No Exercise Weight Loss

K

kshaw

Pre-takeoff checklist
Joined
Oct 4, 2013
Messages
363
Location
Gaithersburg, MD
Display Name
Display name:
KShaw
I have always had this stupid theory that you could lose weight without any exercise by just taking a scuba tank and sitting at the bottom of a swimming pool. A scuba tank at 10 feet would last a very long time. Since our body tries to maintain our body temperature at 98.6 F, it is logical to presume that our body would burn calories to maintain that temperature as long as the pool temperature would be lower than 98.6. Would this work?
 
Why not just sit in a bath tub....no need to be submerged. Shivering is the bodies way of generating heat.
 
I don't know but considering you have to jog for over a half an hour just to burn off a snickers bar, I don't think it would work that well. Diet is the best target.
 
This is kind of the analog to my CardioCoffee workout...

We all know that it is good to get your heart rate elevated into a certain age-dependent zone for 20 minutes a day for good cardiovascular health. We also know that caffeine elevates your heart rate. Erego.... substitute copious cups of coffee for those onerous treadmill sessions, and you're good to go.

(TFPIC)

(Tongue Firmly Planted In Cheek)
 
Submarine version coming soon...

2018-05-04-beartato-showercar.png
 
MuseChaser said:
This is kind of the analog to my CardioCoffee workout...

We all know that it is good to get your heart rate elevated into a certain age-dependent zone for 20 minutes a day for good cardiovascular health. We also know that caffeine elevates your heart rate. Erego.... substitute copious cups of coffee for those onerous treadmill sessions, and you're good to go.

(TFPIC)

(Tongue Firmly Planted In Cheek)
Click to expand...

Bonus.... laxative effect for extra weight loss
 
I’ve tried to drop weight my whole life. Never overate, in fact I don’t eat much, and don’t drink alcohol. Even running 35 miles a week for a year I couldn’t get below 180 pounds (5’4”).
Last October I started eliminating carbs, no bread, no sugar, etc. watch the carbs like a hawk but eat pretty much as much as I want otherwise. I’ve dropped 60 pounds already, down to 162 for the first time in 30+ years.
Don’t even feel like you’re dieting once you get used to it. The first few weeks suck, and if you cheat the next few weeks suck, it’s a good incentive not to cheat. I’ve taken a break from the diet for a week every 10 pounds and I usually don’t gain more than a pound in that week. I don’t go nuts during my “break”, I just let myself have some bread and a dessert or a beer or two.

Oh, and I’m not exercising one bit more than I was before.
 
Salty said:
I’ve tried to drop weight my whole life. Never overate, in fact I don’t eat much, and don’t drink alcohol. Even running 35 miles a week for a year I couldn’t get below 180 pounds (5’4”).
Last October I started eliminating carbs, no bread, no sugar, etc. watch the carbs like a hawk but eat pretty much as much as I want otherwise. I’ve dropped 60 pounds already, down to 162 for the first time in 30+ years.
Don’t even feel like you’re dieting once you get used to it. The first few weeks suck, and if you cheat the next few weeks suck, it’s a good incentive not to cheat. I’ve taken a break from the diet for a week every 10 pounds and I usually don’t gain more than a pound in that week. I don’t go nuts during my “break”, I just let myself have some bread and a dessert or a beer or two.

Oh, and I’m not exercising one bit more than I was before.
Click to expand...
Long before the Atkins diet became popular, my old man was put on a low-carb diet for type-2 diabetes, high BP, and irregular heartbeat. In a year all three were clinically insignificant, and he went from 240 lbs (at 5'9") to 180 lbs.
I love carbs, and this COVID thing has given the devil in me permission to cheat. I'm now fat. So I'll be joining you shortly.
 
Yep, people have tried drinking lots of near freezing stuff but a liter of near freezing stuff will only burn 41 kCal.
 
It is very facile to loose weight without exercising. If the number of calories in is less than the number out, you lose weight. If the number of calories in is greater than those out, you gain weight. If the number is equals the number out, you neither gain nor lose. If you want to lose weight eat less or eat less caloric food. Even if you are routinely exercising you should still reduce your caloric input to loose weight. Isn't easy, but nothing worthwhile ever is.
 
steingar said:
It is very facile to loose weight without exercising. If the number of calories in is less than the number out, you lose weight. If the number of calories in is greater than those out, you gain weight. If the number is equals the number out, you neither gain nor lose. If you want to lose weight eat less or eat less caloric food. Even if you are routinely exercising you should still reduce your caloric input to loose weight. Isn't easy, but nothing worthwhile ever is.
Click to expand...
That’s just not true. It’s not that simple. Calorie counting does not work. You have to avoid the wrong kind of calories. It matters. A lot. If I eat the same calories but lots of carbs I gain weight. Same calories, or even more with little to no carbs and I’m losing with the same exercise, actually a little less.
 
kshaw said:
Would this work?
Click to expand...

In short - yes, but I have no idea how big the effect is. The Antarctic explorers had to eat a great deal but they are working hard too.
 
kshaw said:
I have always had this stupid theory that you could lose weight without any exercise by just taking a scuba tank and sitting at the bottom of a swimming pool. A scuba tank at 10 feet would last a very long time. Since our body tries to maintain our body temperature at 98.6 F, it is logical to presume that our body would burn calories to maintain that temperature as long as the pool temperature would be lower than 98.6. Would this work?
Click to expand...

Yes. Not eating so much would work better and be easier.
 
steingar said:
It is very facile to loose weight without exercising. If the number of calories in is less than the number out, you lose weight. If the number of calories in is greater than those out, you gain weight. If the number is equals the number out, you neither gain nor lose. If you want to lose weight eat less or eat less caloric food. Even if you are routinely exercising you should still reduce your caloric input to loose weight. Isn't easy, but nothing worthwhile ever is.
Click to expand...
Hey, you spelled "lose" correctly; once. I think that is a first for you. It must have been a typo.
 
steingar said:
It is very facile to loose weight without exercising. If the number of calories in is less than the number out, you lose weight. If the number of calories in is greater than those out, you gain weight. If the number is equals the number out, you neither gain nor lose. If you want to lose weight eat less or eat less caloric food. Even if you are routinely exercising you should still reduce your caloric input to loose weight. Isn't easy, but nothing worthwhile ever is.
Click to expand...

I used to believe this, as it makes sense. Having said that, I think there is more to it than just the energy balance of consumed vs burned. Individual digestive efficiency is also a factor. You basically need to measure the calories in someone's poop to do a true energy balance. I've seen and known people that have exercised hard, reduced caloric intake and barely moved the needle. @Salty changed diet with little exercise and moved down. I retired last year and have massively upped the exercise and basically done nothing with my diet and have lost 30ish pounds. (Having a beer and chips as I type) I suspect it's more complicated that just raw calories in and out and varies a lot based on individual factors.
 
Salty said:
That’s just not true. It’s not that simple. Calorie counting does not work. You have to avoid the wrong kind of calories. It matters. A lot. If I eat the same calories but lots of carbs I gain weight. Same calories, or even more with little to no carbs and I’m losing with the same exercise, actually a little less.
Click to expand...

Depends on the person and activity. If you're active, then carbs don't really matter because you'll burn through them. If, like a lot a Americans, you are already overweight and not very active, carbs become significant.

However, regardless of who you are, if you maintain whatever activity you are doing and cut calories, you will shed pounds.

The catch tends to be that people restrict calories also tend to have less energy and are less active. This is true even with low carb because available glucose is very low and you will fatigue quickly
 
Just go to bed for a week, eat What you normally eat, and you’ll lose 10 lbs on average. Any hospital patient knows this.
 
bflynn said:
Depends on the person and activity. If you're active, then carbs don't really matter because you'll burn through them. If, like a lot a Americans, you are already overweight and not very active, carbs become significant.

However, regardless of who you are, if you maintain whatever activity you are doing and cut calories, you will shed pounds.

The catch tends to be that people restrict calories also tend to have less energy and are less active. This is true even with low carb because available glucose is very low and you will fatigue quickly
Click to expand...
Running 35 miles a week isn’t active? You can believe this, but I live it. It’s wrong. I could not get below 180 running 35 miles a week working my way up to a marathon eating less than 1500 calories a day. Did this for more than 3 months consistently until I had an injury. But most of those calories were carbs. I tried everything.

knocked out almost all carbs and eat as much as I want, and barely ride 30 miles a week on a bike, no running, and I’ve dropped 20 pounds lower than I could with low calorie high exercise. And I’m still losing. Believe me or not, don’t really care.
 
bflynn said:
Depends on the person and activity. If you're active, then carbs don't really matter because you'll burn through them. If, like a lot a Americans, you are already overweight and not very active, carbs become significant.

However, regardless of who you are, if you maintain whatever activity you are doing and cut calories, you will shed pounds.

The catch tends to be that people restrict calories also tend to have less energy and are less active. This is true even with low carb because available glucose is very low and you will fatigue quickly
Click to expand...

This is pure BS. Like I said, if calories in < than calories out, weight you lose. It really is that simple. You can't easily count calories out, so the whole thing is stochastic. You decrease calories in until you see the weight loss, and than continue until you hit where you think you should be. The hardest part is if you are hungry, you cannot eat all you want. Portion control is key.
 
kshaw said:
I have always had this stupid theory that you could lose weight without any exercise by just taking a scuba tank and sitting at the bottom of a swimming pool. A scuba tank at 10 feet would last a very long time. Since our body tries to maintain our body temperature at 98.6 F, it is logical to presume that our body would burn calories to maintain that temperature as long as the pool temperature would be lower than 98.6. Would this work?
Click to expand...

Get a Scuba tank with a few weeks worth of air. Go to the bottom of the pool and stay there for a few weeks. No snacks
 
Swimming pool probably won’t work, but if you do it under superior... that might do the trick. Pirep pls
 
The real problem with just reducing calories is your body becomes more efficient at using the calories it does get. My wife is proof positive of this phenomena.
 
Crashnburn said:
The real problem with just reducing calories is your body becomes more efficient at using the calories it does get. My wife is proof positive of this phenomena.
Click to expand...
Doesn't matter. Keep lowering calories until the weight comes off. Isn't easy because everyone isn't good at getting rid of hunger, but it will work absolutely every time.
 
kshaw said:
I have always had this stupid theory that you could lose weight without any exercise by just taking a scuba tank and sitting at the bottom of a swimming pool. A scuba tank at 10 feet would last a very long time. Since our body tries to maintain our body temperature at 98.6 F, it is logical to presume that our body would burn calories to maintain that temperature as long as the pool temperature would be lower than 98.6. Would this work?
Click to expand...

I encourage you to research, youtube, there is some fine info on there that may or may not work for you.

IMHO a calorie is almost a useless measure when it comes to chemical processes and energy in a human body.






Peter Attia on Joe Rogan's podcast was great.

I know a guy that has lost a 100 pounds, stopped his daily 100 units of insulin, stopped all blood pressure and other diabetic meds just by doing some of these things.

Heck, I've lost 40 pounds just by eliminating regular soda, any candy, and any processed carbohydrate. I did a few days of fasting here & there as well.
 
Last edited:
Salty said:
You have no idea what you are talking about.
Click to expand...
Ditto

Do a little research on the effects of dieting on the body's conversion of calories.
Of course, if you completely stop eating you'll lose weight, but that's rather drastic, and it'll still take longer to lose weight than you expect.
 
steingar said:
Doesn't matter. Keep lowering calories until the weight comes off. Isn't easy because everyone isn't good at getting rid of hunger, but it will work absolutely every time.
Click to expand...

This is basically correct, with a caveat. I did WW a few years ago to lose about 20 pounds. It worked great, but was tough to maintain, I have a sweet tooth. The philosophy of WW is to reduce your calorie intake to less than your calorie usage causing you to lose weight. They warn you however to eat regularly but just control your calorie intake. If you reduce your intake too severely your body goes into famine mode, which lowers your metabolism, makes you feel crappy and slows down your weight loss. The key is to maintain or increase your metabolism while reducing calorie intake. It worked great for me. YMMV
 
If you need an Incentive to lose weight ,Buy an airplane with a tight cockpit and low use full load.
 
dmspilot said:
I don't know but considering you have to jog for over a half an hour just to burn off a snickers bar, I don't think it would work that well. Diet is the best target.
Click to expand...
Yes. Diet is a good adjunct, but weight loss is about eating.
 
steingar said:
Doesn't matter. Keep lowering calories until the weight comes off. Isn't easy because everyone isn't good at getting rid of hunger, but it will work absolutely every time.
Click to expand...
For awhile.
 
Salty said:
That’s just not true. It’s not that simple. Calorie counting does not work. You have to avoid the wrong kind of calories. It matters. A lot. If I eat the same calories but lots of carbs I gain weight. Same calories, or even more with little to no carbs and I’m losing with the same exercise, actually a little less.
Click to expand...
Excuse me, Salty, and i love you like a brother, but you are dead wrong. Calories are the ONLY things, and there are no good/bad calories. Science work, no matter that the White House says.l
Jim
 
Salty said:
You have no idea what you are talking about.
Click to expand...
Actually, I don’t agree with Michael on very much, but he is in fact correct on this.

Weight loss is simply calories in vs. calories out - that’s it!

Those who disagree with this, need to better educate themselves on weight management. If caloric intake is reduced to bring yourself into a slight deficit, that being 300-500 calories per day (a healthy number) below your maintenance level requirement, you will lose roughly 1lb every week and a half. It is true that if you reduce your caloric intake too drastically for too long, your body will enter a preservation mode where it reduces calorie expenditure to maintain a balance of energy and starvation, which slows the metabolism. This is not what Michael is suggesting and is what every ‘diet’ revolves around. Do it properly and you lose weight.
 
weirdjim said:
Excuse me, Salty, and i love you like a brother, but you are dead wrong. Calories are the ONLY things, and there are no good/bad calories. Science work, no matter that the White House says.l
Jim
Click to expand...

I’m surprised there are so many people that have such a myopic understanding of metabolism.
 
Ryanb said:
Actually, I don’t agree with Michael on very much, but he is in fact correct on this.

Weight loss is simply calories in vs. calories out - that’s it!

Those who disagree with this, need to better educate themselves on weight management. If caloric intake is reduced to bring yourself into a slight deficit, that being 300-500 calories per day (a healthy number) below your maintenance level requirement, you will lose roughly 1lb every week and a half. It is true that if you reduce your caloric intake too drastically for too long, your body will enter a preservation mode where it reduces calorie expenditure to maintain a balance of energy and starvation, which slows the metabolism. This is not what Michael is suggesting. Do it properly and you lose weight.
Click to expand...
You don’t have to agree, but it’s a fact. I’m living 60 less pounds of it in less than a year after 30 years consuming more calpries than I did when I was gaining weight. In fact, if I cut the calories too much I stop losing. I have to intentionally eat more than I crave - but it can’t be carbs.
If it were that simple it wouldn’t be that hard to lose weight, and different cultures wouldn’t have different weight issues.
 
Salty said:
You don’t have to agree, but it’s a fact. I’m living 60 less pounds of it in less than a year after 30 years consuming more calpries than I did when I was gaining weight.
If it were that simple it wouldn’t be that hard to lose weight, and different cultures wouldn’t have different weight issues.
Click to expand...
Nope. If you’re consuming more calories and still losing weight, than your expenditure is greater than your intake. There’s no two ways about it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top