Maybe, but if you’re only 180 you don’t need to lose as much weight!
And if you do need to lose a lot of weight, you sure aren’t walking 3.5 mph.
I’m 260 and yes, I am walking 3.5mph. In dress shoes.
Sure you can lose weight without exercise! Muscle mass is more dense and “weighs” more than fat in the same volumes. But why would you want to do that? People need to stop just looking at the scales. I personally have lost only about 5 - 8 lbs since April. I have been doing CrossFit twice a week since then. My diet has been 90% Soylent with extra chicken for more protein. So what is wrong? Well, not much really. I have lost two pants sizes in this time frame and my performance in the exercises has improved quite a bit. This translates to more power, strength and endurance. Add to that more confidence as I am getting rid of body fat % and increasing my overall stability and posture.
So, yes, I could have restricted calories and lost weight, but I would be losing muscle mass at a rate equal to or greater than fat mass instead of what I am doing now and gaining muscle mass while losing fat.
Lucky you. You got really long legs? I can barely do 3.5 if I really push it, and if I do for more than a couple minutes I’ll start sweating requiring a shower after. Not conducive to a couple walks per day. I would have to walk more than 10 hours per week. That’s a parttime job! I just don’t have that kind of free time to spare.
I’m probably the laziest person you’ll meet and I can push 3.5 for 40min + or so. (I’m also 5"4, not thin either)
However we’re all different in our own ways.
It also depends on what kind of terrain you’re walking on and whether there are hills. Walking up/down the steep hills of downtown Seattle I don’t think I could do 3.5 for very long. Or if rough terrain like a rocky beach. But give me a nice flat asphalt and I could probably walk 3.5 mph all day long.
3.5mph isn’t all that fast. It’s barely above the average human walking speed of 3mph.
And yeah, sometimes I do get a little sweaty on my walks. So what? I mean, what do you do in the summer on a hot day, shower constantly?
To get this thread “back on track.”
Started my “100% Soylent” on 9/21 and 262.8lbs. Kept it to 1600 calories for three days, but ended up having snacks (and a few drinks the third day.) Went to the full 2000 calories Thursday, then off Soylent complete for the weekend.
Back on Soylent 100% (2,000 calories) yesterday and (hopefully) today.
For exercise basically two short walks a day during the week, walking around a festival and barhopping Friday/Saturday and practically nothing on Sunday.
I’m down to 258.6 as of this morning.
Sigh. I was just trying to meet you halfway. I haven’t had dogs for all of my adult life, and there are periods where I haven’t walked daily. I suspect that if I admitted to walking from the bedroom to the bathroom, you’d cry, “WALKING!”
The truth is, I have have lost weight on calorie restriction alone, even with no walking for exercise. Here’s one such period:
This shows my starting weight, which was around 225 for weeks, the drop during the diet, which started 8/22 (the steep initial part is water/glycogen loss), and I’ve identified the causes of all the bump-ups in weight (all of which are attributable to glycogen/water gain after days where I ate a lot more protein/fat/carbs, and between the increased gut contents and the water gain from carbs, you can see the difference the next day.
[EDIT: Correction; in the period above, I actually did take a couple long brisks walks on that shore trip. Other than that, not much walking.]
I know, from extended fasting (not shown here), that I can drop 6 to 7 pounds of water weight from stored glycogen loss in 2-3 days of not eating, and that I can recover those pounds in 3 or 4 days of normal eating.
Here’s another, from years ago:
In this second example, from 2011, you see several days before the diet for the baseline weight of 240, the diet period (the beginning of which was steep because of the drop in glycogen/water), the recovery of glycogen/water at the end of the diet period, and the new post-diet baseline being established afterward, which was 233 or so.
Congrats! Good progress.
I don’t agree that that’s “fact,” but it’s certainly commonly stated. Also, if your BMR is 2,000, 1,500 calories is not a 500 calorie deficit. Your BMR is the amount you burn just lying in bed. Perhaps you mean if your maintenance calories are 2,000, then 1,500 is a 500 calorie deficit?
Not really true. Your implication is that the binge leads to enough fat gain to replace all the fat lost in a week of dieting. That’s simply untrue. You weight the next day will be up due to water gain from glycogen storage, from increased gut contents, etc., and will even be up from the anabolic growth of lean tissue on refeed after a period of dieting, but you will not magically regains a week’s worth of fat loss from one day of binge eating.
If your maintenance calories are 2,000, and you eat 1,600 and exercise for another 500, your deficit is 900. This is nearly double the deficit of simply cutting calories by 500. In my experience, it makes me much hungrier, and makes me more likely to binge. All forms of exercise stimulate my appetite and my hunger, including brisk walking.
I can go for a walk to temporarily stave off my hunger, but after I stop walking, the hunger comes on stronger than before.
My experience simply doesn’t match yours.
Perhaps we’re just different.
This can happen only during severe caloric restriction, and even then it wouldn’t be quite equal, especially for someone with high body fat percentage. Moderate restriction (like 200 cal daily deficit) would cause fat to muscle loss ratio higher than 9 to 1.
If we’re bringing personal examples: I haven’t exercised in 6 years. My activity level is so bad that I make less than 2000 steps per day. Whenever I decide to “lose a few pounds”, I only restrict calories. If the dietary muscle atrophy was a big deal, I shouldn’t be able to walk by now.
In reality, I look pretty much the same I did 20 years ago. My wife believes that I “secretly exercise” when she’s not home - how else would I be able to keep normal BMI and muscle tone, when it takes a lot of effort/exercise for her to do the same ?
I wouldn’t suggest that others should try my methods/tricks to lose or maintain weight, but I know I’m not just lucky by some genetic predisposition. If I don’t watch what I eat, I can balloon quickly just like everybody else.
By my simple statement that I am doing CrossFit, I am also laying out a fitness goal that can’t be achieved with simple calorie restriction alone. While I am not necessarily going for body building in the traditional sense with targeted exercises for just physical appearance and doing “bulk” and “cut” cycles, I am going for low body fat % as well as increased overall athletic performance. I also am interested in better muscle size and definition in the course of achieving that, but not as a goal in and of itself. This means that my calorie restrictions are based on the higher intensity workouts but I also am adding protein as well based on my overall body weight.
Different people have different goals. That being said, one shouldn’t expect to be more ‘fit’ in their personal body performance (able to play casual sports without being excessively winded or weak, sexual performance, energy throughout the day, etc.) without putting the work in to exercise. Simple calorie restriction can result in less body fat and weight overall, and there will be some benefits from just not moving all of that mass around, but it will not substitute for actual conditioning. It all depends on what your goals are.
Yes, by doctors and everyone who studies nutrition.
Depends how much you binge, really. Remember if you’re only doing a 500 calorie deficit that’s only 3,000 calories lost in a 6 day period. If your 7th day is the cheat day,
A large Papa John’s Pizza is 2,640, maybe you’ll split it up to two or three meals but it’s still a lot of calories. Add a Soylent because you tried to behave at breakfast and you’re already at 3,000 calories. Add a bunch of drinks when you go out at night and yes, eating junk food on the way home because you’re drunk hungry… you’re close to covering the entire calorie deficit you created that week.
Oh and just forget it if you get wings. Wings are insane calorie-wise. (Real wings, not Papa John’s.)
Now granted you shouldn’t do any of that, but it’s what happens far too often to people who run a large calorie deficit because they end up so hungry their cravings take over.
And yes, I’ve done it several times myself.
Sure your post-walk craving might be stronger… but you’re changing the argument here. I’m saying that if you restrict yourself to 1,600 calories and exercise for 500 you’ll lose weight faster. I think you’d be even better off if you stuck to eating 2,000 calories and burned 3,000 (which is basically what I’m doing now.)
Basically, my maintenance is around 2,200 on a very sedate day. So I eat around 2,000 calories. On a typical workday my normal activity gets my calorie burn to 2,600ish and two decent walks should get me close to 3,000.
I’m not generally too hungry this way, compared to the days where I only did 1,600 calories of Soylent and was starving the entire day and ended up breaking down after two days and eating muggle food. (I did keep it relatively healthy thankfully, but one day I broke down and had a spaghetti meal worth over 1,000 calories.)
So if exercise makes you hungrier I’m saying: Either use willpower to stave off the cravings, or eat more and add more exercise… or use other tricks to increase satiety. Drinking water helps, maybe eat low calorie snacks. Maybe exercise right before you’d normally eat so you satisfy the hunger with the target amount of calories.
But you’re comparing “scrupulous calorie restriction” with “exercise and non-scrupulous calorie restriction” while I’m advocating “exercise and scrupulous calorie restriction.”
Cheat daying to well over 5000 calories is extremely unusual.
Maybe not as much as you’d think. Every major diet system out there is based on calorie restriction alone, and 90% of people gain the weight back and more the moment they go off diet.
It seems to me that you’re ignoring several aspects of how the body deals with variation in calories input and output. For example, TEF - the Thermic Effect of Food. An increase in food input leads to a rise a basal metabolism which burns off a meaningful portion of the extra intake. If you just count calories linearly for everything, you will draw inaccurate conclusions.
Of course, if you’re capable of an extreme binge, maybe you can manage to take in a lot of food… but saying that a single additional 3,500 kcal meal simply leads to one pound of fat gain in a 24 hour period is simply not true.
It seems to me your statement here entirely misses my point. You’re comparing a combined 900 calorie deficit to a simple 500 calorie deficit and saying you’ll lose weight faster with the 900 calorie deficit… I was pointing out that they are not the same. I could just as easily say that I could eat a 1400 calorie deficit and not exercise and lose weight faster than your 900 calorie example… but that would be silly.
I’m quite familiar with willpower. I go three days without food on a regular basis.
I’m not comparing scrupulous versus non-scrupulous. I merely said that in my experience, exercise stimulates my appetite a great deal, which makes calorie restriction more difficult. “Scrupulousness” doesn’t enter into that.
Not ignoring, just unsure about. I actually asked once on some nutrition forum and no one really seemed to be sure, but the consensus was that you’d still turn most of the calories back to fat. (I had been hoping that if I slipped off diet it made sense to just go all out that day and have everything I normally crave.)
Except that you’d be dead or too weak/sick to type up how you’d proved me wrong.
And that’s part of my point, while it may be “easier” to create a deficit through restricted eating it’s “better” to create it through exercise.
But you are… remember way back when you said: “Why? Because people don’t exercise as much as they think, and the little they do prompts their appetites and they allow themselves to eat more.”
All your arguments have revolved around that idea, and you’re ignoring the part where you can avoid eating more calories just because you exercised.
Hey, look maybe you’re just different like you said… but you came into this thread making a blanket statement that YOUR personal method was the best method for everyone. You cited a couple studies that somewhat, but not quite, back you up and everything seems to revolve around the idea that if someone exercises they will eat more… which isn’t true if someone is really trying.