171–180 of 256 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
32oz is a ton of soda tho.. Even when I was a teen at 6'4", 32oz of soda would be a sickening addition to a meal.
Perhaps you're not American, but Gallup reports that among those who drink soda in the USA the average daily amount is 31.2 oz
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> In every case, when I watched them closely, I realized they barely ate anything I know people (mainly Asian guys that are trying to build muscle) that seriously struggle to eat at a calorie surplus. So maybe it's not "metabolism" (which there are significant differences between humans) but also differing levels of hunger.
There is a biological feedback loop that dictates how hungry you are via hormones such as ghrelin and leptin. My little brother is about 50lbs lighter than me at the same height and we have very different builds and all his attempts to bulk fail for the same reason: no appetite. Meanwhile I’m overshooting my bulks and have to cut harder because I love eating too much.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Perhaps you're not American, but Gallup reports that among those who drink soda in the USA the average daily amount is 31.2 oz
> among those who drink soda > average Two factors in your statement that lead me to believe 32oz is still a boat load. What's median and 75th percentile? I imagine the distribution here is non linear across the soda drinking population.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That is likely down to the type of "food" that you are eating. Or you are eating more than is necessary. A diet that contains a high nutritional content will prevent you from over-eating due to satiety signals (unless you have a hormone issue) rather than eating to the point of feeling "stuffed" - if someone is eating to the point of feeling "stuffed" then it would suggest that they are not eating food with a high nu…
A diet that contains a high nutritional content will prevent you from over-eating due to satiety signals (unless you have a hormone issue) rather than eating to the point of feeling "stuffed" - if someone is eating to the point of feeling "stuffed" then it would suggest that they are not eating food with a high nutritional content, or that they have some disorder that is interfering with their normal eating process.…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Strava tells me I burned 3,3000 calories this morning on my (4 hour)100km bike ride. About the equivalent of drinking 2 cups of melted butter, or eating 50 pounds of lettuce. When I'm doing exercise like that regularly it's hard to eat enough.
Humblebrag? Almost 100% of humans are incapable of doing a four hour 100km bike ride without a lot of prep and training. Nevermind doing this daily.
Cycling at 15mph on flat ground is pretty easy. If you can do that for an hour, and can progress at 10% increase in riding time week over week (pretty reasonable for someone who is still gaining fitness from "nothing"), you'll be doing four hour rides after just 16 weeks.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Strava tells me I burned 3,3000 calories this morning on my (4 hour)100km bike ride. About the equivalent of drinking 2 cups of melted butter, or eating 50 pounds of lettuce. When I'm doing exercise like that regularly it's hard to eat enough.
Humblebrag? Almost 100% of humans are incapable of doing a four hour 100km bike ride without a lot of prep and training. Nevermind doing this daily.
Now I live in America need a car :(
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's also completely canceled out by enjoying a single 32oz soda. Walking a lot and having a bad diet rarely even each other out. And it's so easy to cancel it out I don't think most people realize. A brisk 2km walk burns less calories than are consumed when eating two regular Oreos.
Strava tells me I burned 3,3000 calories this morning on my (4 hour)100km bike ride. About the equivalent of drinking 2 cups of melted butter, or eating 50 pounds of lettuce. When I'm doing exercise like that regularly it's hard to eat enough.
Depends on the elevation gains in your 100km ride but I think that 3,300kcal for a 100km/4h ride is generous.
800kcal/hr is hard work and keeping that up for 4h is even harder. 25kph does not sound like 800kcal/hr unless there was some reasonable elevation gains. I’d expect at least 1000m elevation gain over that 100km for those numbers to at least approach something sensible. If it was a flatter ride than that then Strava is just lying to you.
But, yes, long distance cycling is an awesome way of burning calories. When I used to do Brevet/Audax riding I was the closest to my old teenage weight as I have been in the last ~30 years.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Humblebrag? Almost 100% of humans are incapable of doing a four hour 100km bike ride without a lot of prep and training. Nevermind doing this daily.
While true, the energy expense doesn't really scale with speed, so if a couch potato got up and decided to do 100k in, say, 8 hours, that's around the same amount of energy. NB nobody would be able to do this without ingesting a substantial amount of food during. If you didn't start eating hourly after about 1-2 hours in, you'll "bonk" or run out of glycogen.
After a few years of regular (monthly) 200km rides I could do a 200km ride (~10h elapsed) without eating anything on the way round.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
While this is certainly an argument for “how do I lose weight” the relevant part here is that the asker wondered why they started gaining weight, which makes a reduction in daily calorie burn relevant if caloric intake remained roughly consistent. That is a lot of ifs, naturally.
Could be a reduction in calorie excrement really - i.e. they just started absorbing more of it.