Why do so many people ignore calories burned with exercise in CICO?
Replies
-
I was told by a fitness expert that if an individual is unable to run for two miles within 20 minutes, cardiovascular efforts will be mostly futile in terms of significant calorie burning.
ETA: Thanks all, for the tips on manually adjusting exercise calories burned. I didn't know that could be done.
That "expert" sounds like they're full of ****.
Actually he is a very polite, professional, generous, kind and respectful man.
I can't attest to the validity of his expert status because I'm no expert myself. Expert was my word. He didn't call himself an expert, just an individual with decades of experience working in fitness because that's where his interest lies.
But he did say that when an individual who is initially starting to exercise has a poor level of fitness, it's best to begin with resistance training rather than cardio because more calories will be burnt that way.
I see his point. Someone who is remarkably out of shape won't be able to sustain any physical activity very long...which means their resulting additional calories burned from exercise will be very little. That's just math.*
It's just a more extreme example of the overall argument here...that for "normal" people, exercise burns are a very small percentage of their TDEE and as a result, are not nearly as important for weight loss as some people seem to want to argue.
And I hesitate to use the word "argument" as it looks like most of the people responding to this are on the same page...and only OP has a significant problem with it. It's a shame she never returned to participate in the discussion and to defend her seemingly unpopular position.
*It would be like me swimming for exercise. I'm a fairly terrible swimmer and can only swim for a minute or two. In a 30 minute session, I would spend about 25 minutes of that "recovering" (aka "standing around in the water"). If this was my chosen form of exercise, it would be ridiculous for me to expect a meaningful calorie burn from it. Same is true for someone who is out of shape for whatever form of exercise they're doing.0 -
I have found success varying my intake and allowing myself to eat more on days i am hungrier. I find that as long as you don't eat 2-3 hours before bed and as long as what you eat isnt processed junk, it all evens out. Starvation mode isn't a myth...maybe what she meant is over training which I did a lot of in the beginning. I was training and running and didn't lose a pound. Now i only walk and am having success.
I also need to double my protein..it's a work in progress but I am working on it...0 -
I have found success varying my intake and allowing myself to eat more on days i am hungrier. I find that as long as you don't eat 2-3 hours before bed and as long as what you eat isnt processed junk, it all evens out. Starvation mode isn't a myth...maybe what she meant is over training which I did a lot of in the beginning. I was training and running and didn't lose a pound. Now i only walk and am having success.
I also need to double my protein..it's a work in progress but I am working on it...
yes, starvation mode is a myth.
if starvation mode was real then all the starving people in Africa would be obese, because starvation mode....
0 -
I have found success varying my intake and allowing myself to eat more on days i am hungrier. I find that as long as you don't eat 2-3 hours before bed and as long as what you eat isnt processed junk, it all evens out. Starvation mode isn't a myth...maybe what she meant is over training which I did a lot of in the beginning. I was training and running and didn't lose a pound. Now i only walk and am having success.
I also need to double my protein..it's a work in progress but I am working on it...
You mentioned a lot of myths in your post . . . . it isn't a problem to eat before bedtime and people who eat "processed junk" still lose weight on a deficit.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
SergeantSausage wrote: »100%, Bro.
ALL of you weight loss comes from a calorie deficit (modulo water).
All of it.
Yes I agree 100% comes from a deficit. I should have been more clear, I meant to estimate that 90% of your daily calorie deficit is going to be accounted for before you add in meaningful exercise just by eating less.
0 -
I have found success varying my intake and allowing myself to eat more on days i am hungrier. I find that as long as you don't eat 2-3 hours before bed and as long as what you eat isnt processed junk, it all evens out. Starvation mode isn't a myth...maybe what she meant is over training which I did a lot of in the beginning. I was training and running and didn't lose a pound. Now i only walk and am having success.
I also need to double my protein..it's a work in progress but I am working on it...
yes, starvation mode is a myth.
if starvation mode was real then all the starving people in Africa would be obese, because starvation mode....
Exactly.0 -
Really what I'm doing is eating what I normally would and exercising my way into a deficit.acorsaut89 wrote: »sgthaggard wrote: »
The ever-popular "exercise for fitness, diet for weight loss" makes me a bit nuts.Some people manage to dismiss exercise altogether and the contribution it can make towards burning calories and potential deficit.
They first focus on consuming less because thats easier for most people to do than burn the equivalent. I think I get your point OP in that exercise can still make a significant contribution in terms of calories burned towards helping you stay in deficit. You are annoyed because people dismiss it?
I get that a lot of people overestimate their burn. I see it daily amongst my friends. But that's really not a reason to discount it's effect on weight loss.
I ran 5k yesterday. That allowed me to have a sizeable dinner with hundreds of calories to spare. Throughout this whole process, exercise has allowed me to eat at a reasonable level so that I don't feel deprived and I don't feel like giving up.
But because you ran that 5K you get some extra calories (I don't know how many in your case) to essentially "play with for the day" so that you can eat your sizeable dinner. Working out gives you extra calories, so you can eat more without eating more than your body needs in a day. It helps you get fit, but you can lose weight without actually exercising as long as your intake is less than your output.
So really, you are exercising for fitness, "dieting" for weight loss. If you didn't have that run, you still could have eaten the dinner you had but you wouldn't have had extra calories, and you may have even gone over your TDEE.
0 -
I was told by a fitness expert that if an individual is unable to run for two miles within 20 minutes, cardiovascular efforts will be mostly futile in terms of significant calorie burning.
ETA: Thanks all, for the tips on manually adjusting exercise calories burned. I didn't know that could be done.
That "expert" sounds like they're full of ****.
Actually he is a very polite, professional, generous, kind and respectful man.
I can't attest to the validity of his expert status because I'm no expert myself. Expert was my word. He didn't call himself an expert, just an individual with decades of experience working in fitness because that's where his interest lies.
But he did say that when an individual who is initially starting to exercise has a poor level of fitness, it's best to begin with resistance training rather than cardio because more calories will be burnt that way.
I wasn't commenting on his level of politeness, I was commenting on his level of knowledge. Whether or not you can run a 10 min mile has nothing to do with your ability to burn calories. In fact, someone who is obese often burns significantly more calories because of the extra weight they are carrying. So, I would take anything he says with a grain of salt. He certainly does not sound like an "expert" (your word).0 -
acorsaut89 wrote: »I have found success varying my intake and allowing myself to eat more on days i am hungrier. I find that as long as you don't eat 2-3 hours before bed and as long as what you eat isnt processed junk, it all evens out. Starvation mode isn't a myth...maybe what she meant is over training which I did a lot of in the beginning. I was training and running and didn't lose a pound. Now i only walk and am having success.
I also need to double my protein..it's a work in progress but I am working on it...
yes, starvation mode is a myth.
if starvation mode was real then all the starving people in Africa would be obese, because starvation mode....
Exactly.
Well someone around here once told me that the reason they don't get fat is that they're more active than we are. True story.
0 -
Whether or not you can run a 10 min mile has nothing to do with your ability to burn calories.
it does point to better aerobic fitness, which in turn points to more ability to burn calories. If your VO2max is low your calorie burning potential is low. 14 mins vs 10 mins is only about 15% difference though.
0 -
Whether or not you can run a 10 min mile has nothing to do with your ability to burn calories.
it does point to better aerobic fitness, which in turn points to more ability to burn calories. If your VO2max is low your calorie burning potential is low. 14 mins vs 10 mins is only about 15% difference though.
I can't run a 10 minute mile. I can't run a half mile, period.
However, I can do a 60 minute Zumba class, ride the bike on a hills program for an hour, walk for 3 hours at a brisk pace, and do it all on the same day occasionally. I think I burn a decent number of calories even though I can't run to save my life.
<tombstone will read: Here lies the first one dead from the Zombie Apocalypse>0 -
I was told by a fitness expert that if an individual is unable to run for two miles within 20 minutes, cardiovascular efforts will be mostly futile in terms of significant calorie burning.
ETA: Thanks all, for the tips on manually adjusting exercise calories burned. I didn't know that could be done.
That "expert" sounds like they're full of ****.
Actually he is a very polite, professional, generous, kind and respectful man.
None of which affects the status of being full of ****. Which he is. Completely.
0 -
I was told by a fitness expert that if an individual is unable to run for two miles within 20 minutes, cardiovascular efforts will be mostly futile in terms of significant calorie burning.
ETA: Thanks all, for the tips on manually adjusting exercise calories burned. I didn't know that could be done.
That "expert" sounds like they're full of ****.
I'm really glad I wasn't the only that had a :huh: moment at this.0 -
blankiefinder wrote: »Whether or not you can run a 10 min mile has nothing to do with your ability to burn calories.
it does point to better aerobic fitness, which in turn points to more ability to burn calories. If your VO2max is low your calorie burning potential is low. 14 mins vs 10 mins is only about 15% difference though.
I can't run a 10 minute mile. I can't run a half mile, period.
However, I can do a 60 minute Zumba class, ride the bike on a hills program for an hour, walk for 3 hours at a brisk pace, and do it all on the same day occasionally. I think I burn a decent number of calories even though I can't run to save my life.
<tombstone will read: Here lies the first one dead from the Zombie Apocalypse>
No, no, as long as they're 'classic' zombies you'll be fine because they shamble. Your brisk pace will easily leave them in the dust. This is why I have no interest in running, don't need to.0 -
Nony_Mouse wrote: »blankiefinder wrote: »Whether or not you can run a 10 min mile has nothing to do with your ability to burn calories.
it does point to better aerobic fitness, which in turn points to more ability to burn calories. If your VO2max is low your calorie burning potential is low. 14 mins vs 10 mins is only about 15% difference though.
I can't run a 10 minute mile. I can't run a half mile, period.
However, I can do a 60 minute Zumba class, ride the bike on a hills program for an hour, walk for 3 hours at a brisk pace, and do it all on the same day occasionally. I think I burn a decent number of calories even though I can't run to save my life.
<tombstone will read: Here lies the first one dead from the Zombie Apocalypse>
No, no, as long as they're 'classic' zombies you'll be fine because they shamble. Your brisk pace will easily leave them in the dust. This is why I have no interest in running, don't need to.
Unless they're TWD zombies...which are slow except when they're fast...
...and easy to kill except when they're hard to kill...
...and are drawn to sound/light/movement/smell except when they're not drawn to sound/light/movement/smell...
0 -
I see OP is still not back ....0
-
acorsaut89 wrote: »So really, you are exercising for fitness, "dieting" for weight loss.
In theory, yes. In practice, its not that clean a distinction. There is a significant portion of the population (including myself) that find it extremely difficult to adhere to a caloric deficit unless they are actively exercising. No exercise, no deficit - no deficit, no weight loss.
0 -
ruggedshutter wrote: »Yes I agree 100% comes from a deficit. I should have been more clear, I meant to estimate that 90% of your daily calorie deficit is going to be accounted for before you add in meaningful exercise just by eating less.
How can you say 90% of your deficit is food, when you dont know what the calorie level any person wull be eating at and you dont know how much exercise is being done?0 -
Nony_Mouse wrote: »blankiefinder wrote: »Whether or not you can run a 10 min mile has nothing to do with your ability to burn calories.
it does point to better aerobic fitness, which in turn points to more ability to burn calories. If your VO2max is low your calorie burning potential is low. 14 mins vs 10 mins is only about 15% difference though.
I can't run a 10 minute mile. I can't run a half mile, period.
However, I can do a 60 minute Zumba class, ride the bike on a hills program for an hour, walk for 3 hours at a brisk pace, and do it all on the same day occasionally. I think I burn a decent number of calories even though I can't run to save my life.
<tombstone will read: Here lies the first one dead from the Zombie Apocalypse>
No, no, as long as they're 'classic' zombies you'll be fine because they shamble. Your brisk pace will easily leave them in the dust. This is why I have no interest in running, don't need to.
Haha, I was feeling reassured until I saw Jo's post
0 -
Nony_Mouse wrote: »blankiefinder wrote: »Whether or not you can run a 10 min mile has nothing to do with your ability to burn calories.
it does point to better aerobic fitness, which in turn points to more ability to burn calories. If your VO2max is low your calorie burning potential is low. 14 mins vs 10 mins is only about 15% difference though.
I can't run a 10 minute mile. I can't run a half mile, period.
However, I can do a 60 minute Zumba class, ride the bike on a hills program for an hour, walk for 3 hours at a brisk pace, and do it all on the same day occasionally. I think I burn a decent number of calories even though I can't run to save my life.
<tombstone will read: Here lies the first one dead from the Zombie Apocalypse>
No, no, as long as they're 'classic' zombies you'll be fine because they shamble. Your brisk pace will easily leave them in the dust. This is why I have no interest in running, don't need to.
Well, that's a relief. I can't run (medically contraindicated in fact... I'd love to have run eventually), but I can walk rather briskly.
0 -
jofjltncb6 wrote: »Nony_Mouse wrote: »blankiefinder wrote: »Whether or not you can run a 10 min mile has nothing to do with your ability to burn calories.
it does point to better aerobic fitness, which in turn points to more ability to burn calories. If your VO2max is low your calorie burning potential is low. 14 mins vs 10 mins is only about 15% difference though.
I can't run a 10 minute mile. I can't run a half mile, period.
However, I can do a 60 minute Zumba class, ride the bike on a hills program for an hour, walk for 3 hours at a brisk pace, and do it all on the same day occasionally. I think I burn a decent number of calories even though I can't run to save my life.
<tombstone will read: Here lies the first one dead from the Zombie Apocalypse>
No, no, as long as they're 'classic' zombies you'll be fine because they shamble. Your brisk pace will easily leave them in the dust. This is why I have no interest in running, don't need to.
Unless they're TWD zombies...which are slow except when they're fast...
...and easy to kill except when they're hard to kill...
...and are drawn to sound/light/movement/smell except when they're not drawn to sound/light/movement/smell...
So does this mean ... eat pizza, because tomorrow we may die?
0 -
mamapeach910 wrote: »jofjltncb6 wrote: »Nony_Mouse wrote: »blankiefinder wrote: »Whether or not you can run a 10 min mile has nothing to do with your ability to burn calories.
it does point to better aerobic fitness, which in turn points to more ability to burn calories. If your VO2max is low your calorie burning potential is low. 14 mins vs 10 mins is only about 15% difference though.
I can't run a 10 minute mile. I can't run a half mile, period.
However, I can do a 60 minute Zumba class, ride the bike on a hills program for an hour, walk for 3 hours at a brisk pace, and do it all on the same day occasionally. I think I burn a decent number of calories even though I can't run to save my life.
<tombstone will read: Here lies the first one dead from the Zombie Apocalypse>
No, no, as long as they're 'classic' zombies you'll be fine because they shamble. Your brisk pace will easily leave them in the dust. This is why I have no interest in running, don't need to.
Unless they're TWD zombies...which are slow except when they're fast...
...and easy to kill except when they're hard to kill...
...and are drawn to sound/light/movement/smell except when they're not drawn to sound/light/movement/smell...
So does this mean ... eat pizza, because tomorrow we may die?
I don't see any other possible interpretation...
...but while you're eating that (no doubt vegetarian) pizza, I'll be over here getting proficient with this katana in just a few short months. No real reason. You just keep enjoying that pizza.0 -
mamapeach910 wrote: »jofjltncb6 wrote: »Nony_Mouse wrote: »blankiefinder wrote: »Whether or not you can run a 10 min mile has nothing to do with your ability to burn calories.
it does point to better aerobic fitness, which in turn points to more ability to burn calories. If your VO2max is low your calorie burning potential is low. 14 mins vs 10 mins is only about 15% difference though.
I can't run a 10 minute mile. I can't run a half mile, period.
However, I can do a 60 minute Zumba class, ride the bike on a hills program for an hour, walk for 3 hours at a brisk pace, and do it all on the same day occasionally. I think I burn a decent number of calories even though I can't run to save my life.
<tombstone will read: Here lies the first one dead from the Zombie Apocalypse>
No, no, as long as they're 'classic' zombies you'll be fine because they shamble. Your brisk pace will easily leave them in the dust. This is why I have no interest in running, don't need to.
Unless they're TWD zombies...which are slow except when they're fast...
...and easy to kill except when they're hard to kill...
...and are drawn to sound/light/movement/smell except when they're not drawn to sound/light/movement/smell...
So does this mean ... eat pizza, because tomorrow we may die?
Yes, yes it does.
I don't understand why they don't just use the zombie guts trick all the time on supply runs on TWD. It seems to work a treat.
And while they can get a good shamble on, they're never that fast. Though hordes are an issue. Which is again why zombie guts are a good fashion accessory.0 -
jofjltncb6 wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »jofjltncb6 wrote: »Nony_Mouse wrote: »blankiefinder wrote: »Whether or not you can run a 10 min mile has nothing to do with your ability to burn calories.
it does point to better aerobic fitness, which in turn points to more ability to burn calories. If your VO2max is low your calorie burning potential is low. 14 mins vs 10 mins is only about 15% difference though.
I can't run a 10 minute mile. I can't run a half mile, period.
However, I can do a 60 minute Zumba class, ride the bike on a hills program for an hour, walk for 3 hours at a brisk pace, and do it all on the same day occasionally. I think I burn a decent number of calories even though I can't run to save my life.
<tombstone will read: Here lies the first one dead from the Zombie Apocalypse>
No, no, as long as they're 'classic' zombies you'll be fine because they shamble. Your brisk pace will easily leave them in the dust. This is why I have no interest in running, don't need to.
Unless they're TWD zombies...which are slow except when they're fast...
...and easy to kill except when they're hard to kill...
...and are drawn to sound/light/movement/smell except when they're not drawn to sound/light/movement/smell...
So does this mean ... eat pizza, because tomorrow we may die?
I don't see any other possible interpretation...
...but while you're eating that (no doubt vegetarian) pizza, I'll be over here getting proficient with this katana in just a few short months. No real reason. You just keep enjoying that pizza.
Pizza followed by the katana cleanse?
0 -
How can you say 90% of your deficit is food, when you dont know what the calorie level any person wull be eating at and you dont know how much exercise is being done?
Seriously you people need to lighten up a bit on being so damn serious all the time. So what if I ballpark a figure. Sorry that 87% of your deficit is created by eating less and not 90%. Sorry that I didn't account that you exercise more than most people....smh
0 -
sgthaggard wrote: »
Really what I'm doing is eating what I normally would and exercising my way into a deficit.acorsaut89 wrote: »sgthaggard wrote: »
The ever-popular "exercise for fitness, diet for weight loss" makes me a bit nuts.Some people manage to dismiss exercise altogether and the contribution it can make towards burning calories and potential deficit.
They first focus on consuming less because thats easier for most people to do than burn the equivalent. I think I get your point OP in that exercise can still make a significant contribution in terms of calories burned towards helping you stay in deficit. You are annoyed because people dismiss it?
I get that a lot of people overestimate their burn. I see it daily amongst my friends. But that's really not a reason to discount it's effect on weight loss.
I ran 5k yesterday. That allowed me to have a sizeable dinner with hundreds of calories to spare. Throughout this whole process, exercise has allowed me to eat at a reasonable level so that I don't feel deprived and I don't feel like giving up.
But because you ran that 5K you get some extra calories (I don't know how many in your case) to essentially "play with for the day" so that you can eat your sizeable dinner. Working out gives you extra calories, so you can eat more without eating more than your body needs in a day. It helps you get fit, but you can lose weight without actually exercising as long as your intake is less than your output.
So really, you are exercising for fitness, "dieting" for weight loss. If you didn't have that run, you still could have eaten the dinner you had but you wouldn't have had extra calories, and you may have even gone over your TDEE.
You can look at it any way you want to, the bottom line is that when you exercise you get more calories to play with. That creates your deficit but you continue to eat too much, you won't lose weight.
You can still create a deficit without that exercise, you yourself are choosing not to.0 -
acorsaut89 wrote: »I have found success varying my intake and allowing myself to eat more on days i am hungrier. I find that as long as you don't eat 2-3 hours before bed and as long as what you eat isnt processed junk, it all evens out. Starvation mode isn't a myth...maybe what she meant is over training which I did a lot of in the beginning. I was training and running and didn't lose a pound. Now i only walk and am having success.
I also need to double my protein..it's a work in progress but I am working on it...
yes, starvation mode is a myth.
if starvation mode was real then all the starving people in Africa would be obese, because starvation mode....
Exactly.
Well someone around here once told me that the reason they don't get fat is that they're more active than we are. True story.
Their diet is significantly different than ours is, but they do not consume nearly the amount of calories we do. Regardless of how active they are, they still do not consume the amounts of food like we do. Plus food in developing nations is prepared much differently than here. A lot of people with these type posts/questions are under the impression that "Oh man, I'm burning X number of calories, but only eating X so I definitely need to eat more because I won't lose if I don't eat".
People in developing nations work hard in physical labour and are active far more regularly than those in North America (for the most part). The don't eat like North Americans do, so they should, based on your theory of starvation mode, be obese: huge caloric output, relatively small caloric intake.
0 -
This content has been removed.
-
blankiefinder wrote: »Whether or not you can run a 10 min mile has nothing to do with your ability to burn calories.
it does point to better aerobic fitness, which in turn points to more ability to burn calories. If your VO2max is low your calorie burning potential is low. 14 mins vs 10 mins is only about 15% difference though.
I can't run a 10 minute mile. I can't run a half mile, period.
However, I can do a 60 minute Zumba class, ride the bike on a hills program for an hour, walk for 3 hours at a brisk pace, and do it all on the same day occasionally. I think I burn a decent number of calories even though I can't run to save my life.
<tombstone will read: Here lies the first one dead from the Zombie Apocalypse>
You won't be the first. I'm a first responder, I'll be the first one gone before anyone even realizes what is going on. The first wave is always those "hey buddy, are you ok? You look like you are having trouble, let me help you. Buddy? Ahhhh, stop biting me" people.
Once people catch on and start actively trying to avoid the zombies is when people need to worry about running speed.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 424 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions