I have a question about nutrition and the human body…
For someone trying to lose weight, is eating 1500 calories a day and burning off 500 of that the same as eating 3000 calories a day and burning 2000 of that? You end up with 1000 surplus in both cases, but is either one preferable or does it not matter?
What about for somebody trying to gain muscle?
Burning off 2000 calories is going to be exhausting.
But, in general, it probably would be better to exercise more rather than eat less, especially if you include resistance training. Muscle burns calories even when you aren’t actively exercising, and fat does not.
Best long-term strategy is to eat in patterns that are sustainable over a lifetime, and exercise regularly, in a mix of aerobic and strength/resistance training. “Going on a diet” implies “going off a diet” when your weight goals are met. That is usually a mistake. You lose weight long-term by changing your lifestyle.
Lose no more than two pounds a week, maximum. If you lose fat and gain muscle, you are likely to lose less weight but look and feel better.
There is no magical approach that works, and then you can go back to the habits that made you overweight. Change your life for the better.
Regards,
Shodan
You will not see better advice than this, anywhere.
Perhaps a tiny addition: find non-weight-bearing exercise that is easy on the joints, unless you are small. Your middle aged years will thank you for it. The bigger-boned triathlete who thinks he’s a hunk when he’s 30 will be buying joints from the orthopedist at 50.
In general exercise can be approached like eating. Small frequent healthy amounts rather than huge intermittent quantities. And pay less attention to the scale than a healthy lifestyle. The scale is not your friend if you end up starving to lose weight. You will lose muscle starving yourself thin before you lose fat. Then you have an even lower basal metabolic rate to burn off fat.
In all cases, the more you eat, the higher your metabolism’s going to be. So eating 3000 calories and burning off 2000 is preferable to eating 1500 and burning off 500 because you’ll be more metabolically active in the first scenario. And don’t forget BMR and digestion and all those other things that require calories to run–2000 really isn’t that much.
Burning off 2000 calories happens to most average-seized men every day, without the addition of any additional exercise.
What is so hard about existing and living one’s life that prevents an avg seized male from using the 2,000 cals it takes to merely exist? Nothing.
The answer to the OP is that the net result is the nest result. Eat 2500 cals per day, but burn 2000 living your life and the net excess of 500 is stored as fat. Eat 1500 cals per day and burn 2000 living your live and your body tapped a net of 500 cals from your body.
Eat nutritious/balnced meals and mixe with exercise to ensure that energy that is tapped from your body comes from fat storage, not muscle. If you get more active via exercise and resistance training, you increase the net am’t your body needs to tap.
What you should do is look at a scale as a crude crude primitive measuring device, and consider body fat % measurements as the overall better guide to how you are doing.