680
Anon is 23 (sh.itjust.works)
submitted 3 months ago by to c/greentext@sh.itjust.works
295 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 2 points 3 months ago (8 children)

Nah, I got the meaning of your post. Standing at the desk, even with a treadmill, is not the same as natural movement. Taking breaks from a physically passive activity is not tge same as being constantly physically active.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago (7 children)

    You probably weren't burning significantly more calories. What happened is you likely started eating or drinking more calories at your desk where before you were too busy. It's like a thirty minute jog to work off an oreo, it's unlikely you were actually burning that many more calories. But then most people still think exercise and metabolism have a lot of control over your weight when it's almost exclusively how much you're eating and drinking. Nobody is breaking the laws of thermodynamics.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago (6 children)

    I absolutely did not eat at my desk. In fact I had way more sweets in the first role, the culture was different at the lab. I know about thermodynamics, but I don't think it's that simple. Moving around helps a ton with stress and digestion which affects your metabolism and insulin resistance. It's not about moving to "burn off" fat, it's about moving to not synthesize the fat around your organs in the first place.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 3 months ago (5 children)

    I don't think that's how that works. It's all calorie in calorie out, and once acclimated to a new routine most people within normal activity levels settle in burning around 2000kcal a day, that's sedentary and active people. Metabolism has way less impact than most people think and outside of heavy labor or semipro athlete you're probably settling in around that 2000kcal maintenance level. Unless you were doing strenuous labor or working out daily your maintenance level probably didn't change that much.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago* (4 children)

    It absolutely is not all calorie in calorie out. Or rather, how calories are stored and burned depend on your metabolic health. There's a massive amount of literature on this.

    Here's a starting point: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanplh/article/PIIS2542-5196%2825%2900201-3/fulltext

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 3 months ago (3 children)

    Yes but unless you're a statistical outlier that still won't make a significant difference to counting calories. When it comes to gaining or losing weight yes it is purely calorie in calorie out. The difference in caloric maintenance between an active lifestyle and a sedentary one is 4 to 6 hundred kcal. That's a bowl of cereal. Your metabolism has little overall impact.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago (2 children)

    Metabolic health has a tremendous impact on how we process calories, and I don't really find it useful to discuss this further. There's a tremendous body of evidence to support this, that you can do whatever you want with.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •