• TheEmpireStrikesDak@thelemmy.club
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    28
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    5 days ago

    My understanding is that humans pretty much use about the same amount of calories a day, whether sedentary or not. If you spend more on exercise, your body spends less on other things.

    https://www.science.org/content/article/scientist-busts-myths-about-how-humans-burn-calories-and-why

    The amount your body uses just to stay alive dwarfs what you’d burn from adding cycling to your day.

    Edited to add the “much” that I somehow deleted.

    • HerbSolo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      6 days ago

      Talk to a bike courier if you get the chance to. The amounts of calories they burn in a shift is ridiculous.

      • Swedneck@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        3 days ago

        my dad has tales of gymbro cowokers who can inhale like 3 pizzas in a sitting and still be hungry, yet they’re not in the least pudgy

      • squaresinger@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        5 days ago

        Most people are way above the amount of calories they need. Doing more exercise just burns that excess and you need to do a ton more exercise to actually get to the point where you need to eat more to cover that surplus consumption.

        So if you do an 8h cycling shift you might need to eat more. But if you just commute to work for an hour per day (half an hour per direction) you will not need to take in more calories.

      • BobBarker@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        6 days ago

        I think what it means is that yes, you can burn more calories in a given active session (working out for example) but the amount of calories you expend over a year for example, divided by the number of days, ends up being about the same regardless.

        I guess one of the more popular reasons as to why is because your body is capable of compensating for high intensity sessions when you’re not as active, and being extremely active for long ends up burning you out so you can’t do it anymore (and you get sick or injured).

        But from what I’ve seen, exercise is still really good for you, it’s just not exactly for the reasons we used to think. I know in my (very anecdotal) case, I actually eat less when I’m working out regularly just out of instinct. Maybe it’s my body’s way of going “we need to stay light because we have to run again tomorrow”?

    • TheEmpireStrikesDak@thelemmy.club
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      5 days ago

      One other interesting thing is brown fat. Dr Karl told this story loads of times on the 5live science podcast, so it’s bound to be in one of the 2010 or 2011 episodes.

      Iirc: a group of women went to Antarctica and put an a lot of body fat beforehand. But even after that, the cold was so enough to make their bodies turn their white fat into brown fat and they lost a ton of weight.

      Not the Dr Karl episode: https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/articles/5nrBw8X5NhXxv04J7H1vn2J/the-body-fat-that-can-make-you-thin

      So the answer is live somewhere freezing for a bit if you want to lose weight.

      (In my case, for some reason eating chocolate helps keeps my tummy fat down. I ballooned after giving it up, even though the rest of my diet was the same.)