No Exercise Weight Loss

Ryanb said:
Nope. If you’re consuming more calories and still losing weight, than your expenditure is greater than your intake.
Click to expand...

sure, but you’re ignoring the fact that I’m exercising less, my body is burning more on its own because of WHAT I’m eating.
 
Calories is an insanely simplified measure of energy and has little to do with the chemical reactions and energy release in the body. A calorie of protein, alcohol, or fat are not equivalent, especially when metabolized in a person that already has metabolic syndrome.
 
Salty said:
sure, but you’re ignoring the fact that I’m exercising less, my body is burning more on its own because of WHAT I’m eating.
Click to expand...
I said nothing about exercise. That’s an unrelated point.
 
I was running 35 miles a week minimum and I ate less than I am now, and I ride about 3 miles on a bike a day slowly now and eat more.
 
Salty said:
Then you aren’t following the conversation.
Click to expand...
Losing weight without exercise? I believe that was the jist of the thread topic.

Reduce the number of calories consumed by the number of calories exerted and you have lost weight without having to exercise.
 
Ryanb said:
Losing weight without exercise? I believe that was the jist of the thread topic.

Reduce the number of calories consumed by the number of calories exerted and you have lost weight without having to exercise.
Click to expand...
I reduced calories to the point of being unhealthy and never lost weight once I hit 180 pounds. I did it for years. It did not work. I’m 20 pounds lower than that now and I’m eating more calories.
 
Calories in food are measured by burning the food in a lab. It's a pretty crude way to measure how much energy is in something. It's an extremely crude way to measure the energy content available to your digestive system. There's also a fair amount of chemistry that happens there, but one thing for sure, you don't have a bunsen burner in your stomach/bowels. So, while the calories in/out metric is appealing in a simplistic way, it vastly oversimplifies what actually happens in different people's digestive system and the measurement of caloric content of food really doesn't take that into account.
Yes there is a mass/energy balance that happens. Exercise burns energy, consuming food adds an energy source, but the energy added through food is imperfectly measured and the variability in furnace efficiency from one person to the next is not well understood.
 
It is ridiculous to think that everybody is the same. We all know some people who can eat twice as much as others without exercising and never gain a pound, while someone else exercises every day, limits their calories, and slowly gains weight. Some people metabolize food much more "efficiently" then other people. It is the same with other mammals. Hogs, for example are constantly tested to see how efficiently they gain weight. With everything else the same, some hogs will gain 1 lb of weight for every 2.8 lbs of feed. Others may only gain 1 lb for every 4.5 lbs of feed consumed. While some may say "that's different" it really is not. We all metabolize food a little differently. That is why some diets work for some people but don't work for others. My family physician is really big on intermittent fasting. I tried that it it works well for me. I eat one meal per day, and it can be as much as I want, as long as I limit my carbs, and the weight just falls off. On weekends I eat 3 meals each day. For other people it may not work as well. We are all different. In my opinion, outside of near starvation, there really is no one size fits all when it comes to dieting.
 
tenor.gif
 
Piper18O said:
It is ridiculous to think that everybody is the same. We all know some people who can eat twice as much as others without exercising and never gain a pound, while someone else exercises every day, limits their calories, and slowly gains weight. Some people metabolize food much more "efficiently" then other people. It is the same with other mammals. Hogs, for example are constantly tested to see how efficiently they gain weight. With everything else the same, some hogs will gain 1 lb of weight for every 2.8 lbs of feed. Others may only gain 1 lb for every 4.5 lbs of feed consumed. While some may say "that's different" it really is not. We all metabolize food a little differently. That is why some diets work for some people but don't work for others. My family physician is really big on intermittent fasting. I tried that it it works well for me. I eat one meal per day, and it can be as much as I want, as long as I limit my carbs, and the weight just falls off. On weekends I eat 3 meals each day. For other people it may not work as well. We are all different. In my opinion, outside of near starvation, there really is no one size fits all when it comes to dieting.
Click to expand...

I think a decent chunk of those folks that can eat unlimited crappy diets usually have high A1Cs and are on their way to diabetes, they just don’t know because they physically look fine. A whole lot of them should take the oral glucose test which just might change their eating habits.
 
Last edited:
Since it's all about calories, how about a frozen food diet? The calories used to get the food up to body temperature offset the calories in the food. A frozen Snickers bar would net out to 0. Frozen peas would be negative.
Easy-peasy!

