The most AI reply ever

I like the approach of some bodybuilders when trying to lose weight. They just count the cardio as extra, and multiplying the calories burnt by 0 to 0.5 when cutting.

Losing weight also becomes quite straight forward when one tracks their calories and activity in minutes and uses weekly averages. That way changing one side while maintaining the other can get them to losing weight again.

I agree totally with you, people try to find the perfect equation and tracking method for everything, otherwise it's pointless to them. Honestly I like how it is like a game, where losing weight initially is simple and then it gets incrementally harder and you have to find better methods and how there's variations from person to person.

What point are you even trying to make? The energy comes from your glycogen reserves and then from fat, both in a fasted vs non-fasted state. And if calories are equated at the end of the day, you just made your workout way harder because you didn't fuel properly.

> you just made your workout way harder because you didn't fuel properly.

Not necessarily. I feel way better when I work out in the morning without any food first. I think it's because my body doesn't have to spend any energy digesting food while exercising. This is true whether I'm doing a weightlifting session or a few hour trail run

It is because this subject is the closest to modern voodoo of all modern activities.

I rolled the bones myself and it seemed like it worked, therefor X.

No, I rolled the bones myself and it seemed like it worked, therefor Y.

We would first have to define what we are even talking about by "energy" and "workout" to have any kind of real conversation.

The popular mind on this subject is also not even up to the point we sequenced the genome. What people think of as truth is mostly repeating things from the 1990s.I rolled the bones myself and it seemed like it worked.

Well I think it largely depends on how well trained you are because metabolic flexibility is something that gets trained. Without it your body has a hard time burning fats for fuel and so you'll feel terrible if you don't have an immediate glycogen store. When you are well trained you can do things like literally run several marathons while fasted which is documented. So whether it "works" or not will just depend largely on if your body has adapted to it

One could just start slowly with something like learning to make delicious food that's not as calorie dense or going for an activity like rock climbing or basketball with friends once a week instead of going to a restaurant.

Yes, you have to sustain them for long periods of time, but that doesn't mean they can't be fun.

There's so much friction just getting to the point of even trying any one of those things that it just feels unattainable. Because you have to make it your whole life if you want to have any hope.

What's the alternative then? Just succumb to your habits? And maybe life is decent now, but it only goes downhill and gets more difficult physically as we age. Do you really want the you in 10 years to hate the you now?

I like Yvon Chouinard's approach when choosing sports too, he'd chose one that's fun, do it while enjoying it and once it feels like grinding he'd just move on to another sport that's fun again.

I understand that it's difficult, but it's something that affects all other areas of your life, so you shouldn't just give up.

I mean, I have dissociative identities, so I don't even have to hate the me of 10 years ago -- parts of me already hate other parts of me in the present, with a passion... but, I digress.

> I understand that it's difficult, but it's something that affects all other areas of your life, so you shouldn't just give up.

Yes, of course; I have some major executive dysfunction in pretty much all areas of my life, so this checks out... I don't "just give up" per se, I just don't know what to do, and then the habits keep happening in the background. I'm mostly autopilot these days, due to the constant overwhelm (even though I don't like it).

Everyone seems interested only in weight loss. But the scale is just a poor proxy for what people actually care about ( looks, health or physical aptitude ). Your bodyweight remaining the same while gaining muscle should also be a huge win since that's building muscle, bone density and losing fat.

Do people actually just want to lose weight momentarily through diet? Instead of keeping it off long term, which is way easier achievable through diet + exercise?

Also no mention of body composition, bone density and cardiovascular health, which should be the actual metrics, instead of the proxy used for them.

I'm interested in weight loss because my BMI is over 30 which is considered obese regardless of whether it's muscle or not. I should not have a third of this weight. A couple years ago, I bought an electric scooter and it could not carry me because of the weight, so I ended up having to return it. Nowdays I have one that costs four times more and can carry me, but I still weigh much more than I should!

this is true for weight loss while in a mostly health range. it isn't true for people with high BMIs. for them the scale is a mostly direct match to health and how they look

I think they are also at risk from the BMI simplification and the goal as presented in the article. The wrong crash diet approach can be raising their % body fat while lowering their BMI. If they weren't weight lifters that's probably putting them in a high risk group that isn't usually identified in studies.

By how much are you cutting calories? At first glance it seems somewhat excessive if it affects your life so much. Also do you live in a very hot area or do a lot of cardio? Otherwise thinking about electrolytes is way too overrated

I like to experiment with a variety of diets / deficits. On some of the more extreme ones like week long water fasting, or Lyle McDonald's rapid fat loss diet, you absolutely need to consume electrolytes because you're not going to get enough passively through eating. Personally I don't have a lot of success with very mild 200-400 calorie deficits, where electrolytes are not a major concern. I suspect it's due to factors related to the linked article, and that in general, the margin for error is much smaller.

It's probably because the calorie maintenance is a range and not a set number so you have to adjust accordingly so if you eat less -> you move less -> tdee goes down. All those while you feel lower energy and hungrier. That's where exercise comes in as a satiety regulator.

If 200-400 kcals deficit doesn't work, just lower by 100 more each week until you get to a desired weight loss rate.

I've found great success with this approach and also changing my thinking to 'is this thing something sustainable and healthy long term?'. Like of course I can lose a lot of weight fast with a huge deficit, but then I'll just default to my initial habits and gain it back.

I also find that exercise has an influence on my cravings and on what I eat generally. It basically makes it much easier to avoid stuffing my face with random calorie laden foods.

I agree that it's a range, and that's precisely why it's hard to get right. If I go for a day trip on the weekend with my wife I might burn 1000 extra calories walking. If I have a mystery coffee at my friend's house I have no idea how much I just consumed. The margins are too close that it becomes difficult to make consistent progress.

Sure it can be difficult, especially if you compare day to day, but if you compare or weekly bi-weekly averages ( both weight and calories ) it becomes way more doable. Are you just supposed not to try since you can't exactly find the numbers each day?

With the approach above you don't really care about acute changes in intake or activity and look at the bigger picture and change the things that are constant and under your control.

It's not simple but it also doesn't mean you should just give up.

Yeah, but why do something difficult when you could do something easy? Going on a 300 cal deficit a day, you have 2100 calories a week. A couple bad days could easily throw off all your progress, and you might not even know what messed you up. If I eat at a 3000 cal deficit I'm gonna lose weight even if I don't do things perfectly. Go out for ice cream? Skip the gym? Who cares?