules and fuck Imperial off.
So if I eat a bread while I’m taking the stairs, I’m even?
You may have to sprinkle chocolate chips on the bread first.
Not sure what bread or chocolate chips you are eating, but this isn’t even remotely true
If you eat only a couple of crumbs, that checks out. The OP didn’t say how much of bread he’s eating.
The community is “Lemmy Shitpost.”
I wasn’t going to eat the bread remotely…
And since a kilocalorie is what we would call a “calorie” from food, this shows precisely how you can’t outrun a bad diet.
Are these numbers even remotely correct?
I found this study which would suggest it’s ballpark correct, depending on your weight and what you’re carrying
Something like 8 kCal for the equivalent of 3 floors seems about right.
Exercise doesn’t consume that much energy compared to just running the body (unless you do immense amounts of it).
Probably. A few calories per flight. We are pretty efficient creatures.
deleted by creator
In exercise, Kilocalorie and calorie are used interchangeably
They try to make a distinction when referring to kilocalories as Calories, it’s literally just that Calorie (kcal) is capitalized and calorie (cal) is not.
It’s a dumb system.
It’s all just because
Americansedit: the majority of Americans have a pathological aversion to metric prefixes
Yeah, I just realized my mistake and attempted to delete my comment before anyone else could see it… no luck this time.
It’s cool. People will see it and learn.
That’s mad
A calorie and a kilocalorie are the same thing when talking about nutrition/exercise. Which is 1000 “small” calories.
Natural winner. I never lose
Is it in Bangkok?
Most likely in India.
India, notice the Hindi
Imma take the escalator out of spite now. You’re not the boss of me!
A typical hamburger is about 500 kcal so you would have to go up those stairs 100 times to burn it off in theory.
But science is now saying that burning off calories isn’t related to excersise… you burn the same amount doing or not doing physical activity. So I don’t know if this is relevant anymore.
That’s very very simplified version of it.
The more you do an exercise, the more efficient your body becomes for it.
So a person who runs 10km every day still burns approximately the same amount of calories as a sofa potato running only to toilet and fridge.
BUT if you do heavier exercises than your regular, you’re going to be burning more calories than your average daily ~1800-2000kcal
Don’t take fitness advice from Lemmy, case evidence #345322
Unsurprisingly, fitness is always more complicated than it seems.
You are certainly correct that runners don’t burn (much) more calories than a couch potato. But weightlifters do, vs a couch potato of the same weight.
The thing about cardio is that the calories go directly into effort. The calories burned are roughly proportional to the effort (distance). But the moment you stop, the calories stop getting burned.
If you are doing weightlifting, the calories spent at the time to lift a heavy object are minimal. But it instructs your body to add muscle to better handle all the heavy lifting you do. Once you have that muscle, you burn a ton of calories 24 hours per day just keeping it alive. It becomes part of your base metabolic rate. It burns nearly the same calories whether you’re at the gym, or sitting on the couch. And it will continue to burn those calories until your body decides you no longer need that extra muscle mass and it atrophies.
Last i saw on this is that there isn’t a 1:1 relation between increased calorie burn by increased exercise and total calorie burn. There are some but also the body diverts energy from one task to another. Still the best way to loose weight, maintaining a calorie deficit, is to eat less. Way easier said than done.
Yeah the body compensates for it to an extent.
You know how lot of people report exercise makes them feel better? Releases dopamine, relaxes them. A result is that they actually fidget less, their heart rate slows, and other energy burning processes in their body relax.
The buffer is relatively large in fact, like possibly over 200-400 calories per day depending on the person. I think of it as the body’s flywheel for keeping an energy balance.
One should keep exercising, for the numerous benefits. There also is a point where you are burning calories that need to be made up (either through eating or weight loss), ask any endurance athlete. Just not likely to hit the threshold in 20 mins on the treadmill, which is what many people do for exercise
Something I never really got from the summaries on the research is how much training increase they looked at. And what type. I bet going fron 0 to 30 minutes a day would look different than the span 0-120.
Do you BTW have a link to the paper?
Check out the revised Kurzgesagt script, they have pretty much the best and most up to date collection of research papers at the moment
I actually was introduced to the topic by Mike Israetel when he was reviewing Herman Pontzer’s research. So when I watched the original Kurz I was super confused because it seemed to make a different conclusion than the work they were citing. I’m glad they made the revised version
Way easier said than done.
Brain is a greedy removed and tricks you.
Sounds counterintuitive. Do you happen to have a source for this?