NOTE: Just joking. I know they're different "calories."
 
Piper18O said:
It is ridiculous to think that everybody is the same. We all know some people who can eat twice as much as others without exercising and never gain a pound, while someone else exercises every day, limits their calories, and slowly gains weight. Some people metabolize food much more "efficiently" then other people. It is the same with other mammals. Hogs, for example are constantly tested to see how efficiently they gain weight. With everything else the same, some hogs will gain 1 lb of weight for every 2.8 lbs of feed. Others may only gain 1 lb for every 4.5 lbs of feed consumed. While some may say "that's different" it really is not. We all metabolize food a little differently. That is why some diets work for some people but don't work for others. My family physician is really big on intermittent fasting. I tried that it it works well for me. I eat one meal per day, and it can be as much as I want, as long as I limit my carbs, and the weight just falls off. On weekends I eat 3 meals each day. For other people it may not work as well. We are all different. In my opinion, outside of near starvation, there really is no one size fits all when it comes to dieting.
Click to expand...

I think fasting is an important step to reset insulin levels. The SAD diet is so full of sugar everyone is riding the insulin roller coaster all day. Eat a crap ton of startchy calories and I'm hungry again in three hours...

If the high levels of starch and sugar are indeed proven to cause diabetes then everyone I know was essentially set on that path from grade school, with some fairing better than others later in life. But seriously, I would eat my box of frosted flakes, toast with jelly, and milk and or orange juice every morning at school.

I'm a firm believer in sugar toxicity at this point.
 
Last edited:
bnt83 said:
I think fasting is an important step to reset insulin levels. The SAD diet is so full of sugar everyone is riding the insulin roller coaster all day. Eat a crap ton of startchy calories and I'm hungry again in three hours...
Click to expand...
I couldn't agree more. Our family physician is very critical of sugar and carbs. After weaning myself off of sugar and carbs, I really feel crappy if I eat just a piece of birthday cake at a party for example. Processed carbs are the worst.
 
As usual.....lots of N=1 evidence arguments here.
“I did this and that happened”.....no, no, no.
 
I think it's only fair that if I gain weight staring at food, I should be able to lose weight by staring at a treadmill.
 
I started losing weight once I found out that pizza is measured in slices.
No diet per se. Just portion control, eliminating added starches and eliminating 'carb snacking'. Some of this isn't easy for someone who loves italian and spanish food. Lots of green salads. Increased exercise , whatever I can squeeze into my schedule. Mostly cycling, a little bit of running, some swimming (somewhat hampered by covid), some weights and body weight exercises. If I am disciplined on both eating and exercise, I keep my weight and can afford to have a slice of cake or a coke. If I slack off, the pounds start creeping back up. There is no magic involved.


As for the role of different diets. Yes, you can turn yourself into the 4.5lb feed / lb of bacon hog by changing your diet away from carbs towards protein. You are just reducing your ability of turning calories into bacon. Doing so will increase the amount you can over-eat relative to your total caloric expenditure.
But no matter how hard you try, you will not gain weight if your caloric intake is below your daily energy expenditure for a prolonged period of time. No matter what your 'metabolism', you are never going to beat the 2.8lb of feed hog. Anything else would require nuclear energy. Most of the people who 'gain weight on a 1600 calorie diet' somehow forget to record some meals or make 'errors' when accounting for ingredients.
 
weilke said:
I started losing weight once I found out that pizza is measured in slices.
No diet per se. Just portion control, eliminating added starches and eliminating 'carb snacking'. Some of this isn't easy for someone who loves italian and spanish food. Lots of green salads. Increased exercise , whatever I can squeeze into my schedule. Mostly cycling, a little bit of running, some swimming (somewhat hampered by covid), some weights and body weight exercises. If I am disciplined on both eating and exercise, I keep my weight and can afford to have a slice of cake or a coke. If I slack off, the pounds start creeping back up. There is no magic involved.


As for the role of different diets. Yes, you can turn yourself into the 4.5lb feed / lb of bacon hog by changing your diet away from carbs towards protein. You are just reducing your ability of turning calories into bacon. Doing so will increase the amount you can over-eat relative to your total caloric expenditure.
But no matter how hard you try, you will not gain weight if your caloric intake is below your daily energy expenditure for a prolonged period of time. No matter what your 'metabolism', you are never going to beat the 2.8lb of feed hog. Anything else would require nuclear energy. Most of the people who 'gain weight on a 1600 calorie diet' somehow forget to record some meals or make 'errors' when accounting for ingredients.
Click to expand...
1600 calories a day? I wish. I didn't gain, but I didn't lose eating less than 1200 a day. What works for you does not necessarily work for me.
 
steingar said:
This is pure BS. Like I said, if calories in < than calories out, weight you lose. It really is that simple. You can't easily count calories out, so the whole thing is stochastic. You decrease calories in until you see the weight loss, and than continue until you hit where you think you should be. The hardest part is if you are hungry, you cannot eat all you want. Portion control is key.
Click to expand...

At its most basic, this is true. But this is not how people interpret it; people assume you are referencing the calories you eat. Total calories you eat is only one piece of the puzzle. You have multiple other variables that can have large effects; such as what @Salty alludes too, a high protein diet where you avoid sugars and carbs you can actually consume many more calories due to how inefficiently your body actually processes it.

Tim
 
Go be a contestant on the show 'Alone'.
You'll get to travel to some cool place lose as much weight as you want, and then come home and talk about it.
And you have a chance to win a bunch of money too.

(Tongue in cheek, but actually true)
 
Salty said:
1600 calories a day? I wish. I didn't gain, but I didn't lose eating less than 1200 a day. What works for you does not necessarily work for me.
Click to expand...

I agree. 1200 calories a day wouldn't work for me either.
Having lived with someone who tried the 1200 calorie a day route, I am familiar with just how hard it is to actually maintain that effort. Also unless you either cook all of your food or receive it from a diet kitchen, you are going to be off on the high side. The biggest problem is that at such a low intake it is difficult to maintain the energy level needed for the exercise side of the equation.
 
When I was growing up on our ranch, there was lots of BS laying around, and we always had MS (more ****) to deal with. Dad told us to give it the PhD treatment. Pile it Higher and Deeper. I’m hoping to save my watch because it’s certainly too late for my boots!
 
Salty said:
I reduced calories to the point of being unhealthy and never lost weight once I hit 180 pounds. I did it for years. It did not work. I’m 20 pounds lower than that now and I’m eating more calories.
Click to expand...
How did you determine your caloric reduction was unhealthy? What were you missing? If you had sufficient caloric intake to fuel your metabolism the only thing I can think of is vitamins, unless your diet was just that horrid. Don't know. Lots of folks live on 1000 calories a day for years. I wouldn't call them corpulent though.
 
bflynn said:
Depends on the person and activity. If you're active, then carbs don't really matter because you'll burn through them. If, like a lot a Americans, you are already overweight and not very active, carbs become significant.

However, regardless of who you are, if you maintain whatever activity you are doing and cut calories, you will shed pounds.

The catch tends to be that people restrict calories also tend to have less energy and are less active. This is true even with low carb because available glucose is very low and you will fatigue quickly
Click to expand...

Not true, but a great way to demean people who are over weight. "Oh, just stop eating so much and get some exercise size and you'll lose weight".

Total BS for most people, especially women. The biological and hereditary nuances are far more complicated.
 
I lean towards the calories in/out camp, but, apparently when you consume your calories is important. A recent study concluded those who limit calorie intake after 4pm lost more weight than those otherwise consuming/burning identical calorie profiles. Similarly, the timing of food and alcohol intake makes a difference. With alcohol in your system, your body essentially stores everything else as fat. I personally think these two factors alone might be a large factor behind the "Freshman 15" :)
 
Last edited:
I eat meat/cheese/eggs/veggies and I lose weight. I eat pasta and bread and I gain weight. I use a mix to maintain my mountain gorilla figure.
 
Then there's the crystal meth weight loss plan. Lose weight no matter who you are or what you eat!;) FM!
 
Lndwarrior said:
Not true, but a great way to demean people who are over weight. "Oh, just stop eating so much and get some exercise size and you'll lose weight".
Click to expand...

I am overweight. In fact, I'm so overweight that I'm into category 1b for the covid vaccine, right there with otherwise healthy people over 65.

I am also down almost 40 lbs in about 5 years. I can 100% tell you that exercise helps, cutting carbs help and cutting calories help. So yeah, stop eating so much, exercise and you'll lose weight.
 
Losing weight is 100% nutrition. You can lose all the weight you want and never exercise. Now would I personally do that? No. Because exercise does have it's physiological benefits. But exercise is not needed for weight loss if you focus on nutrition.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top