Comment

Comment on Anon figures out how dieting works

undergroundoverground@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

The evidence linking excersise alone with weight loss is sketchy at best and rarely is there any significant difference between combined diet and excerise groups and diet-alone groups. Excersise alone rarely, if ever, shows any significant difference in weight loss.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5556592/

Theres a reason people say “you can’t out run a bad diet” and there’s a reason its called “cardiovascular” and not “weight loss” excersise.

The idea that you could out run a bad diet was pushed by food lobby groups who wanted people to eat more than they need to, under the pretence that they can excersise it off later.

We evolved as persistence hunters. As such, the pathway for excersise induced fat burning is greatly inhibited, so as to not be able to run yourself to death trying to get food.

source

Sort:hotnew top

Kecessa@sh.itjust.works ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
Reading it they make it clear that it’s because people end up eating more than they did before which isn’t what I’m talking about.

By your logic there’s no reason why athletes need to eat so much, their caloric needs should pretty much stay the same, as if they didn’t exercise.

source
- undergroundoverground@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  You managed to pick out the one study, amongst all those that disagree with you, that you think proves you point while simultaneously ignoring the literature reviews conclusions. I’m not sure what to say to something so far beyond confirmation bias.
  
  Its not MY logic. Its the logic of the lack of evidence agreeing with your premise. Its the logic of looking at our metabolic pathways and our evolution, instead of that of food lobby groups.
  
  Even then, you’re thinking about the release of glycogen and not fat burning/weight loss. Thats why athletes carb load, instead of keeping extra fat on them to burn off while competing. Its why people with fat on them stop due to exhaustion, despite having lots of energy they can use all over their body. Its why people have to go through so much to induce ketosis. Its why even professional marathon runners eat healthily and not too much.
  
  Our fat reserves are for keeping us alive in an emergency, not a source of additional energy to dip into when we need it. I mean, I wouldn’t go on about logic when you’re here arguing for the idea of a species of persistence hunters who evolved to be able to run themselves to death easily.
  
  Like most people, you wildly over estimate how many calories are burned by cardio vascular excersise, above bass rate metabolism.
  
  source
  - Kecessa@sh.itjust.works ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    80 to 140 calories per mile when jogging, even at the lower end it means that if you jog 6 miles you have your 500 calories deficit as long as you don’t eat more than you would have otherwise.
    
    It’s. Not. Magic. If you needed 2500 calories to stay at the same weight then increasing your caloric needs to 3000 is the same as reducing your intake to 2000.
    
    It’s about consistency, just like cutting calories, you can cut all week and fuck it all up by eating a cake on the weekend that you wouldn’t have if you weren’t on a diet.
    
    source
    undergroundoverground@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    I agree, its not magic. Its you making up numbers and refusing to accept that glycogen exists. Probably because you don’t know anything about it while massively over estimating your knowledge of bio chem.
    
    Its not 80 - 140. Its like 5 -10 at best. Again, you epically over estimate the calorie burning effect of excersise, above bass rate, that cardio does. Its why its called cardiovascular and not weight loss excersise, just fyi, due to the fundamental lack of evidence proving it to cause weight loss. Funny that…
    
    I mean, you might have a point, if insulin and glucagon didn’t exist. However, they do. So, that ends that really. Well, it does it you understand metabolism.
    
    There is also evidence to support the notion that individuals who are less physically active are more likely to gain weight over time than those who exercise between 150 and 300 min/week
    
    Doesn’t mean exceraise makes people lose weight. It could also mean people who do no excersise often eat more too. They would have said this in their report themselves. Dont just read what you want to from things.
    
    Although exercise contributes to multiple health benefits, and most of the research suggests that it can play a role in both short- and long-term weight loss and weight maintenance, patients often have a difficult time engaging in a regular exercise program and continuing that program as a lifestyle modification.
    
    It CAN, as in, in their opinion some of the research potentially could indicate that. But its not conclusive, as I keep saying. You just read what you wanted from that.
    
    Consistently performing exercise of a duratio er than the basic recommendations for health (150 min/week of moderate-intensity exercise) does appear to be more likely to contribute to weight loss and weight maintenance efforts over the long term
    
    So, again, one that might “appear” to maybe actually agree with you and you ignored all the rest. Well the ones you didn’t choose to missread that is.
    
    Even then, they’re very tentative and say its more likely, not something like “the evidence shows”, as the evidence does show that. Again again, this so far beyond confirmation bias. If you want to die on this hill of no evidence and feeling like you can out run bad diet (which would have to be true, if it worked to way you’re claiming it does), then more fool you.
    
    Its not magic but it would be, if it worked how you seem to think it does. Behold, the magical persistence hunters who evolved to be able to run themselves to a starvation induced death.
    
    You can’t argue with that kind of “logic.”
    
    source
    -> View More Comments