2 hours of workout straight. Good or bad?
Replies
-
On a basic level there is nothing dangerous, harmful, or bad with working out for 2 hours a day. Millions of people do extremely physical jobs for 8 hours a day. You body should be able to handle it if you are healthy and eat enough.
That aside .. listen to what everyone above is saying about all the non-physical issues your post implies.
The difference is those people usually aren't trying to lose weight. They aren't on a reduced calorie diet.
Many of those millions may not be trying to lose weight, but lots are on reduced calorie diets. Not by choice.0 -
It may be bad if you're overstressing your muscles. also probably burning more of whatever muscles you have left because it already used up your stored fat. I'm no genius at this, just from what I've read and from my experience. I try to workout in the morning and in the evening, just to give my body a chance to recharge. What can happen to you is that your body gets too fatigued and may be prone to injuries, especially when you begin using improper form.0
-
On a basic level there is nothing dangerous, harmful, or bad with working out for 2 hours a day. Millions of people do extremely physical jobs for 8 hours a day. You body should be able to handle it if you are healthy and eat enough.
That aside .. listen to what everyone above is saying about all the non-physical issues your post implies.
The difference is those people usually aren't trying to lose weight. They aren't on a reduced calorie diet.
Many of those millions may not be trying to lose weight, but lots are on reduced calorie diets. Not by choice.
What do you mean not by choice? If you're saying some people are just broke and have difficulty buying food okay. If you're suggesting that they are in a calorie deficit because all the work they do. Well studies show that working out doesn't produce weight loss. It's the diet that produces weight loss.
That's 2 valid but irrelevant points you made. I'm not here to hijack this thread. If you want to continue to discuss, feel free to PM me.0 -
Depends on the person and the goals. I average 2.5 hours per lifting session, 4x a week. Up to 3 hours each. Not a big deal for me but I wouldn't recommend that for a beginner. Same for an experienced endurance runner, a couple hours at a go would be part of a normal (longer) run. I can definitely see a cardio + lifting workout taking 2 hours too.
Play it by ear and see how you respond and how you feel long-term.
This.
My gut is to lean toward "it's probably to much" only because you seem new/young and I'm not convinced of your goals. But as Dope said- 2 hours of training is more than reasonable under certain circumstances.
I lift 1.5-2 hrs then have 2 hours of dance class- I wouldn't recommend it to anyone- but it can be done.0 -
The time spent working out isn't the problem here. It's OP's attitude toward her body and what her goals are. The workouts are fine, if she's eating enough to compensate for them.
remember, exercise is for fitness. How much she's eating is what's important for her weight. Her goals are frightening. The fact that she says, at 115 lbs, that she thinks she has a muffin top and fat thighs, is frightening.
When I could, I worked out for 2 hours a day, every day. It wasn't a problem, because I ate an extra 1,000-1,500 calories per day to make up for it.
OP, you need to work on your self-image first, and how you see yourself. Your health is of the utmost importance.0 -
I do far more than 2 hours of intense activity many days (a whole lot more on weekends) just because there is work that needs done around our farm. Been doing this for many years.0
-
brianpperkins wrote: »Context determines if a long workout is good or bad. Your word choices here and in your profile ("obsessed" ... "super hate my") throw a few red flags.
+1 your language causes concern. Also what kristine said about how much you have to lose and your target being of concern.
+1 to mccindy
It depends on intensity and what you are doing. What sullus said above in that many people do way more than 2h a day of physically demanding jobs. You must pace yourself and listen to your body, fuel your workouts and hydrate.0 -
OP if you're trying to create a massive deficit through exercise, that simply won't work. I am not familiar with the workout routines you're doing, but they might be light workouts, that's the only situation I'd find it workout out 2hrs a day reasonable. For example walking 2hrs a day is ok.
If you don't eat enough calories various issues can arise. Big deficits can cause hormonal issues, slow down weight loss, increase fatigue.If you do what you're suppose to do the way you're suppose to do it, working out 2hrs a day does nothing in terms of weight loss.
For example, your TDEE is 2000 a day, you set your goal to lose 1lbs a week. This will give you a daily intake of 1,500 calories. You eat 1,000 calories, workout for 2hrs and lets say you burn 1,200 calories. Your diary would read 300 net calories, and give you 1,200 calories to eat back. 300 + 1200 = 1,500 net calories. Back to 1lbs weight loss. It's pretty pointless from a weight loss perspective. You can get the same results doing a moderate to high intensity workout about 1hr a day.
Generally, in most situations, working out for more than a hour a day at a moderate to high intensity is pointless. The thing that brings results is "intensity". You can either workout hard and short, or workout soft and long. Can't do both.
There is a caveat, low intensity exercise, for example walking doesn't produce such hormonal stress, thus you can do it for a long time, and it doesn't have such a big impact on appetite.
So instead of assuming like you always do ask OP what there workout routine is.
0 -
OP if you're trying to create a massive deficit through exercise, that simply won't work. I am not familiar with the workout routines you're doing, but they might be light workouts, that's the only situation I'd find it workout out 2hrs a day reasonable. For example walking 2hrs a day is ok.
If you don't eat enough calories various issues can arise. Big deficits can cause hormonal issues, slow down weight loss, increase fatigue.If you do what you're suppose to do the way you're suppose to do it, working out 2hrs a day does nothing in terms of weight loss.
