this post was submitted on 17 Oct 2023
14 points (100.0% liked)
Aotearoa / New Zealand
1657 readers
3 users here now
Kia ora and welcome to !newzealand, a place to share and discuss anything about Aotearoa in general
- For politics , please use !politics@lemmy.nz
- Shitposts, circlejerks, memes, and non-NZ topics belong in !offtopic@lemmy.nz
- If you need help using Lemmy.nz, go to !support@lemmy.nz
- NZ regional and special interest communities
Rules:
FAQ ~ NZ Community List ~ Join Matrix chatroom
Banner image by Bernard Spragg
Got an idea for next month's banner?
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
It’s pretty well known in fitness circles that you should be using TDEE (Total Daily Energy Expenditure) to lose weight. Simply put it’s calories in vs. calories out. Doesn’t really matter if you exercise or not. If calories going in is less than what you use daily, then weight loss should happen.
What if the TDEE is not really a useful measure?
What if your body is working against you in that particular regard?
In what way? What do you mean body working against you?
It's never going to be exact, but unless your a top 1% athelete who's getting lab work done regularly, it doesn't need to be.
As long as you're generally lower on intake than what you burn , weight loss should occur, barring illnesses or similar. There will also always be outliers who burn more or less at rest.
Think of it like this.
Your body has two energy users, the autonomic stuff that you have no control over (immune system, endocrine system, reproductive system etc..) and the conscious stuff that you do have control over, walking / running / working etc..
Your body will dial back the autonomic functions to allow you to increase the conscious energy load, this is to stay inside your energy budget.
The parts of you that you have no control over are working against you in subtle ways that you cannot know. I realize that the energy in vs energy out argument is good, because in the long run it works out, but on a daily basis it doesn't. It would work much better if you changed daily to monthly or quarterly.
Total Monthly Energy Expenditure vs Monthly Calorific Intake. Or more succinctly your personal Monthly Energy Balance.
I don't know man, you're getting into some woo woo broscience with talk like that.
Yes illnesses, lack of sleep, thyroid issues etc. can affect weight loss. There is enough data out there to show how weight loss works. It doesn't need to be an exact calorie number you hit each day. It's about generally keeping better habits and being mindful of your nutrition. Some days you go over, some days are under. Some days you exercise more and some days less.
I'm actually not sure what the point you're making is in regard to weight loss. As you say it all works out in the long run anyway.
The conversation went away from my original question about new information that conflicts with existing views, but that is the nature of conversation, you go where it leads.
But the book is more about the way ultra-processed foods mess with out reward systems to encourage over-eating and that exercise is not a way to balance out excess consumption. As your body simply thinks it needs more food, even though you have blown your food budget for the day; the increased exercise doesn't burn nearly as much as you would expect given the level of work you think you are doing, then eating a little more blows the budget even further.
I agree with that in the sense that most people when getting in to fitness start to realise how much you have to exercise to burn off excess consumption. And that it's already known that ultraprocessed food is usually very calorie dense but can be nutritionally empty. I'm sure most who get into it seriously are aware dietary habits also need to change.
In running circles there's a saying "you can't outrun a bad diet". There's also "Abs are made in the kitchen".
There is some evidence that the body will do that while you are undergoing intense exercise, IE at or above the aerobic threshold, but everything we know says it goes right back to normal once you slow down. The idea you will use the same amount of energy regardless is simply nonsense.
What you said, is the same as what I said.
You do understand the "aerobic threshold" is the limit is your lung capacity, right? You need to be absolutely sprinting for this to take place.
I had to remind myself what AT was as your explanation differed from my memory. AT is the limit at which you can do exercise for hours; you have used the the glycogen in your muscles (moved from anaerobic exercise to aerobic); this is where oxygen from your lungs is supplying your muscles along with the fuel. This is much slower then using the stored glycogen; you don't need to sprint to get to the AT; but you will get there much quicker if you do, consistent exercise at a lower level will use up the glycogen and force you into aerobic exercise mode.