Quote:
|
Originally Posted by SlayerOfLight
Indeed. Some bodies easily get fat, some bodies never get fat at all, and then there are those bodies who both easily lose fat and store it (which is where I belong). My method of losing weight may not work for people with a different body type or with severe obesity, but as I said of course it's still worth giving it a go.
|
There's basic things that will work for near enough everyone, but it'll work in slightly different ways. Basically it's energy in vs energy out, and what that energy is transformed from and/or into, which is only two basic things, muscle and/or fat.
The main problem with weight loss is the loss of muscle mass, which one would want to avoid as much as possible, while maximising fat loss.
The trick is introducing a slight calorie deficit so you lose weight quite gradually, without losing too much muscle with it, and exercise helps to retain muscle mass as well as burning more calories. The extra burn has to come to come from fat.
When they say something like muscle burns 50 more times the calories of fat, that becomes more plausible when said muscle is exercised. For example, when I am weight lifting training I need 3200 cals to maintain my bodyweight (83-84kg), but I take 3500 to build up muscle (that's like 1000 more calories than I'd need if not training). This also puts on some fat, so I can't stay in a caloric excess for too long, and I have to go into a deficit, 2800 cals, to lose the fat, but I also lose some muscle when in a deficit. For me everything has to be very accurate, and I need much more protein that a person who does no exercise. A cyclist or runner would need far more carbs that I do. I mean, to assess what a person need to to do to 'lose weight' is quite specific to an individual and their lifestyle, but the basic math of energy in and out is the same.