Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Locked thread
Monaghan
Dec 29, 2006

evilweasel posted:

I mean it's technically correct in the sense that (a) you can turn fat into muscle without a corresponding weight loss and (b) that when you start exercising your appetite goes up so you tend to eat more to counteract the increased calorie burn.

But it's part of the basic thermodynamic equation of calories taken in vs. calories burned. It works, but there are those two issues in real-world applications of "just run some more". But the phrasing of "it doesn't work" is just rephrasing a more complicated response in a way to justify doing nothing.

You could argue that practically it's pretty much useless for weight loss. The real equation is almost calories you are taking in compared to your basic metabolic rate. Doing poo poo like running for an hour at best means you can get an extra 300 calories in . There's a ton of other health benefits to exercise, but for weight loss, it's rather ineffective and should not be heavily emphasized when people talk about weight loss.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

  • Locked thread