Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
Beyond a calorie deficit - exercise is good for weight loss?
Replies
-
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »Nikki10129 wrote: »Just a couple of comments on your post:
600 calories daily can be attributed to exercise? What kind of exercise are you doing to burn 600 calories? I do a hardcore kickboxing class for 90 minutes and I'm not burning 600 calories doing that, even though I exercise regularly the rest of the week.
I don't think 600 calories per day is outlandish...I do that pretty easily on my bike on an average ride.
As to the OP, regular exercise can certainly make weight loss easier in that you obviously increase your energy expenditure and I agree that when done properly with a proper diet it can other positive effects on metabolism (though I think focusing on that aspect is kind of majoring in the minors)...but I think it can also be a detriment in that a lot of people create fairly large deficits with diet alone and then go do a bunch of exercise but don't adequately fuel that activity...this is actually a detriment to preservation of lean mass. It can also be a huge stress on the body and raise cortisol levels.
I tend to encourage people to focus on diet for weight management and exercise for fitness and to more or less disassociate the two...in my experience, when people can start looking at fitness for the sake of fitness, they better understand why they would want to fuel that fitness...there are just way too many people crashing their diets and then doing incessant amounts of exercise without knowing or understanding what they're actually doing to themselves.
I think this touches on exactly some critical points. And perhaps metabolic changes due to exercise is majoring in the minors, agree.
We do see people that throw themselves into exercise and large deficits without proper additional calories and the end results then becomes a net deficit that is too large and LBM suffers.
I hadn't touched on stress and cortisol - I think that, along with the related inflammation response is also an important topic. When we talk about taking time to recover and having time off - well, it is probably a long subject by itself.
I'd say beyond cortisol, several neurotransmitters are going to be involved. I believe epinephrine, norepinephrine, and dopamine would all have increase with strength training to facilitate signalling. These are all also involved to some extent in appetite and satiety.
I'm sure with a simplified rat study I could show pictures of brains that prove exercise can replace eating according to some of MFP poster standards.
If you're so smart why CAN'T exercise replace eating? Sometimes I exercise and then I'm not hungry! Let's see your science explain THAT!
/sarcasm
I do need to eventually look into the research about exercise affecting appetite. There seems to be some evidence that variations on a particular gene or genes affects how exercise impacts appetite.
It is probably a bit interesting. I feel like eating everything on the entire planet after a half marathon, but after the first full that I ran I was just not hungry.
I hadn't considered that it was genetic.
I don't recall the first full much (although I know we walked forever and got Chinese after), but I just did a full today and wasn't hungry for a couple of hours and then was ravenous. Got chicken and waffles for a late brunch and it was the best thing ever! I'm similarly not hungry for an hour after a half or tri but then able to eat lots. (I'm always starving after swimming.)
Hey! Congrats!
I haven't had the same experience after the subsequent ones or the 50k, to be honest. I just remember thinking it was so strange based on the experiences that I'd had after half marathons.
The next day? We ate everything.
Thanks!
That makes sense. I wasn't hungry after my 20 mile training run, but ate everything the next day. It's weird how it affects you.
That fits the evolutionary context - normally anything that would have you moving for 20 sustained miles would mean you're probably best not distracted by appetite - in the case of running from something, you don't have time to eat, and in the case of running after something, you're probably chasing because you have nothing to eat. During that time, the continued release of norepinephrine from the activity should blunt the cortisol build up's effect on appetite that is also going on. Once you slow down, the normal way to get cortisol back to normal will be to eat.
Expect for a few things ... the part that most people that run 20 or more will need to eat something along the way to avoid bonking.
... and the part where one gets maximal glycogen replenishment when eating within 30 minutes of exercise.
I think one of the issues with justifying things with an after the fact evo context is that we can probably think up contexts that are justify any behaviour. I could suggest that a runner has a greater chance of evo survival if he or she is eating berries along the way and this is why bonking evolved. Or how about "seeing hallucinations" in exercise induced hypoglycaemia - in evolutions way of keeping you going? I'm not saying your point above is actually wrong - just that a lot of what passes for evolutionary context isn't, it's post-fact justification, where many physiological processes aren't driven necessarily from evolutionary selective survival but as rate limits to physiology and biochemistry. And ok, I'll then go ahead and contradict myself, which in turn are driven by evolutionary context (but often which we can't see clearly).
Not sure what maximal glycogen replenishment has to do with it. The average untrained individual has about 15 miles in them before bonking according to Wikipedia, and twice that for a trained individual. How common would people that grew up as cursorial hunters not be of the trained variety?
And the evolution just explains why it would make sense - that hormone profiles are known. There's always the possibility of just so story telling in evolution as we aren't there to see it. It is a known limitation, and as such, the best explanation that fits the evidence best has precedence until or unless something better can fit the information. In this case, we do know the hormones there that suppress appetite and that they continue while physical activity continues to engage the sympathetic nervous system, that glucocorticoids rise with the sympathetic system engaged, that glucocorticoids raise appetite while present alone, but not while epinephrine is still active from the sympathetic nervous system.
We do know that humans do have a unique capacity for curorsial style hunting, and that having the hands free helped in that regard - the capacity to carry water being considered the greater relief of limitations, but the ability to carry food might help in that regard too.
The difference with hallucination is - there isn't evidence that hallucinating helps a person prolong their activity, but I'm sure we can agree without performing an experiment that hunger pangs would be a distraction and overall result in lower performance for an animal engaged in physical activity relevant to survival? Now if we did have an experiment that showed humans or animals that had a stronger hallucination effect resulted in greater performance or survival, we would need to hypothesize a mechanism for how that helps, and the best just so story has prima facie until other evidence contradicts it.0 -
DancingDarl wrote: »Anything past 30 minutes is just a waste of time. Unless your doing it for reasons other than health.
So my heart doesn't benefit from 2 hours of endurance training when I run? Bull.1 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »DancingDarl wrote: »Anything past 30 minutes is just a waste of time. Unless your doing it for reasons other than health.
So a weight lifting session more than 30 minutes is a waste of time?
Nonsense.
I believe this is being driven by the study the University of Copenhagen published in 2012 as it relates to weight loss and exercise. And it's not exactly what DancingDarl suggested. There was no difference in weight loss between the moderate exercise (30 minutes) group and the high exercise (60 minutes) group in terms of weight loss. Below is the documented study.
University of Copenhagen Study
0 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »Nikki10129 wrote: »Just a couple of comments on your post:
600 calories daily can be attributed to exercise? What kind of exercise are you doing to burn 600 calories? I do a hardcore kickboxing class for 90 minutes and I'm not burning 600 calories doing that, even though I exercise regularly the rest of the week.
I don't think 600 calories per day is outlandish...I do that pretty easily on my bike on an average ride.
As to the OP, regular exercise can certainly make weight loss easier in that you obviously increase your energy expenditure and I agree that when done properly with a proper diet it can other positive effects on metabolism (though I think focusing on that aspect is kind of majoring in the minors)...but I think it can also be a detriment in that a lot of people create fairly large deficits with diet alone and then go do a bunch of exercise but don't adequately fuel that activity...this is actually a detriment to preservation of lean mass. It can also be a huge stress on the body and raise cortisol levels.
I tend to encourage people to focus on diet for weight management and exercise for fitness and to more or less disassociate the two...in my experience, when people can start looking at fitness for the sake of fitness, they better understand why they would want to fuel that fitness...there are just way too many people crashing their diets and then doing incessant amounts of exercise without knowing or understanding what they're actually doing to themselves.
I think this touches on exactly some critical points. And perhaps metabolic changes due to exercise is majoring in the minors, agree.
We do see people that throw themselves into exercise and large deficits without proper additional calories and the end results then becomes a net deficit that is too large and LBM suffers.
I hadn't touched on stress and cortisol - I think that, along with the related inflammation response is also an important topic. When we talk about taking time to recover and having time off - well, it is probably a long subject by itself.
I'd say beyond cortisol, several neurotransmitters are going to be involved. I believe epinephrine, norepinephrine, and dopamine would all have increase with strength training to facilitate signalling. These are all also involved to some extent in appetite and satiety.
I'm sure with a simplified rat study I could show pictures of brains that prove exercise can replace eating according to some of MFP poster standards.
If you're so smart why CAN'T exercise replace eating? Sometimes I exercise and then I'm not hungry! Let's see your science explain THAT!
/sarcasm
I do need to eventually look into the research about exercise affecting appetite. There seems to be some evidence that variations on a particular gene or genes affects how exercise impacts appetite.
It is probably a bit interesting. I feel like eating everything on the entire planet after a half marathon, but after the first full that I ran I was just not hungry.
I hadn't considered that it was genetic.
I don't recall the first full much (although I know we walked forever and got Chinese after), but I just did a full today and wasn't hungry for a couple of hours and then was ravenous. Got chicken and waffles for a late brunch and it was the best thing ever! I'm similarly not hungry for an hour after a half or tri but then able to eat lots. (I'm always starving after swimming.)
Hey! Congrats!
I haven't had the same experience after the subsequent ones or the 50k, to be honest. I just remember thinking it was so strange based on the experiences that I'd had after half marathons.
The next day? We ate everything.
Thanks!
That makes sense. I wasn't hungry after my 20 mile training run, but ate everything the next day. It's weird how it affects you.
That fits the evolutionary context - normally anything that would have you moving for 20 sustained miles would mean you're probably best not distracted by appetite - in the case of running from something, you don't have time to eat, and in the case of running after something, you're probably chasing because you have nothing to eat. During that time, the continued release of norepinephrine from the activity should blunt the cortisol build up's effect on appetite that is also going on. Once you slow down, the normal way to get cortisol back to normal will be to eat.
Expect for a few things ... the part that most people that run 20 or more will need to eat something along the way to avoid bonking.
... and the part where one gets maximal glycogen replenishment when eating within 30 minutes of exercise.
I think one of the issues with justifying things with an after the fact evo context is that we can probably think up contexts that are justify any behaviour. I could suggest that a runner has a greater chance of evo survival if he or she is eating berries along the way and this is why bonking evolved. Or how about "seeing hallucinations" in exercise induced hypoglycaemia - in evolutions way of keeping you going? I'm not saying your point above is actually wrong - just that a lot of what passes for evolutionary context isn't, it's post-fact justification, where many physiological processes aren't driven necessarily from evolutionary selective survival but as rate limits to physiology and biochemistry. And ok, I'll then go ahead and contradict myself, which in turn are driven by evolutionary context (but often which we can't see clearly).
To use me as an example some more, the 20 mile run was my experiment in fueling, and I had a gel at 5, 10, and 15. No problems and they seemed to help. For the marathon it was hotter than I am used to, so I had some gaterade early on and delayed the gels to 8 miles. Felt a bit questionable in the stomach due to the gaterade, so limited it, but had some, plus two gels.
Take a look at this - http://www.runnersworld.com/nutrition-for-runners/the-science-behind-bonking
The last paragraph has me thinking. Not sure I can sip every 10 minutes ... but thinking about it.
Interesting, thanks!0 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »So when recommending that people focus on calorie deficits also remember that activity and exercise also have a multi-factorial positive effect that shouldn't be forgotten.
Exercise is great and is helpful for overall health and even makes CO more efficient. However, for weight loss, it's essentially a separate issue. You can't outrun a calorie surplus. Exercise calories should be eaten back so that the exercise isn't causing extra weight loss because the exercise needs to be fueled.
When people who are trying to lose weight ask about what exercises they should do so that they can lose weight, it makes sense that they are pointed toward CICO and counting calories because that's where weight loss is found. They aren't inquiring about fitness, they are inquiring about weight loss.
ETA: I just saw your diagram. That's essentially what I'm saying about weight loss and exercise being mostly separate topics.
Except evidence from the National Weight Control Registry suggests only around 10% of people maintaining a weight loss do so without exercise. You can't outrun a bad diet, but it is pretty hard to eat a good, maintainable diet inside the calorie window a completely sedentary lifestyle provides.
Hill of the NWCR sees it as a range where calories needed and calories desired are close enough to work.
This exactly! Technically I could lose weight without exercise. In reality, I probably would lose some but not get to goal and not maintain the loss. Without exercise I couldn't eat enough to be happy or feel satisfied.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »So when recommending that people focus on calorie deficits also remember that activity and exercise also have a multi-factorial positive effect that shouldn't be forgotten.
Exercise is great and is helpful for overall health and even makes CO more efficient. However, for weight loss, it's essentially a separate issue. You can't outrun a calorie surplus. Exercise calories should be eaten back so that the exercise isn't causing extra weight loss because the exercise needs to be fueled.
When people who are trying to lose weight ask about what exercises they should do so that they can lose weight, it makes sense that they are pointed toward CICO and counting calories because that's where weight loss is found. They aren't inquiring about fitness, they are inquiring about weight loss.
ETA: I just saw your diagram. That's essentially what I'm saying about weight loss and exercise being mostly separate topics.
Except evidence from the National Weight Control Registry suggests only around 10% of people maintaining a weight loss do so without exercise. You can't outrun a bad diet, but it is pretty hard to eat a good, maintainable diet inside the calorie window a completely sedentary lifestyle provides.
Hill of the NWCR sees it as a range where calories needed and calories desired are close enough to work.
This exactly! Technically I could lose weight without exercise. In reality, I probably would lose some but not get to goal and not maintain the loss. Without exercise I couldn't eat enough to be happy or feel satisfied.
I don't know anyone that will argue that exercise helps weight loss. But it's not necessary. And for someone like me, that was the biggest issue I had before with losing weight. I had to add in all this exercise that I didn't like, made my feel awful, kicked off asthma attacks, and in general made my life miserable. So why do it? I started my weight loss just watching my calorie intake, and that worked for me. Almost every pound I lost was doen without exercise. Now that I'm getting my asthma under control, when I can get out and walk, I do so and that's extra calories for me (which, i honestly have trouble eating back...i end up drinking a soda or having ice cream to make up for it). Exercise is good for you and something you should add in, but it's not a key to weight loss.
I guess my point is that if you can add exercise, even just a mild walk, do so. If nothing else, it will help your heart and lungs. But if exercise is the reason you keep failing to lose weight, maybe try without it first and get your calorie intake under control.2 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »So when recommending that people focus on calorie deficits also remember that activity and exercise also have a multi-factorial positive effect that shouldn't be forgotten.
Exercise is great and is helpful for overall health and even makes CO more efficient. However, for weight loss, it's essentially a separate issue. You can't outrun a calorie surplus. Exercise calories should be eaten back so that the exercise isn't causing extra weight loss because the exercise needs to be fueled.
When people who are trying to lose weight ask about what exercises they should do so that they can lose weight, it makes sense that they are pointed toward CICO and counting calories because that's where weight loss is found. They aren't inquiring about fitness, they are inquiring about weight loss.
ETA: I just saw your diagram. That's essentially what I'm saying about weight loss and exercise being mostly separate topics.
Except evidence from the National Weight Control Registry suggests only around 10% of people maintaining a weight loss do so without exercise. You can't outrun a bad diet, but it is pretty hard to eat a good, maintainable diet inside the calorie window a completely sedentary lifestyle provides.
Hill of the NWCR sees it as a range where calories needed and calories desired are close enough to work.
This exactly! Technically I could lose weight without exercise. In reality, I probably would lose some but not get to goal and not maintain the loss. Without exercise I couldn't eat enough to be happy or feel satisfied.
I don't know anyone that will argue that exercise helps weight loss. But it's not necessary. And for someone like me, that was the biggest issue I had before with losing weight. I had to add in all this exercise that I didn't like, made my feel awful, kicked off asthma attacks, and in general made my life miserable. So why do it? I started my weight loss just watching my calorie intake, and that worked for me. Almost every pound I lost was doen without exercise. Now that I'm getting my asthma under control, when I can get out and walk, I do so and that's extra calories for me (which, i honestly have trouble eating back...i end up drinking a soda or having ice cream to make up for it). Exercise is good for you and something you should add in, but it's not a key to weight loss.
I guess my point is that if you can add exercise, even just a mild walk, do so. If nothing else, it will help your heart and lungs. But if exercise is the reason you keep failing to lose weight, maybe try without it first and get your calorie intake under control.
True, and again, I think this applies differently to everyone. I think people should be more active to improve their health, but beyond the commonly recommended amount (I've seen 30 minutes 3-5 times per week), I think it's essentially personal preference.
I do a lot of cardio because without it my weight loss stalls; it's not that I HAVE to exercise, but I have problems eating smaller quantities of food, so I do enough cardio to bring my calorie goal up to a manageable level to fit with my satiety.0 -
DancingDarl wrote: »Anything past 30 minutes is just a waste of time. Unless your doing it for reasons other than health.
30 minutes per day X 5 is essentially the minimum for general health and well being...that doesn't mean you don't benefit from doing more. You do reach a point of diminishing returns, but that point isn't the 30 minute mark.1 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »DancingDarl wrote: »Anything past 30 minutes is just a waste of time. Unless your doing it for reasons other than health.
30 minutes per day X 5 is essentially the minimum for general health and well being...that doesn't mean you don't benefit from doing more. You do reach a point of diminishing returns, but that point isn't the 30 minute mark.
If you're someone that can't do that much starting out, it's meaningless. Better to start slow and build a foundation, as long as you do build on that foundation.0 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »DancingDarl wrote: »Anything past 30 minutes is just a waste of time. Unless your doing it for reasons other than health.
30 minutes per day X 5 is essentially the minimum for general health and well being...that doesn't mean you don't benefit from doing more. You do reach a point of diminishing returns, but that point isn't the 30 minute mark.
If you're someone that can't do that much starting out, it's meaningless. Better to start slow and build a foundation, as long as you do build on that foundation.
True, everyone starts somewhere, and anything is better than nothing. But I would think most people should strive to eventually make it to the 30x5 (or beyond depending on their health and capabilities). And of course everyone should discuss this with their doctor.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »So when recommending that people focus on calorie deficits also remember that activity and exercise also have a multi-factorial positive effect that shouldn't be forgotten.
Exercise is great and is helpful for overall health and even makes CO more efficient. However, for weight loss, it's essentially a separate issue. You can't outrun a calorie surplus. Exercise calories should be eaten back so that the exercise isn't causing extra weight loss because the exercise needs to be fueled.
When people who are trying to lose weight ask about what exercises they should do so that they can lose weight, it makes sense that they are pointed toward CICO and counting calories because that's where weight loss is found. They aren't inquiring about fitness, they are inquiring about weight loss.
ETA: I just saw your diagram. That's essentially what I'm saying about weight loss and exercise being mostly separate topics.
Except evidence from the National Weight Control Registry suggests only around 10% of people maintaining a weight loss do so without exercise. You can't outrun a bad diet, but it is pretty hard to eat a good, maintainable diet inside the calorie window a completely sedentary lifestyle provides.
Hill of the NWCR sees it as a range where calories needed and calories desired are close enough to work.
This exactly! Technically I could lose weight without exercise. In reality, I probably would lose some but not get to goal and not maintain the loss. Without exercise I couldn't eat enough to be happy or feel satisfied.
I don't know anyone that will argue that exercise helps weight loss. But it's not necessary. And for someone like me, that was the biggest issue I had before with losing weight. I had to add in all this exercise that I didn't like, made my feel awful, kicked off asthma attacks, and in general made my life miserable. So why do it? I started my weight loss just watching my calorie intake, and that worked for me. Almost every pound I lost was doen without exercise. Now that I'm getting my asthma under control, when I can get out and walk, I do so and that's extra calories for me (which, i honestly have trouble eating back...i end up drinking a soda or having ice cream to make up for it). Exercise is good for you and something you should add in, but it's not a key to weight loss.
I guess my point is that if you can add exercise, even just a mild walk, do so. If nothing else, it will help your heart and lungs. But if exercise is the reason you keep failing to lose weight, maybe try without it first and get your calorie intake under control.
True, and again, I think this applies differently to everyone. I think people should be more active to improve their health, but beyond the commonly recommended amount (I've seen 30 minutes 3-5 times per week), I think it's essentially personal preference.
I do a lot of cardio because without it my weight loss stalls; it's not that I HAVE to exercise, but I have problems eating smaller quantities of food, so I do enough cardio to bring my calorie goal up to a manageable level to fit with my satiety.
This is my experience as well. To say it's not necessary is just to say it's not technically or physically necessary. Which is not the same as saying you will be successful without it, only that you could be. For me I wouldn't. I simply would not continue to eat little enough to lose and maintain without exercise.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »Nikki10129 wrote: »Just a couple of comments on your post:
600 calories daily can be attributed to exercise? What kind of exercise are you doing to burn 600 calories? I do a hardcore kickboxing class for 90 minutes and I'm not burning 600 calories doing that, even though I exercise regularly the rest of the week.
I don't think 600 calories per day is outlandish...I do that pretty easily on my bike on an average ride.
As to the OP, regular exercise can certainly make weight loss easier in that you obviously increase your energy expenditure and I agree that when done properly with a proper diet it can other positive effects on metabolism (though I think focusing on that aspect is kind of majoring in the minors)...but I think it can also be a detriment in that a lot of people create fairly large deficits with diet alone and then go do a bunch of exercise but don't adequately fuel that activity...this is actually a detriment to preservation of lean mass. It can also be a huge stress on the body and raise cortisol levels.
I tend to encourage people to focus on diet for weight management and exercise for fitness and to more or less disassociate the two...in my experience, when people can start looking at fitness for the sake of fitness, they better understand why they would want to fuel that fitness...there are just way too many people crashing their diets and then doing incessant amounts of exercise without knowing or understanding what they're actually doing to themselves.
I think this touches on exactly some critical points. And perhaps metabolic changes due to exercise is majoring in the minors, agree.
We do see people that throw themselves into exercise and large deficits without proper additional calories and the end results then becomes a net deficit that is too large and LBM suffers.
I hadn't touched on stress and cortisol - I think that, along with the related inflammation response is also an important topic. When we talk about taking time to recover and having time off - well, it is probably a long subject by itself.
I'd say beyond cortisol, several neurotransmitters are going to be involved. I believe epinephrine, norepinephrine, and dopamine would all have increase with strength training to facilitate signalling. These are all also involved to some extent in appetite and satiety.
I'm sure with a simplified rat study I could show pictures of brains that prove exercise can replace eating according to some of MFP poster standards.
If you're so smart why CAN'T exercise replace eating? Sometimes I exercise and then I'm not hungry! Let's see your science explain THAT!
/sarcasm
I do need to eventually look into the research about exercise affecting appetite. There seems to be some evidence that variations on a particular gene or genes affects how exercise impacts appetite.
It is probably a bit interesting. I feel like eating everything on the entire planet after a half marathon, but after the first full that I ran I was just not hungry.
I hadn't considered that it was genetic.
I don't recall the first full much (although I know we walked forever and got Chinese after), but I just did a full today and wasn't hungry for a couple of hours and then was ravenous. Got chicken and waffles for a late brunch and it was the best thing ever! I'm similarly not hungry for an hour after a half or tri but then able to eat lots. (I'm always starving after swimming.)
Hey! Congrats!
I haven't had the same experience after the subsequent ones or the 50k, to be honest. I just remember thinking it was so strange based on the experiences that I'd had after half marathons.
The next day? We ate everything.
Thanks!
That makes sense. I wasn't hungry after my 20 mile training run, but ate everything the next day. It's weird how it affects you.
Same here. When I was training for my half...I rarely had increased hunger on my long run days, but the next day I would be feel like I needed to eat ALL THE THINGS. I ended up planning that in....only eating about half of my exercise burn the day of the long run and banking the other half for the next day.
Exercise has often turned off my hunger. It's always been like that for me. However, I know I need to fuel my body if I want to perform, so I make sure I get enough in the tank to keep the engine going, etc.
I wish this were me for the half distance! I eat ALL THE THINGS after that. It mostly happens occasionally at the 15+ mile distance and not after race day except for that very first full.0 -
My question to anyone wishing to lose weight is why do you want to lose weight? Most often the answer is one of two things; to look better or to be healthier; or it is both of these. Now, whilst it is entirely possible to lose weight without exercise, merely by restricting calorie intake, why would you want to do this if your goal is to look better and/or be healthier? Improving health and aesthetics is about a lifestyle change and incorporating some exercise should be part of that for many reasons. Exercise is good for our hearts, heads and body shape! Anyone can incorporate exercise if they want to - it doesn't have to be a marathon or a gym class or lifting heavy, it can be walking, taking the stairs, going dancing or playing a group sport. If your primary aim is just to look better then exercise will help preserve muscle mass, reduce saggy skin and offer you a better body shape as you lose weight through eating at a deficit. If your primary aim is health and fitness then exercise is key to living a healthier lifestyle and will have a bigger impact than simply cutting calories. It is important of course to still be vigilant about calories in and to ensure that whilst you fuel your body for exercise, you don't overcompensate and eat too many calories. On another note, I think it is imperative that we also think about what we are putting in our mouths! It's all well and good to go for a run to gain the required calories to have a burger but did you also get healthy food into your day with your originally allotted calories? I personally couldn't lose weight without exercise, of course technically I could but I like food and I'd be miserable on 1200calories per day! I'd also be miserable if I didn't exercise because of the mental benefits of exercise. Damn I get agitated if I go away for a weekend and miss my usual gym sessions!
I'm totally blathering now but my point is, we are what we eat so quality is important as well as quantity and why would you want to lose weight without exercise when exercise can not only help you with your goals but has so many added benefits?!1 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »DancingDarl wrote: »Anything past 30 minutes is just a waste of time. Unless your doing it for reasons other than health.
30 minutes per day X 5 is essentially the minimum for general health and well being...that doesn't mean you don't benefit from doing more. You do reach a point of diminishing returns, but that point isn't the 30 minute mark.
If you're someone that can't do that much starting out, it's meaningless. Better to start slow and build a foundation, as long as you do build on that foundation.
True, everyone starts somewhere, and anything is better than nothing. But I would think most people should strive to eventually make it to the 30x5 (or beyond depending on their health and capabilities). And of course everyone should discuss this with their doctor.
Honestly? I don't. I hate exercise. I've yet to find a form of exercise that I enjoy doing. My walking at this moment is 1-2 times a week when I can fit it in, and the only reason I still walk is the Zombies Run app.0 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »DancingDarl wrote: »Anything past 30 minutes is just a waste of time. Unless your doing it for reasons other than health.
30 minutes per day X 5 is essentially the minimum for general health and well being...that doesn't mean you don't benefit from doing more. You do reach a point of diminishing returns, but that point isn't the 30 minute mark.
And more importantly, we have to determine what is being measured. The study i posted earlier essentially showed weight loss wasnt greater after 30 minutes (as compared to 60 minutes). But that doesnt mean they didnt get stronger or increased cardiovascular endurance.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
DancingDarl wrote: »Anything past 30 minutes is just a waste of time. Unless your doing it for reasons other than health.
So my heart doesn't benefit from 2 hours of endurance training when I run? Bull.
More "science".0 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »DancingDarl wrote: »Anything past 30 minutes is just a waste of time. Unless your doing it for reasons other than health.
30 minutes per day X 5 is essentially the minimum for general health and well being...that doesn't mean you don't benefit from doing more. You do reach a point of diminishing returns, but that point isn't the 30 minute mark.
If you're someone that can't do that much starting out, it's meaningless. Better to start slow and build a foundation, as long as you do build on that foundation.
I was addressing the "anything past 30 minutes is a waste of time" comment/perspective. Of course one would want to start slow and with what they were capable of...but I'm assuming the poster I was addressing is simply looking at the whole 30 minutes 5x per week recommendation and extrapolating from there that anything beyond that is a waste of time...which from a fitness perspective is bull.0 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »DancingDarl wrote: »Anything past 30 minutes is just a waste of time. Unless your doing it for reasons other than health.
30 minutes per day X 5 is essentially the minimum for general health and well being...that doesn't mean you don't benefit from doing more. You do reach a point of diminishing returns, but that point isn't the 30 minute mark.
I think this really is arguing two completely different things. While I would advocate for people striving to be active to the level you mentioned or beyond for health reasons....I also recognize that everyone starts at a different place and that anything is better than nothing and that weight loss does not have to include exercise to find success.
However that doesn't support the notion of the poster you were responding to who said and seem to believe that any activity over 30 minutes is pointless. That just makes no sense to me.
I'm getting the 30 minutes per day X 5 from the AHA's minimum recommendation for general wellness and heart health...I'm not saying everyone has to start there...I was simply addressing the notion that more than 30 minutes is a waste...when 30 minutes is really the minimum recommendation that people should be working towards, not the maximum...30 minutes certainly isn't getting you even close to the point of diminishing returns.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
Nikki10129 wrote: »Just a couple of comments on your post:
600 calories daily can be attributed to exercise? What kind of exercise are you doing to burn 600 calories? I do a hardcore kickboxing class for 90 minutes and I'm not burning 600 calories doing that, even though I exercise regularly the rest of the week.
Also the comment on building/maintaining LBM while exercising isn't 100% true. That's going to depend on the exercises you do. You aren't going to be building muscle while eating at a deficit anyways, except for potentially a little bit at the beginning of a resistance program, and the idea that any form of exercise is going to maintain LBM more than doing no exercise isn't correct. If you're going to be doing a lot of steady state cardio exercises with no resistance training incorporated in (which is something a lot of people do) then you'll probably start losing more muscle than if you decided to just eat at a deficit. Muscle is a lot easier for the body to metabolize than fat, so it's the first thing the body is going to go for when working out if it's not regularly using those muscles.
I don't argue that I agree exercise is good for overall fitness, but I honestly don't think it helps with weight loss that much. I'm exercising 4-5 times a week, and it isn't speeding up my weight loss because I'm eating in a similar deficit as I would be if I weren't exercising.
I personally don't exercise for weight loss, I exercise for performance in my sport, and for the positive mental benefits it gives me. If I were exercising for weight loss I wouldn't be motivated to exercise because it really isn't helping with that.
I burned 582 in a cardio kickboxing class lasting an hour last night. Then lifted weights, then swam. I burned much more than 600, even if my fancy HRM was off...
I burn over 500 each time I go to that class.
0 -
Nikki10129 wrote: »
Really? You must be really light in weight then, because 600 calories in 90 minutes isn't that hard for someone in the 150lbs range to do if that's the duration.Nikki10129 wrote: »I do a hardcore kickboxing class for 90 minutes and I'm not burning 600 calories doing that, even though I exercise regularly the rest of the week.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
I'm 5' female, 130 lbs so that may be it. Sometimes it takes me by surprise when I see the amount of calories people are eating and losing on, so I suppose it shouldn't surprise me that people are burning more than me with their exercise. I could also just be underestimating, which is entirely possible.
Edit: I do concede that point, since I often forget that I have a bias due to my height and weight being outside the average range.
Nikki, I am taller but close to your weight, and can easily burn over 600 extra kcal a day with a run in the morning and yoga class in the evening, adding up to not much more than your 90 minutes, and gentler pace than kickboxing. I agree you may be underestimating the effect of the exercise you do?
0 -
Great post!
I adore these comments though, in a rather guilty way.0 -
Moderate exercise (hiking and cycling) reduces my appetite. Very intense exercise does the opposite, makes me ravenously hungry. I do bike hill repeats once a week and the following day I just can't get enough to eat.
In my case exercise has made weight loss much easier. I can eat a bit more than I could without exercising, enough to feel satisfied. That's a big deal. I also tend to crave better foods, stuff with more nutrients which also happens to be more filling.
Last fall I got hit by a car while cycling and took three months to recover. I still lost weight though that period but it was a constant challenge. It's much less of a struggle when I can spend my lunch hour walking and go for a nice, scenic ride around the lake after work.1 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »I have not read anyone saying that it's bad to exercise when you are losing weight. Exercise has health benefits whether you are trying to lose weight or not.
Weight loss can be 100% diet. I've lost 80 pounds in a year with no exercise. I burn fewer calories than the "sedentary" setting but that just means that I lose a little more slowly.
If someone had told me that I had to include exercise to lose weight, that might have scared me off from even trying.
Exercise isn't a requirement for weight loss. It's nice, but not a requirement.
So a sendetary level does play a role. ok.
If one prefers to lose in a way that is slower yet possibly a better fit to a personal lifestyle preference, why not? No exercise - fine. But at least one can understand how exercise has a physiological and mental effect.
Beyond the health benefits and creating calorie burns - does exercise also positively impacts weight loss?
I thought that was something worth discussing.
I find mentally that exercise reinforces my commitment to maintaining control on my caloric intake, and maintaining control on my caloric intake and nutrient macros reinforces my commitment to getting exercise. I found in the past that the benefits of the synergy between the two boost me more than the scale results alone would if I was only losing weight via diet. If I didn't lose my goal weight for the week,boo, but hey my squats/deads and bench are up 15lbs and my clothes are fitting in all the right place, yay!
For myself, in the past when I have stopped doing one, the other soon follows and I have gained back weight.
1 -
I think exercise is crucial to sustainable weight loss.0
-
Its 80/20.
You build a house by putting up the walls. The foundation. Wiring it. But what good is a house without a roof?1 -
The more exercise I do, the more I crave healthy foods and the less chips I want.2
-
I've found this entire discussion really interesting. When I first started trying to lose weight, I only increased my activity. I walked on my two fifteen minute breaks and I walked the last twenty minutes of my lunch break. 50 extra minutes of activity a day and I lost 20 pounds. Now, I have no doubt that the result of my exercise was that I burned more calories to the point where my calories in was lower than my calories out. However, I didn't track my calories at that point. I just increased my activity level.
The current half of my weight loss experience has been accomplished by lowering my calorie intake to a better level. That's what got me off my plateau and helped me get off ten more pounds. Now, I'm tracking my calories even more closely - actually counting them - and since I joined MFP, I've lost another three pounds.
I know that I'm probably not typical, but for me... exercise was where I focused first when I set out to lose weight. Just the thought of counting calories was intimidating for me. Where I am now, I realize I need to keep track of both sides of things (my activity and my diet), if I want to be healthy. Personally, it was easier for me to focus on exercise first, though. That's the best thing about this whole experience: it shows me that, just like with so many other things, there is no "wrong" way. There's the way that works best for each person.5
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions