Do people actually just want to lose weight momentarily through diet? Instead of keeping it off long term, which is way easier achievable through diet + exercise?
Also no mention of body composition, bone density and cardiovascular health, which should be the actual metrics, instead of the proxy used for them.
there is a lot of complexity and difficulty in long term weight loss, we are fighting biology hard there. that's why glp1 agonists are having such a success, they allow to fight hormonal homeostasis with proper weapons.
I have yet to see any research showing a way to durably affect the body's set balance, which would be the revolution.
but this research all in all confirms what we know: * high intensity muscle fiber tearing exercise is much better at not affecting metabolic compensating mechanisms * cardio might be good for health and other things, it's very much neutral or possibly negative for weight loss, as cardio does not build muscle mass * pure diet changes are difficult to make sustainable for many. I have seen it first hand where a constant 300 calories deficit a day resulted in weight gain and muscle mass loss despite cardio.
I have found major success with fasted cardio. That is to say, timing when the exercise occurs relative to your most recent meal seems to dramatically modulate the effects.
If I do an hour of cardio within 12 hours of eating, it feels "normal". Nothing to write home about. If I do the same routine but I've been fasting for longer than 12 hours, I can feel my mitochondria light on fire after about 40 minutes in. The first few times I did this I stopped because I thought I was going to die. It felt super weird to me. Like a very strong parasympathetic response. You do get used to it though. I think this is one thing that can actually affect certain fixed points in your metabolism. If you go from zero to 80% VO2 max and keep it there for an hour on an empty stomach, that energy has to come from somewhere. And it has to happen pretty damn quickly. I think the time pressure for energy delivery under adverse conditions is what makes this so impactful.
Not necessarily. I feel way better when I work out in the morning without any food first. I think it's because my body doesn't have to spend any energy digesting food while exercising. This is true whether I'm doing a weightlifting session or a few hour trail run
I rolled the bones myself and it seemed like it worked, therefor X.
No, I rolled the bones myself and it seemed like it worked, therefor Y.
We would first have to define what we are even talking about by "energy" and "workout" to have any kind of real conversation.
The popular mind on this subject is also not even up to the point we sequenced the genome. What people think of as truth is mostly repeating things from the 1990s.I rolled the bones myself and it seemed like it worked.
Exercise burns extra calories, just not as much as one would expect based on simple calcs.
At least this time the article is mostly okay, last article I saw here a while back was basically saying exercise doesn’t burn extra calories despite his works actually showing levels of activity influencing ~1,000 calorie difference in energy expenditure. Although speaking from experience, good luck trying to maintain high activity levels if one underfuels.
To see real weight loss over a period of months you need to push past the point of metabolic adaption and stay there. Dropping a slice of bread won't cut it. That's why weight loss is so hard.
That's why exercise is useful for weight loss even though it won't do much by itself. You'll need to use every tool at your disposal to burn those excess calories.
dropping a slice of bread won't cut it
Your body mass doesn't materialize out of nothing. Food in, body mass out. Less food in, less body mass out. Simple as that. Everything else is optimization that's not really required, just eating less, patience and consistency.
When you cut down a little on food but are still above or at your daily calorie requirement, the body can adapt by increasing its conversion absorption efficiency and in that case one wouldn't lose weight, because metabolically it's still absorbing the same amount of calories.
This isn’t even getting into the many benefits of exercise in general, or the virtuous circle of "well I didn’t particularly enjoy that hour on a bike in shitty weather so I refuse to waste the benefit on a shitty donut purely out of spite".
If 200-400 kcals deficit doesn't work, just lower by 100 more each week until you get to a desired weight loss rate.
I've found great success with this approach and also changing my thinking to 'is this thing something sustainable and healthy long term?'. Like of course I can lose a lot of weight fast with a huge deficit, but then I'll just default to my initial habits and gain it back.
Yes, you have to sustain them for long periods of time, but that doesn't mean they can't be fun.