Yeap. Cardio exercise for weight loss alone is mostly wasted effort that wears joints and causes inflammation.
It's unpopular because the fitness crowd is so religious and ignorantly-stuck in anti-intellectualism, but the best strategy to lose weight is to gain as much muscle mass as possible with the less effort to accomplish in order to raise NEAT. It doesn't take a lot of time or effort (mostly dedication and planning) to stimulate muscle development effectively, and becoming a gym rat is essentially wasted time, money, and effort. It's nice to have cardio fitness too, but I would do the minimum to avoid too much IIB to IIA conversion like the anorexic-looking treadmill-only gym users do. If you want no glutes, avoid squats and lifts, and run a lot.
You absolutely can. Eating less calories than your basal metabolic rate (calories burned just to stay alive) means stored energy will be burnt and body weight will reduce.
You missed the point. Sure a negative energy balance will cause weight loss. But even if you get to a BMI in the range considered normal you won't be healthy over the long term without frequent exercise. Just being thin doesn't help if you're weak.
Can't these 5% still compounds over time if you were at the equilibrium before? I have no idea how much it represents in weight gain over a day, but just 10 g/d is still close to 5 kg weight gain over a year.
Though I agree with you, it's more the overall activity that is way down than just gym/exercising.
I used to walk several km per day during my commute to work. I've never needed more exercise than that to maintain my weight. Now, it appears that I need at least that much exercise to maintain my weight...
I had been going to the gym, three or four days a week, for 9 months, until the gyms got shut down. I had never been a gym goer before in my entire life, and never really exercised all that regularly. The gym has since reopened -- with various restrictions -- but I have not found my way back. I have gained at least an inch on my waist.
On the other hand, bicycle sales went way way up, and I remember my friends complaining at the start of the pandemic that there were so many people out exercising.
Was this just gym displacement or was it everyone with exercise availability?
I lost about 20 pounds since the start of the pandemic. The biggest change I noticed was that I stopped over eating at lunch. Since I am home and there are plenty of snacks (both healthy and not) I don't feel any need to eat too much at lunch, since I can always get a snack. Of course I don't usually end up getting a snack - I ate enough anyway.
I was 260 and am down to 240, but plateaued. I need to be at 200-210 lean or 240 bulked over 5 years. Doc suspects I have an endocrine syndrome like Cushing's that's messing me up in many respects. My body temperature is also stuck at 97.1 instead of 98.6.
As you lose weight your body needs less energy because there's just less tissue to keep alive. So in order to continue losing weight at the same rate you have to reduce calorie intake further (or burn more calories).
If you think you have a metabolic problem then get a resting metabolic rate test. That will tell you your baseline daily calorie burn.
Since being overweight and/or diabetic are strong risk factors in getting a bad case of covid, is there any estimate how much harm is caused compared to doing nothing?
What about the long term effects from this additional weight gain?
And reading the article, I was wondering about desired (yet possibly undeserved) weight loss or gain.
A lot of people prepared 100% of their own food for the first time, which could (theoretically) lead to healthier diets, or appropriate portions, or just premeditated shopping.
I remember in college, there was an idea of "the freshmen 10" or "the sophomore 20" with respect to weight gain when away from home.
This data seems suspect. “Average” weight loss and gains of around 25 pounds for these people in 1 year? I also don’t see a baseline from previous years—our society increases its BMI over time.
22 comments
[ 5.2 ms ] story [ 62.9 ms ] threadReduced NEAT (non-exercise activity thermogenesis/walking/fidgeting) is a bigger factor by an order of magnitude.
100% of weight gain is due to net caloric surplus. The main contribution by far is eating more calories.
https://jissn.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1550-2783-1...
In other words, loosing weight starts with portion control as the largest factor for most people.
It's unpopular because the fitness crowd is so religious and ignorantly-stuck in anti-intellectualism, but the best strategy to lose weight is to gain as much muscle mass as possible with the less effort to accomplish in order to raise NEAT. It doesn't take a lot of time or effort (mostly dedication and planning) to stimulate muscle development effectively, and becoming a gym rat is essentially wasted time, money, and effort. It's nice to have cardio fitness too, but I would do the minimum to avoid too much IIB to IIA conversion like the anorexic-looking treadmill-only gym users do. If you want no glutes, avoid squats and lifts, and run a lot.
https://www.webmd.com/fitness-exercise/features/does-running...
Though I agree with you, it's more the overall activity that is way down than just gym/exercising.
Was this just gym displacement or was it everyone with exercise availability?
If you think you have a metabolic problem then get a resting metabolic rate test. That will tell you your baseline daily calorie burn.
https://www.dexafit.com/services/rmr-metabolic-test
What about the long term effects from this additional weight gain?
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7010e4.htm
A lot of people prepared 100% of their own food for the first time, which could (theoretically) lead to healthier diets, or appropriate portions, or just premeditated shopping.
I remember in college, there was an idea of "the freshmen 10" or "the sophomore 20" with respect to weight gain when away from home.