Throwing in some more exercises when cutting can't be a

>>35041706
throw in some cardio=easier cut

>>35041713
Lifting burns more calories than running. Get the fuck out.

>>35041706
more exercises means more recovery needed, which is harder on a caloric deficit.

>>35041713
Yeah but cardio isn't fun

>>35041706
>>35041713
Cardio does not result in a calorie defecit, same with lifting op. You can only get a calorie defect through diet. Unless you are lifting/cardio for 4 or more hours a day, there is no difference.

>>35041755
Ayy lmao

>>35041761
It's not a meme. this information has been around for about 3 years now on various pubmed articles.

>>35041772
Just did a google search. This information is mainstream now, nytimes and the guardian even have articles trying to explain this to the masses.

>>35041761
http://body.io/women-not-run/

Kiefer explains it best, also note I'm talking about steady state cardio, which lifting essentially is. Weight lifting is not the same as HIIT cardio, they effect the completely differently (because of the heart rate difference)

"Think about it this way: Your body is a responsive, adaptive machine that evolved for survival. If you’re running on a regular basis, your body senses this excessive energy expenditure, and adjusts to compensate. Remember, no matter which way we hope the body works, its endgame is survival and reproduction. If you waste energy running, your body will react by slowing your metabolism to conserve energy."

>>35041755
>Unless you are lifting/cardio for 4 or more hours a day, there is no difference.

Amerifats believe this

File: 1439873707321.jpg (28KB, 307x462px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 307x462px

>>35041804
So, what, TDEE don't real? How did I lose 25lbs?

>>35041815
Do a google search if anything besides HIIT or 4+hours leads to a deficit.

I know you won't post anything, no one ever does. Congratz on swallowing the truth hopefully.

>>35041822
It's still calories in calories out. TDEE changes after cardio or exercise. Read the link a few posts up.

>>35041828
I am personal, empirical evidence
>never done cardio
>never done 4+ hours
>lost weight

Must be my privileged genetics :^)

>>35041870
Or you know, maybe the biggest possible factor, your diet hurrrr. Fuck this board, this is the most uneducated group of all of 4chan....that's saying something.

>>35041706
Here's how you lose weight without muscle loss:

1) Lyle McDonald's Keto diet
2) Workout A - squat 5x5, bench 5x5, Workout B - Bench 5x5, OHP 5x5, DL 1x5
3) Some light accessory movements in the end for fun

Your 5x5 will be a pyramid scheme that peaks at the third set and then tapers off - you will still be able to get strength gains, without sacrificing overall volume.

>>35041876
You are a retard.
2 people eating the same deficit one doing 1 hour of cardio and one doing 2 hours, both at that same intensity. Which will lose more weight?

>exercising doesn't aid a calorie deficit

>>35041899
There is no difference you stupid fuck.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2806223/

>>35041899
Is it really that hard to comprehend that your body lowers your base metabolism post cardio, resulting in no calorie deficit in the long run.

>>35041904
There is a difference you retard. Did you even read the conclusion. It Literally says including exercise is beneficial.

>>35041909
What never seen anything that backs that up

>>35041929
Here is the direct quote off the first page...
>The
results lend support for inclusion of an exercise component in weight loss programs

File: kill yourself.jpg (48KB, 753x485px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 753x485px

>>35041929
Even reading a scientific study is too hard for you.......jesus christ /fit/ kill me plz.

the study says calorie restriction and exercise is good. Now look at the graph and look at the remarkable huge difference exercise made vs exercise and calorie restriction.

Also, filename.

>>35041952
Yes the very subtle difference could be caused by any of the million variables, but HEY look at week 24. AYYY LMAO WHAT A TROLL

File: image.jpg (58KB, 611x548px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 611x548px

>>35041904
That study just proves that it's the deficit that counts, not the exercise. So yeah, more exercise = greater deficit

>>35041952
Dude you need to re think you goals. You are telling people to not exercise. Go get some of your genetics out of the fridge and drown you sorrows.
The first page of your study you linked says to exercise. The first page. You are telling me to read it you didnt even read the first page...

>>35041958
Is everyone on /fit/ 15?

Look at the graph from the article retard.

>>35041961
I'm telling people not to spend 2 hours on a treadmill in steady state cardio, expecting it to be helping them cut. I am saving people time, if you want the health benefits of cardio be my guest, but weight loss isn't one of them.

Horrible idea; cuts into recovery and might prevent you from lifting as much next workout. You should prioritize maintaining weight on a cut; if you're gonna adjust your routine, reduce the volume to make sure the weight stays high.

>>35041952
It is the same calorie deficit in both cases. The difference in the groups is one the deficit is only from diet and the other group is a 50-50 split.

So if you have 2 people at the same calorie deficit and then one does more exercise on top of that who will lose more weight? The one doing extra exercise or the one not exercising?

Kill yourself

>>35041929
It's the way most mammals work....it's a built in survival mechanism.

>>35041973
Read the graph the lines arn't hard to comprehend.

CALORIE RESTRICTION
CALORIE RESTRICTION + EXERCISE.

I'm convinced you are a troll now.

>>35041983
Your the troll.

Both defects are 25%. One group is just diet. One group is 12.5% exercise and 12.5% from exercise.

Your study shows that calories in calories out is true. It shows that exercise deficit counts to your calorific deficit

Please read the study you linked fully (the first page says all this)

>>35041995
Second 12.5% exercise was ment to be diet my bad

>>35041965
You are a fuckin retard, with your logic people who train for marathons must be fat as fuck

>>35041706
The opposite.

>>35041962
Both groups were on the same deficit

>>35041995
That idiot was saving us time doing an abstract of his sources, it seems like he didnt comprend the whole research

>>35041995
You can easily attribute the 12.5% from exercise being an increase in base metabolism through the addition of muscle mass, not the cardio itself. This was over 24 weeeks, nearly half a year. They took normies with no past exercise experience, and made them do cardio involving the largest muscle. They grew muscle mass and increased their base metabolism.

This is also why the CR only group lost weight faster at the beginning. Which I'm sure you can't explain that either. Wouldn't CR +exercise keep up if it was true.

>>35042006
they are 4+ hours cardio, I covered that.

>>35042018
He's right, it makes sense in the graph. CR group loses weight way faster, 3 months later as they start putting on muscle mass ( you put on muscle going from 0 exercise to any) the group starts catching up. I agree, this shows exercise is NOT worth your time, which is what the guy is trying to get across. Just eat less.

>>35041726
Myth

>>35041706
everything this guy says about fitness is true

>>35042018
It did keep up, your graph shows that. Look at the end results of the study almost right on top of each other. The conclusion and results of the study show that exercise is beneficial to the subject trying to lose weight. The recommendation at the end of the paper says that people should exercise while trying to lose weight.

Please re think your goals of telling people not to exercise. You are on /fit/ not /haes/ you should be promoting exercise not telling people not to do it

>>35042025
Yes because they both don't burn any.

>>35042034
It didn't keep up, it was behind, and then caught up as base metabolism increased for the group that was exercising, through the addition of muscle mass.

If it was equal the additional muscle mass would have caused the CR+EX group to PASS the CR group easily, but it only managed to catch up at the end......hmmm...

File: 2015-10-16 23.32.50.jpg (567KB, 1439x801px) Image search: [Google]

567KB, 1439x801px

>>35042033
Preach

>>35042034
You realize the difference between 2 and 1 is 100% right? That's a big fucking difference.

>>35042023
cmon man
your conclusion is ok
but op is askin if he should ADD cardio, not substitute part of deficit of diet with cardio
if he ADDS cardio, his deficit will be larger and he will cut more
stop being a kuk ok

>>35042034
At week 8 the CR group had loss nearly twice as much.....The dudes right, just swallow the pill. He even said if you want to do cardio for the health benefits go for it.

>>35042044
Weight loss is not equal to fat loss. Look at your graph. You are saying the split group gained muscle, and they ended at the same weight loss. So which group has a lower body fat percent? The split group. So which group would you rather be a part of? I know I would rather be in the split group.

>>35042057
No it won't, that's not what the graph is telling us at all....It's showing us that exercise makes no difference. I firmly agree that graph shows that exercise has 0 effect on the weight loss, and that additional muscle mass is what you were seeing come into play.

File: WP_000047.jpg (83KB, 718x538px) Image search: [Google]

83KB, 718x538px

>diet
lol
>cardio
LOL

>>35042060
For normies it is, and you can't use fat % because the group that did cardio obviously ended up with more muscle mass.

this doesn't apply to use because we can't abuse our 3 month newbie gains anymore, if the group was a bunch of people who had lifted for 1+ year, they would get no additional muscle mass from the cardio, and you would see my point.

>>35042074
apply to us*

>>35042065
No that's not what it says at all. It says that a 25% deficit is a 25% deficit even if half is exercise.
>>35042074
But they wouldn't gain the muscles that made the split group a higher weight in the first 12 weeks. So you are wrong a deficit is a deficit no matter where it came from.

>>35042083
If it's half exercise, how do you account for the muscle mass problem he proposed, or the fact that the CR group lost almost twice as fast.....

>>35042083
The weight of muscle mass does not explain the nearly doubled results of the first 8 weeks friend.....

Swallow the pill....

>>35042087
This, the fact that the CR+EXERCISE group NEVER lost weight faster kinda destroys all your arguments. By your reasoning there should never have been much of a deviation to begin with.

File: lich.gif (26KB, 205x115px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 205x115px

>>35041713
>>35041726

if you're actually fat as fuck add cardio + extra lifts

if you're just cutting 20lbs do extra lifts fuck cardio it's gay 2bee8ch fămïłý

C'MON

>>35042025
>>35041755
>>35041815
>>35041828
>>35041870
>>35041876
>>35041899
>>35041904
>>35041909
>>35041929
>>35041943
>>35041952
>>35041974
>>35041956
>>35041961
>>35041973
>>35041965
>>35042006
>>35042019
>>35041983
>>35041995
>>35042018
>>35042034
>>35042044
>>35042060
>>35042074
>>35042083
>>35042087
>>35042111

youtube-comment tier

>>35042087
>>35042102
>>35042111
Please explain why the study linked recommended exercise if it's so harmful like you are all saying. Go to tumblr with your anti exercise speech from how you are arguing against exercise im sure you will fit in.

The split group catches up faster at the end than the diet group races away at the start. The hard work paid off at the end. The split group was at a similar weight loss margin with a lower body fat percent. The split group was healthier and more fit at the end than the diet group.

I am arguing the statement in the conclusion that the paper you linked says which is that exercise is good when losing weight. You are arguing that exercise is not good when losing weight. You are literally the opposite of what fit is about and you are a disappointment to all that have made it through hard work on this site.

>>35042141
Harmful?

1. Adding muscle to lose wight is not what we are discussing, we are discussing if cardio results in a calorie deficit.

2. Who cars if normies who never exercised ended up "healthier". This argument has to do again with the benefit of adding muscle mass, which wouldn't affect lifters like us. (We do not gain muscle from cardio)

3. I am arguing that cardio does not reduce caloric intake for the day, not that it is "unhealthy". Cardio has NUMEROUS health benefits, NOT LOSING WEIGHT THOUGH.

>>35042168
1. Are saying that doing exercise, which increases your TDEE has no effect on weight loss? Because it sounds like you are.

2. Why link a study that is about that if you don't care? You linked it then got upset it didn't back you position. The OP is about adding cardio to a calorific deficit. You are saying it is a waste of time. That study says the oposite.

3. Your right cardio increases calorific deficit leading to more weight loss.

>>35042200
1. TDEE raises during cardio and decreases after cardio, resulting in no difference.

2.The study shows us everything we need to know in the graph. We just deconstructed it to death, re-read the comments. The study does not consider muscle mass added to normies, the ability to taker this information and apply it to someone with over 6 months of lifting experience, is the only part where you have to use your brain anon.

3. It does not.

>>35042215
You forgot to mention the CR only group losing nearly twice as fast for 10 weeks.

>>35041904
Just felt like pointing out that this post and all following ones supporting it are so fucking stupid it hurts. If you're this guy or agree with him, don't reproduce. Just take my word for it, I don't think I could possibly put it in words you could comprehend.

>>35042215
If you cloned yourself so there was 2 of you.
Both the clones ate exactly the same food. Then one clone went for a 2 hour run while the other sits there and does nothing. Which clone will lose more weight?

>>35042227
Try to make an argument, besides hurr I'm right.

>>35042018
>addition of muscle mass
>on a caloric deficit

>>35042229
Neither

Clone 1 sits for 5 hours and burns 100 calories/hour= 500 calories burned

Clone 2 runs for an hour burns 300 calories, then his body lowers his TDEE to 50 calories an hour over the next 4 hours=500 calories burned.

The numbers are just used to get the point across, and explain so a 5 year old gets it.

>>35042235
It's called normy gains, they are comparable to steroids, yes this shit happens all the time to normies who exercise for their first time. Which is what this study was.

>>35041804
So you're saying I can work up to running 6 hours a day without eating a single calorie extra to compensate for it? This better be b8 m8

>>35042239
Go to a tdee website. Put in no exercise for one
TDEE of 1500
Put in exercise of 2 hours cardio for a day
TDEE of 1800
If both clones are eating 1200 calories a day which will lose more weight?
The clone with a (1500-1200)=300 calorie deficit or the clone that has a (1800-1200)=600 calorie deficit?

>>35041837
Well of course you fucking autist that's the whole fucking point. Either eat less or move more(while maintaining current intake, obviously); the end result will in either case be a caloric deficit.

>>35042245
Up to 3-4 hours, Re-read the comments. I'm sick of replying to the same retarded "gotcha" comment

>>35041828
>>35042019

>>35041952
>CR has a TDEE of 2500, and eats 2000 kcal
>CR+EX has a TDEE of 2750, and eats 2250 kcal

Gee what a surprise, the exercise didn't affect their weight loss!

>>35042248
TDEE decreases post cardio. Those websites do NOT factor this, they are just adding the energy expenditure of the exercise, with no consideration of the 4-5 hours that follows.

>>35042249
Your not getting it brah

Refer to the explanation for 5 year olds
>>35042239

>>35042235
>having absolutely no clue what you're talking about

>>35042263
You realize those both add up to 500 right?

>>35042270
Well no shit Einstein, the point is that the study has the people who exercise eat more than the ones who don't exercise, which would obviously lead to both groups losing weight at the same rate.

>>35042266
It does decrease but not nearly to the extent you are saying. Blow both examples out to an extreme case because you don't seem to be able to understand.
Have 2 clones. Both eat the same food. One then runs a marathon every day. You are saying the clone that runs a marathon every day will not lose more weight than the clone that sits around all day.

File: ok.jpg (29KB, 375x305px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 375x305px

this whole thread

>>35042273
They don't lose weight at the same rate, the CR group is nearly doubled for the first 10 weeks. Then the added muscle mass of the Cr+Exercise group increases their base metabolism allowing them to catch up eventually.

Protip: You can't just look at the lines, you have to look at the squiggly lines on the side of the X and Y axis that represent quantities.

>>35042276
Yes to the extent I'm saying, hence why CR group was nearly double for the first 10 weeks huuur Nothing is blown to the extreme, read the graph.

A marathon is not 1-2 hours of cardio,

You didn't even read the thread....
>>35042006
>>35042245

>>35042286
You are saying that the difference in net calories used in cardio and recovery time is zero against someone that doesn't do anything extra.
You didnt read the thread. The OP asks if ADDING exercise while on a deficit will help lose weight. You are saying it won't help at all. Where even the paper you linked to try prove it wrong says it's a good idea.
Your argument is "my magical TDEE" which is pretty much the same argument as fatties that say "mah genetics".

Does exercise help lose weight. Yes.
Does diet help lose weight. Yes.
Do they have equal impact. No.
Do they both have an impact. Yes.

>>35042282
>Then the added muscle mass of the Cr+Exercise group increases their base metabolism allowing them to catch up eventually.
That's absolutely retarded. Their deficit is dynamic, i.e. always -500 from their TDEE. They don't start at at a TDEE of, let's say, 1500 and then keep that up for the 24 weeks. They readjust in function of the BMR.

>>35042298
I'm saying that cardio adds no calorie deficit vs. Not doing cardio.

Op said more exercise=more calories burned. Which is not the case, it just leads to more adaption and more lowering of TDEE over the next few hours.

My paper says normies will lose half as much weight with CR+EXERCISE for the first 10 weeks. Apply this to someone who has been lifting for 6 months (No newbie gains muscle mass added)

>>35042320
Calories eaten each day stayed the same over the 24 weeks for both groups.

Alright guys, you're arguments arn't really making sense anymore, so I'm pretty sure you're at the point where you just need this all to sink in. Good luck.

>>35042321
I have lost 20kgs this year. I was eating at a 500 calorie deficit the entire time (minus a cheat meal here and there) if i take the increase in TDEE that exercise gave me I would have been eating about maintenance. From your logic I should not have lost any weight. But I did. And i am not the only person on fit with a similar story. You are wrong in saying that exercise has no effect what so ever.
You keep saying that it's different for normies. Do you want to know a surprise your body runs on the same energy system a normies does. You are not special you are not unique and in this particular case you are wrong and the evidence you gave to support yourself shows you are wrong.

>>35042329
Nope. I just read it, it was a 700kcal deficit. It would make absolutely NO SENSE if they kept eating the same number of calories the whole time.

>>35042345
>TDEE that exercise gave me
TDEE raises during exercise, and lowers afterwards, there is no difference, been saying this the whole time.

>I was eating at a 500 calorie deficit the whole time

You realize this is my entire point right, deficit's can only occur through diet.

No sure exactly where you thought you were proving a point against me and not for me.

>>35042353
They never changed the calories either group ingested, I'm not sure where you got lost friend. They kept the same caloric deficit (assuming exercise produced one, which it didn't)

>>35042345
The point he was making about normies is that a seasoned lifter would not gain muscle mass from 10 weeks of cardio, like a beginner would. I think that one kinda flew over your head.

File: mind blown.gif (3MB, 500x333px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 500x333px

>>35042345
Dude you literally just said that the only reason you lost weight was diet.

>>35042368
If what you are saying is true the study you posted would have had the final result where the split group had lost half the weight of the diet group. No ifs ands or buts. The diet group is at a 700 calorie deficit the split group is at a 350 calorie deficit +350 calories that don't matter because it's from exercise.
Pleas explain how a group at a 700 calorie deficit didn't lose any more weight than the group eating at a 350 calorie deficit over the time frame of the entire study? Because it is a deficit the TDEE for any muscle gained has been taken into account.

>pro tip maybe the exercise did help

>>35042336
Just eat at a deficit and do your cardio, thats the healthiest and fastest way to lose fat.

>>35042397
The split group gained muscle mass over time which raised their base metabolism enough to compete with the CR only group (Which wouldn't happen if the entire experiment consisted of seasoned lifters)

If this had been a study of only seasoned lifters (Which is the only true controlled way to do this) The 10 week 100% difference would have persisted throughout the whole experiment, and yes the CR group would have lost twice as much by the end.

>>35042396
>only accounting for exercise was i at a deficit
>eating at maintenance if you exclude the calories burnt from exercise
I said the opposite. I said exercise helped...

>>35042379
Yes, they kept the same DEFICIT.

Let's say they were at a TDEE of 2000 week 1.

CR eats at a 500kcal deficit, so 1500.
CR+EX eats at a 250kcal deficit (so 1750) and loses 250 from exercise.

Now, what you are saying is that the TDEE of the CR+EX group increased due to aerobic performance and/or muscle mass. They're still going to both be eating at a 500kcal deficit from what they are now, not their initial TDEE.

So, week 22, CR is now at a TDEE of 1800 from the weight loss and CR+EX is at a TDEE of 1900 from the increase in muscle.
CR STILL eats at a 500kcal deficit, so 1300.
CR+EX eats at a 250kcal deficit (so 1650) and loses 250 from exercise.

Either way, they're both still at -500. They aren't still going by the week 1 value (1500 for CR). So WHY did the CR+EX catch up? The metabolism change explanation makes no sense.

>>35042408
You didnt answer what I asked.
Why does a deficit of 700 have the same weight loss as the group with a 350 deficit.
TDEE - calories eaten = deficit
Muscle gained is accounted for because your TDEE is calculated from your muscle mass
TDEE increased. Calories eaten increased. Deficit remained constant

>>35042410
Your not getting it, eating -500 calories a day is going to make you lose weight, regardless of if you exercised.

You either were eating at a deficit or not.

If you were not eating at a deficit, then are you a seasoned lifters with 6 months of 3x a week at least lifting including legs? Where added muscle mass couldn't have made a significant difference to your TDEE over time?

I think your getting closer to getting it

>>35042424
You need to re-read the experiment. Muscle gain is in no way accounted for. TDEE is assumed at the beginning and never touched on again. Your variable doesn't exist.

>>35042345
>>35042410
FYI, online calculators are notably incredibly fucking wrong (and so is that weight*11-18 thing for cutting/maintenance/bulking)

I had my BMR checked for a study I participated in and they told me it was 1800 kcal. Online calculators showed me 2200. A 600 variation when a deficit is recommended to be -500...

>>35042426
You said that exercise does not increase your TDEE. I re calculated my TDEE every week to account for my weight loss. If i was doing no exercise I would not have had a deficit because that would have lowered my TDEE to be equal to the calories I ate.

No exercise means no deficit. No deficit means no weight loss.
I lost weight so that means I must have been eating a deficit. The only place this deficit could have come from was my exercise as my TDEE with no exercise was equal to the calories I was eating.

>>35042434
Not sure what to say other than you're wrong. They couldn't keep a linear weight loss going over 22 weeks with the same TDEE, you would simply no longer be at a deficit (or as much of a deficit).

>>35042434
> caloric restriction (CR: 25% reduction in energy intake)
It says right there. -25% reduction in energy intake which, duh, changes over time, so it is readjusted for metabolic changes. You're an idiot.

>>35042437
You didn't answer the question, which is the single biggest factor in whether or not your point gets proved.

>>35042450
The reduction is a % it's proportional, and stays proportional in the other group, I still don't understand what you are getting at?

I just want to help all of you who don't need the health benefits of cardio, from wasting their time.

Hopefully more studies will come out so mainstream nubs understand. Good luck /fit/

>>35042459
You are saying they were eating the same number of calories the entire way through. They were not. They were readjusted in function of their BMR on a weekly basis.

So why did CR+EX catch up? >>35042417

>113 posts
>22 unique posters
well this thread is a shitfest

>>35042477
Your baiting was spot on m8 :3

>>35042480
Same=/=proportional

>>35042486
Your ignorance was spot on. This experience will make the truth even easier to accept one day my friend.

>>35042485
nah a lot of knowledge was dropped, for a few lucky individuals.

File: 1e9.png (24KB, 625x626px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 625x626px

>>35042499
Try harder m8.
You did a good job baiting that other anon, though.

>>35042492
>You need to re-read the experiment. Muscle gain is in no way accounted for. TDEE is assumed at the beginning and never touched on again.
This is what you said.

Now you're just being really obvious with your troll by backpedaling. At least before you would just make more shit up when backed into a corner.

>>35042451
A) my TDEE was 1200, i ate 1200. 1200-1200=0 my deficit was 0 here
B) my TDEE was 1200, i ate 1200, i exercised using 500. [1200+500]-1200=500 my deficit was 500 calories here.

Which one is the one that would cause me to lose weight? The one where I exercised or the one where I didn't?

>>35042519
see >>35042435

>>35042519
Obviously the B) one, are you trolling or what?
500 deficit is more than maintenance.

>>35041747
>Yeah but cardio isn't fun

This honest family member knows what he's talkin about.

>>35042266
>TDEE decreases post cardio.
[citation needed]

literally every piece of data i have seen says the exact opposite of this claim, hence you see those articles using shit like "Fatburning zone" and shit, when they just mean increased metabolic output post-cardio

>>35042537
I was trying to word the exercise does count argument so a 12 year old could understand it

>>35042536
The height weight calculators are pretty bad but the height weight fat % ones are very close to the real deal

>>35042544
i bet you still think you have to do running for cardio.

cardio is fun as fuck if you choose something you like.
just do some mountain climbers and jumping jacks in your room.
right now.
do them.

or any aerobics.

i like shadow-boxing myself...

>>35042573
>or any aerobics.
so this is how you exercise?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TIfAkOBMf5A

>>35042580
kek.. basically.. just jump around like a retard for 25-45 mins

>>35041726
>>35041747
Have you ever ridden a bike?

>>35041899
These idiots have no idea what they're talking about. It's stupid to end the day at more than a 1000 calorie deficit. My bmr is 1800 calories, and the idiots in this thread act like I should consume the same amount of calories everyday regardless of exercise. They ignore the sticky when they say that. I'm a decent cyclist, and when I ride my bike for one hour, I burn about 700 calories. So if I bike for one hour and do nothing the rest of the day, I want to consume 1500 calories because my bmr(1800) + cycling(700) = 2500 and then I want to be at a 1000 calorie deficit, so 2500-1000=1500
Source:ive lost more than 40 pounds since July 21

>>35042239
It doesn't work that way. What the fuck?

So during rest, your body would burn less calories after exercising? Considering that it has to repair muscle tissue, including your heart?

Toby, earnest cousin.

>>35042690
As the previous links in this thread says, it changes the metabolism, so you dont burn those 300 kcals from fat, but rather from muscle, bone, and your body spends less energy throughout the day on stuff like temperature control and shit. You want the fat to be burned, not all the other ways the body can decrease energy spent or get energy from

>>35041706
I'd increase volume and lower weight for accessory work, there really isn't a point to adding more exercises during a cut. (Assuming you aren't in the early stage of gains-making)

Try prowler cart pushing, jump roping, supersetting core work with rope climbing, etc.

>>35042781
Spends less on temperature control? Shake my head family

This study will be disproven if repeated. Hell, I'm sure they fucked up majorly to get this result. You're wrong and you're a retard for believing it.