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?
Options
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 -
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
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K 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
- 389 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
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 919 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions