Why do so many people ignore calories burned with exercise in CICO?
Options
Replies
-
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 -
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 -
3dogsrunning 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>
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.
SOUND EXPERT LOGIC. Thank you for your wisdom. +100 -
acorsaut89 wrote: »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.
Um yeah, I have no theory of starvation mode. I thought it was funny that someone had said that. It was meant to be a joke.
0 -
Exercise calories are SERIOUSLY overestimated in most cases.0
-
I like how the OP 8th posting in the forum but she won't post in her own thread here.
In this whole thread, there was only one person who actually answered my question, and I can't find it to quote it. It's the premise that people should eat back their exercise calories, which makes perfect sense. In this context, exercise calories would not contribute to CO.
And yes, the 4,000 and 2,000 numbers were wildly exaggerated, although, as another poster said, some people do wildly exaggerate their calories (his example was someone walking up three flights of stairs and deciding that 1,000 calories were burned).
Thanks to the poster who answered my question! Tomorrow I'll try to find it so I can quote it to give you credit.0 -
atypicalsmith wrote: »I like how the OP 8th posting in the forum but she won't post in her own thread here.
In this whole thread, there was only one person who actually answered my question, and I can't find it to quote it. It's the premise that people should eat back their exercise calories, which makes perfect sense. In this context, exercise calories would not contribute to CO.
And yes, the 4,000 and 2,000 numbers were wildly exaggerated, although, as another poster said, some people do wildly exaggerate their calories (his example was someone walking up three flights of stairs and deciding that 1,000 calories were burned).
Thanks to the poster who answered my question! Tomorrow I'll try to find it so I can quote it to give you credit.
That's because most people couldn't figure out what it was you were trying to say. I didn't even get the sense that you had a question, more of a rant.0 -
[quote="ILiftHeavyAcrylics;31864727
That's because most people couldn't figure out what it was you were trying to say. I didn't even get the sense that you had a question, more of a rant.[/quote]
I do believe the question was asked in the title of this thread. Did you miss the question mark?
0 -
atypicalsmith wrote: »"ILiftHeavyAcrylics wrote: »That's because most people couldn't figure out what it was you were trying to say. I didn't even get the sense that you had a question, more of a rant.
I do believe the question was asked in the title of this thread. Did you miss the question mark?
No, but you didn't really explain it well either. Maybe you could rephrase? Especially since you say that none of us answered you, it seems fairly obvious that it wasn't clear enough.0 -
atypicalsmith wrote: »I don't get it. Writer says, "I'm exercising 4,000 calories a day and eating 2,000 calories but I'm not losing weight" and the answer is almost always CICO. Then there's the accusations that the poster is not logging calories accurately, not weighing the food, and that even though they claim to exercise, it's always "CICO". Huh? Is not burning calories by exercising calories out?
How can you say that you don't have to burn calories to have the CO part of CICO? Do you think it happens when we just lay around on the sofa watching television? EXERCISE burns calories and is part of the CALORIES OUT! Whoever is guilty, stop saying that exercise doesn't contribute, because it does. To those who cannot exercise for health reasons, I am not talking about you, even though I have a friend here who has everything against her yet she is still excelling.
Okay, off my soapbox.
You still need to wrap your head around the fact that in terms of weight loss, CI should be the focus. This comes off the back of your other thread.
You don't understand that this DOES NOT let anyone off the hook in terms of weight loss. A lot of people aren't overwhelmed by the idea of eating less but they are by the CO side because people wrongly believe that the exercise required to lose weight has to be torturous hours of kammakazi aerobics and it puts them off even beginning on any side of the equation.
The simple fact of the matter is, even if you are couch bound, you can lose weight by controlling the CI side of the equation. Exercise is something everyone should eventually aim for but at the end of the day it can be an unreliable, inconsistant factor...there's injury, non adherence to consider. When exercise fails, the CI always dominate in terms of weight loss. Therefore there is no excuse to not at least achieve weight loss even if you can't move more.
Some people, like a mum of an autistic child with three jobs need to hear that. A step by step approach. Some people can go at it like a bull at a fence. Neither one is wrong if both are happily compliant and true to their goals.
CI is the pivotal place to begin. Get food under control - that's the main stay, get confidence, get lighter, understand your goals (composition, strength, fitness, cardio/mental health), find an exercise you love that supports that. From walking to lifting and hell, I'd even accept housework as a form of "moving more" if that area has been lax. A scaffolded approach.
I get the feeling you are proud of your own effort and can't understand that people aren't engaged in the same way. Don't assume everyone is capable of starting at the same point as you or that they share the same goal.
0 -
atypicalsmith wrote: »"ILiftHeavyAcrylics wrote: »That's because most people couldn't figure out what it was you were trying to say. I didn't even get the sense that you had a question, more of a rant.
I do believe the question was asked in the title of this thread. Did you miss the question mark?
The thread title made no sense, because nobody "ignores" exercise calories, and the first post made things worse because it was basically incomprehensible.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 402 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 998 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions