Constrained Energy Expenditure

[wildweasel]

Smiter said:

wildweasel said:

Smiter said:

Grogu said:

N Sharp said:

We tend to think we burn far more calories than we actually do.

And we often think we eat fewer calories than we really do.

Thanks for sharing this — it's a really useful resource!

I'm in complete agreement — the calories we take in get undercounted far too often, and I'd put my agreement at 1,000%. Serving sizes have drifted so far from any sensible baseline, packaging claims can steer you wrong, and tracking every calorie is something most folks simply won't do.

For myself, I log intake on 5 days out of the week and keep calories in check, though I treat the result as a ballpark rather than a precise measurement. In my view it's "close enough for government work".

On the output side, I've never subtracted exercise burn from what I eat, apart from using an overall estimated TDEE based on how active I am. That figure has come down alongside my weight loss, and so has my intake.

Back when I began tirz, counting calories wasn't part of my routine, since I figured people at a "normal" weight don't bother with it. The trouble was my TDEE sat so high (3,400) that simply eating less did the job.

Huh? In what way? What was your starting size?

Grogu said:

5byfive said:

When it comes to losing weight, what you eat matters most. Cardio has my support, but it simply doesn't shift the number on the scale in the way people once assumed. This isn't new information, yet more and more data keeps confirming it. A poor diet can't be fixed by exercise alone. What's curious is that resistance training appears to be a different story. Short and to the point video. For me, Menno Henselmans sets the standard when it comes to dissecting research.

View: https://youtu.be/yiclzDPIyQ0?si

Right — a poor diet can't be fixed by running or walking alone. In my area there's a man who is roughly as wide as he is tall. Friendly guy. He goes walking in the worst heat of south Florida, fully covered in workout gear. He's kept this up for years. During all that time, it doesn't appear he has dropped any weight. Once I ran into him at the supermarket and took a look at what was in his cart, checking item by item, and it was loaded with nothing but junk food. (I felt so envious ).

Let me say this before anyone comes at me: I'm not claiming cardio has no health advantages past weight loss, and I do believe cardio is beneficial. Still, when it comes to losing weight, it doesn't help much.

Hang in there, sis...cardio suxx...even if it doesnt.

N Sharp said:

We tend to think we burn far more calories than we actually do.

And we often think we eat fewer calories than we really do.

Thanks for sharing this — it's a really useful resource!

PREACH!

wildweasel said:

every point raised here looks accurate to me.

One thing that deserves a nod is fasted cardio. When you do cardio on an empty stomach, your body has to tap into fat and glycogen reserves. That won't cancel out bad eating habits or a calorie surplus, but it does nudge your body toward using stored fat for fuel rather than relying on calories from food.

That is Au. Raise thermogenesis in our bodies and it becomes platinum, and our TDEE rises. With no workouts logged at all, a single 4 hour workout yesterday, helped by thermogeneics, produced these numbers in the watch's app.

Which one do you take — caffeine, or a different option?

Grogu said:

Smiter said:

Grogu said:

N Sharp said:

We tend to think we burn far more calories than we actually do.

And we often think we eat fewer calories than we really do.

Thanks for sharing this — it's a really useful resource!

I'm in complete agreement — the calories we take in get undercounted far too often, and I'd put my agreement at 1,000%. Serving sizes have drifted so far from any sensible baseline, packaging claims can steer you wrong, and tracking every calorie is something most folks simply won't do.

For myself, I log intake on 5 days out of the week and keep calories in check, though I treat the result as a ballpark rather than a precise measurement. In my view it's "close enough for government work".

On the output side, I've never subtracted exercise burn from what I eat, apart from using an overall estimated TDEE based on how active I am. That figure has come down alongside my weight loss, and so has my intake.

Back when I began tirz, counting calories wasn't part of my routine, since I figured people at a "normal" weight don't bother with it. The trouble was my TDEE sat so high (3,400) that simply eating less did the job.

Huh? In what way? What was your starting size?

Grogu said:

5byfive said:

When it comes to losing weight, what you eat matters most. Cardio has my support, but it simply doesn't shift the number on the scale in the way people once assumed. This isn't new information, yet more and more data keeps confirming it. A poor diet can't be fixed by exercise alone. What's curious is that resistance training appears to be a different story. Short and to the point video. For me, Menno Henselmans sets the standard when it comes to dissecting research.

View: https://youtu.be/yiclzDPIyQ0?si

Right — a poor diet can't be fixed by running or walking alone. In my area there's a man who is roughly as wide as he is tall. Friendly guy. He goes walking in the worst heat of south Florida, fully covered in workout gear. He's kept this up for years. During all that time, it doesn't appear he has dropped any weight. Once I ran into him at the supermarket and took a look at what was in his cart, checking item by item, and it was loaded with nothing but junk food. (I felt so envious ).

Let me say this before anyone comes at me: I'm not claiming cardio has no health advantages past weight loss, and I do believe cardio is beneficial. Still, when it comes to losing weight, it doesn't help much.

Hang in there, sis...cardio suxx...even if it doesnt.

N Sharp said:

We tend to think we burn far more calories than we actually do.

And we often think we eat fewer calories than we really do.

Thanks for sharing this — it's a really useful resource!

PREACH!

wildweasel said:

every point raised here looks accurate to me.

One thing that deserves a nod is fasted cardio. When you do cardio on an empty stomach, your body has to tap into fat and glycogen reserves. That won't cancel out bad eating habits or a calorie surplus, but it does nudge your body toward using stored fat for fuel rather than relying on calories from food.

That is Au. Raise thermogenesis in our bodies and it becomes platinum, and our TDEE rises. With no workouts logged at all, a single 4 hour workout yesterday, helped by thermogeneics, produced these numbers in the watch's app.

At the start of tirzepatide, I was 6’4” and weighed 335—a large person. My TDEE came out to 3,400 calories given my age and how active I was. That figure seems enormous to me, especially since these days I take in roughly 1,800.

holy shit, i put in more than 20 hours weekly on hybrid training and that equals my TDEE. It amounts to a second job, yet you burned that much simply by existing.

Rooting for you — what's your current body weight?

Anavar and modafinil, the Black-25 blend from Asia, plus Euphoria.

we both start our pre-workout stacks with the same item

Grogu said:

randompersonrandom said:

Right, and... something I believe belongs alongside nearly every discussion about how cardio, exercise, or movement won't slim you down: getting thinner isn't the point of it.

The purpose of cutting calories is to "get thinner." The purpose of exercise, cardio included, is to "avoid looking and feeling like hot garbage even after you've gotten thinner."

Currently I'm 5'5" and 128 pounds. Cutting calories on tirz, plus VERY gentle exercise, carried me most of the way. Then roughly a month ago I told myself, "hoo girl, you gotta get off your ass. You look like hell, flabby and loose, and where tf is your endurance and balance that you always had in such high supply and felt so proud of?" So I picked up a bicycle, signed up at a gym, took long walks at night for fun, and now I look and feel a LOT better than I did for awhile there.

I’m completely on board with everything you said here. That’s exactly why my original post included a note making clear I wasn’t dismissing what cardio or working out can do for you .

The real issue is that for a long time people have been led to believe that eating salads plus exercising will somehow make them thin as if by magic. But two tablespoons of salad dressing can carry 150 calories—and honestly, who stops at just 2 tablespoons…. Once you pile on toppings and protein, a salad can hit 1,000 calories without much effort. Compare that to a brisk 30-minute walk, which might burn around 150 calories?

This time around, I’ve dropped the majority of my weight using only light exercise, while keeping my calories strictly controlled.

i ran into this during the period when my approach was "just cycle and eat healthy." store-bought kits were something i picked up, and while the calorie numbers were right there, comparing them against anything else wasn't possible for me until i began logging calories in an app.

Dressings that come in bags wreck my macros. An occasional salad still hits the spot, but these days the dressings are homemade, usually built on bases such as 2% keffir, yogurt, and similar ingredients for creaminess.

lastresort said:

The majority of TDEE calculators can't be trusted, since they leave fat percentage and lean mass out of the equation. Not even indirect calorimetry — the device you breathe into — gets it right. Back when I attended a weight loss clinic, I was once given a reading of 3100kcal, and the staff there (likely not even nurses with a BS degree, lol) informed me, completely deadpan, that this was my maintenance intake. I had to fight hard not to laugh in their foolish faces.

A 24 hour metabolic chamber, which precisely tracks oxygen consumption and carbon dioxide output, is the sole genuine method for measuring BMR. Sadly, ordinary people like us can't access one, as metabolic chambers cost a fortune and merely about 40-50 exist worldwide.

True, an exact answer comes from that route, but for most people i've talked to (myself included now), the usual approach when a real answer is wanted is to begin with a TDEE calculator or some other rough estimate, then track macros while observing weight changes over time, tweaking daily expenditure until weight is more-or-less stable.

A few weeks to a month is generally enough to land pretty darn close to your expected daily ependiture, simply by watching the scale and counting calories.

 

[Grogu]

wildweasel said:

Smiter said:

wildweasel said:

Smiter said:

Grogu said:

N Sharp said:

We tend to think we burn far more calories than we actually do.

And we often think we eat fewer calories than we really do.

Thanks for sharing this — it's a really useful resource!

I'm in complete agreement — the calories we take in get undercounted far too often, and I'd put my agreement at 1,000%. Serving sizes have drifted so far from any sensible baseline, packaging claims can steer you wrong, and tracking every calorie is something most folks simply won't do.

For myself, I log intake on 5 days out of the week and keep calories in check, though I treat the result as a ballpark rather than a precise measurement. In my view it's "close enough for government work".

On the output side, I've never subtracted exercise burn from what I eat, apart from using an overall estimated TDEE based on how active I am. That figure has come down alongside my weight loss, and so has my intake.

Back when I began tirz, counting calories wasn't part of my routine, since I figured people at a "normal" weight don't bother with it. The trouble was my TDEE sat so high (3,400) that simply eating less did the job.

Huh? In what way? What was your starting size?

Grogu said:

5byfive said:

When it comes to losing weight, what you eat matters most. Cardio has my support, but it simply doesn't shift the number on the scale in the way people once assumed. This isn't new information, yet more and more data keeps confirming it. A poor diet can't be fixed by exercise alone. What's curious is that resistance training appears to be a different story. Short and to the point video. For me, Menno Henselmans sets the standard when it comes to dissecting research.

View: https://youtu.be/yiclzDPIyQ0?si

Right — a poor diet can't be fixed by running or walking alone. In my area there's a man who is roughly as wide as he is tall. Friendly guy. He goes walking in the worst heat of south Florida, fully covered in workout gear. He's kept this up for years. During all that time, it doesn't appear he has dropped any weight. Once I ran into him at the supermarket and took a look at what was in his cart, checking item by item, and it was loaded with nothing but junk food. (I felt so envious ).

Let me say this before anyone comes at me: I'm not claiming cardio has no health advantages past weight loss, and I do believe cardio is beneficial. Still, when it comes to losing weight, it doesn't help much.

Hang in there, sis...cardio suxx...even if it doesnt.

N Sharp said:

We tend to think we burn far more calories than we actually do.

And we often think we eat fewer calories than we really do.

Thanks for sharing this — it's a really useful resource!

PREACH!

wildweasel said:

every point raised here looks accurate to me.

One thing that deserves a nod is fasted cardio. When you do cardio on an empty stomach, your body has to tap into fat and glycogen reserves. That won't cancel out bad eating habits or a calorie surplus, but it does nudge your body toward using stored fat for fuel rather than relying on calories from food.

That is Au. Raise thermogenesis in our bodies and it becomes platinum, and our TDEE rises. With no workouts logged at all, a single 4 hour workout yesterday, helped by thermogeneics, produced these numbers in the watch's app.

Which one do you take — caffeine, or a different option?

Grogu said:

Smiter said:

Grogu said:

N Sharp said:

We tend to think we burn far more calories than we actually do.

And we often think we eat fewer calories than we really do.

Thanks for sharing this — it's a really useful resource!

I'm in complete agreement — the calories we take in get undercounted far too often, and I'd put my agreement at 1,000%. Serving sizes have drifted so far from any sensible baseline, packaging claims can steer you wrong, and tracking every calorie is something most folks simply won't do.

For myself, I log intake on 5 days out of the week and keep calories in check, though I treat the result as a ballpark rather than a precise measurement. In my view it's "close enough for government work".

On the output side, I've never subtracted exercise burn from what I eat, apart from using an overall estimated TDEE based on how active I am. That figure has come down alongside my weight loss, and so has my intake.

Back when I began tirz, counting calories wasn't part of my routine, since I figured people at a "normal" weight don't bother with it. The trouble was my TDEE sat so high (3,400) that simply eating less did the job.

Huh? In what way? What was your starting size?

Grogu said:

5byfive said:

When it comes to losing weight, what you eat matters most. Cardio has my support, but it simply doesn't shift the number on the scale in the way people once assumed. This isn't new information, yet more and more data keeps confirming it. A poor diet can't be fixed by exercise alone. What's curious is that resistance training appears to be a different story. Short and to the point video. For me, Menno Henselmans sets the standard when it comes to dissecting research.

View: https://youtu.be/yiclzDPIyQ0?si

Right — a poor diet can't be fixed by running or walking alone. In my area there's a man who is roughly as wide as he is tall. Friendly guy. He goes walking in the worst heat of south Florida, fully covered in workout gear. He's kept this up for years. During all that time, it doesn't appear he has dropped any weight. Once I ran into him at the supermarket and took a look at what was in his cart, checking item by item, and it was loaded with nothing but junk food. (I felt so envious ).

Let me say this before anyone comes at me: I'm not claiming cardio has no health advantages past weight loss, and I do believe cardio is beneficial. Still, when it comes to losing weight, it doesn't help much.

Hang in there, sis...cardio suxx...even if it doesnt.

N Sharp said:

We tend to think we burn far more calories than we actually do.

And we often think we eat fewer calories than we really do.

Thanks for sharing this — it's a really useful resource!

PREACH!

wildweasel said:

every point raised here looks accurate to me.

One thing that deserves a nod is fasted cardio. When you do cardio on an empty stomach, your body has to tap into fat and glycogen reserves. That won't cancel out bad eating habits or a calorie surplus, but it does nudge your body toward using stored fat for fuel rather than relying on calories from food.

That is Au. Raise thermogenesis in our bodies and it becomes platinum, and our TDEE rises. With no workouts logged at all, a single 4 hour workout yesterday, helped by thermogeneics, produced these numbers in the watch's app.

At the start of tirzepatide, I was 6’4” and weighed 335—a large person. My TDEE came out to 3,400 calories given my age and how active I was. That figure seems enormous to me, especially since these days I take in roughly 1,800.

holy shit, i put in more than 20 hours weekly on hybrid training and that equals my TDEE. It amounts to a second job, yet you burned that much simply by existing.

Rooting for you — what's your current body weight?

Anavar and modafinil, the Black-25 blend from Asia, plus Euphoria.

we both start our pre-workout stacks with the same item

Grogu said:

randompersonrandom said:

Right, and... something I believe belongs alongside nearly every discussion about how cardio, exercise, or movement won't slim you down: getting thinner isn't the point of it.

The purpose of cutting calories is to "get thinner." The purpose of exercise, cardio included, is to "avoid looking and feeling like hot garbage even after you've gotten thinner."

