Calorie restriction versus increased activity
Options
Replies
-
Aaron_K123 wrote: »
Yep. Due to my personl biases, I really notice the threads where people talk about ideal physiques and ideal body weight.Even though I often find myself agreeing with advice to individuals to stop trying to lose and go work on fitness, the recommendation almost alwaysbeing "progressive weight lifting" sets my teeth on edge because, honestly, to me, it's hist not the only great or healthy body shape. To many it is.
I think something similar may be happening with cico and you...the ultra focus on calories in so very prevalent is setting your teeth on edge, and as such every instance becomes that much more noticeable.
For the record, I agree with you that they'd a general undervaluation of the role of exercise in healthy weight loss and maintenance. If focused on weight maintenance for health, strength and cardiovascular fitness are clearly critical components, more than maintaining an optimal weight (based on statistics of comparative morbidity and mortality for people of normal weight and those who are overweight but not obese, and of health outcomes for obese and nonobese individuals) But a lot of people are quite focused on aesthetics, in which case the lower weight is the major goal in and of itself.1 -
I think he means: why is most of the focus in the forums is on eating rather than exercise? Keep in mind many threads actually do encourage the asker to increase activity in order to be able to eat more. "Eating back" most of your exercise calories is generally always encouraged.
There are several reasons for focusing more on the diet:
- Almost everyone can add less oil to their meal, bulk a portion with vegetables, not have pizza every day...etc, but not everyone can exercise enough or consistently to achieve a reasonable deficit.
- Dieting requires "doing less" instead of "doing more". Most humans have laziness built in to conserve energy so "doing more" is not always an attractive choice.
- Dieting provides more fine-tuned control and precision than activity.
- Dieting is more flexible and adapts well to sudden changes. You can always increase/decrease your intake to fit a situation but increasing activity is not always an option: for example illness, injury, extremely busy days, sudden trip and so on.
- More than half of MFP users are women, who due to their gender tend to be generally lighter and shorter than men with smaller muscle mass, so producing a consistent daily burn enough to create a reasonable deficit may not be an option, but dieting in some form is a reasonable option for the vast majority of the users.
- Having at least a basic understanding of how food affects weight loss and how to manipulate intake in some way is essential for weight loss, even if you are creating your deficit through exercise.
- Many people find the "diet" part a bit tricky to navigate, so most questions tend to be focused on that part.
- Food mishaps are more likely to create weight gain than missing workouts. Missing workouts can easily be remedied by manipulating food intake when the need arises, but eating too much can't always be remedied by exercise.
- You can cut 500 (or even 1000) calories right off the bat, but being unfit and trying to burn that much from day one is a recipe for injury and stress.
...and so on.
Understanding diet (as in food intake) is very important for weight loss for many reasons, so no wonder the focus seems to be leaning more towards the "calories in" part of the equation. I do agree that encouraging more activity, if possible, should get a bit more attention because it really does make dieting easier, and easier is always better (not to mention the health benefits). I still don't support your call for zero change in eating habits though. People need to be at least aware of how food affects their calories even if they create their deficit through activity alone, to be able to control their intake in case of increased appetite brought about by the increased activity, for example.2 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »Lets put it this way.
If you told me you want to lose weight and I told you sure, you can lose weight but you have to pick one of these two options.
Option 1: Never eat burgers again
Option 2: You can still eat burgers and on top of that you now have motivation to go for long walks around your town, explore it a bit, walk around your local park to meet your goal of weight loss.
How come 99% of people seem to go with option 1. That is the part that confuses me to no end.
My issue was I ate 2 burgers and a large fries for dinner only, not even counting lunch calories and numerous snacks in between. At 5'1 and 210 lbs with a newborn, there was no way I was able to out exercise that diet with "an hour walk".
2 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »
Yep. Due to my personl biases, I really notice the threads where people talk about ideal physiques and ideal body weight.Even though I often find myself agreeing with advice to individuals to stop trying to lose and go work on fitness, the recommendation almost alwaysbeing "progressive weight lifting" sets my teeth on edge because, honestly, to me, it's hist not the only great or healthy body shape. To many it is.
I think something similar may be happening with cico and you...the ultra focus on calories in so very prevalent is setting your teeth on edge, and as such every instance becomes that much more noticeable.
For the record, I agree with you that they'd a general undervaluation of the role of exercise in healthy weight loss and maintenance. If focused on weight maintenance for health, strength and cardiovascular fitness are clearly critical components, more than maintaining an optimal weight (based on statistics of comparative morbidity and mortality for people of normal weight and those who are overweight but not obese, and of health outcomes for obese and nonobese individuals) But a lot of people are quite focused on aesthetics, in which case the lower weight is the major goal in and of itself.
Well I fully admit it might be due to my personal bias that I tend to really notice when people are approaching dieting just through caloric restriction and are struggling with that due to dizziness, hunger, fatigue etc and don't really pay much attention to exercise or how that can allow them to achieve their goal while still eating an amount that leaves them feeling fine. Perhaps it is my bias that lends me to believe that the forum is skewed that way.1 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »3dogsrunning wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »"But an increased heart rate doesn't mean you burn more calories. "
Doesn't it though? Weight loss is largely through respiration and your heart-rate is a very good indication of your respiratory activity.
"If I go running at 40 degrees C my heart rate is much higher than when I go running at 15C, yet the calorie burn is about the same"
Are you sure about that?
"If I'm completely unfit and my heart rate goes up big time due to that from cycling a certain distance then the calorie burn is still pretty much the same if I'm at the same weight but fitter and cycle the same distance yet my heart rate doesn't go up so much. If I take my asthma meds I get an elevated heart rate, yet it doesn't burn more calories"
That isn't true at all. A person who is more fit will typically burn fewer calories than a person who is not fit carrying out a similar activity with all other things being equal. As you train and get fitter it actually becomes more difficult to burn calories with that activity. Your heart rate is harder to elevate, your muscle control and activation is better and more efficient.
An obese person walking a mile will burn a lot more calories than a thin person and a 200 pound male who walks 20 miles a day will likely burn less walking a mile than a 200 pound male who doesn't walk often walking a mile.
Heart-rate is very much tied to caloric usage and weight loss.
Yes. In that case, the calorie burn IS the same or similar. This is part of the issue with using HRMs to determine calories burned. Other factors, like heat, can skew the results.
The fit part is also incorrect depending on activity. For something like walking or running where we are already pretty efficient, two people who are the same weight doing the same work at the same intensity - ie running the same course at the same pace - will burn the same amount regardless of fitness level.
Something like swimming may be different because there is an element of effiency.
An obese person walking a mile will burn more than a thin person because they are moving more weight. The two 200 pound males will burn the same walking a mile unless one is significantly uphill.
HR is an indicator of effort/intensity but it is not directly tied to calorie burn. There is a relationship.
Hmm, yeah you maybe right. So generally with increased heart rate comes increased respiration. Weight loss is basically the expelling of C02 from the inhalation of 02 (you lose the carbon). So I'm picturing heart pounding, breathing heavy, more respiration, more C02 exchange. Are you saying that the amount of C02 produced is actually the same in the two cases and the person who is less fit and breathing heavily has less CO2 expelled per breath than the fit person?
I might be weird but I tend to think of weight loss in heterotrophs as being pretty heavily tied to respiration.
Consider this.
As a person grows more cardiovascularly fit, there are a number of adaptations that can be occurring that affect how much oxygen/CO2 can be exchanged per heartbeat. One is an increase in stroke volume. The person is literally pushing more blood for each heartbeat. Another is an increase in lung volume - each breath takes in and expels more air. Those are just a couple, there are several more.
ETA: An additional thought. As I became more cardiovascularly fit, my resting heart rate dropped from in the 80's to in the 50's. I do not believe I am burning fewer calories while sleeping.0 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »
Yep. Due to my personl biases, I really notice the threads where people talk about ideal physiques and ideal body weight.Even though I often find myself agreeing with advice to individuals to stop trying to lose and go work on fitness, the recommendation almost alwaysbeing "progressive weight lifting" sets my teeth on edge because, honestly, to me, it's hist not the only great or healthy body shape. To many it is.
I think something similar may be happening with cico and you...the ultra focus on calories in so very prevalent is setting your teeth on edge, and as such every instance becomes that much more noticeable.
For the record, I agree with you that they'd a general undervaluation of the role of exercise in healthy weight loss and maintenance. If focused on weight maintenance for health, strength and cardiovascular fitness are clearly critical components, more than maintaining an optimal weight (based on statistics of comparative morbidity and mortality for people of normal weight and those who are overweight but not obese, and of health outcomes for obese and nonobese individuals) But a lot of people are quite focused on aesthetics, in which case the lower weight is the major goal in and of itself.
Weight training does not lend itself to only one body type.1 -
3dogsrunning wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »3dogsrunning wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »Lets put it this way.
If you told me you want to lose weight and I told you sure, you can lose weight but you have to pick one of these two options.
Option 1: Never eat burgers again
Option 2: You can still eat burgers and on top of that you now have motivation to go for long walks around your town, explore it a bit, walk around your local park to meet your goal of weight loss.
How come 99% of people seem to go with option 1. That is the part that confuses me to no end.
If Garmin is to be believed, I can't really do option 2.
I'm a total believer in fuelling my exercise but extra steps just doesn't up it enough for me.
I still eat burgers, but it comes with balancing the rest of my foods and more activity than just taking some extra steps in a day.
I don't necessarily believe my fitbit but on the weekend I did a good amount of just walking and at the end of the day my Charge HR stated my TDEE to be 6,420 calories (it puts my BMR around 1800 so my burn from walking was about 4600. Do I believe that is accurate? Not really. But I doubt its off by 4-fold so we are still talking a thousand or more calories burned. I also enjoyed myself quite a bit and on that day ate a Dairy Queen Blizzard, a Jumbo Jack and a 4-entree Panda Express meal in addition to other things of course.
That's what you get. I don't get near that. My Garmin step activity is very conservative. Even on a 20,000 step day I'm not getting a DQ Blizzard unless a chunk of those steps were a run.
FYI - there's been a couple of studies to determine a good equation estimating calories burned while walking for the general population. For net calories (i.e. what you can add to your NEAT), and assuming no incline, the generally agreed-upon equation is:
net calories = 0.35 * weight in lbs * #miles
I've used this, and the corresponding equation for running (factor is 0.63 instead of 0.35) myself while training for a half-marathon and found it to be accurate enough that my weight did almost exactly as predicted.
I have no idea how much you weigh, but if you weighed 285.7 lbs, that would mean you'd have to walk 10 miles to burn 1000 cals. That's a lot of walking.1 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »"But if you are obese then it will be difficult to create a big enough deficit through exercise alone."
Really? Because I'd think it would be the opposite. Calorie burn is all about respiration and respiration is all about heart rate. If you are obese it is often much easier to elevate your heart rate than if you are fit. I would think an obese person would have an easier time establishing a caloric deficit through increased activity than a non-obese or fit person would.
As a very obese let me assure you when I started, walking 15 minutes was a hell of an effort. That calorie gain was totally insignificant in the big picture. Calories in had the most bang for the buck. There were days I could do nothing physically and other people do have physical limitations that severely limit how much they can increase their calorie out side of the equation.
It is a great way to a heart attack to start out by trying to burn 1000 extra calories or more a day IMO3 -
NM. Screwed up post.0
-
The biggest issue with people and their weight gain is over eating so it is where most of the focus needs to be. Things like too large of portions or taking in unnecessary stuff. So cut out one 44 ounce soda for a person that has one every day and they drop almost enough to equal a pound a week of calories. Conversely, the average person probably only burns about 350-500 calories in an hour session, if they can get in an hour. And they barely burn off that Pepsi. So exclusion and moderation in intake is best for weight loss.2
-
Aaron_K123 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »And then NEVER in your life get sick or injured. Then you'll be gaining again. Sorry to any losers that can't work out due to physical limitations, chronic illness, etc. You're doomed to be fat.
What person are you imagining that literally cannot increase their activity level? Why do you think it is impossible for them to improve their health through increased activity? I'm not being negative here I am being positive, I am saying you CAN do it...not you CANNOT do it.
I actually know a couple of people who are unable to increase their activity at this time.
Okay well then this doesn't apply to them then. I don't think I every said "This is what everyone should do" what I said was "How come so few people on this site approach weight loss through increased activity" Big difference there.
A lot of people who come to this site do have 100+ pounds to lose. Most of them need to focus on their eating habits. Just increasing their activity is not going to be enough. That is why so many focus on diet. I don't think you are wrong, but I thought that your orignal post came across as saying that people need to stop focusing on their eating and focus on their activity. I certainly didn't do any thing restrictive and I do think it is important to increase your activity. I just think that for a lot of people in the general diet and weight loss section their top priority is diet.
I wasn't trying to be instructive and tell "everyone" what they should do, I was pointing out that I found it concerning that there are two sides of the equation for weight loss, decreasing your intake and increasing your TDEE, and the focus on this particular forum seems to be almost entirely on one side...even for 23 year olds with 15 pounds to lose.
That said if my post came across differently then that is my fault for my word choice or phrasing.
I actually don't see the one sidedness of things that you do. I see people more often then not advocating for "move more, eat less" to put it simplistically. I also tend to find most people will move more as they lose weight. It is, if you will, sort of a side effect of weight loss.
Having said that, do I repeatedly run into people who are running huge deficits? Most certainly. However, most of them are people who are just starting out and think they must eat almost nothing to lose weight. It is the mentality of eat as little as you can because that is the only way to lose weight, rather than how much can I eat and still lose weight.2 -
I think the one reason that there is more focus on the calorie in is because all other things being equal it is the one thing we can control. Now that I have lost some weight I try to get out and get a decent amount of exercise every day, but I work a 10 hour day, 4 days a week, I live a half hour from work, some days I have errands to run or other obligations to take care of and I really do try to get a minimum of 7 hours of sleep a night. I literally have days I don't have time for extra exercise. I get a mile or two walking in and that is it. If I ate like I did before I would be at a surplus on those days.
I agree with OP that people should focus on the exercise portion of it as well, but I have seen plenty of discussions on that. There are plenty of unhealthy skinny people out there that don't exercise. Personally, I don't want to be one of them when I finally hit my goal weight and very few of the successful maintainers here are non-exercisers. It is important for physical and mental health and that has been said a lot on these boards, not as often as focus on food, but if you are going to get just one thing right, make it your calories in and you will be able to lose weight.2 -
The biggest issue with people and their weight gain is over eating so it is where most of the focus needs to be. Things like too large of portions or taking in unnecessary stuff. So cut out one 44 ounce soda for a person that has one every day and they drop almost enough to equal a pound a week of calories. Conversely, the average person probably only burns about 350-500 calories in an hour session, if they can get in an hour. And they barely burn off that Pepsi. So exclusion and moderation in intake is best for weight loss.
Well here is where I philosophically disagree. I think people do overeat for their activity level but I think an equal and not at all insignificant reason for that is that people focus their attention on family and career at the expense of their fitness and are overly sedentary. Physical activity is important for our health but modern society doesn't place much value on it which is a problem. It can be hard to find time to be physical but that doesn't make physicality somehow unimportant for your health, it is very important.1 -
"It is the mentality of eat as little as you can because that is the only way to lose weight, rather than how much can I eat and still lose weight."
That is what I am trying to be vocally against, that mistaken perception. I'm not saying everyone views it that way, but clearly some do and they need some help.2 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »"It is the mentality of eat as little as you can because that is the only way to lose weight, rather than how much can I eat and still lose weight."
That is what I am trying to be vocally against, that mistaken perception. I'm not saying everyone views it that way, but clearly some do and they need some help.
In that we agree. However, when I put my weight on it was not because I was not active, I was cycling for 1 hour plus at a vigorous pace 3-4 times a week. I was lifting weights 2-3 times a week. I work at a sedentary job, but with that activity my TDEE was, and still is, not bad. However, I an easily out eat my TDEE, and frankly it is easier to cut back on food calories, largely by changing food choices, than trying to be more active. I know that makes for a study size of 1, so has no statistical significance, yet, I am guessing I am not alone in this. Adding activity, especially when one is severely obese, is very difficult, and establishing a deficit derived primarily from it, even more so. As weight comes off, activity is easier, and adding to TDEE through activity, either NEAT or Exercise, will come, especially if one is encouraged in this.
It seems the bigger issue is the culture in North America, and probably elsewhere, that pushing weight loss, not by a moderate deficit, but by using severe deficits with no encouragement to activity. I think MFP does a good job in its design to try to push against that with the "carrot" of eating back exercise calories. However, there are so many who not only don't eat them back, but who see the calorie goal they are given as something to stay way below rather than something to meet. Add to that the bad logging either in not logging everything, not making sure that what they are eating actually matches the database, and measuring portions incorrectly, and their view that eating 800-1000 calorie while exercising another 200-400 off every day is the only way they can lose weight, as they don't realize they are eating far more than they think they are.1 -
Depends on your body. For example - I lose my appetite when I exercise. If I do weights in the morning/cardio at night or vice/versa, I don't eat as much because of the result exercise has on my appetite. As a result, I increase exercise AND I eat at a calorie deficit (about 1500 cals a day)
I have heard the opposite from some people - exercise increases their appetite, so for some people limiting calorie intake with minimal exercise may work better for them simply to avoid instances of over-eating because of feeling very hungry after exercise.0 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »Lets put it another way. Go to the weight loss forum and start clicking through threads. How many threads do you have to click through before you find someone asking how to increase their activity level instead of how to eat less food.
In a balanced approach shouldn't they be pretty equal? Are they pretty equal?
They are equal in theory but in practice they are not equal because it's harder to increase exercise than it is to reduce calorie intake.
People know how to increase their exercise. I don't think there are many people out there that don't agree that increasing exercise is a good thing. What people don't know/struggle with is how to reduce calorie intake without feeling starved/tortured.
I disagree. I think they are asking for help with dieting because it's hard...moving more is fairly straightforward.0 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »The biggest issue with people and their weight gain is over eating so it is where most of the focus needs to be. Things like too large of portions or taking in unnecessary stuff. So cut out one 44 ounce soda for a person that has one every day and they drop almost enough to equal a pound a week of calories. Conversely, the average person probably only burns about 350-500 calories in an hour session, if they can get in an hour. And they barely burn off that Pepsi. So exclusion and moderation in intake is best for weight loss.
Well here is where I philosophically disagree. I think people do overeat for their activity level but I think an equal and not at all insignificant reason for that is that people focus their attention on family and career at the expense of their fitness and are overly sedentary. Physical activity is important for our health but modern society doesn't place much value on it which is a problem. It can be hard to find time to be physical but that doesn't make physicality somehow unimportant for your health, it is very important.Aaron_K123 wrote: »The biggest issue with people and their weight gain is over eating so it is where most of the focus needs to be. Things like too large of portions or taking in unnecessary stuff. So cut out one 44 ounce soda for a person that has one every day and they drop almost enough to equal a pound a week of calories. Conversely, the average person probably only burns about 350-500 calories in an hour session, if they can get in an hour. And they barely burn off that Pepsi. So exclusion and moderation in intake is best for weight loss.
Well here is where I philosophically disagree. I think people do overeat for their activity level but I think an equal and not at all insignificant reason for that is that people focus their attention on family and career at the expense of their fitness and are overly sedentary. Physical activity is important for our health but modern society doesn't place much value on it which is a problem. It can be hard to find time to be physical but that doesn't make physicality somehow unimportant for your health, it is very important.
Do you have a wife and children? Someone has to take care of the kids and someone has to put a roof over their heads.2 -
eveandqsmom wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »Lets put it another way. Go to the weight loss forum and start clicking through threads. How many threads do you have to click through before you find someone asking how to increase their activity level instead of how to eat less food.
In a balanced approach shouldn't they be pretty equal? Are they pretty equal?
They are equal in theory but in practice they are not equal because it's harder to increase exercise than it is to reduce calorie intake.
People know how to increase their exercise. I don't think there are many people out there that don't agree that increasing exercise is a good thing. What people don't know/struggle with is how to reduce calorie intake without feeling starved/tortured.
I disagree. I think they are asking for help with dieting because it's hard...moving more is fairly straightforward.
True, but it is very difficult to create a meaningful calorie deficit by moving more, especially if you're overweight and unfit. When I was about 70kg I tried to lose weight by exercising. I used fitness classes during my work lunch break 5 times per week, 3x spinning, 2 times boxing fitness while keeping my food intake the same. After two months I'd lost 2kg and was finally able to kind of keep up with the classes. Fast forward two more weeks my ability to keep up dropped bigtime and I was constantly tired, could not concentrate anymore. For two tiny kg I'd burnt myself out and had to take a several week long workout break. I even had difficulty cycling to work. Plus I had not learned anything about cico and how much calories are in my food and kept on gaining weight.0 -
Some good points here. I'm a big proponent of eating the calories for maintaining your target weight (not less in an effort to get there faster), and exercising at a frequency you can sustain in the long term. Fat loss will be slower, but you'll be getting used to eating the amount of food you need to eat to stay your ideal weight.1
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.7K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 394 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 944 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions