Long exercise purely to eat more?
Replies
-
JaydedMiss wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »JaydedMiss wrote: »RunRutheeRun wrote: »@JaydedMiss so why not try for 4mph or fast /slow intervals and make your walk more time efficient?
I run for 40-50 mins every morning to get at least half my steps in before work.
I walk however fast i want when im out, Just said 3 mph because 2 hours of my day spent exercising is NOT alot of my time to do. Why you talking about more time efficient than 2 hours
To be young with no responsibilities, where 2 hours a day is considered a drop in the bucket for time.
We all have our priorities. The average American spends 34 hours a week watching TV, but scoffs at the idea of having 2 hours in a day for their health.
Finally someone with some sense. Jeez. I havent watched tv in weeks
Most of my tv is done during my strength training. LOL I don't really miss it. Other than that, it is sports the hour I relax before I go to bed.0 -
JaydedMiss wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »JaydedMiss wrote: »RunRutheeRun wrote: »@JaydedMiss so why not try for 4mph or fast /slow intervals and make your walk more time efficient?
I run for 40-50 mins every morning to get at least half my steps in before work.
I walk however fast i want when im out, Just said 3 mph because 2 hours of my day spent exercising is NOT alot of my time to do. Why you talking about more time efficient than 2 hours
To be young with no responsibilities, where 2 hours a day is considered a drop in the bucket for time.
We all have our priorities. The average American spends 34 hours a week watching TV, but scoffs at the idea of having 2 hours in a day for their health.
Finally someone with some sense. Jeez. I havent watched tv in weeks
Most of my tv is done during my strength training. LOL I don't really miss it. Other than that, it is sports the hour I relax before I go to bed.
I tried to watch tv last week but i honestly couldnt stay focused. I still have my sittong on my booty time, But its mostly spent on these forums now, And on facebook trying to find somewhere to go out to XD Iv really been having issues sitting still i just want to go go go
edit: My issue was never with TV, Just the *kitten* telling me im young with no responsibilities because i make sure my health is a priority in life for atleast a few hours a day. If i wanna go walk for 2-3 hours on my day off and come home to go brain dead to tv all night id do it 0 -
JaydedMiss wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »JaydedMiss wrote: »RunRutheeRun wrote: »@JaydedMiss so why not try for 4mph or fast /slow intervals and make your walk more time efficient?
I run for 40-50 mins every morning to get at least half my steps in before work.
I walk however fast i want when im out, Just said 3 mph because 2 hours of my day spent exercising is NOT alot of my time to do. Why you talking about more time efficient than 2 hours
To be young with no responsibilities, where 2 hours a day is considered a drop in the bucket for time.
We all have our priorities. The average American spends 34 hours a week watching TV, but scoffs at the idea of having 2 hours in a day for their health.
Finally someone with some sense. Jeez. I havent watched tv in weeks
My honey likes to watch something with dinner, so we do. Sometimes we'll watch a full episode of something, but a lot of the time we'll stop when we finished eating.
I take an hour every evening to do some type of exercise. A bike ride, weight training, a run, even a walk. In my case, I live in Seattle and near downtown, so it's not convenient to use a car, parking is a nightmare, so I do my grocery shopping by bike or on foot. I walk during my lunch hour and then eat at my desk. Being efficient with my time lets me get more exercise. But so does just making it a priority.2 -
NorthCascades wrote: »JaydedMiss wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »JaydedMiss wrote: »RunRutheeRun wrote: »@JaydedMiss so why not try for 4mph or fast /slow intervals and make your walk more time efficient?
I run for 40-50 mins every morning to get at least half my steps in before work.
I walk however fast i want when im out, Just said 3 mph because 2 hours of my day spent exercising is NOT alot of my time to do. Why you talking about more time efficient than 2 hours
To be young with no responsibilities, where 2 hours a day is considered a drop in the bucket for time.
We all have our priorities. The average American spends 34 hours a week watching TV, but scoffs at the idea of having 2 hours in a day for their health.
Finally someone with some sense. Jeez. I havent watched tv in weeks
My honey likes to watch something with dinner, so we do. Sometimes we'll watch a full episode of something, but a lot of the time we'll stop when we finished eating.
I take an hour every evening to do some type of exercise. A bike ride, weight training, a run, even a walk. In my case, I live in Seattle and near downtown, so it's not convenient to use a car, parking is a nightmare, so I do my grocery shopping by bike or on foot. I walk during my lunch hour and then eat at my desk. Being efficient with my time lets me get more exercise. But so does just making it a priority.
Great job
Yes i also started grocery shopping small, And often. Extra exercise and fresher food. win 1 -
JaydedMiss wrote: »JaydedMiss wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »JaydedMiss wrote: »RunRutheeRun wrote: »@JaydedMiss so why not try for 4mph or fast /slow intervals and make your walk more time efficient?
I run for 40-50 mins every morning to get at least half my steps in before work.
I walk however fast i want when im out, Just said 3 mph because 2 hours of my day spent exercising is NOT alot of my time to do. Why you talking about more time efficient than 2 hours
To be young with no responsibilities, where 2 hours a day is considered a drop in the bucket for time.
We all have our priorities. The average American spends 34 hours a week watching TV, but scoffs at the idea of having 2 hours in a day for their health.
Finally someone with some sense. Jeez. I havent watched tv in weeks
Most of my tv is done during my strength training. LOL I don't really miss it. Other than that, it is sports the hour I relax before I go to bed.
I tried to watch tv last week but i honestly couldnt stay focused. I still have my sittong on my booty time, But its mostly spent on these forums now, And on facebook trying to find somewhere to go out to XD Iv really been having issues sitting still i just want to go go go
edit: My issue was never with TV, Just the *kitten* telling me im young with no responsibilities because i make sure my health is a priority in life for atleast a few hours a day. If i wanna go walk for 2-3 hours on my day off and come home to go brain dead to tv all night id do it
I understand. I was dying at work (10 hours of an office/desk job) until I got a standing desk. Now I don't feel QUITE as bad.
I've gotten so that I mostly watch things on Netflix. That way I can always pause and come back later. Best invention ever!!! 0 -
I don't exercise to eat more, but I do eat more on days I exercise.
4 -
"Kids" are often a reason you can't go to the gym, but they're rarely a reason you can't be active. Take the kids for a walk. Play a physically active game with them. Run around the house with them. Kids need physical activity anyway; take advantage of that. Really little ones can go in strollers or be worn.3
-
SusanMFindlay wrote: »"Kids" are often a reason you can't go to the gym, but they're rarely a reason you can't be active. Take the kids for a walk. Play a physically active game with them. Run around the house with them. Kids need physical activity anyway; take advantage of that. Really little ones can go in strollers or be worn.
This is true, especially of babies - walking with a pram is a great way to give the kid some fresh air and stimulation, and get some exercise and mind space for yourself.
As for older kids, toddlers and up, if you don't get them walking now, when will you do it? Ignore the whining. If you make it a habit and refuse to turn back because they grumble, they will give it up and soon you will have happy walkers, and you will have given them a habit which will serve them incredibly well through life, as well as improving their bone density and muscle development right now.2 -
Because people seem to be suggesting that others were saying that 2 hours is too much like to spend on health or that they do not have the time to exercise, I think it's important (for fairness) to point out that's not what was said at all.
This whole thing about the 2 hours started because RunRutheeRun said that finding something that did not take as much time as the 10-15 mile walk that this thread was initially about (about 4 hours, probably) might be a good idea, and then said that she used to do 10 miles/day and now does about 6 miles, which allows her to spend less time working out (and has other benefits).
OP said she also likes doing 6 miles, and added "Its just a 2 hours walk a day at 3MPH i found that super doable."
RunRutheeRun said (I assume in an effort to be helpful): "why not try for 4mph or fast /slow intervals and make your walk more time efficient? I run for 40-50 mins every morning to get at least half my steps in before work."
In response, OP said: "2 hours of my day spent exercising is NOT alot of my time to do. Why you talking about more time efficient than 2 hours"
That's what prompted another poster to jump in with the "oh to have such time" comment. Again, no one was saying they didn't have time to work out, let alone to spend time on health.3 -
Our three year old loves our daily after-dinner walks. We let him help pick where we're going (within reason; if it's -30 degrees out, it will be indoors).0
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »That's what prompted another poster to jump in with the "oh to have such time" comment. Again, no one was saying they didn't have time to work out, let alone to spend time on health.
What do you think "oh to have such time..." means, if not that they don't have such time??0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Because people seem to be suggesting that others were saying that 2 hours is too much like to spend on health or that they do not have the time to exercise, I think it's important (for fairness) to point out that's not what was said at all.
This whole thing about the 2 hours started because RunRutheeRun said that finding something that did not take as much time as the 10-15 mile walk that this thread was initially about (about 4 hours, probably) might be a good idea, and then said that she used to do 10 miles/day and now does about 6 miles, which allows her to spend less time working out (and has other benefits).
OP said she also likes doing 6 miles, and added "Its just a 2 hours walk a day at 3MPH i found that super doable."
RunRutheeRun said (I assume in an effort to be helpful): "why not try for 4mph or fast /slow intervals and make your walk more time efficient? I run for 40-50 mins every morning to get at least half my steps in before work."
In response, OP said: "2 hours of my day spent exercising is NOT alot of my time to do. Why you talking about more time efficient than 2 hours"
That's what prompted another poster to jump in with the "oh to have such time" comment. Again, no one was saying they didn't have time to work out, let alone to spend time on health.
Stop putting words into others' mouths.
Oh, those were direct quotes... 3 -
Gosh to come back to this thread and see I'm getting quoted.... I was only trying to be helpful (that's my usual aim when I comment on posts)
As I always am saying in the forums we all have to find what works for us and what we can be consistent at.1 -
SusanMFindlay wrote: »Our three year old loves our daily after-dinner walks. We let him help pick where we're going (within reason; if it's -30 degrees out, it will be indoors).
We started doing after dinner walks this year (they've clashed with bedtime up until now, as we have dinner rather late). It's a really nice habit. It'll be too dark now until at least February, but I'm determined to restart them after that.2 -
CattOfTheGarage wrote: »SusanMFindlay wrote: »Our three year old loves our daily after-dinner walks. We let him help pick where we're going (within reason; if it's -30 degrees out, it will be indoors).
We started doing after dinner walks this year (they've clashed with bedtime up until now, as we have dinner rather late). It's a really nice habit. It'll be too dark now until at least February, but I'm determined to restart them after that.
I have such good memories of going for walks after dinner with my parents when i was a kid. We would go for hour+ long walks/explorations most every night. On weekends the bikes would come out and my dad, me and my sister would ride for hours together.7 -
NorthCascades wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »That's what prompted another poster to jump in with the "oh to have such time" comment. Again, no one was saying they didn't have time to work out, let alone to spend time on health.
What do you think "oh to have such time..." means, if not that they don't have such time??
That not having to worry about the difference between exercising taking one hour or two (or how much time it takes at all) is a luxury. No one was saying they didn't exercise. One poster (Ruthee) was recommending something as more efficient, OP said "efficient? it's only 2 hours, that's nothing!" (paraphrasing), and another poster said "wow, it would be nice to think 2 hours was nothing" (again, paraphrasing).
When I was tri training, I would ride to work with an extra little loop (45 min) and then try to get in another 30 miles after sometimes (my normal commute is 45 min to maybe an hour each way, so I'd take off that the time it would take me anyway). I'd also run home either an hour (most direct route) to 2 (if I did extra miles). That I could do that and combine it with my commute, which some can't do, is a huge luxury. If someone else said she needed to fit her workout into an hour and I said "why bother with that? 2 is nothing?" I'd not be surprised if she said "oh, you can do that? lucky duck" and I certainly wouldn't suggest that she needed to watch less TV or was making excuses not to spend time on health. (And obviously other things done for health, like sleep and cooking, are done on top of that.)6 -
RunRutheeRun wrote: »Gosh to come back to this thread and see I'm getting quoted.... I was only trying to be helpful (that's my usual aim when I comment on posts)
As I always am saying in the forums we all have to find what works for us and what we can be consistent at.
I thought your comments were really reasonable and helpful, that's the only reason I was quoting you!
(Just to be clear.)0 -
@lemurcat12 yeah I thought that's what you meant anyway...it was just funny (in a good way) to see myself quoted is all
1 -
NorthCascades wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »That's what prompted another poster to jump in with the "oh to have such time" comment. Again, no one was saying they didn't have time to work out, let alone to spend time on health.
What do you think "oh to have such time..." means, if not that they don't have such time??lemurcat12 wrote: »That not having to worry about the difference between one hour or two is a luxury. No one was saying they didn't exercise. [irrelevant text removed]
A luxury is a thing that most people don't have.
No one is saying that anyone said they're not exercising, either, since we're being technical about it. We're not debating whether it's good or bad to exercise. We're talking about whether or not two hours is so incredibly much that it's hopelessly out of reach for most people.0 -
NorthCascades wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »That's what prompted another poster to jump in with the "oh to have such time" comment. Again, no one was saying they didn't have time to work out, let alone to spend time on health.
What do you think "oh to have such time..." means, if not that they don't have such time??lemurcat12 wrote: »That not having to worry about the difference between one hour or two is a luxury. No one was saying they didn't exercise. [irrelevant text removed]
A luxury is a thing that most people don't have.
No one is saying that anyone said they're not exercising, either, since we're being technical about it. We're not debating whether it's good or bad to exercise. We're talking about whether or not two hours is so incredibly much that it's hopelessly out of reach for most people.
Saying "why would you be concerned with time" is what most people probably don't have the luxury of thinking. Or to quote the poster in question (rybo): it's a luxury if "2 hours a day is considered a drop in the bucket for time."
And since this started with OP SAYING that she had that luxury (since she didn't have a job), I don't know why it's even being debated. Not having to worry about time is a luxury for most people.
For some reason you turned this into: "We all have our priorities. The average American spends 34 hours a week watching TV, but scoffs at the idea of having 2 hours in a day for their health."
It wasn't about 2 hours per day for health, and to suggest that feeling that 2 hours on working out is tough so you want to fit it in in one means that you lack priorities, as you seem to be doing here, seems offensive to me.2 -
Its not the problem people are making it out to be Jayded, its normal for many, and very healthy. Even if you eat the exact calories back that you used up, it is not a zero sum game: you have stimulated your body's processes for tissue regeneration, possibly muscle building and exercise induced endorphins, plus almost every disease risk out there is reduced by higher amounts of exercise, at the levels you are describing.
Calorie burns are always over estimated I find, whether by device or manually, so I wouldn't eat back every last one of them and leave a little negative buffer, find how accurate for each activity a tracker is for you through time and experience.
I used to hike a lot and eat those calories back, never all of them, but when I would go on a hike and burn 2k to 3k calories, eating them back gives me quite a bit to play with...celebratory extra large pizza for dinner for example
However, the biggest concern is that it DOES create a problem for when you just do not have the time to do huge amounts of exercise and you are used to eating more, or just want to continue eating at those levels. This is how I gain weight, since I tend to do lots of exercise and/or lifting, and then events in my life cause me to not be able to, I fail to notice how much my burns are restricted, thinking I will make up for it later, and I keep on eating the same way for too long and gain.
0 -
I am now just confused. This post has gone from the original walking 10-15 miles (3-5 hr at my non racing pace) to have an 800 cal extra for an over feed, to 1-2 hr walking/exercise, to dedicating 2 hrs a day to ones health.
The first is a personal preference I wouldn't do and wouldn't advise on a regular basis.
The second is realistic 6 days a week for someone with a particular fitness goal.
The third is doable for most people if planning, cooking, eating, daily activity, and exercise, are all part of that 2 hrs of health dedication.
As with everything, chose the path that is sustainable for you. This can be long term sustainable, or short term evolving.
Cheers, h.
5 -
SoLongAndThanksForAllTheFish wrote: »However, the biggest concern is that it DOES create a problem for when you just do not have the time to do huge amounts of exercise and you are used to eating more, or just want to continue eating at those levels. This is how I gain weight, since I tend to do lots of exercise and/or lifting, and then events in my life cause me to not be able to, I fail to notice how much my burns are restricted, thinking I will make up for it later, and I keep on eating the same way for too long and gain.
That is very true. When I was in my early 20's, I was at the point where I could work out 2-3 hours/day, and really got used to being lenient with my food. THEN I severely sprained my ankle, and couldn't do ANYTHING (although getting around on crutches felt like a workout), and it KILLED me to cut all the way back. It was like, either I cut back on my food or gain weight, and it sucked. LOL3 -
Anyway, personally I run 3/4 times per week when I have enough free time. When I am too busy, I walk 1:30/2 hours per day. It may seem contradictory, but you can break the total time in short walks, that you can do wherever you are, whatever you wear, and you don't need to take a shower afterwards 3
-
I generally try to stay w/in my allocated cals/day but, if I want to eat more, I will sometimes do some cardio (10-30 mins of rowing for an extra 100-300 cals) to allow me to eat more but this doesn't happen very often.1
-
middlehaitch wrote: »I am now just confused. This post has gone from the original walking 10-15 miles (3-5 hr at my non racing pace) to have an 800 cal extra for an over feed, to 1-2 hr walking/exercise, to dedicating 2 hrs a day to ones health.
Yes, interesting, no? The whole thing totally changed.4 -
Gianfranco_R wrote: »Anyway, personally I run 3/4 times per week when I have enough free time. When I am too busy, I walk 1:30/2 hours per day. It may seem contradictory, but you can break the total time in short walks, that you can do wherever you are, whatever you wear, and you don't need to take a shower afterwards
No, I don't think that's contradictory at all. (I think 90-120 min over the course of a day is reasonable and also somewhat different from what was being discussed. I also think 90-120 min of exercise in a day can be reasonable for many. I just would never say to someone else "2 hours is a drop in the bucket" or why should I care about getting in my planned workout time more efficiently ever? Nor would I suggest that someone who does care about efficiency and getting it in in one hour must be prioritizing poorly.4 -
CattOfTheGarage wrote: »ModernRock wrote: »Calculate the calorie goal you'll have when you reach your goal weight and lightly active or less. It seems sensible to me that--while in a calorie deficit--there's really no downside to exercising specifically to be able to eat this future (conservative) maintenance calorie goal. After all, that's how much you'll be eating for the long term anyway. Then, on days when you are highly active or exercise for fitness or fun, you get to eat a little more.
Personally, the downside to exercising for the purpose of eating more is not addressing the issues that led to weight gain in the first place. (Granted, one of those issues could have been a highly sedentary lifestyle. But, that means more activity is needed either way.) Should life get in the way of increased activity, you'll be left learning how control your eating at a time that is likely to be stressful for the same reasons your activity decreased.
I'm afraid I totally disagree with this. The downside to forming a habit of eating at your sedentary intake at your goal weight is that if you are a short older woman that is probably around 1200 calories.Even for me, approaching middle age at average height for a woman, my sedentary maintenance at goal will only be around 1500-1600 calories. As I age, it will steadily decrease.
For many of us who are short and female, increasing activity in order to increase calorie allowance is really the only hope for a decent quality of life, on the way to our goal and as we reach maintenance. I'm getting frustrated with all these messages saying it's somehow "not healthy" for no convincing reason.
What is not healthy is the modern, Western sedentary lifestyle. My body wants to eat more than 1500 calories because it expects to move more. Our ancestors remained active until death (they had no choice) and that is what we are adapted for.
Learning to starve ourselves in idleness is neither physically nor psychologically "healthier" than exercising more in order to eat more. Yes, perhaps a health problem will force me into a sedentary lifestyle again in the future, and I'll have to learn to eat less. I'll cross that bridge when I come to it. In the meantime, I'm going to adopt a lifestyle that meets my body's needs - that means more movement, and more food.
Thanks for your thoughtful reply. It must be said that what you are describing-- the multiple reasons you gave for exercising and being active---is categorically not "exercising purely for the sake of eating more", which is what the original poster was describing and I was addressing. Nowhere do I suggest "starving in idleness" or "learning to starve ourselves". By definition, meeting your calorie needs is not starving.0 -
NorthCascades wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »This is true...but it can also be a slippery slope...
Sure, but what isn't? You can exercise too much so you can eat 10,000 kCal a day, you can also push too hard on the gas pedal on your way in to work, or drink too much coffee to be more productive when you get there. In all things, people need judgement and balance.cwolfman13 wrote: »Certainly one of the advantages for me of regular exercise is to be able to just live life and not give a ton of thought to my diet (though I eat pretty well)...particularly when it comes to beer...but it's not the "reason" I guess...
To be honest I don't have any one reason for exercising. If you asked me the main reason on two different days, I'll give you two different answers. Some of the most common ones for me are:
Cabin fever
Take advantage of a nice day
Scenery
To be in shape
Deal with anxiety
I sure enjoy the fact that I'm able to eat more and maintain a healthy weight, too, but that's never "the" thing that gets me out the door, probably only because my cabin fever is stronger.
Ha, did you mention cabin fever? LOL! It's sub zero to 8 degrees so far this week and my dog came up lame. I had to force myself to the treadmill today. Arghhh....it just doesn't make a good substitute to hiking. Your 5 reasons are mine as well, especially the anxiety. Being able to eat a little more is helpful as well, but not the main focus of my exercise.
As far as having the time, being semi-retired/unemployed helps, but I understand the struggle many have with balancing their time. When I am working it's typically 12-14 hour days for as many days as it takes to get a project done. That doesn't leave much time for working out. Sometimes I get a walk in and that's about it.
3 -
Always_Kriss wrote: »all i wanna know is where people are finding these thin crust pizza's at the store for under 800 calories LOL cause thin crust pizza, store brand here is still almost 400 calories for 1/5th the pizza... and who the hell cuts a pizza into 5ths?!
Small ones?0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 430 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
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions