Mass is energy. If you eat less and move more but still maintain or gain mass you are a free energy machine and a violation of the laws that govern the universe
The last part of their sentence is about how their body goes into survival mode and tricks their brain into eating more in order to put on extra weight without them realizing it by delaying the feeling of being full longer than normal.
So burn 10% more calories but eat 25% more without realizing it and be worse off than before you started.
Who said anything about eating less? Exercise is very good for many things including keeping fit, and some people say it helps with their mood although I can’t attest to that personally, but to be honest if you’re doing it to lose weight you’re better off just dieting (the right kind of diet, not just these fad ones that don’t work and just leave you hungry all the time).
I can eat one kit kat finger and basically waste an entire 60 minute workout session.
You could very well be right. Depending on your weight, athleticism, and how much you move, it could take an hour to burn off a Kit-Kat bars worth of calories, that’s pretty normal
Someone more athletic can get more movement in during that hour so they could burn off that Kit-Kat faster
Where someone less athletic probably gets less motion in during that same hour so it would take them longer, the entire hour or more, to burn off that same Kit-Kat
But moving more an eating less grantees you will lose weight because the laws of physics will not allow you to spend more energy than you take in and still keep or produce more mass
There are even more moving parts as far as weight loss goes! Heavier people tend to burn more calories, for example, and people with higher muscle content also burn more calories. Its not just about how much you move.
Can’t forget, athletes performing a routine motion do it much more efficiently, expending less energy than a layperson to do the same thing. So a given body’s response to the same exercise can be expected to change over time, too (as they do it enough to get better at it, that is).
It isn’t futile but it’s not the way to lose weight. The human metabolism doesn’t really work with exercise, We’re not fast predators, we don’t chase after pray and run them down. We throw a spare at it, and then let it limp away, then we track it for 4 days until it gives up. We are persistence hunters. That doesn’t use a lot of calories up so running on a treadmill for 30 minutes, while obviously it will burn off some fat, won’t burn off as much as it would for something like a cat metabolism.
If you want to build up muscle, or resilience, or rehabilitate a weakened muscle, exercises is fantastic. But most people don’t want to do any of those things, most people want to be thinner, so gyms advertise themselves as weight loss programs. Which they’re not.
This violates the laws of physics
Mass is energy. If you eat less and move more but still maintain or gain mass you are a free energy machine and a violation of the laws that govern the universe
The last part of their sentence is about how their body goes into survival mode and tricks their brain into eating more in order to put on extra weight without them realizing it by delaying the feeling of being full longer than normal.
So burn 10% more calories but eat 25% more without realizing it and be worse off than before you started.
Mate if I’ve learned anything from this comment section, you are about to get rinsed
Who said anything about eating less? Exercise is very good for many things including keeping fit, and some people say it helps with their mood although I can’t attest to that personally, but to be honest if you’re doing it to lose weight you’re better off just dieting (the right kind of diet, not just these fad ones that don’t work and just leave you hungry all the time).
I can eat one kit kat finger and basically waste an entire 60 minute workout session.
You could very well be right. Depending on your weight, athleticism, and how much you move, it could take an hour to burn off a Kit-Kat bars worth of calories, that’s pretty normal
Someone more athletic can get more movement in during that hour so they could burn off that Kit-Kat faster
Where someone less athletic probably gets less motion in during that same hour so it would take them longer, the entire hour or more, to burn off that same Kit-Kat
But moving more an eating less grantees you will lose weight because the laws of physics will not allow you to spend more energy than you take in and still keep or produce more mass
There are even more moving parts as far as weight loss goes! Heavier people tend to burn more calories, for example, and people with higher muscle content also burn more calories. Its not just about how much you move.
Can’t forget, athletes performing a routine motion do it much more efficiently, expending less energy than a layperson to do the same thing. So a given body’s response to the same exercise can be expected to change over time, too (as they do it enough to get better at it, that is).
Exactly, there are just so many metrics involved, plus athletes could be any body type.
Well that just tells me exercise is futile.
It isn’t futile but it’s not the way to lose weight. The human metabolism doesn’t really work with exercise, We’re not fast predators, we don’t chase after pray and run them down. We throw a spare at it, and then let it limp away, then we track it for 4 days until it gives up. We are persistence hunters. That doesn’t use a lot of calories up so running on a treadmill for 30 minutes, while obviously it will burn off some fat, won’t burn off as much as it would for something like a cat metabolism.
If you want to build up muscle, or resilience, or rehabilitate a weakened muscle, exercises is fantastic. But most people don’t want to do any of those things, most people want to be thinner, so gyms advertise themselves as weight loss programs. Which they’re not.
No I just wanna eat kitkats