101–110 of 123 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Likewise, gyms are full of people in their 30s and 40s who are not losing weight despite regular attendance. Because they do shit exercises, then drive home, gorge on high-carb trash, and sit on their asses until their next gym appointment.
That's a very judgemental, obnoxious and inaccurate statement.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you and your friends in London all drive to work? Or do you walk/metro? The lifestyle shift the grandparent poster was referring to is typical of suburban and rural areas, but not really urban areas. I suspect people in more rural parts of the UK are very different from your London cohort.
Nobody drives - they all either work from home (most), take public transport, or walk/cycle in. Parent comment explicitly called out "middle class city people" so I figure this is more than valid.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have trained myself to shut off work when I stop working. This took a lot of time. Very rarely nowadays is my sleep or time outside work disturbed by what is happening at work. It’s a meditative practice, but once you really get in the mindset of work being for work, family for family, sleep for sleep, etc. then you stop being bothered.
That means you probably aren't maximizing your career though, which was the point you have to make a choice there.
NOT doing a base level of exercise and body maintenance results in predictable mental issues (anxiety, depression, difficulty learning, etc.).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
For hundreds of thousands of people it’s not true. That is not an exaggeration in numbers. Handwaving away large numbers data points that disprove a theory is not how science is supposed to work. And as we have seen in this thread, the lack of clarity on the nuance discourages people from making exercise. Over simplifying it to 600 burned, 600 saved later is harmful and also inaccurate. (and yes More inaccurate than…
What is your interpretation of Pontzer’s data, then?
It’s pretty clear the effect of exercise is neither extreme. It is definitely not the naive 100% of calories burned in regular exercising are balanced out by metabolic reductions elsewhere compared to the same person not regularly exercising. And it’s definitely not 800 burned regularly means 800 mores than the person would if they didn’t exercise regularly.
It’s going to be in between, and I would wager it’s like backwards graduated tax brackets in terms of compensation percent.
It’s been a while since I read his paper, but if I recall right it actually did hand wave away the endurance athletes. But endurance athletes are not a binary yes no state andHand waving away obvious conflicting data isn’t logical or scientific. And so especially when people are on a graduated spectrum all the way up to the immediately obvious theory breakers running 60+ mi/week. Where would the cut off come? 15mi? 20mi? 25mi? Above what cut off should we ignore data to make the naive theory work.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you and your friends in London all drive to work? Or do you walk/metro? The lifestyle shift the grandparent poster was referring to is typical of suburban and rural areas, but not really urban areas. I suspect people in more rural parts of the UK are very different from your London cohort.
Nobody drives - they all either work from home (most), take public transport, or walk/cycle in. Parent comment explicitly called out "middle class city people" so I figure this is more than valid.
If you genuinely enjoy playing, it doesn't feel like a chore! Now into my mid 30s, I do not regularly go to the gym, I do not have any special dietary habits, and I weigh the same as 18.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In a sense I am thankful I graduated into the covid lockdowns. It made this dramatic change obvious to me, and I made a similarly dramatic change in my diet. I went from literally having a buffet every meal in college to having a cup of coffee for breakfast, and what I would consider a normal sized meal for dinner. I realized after about 2 years of this that I was borderline under-weight, so I decided to start eating…
I eat when I'm hungry, not when a clock says I should. Edit: My family doesn't understand why I haven't gotten the family beer belly most males in my family and extended family have.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think it's a s simple as inactivity. IF this were true, then being active would reverse the weight gains, but it does not, at least not for me and others. I was still as active in my 30s as I was in my late teens and 20s but still gained weight. Likewise, gyms are full of people in their 30s and 40s who are not losing weight despite regular attendance. Despite the popularity of fitness apps, people keep getti…
It is asymmetrically difficult to lose weight compared to gaining weight. The body wants to maintain homeostasis, but tries way harder when it perceives the threat to be starvation. This makes a lot of sense considering historically that conserving energy rather than expending it would probably have been a massive survival advantage. As an example, say we are discussing someone whose average energy expenditure is 300…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you want to reduce weight, then lower your caloric intake. You don’t even need to workout. Just measure your calories and keep decreasing them until the weight falls off. If you want to add in exercise, that’s great too, and then you can eat more calories. But if you studiously count calories and reduce them, you will lose weight - it’s guaranteed. If I put you on a desert island and starved you, you would lose we…
It's not a mystery, but it also sort of pretends that humans are robots. That is, the human body has developed homeostatic mechanisms over billions of years, and a big part of that is that if your body thinks it's starving, it will try its hardest to (a) make you hungry so that you will do whatever you can to eat more, and (b) slow your metabolic rate so you don't die.
Then divide it in two.
Eat 50% of your 3000 calories of food on day 1 and the remaining 50% on day 2. Rinse repeat for other days.
When I do this I literally start seeing steady weight loss after 3-4 days.
Cheat on weekends -- start again on Monday. Lost 20kg over 4 months that way with exercise like walking and running.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nobody drives - they all either work from home (most), take public transport, or walk/cycle in. Parent comment explicitly called out "middle class city people" so I figure this is more than valid.
The UK is obsessively into exercise. It might be because a trip to the doctors for anything short of a bullet to the head invariably involves being told to exercise more.