|
|
|
|
|
by fcpk
118 days ago
|
|
human bodies are incredibly optimized to store energy for bad times and maintain a good balance at the ideal level. this is why the whole "calories in calories out" is technically true but mostly useless for a lot of people as the calories out is a very hard to compute variable. it also ignores entirely the negative effects of muscle loss. there is a lot of complexity and difficulty in long term weight loss, we are fighting biology hard there. that's why glp1 agonists are having such a success, they allow to fight hormonal homeostasis with proper weapons. I have yet to see any research showing a way to durably affect the body's set balance, which would be the revolution. but this research all in all confirms what we know:
* high intensity muscle fiber tearing exercise is much better at not affecting metabolic compensating mechanisms
* cardio might be good for health and other things, it's very much neutral or possibly negative for weight loss, as cardio does not build muscle mass
* pure diet changes are difficult to make sustainable for many. I have seen it first hand where a constant 300 calories deficit a day resulted in weight gain and muscle mass loss despite cardio. |
|
Look at overweight house cats and dogs. How did they get overweight? How do they lose weight?
Calories in / Calories out is the definition of survival or not for wild mammals.
Calories out is also exceedingly easy to calculate- on any given week if you gain weight the out is less than the in. If you maintain its ahout equal. If you lose weight out is higher than in.
Nothing else matters.