Currently I'm 5'5" and 128 pounds. Cutting calories on tirz, plus VERY gentle exercise, carried me most of the way. Then roughly a month ago I told myself, "hoo girl, you gotta get off your ass. You look like hell, flabby and loose, and where tf is your endurance and balance that you always had in such high supply and felt so proud of?" So I picked up a bicycle, signed up at a gym, took long walks at night for fun, and now I look and feel a LOT better than I did for awhile there.

I’m completely on board with everything you said here. That’s exactly why my original post included a note making clear I wasn’t dismissing what cardio or working out can do for you .

The real issue is that for a long time people have been led to believe that eating salads plus exercising will somehow make them thin as if by magic. But two tablespoons of salad dressing can carry 150 calories—and honestly, who stops at just 2 tablespoons…. Once you pile on toppings and protein, a salad can hit 1,000 calories without much effort. Compare that to a brisk 30-minute walk, which might burn around 150 calories?

This time around, I’ve dropped the majority of my weight using only light exercise, while keeping my calories strictly controlled.

i ran into this during the period when my approach was "just cycle and eat healthy." store-bought kits were something i picked up, and while the calorie numbers were right there, comparing them against anything else wasn't possible for me until i began logging calories in an app.

Dressings that come in bags wreck my macros. An occasional salad still hits the spot, but these days the dressings are homemade, usually built on bases such as 2% keffir, yogurt, and similar ingredients for creaminess.

lastresort said:

The majority of TDEE calculators can't be trusted, since they leave fat percentage and lean mass out of the equation. Not even indirect calorimetry — the device you breathe into — gets it right. Back when I attended a weight loss clinic, I was once given a reading of 3100kcal, and the staff there (likely not even nurses with a BS degree, lol) informed me, completely deadpan, that this was my maintenance intake. I had to fight hard not to laugh in their foolish faces.

A 24 hour metabolic chamber, which precisely tracks oxygen consumption and carbon dioxide output, is the sole genuine method for measuring BMR. Sadly, ordinary people like us can't access one, as metabolic chambers cost a fortune and merely about 40-50 exist worldwide.

True, an exact answer comes from that route, but for most people i've talked to (myself included now), the usual approach when a real answer is wanted is to begin with a TDEE calculator or some other rough estimate, then track macros while observing weight changes over time, tweaking daily expenditure until weight is more-or-less stable.

A few weeks to a month is generally enough to land pretty darn close to your expected daily ependiture, simply by watching the scale and counting calories.

Salads are something I genuinely enjoy and do eat. Just to be clear, I'm not trying to suggest that salads or working out are somehow negative .

Your point on macros is spot on. Bottled dressings and salad kits wreck any chance of keeping those in check. My pick is usually Bolthouse Dressing — 2 tablespoons comes to 40 calories.

Back before I lost weight, if I reached for dressing it was always Ken's Steak House. Blue cheese, Russian, Thousand Islands, Greek, Honey Mustard, Creamy Ceaser — every single one of them. Throw on croutons plus chicken and you're looking at a whole meal. A 1,000 calorie meal.

What I've figured out is that my weakness isn't sugar the way it is for some folks. It's fat.

 

[Smiter]

My energy matrix is clearly malfunctioning. 40mcg clenbuterol, 200 modafinil, plus Anavar went in...and drowsiness is what I got.

Grogu said:

wildweasel said:

Smiter said:

wildweasel said:

Smiter said:

Grogu said:

N Sharp said:

We tend to think we burn far more calories than we actually do.

And we often think we eat fewer calories than we really do.

Thanks for sharing this — it's a really useful resource!

I'm in complete agreement — the calories we take in get undercounted far too often, and I'd put my agreement at 1,000%. Serving sizes have drifted so far from any sensible baseline, packaging claims can steer you wrong, and tracking every calorie is something most folks simply won't do.

For myself, I log intake on 5 days out of the week and keep calories in check, though I treat the result as a ballpark rather than a precise measurement. In my view it's "close enough for government work".

On the output side, I've never subtracted exercise burn from what I eat, apart from using an overall estimated TDEE based on how active I am. That figure has come down alongside my weight loss, and so has my intake.

Back when I began tirz, counting calories wasn't part of my routine, since I figured people at a "normal" weight don't bother with it. The trouble was my TDEE sat so high (3,400) that simply eating less did the job.

Huh? In what way? What was your starting size?

Grogu said:

5byfive said:

When it comes to losing weight, what you eat matters most. Cardio has my support, but it simply doesn't shift the number on the scale in the way people once assumed. This isn't new information, yet more and more data keeps confirming it. A poor diet can't be fixed by exercise alone. What's curious is that resistance training appears to be a different story. Short and to the point video. For me, Menno Henselmans sets the standard when it comes to dissecting research.

View: https://youtu.be/yiclzDPIyQ0?si

Right — a poor diet can't be fixed by running or walking alone. In my area there's a man who is roughly as wide as he is tall. Friendly guy. He goes walking in the worst heat of south Florida, fully covered in workout gear. He's kept this up for years. During all that time, it doesn't appear he has dropped any weight. Once I ran into him at the supermarket and took a look at what was in his cart, checking item by item, and it was loaded with nothing but junk food. (I felt so envious ).

Let me say this before anyone comes at me: I'm not claiming cardio has no health advantages past weight loss, and I do believe cardio is beneficial. Still, when it comes to losing weight, it doesn't help much.

Hang in there, sis...cardio suxx...even if it doesnt.

N Sharp said:

We tend to think we burn far more calories than we actually do.

And we often think we eat fewer calories than we really do.

Thanks for sharing this — it's a really useful resource!

PREACH!

wildweasel said:

every point raised here looks accurate to me.

One thing that deserves a nod is fasted cardio. When you do cardio on an empty stomach, your body has to tap into fat and glycogen reserves. That won't cancel out bad eating habits or a calorie surplus, but it does nudge your body toward using stored fat for fuel rather than relying on calories from food.

That is Au. Raise thermogenesis in our bodies and it becomes platinum, and our TDEE rises. With no workouts logged at all, a single 4 hour workout yesterday, helped by thermogeneics, produced these numbers in the watch's app.

Which one do you take — caffeine, or a different option?

Grogu said:

Smiter said:

Grogu said:

N Sharp said:

We tend to think we burn far more calories than we actually do.

And we often think we eat fewer calories than we really do.

Thanks for sharing this — it's a really useful resource!

I'm in complete agreement — the calories we take in get undercounted far too often, and I'd put my agreement at 1,000%. Serving sizes have drifted so far from any sensible baseline, packaging claims can steer you wrong, and tracking every calorie is something most folks simply won't do.

For myself, I log intake on 5 days out of the week and keep calories in check, though I treat the result as a ballpark rather than a precise measurement. In my view it's "close enough for government work".

On the output side, I've never subtracted exercise burn from what I eat, apart from using an overall estimated TDEE based on how active I am. That figure has come down alongside my weight loss, and so has my intake.

Back when I began tirz, counting calories wasn't part of my routine, since I figured people at a "normal" weight don't bother with it. The trouble was my TDEE sat so high (3,400) that simply eating less did the job.

Huh? In what way? What was your starting size?

Grogu said:

5byfive said:

When it comes to losing weight, what you eat matters most. Cardio has my support, but it simply doesn't shift the number on the scale in the way people once assumed. This isn't new information, yet more and more data keeps confirming it. A poor diet can't be fixed by exercise alone. What's curious is that resistance training appears to be a different story. Short and to the point video. For me, Menno Henselmans sets the standard when it comes to dissecting research.

View: https://youtu.be/yiclzDPIyQ0?si

Right — a poor diet can't be fixed by running or walking alone. In my area there's a man who is roughly as wide as he is tall. Friendly guy. He goes walking in the worst heat of south Florida, fully covered in workout gear. He's kept this up for years. During all that time, it doesn't appear he has dropped any weight. Once I ran into him at the supermarket and took a look at what was in his cart, checking item by item, and it was loaded with nothing but junk food. (I felt so envious ).

Let me say this before anyone comes at me: I'm not claiming cardio has no health advantages past weight loss, and I do believe cardio is beneficial. Still, when it comes to losing weight, it doesn't help much.

Hang in there, sis...cardio suxx...even if it doesnt.

N Sharp said:

We tend to think we burn far more calories than we actually do.

And we often think we eat fewer calories than we really do.

Thanks for sharing this — it's a really useful resource!

PREACH!

wildweasel said:

every point raised here looks accurate to me.

One thing that deserves a nod is fasted cardio. When you do cardio on an empty stomach, your body has to tap into fat and glycogen reserves. That won't cancel out bad eating habits or a calorie surplus, but it does nudge your body toward using stored fat for fuel rather than relying on calories from food.

That is Au. Raise thermogenesis in our bodies and it becomes platinum, and our TDEE rises. With no workouts logged at all, a single 4 hour workout yesterday, helped by thermogeneics, produced these numbers in the watch's app.

At the start of tirzepatide, I was 6’4” and weighed 335—a large person. My TDEE came out to 3,400 calories given my age and how active I was. That figure seems enormous to me, especially since these days I take in roughly 1,800.

holy shit, i put in more than 20 hours weekly on hybrid training and that equals my TDEE. It amounts to a second job, yet you burned that much simply by existing.

Rooting for you — what's your current body weight?

Anavar and modafinil, the Black-25 blend from Asia, plus Euphoria.

we both start our pre-workout stacks with the same item

Grogu said:

randompersonrandom said:

Right, and... something I believe belongs alongside nearly every discussion about how cardio, exercise, or movement won't slim you down: getting thinner isn't the point of it.

The purpose of cutting calories is to "get thinner." The purpose of exercise, cardio included, is to "avoid looking and feeling like hot garbage even after you've gotten thinner."

Currently I'm 5'5" and 128 pounds. Cutting calories on tirz, plus VERY gentle exercise, carried me most of the way. Then roughly a month ago I told myself, "hoo girl, you gotta get off your ass. You look like hell, flabby and loose, and where tf is your endurance and balance that you always had in such high supply and felt so proud of?" So I picked up a bicycle, signed up at a gym, took long walks at night for fun, and now I look and feel a LOT better than I did for awhile there.

I’m completely on board with everything you said here. That’s exactly why my original post included a note making clear I wasn’t dismissing what cardio or working out can do for you .

The real issue is that for a long time people have been led to believe that eating salads plus exercising will somehow make them thin as if by magic. But two tablespoons of salad dressing can carry 150 calories—and honestly, who stops at just 2 tablespoons…. Once you pile on toppings and protein, a salad can hit 1,000 calories without much effort. Compare that to a brisk 30-minute walk, which might burn around 150 calories?

This time around, I’ve dropped the majority of my weight using only light exercise, while keeping my calories strictly controlled.

i ran into this during the period when my approach was "just cycle and eat healthy." store-bought kits were something i picked up, and while the calorie numbers were right there, comparing them against anything else wasn't possible for me until i began logging calories in an app.

Dressings that come in bags wreck my macros. An occasional salad still hits the spot, but these days the dressings are homemade, usually built on bases such as 2% keffir, yogurt, and similar ingredients for creaminess.

lastresort said:

The majority of TDEE calculators can't be trusted, since they leave fat percentage and lean mass out of the equation. Not even indirect calorimetry — the device you breathe into — gets it right. Back when I attended a weight loss clinic, I was once given a reading of 3100kcal, and the staff there (likely not even nurses with a BS degree, lol) informed me, completely deadpan, that this was my maintenance intake. I had to fight hard not to laugh in their foolish faces.

A 24 hour metabolic chamber, which precisely tracks oxygen consumption and carbon dioxide output, is the sole genuine method for measuring BMR. Sadly, ordinary people like us can't access one, as metabolic chambers cost a fortune and merely about 40-50 exist worldwide.

True, an exact answer comes from that route, but for most people i've talked to (myself included now), the usual approach when a real answer is wanted is to begin with a TDEE calculator or some other rough estimate, then track macros while observing weight changes over time, tweaking daily expenditure until weight is more-or-less stable.

A few weeks to a month is generally enough to land pretty darn close to your expected daily ependiture, simply by watching the scale and counting calories.

Salads are something I genuinely enjoy and do eat. Just to be clear, I'm not trying to suggest that salads or working out are somehow negative .

Your point on macros is spot on. Bottled dressings and salad kits wreck any chance of keeping those in check. My pick is usually Bolthouse Dressing — 2 tablespoons comes to 40 calories.

Back before I lost weight, if I reached for dressing it was always Ken's Steak House. Blue cheese, Russian, Thousand Islands, Greek, Honey Mustard, Creamy Ceaser — every single one of them. Throw on croutons plus chicken and you're looking at a whole meal. A 1,000 calorie meal.

What I've figured out is that my weakness isn't sugar the way it is for some folks. It's fat.

Had you been able to eat yours...that would have been a win...Autophagy 9000

 

[spanky2026]

Way back, decades ago, I came to realize that working out was not the answer. I poured far too many years into obsessive training—full-on gym rat mode, 6 days each week—and my weight never budged. Since starting Tirz, I've deliberately reduced how much I exercise, putting the focus on strength work, though I'm no longer obsessive about it. The reason: I understand that although it brings other advantages, particularly now that I'm older, it is not the Golden Ticket it's been sold as.

 

[FartfulCodger]

That's exactly right. Tirzepatide took a lot of weight off me fast, and I'm not fooling myself about the reason. I ate less because my appetite was gone. The 10k steps a day and better insulin usage weren't the main event. They mattered, yes, but only a little.

On reddit, appetite control as the main driver of GLP weight loss is weirdly contentious. Say that appetite control does the heavy lifting and 100 Karens will bury your comment. Ask an A.I. engine "How much of the weight loss on GLP-1 meds is due to appetite control versus changes to metabolism?" and it reads the medical literature and reports that 80%-90% of the loss comes down to appetite control. The Karens still refuse it. For them it's glucagon, insulin, and metabolism.

Why they're so invested, I can't say. My loose skin stays tucked under my belt.

 

[Grogu]

Smiter said:

My energy matrix is clearly malfunctioning. 40mcg clenbuterol, 200 modafinil, plus Anavar went in...and drowsiness is what I got.

Grogu said:

wildweasel said:

Smiter said:

wildweasel said:

Smiter said:

Grogu said:

N Sharp said:

We tend to think we burn far more calories than we actually do.

And we often think we eat fewer calories than we really do.

Thanks for sharing this — it's a really useful resource!

I'm in complete agreement — the calories we take in get undercounted far too often, and I'd put my agreement at 1,000%. Serving sizes have drifted so far from any sensible baseline, packaging claims can steer you wrong, and tracking every calorie is something most folks simply won't do.

For myself, I log intake on 5 days out of the week and keep calories in check, though I treat the result as a ballpark rather than a precise measurement. In my view it's "close enough for government work".

On the output side, I've never subtracted exercise burn from what I eat, apart from using an overall estimated TDEE based on how active I am. That figure has come down alongside my weight loss, and so has my intake.

Back when I began tirz, counting calories wasn't part of my routine, since I figured people at a "normal" weight don't bother with it. The trouble was my TDEE sat so high (3,400) that simply eating less did the job.

Huh? In what way? What was your starting size?

Grogu said:

5byfive said:

When it comes to losing weight, what you eat matters most. Cardio has my support, but it simply doesn't shift the number on the scale in the way people once assumed. This isn't new information, yet more and more data keeps confirming it. A poor diet can't be fixed by exercise alone. What's curious is that resistance training appears to be a different story. Short and to the point video. For me, Menno Henselmans sets the standard when it comes to dissecting research.

View: https://youtu.be/yiclzDPIyQ0?si

Right — a poor diet can't be fixed by running or walking alone. In my area there's a man who is roughly as wide as he is tall. Friendly guy. He goes walking in the worst heat of south Florida, fully covered in workout gear. He's kept this up for years. During all that time, it doesn't appear he has dropped any weight. Once I ran into him at the supermarket and took a look at what was in his cart, checking item by item, and it was loaded with nothing but junk food. (I felt so envious ).

Let me say this before anyone comes at me: I'm not claiming cardio has no health advantages past weight loss, and I do believe cardio is beneficial. Still, when it comes to losing weight, it doesn't help much.

Hang in there, sis...cardio suxx...even if it doesnt.

N Sharp said:

We tend to think we burn far more calories than we actually do.

And we often think we eat fewer calories than we really do.

Thanks for sharing this — it's a really useful resource!

PREACH!

wildweasel said:

every point raised here looks accurate to me.

One thing that deserves a nod is fasted cardio. When you do cardio on an empty stomach, your body has to tap into fat and glycogen reserves. That won't cancel out bad eating habits or a calorie surplus, but it does nudge your body toward using stored fat for fuel rather than relying on calories from food.

That is Au. Raise thermogenesis in our bodies and it becomes platinum, and our TDEE rises. With no workouts logged at all, a single 4 hour workout yesterday, helped by thermogeneics, produced these numbers in the watch's app.

Which one do you take — caffeine, or a different option?

Grogu said:

Smiter said:

Grogu said:

N Sharp said:

We tend to think we burn far more calories than we actually do.

And we often think we eat fewer calories than we really do.

Thanks for sharing this — it's a really useful resource!

I'm in complete agreement — the calories we take in get undercounted far too often, and I'd put my agreement at 1,000%. Serving sizes have drifted so far from any sensible baseline, packaging claims can steer you wrong, and tracking every calorie is something most folks simply won't do.

For myself, I log intake on 5 days out of the week and keep calories in check, though I treat the result as a ballpark rather than a precise measurement. In my view it's "close enough for government work".

On the output side, I've never subtracted exercise burn from what I eat, apart from using an overall estimated TDEE based on how active I am. That figure has come down alongside my weight loss, and so has my intake.

Back when I began tirz, counting calories wasn't part of my routine, since I figured people at a "normal" weight don't bother with it. The trouble was my TDEE sat so high (3,400) that simply eating less did the job.

Huh? In what way? What was your starting size?

Grogu said:

5byfive said:

When it comes to losing weight, what you eat matters most. Cardio has my support, but it simply doesn't shift the number on the scale in the way people once assumed. This isn't new information, yet more and more data keeps confirming it. A poor diet can't be fixed by exercise alone. What's curious is that resistance training appears to be a different story. Short and to the point video. For me, Menno Henselmans sets the standard when it comes to dissecting research.

View: https://youtu.be/yiclzDPIyQ0?si

Right — a poor diet can't be fixed by running or walking alone. In my area there's a man who is roughly as wide as he is tall. Friendly guy. He goes walking in the worst heat of south Florida, fully covered in workout gear. He's kept this up for years. During all that time, it doesn't appear he has dropped any weight. Once I ran into him at the supermarket and took a look at what was in his cart, checking item by item, and it was loaded with nothing but junk food. (I felt so envious ).

Let me say this before anyone comes at me: I'm not claiming cardio has no health advantages past weight loss, and I do believe cardio is beneficial. Still, when it comes to losing weight, it doesn't help much.

Hang in there, sis...cardio suxx...even if it doesnt.

N Sharp said:

We tend to think we burn far more calories than we actually do.

And we often think we eat fewer calories than we really do.

Thanks for sharing this — it's a really useful resource!

PREACH!

wildweasel said:

every point raised here looks accurate to me.

One thing that deserves a nod is fasted cardio. When you do cardio on an empty stomach, your body has to tap into fat and glycogen reserves. That won't cancel out bad eating habits or a calorie surplus, but it does nudge your body toward using stored fat for fuel rather than relying on calories from food.

That is Au. Raise thermogenesis in our bodies and it becomes platinum, and our TDEE rises. With no workouts logged at all, a single 4 hour workout yesterday, helped by thermogeneics, produced these numbers in the watch's app.

At the start of tirzepatide, I was 6’4” and weighed 335—a large person. My TDEE came out to 3,400 calories given my age and how active I was. That figure seems enormous to me, especially since these days I take in roughly 1,800.

holy shit, i put in more than 20 hours weekly on hybrid training and that equals my TDEE. It amounts to a second job, yet you burned that much simply by existing.

Rooting for you — what's your current body weight?

Anavar and modafinil, the Black-25 blend from Asia, plus Euphoria.

we both start our pre-workout stacks with the same item

Grogu said:

randompersonrandom said:

Right, and... something I believe belongs alongside nearly every discussion about how cardio, exercise, or movement won't slim you down: getting thinner isn't the point of it.

The purpose of cutting calories is to "get thinner." The purpose of exercise, cardio included, is to "avoid looking and feeling like hot garbage even after you've gotten thinner."

Currently I'm 5'5" and 128 pounds. Cutting calories on tirz, plus VERY gentle exercise, carried me most of the way. Then roughly a month ago I told myself, "hoo girl, you gotta get off your ass. You look like hell, flabby and loose, and where tf is your endurance and balance that you always had in such high supply and felt so proud of?" So I picked up a bicycle, signed up at a gym, took long walks at night for fun, and now I look and feel a LOT better than I did for awhile there.

I’m completely on board with everything you said here. That’s exactly why my original post included a note making clear I wasn’t dismissing what cardio or working out can do for you .

The real issue is that for a long time people have been led to believe that eating salads plus exercising will somehow make them thin as if by magic. But two tablespoons of salad dressing can carry 150 calories—and honestly, who stops at just 2 tablespoons…. Once you pile on toppings and protein, a salad can hit 1,000 calories without much effort. Compare that to a brisk 30-minute walk, which might burn around 150 calories?

This time around, I’ve dropped the majority of my weight using only light exercise, while keeping my calories strictly controlled.

i ran into this during the period when my approach was "just cycle and eat healthy." store-bought kits were something i picked up, and while the calorie numbers were right there, comparing them against anything else wasn't possible for me until i began logging calories in an app.

Dressings that come in bags wreck my macros. An occasional salad still hits the spot, but these days the dressings are homemade, usually built on bases such as 2% keffir, yogurt, and similar ingredients for creaminess.

lastresort said:

The majority of TDEE calculators can't be trusted, since they leave fat percentage and lean mass out of the equation. Not even indirect calorimetry — the device you breathe into — gets it right. Back when I attended a weight loss clinic, I was once given a reading of 3100kcal, and the staff there (likely not even nurses with a BS degree, lol) informed me, completely deadpan, that this was my maintenance intake. I had to fight hard not to laugh in their foolish faces.

A 24 hour metabolic chamber, which precisely tracks oxygen consumption and carbon dioxide output, is the sole genuine method for measuring BMR. Sadly, ordinary people like us can't access one, as metabolic chambers cost a fortune and merely about 40-50 exist worldwide.

True, an exact answer comes from that route, but for most people i've talked to (myself included now), the usual approach when a real answer is wanted is to begin with a TDEE calculator or some other rough estimate, then track macros while observing weight changes over time, tweaking daily expenditure until weight is more-or-less stable.

A few weeks to a month is generally enough to land pretty darn close to your expected daily ependiture, simply by watching the scale and counting calories.

Salads are something I genuinely enjoy and do eat. Just to be clear, I'm not trying to suggest that salads or working out are somehow negative .

Your point on macros is spot on. Bottled dressings and salad kits wreck any chance of keeping those in check. My pick is usually Bolthouse Dressing — 2 tablespoons comes to 40 calories.

Back before I lost weight, if I reached for dressing it was always Ken's Steak House. Blue cheese, Russian, Thousand Islands, Greek, Honey Mustard, Creamy Ceaser — every single one of them. Throw on croutons plus chicken and you're looking at a whole meal. A 1,000 calorie meal.

What I've figured out is that my weakness isn't sugar the way it is for some folks. It's fat.

Had you been able to eat yours...that would have been a win...Autophagy 9000

Ha, that really would've been a win-win . Problem is, my weaknesses lean toward processed fats: butter, cream, dressings, cream sauces, cured meats, and CHEESE.

Give me a charcuterie board instead of cake, any time. Throw in a glass of wine and I'm sold from the first word.

 

[Hawk_recon]

FartfulCodger said:

That's exactly right. Tirzepatide took a lot of weight off me fast, and I'm not fooling myself about the reason. I ate less because my appetite was gone. The 10k steps a day and better insulin usage weren't the main event. They mattered, yes, but only a little.

On reddit, appetite control as the main driver of GLP weight loss is weirdly contentious. Say that appetite control does the heavy lifting and 100 Karens will bury your comment. Ask an A.I. engine "How much of the weight loss on GLP-1 meds is due to appetite control versus changes to metabolism?" and it reads the medical literature and reports that 80%-90% of the loss comes down to appetite control. The Karens still refuse it. For them it's glucagon, insulin, and metabolism.

Why they're so invested, I can't say. My loose skin stays tucked under my belt.

100%. Honestly, there's nothing mystical going on. A smaller appetite means fewer calories consumed. Sure, these drugs do more than just that, but that mechanism accounts for the overwhelming share of the pounds lost. Occasionally folks prefer to "major in the minors," as the saying goes

 

[wildweasel]

spanky2026 said:

Way back, decades ago, I came to realize that working out was not the answer. I poured far too many years into obsessive training—full-on gym rat mode, 6 days each week—and my weight never budged. Since starting Tirz, I've deliberately reduced how much I exercise, putting the focus on strength work, though I'm no longer obsessive about it. The reason: I understand that although it brings other advantages, particularly now that I'm older, it is not the Golden Ticket it's been sold as.

Rather than calling it useless, I'd frame it as just 1 piece of what's needed.

FartfulCodger said:

That's exactly right. Tirzepatide took a lot of weight off me fast, and I'm not fooling myself about the reason. I ate less because my appetite was gone. The 10k steps a day and better insulin usage weren't the main event. They mattered, yes, but only a little.

On reddit, appetite control as the main driver of GLP weight loss is weirdly contentious. Say that appetite control does the heavy lifting and 100 Karens will bury your comment. Ask an A.I. engine "How much of the weight loss on GLP-1 meds is due to appetite control versus changes to metabolism?" and it reads the medical literature and reports that 80%-90% of the loss comes down to appetite control. The Karens still refuse it. For them it's glucagon, insulin, and metabolism.

Why they're so invested, I can't say. My loose skin stays tucked under my belt.

reddit is packed with idiots. 95% idiots.

 

[Smiter]

wildweasel said:

spanky2026 said:

Way back, decades ago, I came to realize that working out was not the answer. I poured far too many years into obsessive training—full-on gym rat mode, 6 days each week—and my weight never budged. Since starting Tirz, I've deliberately reduced how much I exercise, putting the focus on strength work, though I'm no longer obsessive about it. The reason: I understand that although it brings other advantages, particularly now that I'm older, it is not the Golden Ticket it's been sold as.

Rather than calling it useless, I'd frame it as just 1 piece of what's needed.

FartfulCodger said:

That's exactly right. Tirzepatide took a lot of weight off me fast, and I'm not fooling myself about the reason. I ate less because my appetite was gone. The 10k steps a day and better insulin usage weren't the main event. They mattered, yes, but only a little.

On reddit, appetite control as the main driver of GLP weight loss is weirdly contentious. Say that appetite control does the heavy lifting and 100 Karens will bury your comment. Ask an A.I. engine "How much of the weight loss on GLP-1 meds is due to appetite control versus changes to metabolism?" and it reads the medical literature and reports that 80%-90% of the loss comes down to appetite control. The Karens still refuse it. For them it's glucagon, insulin, and metabolism.

Why they're so invested, I can't say. My loose skin stays tucked under my belt.

reddit is packed with idiots. 95% idiots.

That checks out, since 98% of people everywhere just follow the herd. IQ averages near 100. On a social media platform, you'd expect most users there to be disabled as well. Throw in how young Redditors typically are, and their bleating comes across as even more disabled than normal, because the two neurons that will eventually form their prefrontal cortex haven't grown in yet.

 

[UghItsStupidNIHateIT]

5byfive said:

When it comes to losing weight, what you eat matters most. Cardio has my support, but it simply doesn't shift the number on the scale in the way people once assumed. This isn't new information, yet more and more data keeps confirming it. A poor diet can't be fixed by exercise alone. What's curious is that resistance training appears to be a different story. Short and to the point video. For me, Menno Henselmans sets the standard when it comes to dissecting research.

View: https://youtu.be/yiclzDPIyQ0?si

A close friend of mine puts away a ridiculous volume of food — over 4000 calories every day — while doing three hours of weight training per day. The catch is his routine is one minute of work followed by three minutes of rest, and he sits at 11% body fat. None of this proves a thing; I'm just complaining about how unfair it seems

 

[Smiter]

UghItsStupidNIHateIT said:

5byfive said:

When it comes to losing weight, what you eat matters most. Cardio has my support, but it simply doesn't shift the number on the scale in the way people once assumed. This isn't new information, yet more and more data keeps confirming it. A poor diet can't be fixed by exercise alone. What's curious is that resistance training appears to be a different story. Short and to the point video. For me, Menno Henselmans sets the standard when it comes to dissecting research.

View: https://youtu.be/yiclzDPIyQ0?si

A close friend of mine puts away a ridiculous volume of food — over 4000 calories every day — while doing three hours of weight training per day. The catch is his routine is one minute of work followed by three minutes of rest, and he sits at 11% body fat. None of this proves a thing; I'm just complaining about how unfair it seems

A 3-hour strength session could plausibly burn around 1k calories, and with a large amount of muscle, his resting metabolic rate would likely be very elevated as well.

 

[wildweasel]

UghItsStupidNIHateIT said:

5byfive said:

When it comes to losing weight, what you eat matters most. Cardio has my support, but it simply doesn't shift the number on the scale in the way people once assumed. This isn't new information, yet more and more data keeps confirming it. A poor diet can't be fixed by exercise alone. What's curious is that resistance training appears to be a different story. Short and to the point video. For me, Menno Henselmans sets the standard when it comes to dissecting research.

View: https://youtu.be/yiclzDPIyQ0?si

A close friend of mine puts away a ridiculous volume of food — over 4000 calories every day — while doing three hours of weight training per day. The catch is his routine is one minute of work followed by three minutes of rest, and he sits at 11% body fat. None of this proves a thing; I'm just complaining about how unfair it seems

my situation is pretty much the same: 10% bf, training 3 hours every day, with 30-60 minutes of that being hard cardio or conditioning, roughly 1 hr is basically 1 minute on, 3 minutes off max strength work, plus another hour of hypertrophy and muscular endurance work.

my maintenance sits at 3300.

Smiter said:

UghItsStupidNIHateIT said:

5byfive said:

When it comes to losing weight, what you eat matters most. Cardio has my support, but it simply doesn't shift the number on the scale in the way people once assumed. This isn't new information, yet more and more data keeps confirming it. A poor diet can't be fixed by exercise alone. What's curious is that resistance training appears to be a different story. Short and to the point video. For me, Menno Henselmans sets the standard when it comes to dissecting research.

View: https://youtu.be/yiclzDPIyQ0?si

A close friend of mine puts away a ridiculous volume of food — over 4000 calories every day — while doing three hours of weight training per day. The catch is his routine is one minute of work followed by three minutes of rest, and he sits at 11% body fat. None of this proves a thing; I'm just complaining about how unfair it seems

A 3-hour strength session could plausibly burn around 1k calories, and with a large amount of muscle, his resting metabolic rate would likely be very elevated as well.

and this too.

when you're a large person, those 3 hours cost you a lot of energy.

when you think about it, what would you expect from a person putting in part-time-job hours of training each week? that amount of effort isn't going to come with a small TDEE, and needing somewhere in the mid 3s to 4s to sustain it is pretty common

 

[UghItsStupidNIHateIT]

wildweasel said:

UghItsStupidNIHateIT said:

5byfive said:

When it comes to losing weight, what you eat matters most. Cardio has my support, but it simply doesn't shift the number on the scale in the way people once assumed. This isn't new information, yet more and more data keeps confirming it. A poor diet can't be fixed by exercise alone. What's curious is that resistance training appears to be a different story. Short and to the point video. For me, Menno Henselmans sets the standard when it comes to dissecting research.

View: https://youtu.be/yiclzDPIyQ0?si

A close friend of mine puts away a ridiculous volume of food — over 4000 calories every day — while doing three hours of weight training per day. The catch is his routine is one minute of work followed by three minutes of rest, and he sits at 11% body fat. None of this proves a thing; I'm just complaining about how unfair it seems

my situation is pretty much the same: 10% bf, training 3 hours every day, with 30-60 minutes of that being hard cardio or conditioning, roughly 1 hr is basically 1 minute on, 3 minutes off max strength work, plus another hour of hypertrophy and muscular endurance work.

my maintenance sits at 3300.

Smiter said:

UghItsStupidNIHateIT said:

5byfive said:

When it comes to losing weight, what you eat matters most. Cardio has my support, but it simply doesn't shift the number on the scale in the way people once assumed. This isn't new information, yet more and more data keeps confirming it. A poor diet can't be fixed by exercise alone. What's curious is that resistance training appears to be a different story. Short and to the point video. For me, Menno Henselmans sets the standard when it comes to dissecting research.

View: https://youtu.be/yiclzDPIyQ0?si

A close friend of mine puts away a ridiculous volume of food — over 4000 calories every day — while doing three hours of weight training per day. The catch is his routine is one minute of work followed by three minutes of rest, and he sits at 11% body fat. None of this proves a thing; I'm just complaining about how unfair it seems

A 3-hour strength session could plausibly burn around 1k calories, and with a large amount of muscle, his resting metabolic rate would likely be very elevated as well.

and this too.

when you're a large person, those 3 hours cost you a lot of energy.

when you think about it, what would you expect from a person putting in part-time-job hours of training each week? that amount of effort isn't going to come with a small TDEE, and needing somewhere in the mid 3s to 4s to sustain it is pretty common

By the time I'd finished a single taco, he had already put away a whole platter of burritos, quesadillas, rice and beans. The guy consumes food as if he's preparing for some event — no clue what kind, though…

 

[UghItsStupidNIHateIT]

Smiter said:

UghItsStupidNIHateIT said:

5byfive said:

When it comes to losing weight, what you eat matters most. Cardio has my support, but it simply doesn't shift the number on the scale in the way people once assumed. This isn't new information, yet more and more data keeps confirming it. A poor diet can't be fixed by exercise alone. What's curious is that resistance training appears to be a different story. Short and to the point video. For me, Menno Henselmans sets the standard when it comes to dissecting research.

View: https://youtu.be/yiclzDPIyQ0?si

A close friend of mine puts away a ridiculous volume of food — over 4000 calories every day — while doing three hours of weight training per day. The catch is his routine is one minute of work followed by three minutes of rest, and he sits at 11% body fat. None of this proves a thing; I'm just complaining about how unfair it seems

A 3-hour strength session could plausibly burn around 1k calories, and with a large amount of muscle, his resting metabolic rate would likely be very elevated as well.

Yeah, I realize that physique is something he worked for

 

[Smiter]

wildweasel said:

UghItsStupidNIHateIT said:

5byfive said:

When it comes to losing weight, what you eat matters most. Cardio has my support, but it simply doesn't shift the number on the scale in the way people once assumed. This isn't new information, yet more and more data keeps confirming it. A poor diet can't be fixed by exercise alone. What's curious is that resistance training appears to be a different story. Short and to the point video. For me, Menno Henselmans sets the standard when it comes to dissecting research.

View: https://youtu.be/yiclzDPIyQ0?si

A close friend of mine puts away a ridiculous volume of food — over 4000 calories every day — while doing three hours of weight training per day. The catch is his routine is one minute of work followed by three minutes of rest, and he sits at 11% body fat. None of this proves a thing; I'm just complaining about how unfair it seems

my situation is pretty much the same: 10% bf, training 3 hours every day, with 30-60 minutes of that being hard cardio or conditioning, roughly 1 hr is basically 1 minute on, 3 minutes off max strength work, plus another hour of hypertrophy and muscular endurance work.

my maintenance sits at 3300.

Smiter said:

UghItsStupidNIHateIT said:

5byfive said:

When it comes to losing weight, what you eat matters most. Cardio has my support, but it simply doesn't shift the number on the scale in the way people once assumed. This isn't new information, yet more and more data keeps confirming it. A poor diet can't be fixed by exercise alone. What's curious is that resistance training appears to be a different story. Short and to the point video. For me, Menno Henselmans sets the standard when it comes to dissecting research.

View: https://youtu.be/yiclzDPIyQ0?si

A close friend of mine puts away a ridiculous volume of food — over 4000 calories every day — while doing three hours of weight training per day. The catch is his routine is one minute of work followed by three minutes of rest, and he sits at 11% body fat. None of this proves a thing; I'm just complaining about how unfair it seems

A 3-hour strength session could plausibly burn around 1k calories, and with a large amount of muscle, his resting metabolic rate would likely be very elevated as well.

and this too.

when you're a large person, those 3 hours cost you a lot of energy.

when you think about it, what would you expect from a person putting in part-time-job hours of training each week? that amount of effort isn't going to come with a small TDEE, and needing somewhere in the mid 3s to 4s to sustain it is pretty common

Hearing that makes me feel like Beiber...ought to crawl into a mustard seed or something...damn, man.

 

[wildweasel]

UghItsStupidNIHateIT said:

wildweasel said:

UghItsStupidNIHateIT said:

5byfive said:

When it comes to losing weight, what you eat matters most. Cardio has my support, but it simply doesn't shift the number on the scale in the way people once assumed. This isn't new information, yet more and more data keeps confirming it. A poor diet can't be fixed by exercise alone. What's curious is that resistance training appears to be a different story. Short and to the point video. For me, Menno Henselmans sets the standard when it comes to dissecting research.

View: https://youtu.be/yiclzDPIyQ0?si

A close friend of mine puts away a ridiculous volume of food — over 4000 calories every day — while doing three hours of weight training per day. The catch is his routine is one minute of work followed by three minutes of rest, and he sits at 11% body fat. None of this proves a thing; I'm just complaining about how unfair it seems

my situation is pretty much the same: 10% bf, training 3 hours every day, with 30-60 minutes of that being hard cardio or conditioning, roughly 1 hr is basically 1 minute on, 3 minutes off max strength work, plus another hour of hypertrophy and muscular endurance work.

my maintenance sits at 3300.

Smiter said:

UghItsStupidNIHateIT said:

5byfive said:

When it comes to losing weight, what you eat matters most. Cardio has my support, but it simply doesn't shift the number on the scale in the way people once assumed. This isn't new information, yet more and more data keeps confirming it. A poor diet can't be fixed by exercise alone. What's curious is that resistance training appears to be a different story. Short and to the point video. For me, Menno Henselmans sets the standard when it comes to dissecting research.

View: https://youtu.be/yiclzDPIyQ0?si

A close friend of mine puts away a ridiculous volume of food — over 4000 calories every day — while doing three hours of weight training per day. The catch is his routine is one minute of work followed by three minutes of rest, and he sits at 11% body fat. None of this proves a thing; I'm just complaining about how unfair it seems

A 3-hour strength session could plausibly burn around 1k calories, and with a large amount of muscle, his resting metabolic rate would likely be very elevated as well.

and this too.

when you're a large person, those 3 hours cost you a lot of energy.

when you think about it, what would you expect from a person putting in part-time-job hours of training each week? that amount of effort isn't going to come with a small TDEE, and needing somewhere in the mid 3s to 4s to sustain it is pretty common

By the time I'd finished a single taco, he had already put away a whole platter of burritos, quesadillas, rice and beans. The guy consumes food as if he's preparing for some event — no clue what kind, though…

That resonates with me...

back when my training was 3 hours every day, my diet was really clean, but once I figured out my maintenance TDEE and shifted to a bulking calorie intake, I reached a point where I was forcing food down every single day and felt awful because of how much I was consuming — something like 5-6 meals daily.

So I deliberately switched to calorie dense options. Burritos, steaks... eventually I just started drinking my calories, blending shakes around 800cal once or twice per day, and that was the only method that let me hit my calorie intake needs without feeling like garbage from over eating

 

[Smiter]

wildweasel said:

UghItsStupidNIHateIT said:

wildweasel said:

UghItsStupidNIHateIT said:

5byfive said:

When it comes to losing weight, what you eat matters most. Cardio has my support, but it simply doesn't shift the number on the scale in the way people once assumed. This isn't new information, yet more and more data keeps confirming it. A poor diet can't be fixed by exercise alone. What's curious is that resistance training appears to be a different story. Short and to the point video. For me, Menno Henselmans sets the standard when it comes to dissecting research.

View: https://youtu.be/yiclzDPIyQ0?si

A close friend of mine puts away a ridiculous volume of food — over 4000 calories every day — while doing three hours of weight training per day. The catch is his routine is one minute of work followed by three minutes of rest, and he sits at 11% body fat. None of this proves a thing; I'm just complaining about how unfair it seems

my situation is pretty much the same: 10% bf, training 3 hours every day, with 30-60 minutes of that being hard cardio or conditioning, roughly 1 hr is basically 1 minute on, 3 minutes off max strength work, plus another hour of hypertrophy and muscular endurance work.

my maintenance sits at 3300.

Smiter said:

UghItsStupidNIHateIT said:

5byfive said:

When it comes to losing weight, what you eat matters most. Cardio has my support, but it simply doesn't shift the number on the scale in the way people once assumed. This isn't new information, yet more and more data keeps confirming it. A poor diet can't be fixed by exercise alone. What's curious is that resistance training appears to be a different story. Short and to the point video. For me, Menno Henselmans sets the standard when it comes to dissecting research.

View: https://youtu.be/yiclzDPIyQ0?si

A close friend of mine puts away a ridiculous volume of food — over 4000 calories every day — while doing three hours of weight training per day. The catch is his routine is one minute of work followed by three minutes of rest, and he sits at 11% body fat. None of this proves a thing; I'm just complaining about how unfair it seems

A 3-hour strength session could plausibly burn around 1k calories, and with a large amount of muscle, his resting metabolic rate would likely be very elevated as well.

and this too.

when you're a large person, those 3 hours cost you a lot of energy.

when you think about it, what would you expect from a person putting in part-time-job hours of training each week? that amount of effort isn't going to come with a small TDEE, and needing somewhere in the mid 3s to 4s to sustain it is pretty common

By the time I'd finished a single taco, he had already put away a whole platter of burritos, quesadillas, rice and beans. The guy consumes food as if he's preparing for some event — no clue what kind, though…

That resonates with me...

back when my training was 3 hours every day, my diet was really clean, but once I figured out my maintenance TDEE and shifted to a bulking calorie intake, I reached a point where I was forcing food down every single day and felt awful because of how much I was consuming — something like 5-6 meals daily.

So I deliberately switched to calorie dense options. Burritos, steaks... eventually I just started drinking my calories, blending shakes around 800cal once or twice per day, and that was the only method that let me hit my calorie intake needs without feeling like garbage from over eating

Man, what exactly are you up to with that many myocytes?

 

[PepDino]

Tracking what I ate completely changed things for me. After seeing how simple it is to hit 3,000 calories in a single day, I started paying 500% more attention to whatever I was putting in my mouth. With an Apple Watch plus calorie counting, I got shredded and had a full 6-pack during Covid. Back then I only did cardio 1-2x per week. My daily step count averaged around 18k. Since that time I've gained 30lbs, but now I'm back to 165 and the abs are beginning to show again

I can outrun a bad diet… for about 2 days.

 

[dancs]

Nope, nope, nope...

The only reason to do cardio is for your heart and lungs.

I stand 6'2", weigh 199 pounds (aiming for 190), and I take in close to 4000 calories daily (dropping roughly 2 pounds per week). That's alongside resistance training and around 10k genuine steps each day (15-20k altogether once the lifting session is counted).

There's also NEAT (Non Exercise Activity Thermogenesis) — the name for all the movement you rack up during the day: bouncing your legs, fidgeting nonstop, choosing the far end of the parking lot so you walk farther, deliberately covering every aisle in a store, every bit of motion whatsoever ---- all of it adds to energy expenditure, otherwise known as calorie burn.

BOTTOM LINE: IS THE NUMBER OF CALORIES/ENERGY WE BURN GREATER THAN WHAT WE TAKE IN????

That's what matters. Intermittent fasting, OMAD (One meal a day), the amount of cardio we perform — none of it is the deciding factor, because once cardio ends, that's the end of it. The burn stops. On the other hand, when you lift weights and train heavy, your body keeps expending energy for a further 24-36 hours AFTER the session is over.

Sure, cut out carbs completely and the first thing you drop is mostly water, but once your system settles and adapts to the keto effect, you'll need to tweak your calorie intake so the weight keeps coming off.

So — are you taking in fewer calories than you burn?

 

[5byfive]

dancs said:

Nope, nope, nope...

The only reason to do cardio is for your heart and lungs.

I stand 6'2", weigh 199 pounds (aiming for 190), and I take in close to 4000 calories daily (dropping roughly 2 pounds per week). That's alongside resistance training and around 10k genuine steps each day (15-20k altogether once the lifting session is counted).

There's also NEAT (Non Exercise Activity Thermogenesis) — the name for all the movement you rack up during the day: bouncing your legs, fidgeting nonstop, choosing the far end of the parking lot so you walk farther, deliberately covering every aisle in a store, every bit of motion whatsoever ---- all of it adds to energy expenditure, otherwise known as calorie burn.

BOTTOM LINE: IS THE NUMBER OF CALORIES/ENERGY WE BURN GREATER THAN WHAT WE TAKE IN????

That's what matters. Intermittent fasting, OMAD (One meal a day), the amount of cardio we perform — none of it is the deciding factor, because once cardio ends, that's the end of it. The burn stops. On the other hand, when you lift weights and train heavy, your body keeps expending energy for a further 24-36 hours AFTER the session is over.

Sure, cut out carbs completely and the first thing you drop is mostly water, but once your system settles and adapts to the keto effect, you'll need to tweak your calorie intake so the weight keeps coming off.

So — are you taking in fewer calories than you burn?

I'm not clear on which part you think is incorrect. Nothing in what you wrote seems to conflict with what others have already stated. According to the video, cardio's advantages are capped since the body offsets a portion of those additional calories. You're correct that NEAT matters more than cardio when it comes to overall calories burned. Being generally more active, and lifting weights, will raise your calorie expenditure. I don't think anyone is arguing against that.