For example, your TDEE is 2000 a day, you set your goal to lose 1lbs a week. This will give you a daily intake of 1,500 calories. You eat 1,000 calories, workout for 2hrs and lets say you burn 1,200 calories. Your diary would read 300 net calories, and give you 1,200 calories to eat back. 300 + 1200 = 1,500 net calories. Back to 1lbs weight loss. It's pretty pointless from a weight loss perspective. You can get the same results doing a moderate to high intensity workout about 1hr a day.
Generally, in most situations, working out for more than a hour a day at a moderate to high intensity is pointless. The thing that brings results is "intensity". You can either workout hard and short, or workout soft and long. Can't do both.
There is a caveat, low intensity exercise, for example walking doesn't produce such hormonal stress, thus you can do it for a long time, and it doesn't have such a big impact on appetite.
What about sport specific training? Weightlifting, MMA, Boxing, etc.
What about programs based around higher volume or intensity - Smolov, Sheiko, etc.
In a large deficit, it could pose an issue. However, there are programs and indivduals out there training at high thresholds for longer periods of time0 -
LolBroScience wrote: »OP if you're trying to create a massive deficit through exercise, that simply won't work. I am not familiar with the workout routines you're doing, but they might be light workouts, that's the only situation I'd find it workout out 2hrs a day reasonable. For example walking 2hrs a day is ok.
If you don't eat enough calories various issues can arise. Big deficits can cause hormonal issues, slow down weight loss, increase fatigue.If you do what you're suppose to do the way you're suppose to do it, working out 2hrs a day does nothing in terms of weight loss.
For example, your TDEE is 2000 a day, you set your goal to lose 1lbs a week. This will give you a daily intake of 1,500 calories. You eat 1,000 calories, workout for 2hrs and lets say you burn 1,200 calories. Your diary would read 300 net calories, and give you 1,200 calories to eat back. 300 + 1200 = 1,500 net calories. Back to 1lbs weight loss. It's pretty pointless from a weight loss perspective. You can get the same results doing a moderate to high intensity workout about 1hr a day.
Generally, in most situations, working out for more than a hour a day at a moderate to high intensity is pointless. The thing that brings results is "intensity". You can either workout hard and short, or workout soft and long. Can't do both.
There is a caveat, low intensity exercise, for example walking doesn't produce such hormonal stress, thus you can do it for a long time, and it doesn't have such a big impact on appetite.
What about sport specific training? Weightlifting, MMA, Boxing, etc.
What about programs based around higher volume or intensity - Smolov, Sheiko, etc.
In a large deficit, it could pose an issue. However, there are programs and indivduals out there training at high thresholds for longer periods of time
It depends how we define "intensity". I am defining intensity as near your max effort. Using something like RPE(Rate Of Perceived Exertion) Where a 1 is like laying in bed, and a 10 is giving every last thing you have at the task at hand. When i am talking about intensity I am talking about the upper limits of RPE around 8-10.
Those higher end athletes, they are in good physical condition. A great indicator of conditioning is recovery ability. James Loehr PhD is a sports psychologist who's main focus is on tennis, he also works with olympic athletes, he has helped some win the gold medal. He was curious why some athletes performed better than others with similar abilities. He eventually discovered after 2years of analyzing the players that, the difference was their rest period.The ones who performed better are the ones who got the most recovery out of their rest period.
The way those athletes you mentioned trained is kind of similar to doing interval training. Imagine running at your on time interval pace for 20mins, can be extremely difficult, assuming you can finish it. But you can do it in a interval fashion in a 1 to 1 ratio for 40mins. You won't be able to run at your on time pace for 40mins. The difference is more work in less time or less work more time. e.g. "You can work out hard and intense, or long and soft."
You realize that even though a session might take a full two hours, you're not actually performing movements or actions during that entire time block right? Programs like Smolov, Sheiko, etc do not have to be geared towards elite level lifters and can still be highly effective (a fairly high RPE and quite a bit of volume).
0 -
LolBroScience wrote: »OP if you're trying to create a massive deficit through exercise, that simply won't work. I am not familiar with the workout routines you're doing, but they might be light workouts, that's the only situation I'd find it workout out 2hrs a day reasonable. For example walking 2hrs a day is ok.
If you don't eat enough calories various issues can arise. Big deficits can cause hormonal issues, slow down weight loss, increase fatigue.If you do what you're suppose to do the way you're suppose to do it, working out 2hrs a day does nothing in terms of weight loss.
For example, your TDEE is 2000 a day, you set your goal to lose 1lbs a week. This will give you a daily intake of 1,500 calories. You eat 1,000 calories, workout for 2hrs and lets say you burn 1,200 calories. Your diary would read 300 net calories, and give you 1,200 calories to eat back. 300 + 1200 = 1,500 net calories. Back to 1lbs weight loss. It's pretty pointless from a weight loss perspective. You can get the same results doing a moderate to high intensity workout about 1hr a day.
Generally, in most situations, working out for more than a hour a day at a moderate to high intensity is pointless. The thing that brings results is "intensity". You can either workout hard and short, or workout soft and long. Can't do both.
There is a caveat, low intensity exercise, for example walking doesn't produce such hormonal stress, thus you can do it for a long time, and it doesn't have such a big impact on appetite.
What about sport specific training? Weightlifting, MMA, Boxing, etc.
What about programs based around higher volume or intensity - Smolov, Sheiko, etc.
In a large deficit, it could pose an issue. However, there are programs and indivduals out there training at high thresholds for longer periods of time
It depends how we define "intensity". I am defining intensity as near your max effort. Using something like RPE(Rate Of Perceived Exertion) Where a 1 is like laying in bed, and a 10 is giving every last thing you have at the task at hand. When i am talking about intensity I am talking about the upper limits of RPE around 8-10.
Those higher end athletes, they are in good physical condition. A great indicator of conditioning is recovery ability. James Loehr PhD is a sports psychologist who's main focus is on tennis, he also works with olympic athletes, he has helped some win the gold medal. He was curious why some athletes performed better than others with similar abilities. He eventually discovered after 2years of analyzing the players that, the difference was their rest period.The ones who performed better are the ones who got the most recovery out of their rest period.
The way those athletes you mentioned trained is kind of similar to doing interval training. Imagine running at your on time interval pace for 20mins, can be extremely difficult, assuming you can finish it. But you can do it in a interval fashion in a 1 to 1 ratio for 40mins. You won't be able to run at your on time pace for 40mins. The difference is more work in less time or less work more time. e.g. "You can work out hard and intense, or long and soft."
So by your arbitrary rules, since the OP is doing a light weighted circuit plus a lifting routine with 5 minute rest periods she should be okay. The circuit wouldn't be intense and since she is taking adequate rest between her heavier sets she's recovering fine (considering most powerlifters take about 5 minutes between sets close to or at their 1RM).
Context is important and she provided that for you, but you ignored it and made generalizations that assumed she's just in it for the calorie burn.0 -
If you're just starting out, two hours straight of high intensity workouts just, on a gut-level, feels like overkill. Maybe focus on diet and when you do work out, don't overdo it so you can actually watch your form and not hurt yourself.
There was a point when I was about your age when I was working out 2 hours a day, running long-distance and doing plenty of strength training, but it took me nearly a year of working out and learning to get to that point.0 -
LolBroScience wrote: »OP if you're trying to create a massive deficit through exercise, that simply won't work. I am not familiar with the workout routines you're doing, but they might be light workouts, that's the only situation I'd find it workout out 2hrs a day reasonable. For example walking 2hrs a day is ok.
If you don't eat enough calories various issues can arise. Big deficits can cause hormonal issues, slow down weight loss, increase fatigue.If you do what you're suppose to do the way you're suppose to do it, working out 2hrs a day does nothing in terms of weight loss.
For example, your TDEE is 2000 a day, you set your goal to lose 1lbs a week. This will give you a daily intake of 1,500 calories. You eat 1,000 calories, workout for 2hrs and lets say you burn 1,200 calories. Your diary would read 300 net calories, and give you 1,200 calories to eat back. 300 + 1200 = 1,500 net calories. Back to 1lbs weight loss. It's pretty pointless from a weight loss perspective. You can get the same results doing a moderate to high intensity workout about 1hr a day.
Generally, in most situations, working out for more than a hour a day at a moderate to high intensity is pointless. The thing that brings results is "intensity". You can either workout hard and short, or workout soft and long. Can't do both.
There is a caveat, low intensity exercise, for example walking doesn't produce such hormonal stress, thus you can do it for a long time, and it doesn't have such a big impact on appetite.
What about sport specific training? Weightlifting, MMA, Boxing, etc.
What about programs based around higher volume or intensity - Smolov, Sheiko, etc.
In a large deficit, it could pose an issue. However, there are programs and indivduals out there training at high thresholds for longer periods of time
It depends how we define "intensity". I am defining intensity as near your max effort. Using something like RPE(Rate Of Perceived Exertion) Where a 1 is like laying in bed, and a 10 is giving every last thing you have at the task at hand. When i am talking about intensity I am talking about the upper limits of RPE around 8-10.
Those higher end athletes, they are in good physical condition. A great indicator of conditioning is recovery ability. James Loehr PhD is a sports psychologist who's main focus is on tennis, he also works with olympic athletes, he has helped some win the gold medal. He was curious why some athletes performed better than others with similar abilities. He eventually discovered after 2years of analyzing the players that, the difference was their rest period.The ones who performed better are the ones who got the most recovery out of their rest period.
The way those athletes you mentioned trained is kind of similar to doing interval training. Imagine running at your on time interval pace for 20mins, can be extremely difficult, assuming you can finish it. But you can do it in a interval fashion in a 1 to 1 ratio for 40mins. You won't be able to run at your on time pace for 40mins. The difference is more work in less time or less work more time. e.g. "You can work out hard and intense, or long and soft."
I prefer two to three hour sessions so I can go to the gym less days (it's far). So I might burn fifty less calories because I'm a bit tired on your two or three. Whoop de do. Still worth multiple hours and my primary reason for my chosen exercise is burning calories. Anything else being the cherry on top
0 -
Too many young adults with eating disorders on MFP. Makes me sad.0
-
OP if you're trying to create a massive deficit through exercise, that simply won't work. I am not familiar with the workout routines you're doing, but they might be light workouts, that's the only situation I'd find it workout out 2hrs a day reasonable. For example walking 2hrs a day is ok.
If you don't eat enough calories various issues can arise. Big deficits can cause hormonal issues, slow down weight loss, increase fatigue.If you do what you're suppose to do the way you're suppose to do it, working out 2hrs a day does nothing in terms of weight loss.
For example, your TDEE is 2000 a day, you set your goal to lose 1lbs a week. This will give you a daily intake of 1,500 calories. You eat 1,000 calories, workout for 2hrs and lets say you burn 1,200 calories. Your diary would read 300 net calories, and give you 1,200 calories to eat back. 300 + 1200 = 1,500 net calories. Back to 1lbs weight loss. It's pretty pointless from a weight loss perspective. You can get the same results doing a moderate to high intensity workout about 1hr a day.
Generally, in most situations, working out for more than a hour a day at a moderate to high intensity is pointless. The thing that brings results is "intensity". You can either workout hard and short, or workout soft and long. Can't do both.
There is a caveat, low intensity exercise, for example walking doesn't produce such hormonal stress, thus you can do it for a long time, and it doesn't have such a big impact on appetite.
you hurt my feelings. on so many levels.0 -
I would ask, "what?" But it doesn't matter.0
-
LolBroScience wrote: »LolBroScience wrote: »OP if you're trying to create a massive deficit through exercise, that simply won't work. I am not familiar with the workout routines you're doing, but they might be light workouts, that's the only situation I'd find it workout out 2hrs a day reasonable. For example walking 2hrs a day is ok.
If you don't eat enough calories various issues can arise. Big deficits can cause hormonal issues, slow down weight loss, increase fatigue.If you do what you're suppose to do the way you're suppose to do it, working out 2hrs a day does nothing in terms of weight loss.
For example, your TDEE is 2000 a day, you set your goal to lose 1lbs a week. This will give you a daily intake of 1,500 calories. You eat 1,000 calories, workout for 2hrs and lets say you burn 1,200 calories. Your diary would read 300 net calories, and give you 1,200 calories to eat back. 300 + 1200 = 1,500 net calories. Back to 1lbs weight loss. It's pretty pointless from a weight loss perspective. You can get the same results doing a moderate to high intensity workout about 1hr a day.
Generally, in most situations, working out for more than a hour a day at a moderate to high intensity is pointless. The thing that brings results is "intensity". You can either workout hard and short, or workout soft and long. Can't do both.
There is a caveat, low intensity exercise, for example walking doesn't produce such hormonal stress, thus you can do it for a long time, and it doesn't have such a big impact on appetite.
What about sport specific training? Weightlifting, MMA, Boxing, etc.
What about programs based around higher volume or intensity - Smolov, Sheiko, etc.
In a large deficit, it could pose an issue. However, there are programs and indivduals out there training at high thresholds for longer periods of time
It depends how we define "intensity". I am defining intensity as near your max effort. Using something like RPE(Rate Of Perceived Exertion) Where a 1 is like laying in bed, and a 10 is giving every last thing you have at the task at hand. When i am talking about intensity I am talking about the upper limits of RPE around 8-10.
Those higher end athletes, they are in good physical condition. A great indicator of conditioning is recovery ability. James Loehr PhD is a sports psychologist who's main focus is on tennis, he also works with olympic athletes, he has helped some win the gold medal. He was curious why some athletes performed better than others with similar abilities. He eventually discovered after 2years of analyzing the players that, the difference was their rest period.The ones who performed better are the ones who got the most recovery out of their rest period.
The way those athletes you mentioned trained is kind of similar to doing interval training. Imagine running at your on time interval pace for 20mins, can be extremely difficult, assuming you can finish it. But you can do it in a interval fashion in a 1 to 1 ratio for 40mins. You won't be able to run at your on time pace for 40mins. The difference is more work in less time or less work more time. e.g. "You can work out hard and intense, or long and soft."
You realize that even though a session might take a full two hours, you're not actually performing movements or actions during that entire time block right? Programs like Smolov, Sheiko, etc do not have to be geared towards elite level lifters and can still be highly effective (a fairly high RPE and quite a bit of volume).
I boxed for 3yrs, My workouts where 3-4hrs 4-5 days a week. It was a long time ago, but what i do recall was like, warm up with shadow boxing maybe 30mins, hit the big for 1hr(3mins on 1 min off as an actual boxing match). Rest about 15mins, speed bag for about an hour. Rest 15-20mins, Mits for about an hour, rest and some actual sparing.
But we're talking about sports, not weight loss of muscle building. The only time I would suggest increasing volume with weights if you stalled out for a while. Assuming you had the adequate rest, e.g. deloading taking a week off every 3 months thing like that. If you're training properly, and no progress, then Yes I'd suggest more volume, but at this point your conditioning would be better, you need more stimuli.
But progressive overload is increasing volume...0 -
LolBroScience wrote: »LolBroScience wrote: »LolBroScience wrote: »OP if you're trying to create a massive deficit through exercise, that simply won't work. I am not familiar with the workout routines you're doing, but they might be light workouts, that's the only situation I'd find it workout out 2hrs a day reasonable. For example walking 2hrs a day is ok.
If you don't eat enough calories various issues can arise. Big deficits can cause hormonal issues, slow down weight loss, increase fatigue.If you do what you're suppose to do the way you're suppose to do it, working out 2hrs a day does nothing in terms of weight loss.
For example, your TDEE is 2000 a day, you set your goal to lose 1lbs a week. This will give you a daily intake of 1,500 calories. You eat 1,000 calories, workout for 2hrs and lets say you burn 1,200 calories. Your diary would read 300 net calories, and give you 1,200 calories to eat back. 300 + 1200 = 1,500 net calories. Back to 1lbs weight loss. It's pretty pointless from a weight loss perspective. You can get the same results doing a moderate to high intensity workout about 1hr a day.
Generally, in most situations, working out for more than a hour a day at a moderate to high intensity is pointless. The thing that brings results is "intensity". You can either workout hard and short, or workout soft and long. Can't do both.
There is a caveat, low intensity exercise, for example walking doesn't produce such hormonal stress, thus you can do it for a long time, and it doesn't have such a big impact on appetite.
What about sport specific training? Weightlifting, MMA, Boxing, etc.
What about programs based around higher volume or intensity - Smolov, Sheiko, etc.
In a large deficit, it could pose an issue. However, there are programs and indivduals out there training at high thresholds for longer periods of time
It depends how we define "intensity". I am defining intensity as near your max effort. Using something like RPE(Rate Of Perceived Exertion) Where a 1 is like laying in bed, and a 10 is giving every last thing you have at the task at hand. When i am talking about intensity I am talking about the upper limits of RPE around 8-10.
Those higher end athletes, they are in good physical condition. A great indicator of conditioning is recovery ability. James Loehr PhD is a sports psychologist who's main focus is on tennis, he also works with olympic athletes, he has helped some win the gold medal. He was curious why some athletes performed better than others with similar abilities. He eventually discovered after 2years of analyzing the players that, the difference was their rest period.The ones who performed better are the ones who got the most recovery out of their rest period.
The way those athletes you mentioned trained is kind of similar to doing interval training. Imagine running at your on time interval pace for 20mins, can be extremely difficult, assuming you can finish it. But you can do it in a interval fashion in a 1 to 1 ratio for 40mins. You won't be able to run at your on time pace for 40mins. The difference is more work in less time or less work more time. e.g. "You can work out hard and intense, or long and soft."
You realize that even though a session might take a full two hours, you're not actually performing movements or actions during that entire time block right? Programs like Smolov, Sheiko, etc do not have to be geared towards elite level lifters and can still be highly effective (a fairly high RPE and quite a bit of volume).
I boxed for 3yrs, My workouts where 3-4hrs 4-5 days a week. It was a long time ago, but what i do recall was like, warm up with shadow boxing maybe 30mins, hit the big for 1hr(3mins on 1 min off as an actual boxing match). Rest about 15mins, speed bag for about an hour. Rest 15-20mins, Mits for about an hour, rest and some actual sparing.
But we're talking about sports, not weight loss of muscle building. The only time I would suggest increasing volume with weights if you stalled out for a while. Assuming you had the adequate rest, e.g. deloading taking a week off every 3 months thing like that. If you're training properly, and no progress, then Yes I'd suggest more volume, but at this point your conditioning would be better, you need more stimuli.
But progressive overload is increasing volume...
He didn't know that. There's lots he doesn't know about lifting.
0 -
@Pu_239
Once again you've gone off on a tangent based on your assumptions, generalities, and completely arbitrary arguments while ignoring the details of the OP's opening post. "Generally, in most situations, working out for more than a hour a day at a moderate to high intensity is pointless." -- a typical comment from you with so many qualifiers that it is meaningless.0 -
The time spent working out isn't the problem here. It's OP's attitude toward her body and what her goals are. The workouts are fine, if she's eating enough to compensate for them.
remember, exercise is for fitness. How much she's eating is what's important for her weight. Her goals are frightening. The fact that she says, at 115 lbs, that she thinks she has a muffin top and fat thighs, is frightening.
When I could, I worked out for 2 hours a day, every day. It wasn't a problem, because I ate an extra 1,000-1,500 calories per day to make up for it.
OP, you need to work on your self-image first, and how you see yourself. Your health is of the utmost importance.
She's 21 and very short. 115 lbs is not underweight at 5' 1". And, if her profile pic is recent, she does have a muffin top. When I was 21, I weighed about that and I'm 5'6", and I'm never been unhealthy or suffered from an ED. If asked, I'd probably have said my thighs were too big then too (though I'd kill to have those big thighs now).
While I agree that it would be lovely if all young women loved their bodies, her post doesn't sound frightening to me. It sounds fairly normal.0 -
brianpperkins wrote: »@Pu_239
Once again you've gone off on a tangent based on your assumptions, generalities, and completely arbitrary arguments while ignoring the details of the OP's opening post. "Generally, in most situations, working out for more than a hour a day at a moderate to high intensity is pointless." -- a typical comment from you with so many qualifiers that it is meaningless.
Lol, good summary.
0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »The time spent working out isn't the problem here. It's OP's attitude toward her body and what her goals are. The workouts are fine, if she's eating enough to compensate for them.
remember, exercise is for fitness. How much she's eating is what's important for her weight. Her goals are frightening. The fact that she says, at 115 lbs, that she thinks she has a muffin top and fat thighs, is frightening.
When I could, I worked out for 2 hours a day, every day. It wasn't a problem, because I ate an extra 1,000-1,500 calories per day to make up for it.
OP, you need to work on your self-image first, and how you see yourself. Your health is of the utmost importance.
She's 21 and very short. 115 lbs is not underweight at 5' 1". And, if her profile pic is recent, she does have a muffin top. When I was 21, I weighed about that and I'm 5'6", and I'm never been unhealthy or suffered from an ED. If asked, I'd probably have said my thighs were too big then too (though I'd kill to have those big thighs now).
While I agree that it would be lovely if all young women loved their bodies, her post doesn't sound frightening to me. It sounds fairly normal.
Multiple use of the word "obsessed", expressed self hate, and a goal weight of 90 pounds doesn't combine to a frightening end state to you?0 -
brianpperkins wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »The time spent working out isn't the problem here. It's OP's attitude toward her body and what her goals are. The workouts are fine, if she's eating enough to compensate for them.
remember, exercise is for fitness. How much she's eating is what's important for her weight. Her goals are frightening. The fact that she says, at 115 lbs, that she thinks she has a muffin top and fat thighs, is frightening.
When I could, I worked out for 2 hours a day, every day. It wasn't a problem, because I ate an extra 1,000-1,500 calories per day to make up for it.
OP, you need to work on your self-image first, and how you see yourself. Your health is of the utmost importance.
She's 21 and very short. 115 lbs is not underweight at 5' 1". And, if her profile pic is recent, she does have a muffin top. When I was 21, I weighed about that and I'm 5'6", and I'm never been unhealthy or suffered from an ED. If asked, I'd probably have said my thighs were too big then too (though I'd kill to have those big thighs now).
While I agree that it would be lovely if all young women loved their bodies, her post doesn't sound frightening to me. It sounds fairly normal.
Multiple use of the word "obsessed", expressed self hate, and a goal weight of 90 pounds doesn't combine to a frightening end state to you?
Without knowing her, not really. It certainly could be problematic, but not necessarily. I raised two girls to successful and healthy women. They tend to be dramatic at that age.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »brianpperkins wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »The time spent working out isn't the problem here. It's OP's attitude toward her body and what her goals are. The workouts are fine, if she's eating enough to compensate for them.
remember, exercise is for fitness. How much she's eating is what's important for her weight. Her goals are frightening. The fact that she says, at 115 lbs, that she thinks she has a muffin top and fat thighs, is frightening.
When I could, I worked out for 2 hours a day, every day. It wasn't a problem, because I ate an extra 1,000-1,500 calories per day to make up for it.
OP, you need to work on your self-image first, and how you see yourself. Your health is of the utmost importance.
She's 21 and very short. 115 lbs is not underweight at 5' 1". And, if her profile pic is recent, she does have a muffin top. When I was 21, I weighed about that and I'm 5'6", and I'm never been unhealthy or suffered from an ED. If asked, I'd probably have said my thighs were too big then too (though I'd kill to have those big thighs now).
While I agree that it would be lovely if all young women loved their bodies, her post doesn't sound frightening to me. It sounds fairly normal.
Multiple use of the word "obsessed", expressed self hate, and a goal weight of 90 pounds doesn't combine to a frightening end state to you?
Without knowing her, not really. It certainly could be problematic, but not necessarily. I raised two girls to successful and healthy women. They tend to be dramatic at that age.
Odds are, problematic.
She's looking at 2 hours of exercise to get in shape in a month ... with an unhealthy goal weight ... the word "obsessed" has meaning ... her profile says she wants to get in shape so she can love herself, not exactly the most healthy self relationship.
How many red flags does she need to display before the likeliness of "problematic" is evident to you?
0 -
Mezzie1024 wrote: »You said "obsessed" twice in your first post. Now, in general, I see no reason to limit healthy activity. At my fittest, I did 2-4 hours of activity a day (varying intensity), but I did it because I enjoyed it. I had no goals I was obsessed over; it was just what I did for fun. I also properly fueled my body for that activity.
Think about whether or not you're setting yourself up for injury (if you're doing the same routine daily, it sounds like you might be), and whether or not you've created too large of a calorie deficit to get the energy and nutrients you need. In the end, only you can decide if it's too much activity and/or too little food. Be kind to yourself.
This. If you are actually going all out and aren't mixing things up and have a structured program that is well rounded, you will most likely break at some point. Over-training Syndrome (OTS) is a thing, and I can personally tell you it sucks. Thankfully my legs started breaking down (and cramping) and I was able to catch it before furthering the depression, lowered V02 max and all the other negative effects I was starting to experience.
Rest is important. You didn't gain weight overnight and you can't lose it overnight. A consistent healthy calorie deficit will help your thighs and muffin top go down. Exercise is good for your health as long as it's done right. However your self-image isn't necessarily going to be fixed by either of these things....
Best of luck!0 -
brianpperkins wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »brianpperkins wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »The time spent working out isn't the problem here. It's OP's attitude toward her body and what her goals are. The workouts are fine, if she's eating enough to compensate for them.
remember, exercise is for fitness. How much she's eating is what's important for her weight. Her goals are frightening. The fact that she says, at 115 lbs, that she thinks she has a muffin top and fat thighs, is frightening.
When I could, I worked out for 2 hours a day, every day. It wasn't a problem, because I ate an extra 1,000-1,500 calories per day to make up for it.
OP, you need to work on your self-image first, and how you see yourself. Your health is of the utmost importance.
She's 21 and very short. 115 lbs is not underweight at 5' 1". And, if her profile pic is recent, she does have a muffin top. When I was 21, I weighed about that and I'm 5'6", and I'm never been unhealthy or suffered from an ED. If asked, I'd probably have said my thighs were too big then too (though I'd kill to have those big thighs now).
While I agree that it would be lovely if all young women loved their bodies, her post doesn't sound frightening to me. It sounds fairly normal.
Multiple use of the word "obsessed", expressed self hate, and a goal weight of 90 pounds doesn't combine to a frightening end state to you?
Without knowing her, not really. It certainly could be problematic, but not necessarily. I raised two girls to successful and healthy women. They tend to be dramatic at that age.
Odds are, problematic.
She's looking at 2 hours of exercise to get in shape in a month ... with an unhealthy goal weight ... the word "obsessed" has meaning ... her profile says she wants to get in shape so she can love herself, not exactly the most healthy self relationship.
How many red flags does she need to display before the likeliness of "problematic" is evident to you?
Clearly you know her better than I.0 -
As i said, if you stall out weight won't be increasing, hence the only optoin is add more sets and reps. e.g. increase volume.LolBroScience wrote: »LolBroScience wrote: »LolBroScience wrote: »OP if you're trying to create a massive deficit through exercise, that simply won't work. I am not familiar with the workout routines you're doing, but they might be light workouts, that's the only situation I'd find it workout out 2hrs a day reasonable. For example walking 2hrs a day is ok.
If you don't eat enough calories various issues can arise. Big deficits can cause hormonal issues, slow down weight loss, increase fatigue.If you do what you're suppose to do the way you're suppose to do it, working out 2hrs a day does nothing in terms of weight loss.
For example, your TDEE is 2000 a day, you set your goal to lose 1lbs a week. This will give you a daily intake of 1,500 calories. You eat 1,000 calories, workout for 2hrs and lets say you burn 1,200 calories. Your diary would read 300 net calories, and give you 1,200 calories to eat back. 300 + 1200 = 1,500 net calories. Back to 1lbs weight loss. It's pretty pointless from a weight loss perspective. You can get the same results doing a moderate to high intensity workout about 1hr a day.
Generally, in most situations, working out for more than a hour a day at a moderate to high intensity is pointless. The thing that brings results is "intensity". You can either workout hard and short, or workout soft and long. Can't do both.
There is a caveat, low intensity exercise, for example walking doesn't produce such hormonal stress, thus you can do it for a long time, and it doesn't have such a big impact on appetite.
What about sport specific training? Weightlifting, MMA, Boxing, etc.
What about programs based around higher volume or intensity - Smolov, Sheiko, etc.
In a large deficit, it could pose an issue. However, there are programs and indivduals out there training at high thresholds for longer periods of time
It depends how we define "intensity". I am defining intensity as near your max effort. Using something like RPE(Rate Of Perceived Exertion) Where a 1 is like laying in bed, and a 10 is giving every last thing you have at the task at hand. When i am talking about intensity I am talking about the upper limits of RPE around 8-10.
Those higher end athletes, they are in good physical condition. A great indicator of conditioning is recovery ability. James Loehr PhD is a sports psychologist who's main focus is on tennis, he also works with olympic athletes, he has helped some win the gold medal. He was curious why some athletes performed better than others with similar abilities. He eventually discovered after 2years of analyzing the players that, the difference was their rest period.The ones who performed better are the ones who got the most recovery out of their rest period.
The way those athletes you mentioned trained is kind of similar to doing interval training. Imagine running at your on time interval pace for 20mins, can be extremely difficult, assuming you can finish it. But you can do it in a interval fashion in a 1 to 1 ratio for 40mins. You won't be able to run at your on time pace for 40mins. The difference is more work in less time or less work more time. e.g. "You can work out hard and intense, or long and soft."
You realize that even though a session might take a full two hours, you're not actually performing movements or actions during that entire time block right? Programs like Smolov, Sheiko, etc do not have to be geared towards elite level lifters and can still be highly effective (a fairly high RPE and quite a bit of volume).
I boxed for 3yrs, My workouts where 3-4hrs 4-5 days a week. It was a long time ago, but what i do recall was like, warm up with shadow boxing maybe 30mins, hit the big for 1hr(3mins on 1 min off as an actual boxing match). Rest about 15mins, speed bag for about an hour. Rest 15-20mins, Mits for about an hour, rest and some actual sparing.
But we're talking about sports, not weight loss of muscle building. The only time I would suggest increasing volume with weights if you stalled out for a while. Assuming you had the adequate rest, e.g. deloading taking a week off every 3 months thing like that. If you're training properly, and no progress, then Yes I'd suggest more volume, but at this point your conditioning would be better, you need more stimuli.
But progressive overload is increasing volume...
which is progressive overload.
0 -
As i said, if you stall out weight won't be increasing, hence the only optoin is add more sets and reps. e.g. increase volume.LolBroScience wrote: »LolBroScience wrote: »LolBroScience wrote: »OP if you're trying to create a massive deficit through exercise, that simply won't work. I am not familiar with the workout routines you're doing, but they might be light workouts, that's the only situation I'd find it workout out 2hrs a day reasonable. For example walking 2hrs a day is ok.
If you don't eat enough calories various issues can arise. Big deficits can cause hormonal issues, slow down weight loss, increase fatigue.If you do what you're suppose to do the way you're suppose to do it, working out 2hrs a day does nothing in terms of weight loss.
For example, your TDEE is 2000 a day, you set your goal to lose 1lbs a week. This will give you a daily intake of 1,500 calories. You eat 1,000 calories, workout for 2hrs and lets say you burn 1,200 calories. Your diary would read 300 net calories, and give you 1,200 calories to eat back. 300 + 1200 = 1,500 net calories. Back to 1lbs weight loss. It's pretty pointless from a weight loss perspective. You can get the same results doing a moderate to high intensity workout about 1hr a day.
Generally, in most situations, working out for more than a hour a day at a moderate to high intensity is pointless. The thing that brings results is "intensity". You can either workout hard and short, or workout soft and long. Can't do both.
There is a caveat, low intensity exercise, for example walking doesn't produce such hormonal stress, thus you can do it for a long time, and it doesn't have such a big impact on appetite.
What about sport specific training? Weightlifting, MMA, Boxing, etc.
What about programs based around higher volume or intensity - Smolov, Sheiko, etc.
In a large deficit, it could pose an issue. However, there are programs and indivduals out there training at high thresholds for longer periods of time
It depends how we define "intensity". I am defining intensity as near your max effort. Using something like RPE(Rate Of Perceived Exertion) Where a 1 is like laying in bed, and a 10 is giving every last thing you have at the task at hand. When i am talking about intensity I am talking about the upper limits of RPE around 8-10.
Those higher end athletes, they are in good physical condition. A great indicator of conditioning is recovery ability. James Loehr PhD is a sports psychologist who's main focus is on tennis, he also works with olympic athletes, he has helped some win the gold medal. He was curious why some athletes performed better than others with similar abilities. He eventually discovered after 2years of analyzing the players that, the difference was their rest period.The ones who performed better are the ones who got the most recovery out of their rest period.
The way those athletes you mentioned trained is kind of similar to doing interval training. Imagine running at your on time interval pace for 20mins, can be extremely difficult, assuming you can finish it. But you can do it in a interval fashion in a 1 to 1 ratio for 40mins. You won't be able to run at your on time pace for 40mins. The difference is more work in less time or less work more time. e.g. "You can work out hard and intense, or long and soft."
You realize that even though a session might take a full two hours, you're not actually performing movements or actions during that entire time block right? Programs like Smolov, Sheiko, etc do not have to be geared towards elite level lifters and can still be highly effective (a fairly high RPE and quite a bit of volume).
I boxed for 3yrs, My workouts where 3-4hrs 4-5 days a week. It was a long time ago, but what i do recall was like, warm up with shadow boxing maybe 30mins, hit the big for 1hr(3mins on 1 min off as an actual boxing match). Rest about 15mins, speed bag for about an hour. Rest 15-20mins, Mits for about an hour, rest and some actual sparing.
But we're talking about sports, not weight loss of muscle building. The only time I would suggest increasing volume with weights if you stalled out for a while. Assuming you had the adequate rest, e.g. deloading taking a week off every 3 months thing like that. If you're training properly, and no progress, then Yes I'd suggest more volume, but at this point your conditioning would be better, you need more stimuli.
But progressive overload is increasing volume...
Wait, what? So... you only implement progressive overload when you stall?0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »brianpperkins wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »brianpperkins wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »The time spent working out isn't the problem here. It's OP's attitude toward her body and what her goals are. The workouts are fine, if she's eating enough to compensate for them.
remember, exercise is for fitness. How much she's eating is what's important for her weight. Her goals are frightening. The fact that she says, at 115 lbs, that she thinks she has a muffin top and fat thighs, is frightening.
When I could, I worked out for 2 hours a day, every day. It wasn't a problem, because I ate an extra 1,000-1,500 calories per day to make up for it.
OP, you need to work on your self-image first, and how you see yourself. Your health is of the utmost importance.
She's 21 and very short. 115 lbs is not underweight at 5' 1". And, if her profile pic is recent, she does have a muffin top. When I was 21, I weighed about that and I'm 5'6", and I'm never been unhealthy or suffered from an ED. If asked, I'd probably have said my thighs were too big then too (though I'd kill to have those big thighs now).
While I agree that it would be lovely if all young women loved their bodies, her post doesn't sound frightening to me. It sounds fairly normal.
Multiple use of the word "obsessed", expressed self hate, and a goal weight of 90 pounds doesn't combine to a frightening end state to you?
Without knowing her, not really. It certainly could be problematic, but not necessarily. I raised two girls to successful and healthy women. They tend to be dramatic at that age.
Odds are, problematic.
She's looking at 2 hours of exercise to get in shape in a month ... with an unhealthy goal weight ... the word "obsessed" has meaning ... her profile says she wants to get in shape so she can love herself, not exactly the most healthy self relationship.
How many red flags does she need to display before the likeliness of "problematic" is evident to you?
Clearly you know her better than I.
I simply read her posts and profile. What in her post and profile combines to indicate her desire to exercise two hours per day is based on a healthy plan?
0 -
brianpperkins wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »brianpperkins wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »brianpperkins wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »The time spent working out isn't the problem here. It's OP's attitude toward her body and what her goals are. The workouts are fine, if she's eating enough to compensate for them.
remember, exercise is for fitness. How much she's eating is what's important for her weight. Her goals are frightening. The fact that she says, at 115 lbs, that she thinks she has a muffin top and fat thighs, is frightening.
When I could, I worked out for 2 hours a day, every day. It wasn't a problem, because I ate an extra 1,000-1,500 calories per day to make up for it.
OP, you need to work on your self-image first, and how you see yourself. Your health is of the utmost importance.
She's 21 and very short. 115 lbs is not underweight at 5' 1". And, if her profile pic is recent, she does have a muffin top. When I was 21, I weighed about that and I'm 5'6", and I'm never been unhealthy or suffered from an ED. If asked, I'd probably have said my thighs were too big then too (though I'd kill to have those big thighs now).
While I agree that it would be lovely if all young women loved their bodies, her post doesn't sound frightening to me. It sounds fairly normal.
Multiple use of the word "obsessed", expressed self hate, and a goal weight of 90 pounds doesn't combine to a frightening end state to you?
Without knowing her, not really. It certainly could be problematic, but not necessarily. I raised two girls to successful and healthy women. They tend to be dramatic at that age.
Odds are, problematic.
She's looking at 2 hours of exercise to get in shape in a month ... with an unhealthy goal weight ... the word "obsessed" has meaning ... her profile says she wants to get in shape so she can love herself, not exactly the most healthy self relationship.
How many red flags does she need to display before the likeliness of "problematic" is evident to you?
Clearly you know her better than I.
I simply read her posts and profile. What in her post and profile combines to indicate her desire to exercise two hours per day is based on a healthy plan?
Nothing.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions