Lose weight from exercising Alone
Options
Replies
-
Strawman argument. Why would simply being female mean someone is restricted to a granny bike and cycling idly?
Even if the OP halved my calories they would still be losing half a pound in winter and a lot more in summer.
There's plenty of women who can, and do, burn far more calories than me as I'm determined but in no way exceptional in terms of power or distance cycled.
I'm 56, work full time for my client (seated at a desk), have to commute to work, run my own company at well, have injury restrictions and still fit in exercise because I enjoy it. How's that for an alternative strawman?
I didn't say a woman will use a granny bike. I said most women have less muscles, are smaller than you and might potentially be lighter, hence a lower calorie burn for the same exercise at the same speed.
But still in a deficit - that is the point, not the size of the deficit.
....was the actual question not "can I lose weight quickly" or "can I lose as quick as a middle aged man"!Will I lose weight?
True, but your comment made it sound like it's easy to burn 3500kcal per week. For most people this is very difficult. Yes, it's possible but it will need a lot of dedication and energy to achieve this, especially if you're a woman.
Maybe it's difficult for you if you're too heavy or lazy or injured or have physical limitations or something...but burning 500 calories/day through exercise is not difficult for most healthy individuals. An hour of jogging, hiking or cycling can burn 400-500/hr. The higher the intensity the more you burn. And that applies to us women as well...imagine that!0 -
I heard someone say that the best exercises for weight loss are fork put downs and plate push aways.
The only way to lose weight is to be in a deficit. You can achieve this by eating less or moving more. Many people find it easier to just eat less, but lots of people do cardio so that they can eat more. The important thing for you is to at least get some kind of estimation of your CI and CO so you can see where you might need to make adjustments for weight loss results.0 -
All of the people saying it is possible to outrun your fork ,I don't think you are grasping the heart of that statement. You say you outran your fork, then turn around and talk about still tracking calories.
If you eat to your maintenance, and create a deficit through activity, you will lose weight. The trouble is two fold. One increased activity usually means increased appetite, and two diminishing returns on willpower. If you are not watching your calories is is very easy to wipe out a gym session plus with a stop at the drive-thru on the way back home, because you worked hard and deserve it.
To answer the OP question as best as I can. Will you lose weight if you just add exorcise? You can, but you are still going to need to track your calories to make sure you are creating a deficit. That's what people mean when they say you can't outrun your folk, you still need to be aware of your intake.0 -
Traveler120 wrote: »Strawman argument. Why would simply being female mean someone is restricted to a granny bike and cycling idly?
Even if the OP halved my calories they would still be losing half a pound in winter and a lot more in summer.
There's plenty of women who can, and do, burn far more calories than me as I'm determined but in no way exceptional in terms of power or distance cycled.
I'm 56, work full time for my client (seated at a desk), have to commute to work, run my own company at well, have injury restrictions and still fit in exercise because I enjoy it. How's that for an alternative strawman?
I didn't say a woman will use a granny bike. I said most women have less muscles, are smaller than you and might potentially be lighter, hence a lower calorie burn for the same exercise at the same speed.
But still in a deficit - that is the point, not the size of the deficit.
....was the actual question not "can I lose weight quickly" or "can I lose as quick as a middle aged man"!Will I lose weight?
True, but your comment made it sound like it's easy to burn 3500kcal per week. For most people this is very difficult. Yes, it's possible but it will need a lot of dedication and energy to achieve this, especially if you're a woman.
Maybe it's difficult for you if you're too heavy or lazy or injured or have physical limitations or something...but burning 500 calories/day through exercise is not difficult for most healthy individuals. An hour of jogging, hiking or cycling can burn 400-500/hr. The higher the intensity the more you burn. And that applies to us women as well...imagine that!
Well... at my weight and size I indeed get about 400kcal net calories per hour of running. Thus to get to 3500kcal I'd need to run about 8.75 hours per week. Yes, I can do that for a week, but there's little time for regeneration and not not the best idea to either run more than an hour every day of the week or do several long runs if you've not been running for years and are used to it. We don't know how fit TO is but someone who is not used to working out will more likely just injure herself or burn out instead of reaching the goal of losing say a pound per week, while this is fairly easy by just eating less.0 -
...And no, riding slowly for an hour probably won't do a thing ... but who wants to do that on non-recovery days. The only days I rode slowly for an hour or so were the days after riding a brisk century or double century or something.
So some of the "it depends" factors I referred to are things like ...
-- eating a moderate diet. I've seen references on TV and here to people consuming 7000 calories a day and more. Well, you'd have to do an awful lot of exercise to compensate for that. But if you consume a moderate diet of, say, 2000-3000 calories, you don't have to do quite so much exercise.
-- exercising lots. During those summers of cycling, I was cycling anywhere from 15 hours a week on a rest week ... all the way up to 1200 km (90 hours) in a week. No, not kidding, not exaggerating. I rode four 1200 km randonnees over four years. And I rode a whole lot of training rides in preparation for that. On average, however, I was probably riding about 20-25 hours/week. If I'm burning 500 cal/hour, that's over 10,000 cal/week. Plus I walked a few hours each week (2 km at lunch + 2 km two or three times a week to get groceries), and would also dabble in weights a couple days a week.
How did I get all that cycling into my day? I didn't own a car, so I cycled 5 days a week most of the year as part of my commute. And I didn't lollygag around out there. My commutes were like interval training. And then I'd grab a snack after work, and go for a 2 or 3 hour ride. Sometimes the rides might be hill repeats, sometimes intervals, and sometimes just long brisk rides. And weekends were for the long distance stuff.
The thing is, if you're going to lose weight with exercise alone, it's a good idea to have a realistic idea of how many calories you are consuming, and a realistic idea of how many calories you are burning through exercising. And then burn more than you consume. CICO.
I've ridden competitively as an amateur, which meant training, and socially with a club, which means maintaining a level of fitness to keep up with a group for rides and the occasional century. I'm not a randonneur, by any means - but even when I was riding 3 to 5 times a week, I had to watch my intake if I didn't want to be a fat girl on a road bike.
Cycling (to me) is the perfect exercise. Its fun, low impact, aerobic, and I get to see pretty things. I can get on a bike and challenge myself by riding up hills, ride to work and back, or I can cruise to my local, meet friends for a beer and never have to hassle with DC parking.
To the OP: Tjs8819 - if you are serious about cycling for weight loss, I suggest you get a heart rate monitor and a cycling computer, and plan your workouts around maximum effort and time. And Machka9 is right - you need to know what your calorie consumption is, even if you don't restrict consumption as a rule.
0 -
Traveler120 wrote: »Strawman argument. Why would simply being female mean someone is restricted to a granny bike and cycling idly?
Even if the OP halved my calories they would still be losing half a pound in winter and a lot more in summer.
There's plenty of women who can, and do, burn far more calories than me as I'm determined but in no way exceptional in terms of power or distance cycled.
I'm 56, work full time for my client (seated at a desk), have to commute to work, run my own company at well, have injury restrictions and still fit in exercise because I enjoy it. How's that for an alternative strawman?
I didn't say a woman will use a granny bike. I said most women have less muscles, are smaller than you and might potentially be lighter, hence a lower calorie burn for the same exercise at the same speed.
But still in a deficit - that is the point, not the size of the deficit.
....was the actual question not "can I lose weight quickly" or "can I lose as quick as a middle aged man"!Will I lose weight?
True, but your comment made it sound like it's easy to burn 3500kcal per week. For most people this is very difficult. Yes, it's possible but it will need a lot of dedication and energy to achieve this, especially if you're a woman.
Maybe it's difficult for you if you're too heavy or lazy or injured or have physical limitations or something...but burning 500 calories/day through exercise is not difficult for most healthy individuals. An hour of jogging, hiking or cycling can burn 400-500/hr. The higher the intensity the more you burn. And that applies to us women as well...imagine that!
Well... at my weight and size I indeed get about 400kcal net calories per hour of running. Thus to get to 3500kcal I'd need to run about 8.75 hours per week. Yes, I can do that for a week, but there's little time for regeneration and not not the best idea to either run more than an hour every day of the week or do several long runs if you've not been running for years and are used to it. We don't know how fit TO is but someone who is not used to working out will more likely just injure herself or burn out instead of reaching the goal of losing say a pound per week, while this is fairly easy by just eating less.
Running isn't the only exercise option. Elliptical, spinning, swimming, hiking hills, cycling are all low to no impact exercises that can burn major calories. I was unfit when I started out and didn't want to hurt myself, so I'd use the elliptical and would crank up the resistance or go spinning and do mostly standing climbs. I didn't start running until I was almost done losing weight and was much fitter.0 -
OP, figure out the average amount of calories you are eating a day, and subtract that by 250. That will help you lose .5 pounds a week. Adding in the exercise, will probably get you to 1 pound a week (this is assuming your eating at maintenance).
Or you can figure out your TDEE (http://scoobysworkshop.com/calorie-calculator/) and eat 15-20% less than that. The website I added will do all of the hard work for you.
No one can really answer your question b/c there are a lot of factors. You could, but you could not. You could also gain weight b/c you could be over eating to the point that the exercise isn't making a difference. I've done this. I've exercised, but I was over eating, and I gained weight.0 -
Strawman argument. Why would simply being female mean someone is restricted to a granny bike and cycling idly?
Even if the OP halved my calories they would still be losing half a pound in winter and a lot more in summer.
There's plenty of women who can, and do, burn far more calories than me as I'm determined but in no way exceptional in terms of power or distance cycled.
I'm 56, work full time for my client (seated at a desk), have to commute to work, run my own company at well, have injury restrictions and still fit in exercise because I enjoy it. How's that for an alternative strawman?
I didn't say a woman will use a granny bike. I said most women have less muscles, are smaller than you and might potentially be lighter, hence a lower calorie burn for the same exercise at the same speed.
But still in a deficit - that is the point, not the size of the deficit.
....was the actual question not "can I lose weight quickly" or "can I lose as quick as a middle aged man"!Will I lose weight?
True, but your comment made it sound like it's easy to burn 3500kcal per week. For most people this is very difficult. Yes, it's possible but it will need a lot of dedication and energy to achieve this, especially if you're a woman.
Your reasoning lacks......reasoning.
Give up the ghost.
humans lose weight if they eat at maintenance and exercise. Whether it be 100 cals a day or 1000.
Also, if I lose half a pound it makes a massive difference. A pound loss for a big guy like sijomial won't even make a dent.0 -
Yes you can lose weight by exercising as long as your exercise gives you a large enough calorie deficit.0
-
Traveler120 wrote: »Traveler120 wrote: »Strawman argument. Why would simply being female mean someone is restricted to a granny bike and cycling idly?
Even if the OP halved my calories they would still be losing half a pound in winter and a lot more in summer.
There's plenty of women who can, and do, burn far more calories than me as I'm determined but in no way exceptional in terms of power or distance cycled.
I'm 56, work full time for my client (seated at a desk), have to commute to work, run my own company at well, have injury restrictions and still fit in exercise because I enjoy it. How's that for an alternative strawman?
I didn't say a woman will use a granny bike. I said most women have less muscles, are smaller than you and might potentially be lighter, hence a lower calorie burn for the same exercise at the same speed.
But still in a deficit - that is the point, not the size of the deficit.
....was the actual question not "can I lose weight quickly" or "can I lose as quick as a middle aged man"!Will I lose weight?
True, but your comment made it sound like it's easy to burn 3500kcal per week. For most people this is very difficult. Yes, it's possible but it will need a lot of dedication and energy to achieve this, especially if you're a woman.
Maybe it's difficult for you if you're too heavy or lazy or injured or have physical limitations or something...but burning 500 calories/day through exercise is not difficult for most healthy individuals. An hour of jogging, hiking or cycling can burn 400-500/hr. The higher the intensity the more you burn. And that applies to us women as well...imagine that!
Well... at my weight and size I indeed get about 400kcal net calories per hour of running. Thus to get to 3500kcal I'd need to run about 8.75 hours per week. Yes, I can do that for a week, but there's little time for regeneration and not not the best idea to either run more than an hour every day of the week or do several long runs if you've not been running for years and are used to it. We don't know how fit TO is but someone who is not used to working out will more likely just injure herself or burn out instead of reaching the goal of losing say a pound per week, while this is fairly easy by just eating less.
Running isn't the only exercise option. Elliptical, spinning, swimming, hiking hills, cycling are all low to no impact exercises that can burn major calories. I was unfit when I started out and didn't want to hurt myself, so I'd use the elliptical and would crank up the resistance or go spinning and do mostly standing climbs. I didn't start running until I was almost done losing weight and was much fitter.
I think the point people are trying to make is...reducing calories eaten by 500 is something anyone can do. All it takes is willpower. To say that all it takes is willpower to go running/cycling/elliptical for 500 calories 7x a week is patently false. Someone can have all the willpower they want but lack the fitness in order to burn 500 calories in an hour. Add in physical limitations, time to change/get cleaned up, demands from family/work, it's definitely not something one can just think their way past.0 -
blues4miles wrote: »Traveler120 wrote: »Traveler120 wrote: »Strawman argument. Why would simply being female mean someone is restricted to a granny bike and cycling idly?
Even if the OP halved my calories they would still be losing half a pound in winter and a lot more in summer.
There's plenty of women who can, and do, burn far more calories than me as I'm determined but in no way exceptional in terms of power or distance cycled.
I'm 56, work full time for my client (seated at a desk), have to commute to work, run my own company at well, have injury restrictions and still fit in exercise because I enjoy it. How's that for an alternative strawman?
I didn't say a woman will use a granny bike. I said most women have less muscles, are smaller than you and might potentially be lighter, hence a lower calorie burn for the same exercise at the same speed.
But still in a deficit - that is the point, not the size of the deficit.
....was the actual question not "can I lose weight quickly" or "can I lose as quick as a middle aged man"!Will I lose weight?
True, but your comment made it sound like it's easy to burn 3500kcal per week. For most people this is very difficult. Yes, it's possible but it will need a lot of dedication and energy to achieve this, especially if you're a woman.
Maybe it's difficult for you if you're too heavy or lazy or injured or have physical limitations or something...but burning 500 calories/day through exercise is not difficult for most healthy individuals. An hour of jogging, hiking or cycling can burn 400-500/hr. The higher the intensity the more you burn. And that applies to us women as well...imagine that!
Well... at my weight and size I indeed get about 400kcal net calories per hour of running. Thus to get to 3500kcal I'd need to run about 8.75 hours per week. Yes, I can do that for a week, but there's little time for regeneration and not not the best idea to either run more than an hour every day of the week or do several long runs if you've not been running for years and are used to it. We don't know how fit TO is but someone who is not used to working out will more likely just injure herself or burn out instead of reaching the goal of losing say a pound per week, while this is fairly easy by just eating less.
Running isn't the only exercise option. Elliptical, spinning, swimming, hiking hills, cycling are all low to no impact exercises that can burn major calories. I was unfit when I started out and didn't want to hurt myself, so I'd use the elliptical and would crank up the resistance or go spinning and do mostly standing climbs. I didn't start running until I was almost done losing weight and was much fitter.
I think the point people are trying to make is...reducing calories eaten by 500 is something anyone can do. All it takes is willpower.
It's always amusing when people insist that there's only ONE WAY to do things. It may be easy for SOME to cut intake from say 1700 to 1200 and not exercise. For OTHERS, such a low intake would be unpleasant and torturous to them and they might find it much easier and manageable and sustainable instead to eat 1700 but go out and burn 500 calories. At the end of the day, both parties have a 500 calorie deficit. Everybody wins.0 -
Traveler120 wrote: »blues4miles wrote: »Traveler120 wrote: »Traveler120 wrote: »Strawman argument. Why would simply being female mean someone is restricted to a granny bike and cycling idly?
Even if the OP halved my calories they would still be losing half a pound in winter and a lot more in summer.
There's plenty of women who can, and do, burn far more calories than me as I'm determined but in no way exceptional in terms of power or distance cycled.
I'm 56, work full time for my client (seated at a desk), have to commute to work, run my own company at well, have injury restrictions and still fit in exercise because I enjoy it. How's that for an alternative strawman?
I didn't say a woman will use a granny bike. I said most women have less muscles, are smaller than you and might potentially be lighter, hence a lower calorie burn for the same exercise at the same speed.
But still in a deficit - that is the point, not the size of the deficit.
....was the actual question not "can I lose weight quickly" or "can I lose as quick as a middle aged man"!Will I lose weight?
True, but your comment made it sound like it's easy to burn 3500kcal per week. For most people this is very difficult. Yes, it's possible but it will need a lot of dedication and energy to achieve this, especially if you're a woman.
Maybe it's difficult for you if you're too heavy or lazy or injured or have physical limitations or something...but burning 500 calories/day through exercise is not difficult for most healthy individuals. An hour of jogging, hiking or cycling can burn 400-500/hr. The higher the intensity the more you burn. And that applies to us women as well...imagine that!
Well... at my weight and size I indeed get about 400kcal net calories per hour of running. Thus to get to 3500kcal I'd need to run about 8.75 hours per week. Yes, I can do that for a week, but there's little time for regeneration and not not the best idea to either run more than an hour every day of the week or do several long runs if you've not been running for years and are used to it. We don't know how fit TO is but someone who is not used to working out will more likely just injure herself or burn out instead of reaching the goal of losing say a pound per week, while this is fairly easy by just eating less.
Running isn't the only exercise option. Elliptical, spinning, swimming, hiking hills, cycling are all low to no impact exercises that can burn major calories. I was unfit when I started out and didn't want to hurt myself, so I'd use the elliptical and would crank up the resistance or go spinning and do mostly standing climbs. I didn't start running until I was almost done losing weight and was much fitter.
I think the point people are trying to make is...reducing calories eaten by 500 is something anyone can do. All it takes is willpower.
It's always amusing when people insist that there's only ONE WAY to do things. It may be easy for SOME to cut intake from say 1700 to 1200 and not exercise. For OTHERS, such a low intake would be unpleasant and torturous to them and they might find it much easier and manageable and sustainable instead to eat 1700 but go out and burn 500 calories. At the end of the day, both parties have a 500 calorie deficit. Everybody wins.
I'm in the "others" category there.
I've taken a grand total of 2 days off exercise in the last year (they were both during a diet break, so I wasn't counting calories, and one was a travelling across the timezones and losing a day thing). The only way I can eat a mere 1200 calories in a day is if I'm ill ... and actually if I limit myself to 1200 calories in a day, I feel ill.
Happily walking, climbing stairs, cycling and weightlifting (all of which I enjoy) come to the rescue!
Today I've already climbed 15 flights of stairs and I'm about to go out for a brisk stress-relieving walk.
0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 402 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 998 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions