How does weight loss works?

[Anonymous No.14720962]

They say it's very simple; if you burn more calories than you eat, you lose weight. But is that all there is to it? Let's say I exercise/diet in such way that I have a daily caloric deficit of X kcal/day, which makes me lose Y kg/week. Assume I don't change anything in my diet/exercise routine. Will I lose weight indefintely? Or will I reach some sort of equilibrium weight? What is the actual math behind that?

[Anonymous No.14720986]

>>14720962
I could help you out, but you posted anime so I won't

[Anonymous No.14721048]

>>14720962
Is that all there is to it?

Yes. You can dance in the mean time, or sing, or write, or exercise, or watch anime, or sleep or lay on bed, or masturbate all day, etc. Don't matter. The only metric is calorie intake - calorie used should be a negative value if you want to lose weight.

[Anonymous No.14721078]

>>14720962
>Let's say I exercise/diet in such way that I have a daily caloric deficit of X kcal/day, which makes me lose Y kg/week. Assume I don't change anything in my diet/exercise routine. Will I lose weight indefintely?
As you lose weight, you'll also lose muscle mass and burn fewer calories, causing weight loss to slow. You'll eventually stop losing weight assuming you aren't starving yourself.

[Anonymous No.14721086]

>>14721078
doesn't matter if it's muscle or not - you cant just lose like 10kg if fat and not reduce your caloric demands

[Anonymous No.14721112]

>if you burn more calories than you eat, you lose weight.
No. The calorie as it is actually measured is not a complete representation of the energy in a food, and it especially is not a perfect representation of the energy one who eats it ABSORBS from food. So, you cannot calculate your energy intake. That is sad.
What about the other side of the equation? Energy expenditure. Can you calculate this? No. You cannot. Nobody can. Well, why not? I thought e^2=m^2c-blah blah shut up nerd, this is biology. The body does not operate on pure spherical point masses in a vacuum perfectly obliterating unobserved matter into pure energy. Duh.
>let's say i exercise/diet in such a way that i have a daily caloric deficit of X kcal/day
X will be different every single day. You mentioned you will exercise. let's assume this damages some muscles (the purpose of exercise) which will then be repaired and rebuilt (better, maybe even larger, assuming you're human) - then, obviously, your expenditure will be larger, as the body is spending resources to repair create maintain new muscle. You also cannot eat the same amount every day. Say you eat meat. The fat/protein content will be different. Say you eat plants. The number of cells ingested will be different. Your gut biome will be different. Your body will adjust, likely appearing to become more efficient with the new diet over time. Old families of microbes, starved from their perfect diet, will be outcompeted by "new" families.
I am sorry, but this is not science. This isn't science at all. If this were science, we could isolate variables. We could remove variables. We can't do that. It's not even possible to exercise the same amount every day, that would imply perfect time keeping, or from the other perspective perfect knowledge of your muscle size and status.
Observe that the alternative to what I have written here is that pro bodybuilders could become infinitely large (like your mother) and that pro anemics could become massless

[Anonymous No.14721120]

While this thread is still up, if my daily caloric intake to lose weight is 1500 calories, and I work out in the morning causing me to burn 500 calories, can I then eat 2000 calories throughout the day and still lose weight?

[Anonymous No.14721128]

>what's the actual math behind that
It's ok, I'm autistic too. It doesn't matter. Pick a number of days - let's start with two. Two days a week, you'll go to the gym for an hour. Increase as neccesary.
to address the core of your question instead of dancing around it like an ass as in my previous post, however, yes, you would eventually reach equilibrium. You can avoid this bad ending by exercising more. It is commonly believed that diet shaves pounds and exercise shaves ounces. This is not true for most people. What is true for most people is that they lack a solid core. Do core exercises. Strengthen your core, your back, your legs. Lift. You will only regain the weight if you do not exercise. I will say it again, because I failed many times before learning this. You will only regain the weight if you do not exercise. You will only regain the weight if you do not exercise. I lied, I said it two more times. Ideally you would watch some youtube tutorials, and then go to a gym and get a trainer. Some gyms give you some hours with them for free with your membership.

[Anonymous No.14721131]

>>14721120
>if my daily caloric intake to lose weight is 1500 calories
this calculation relies upon flawed assumptions
>I work out in the morning causing me to burn 500 calories
this calculation relies upon flawed assumptions
>can I then eat 2000 calories
this calculation relies upon flawed assumptions
>and still lose weight
yes. but also, possibly not. try eating CORRECTLY instead of eating little. I know, it's really fucking hard. I've been there. You know what isn't as hard? Working out slightly more. It feels great. Trust me, you get used to it, and then you love it. One day you won't be able to go a week without working out. You'll just feel wrong, and you'll think, "Damn, I really really want to work out..."

[Anonymous No.14721141]

>>14721120
No.

If you want to lose weight, the most efficient way is to simply eat less. You will literally lose few lbs per week if you do a sub 1000 calorie diet, that will put you in healthy weight range. Diet + exercising is 2 different streneous activity that your mind cannot sustain at all.

[Anonymous No.14721147]

>>14721086
>doesn't matter if it's muscle or not - you cant just lose like 10kg if fat and not reduce your caloric demands
If you lose entirely fat, I see no reason why caloric demands would change since that's mainly determined by lean body mass. But that kind of change doesn't happen, not without pharmaceutical assistance.

[Anonymous No.14721167]

>>14720962
Caloris intake/expenditure is just one part of the equation, the other is innately physiological. There are a lot of people who eat a lot and yet can burn calories easily due to high metabolism, and there are also people who try their damned hardest to diet but can't lose weight. Ultimately it's hormones that determine whether the energy stored in the body is expended or not. One can influence one's endocrine system through dietary and behavioural changes but it's still the endocrine system that has the final say.

[Anonymous No.14721238]

>>14720962
you will reach an equilibrium weight as the more you exercise the less calories your body needs for daily activities. better cardiovascular better skeletal mussels. less engery used.

[Anonymous No.14721254]

>>14721238
This is why I believe being as out of shape as possible is ideal, that way I get a work out just trying to walk up a flight of stairs.

[Anonymous No.14721273]

>>14721254
the healthiest person I met was 500lb sumo wrestler. fucker made the ground shake he threw me once 240lb guy 20 ft.

[Anonymous No.14721880]

>>14721147
The demands change already from the fact alone that your body needs less energy to keep the temperature of the former fat areas in equilibrium, and the supply it with blood.
Although I agree it's much less significant.

[Anonymous No.14721918]

>>14720962
Don't listen to what these faggots are saying to you. It does not depend on exercise and what you eat, I've been eating shit and not exercising for years and my weight was 53kg, but I started taking mirtazapine, and my weight doubled even though I was eating healthy and doing exercise. It depends on how your metabolism works.
There's people who take bupropion to lose weight, and it works for them without having to exercise

[Anonymous No.14721957]

>>14720962
Decrease the amount you eat until you start losing weight. Then keep that amount until you lost the weight you want to lose. Do this every time you measure you weight more than you want.

[Anonymous No.14722144]

>>14721141
close your eyes when eating, you will eat less and feel fuller

[Anonymous No.14722293]

>>14721131
Wrong it's easier to just fast than to eat shit you really don't want to
or to exercise which doesn't really do that much for losing weight anyway compared to just not eating

[Anonymous No.14722299]

>>14720962
You will eventually either reach and equilibrium weight or you die depending on the chosen parameters.

[Anonymous No.14722316]

>>14721128
Sorry, but 60 mins gym per day isn't helping at all.
Minimum duration is 2 hours.
>2 hours reduced to effective time without rest = 1 hour
1 hour reduced to effective time without rest = half and hour

[Anonymous No.14722408]

>>14720962
>if you burn more calories than you eat, you lose weight
more or less, though things like your metabolism can come into play. if you just straight up try and starve yourself or have too great of a deficit then your body will actually start holding on tighter to your body fat and rationing energy out so you won't lose very fast but will feel miserable (this is where most crash dieters fail and relapse)

you want like a 500kcal deficit per day and then slowly burn it off over time for best results. it's better to do something relatively easy like this that you can stick to then trying to starve yourself and then "rewarding" yourself two days later with a gallon of ice cream. also weight loss happens in the kitchen, not the gym. whatever bullshit estimate the treadmill is giving you on calories burned is not accurate and you shouldn't count on it to make up for poor diet decisions you make e.g. "i can eat this candy bar, i'll just do an extra 15 minutes on my treadmill walk"

[Anonymous No.14722421]

>>14721120
whatever app/website you've looked up that made you think burning 500 calories per day on exercise is vastly overestimating calorie burn, unless you're already an athlete you will not be able to keep that up long term

[Anonymous No.14722425]

You will have to adjust your calories deficit as you loose weight. Different weight requires different amount of calories to maintain itself. But yes, if you will continuously eat less and less calories you will loose more and more weight until you die

[Anonymous No.14724041]

>>14721078
>>14721128
>>14721238
>>14722299
>>14722425
Ok, these seem to be the qualitatively right answers. Does anyone know the math behind it, though?

[Anonymous No.14724079]

Keep in mind that while you can get rid of fat by dieting, no diet can get rid of the excess skin that being overly obese gives you. Some formerly obese people have 100+ lbs of loose skin.
In general more obese = greater risk of saggy flaps.

[Anonymous No.14724991]

>>14720962
1. You begin eating food high in mercury, cadmium and lead.
2. You lose weight.

Fasting and self flagellation doesn't work. You will only starve, and either you die, or your lean body mass gets reduced to the amount that your heavy metals are sufficient to support and slowly lose weight and become the next Eugenia Cooney.

[Anonymous No.14724996]

>>14724041
bruh making functions of bodily processes is material for a bachelor project or evfn a master

[Anonymous No.14725036]

>>14721112
It's not exact science but counting calories, calculating your energy expenditure and eating acording to your goal tends to work. Yeah there are limits but it's the best method.

[Anonymous No.14725069]

>>14721167
>Ultimately it's hormones that determine whether the energy stored in the body is expended or not
Your body runs on energy. If you stop eating, your body is going to expend that energy

[Anonymous No.14725081]

>>14722408
>if you're starving, your body will stop using the energy storage specifically intended for such a situation
Where do people get this weird shit from. This obese guy stopped eating for 382 days and lost 125 kg

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angus_Barbieri's_fast

[Anonymous No.14726692]

>>14721131
do you have this same pic but with spenglers decline of the west?

[Anonymous No.14726708]

>>14720962
As you lose weight your energy requirement will decrease. So if you have the same diet you will reach an equilibrium weight because it matches your new needs.

[Anonymous No.14726779]

>>14726708
The difference isn't that big, it's not like fat uses much energy anyway so it's just dead weight. It's a different situation if you have a ton of muscle mass that is using energy, but if you have a ton of excess fat, you're just a skinny guy with a bunch of fat hanging off you. You'll use a bit more energy walking around since you weigh more, but chances are that if you're fat, you're not walking around much anyway

[Anonymous No.14726795]

Your body exists on a gradient of well fed and starved so if you are well fed all the time your body will store fat to let you survive future starvation. In some people this gets so extreme their cells aren't even sensitive to energy abundance signals(insulin) and fasting seems to have the biggest positive impact on insulin resistance based on most studies I've read. Broken metabolism and low micronutrient food makes hunger signals go haywire and people eat way more than they need.
In the end it's still all about energy, but loosing weight is certainly easier if you fix your metabolism first.

[Anonymous No.14727136]

>>14725081
Didn't a lot of dudes die trying to replicate his method?

[Anonymous No.14727137]

>>14720962
she's literally me