edaus

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'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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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