Sex only burns about 21 calories, according to new university study

[KRonn]

Wow, just 21 calories?  Why even bother?

Obviously as this info gets out, there will be a lot less sexual activity.

[Malthus]

Something I often like to bring up is this "starvation mode" that a lot of diet experts talk about. Starvation mode is basically when you're starving, you enter a "low energy state" where your body uses less energy. Diet advisers always say you have to avoid this, because it lowers metabolism and makes it very hard to lose weight. I've always found that to be false, and a few years ago a study came out saying the same thing: that it takes 60 hours of fasting to truly enter "starvation mode." There is little evidence "extreme" diets like VLCDs (physician supervised diets where you eat 3-4 prescription meal-shakes each day, totaling usually under 800 calories) put your body into "starvation mode" and make you unable to lose weight, and the whole concept defies certain basic facts about physics and human biology. The truth is, 800 calories/day on a physician supervised VLCD is one of the most effective non-surgical methods for the morbidly obese to lose weight rapidly.

My wife is doing something like that.  It's technically not a VLCD because she is eating 900 calories per day, and she is eating food not shakes (altthough everything is carefully weighed), but it certainly is effective.

I have heard the claim being made that some cannot lose weight easily or at all by dieting, because of their "metabolism" or some such. That claim never made any sense to me. If you eat fewer calories than you burn, seems to me that weight loss is inevitable.

It may well be true of course (and probably is) that *psychologically* dieting is impossible for some people.

[Valmy]

I have heard the claim being made that some cannot lose weight easily or at all by dieting, because of their "metabolism" or some such. That claim never made any sense to me. If you eat fewer calories than you burn, seems to me that weight loss is inevitable.

It may well be true of course (and probably is) that *psychologically* dieting is impossible for some people.

When I work out I do not feel hungry so I eat less.  Why that is I have no idea and it makes no sense but that is the only reason I exercise while dieting.

[The Brain]

Vegetarians burn more calories by eating than they gain from the food.

[Admiral Yi]

AFAIK celery is the only food that burns more calories to eat than it provides.

[Ideologue]

Vegetarians burn more calories by eating than they gain from the food.

I think I may be being a vegetarian wrong.

I sort of envy six minute sex act people--emphasis on sort of--but the occasional six min quickie would be a lot more convenient.

[Caliga]

It may well be true of course (and probably is) that *psychologically* dieting is impossible for some people.

I agree.  I think we as a society tend to discount the possibility that said people are foodaholics.

[Eddie Teach]

200 calories an hour is about as good as exercise bikes.

[fhdz]

If you're having sex as a weight loss tactic, you're definitely doing it wrong.

[derspiess]

I have heard the claim being made that some cannot lose weight easily or at all by dieting, because of their "metabolism" or some such. That claim never made any sense to me. If you eat fewer calories than you burn, seems to me that weight loss is inevitable.

I can sort of go along with the theory that your metabolism can adjust itself downward to some extent if you start consistently eating less.  But maybe that's just because I like the idea of having a cheat day once a week to counteract that

[Legbiter]

Most people dramatically overestimate the caloric burn of exercises in the first place, the human body is extremely energy efficient, that's why unless you're doing extreme high energy workouts diet is about 85% of the weight loss formula.

Yes, I'd second this. Great abs/300 pound deadlift, etc are made in the kitchen.

[Barrister]

Something I often like to bring up is this "starvation mode" that a lot of diet experts talk about. Starvation mode is basically when you're starving, you enter a "low energy state" where your body uses less energy. Diet advisers always say you have to avoid this, because it lowers metabolism and makes it very hard to lose weight. I've always found that to be false, and a few years ago a study came out saying the same thing: that it takes 60 hours of fasting to truly enter "starvation mode." There is little evidence "extreme" diets like VLCDs (physician supervised diets where you eat 3-4 prescription meal-shakes each day, totaling usually under 800 calories) put your body into "starvation mode" and make you unable to lose weight, and the whole concept defies certain basic facts about physics and human biology. The truth is, 800 calories/day on a physician supervised VLCD is one of the most effective non-surgical methods for the morbidly obese to lose weight rapidly.

My wife is doing something like that.  It's technically not a VLCD because she is eating 900 calories per day, and she is eating food not shakes (altthough everything is carefully weighed), but it certainly is effective.

I have heard the claim being made that some cannot lose weight easily or at all by dieting, because of their "metabolism" or some such. That claim never made any sense to me. If you eat fewer calories than you burn, seems to me that weight loss is inevitable.

It may well be true of course (and probably is) that *psychologically* dieting is impossible for some people.

I dunno man.

Look, I've never significantly worried about my weight.  I avoid junk food, watch portion size, and I've never felt the need to formally diet.  I get the impression from you that you've had to diet once or twice, but that when you did the weight came off reasonably easily.

Not everybody is like that.  I do believe that "metabolism" plays a big part in a person's weight.

Obviously nobody can say that it is "impossible" for them to lose weight.  But it can be substantially harder in that they need to restrict their caloric intake to a much greater degree than other people would.

[Malthus]

I dunno man.

Look, I've never significantly worried about my weight.  I avoid junk food, watch portion size, and I've never felt the need to formally diet.  I get the impression from you that you've had to diet once or twice, but that when you did the weight came off reasonably easily.

Not everybody is like that.  I do believe that "metabolism" plays a big part in a person's weight.

Obviously nobody can say that it is "impossible" for them to lose weight.  But it can be substantially harder in that they need to restrict their caloric intake to a much greater degree than other people would.

I simply don't believe it.

Look, food is like fuel. You need to burn a certain amount of it to do X effort, assume X is the amount they do every day. Assuming two people are the same size and strength they will, in all likelihood, use much the same fuel to do X amount of effort. It is not the case that person A is substantially more efficient than person B, can do X effort for less.

That being the case, if you reduce fuel intake (that is, food) to persons A and B below the amount they need to burn to do X effort, while not reducing the amount of effort they do each day, both persons will need to burn the same amount; they can't get it from food, so they must get it from somewhere - and that somewhere is going to be the fat that they have stored. So they will lose weight.

I find it much, much easier to believe that some people are simply "misremembering" the amount they are restricting their caloric intake, than to believe in some suspension of the laws of physics that allows one person to do X amount of effort for substantially less "fuel" than another.

However, seems an easy thing to scientifically test. All you'd have to do is get one of these magic people and monitor them day and night for food intake. See if you calorie-restrict person A (who claims this 'difficulty') exactly the same as person B (who is the same size and strength, diets and loses weight no prob), have them do the same daily routine, and see if, indeed, person A can't lose weight.

[derspiess]

I find it much, much easier to believe that some people are simply "misremembering" the amount they are restricting their caloric intake,

Exactamundo.  Dunno how many times I've seen some "dieting" gal at work pigging out on cake or having junk food for lunch.  Then she turns around and whines about how she hit a brick wall after she had initially lost 2 pounds.

[The Brain]

It's funny how bizarre metabolism issues always afflict people with no will to lose weight.