Saw Something On The News This Morning About Exercise Being More Important Than Diet
Options
Replies
-
For me, it's much easier to NOT eat that second serve of icecream than it is to burn it off at the gym.
Not to mention, after the gym i'm starving!
However, as my weight gain was slow (eating just over maintenance) and I only had a few kgs to lose, I probably could out exercise my diet, at least for a little bit.
But really it's CICO - calories in needs to be less than calories out.
Whatever way you do that is up to you.
0 -
Yeah, there are some people for whom it is literally impossible for them to exercise enough. I used to drive 50 miles each way to work. It would have taken me more than 24 hours to walk there and back each day. That some people can walk to work doesn't mean that I could.DeguelloTex wrote: »
You don't have to separate the two to understand that most people don't have the time or the inclination to burn as many calories as it would take to offset what they eat.
There absolutely two ways of looking at it.bcalvanese wrote: »bcalvanese wrote: »PeachyCarol wrote: »I have never seen a point get so lost amongst noise in my whole life.
Coke is attempting to promote the notion that you can out-exercise over consumption of calories in order to boost lagging sales.
Instead of being appalled by that, I'm seeing a bunch of posts with people arguing about the benefits of exercise.
I don't get it.
You can't out-exercise the over-consumption of calories. This is a point people were making earlier in the thread and they got told they were ignoring the CO part of the equation. What the what now? If you keep eating more than you're burning, what's going to happen?
It's always down to eating less than you burn.
Exercise is great. I do an awful lot of it because it helps me keep my energy levels up and manages my pain levels with some medical conditions I have ... the more I do, the better I feel. Yay me. But I still watch my calories like a hawk.
I'm not going to be swallowing Coke's message any time soon.
Agree! It's true most ppl don't exercise enough. But most of the problem is calories in. I am at 160 calories burnt after going for a 40 minute walk. I can't imagine how much I would need to move to burn off a big gulp
https://theconversation.com/big-sodas-tactics-to-confuse-science-and-protect-their-profits-45907
Yep. When I gained 50 lbs in the last year and a half before committing myself to losing weight....I was exercising on average at least 60 minutes daily. How is that so? DUM DUM DUM.
It's easy. I was eating more than I was burning.
Or you were burning less than you were eating. Depends on how you look at it.
I was exercising regularly, so I think we know which one it is. Stop playing semantics. I was eating in excess of what my body needed. I was a great example of you can't out run a bad diet. 100%.
I'm now a normal body weight. I am also still exercising regularly. What did I change...I was eating in a caloric deficit. Now I am eating in maintenance.
I'm not playing anything. just pointing out that there are 2 ways to look at the same thing is all.
It's my experience, not yours. I was eating in way excess of what my body needed while exercising regularly. That is what was going on. No two ways of looking at it.
A>B or B<A
They're both saying the same thing!
"I ate more calories than I burned" is the same thing as "I burned fewer calories than I ate."
If you're going to trumpet CICO, you have to agree that both parts are included. It's not CI. It's not CO. ITS CICO.
You cannot separate the two. They're bound together. Can't have a CICO theory without both parts.
Yes, absolutely, someone can do it either way. Definitely. That doesn't mean they're equally feasible for most people.
For me when I was gaining weight, it wouldn't be physically possible for me to burn the amount that I was consuming. I was way overeating for what my body needed. It wasn't one way or the other. People can want to pervert my experience all they want for their own agenda, however it doesn't change my experience. I could have been the poster child for You Can't Out Run A Bad Diet.
Even among those who could, theoretically, out-exercise a bad diet, very, very few are able to do so in the real world because burns are much lower than they think and calories add up very quickly. How many people are willing to exercise two or three hours a day to offset what they eat? Probably not many. Mathematically, though, they could. Realistically, not a chance in hell.
0 -
bcalvanese wrote: »bcalvanese wrote: »PeachyCarol wrote: »I have never seen a point get so lost amongst noise in my whole life.
Coke is attempting to promote the notion that you can out-exercise over consumption of calories in order to boost lagging sales.
Instead of being appalled by that, I'm seeing a bunch of posts with people arguing about the benefits of exercise.
I don't get it.
You can't out-exercise the over-consumption of calories. This is a point people were making earlier in the thread and they got told they were ignoring the CO part of the equation. What the what now? If you keep eating more than you're burning, what's going to happen?
It's always down to eating less than you burn.
Exercise is great. I do an awful lot of it because it helps me keep my energy levels up and manages my pain levels with some medical conditions I have ... the more I do, the better I feel. Yay me. But I still watch my calories like a hawk.
I'm not going to be swallowing Coke's message any time soon.
Agree! It's true most ppl don't exercise enough. But most of the problem is calories in. I am at 160 calories burnt after going for a 40 minute walk. I can't imagine how much I would need to move to burn off a big gulp
https://theconversation.com/big-sodas-tactics-to-confuse-science-and-protect-their-profits-45907
Yep. When I gained 50 lbs in the last year and a half before committing myself to losing weight....I was exercising on average at least 60 minutes daily. How is that so? DUM DUM DUM.
It's easy. I was eating more than I was burning.
Or you were burning less than you were eating. Depends on how you look at it.
I was exercising regularly, so I think we know which one it is. Stop playing semantics. I was eating in excess of what my body needed. I was a great example of you can't out run a bad diet. 100%.
I'm now a normal body weight. I am also still exercising regularly. What did I change...I was eating in a caloric deficit. Now I am eating in maintenance.
I'm not playing anything. just pointing out that there are 2 ways to look at the same thing is all.
It's my experience, not yours. I was eating in way excess of what my body needed while exercising regularly. That is what was going on. No two ways of looking at it.
You're just stuck on one way aren't you?0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »
I'm not saying anyone needs to exercise. Not here to convince anyone to exercise or not!DeguelloTex wrote: »
You don't have to separate the two to understand that most people don't have the time or the inclination to burn as many calories as it would take to offset what they eat.
There absolutely two ways of looking at it.bcalvanese wrote: »bcalvanese wrote: »PeachyCarol wrote: »I have never seen a point get so lost amongst noise in my whole life.
Coke is attempting to promote the notion that you can out-exercise over consumption of calories in order to boost lagging sales.
Instead of being appalled by that, I'm seeing a bunch of posts with people arguing about the benefits of exercise.
I don't get it.
You can't out-exercise the over-consumption of calories. This is a point people were making earlier in the thread and they got told they were ignoring the CO part of the equation. What the what now? If you keep eating more than you're burning, what's going to happen?
It's always down to eating less than you burn.
Exercise is great. I do an awful lot of it because it helps me keep my energy levels up and manages my pain levels with some medical conditions I have ... the more I do, the better I feel. Yay me. But I still watch my calories like a hawk.
I'm not going to be swallowing Coke's message any time soon.
Agree! It's true most ppl don't exercise enough. But most of the problem is calories in. I am at 160 calories burnt after going for a 40 minute walk. I can't imagine how much I would need to move to burn off a big gulp
https://theconversation.com/big-sodas-tactics-to-confuse-science-and-protect-their-profits-45907
Yep. When I gained 50 lbs in the last year and a half before committing myself to losing weight....I was exercising on average at least 60 minutes daily. How is that so? DUM DUM DUM.
It's easy. I was eating more than I was burning.
Or you were burning less than you were eating. Depends on how you look at it.
I was exercising regularly, so I think we know which one it is. Stop playing semantics. I was eating in excess of what my body needed. I was a great example of you can't out run a bad diet. 100%.
I'm now a normal body weight. I am also still exercising regularly. What did I change...I was eating in a caloric deficit. Now I am eating in maintenance.
I'm not playing anything. just pointing out that there are 2 ways to look at the same thing is all.
It's my experience, not yours. I was eating in way excess of what my body needed while exercising regularly. That is what was going on. No two ways of looking at it.
A>B or B<A
They're both saying the same thing!
"I ate more calories than I burned" is the same thing as "I burned fewer calories than I ate."
If you're going to trumpet CICO, you have to agree that both parts are included. It's not CI. It's not CO. ITS CICO.
You cannot separate the two. They're bound together. Can't have a CICO theory without both parts.
Yes, absolutely, someone can do it either way. Definitely. That doesn't mean they're equally feasible for most people.
Just pointing out that A<B is, in fact, the same thing as B>A.
No one is arguing otherwise. That was not her point.
I think it was. He said that eating more than you burn was the same thing as burning less than you eat. She disagreed and stated that there weren't two ways of looking at it.
Of course there are. They're both saying the same thing.0 -
Coke paid for this and earlier similar studies.
Link to a news article: http://fortune.com/2015/08/10/coke-weight-loss/They say weight loss is more about exercise and less about your diet.
Coca-Cola is providing millions of dollars in funding for a non-profit group that argues weight-conscious Americans should be paying more attention to exercise and less attention to their diet, The New York Times reports.
“Most of the focus in the popular media and in the scientific press is, ‘Oh they’re eating too much, eating too much, eating too much’ — blaming fast food, blaming sugary drinks and so on,” says Steven N. Blair, vice president of the group, known as the Global Energy Balance Network, in a video. “And there’s really virtually no compelling evidence that that, in fact, is the cause.”
Two universities that employ leaders of the Global Energy Balance Network told the Times that Coca-Cola had donated $1.5 million last year to start the organization, and that the company had provided close to $4 million in funding for other projects spearheaded by two members from the group.
Health experts are calling Coca-Cola’s motives into question, especially in a longstanding era of declining soda sales.
“The Global Energy Balance Network is nothing but a front group for Coca-Cola,” Marion Nestle, author of the book Soda Politics and a professor of nutrition, food studies and public health at New York University, told the Times.“Coca-Cola’s agenda here is very clear: Get these researchers to confuse the science and deflect attention from dietary intake.”
This isn’t the first time Coca-Cola has tried to popularize the idea that its products are healthier than believed. In February, it was reported that fitness and nutrition experts wrote Coke-endorsed online pieces for American Hearth Month arguing that a mini-can of Coke could be a healthy treat. Last year, the American Beverage Association, which represents Coke and Pepsi, published findings of a study that suggested diet soda could aid in weight loss, a result that’s been refuted elsewhere.0 -
DeguelloTex wrote: »
Yeah, there are some people for whom it is literally impossible for them to exercise enough. I used to drive 50 miles each way to work. It would have taken me more than 24 hours to walk there and back each day. That some people can walk to work doesn't mean that I could.DeguelloTex wrote: »
You don't have to separate the two to understand that most people don't have the time or the inclination to burn as many calories as it would take to offset what they eat.
There absolutely two ways of looking at it.bcalvanese wrote: »bcalvanese wrote: »PeachyCarol wrote: »I have never seen a point get so lost amongst noise in my whole life.
Coke is attempting to promote the notion that you can out-exercise over consumption of calories in order to boost lagging sales.
Instead of being appalled by that, I'm seeing a bunch of posts with people arguing about the benefits of exercise.
I don't get it.
You can't out-exercise the over-consumption of calories. This is a point people were making earlier in the thread and they got told they were ignoring the CO part of the equation. What the what now? If you keep eating more than you're burning, what's going to happen?
It's always down to eating less than you burn.
Exercise is great. I do an awful lot of it because it helps me keep my energy levels up and manages my pain levels with some medical conditions I have ... the more I do, the better I feel. Yay me. But I still watch my calories like a hawk.
I'm not going to be swallowing Coke's message any time soon.
Agree! It's true most ppl don't exercise enough. But most of the problem is calories in. I am at 160 calories burnt after going for a 40 minute walk. I can't imagine how much I would need to move to burn off a big gulp
https://theconversation.com/big-sodas-tactics-to-confuse-science-and-protect-their-profits-45907
Yep. When I gained 50 lbs in the last year and a half before committing myself to losing weight....I was exercising on average at least 60 minutes daily. How is that so? DUM DUM DUM.
It's easy. I was eating more than I was burning.
Or you were burning less than you were eating. Depends on how you look at it.
I was exercising regularly, so I think we know which one it is. Stop playing semantics. I was eating in excess of what my body needed. I was a great example of you can't out run a bad diet. 100%.
I'm now a normal body weight. I am also still exercising regularly. What did I change...I was eating in a caloric deficit. Now I am eating in maintenance.
I'm not playing anything. just pointing out that there are 2 ways to look at the same thing is all.
It's my experience, not yours. I was eating in way excess of what my body needed while exercising regularly. That is what was going on. No two ways of looking at it.
A>B or B<A
They're both saying the same thing!
"I ate more calories than I burned" is the same thing as "I burned fewer calories than I ate."
If you're going to trumpet CICO, you have to agree that both parts are included. It's not CI. It's not CO. ITS CICO.
You cannot separate the two. They're bound together. Can't have a CICO theory without both parts.
Yes, absolutely, someone can do it either way. Definitely. That doesn't mean they're equally feasible for most people.
For me when I was gaining weight, it wouldn't be physically possible for me to burn the amount that I was consuming. I was way overeating for what my body needed. It wasn't one way or the other. People can want to pervert my experience all they want for their own agenda, however it doesn't change my experience. I could have been the poster child for You Can't Out Run A Bad Diet.
Even among those who could, theoretically, out-exercise a bad diet, very, very few are able to do so in the real world because burns are much lower than they think and calories add up very quickly. How many people are willing to exercise two or three hours a day to offset what they eat? Probably not many. Mathematically, though, they could. Realistically, not a chance in hell.
I know how you feel. I have to drive 25 miles each way, and don't get home until about 6pm. What I do on work days is use my lunch hour for walking. I get my 3 miles in, and eat while I'm working. That allows me time when I get home to get a bike or kayak ride in before dinner (if I can).0 -
No. She said for her and the amount she was eating, it wasn't physically possible to offset that many calories with exercise. There was no way to get B > A without lowering A.lemurcat12 wrote: »
I'm not saying anyone needs to exercise. Not here to convince anyone to exercise or not!DeguelloTex wrote: »
You don't have to separate the two to understand that most people don't have the time or the inclination to burn as many calories as it would take to offset what they eat.
There absolutely two ways of looking at it.bcalvanese wrote: »bcalvanese wrote: »PeachyCarol wrote: »I have never seen a point get so lost amongst noise in my whole life.
Coke is attempting to promote the notion that you can out-exercise over consumption of calories in order to boost lagging sales.
Instead of being appalled by that, I'm seeing a bunch of posts with people arguing about the benefits of exercise.
I don't get it.
You can't out-exercise the over-consumption of calories. This is a point people were making earlier in the thread and they got told they were ignoring the CO part of the equation. What the what now? If you keep eating more than you're burning, what's going to happen?
It's always down to eating less than you burn.
Exercise is great. I do an awful lot of it because it helps me keep my energy levels up and manages my pain levels with some medical conditions I have ... the more I do, the better I feel. Yay me. But I still watch my calories like a hawk.
I'm not going to be swallowing Coke's message any time soon.
Agree! It's true most ppl don't exercise enough. But most of the problem is calories in. I am at 160 calories burnt after going for a 40 minute walk. I can't imagine how much I would need to move to burn off a big gulp
https://theconversation.com/big-sodas-tactics-to-confuse-science-and-protect-their-profits-45907
Yep. When I gained 50 lbs in the last year and a half before committing myself to losing weight....I was exercising on average at least 60 minutes daily. How is that so? DUM DUM DUM.
It's easy. I was eating more than I was burning.
Or you were burning less than you were eating. Depends on how you look at it.
I was exercising regularly, so I think we know which one it is. Stop playing semantics. I was eating in excess of what my body needed. I was a great example of you can't out run a bad diet. 100%.
I'm now a normal body weight. I am also still exercising regularly. What did I change...I was eating in a caloric deficit. Now I am eating in maintenance.
I'm not playing anything. just pointing out that there are 2 ways to look at the same thing is all.
It's my experience, not yours. I was eating in way excess of what my body needed while exercising regularly. That is what was going on. No two ways of looking at it.
A>B or B<A
They're both saying the same thing!
"I ate more calories than I burned" is the same thing as "I burned fewer calories than I ate."
If you're going to trumpet CICO, you have to agree that both parts are included. It's not CI. It's not CO. ITS CICO.
You cannot separate the two. They're bound together. Can't have a CICO theory without both parts.
Yes, absolutely, someone can do it either way. Definitely. That doesn't mean they're equally feasible for most people.
Just pointing out that A<B is, in fact, the same thing as B>A.
No one is arguing otherwise. That was not her point.
I think it was. He said that eating more than you burn was the same thing as burning less than you eat. She disagreed and stated that there weren't two ways of looking at it.
Of course there are. They're both saying the same thing.
0 -
Here's the study paid for by Coca Cola
https://gebn.org/asset/articles/Causes_of_world-wide_inc_in_BW-Shook-US_Endochronology-June.pdf
In an amazing coincidence, food industry funded research are 5X's more likely NOT to find a link between obesity and sugary drink consumption.
http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/08/09/coca-cola-funds-scientists-who-shift-blame-for-obesity-away-from- bad-diets/?_r=20 -
For me, it's much easier to NOT eat that second serve of icecream than it is to burn it off at the gym.
Not to mention, after the gym i'm starving!
However, as my weight gain was slow (eating just over maintenance) and I only had a few kgs to lose, I probably could out exercise my diet, at least for a little bit.
But really it's CICO - calories in needs to be less than calories out.
Whatever way you do that is up to you.
Yup.
I can lose eating more than what my maintenance would be if sedentary (which is sadly low). I have at times. Does that mean I'm losing based on exercise? Not really, as I'd probably overeat if I did nothing to monitor my calories. (However, monitoring calories doesn't mean logging.)
My ability to exercise vigorously is a lot better now than it was when I started out, though. Getting active--walking more--was certainly a useful thing to do even before I had worked my way up to more regular exercise, but cutting calories was more efficient and doing both made more sense for me.
To say any particular strategy is MORE important is just silly. What's the point? OP seems to think he is the only one to value exercise, and that seems rather strange.0 -
bcalvanese wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »bcalvanese wrote: »PeachyCarol wrote: »I have never seen a point get so lost amongst noise in my whole life.
Coke is attempting to promote the notion that you can out-exercise over consumption of calories in order to boost lagging sales.
Instead of being appalled by that, I'm seeing a bunch of posts with people arguing about the benefits of exercise.
I don't get it.
You can't out-exercise the over-consumption of calories. This is a point people were making earlier in the thread and they got told they were ignoring the CO part of the equation. What the what now? If you keep eating more than you're burning, what's going to happen?
It's always down to eating less than you burn.
Exercise is great. I do an awful lot of it because it helps me keep my energy levels up and manages my pain levels with some medical conditions I have ... the more I do, the better I feel. Yay me. But I still watch my calories like a hawk.
I'm not going to be swallowing Coke's message any time soon.
Agree! It's true most ppl don't exercise enough. But most of the problem is calories in. I am at 160 calories burnt after going for a 40 minute walk. I can't imagine how much I would need to move to burn off a big gulp
https://theconversation.com/big-sodas-tactics-to-confuse-science-and-protect-their-profits-45907
I just did a 53 minute walk and burned 401 calories. Earlier today I did 3 miles on my kayak and burned 428 calories. I also have a 68 calorie adjustment from steps on my activity tracker. So I have 897 exercise calories so far today. If you add them to my goal calories of 1580 that is 2477 calories, and the 500 and some odd calories that MFP minuses to lose 1 lb. per are already taken out. I have had breakfast and lunch which totals 919 calories, so I still have 1558 calories to eat. I will probably eat anywhere from 500 to 800 calories for dinner and a snack, so I will end up with 800 to 1,000 calories left over today.
How fast a pace do you walk?
That seems like a big difference in calories for only 13 minutes difference in time.
Bodyweight makes a big difference in calories burned from walking.
Of course, lots of walking estimates grossly overstate calories burned.
For me, 897 calories would be running about 9.5-10 miles, except even that counts the calories I would have burned anyway. To get a true 897 additional calories it would have to be even more. I don't count adjustments from steps other than in my daily overall activity.
Also, I exercise quite a lot, and at 2477 calories I'd be gaining weight.
I wear my heart rate monitor when I exercise, and because I am so old and out of shape, I get in the 70 to 80 percent cardio zone quite easily. my activity tracker must take that into account when it calculates my calories burned, because it's always a little lower when I don't wear it.
I don't believe HRM are accurate for walking calories.
For net walking calories (in other words, calories above what you would burn anyway, which is one problem with most HRM estimates) a good formula is .3 x weight x miles.
For me (assuming 4mph for an hour) that's .3 x 125 x 4 or 150 calories.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »
I'm not saying anyone needs to exercise. Not here to convince anyone to exercise or not!DeguelloTex wrote: »
You don't have to separate the two to understand that most people don't have the time or the inclination to burn as many calories as it would take to offset what they eat.
There absolutely two ways of looking at it.bcalvanese wrote: »bcalvanese wrote: »PeachyCarol wrote: »I have never seen a point get so lost amongst noise in my whole life.
Coke is attempting to promote the notion that you can out-exercise over consumption of calories in order to boost lagging sales.
Instead of being appalled by that, I'm seeing a bunch of posts with people arguing about the benefits of exercise.
I don't get it.
You can't out-exercise the over-consumption of calories. This is a point people were making earlier in the thread and they got told they were ignoring the CO part of the equation. What the what now? If you keep eating more than you're burning, what's going to happen?
It's always down to eating less than you burn.
Exercise is great. I do an awful lot of it because it helps me keep my energy levels up and manages my pain levels with some medical conditions I have ... the more I do, the better I feel. Yay me. But I still watch my calories like a hawk.
I'm not going to be swallowing Coke's message any time soon.
Agree! It's true most ppl don't exercise enough. But most of the problem is calories in. I am at 160 calories burnt after going for a 40 minute walk. I can't imagine how much I would need to move to burn off a big gulp
https://theconversation.com/big-sodas-tactics-to-confuse-science-and-protect-their-profits-45907
Yep. When I gained 50 lbs in the last year and a half before committing myself to losing weight....I was exercising on average at least 60 minutes daily. How is that so? DUM DUM DUM.
It's easy. I was eating more than I was burning.
Or you were burning less than you were eating. Depends on how you look at it.
I was exercising regularly, so I think we know which one it is. Stop playing semantics. I was eating in excess of what my body needed. I was a great example of you can't out run a bad diet. 100%.
I'm now a normal body weight. I am also still exercising regularly. What did I change...I was eating in a caloric deficit. Now I am eating in maintenance.
I'm not playing anything. just pointing out that there are 2 ways to look at the same thing is all.
It's my experience, not yours. I was eating in way excess of what my body needed while exercising regularly. That is what was going on. No two ways of looking at it.
A>B or B<A
They're both saying the same thing!
"I ate more calories than I burned" is the same thing as "I burned fewer calories than I ate."
If you're going to trumpet CICO, you have to agree that both parts are included. It's not CI. It's not CO. ITS CICO.
You cannot separate the two. They're bound together. Can't have a CICO theory without both parts.
Yes, absolutely, someone can do it either way. Definitely. That doesn't mean they're equally feasible for most people.
Just pointing out that A<B is, in fact, the same thing as B>A.
No one is arguing otherwise. That was not her point.
I think it was. He said that eating more than you burn was the same thing as burning less than you eat. She disagreed and stated that there weren't two ways of looking at it.
Of course there are. They're both saying the same thing.
I think you are missing what shell's point actually was. She's obviously not stupid, so she's unlikely to be arguing that CI-X=CO is not the same as CI=CO+X. She in fact did explain what her point was in the posts in question.0 -
I burn 1000 calories regularly, it's not easy and it takes me all day, but it's doable. I also work from home and have the time to do it. There is no way I could burn that much if I had a normal 9-5 job.0
-
I just re-read it. I thought maybe I'd misread, but she did, in fact, disagree with his A>B = B<A point and say that there weren't two ways of looking at it.lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »
I'm not saying anyone needs to exercise. Not here to convince anyone to exercise or not!DeguelloTex wrote: »
You don't have to separate the two to understand that most people don't have the time or the inclination to burn as many calories as it would take to offset what they eat.
There absolutely two ways of looking at it.bcalvanese wrote: »bcalvanese wrote: »PeachyCarol wrote: »I have never seen a point get so lost amongst noise in my whole life.
Coke is attempting to promote the notion that you can out-exercise over consumption of calories in order to boost lagging sales.
Instead of being appalled by that, I'm seeing a bunch of posts with people arguing about the benefits of exercise.
I don't get it.
You can't out-exercise the over-consumption of calories. This is a point people were making earlier in the thread and they got told they were ignoring the CO part of the equation. What the what now? If you keep eating more than you're burning, what's going to happen?
It's always down to eating less than you burn.
Exercise is great. I do an awful lot of it because it helps me keep my energy levels up and manages my pain levels with some medical conditions I have ... the more I do, the better I feel. Yay me. But I still watch my calories like a hawk.
I'm not going to be swallowing Coke's message any time soon.
Agree! It's true most ppl don't exercise enough. But most of the problem is calories in. I am at 160 calories burnt after going for a 40 minute walk. I can't imagine how much I would need to move to burn off a big gulp
https://theconversation.com/big-sodas-tactics-to-confuse-science-and-protect-their-profits-45907
Yep. When I gained 50 lbs in the last year and a half before committing myself to losing weight....I was exercising on average at least 60 minutes daily. How is that so? DUM DUM DUM.
It's easy. I was eating more than I was burning.
Or you were burning less than you were eating. Depends on how you look at it.
I was exercising regularly, so I think we know which one it is. Stop playing semantics. I was eating in excess of what my body needed. I was a great example of you can't out run a bad diet. 100%.
I'm now a normal body weight. I am also still exercising regularly. What did I change...I was eating in a caloric deficit. Now I am eating in maintenance.
I'm not playing anything. just pointing out that there are 2 ways to look at the same thing is all.
It's my experience, not yours. I was eating in way excess of what my body needed while exercising regularly. That is what was going on. No two ways of looking at it.
A>B or B<A
They're both saying the same thing!
"I ate more calories than I burned" is the same thing as "I burned fewer calories than I ate."
If you're going to trumpet CICO, you have to agree that both parts are included. It's not CI. It's not CO. ITS CICO.
You cannot separate the two. They're bound together. Can't have a CICO theory without both parts.
Yes, absolutely, someone can do it either way. Definitely. That doesn't mean they're equally feasible for most people.
Just pointing out that A<B is, in fact, the same thing as B>A.
No one is arguing otherwise. That was not her point.
I think it was. He said that eating more than you burn was the same thing as burning less than you eat. She disagreed and stated that there weren't two ways of looking at it.
Of course there are. They're both saying the same thing.
I think you are missing what shell's point actually was. She's obviously not stupid, so she's unlikely to be arguing that CI-X=CO is not the same as CI=CO+X. She in fact did explain what her point was in the posts in question.
I'm not going to keep arguing, "Yes, she did" and "No, she didn't" though. If you insist that she didn't say it, OK. You win. I don't want have a huge Internet fight over it and will concede.
0 -
bcalvanese wrote: »PeachyCarol wrote: »I have never seen a point get so lost amongst noise in my whole life.
Coke is attempting to promote the notion that you can out-exercise over consumption of calories in order to boost lagging sales.
Instead of being appalled by that, I'm seeing a bunch of posts with people arguing about the benefits of exercise.
I don't get it.
You can't out-exercise the over-consumption of calories. This is a point people were making earlier in the thread and they got told they were ignoring the CO part of the equation. What the what now? If you keep eating more than you're burning, what's going to happen?
It's always down to eating less than you burn.
Exercise is great. I do an awful lot of it because it helps me keep my energy levels up and manages my pain levels with some medical conditions I have ... the more I do, the better I feel. Yay me. But I still watch my calories like a hawk.
I'm not going to be swallowing Coke's message any time soon.
Agree! It's true most ppl don't exercise enough. But most of the problem is calories in. I am at 160 calories burnt after going for a 40 minute walk. I can't imagine how much I would need to move to burn off a big gulp
https://theconversation.com/big-sodas-tactics-to-confuse-science-and-protect-their-profits-45907
I just did a 53 minute walk and burned 401 calories. Earlier today I did 3 miles on my kayak and burned 428 calories. I also have a 68 calorie adjustment from steps on my activity tracker. So I have 897 exercise calories so far today. If you add them to my goal calories of 1580 that is 2477 calories, and the 500 and some odd calories that MFP minuses to lose 1 lb. per are already taken out. I have had breakfast and lunch which totals 919 calories, so I still have 1558 calories to eat. I will probably eat anywhere from 500 to 800 calories for dinner and a snack, so I will end up with 800 to 1,000 calories left over today.
How fast a pace do you walk?
That seems like a big difference in calories for only 13 minutes difference in time.
I have my negative adjustments set up on my Fitbit so I start my day needing to get a couple thousand steps in before they start counting but I usually walk about 5.5km an hour.
I actually watched a clip with one of the researchers who said that there isn't any evidence that people being overweight is caused by overeating, they just don't exercise enough. I was shocked. I do realize that someone could in theory lose weight via exercise alone but that would require that someone is overeating a moderate amount of excess calories a day and has the time and energy to go and exercise long/hard enough to give themselves a deficit.
My Neighbor and I both said at the beginning of the year that we wanted to lose some weight, she runs 3-4x a week mostly 5-10kms as she trains for a half marathon. I walk, lift weights and we both cycle. I started being diligent about tracking my intake and making changes to my nutrition, I've lost just under 40lbs and she just keeps commenting on how well I'm doing but hasn't lost a thing. So although exercise is important I think you'll find a lot of ppl on these boards that spun their wheels for years before they got their eating under control. It's pretty easy to go out for dinner with a couple glasses of wine and a dessert and have blown 1500-2000 calories on a single meal.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »bcalvanese wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »bcalvanese wrote: »PeachyCarol wrote: »I have never seen a point get so lost amongst noise in my whole life.
Coke is attempting to promote the notion that you can out-exercise over consumption of calories in order to boost lagging sales.
Instead of being appalled by that, I'm seeing a bunch of posts with people arguing about the benefits of exercise.
I don't get it.
You can't out-exercise the over-consumption of calories. This is a point people were making earlier in the thread and they got told they were ignoring the CO part of the equation. What the what now? If you keep eating more than you're burning, what's going to happen?
It's always down to eating less than you burn.
Exercise is great. I do an awful lot of it because it helps me keep my energy levels up and manages my pain levels with some medical conditions I have ... the more I do, the better I feel. Yay me. But I still watch my calories like a hawk.
I'm not going to be swallowing Coke's message any time soon.
Agree! It's true most ppl don't exercise enough. But most of the problem is calories in. I am at 160 calories burnt after going for a 40 minute walk. I can't imagine how much I would need to move to burn off a big gulp
https://theconversation.com/big-sodas-tactics-to-confuse-science-and-protect-their-profits-45907
I just did a 53 minute walk and burned 401 calories. Earlier today I did 3 miles on my kayak and burned 428 calories. I also have a 68 calorie adjustment from steps on my activity tracker. So I have 897 exercise calories so far today. If you add them to my goal calories of 1580 that is 2477 calories, and the 500 and some odd calories that MFP minuses to lose 1 lb. per are already taken out. I have had breakfast and lunch which totals 919 calories, so I still have 1558 calories to eat. I will probably eat anywhere from 500 to 800 calories for dinner and a snack, so I will end up with 800 to 1,000 calories left over today.
How fast a pace do you walk?
That seems like a big difference in calories for only 13 minutes difference in time.
Bodyweight makes a big difference in calories burned from walking.
Of course, lots of walking estimates grossly overstate calories burned.
For me, 897 calories would be running about 9.5-10 miles, except even that counts the calories I would have burned anyway. To get a true 897 additional calories it would have to be even more. I don't count adjustments from steps other than in my daily overall activity.
Also, I exercise quite a lot, and at 2477 calories I'd be gaining weight.
I wear my heart rate monitor when I exercise, and because I am so old and out of shape, I get in the 70 to 80 percent cardio zone quite easily. my activity tracker must take that into account when it calculates my calories burned, because it's always a little lower when I don't wear it.
I don't believe HRM are accurate for walking calories.
For net walking calories (in other words, calories above what you would burn anyway, which is one problem with most HRM estimates) a good formula is .3 x weight x miles.
For me (assuming 4mph for an hour) that's .3 x 125 x 4 or 150 calories.
I don't know all that formula stuff, but what I do know is that I log my workouts, my fitness tracker calculates the calories burned, I log my food, MFP calculates that part and deducts whatever it takes to lose 1 lb. per week (my setting), and I have been losing about a lb. per week for going on 8 months now. I think if my activity tracker was miscalculating that much, I would have gained a lot of weight by now instead of losing 36 lbs.
Don't think I can agree with you on this one. Sorry.0 -
bcalvanese wrote: »PeachyCarol wrote: »I have never seen a point get so lost amongst noise in my whole life.
Coke is attempting to promote the notion that you can out-exercise over consumption of calories in order to boost lagging sales.
Instead of being appalled by that, I'm seeing a bunch of posts with people arguing about the benefits of exercise.
I don't get it.
You can't out-exercise the over-consumption of calories. This is a point people were making earlier in the thread and they got told they were ignoring the CO part of the equation. What the what now? If you keep eating more than you're burning, what's going to happen?
It's always down to eating less than you burn.
Exercise is great. I do an awful lot of it because it helps me keep my energy levels up and manages my pain levels with some medical conditions I have ... the more I do, the better I feel. Yay me. But I still watch my calories like a hawk.
I'm not going to be swallowing Coke's message any time soon.
Agree! It's true most ppl don't exercise enough. But most of the problem is calories in. I am at 160 calories burnt after going for a 40 minute walk. I can't imagine how much I would need to move to burn off a big gulp
https://theconversation.com/big-sodas-tactics-to-confuse-science-and-protect-their-profits-45907
I just did a 53 minute walk and burned 401 calories. Earlier today I did 3 miles on my kayak and burned 428 calories. I also have a 68 calorie adjustment from steps on my activity tracker. So I have 897 exercise calories so far today. If you add them to my goal calories of 1580 that is 2477 calories, and the 500 and some odd calories that MFP minuses to lose 1 lb. per are already taken out. I have had breakfast and lunch which totals 919 calories, so I still have 1558 calories to eat. I will probably eat anywhere from 500 to 800 calories for dinner and a snack, so I will end up with 800 to 1,000 calories left over today.
How fast a pace do you walk?
That seems like a big difference in calories for only 13 minutes difference in time.
I have my negative adjustments set up on my Fitbit so I start my day needing to get a couple thousand steps in before they start counting but I usually walk about 5.5km an hour.
I actually watched a clip with one of the researchers who said that there isn't any evidence that people being overweight is caused by overeating, they just don't exercise enough. I was shocked. I do realize that someone could in theory lose weight via exercise alone but that would require that someone is overeating a moderate amount of excess calories a day and has the time and energy to go and exercise long/hard enough to give themselves a deficit.
My Neighbor and I both said at the beginning of the year that we wanted to lose some weight, she runs 3-4x a week mostly 5-10kms as she trains for a half marathon. I walk, lift weights and we both cycle. I started being diligent about tracking my intake and making changes to my nutrition, I've lost just under 40lbs and she just keeps commenting on how well I'm doing but hasn't lost a thing. So although exercise is important I think you'll find a lot of ppl on these boards that spun their wheels for years before they got their eating under control. It's pretty easy to go out for dinner with a couple glasses of wine and a dessert and have blown 1500-2000 calories on a single meal.
Ahh, got it. Sounds like you are doing good so far.
Sounds like your neighbor needs to focus on diet more then. Like I said, there are 2 sides to the equation, and just because I feel that exercise is more important, I also feel that it is important to keep eating under control. The difference is that it is much easier to maintain a healthy weight if you're at a good fitness level.
People should do both if they can.0 -
bcalvanese wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »bcalvanese wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »bcalvanese wrote: »PeachyCarol wrote: »I have never seen a point get so lost amongst noise in my whole life.
Coke is attempting to promote the notion that you can out-exercise over consumption of calories in order to boost lagging sales.
Instead of being appalled by that, I'm seeing a bunch of posts with people arguing about the benefits of exercise.
I don't get it.
You can't out-exercise the over-consumption of calories. This is a point people were making earlier in the thread and they got told they were ignoring the CO part of the equation. What the what now? If you keep eating more than you're burning, what's going to happen?
It's always down to eating less than you burn.
Exercise is great. I do an awful lot of it because it helps me keep my energy levels up and manages my pain levels with some medical conditions I have ... the more I do, the better I feel. Yay me. But I still watch my calories like a hawk.
I'm not going to be swallowing Coke's message any time soon.
Agree! It's true most ppl don't exercise enough. But most of the problem is calories in. I am at 160 calories burnt after going for a 40 minute walk. I can't imagine how much I would need to move to burn off a big gulp
https://theconversation.com/big-sodas-tactics-to-confuse-science-and-protect-their-profits-45907
I just did a 53 minute walk and burned 401 calories. Earlier today I did 3 miles on my kayak and burned 428 calories. I also have a 68 calorie adjustment from steps on my activity tracker. So I have 897 exercise calories so far today. If you add them to my goal calories of 1580 that is 2477 calories, and the 500 and some odd calories that MFP minuses to lose 1 lb. per are already taken out. I have had breakfast and lunch which totals 919 calories, so I still have 1558 calories to eat. I will probably eat anywhere from 500 to 800 calories for dinner and a snack, so I will end up with 800 to 1,000 calories left over today.
How fast a pace do you walk?
That seems like a big difference in calories for only 13 minutes difference in time.
Bodyweight makes a big difference in calories burned from walking.
Of course, lots of walking estimates grossly overstate calories burned.
For me, 897 calories would be running about 9.5-10 miles, except even that counts the calories I would have burned anyway. To get a true 897 additional calories it would have to be even more. I don't count adjustments from steps other than in my daily overall activity.
Also, I exercise quite a lot, and at 2477 calories I'd be gaining weight.
I wear my heart rate monitor when I exercise, and because I am so old and out of shape, I get in the 70 to 80 percent cardio zone quite easily. my activity tracker must take that into account when it calculates my calories burned, because it's always a little lower when I don't wear it.
I don't believe HRM are accurate for walking calories.
For net walking calories (in other words, calories above what you would burn anyway, which is one problem with most HRM estimates) a good formula is .3 x weight x miles.
For me (assuming 4mph for an hour) that's .3 x 125 x 4 or 150 calories.
I don't know all that formula stuff, but what I do know is that I log my workouts, my fitness tracker calculates the calories burned, I log my food, MFP calculates that part and deducts whatever it takes to lose 1 lb. per week (my setting), and I have been losing about a lb. per week for going on 8 months now. I think if my activity tracker was miscalculating that much, I would have gained a lot of weight by now instead of losing 36 lbs.
Don't think I can agree with you on this one. Sorry.
You are the one who claimed to have 800 to 1000 calories left over today. If you regularly seem to have lots of calories left over and yet are losing the 1 lb/week predicted, well, that's the overestimate.
It could be that you aren't overestimating, though, because you are down at sedentary (with a 15-something goal for a one lb loss for a man, I assume you are) and yet are not actually sedentary (most are not).
When I started MFP said I'd lose 1.8 lb/week at 1200 and instead I lost 2-2.5 lb/week at 1250, because I was down as sedentary and was really at least lightly active and because I left exercise calories on the table often (did not trust the counts).
It is my experience that as one gets closer to goal it's harder to do that, in part because the calories one burns from the same amount of exercise are less (although outside of walking it's generally easier to exercise).
If I have to run about 12 miles to burn 1000 extra calories, though, probably best not to count on daily burning 1000 extra calories. That doesn't mean exercise is unimportant, but this idea that one can always just burn off whatever calories one eats is simply false. You have to take into account what is actually feasible in a person's life. I exercise a lot because I enjoy it and am training for stuff, but even so of course I must watch what I eat (and I could probably lose easier if I exercised less and ate less).
Anyway FOR ME (not anyone else in particular) both exercise and watching my diet are very important and doing both makes both easier. However, IMO a third factor is the real underestimated one much of the time--getting general activity level up beyond intentional exercise, such as by walking more on a daily basis.0 -
bcalvanese wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
Now, if they could go back to putting cocaine in it, they might have a weight loss formula.Pinnacle_IAO wrote: »
Are you doubting the intentions of The Coca Cola Company?christinev297 wrote: »I'd take any studies funded by coca cola with a big heaping of scepticism...
All they're trying to do is help humanity just as they have always done in the tireless and selfless effort to make our world a better place.
In other news...the moon is made of Swiss cheese...
What makes this even funnier is that I remember those days.
Damn I'm old...
Coca-cola stopped using cocaine in their formula in 1903.
It's fascinating that you remember those days so well.
Wow coke really must have some magical ingredients
0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.7K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 395 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 959 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions