• HerbSolo@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 days ago

    Talk to a bike courier if you get the chance to. The amounts of calories they burn in a shift is ridiculous.

    • Swedneck@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 day ago

      my dad has tales of gymbro cowokers who can inhale like 3 pizzas in a sitting and still be hungry, yet they’re not in the least pudgy

    • squaresinger@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      3 days ago

      Most people are way above the amount of calories they need. Doing more exercise just burns that excess and you need to do a ton more exercise to actually get to the point where you need to eat more to cover that surplus consumption.

      So if you do an 8h cycling shift you might need to eat more. But if you just commute to work for an hour per day (half an hour per direction) you will not need to take in more calories.

    • BobBarker@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      3 days ago

      I think what it means is that yes, you can burn more calories in a given active session (working out for example) but the amount of calories you expend over a year for example, divided by the number of days, ends up being about the same regardless.

      I guess one of the more popular reasons as to why is because your body is capable of compensating for high intensity sessions when you’re not as active, and being extremely active for long ends up burning you out so you can’t do it anymore (and you get sick or injured).

      But from what I’ve seen, exercise is still really good for you, it’s just not exactly for the reasons we used to think. I know in my (very anecdotal) case, I actually eat less when I’m working out regularly just out of instinct. Maybe it’s my body’s way of going “we need to stay light because we have to run again tomorrow”?