OT: Exercise

It doesn't matter about the calories. The exercise is a good thing anyway.

Bill

on 02/07/2017, GB supposed :

Stop eating the Big Macs then :')

Yeah, but the "normal" 2500 or however many calories/day is what it takes to sit on a sofa, a deficit of 700 calories/day should lose you over a pound a week, which is a sensible rate ... easy enough for a few months, the difficult bit is keeping it off afterwards.

Don't forget alcohol. I drink 4 bottles of wine a week. At 700 calories per bottle that's 2,800 calories per week. When I (occasionally) go on the wagon I lose a stone.

Don't feel any more cheerful though.

Another Dave

bend down touch knees into bed...works for me

bet your liver does though ...

Is that a "book" figure or from a fitbit, or whatever?

Which? reviewed fitbits recently. I think they are great as motivators, and as relative indicators of activity, but I don't believe the absolute numbers.

I saw a good poster the other week: Wine is groceries not a luxury.

You need to volunteer to solve the "Materials handling conundrum". IIRC that would have burnt off around a whole kilo of fat on the basis that the height to shift the stones it was c.15m. More if you are as inefficient as most of us meat persons.

Quite right. There's always experts banging on about the Mediterranean diet and that traditionally includes a lot of calories from wine as well as olive oil.

Mind you, they rarely mention the effort the Mediterranean peasants had to put in to nurture, harvest and produce the bloody stuff.

I'd say that was about right. I used myfitnesspal.com and asked it to give me guidance on losing 2 pounds per week. It told me to drop about

It worked. I lost 3 stones at a rate of about - 2 pounds per week.

Exarcise doesn't lose weight. That's it.

Sure, there is likely to be a pretty solid correlation between calories and pounds.

My question was, did a source say that 6 miles walking was 700 calories, or did a machine say "Today you burned 700 calories", and did it derive it from accelerometers, or perhaps from a GPS track with speed as well as distance, and then some rule of thumb formula.

I used that part of it too. They allow you to 'earn' extra calories by doing exercise. They give you so many for a minute of walking, but specify a number of speeds, and also connect it to your weight. I timed my walks, and knew how far I'd walked, so my inputs were pretty accurate. I used to pretty well eat up to my calorie limit.

All I can say is that I lost the predicted amount of weight.

No matter how it does it, it'll be wrong. ;-) All calorie counters seem to give very variable results and at the end of the day 6-7 miles a day will make you a lot fitter. A very rough 'rule of thumb' (for an "average" weight bod) for calorie burning is 100 per mile, whether you are walking or running.

My Fitbit doesn't count that many though, even when I did 187,584 step last Saturday & 95 miles (6,407 calories).

Tim

Last time I lost weight, I started off walking an hour at lunchtimes and then after that improved my fitness, using a bike evenings and weekends.

This was before the time of fitbits etc, but I found a trip computer for the bike so that my brain make a definite link between mileage and weight loss helped.

I think the point is not as easy as you may think. Some peoples bodies use calories from body fat and others tend to leave it as a last resort. Such people need to feel actual hunger to take off the weight, while the others are lucky as the weight just comes off without the hunger. Brian

This is pretty convincing

Pretty much agrees with my own personal experience. I've been a runner for years but alway carried about a stone and a half extra weight that never seemed to vary with my training intensity or quantity. From the end of last year I went mainly veggy, the first time I've made a significant change to my diet. Since then I've lost 25lbs.

I don't doubt that there are some people who do respond to exercise alone. I think they are in the minority though.

Tim