Long exercise purely to eat more?
Replies
-
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'm 41 and work out an hour or two most days and can walk up to 4 hours with the baby on a good day. I also make time to get brain dead at night when he goes to bed
1 -
ModernRock wrote: »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.
What I'm referring to is adding exercise in order to increase calorie goal, which I would say does count as "exercising to eat more". Whether you're doing it every day to get a regular increase, or every now and then so you can have a takeaway, it seems much the same to me.
Basically there are two approaches to being stuck with a low calorie goal: move more so you can eat more, or remain sedentary and eat less.
Even if you are meeting your energy needs by the latter approach, I can't see how it could possibly be healthier. At best it's equivalent (though what we know about the benefits of exercise would suggest the first option is healthier).
I'm a bit surprised that so many people are arguing that exercising is unhealthy. I can see it's something to do with motivation that's worrying people, and I'm trying to understand the logic that says it's OK to exercise in order to look good but not in order to eat a cake. I'm not succeeding.
5 -
@CattOfTheGarage
Re:'I'm a bit surprised that so many people are arguing that exercising is unhealthy. I can see it's something to do with motivation that's worrying people, and I'm trying to understand the logic that says it's OK to exercise in order to look good but not in order to eat a cake. I'm not succeeding'
I think it is a case of over exercising can be as damaging as under eating. Not exercise is unhealthy.
Also, most are comfortable doing an extra workout or an hours walk to fit in a little something extra on occasion, or calorie hoard. It is the extreme of 10-15 miles that I, and some others, may question.
There is an indication of binge eating that is being controlled by prolonged exercise in the first post. I have not been sure if it is a ED binge or just a large over feed. If the former it is something beyond this forum.
A theme on this site is to build lifelong sustainable habits, exercise, and eating protocols. The 10-15miles in a day for an over feed isn't something everyone can agree with as it is a bit extreme and probably not sustainable.
Mmmm home made cookies or a Naniamo bar.
Cheers, h.3 -
ModernRock wrote: »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.
I gained a bit of weight because my life became somewhat more sedentary, although not completely of course + we were travelling around the world for many month and trying out all the good food out there.
We're settled again, exercising more, and back to a normal diet.
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Not only that, I have a medical condition that calls for exercise as part of managing it. I need to be active to stay healthy.
Me too!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.
This always amazes me ... there's so much time for sedentary activities, but no time for active activities.
Personally, I can't just sit and watch TV ... way too boring. But I can watch TV while run/walking on the treadmill or riding my trainer or lifting weights ... or even doing things like housecleaning and working on other projects that have me up and walking around regularly throughout my evening.
The other thing is that for me, my 50+ hours of exercise a month (1:40 min a day, every day, on average) isn't usually all at once. And we don't have to put in our daily exercise all at once. I incorporate mine throughout the day so that it hardly feels like I'm exercising at all.Christine_72 wrote: »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.
Me too! I grew up in an active family and have been active my entire life. 0 -
And one more thing ... I mentioned that I exercise just over 50 hours a month and worked that out to an average of 1:40 min/day. But that doesn't really describe what I do.
If you had a look at my exercise minutes, I put in somewhere between 60 and 90 minutes a day 6 days a week, and then about 300 minutes on one weekend day.
During the week, I eat my usual 1375 cal + my exercise calories. Just my ordinary diet.
And then on the 300 minute day, I go for pizza, a large roast dinner, fish and chip, something at one of the local Indian restaurants, an extra dessert, or whatever I want.
And then back to my ordinary diet during the week.
2 -
I think finding time depends upon so many factors. Working full time and having children definitely means that you need to be more creative with scheduling exercise sessions. I do not have time to fit in two hours of exercise on top of my career, my family, and my obligations to my home (laundry, cleaning, dishes, dog, errands, appointments, etc). My husband works full time and attends graduate school so that leaves a lot of the normal daily stuff my responsibility. But I do make time for 30-45 minutes 3-4 times a week. It fits my schedule. When the school year is over my schedule opens up enormously and I have so much extra time.
1 -
CattOfTheGarage wrote: »ModernRock wrote: »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.
What I'm referring to is adding exercise in order to increase calorie goal, which I would say does count as "exercising to eat more". Whether you're doing it every day to get a regular increase, or every now and then so you can have a takeaway, it seems much the same to me.
Basically there are two approaches to being stuck with a low calorie goal: move more so you can eat more, or remain sedentary and eat less.
Even if you are meeting your energy needs by the latter approach, I can't see how it could possibly be healthier. At best it's equivalent (though what we know about the benefits of exercise would suggest the first option is healthier).
I'm a bit surprised that so many people are arguing that exercising is unhealthy. I can see it's something to do with motivation that's worrying people, and I'm trying to understand the logic that says it's OK to exercise in order to look good but not in order to eat a cake. I'm not succeeding.
I totally get your point, but much in life is a matter of perspective and motivation. You really can't go wrong with your argument as any movement beyond sedentary could be argued as moving more to eat more. The distinction is the motivation behind the activity vis-à-vis sustainability and overall wellness. You wrote that you exercise and stay active because it is healthy and meets the body's needs (what we are adapted to do). The original poster's question and reasoning, however, was exercising more to binge on pizza. These don't seem much the same to me.1 -
middlehaitch wrote: »@CattOfTheGarage
Re:'I'm a bit surprised that so many people are arguing that exercising is unhealthy. I can see it's something to do with motivation that's worrying people, and I'm trying to understand the logic that says it's OK to exercise in order to look good but not in order to eat a cake. I'm not succeeding'
I think it is a case of over exercising can be as damaging as under eating. Not exercise is unhealthy.
Also, most are comfortable doing an extra workout or an hours walk to fit in a little something extra on occasion, or calorie hoard. It is the extreme of 10-15 miles that I, and some others, may question.
There is an indication of binge eating that is being controlled by prolonged exercise in the first post. I have not been sure if it is a ED binge or just a large over feed. If the former it is something beyond this forum.
A theme on this site is to build lifelong sustainable habits, exercise, and eating protocols. The 10-15miles in a day for an over feed isn't something everyone can agree with as it is a bit extreme and probably not sustainable.
Mmmm home made cookies or a Naniamo bar.
Cheers, h.
This is generally true, but I've never read anything about negative effects of too much walking. On the other hand, there is evidence that spending more than 8 hours per day sitting shorten your lifespan. So I think that someone telling to go out for a walk instead of watching tv is giving pretty good advise.4 -
"middlehaitch wrote: »It is the extreme of 10-15 miles that I, and some others, may question.
...
The 10-15miles in a day for an over feed isn't something everyone can agree with as it is a bit extreme and probably not sustainable.
To me, walking 10-15 miles on a day once a week, maybe even 2 or 3 times a week, isn't extreme. That would be like saying cycling 30-45 miles on a day is extreme, and of course, that's nowhere near extreme. (For reference, the walking to cycling conversion is often considered to be 1:3)
And to me, doing a lot of exercise once, or a few days each week, and thus being able to do things like having a pizza, a large roast dinner, a fish and chips meal, going out for Indian food or pasta, or having a couple Nanaimo bars (thanks so much, now I'm thinking about them) ... is freeing! And it is sustainable.
For me, what's not sustainable is exercising very little and thus eating very little (net 1500 cal) every single day for the rest of my life. That's just simply not going to happen.
But exercising a lot periodically, and thus being able to eat whatever I want on those days ... I can see doing that for many, many more years to come.
It all comes down to CI<CO and how we want to approach CI<CO.
Personally ... I'm active, and always have been. Exercising lots just feels really comfortable for me. 8 -
I also wonder if there's a definition issue here with the term "binge".
The OP has said, "Nah i just do it sometimes when i feel like binge eating ill walk extra long to get the calories for an extra meal."
In other words, I read it that to her, a binge is just an extra meal which she will work for and have on occasion.
My husband used to suggest that the fact I ate half a large chocolate bar after work some days was a binge.
Well ... not really. Neither are actually binges in the eating disorder definition of the term where a person frequently consumes unusually large amounts of food and feels unable to stop eating.
http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/binge-eating-disorder/home/ovc-20182926
Presumably, the OP has her extra meal, feels satisfied, and carries on with life until a few days later or a week later or wherever she wants another extra meal. Same with my chocolate. I'd have half a bar and that would be it ... then I'd go out for a walk or do the housecleaning or get into my studying or whatever.
However, some people use the term "binge" as a slangy term to mean having a bit extra to eat now and then.
So I wonder if some people reading this thread have kind of panicked and assumed "eating disorder" when they read "binge" instead of reading it as the slangy, less accurate, definition.3 -
Gianfranco_R wrote: »middlehaitch wrote: »@CattOfTheGarage
Re:'I'm a bit surprised that so many people are arguing that exercising is unhealthy. I can see it's something to do with motivation that's worrying people, and I'm trying to understand the logic that says it's OK to exercise in order to look good but not in order to eat a cake. I'm not succeeding'
I think it is a case of over exercising can be as damaging as under eating. Not exercise is unhealthy.
Also, most are comfortable doing an extra workout or an hours walk to fit in a little something extra on occasion, or calorie hoard. It is the extreme of 10-15 miles that I, and some others, may question.
There is an indication of binge eating that is being controlled by prolonged exercise in the first post. I have not been sure if it is a ED binge or just a large over feed. If the former it is something beyond this forum.
A theme on this site is to build lifelong sustainable habits, exercise, and eating protocols. The 10-15miles in a day for an over feed isn't something everyone can agree with as it is a bit extreme and probably not sustainable.
Mmmm home made cookies or a Naniamo bar.
Cheers, h.
This is generally true, but I've never read anything about negative effects of too much walking. On the other hand, there is evidence that spending more than 8 hours per day sitting shorten your lifespan. So I think that someone telling to go out for a walk instead of watching tv is giving pretty good advise.
Naw, that is misinformation that shouldn't be spread. For "over exercising" walking to be harmful, its similar to "you can die from drinking too much water". Yes, you can over exercise, but you have to be very extreme about it if you aren't an athlete, and go through quite a bit of discomfort before its a problem. Its easier to improperly exercise, but walking is going to be difficult to get wrong. What she described is really what optimally we all should do each day, we are meant to move all the time, the idea that walking 2hrs a day being "over exercising" is absurd and less than what we are designed to do. Even your example of 10-15 miles every single day is not a problem for someone to walk, as long as you are using common sense and not walking on an injury or condition. You could get an "overuse injury", especially most out of shape Americans who are overweight, but then back off, give it some time to heal. And she wasn't talking about 10-15 miles per day, but on occasion. Thats great.
5 -
I'll also add that there are people who are on their feet and walking all day long ... my husband is one of them. He has a physically active job. A number of years ago, I worked part-time for the post office, and walked for about 6 hours a day for 2 days a week as part of my job. And I was only part time ... there were others who did that 5 days a week.
I just have trouble grasping the idea that walking 10-15 miles on occasion is somehow "over exercising".5 -
I'll also add that there are people who are on their feet and walking all day long ... my husband is one of them. He has a physically active job. A number of years ago, I worked part-time for the post office, and walked for about 6 hours a day for 2 days a week as part of my job. And I was only part time ... there were others who did that 5 days a week.
I just have trouble grasping the idea that walking 10-15 miles on occasion is somehow "over exercising".
Exactly, its completely the opposite of a problem, what we are built to do. And we don't have to go back very far in time to a point where almost everyone did over 10-15miles of walking every day getting to and from work, where they would do other exercise, then walk back home. Or walk all over the property doing chores, or walk the forests hunting and trapping, etc etc etc. People just have a hard time imagining it in today's world since we have become so inactive as people...but go to rural parts of China and India and Africa and 10-15miles is again a normal day to day commute to start your work.5 -
It also seems to me that there is a huge attitude difference between someone cheerfully going out for a big walk in order to stuff a pizza in their face, and someone madly exercising in order to ease their guilt or anxiety about having eaten "too much" or the "wrong foods".
The latter is unhappy, disordered behaviour which is likely to lead to a cycle of bingeing and over-exercising. The former is a happy combination of hedonistic pleasure-seeking and pragmatic planning which seems to be to be about as far from eating disorder thinking as you can get.
I see that there may be a superficial resemblance, but it is hard for me to imagine someone with an eating disorder happily and shamelessly deciding that what they want is a big greasy pizza, and then planning out a way they can have it while still meeting their goals for health. The prioritising of both pleasure and long term health are not hallmarks of eating disorders - they're all about control and anxiety.8 -
CattOfTheGarage wrote: »I see that there may be a superficial resemblance, but it is hard for me to imagine someone with an eating disorder happily and shamelessly deciding that what they want is a big greasy pizza, and then planning out a way they can have it while still meeting their goals for health. The prioritising of both pleasure and long term health are not hallmarks of eating disorders - they're all about control and anxiety.
You need to know where to ride, and where to get the best pizza.
Those two were scored in the Chianti Region of Tuscany. About 2 to 2 1/2 hours riding before sitting down to lunch to eat those, and then about 2 1/2 more hours on the bike after lunch to arrive to our next destination.
Ride to eat. Eat to ride.
6 -
CattOfTheGarage wrote: »It also seems to me that there is a huge attitude difference between someone cheerfully going out for a big walk in order to stuff a pizza in their face, and someone madly exercising in order to ease their guilt or anxiety about having eaten "too much" or the "wrong foods".
The latter is unhappy, disordered behaviour which is likely to lead to a cycle of bingeing and over-exercising. The former is a happy combination of hedonistic pleasure-seeking and pragmatic planning which seems to be to be about as far from eating disorder thinking as you can get.
I see that there may be a superficial resemblance, but it is hard for me to imagine someone with an eating disorder happily and shamelessly deciding that what they want is a big greasy pizza, and then planning out a way they can have it while still meeting their goals for health. The prioritising of both pleasure and long term health are not hallmarks of eating disorders - they're all about control and anxiety.
There may be a difference in mental state, but some are stuck on this as a "disorder" or "over exercising" which it is not in any way, and your mental state has little effect on the actual calories that went in and out. What she has described is planning and balance, and ironically what MyfitnessPal is all about encouraging you to do. If you did eat more calories, maybe go walk a bit more. Or, if I want that big meal I cant afford caloric-ly, plan for a long walk. Not dangerous in the least, but intelligent, right on target for behaviors you want to reinforce for life, and great for your health. Now if she starved herself the next day or decided she had to run a marathon to punish herself for eating more, maybe there would be a problem (but not necessarily, some people thrive on this-- "ok you misbehaved self, now you have to go do a hard workout"). But planning on walking 10-15 mi is great for your health and reinforcing good linked behaviors, and no big deal even if done in a "sad" mental state (in fact it will help clear any negative mental states). No big deal except maybe for those of us stuck in chairs all day to conceptualize, which I think may be the big problem here.6 -
As a contrast to OP's controversial forward-planning approach, I offer my dinner today, when I whimsically bought Krispy Kreme doughnuts and then made pizza with giant hot dogs on it. I had done none of OP's advance planning and walked maybe 2 miles today, so all I can do now is look sadly at my weekly averages and wish that I, too, had walked 15 miles this morning.
I blame this thread.5 -
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.
I watch roughly 30 minutes of t.v. per night with my wife while we eat dinner and that's it...I wish I had two hours every single day to dedicate to exercise...that would be great...I love to ride and it would be awesome...but while exercise is a priority, so are a lot of other things. I can get in 30 minutes to an hour most days...a little more if I don't have to work through my lunch which has become more of the norm these days...the only time I really have two hours to workout without my wife turning on me is on the weekend.
3 -
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
So, someone who isn't dedicating two hours to exercise every day is just watching t.v. and has jacked up priorities?3 -
I think it's a great idea, we all need to indulge sometime & this is a good way to do it. I really enjoy walking & being outside too0
-
This is a topic that is a bit of a pet peeve for me, and I see several ideas circulating both on the forums and in real. I exercise mainly for the calories. My step count is not as high due to injuries and issues, but one of the main reasons I do more that what is "adequate for health" is because I like eating more. I haven't read the whole thread, but here are a few thoughts that kinda bother me:
- No, I'm not going to develop an eating disorder. You don't contract eating disorders like a contagious disease. You need to be predisposed and have a certain mental state to develop one. I don't believe I possess that sort of mental state. When I exercise extra, I do it because I believe a decently sized portion of real lasagna with real béchamel is worth the extra 1 hour walk when I've already done my "official" cardio for the day. I'm not any more disordered than someone who opts for a lightened up version or eats 2-3 spoonfuls and calls it a day. For weight loss people need to make certain sacrifices, and time is what I'd often choose if I physically could.
- No, I won't fall apart if at some point I lost the ability to maintain my exercise level. I would just eat less. In fact I go through weeks at a time where the most I can do is shuffle to the bathroom and back to bed. When someone loses a secondary source of income they make do. I do too with my calories. The principle is the same, except I get to indulge more when I'm more active.
- Yes, exercise improves fitness, and no, that doesn't need to be my default number one goal. There is this widespread belief that people who exercise for any other reason than fitness or strength gains are some sort of second class citizens. Any goal a person has is valid. Those who lift to look good are by no means lesser humans than those who lift to gain strength, and those who run because they like the calories are by no means lower class than those who do it to try and beat a personal best. I do resistance training because I need the strength for running with lower risk of injury and have little interest in much else strength-wise, and I do running because I like the calories. That I happen to enjoy running is just a plus, just like the calorie burn is a plus for a fitness-oriented individual.
- No, I won't damage my joints by having a 1 hour walk on top of my other cardio when I'm planning for a larger meal. I know my body and its limits. If I didn't, I would have happily opted for a 3 hour walk every single day, and yes I get to decide how to manage my time and what is worth doing for long hours and what would interfer with my responsibilities and what would't.13 -
-
Awesome post @amusedmonkey . I particularly agree with contracting an eating disorder. I am 100% positive that eating disorders, orthorexia, exercise bulimia etc etc is not in my dna! I would have noticed a hint of these things in the past 45 years..
I enjoy eating and I enjoy exercise, it's a win win for me.
When i say exercise, i walk a lot and that's it, nothing severe or punishing.0 -
CattOfTheGarage wrote: »As a contrast to OP's controversial forward-planning approach, I offer my dinner today, when I whimsically bought Krispy Kreme doughnuts and then made pizza with giant hot dogs on it. I had done none of OP's advance planning and walked maybe 2 miles today, so all I can do now is look sadly at my weekly averages and wish that I, too, had walked 15 miles this morning.
I blame this thread.
Well the blame more aptly lies on the people saying dont do it, since clearly OP plans in advance for such feasts, and you could have benefited as well. Rather looks like you are proof not planning the exercise increase doesnt help, like most of us most of the time, and exactly how we got to the point of needing to lose weight
I am thinking of hiking this evening to fit in another extra large pizza...if its not snowing too much that is...luckily MFP recording is all about balancing your energy intake with your expenditures, which is exactly what this is.1 -
I'll also add that there are people who are on their feet and walking all day long ... my husband is one of them. He has a physically active job. A number of years ago, I worked part-time for the post office, and walked for about 6 hours a day for 2 days a week as part of my job. And I was only part time ... there were others who did that 5 days a week.
I just have trouble grasping the idea that walking 10-15 miles on occasion is somehow "over exercising".
I don't think anyone is really saying that...0 -
amusedmonkey wrote: »This is a topic that is a bit of a pet peeve for me, and I see several ideas circulating both on the forums and in real. I exercise mainly for the calories. My step count is not as high due to injuries and issues, but one of the main reasons I do more that what is "adequate for health" is because I like eating more. I haven't read the whole thread, but here are a few thoughts that kinda bother me:
- No, I'm not going to develop an eating disorder. You don't contract eating disorders like a contagious disease. You need to be predisposed and have a certain mental state to develop one. I don't believe I possess that sort of mental state. When I exercise extra, I do it because I believe a decently sized portion of real lasagna with real béchamel is worth the extra 1 hour walk when I've already done my "official" cardio for the day. I'm not any more disordered than someone who opts for a lightened up version or eats 2-3 spoonfuls and calls it a day. For weight loss people need to make certain sacrifices, and time is what I'd often choose if I physically could.
- No, I won't fall apart if at some point I lost the ability to maintain my exercise level. I would just eat less. In fact I go through weeks at a time where the most I can do is shuffle to the bathroom and back to bed. When someone loses a secondary source of income they make do. I do too with my calories. The principle is the same, except I get to indulge more when I'm more active.
- Yes, exercise improves fitness, and no, that doesn't need to be my default number one goal. There is this widespread belief that people who exercise for any other reason than fitness or strength gains are some sort of second class citizens. Any goal a person has is valid. Those who lift to look good are by no means lesser humans than those who lift to gain strength, and those who run because they like the calories are by no means lower class than those who do it to try and beat a personal best. I do resistance training because I need the strength for running with lower risk of injury and have little interest in much else strength-wise, and I do running because I like the calories. That I happen to enjoy running is just a plus, just like the calorie burn is a plus for a fitness-oriented individual.
- No, I won't damage my joints by having a 1 hour walk on top of my other cardio when I'm planning for a larger meal. I know my body and its limits. If I didn't, I would have happily opted for a 3 hour walk every single day, and yes I get to decide how to manage my time and what is worth doing for long hours and what would interfer with my responsibilities and what would't.
I totally agree. I constantly see these posts suggesting that my calorie intake is too low at 1200, but as a 5'2 woman, that only gives me one pound a week...nothing crazy. So then I work out so I can eat what I consider a reasonable amount and I'm burned for doing that too.
Can't win for losing.3 -
amusedmonkey wrote: »This is a topic that is a bit of a pet peeve for me, and I see several ideas circulating both on the forums and in real. I exercise mainly for the calories. My step count is not as high due to injuries and issues, but one of the main reasons I do more that what is "adequate for health" is because I like eating more. I haven't read the whole thread, but here are a few thoughts that kinda bother me:
- No, I'm not going to develop an eating disorder. You don't contract eating disorders like a contagious disease. You need to be predisposed and have a certain mental state to develop one. I don't believe I possess that sort of mental state. When I exercise extra, I do it because I believe a decently sized portion of real lasagna with real béchamel is worth the extra 1 hour walk when I've already done my "official" cardio for the day. I'm not any more disordered than someone who opts for a lightened up version or eats 2-3 spoonfuls and calls it a day. For weight loss people need to make certain sacrifices, and time is what I'd often choose if I physically could.
- No, I won't fall apart if at some point I lost the ability to maintain my exercise level. I would just eat less. In fact I go through weeks at a time where the most I can do is shuffle to the bathroom and back to bed. When someone loses a secondary source of income they make do. I do too with my calories. The principle is the same, except I get to indulge more when I'm more active.
- Yes, exercise improves fitness, and no, that doesn't need to be my default number one goal. There is this widespread belief that people who exercise for any other reason than fitness or strength gains are some sort of second class citizens. Any goal a person has is valid. Those who lift to look good are by no means lesser humans than those who lift to gain strength, and those who run because they like the calories are by no means lower class than those who do it to try and beat a personal best. I do resistance training because I need the strength for running with lower risk of injury and have little interest in much else strength-wise, and I do running because I like the calories. That I happen to enjoy running is just a plus, just like the calorie burn is a plus for a fitness-oriented individual.
- No, I won't damage my joints by having a 1 hour walk on top of my other cardio when I'm planning for a larger meal. I know my body and its limits. If I didn't, I would have happily opted for a 3 hour walk every single day, and yes I get to decide how to manage my time and what is worth doing for long hours and what would interfer with my responsibilities and what would't.
+1
Especially your second point.
Life is dynamic ... nothing remains the same forever ... I will not continue doing what I'm doing now for the rest of my life ... the whole thing could change next week ...
Therefore, I mindfully choose what I want to do for exercise and how much of it I want to do ... and how/what I want to eat ... for my circumstances right now.
Next week, I might have to make a different decision. That's life. And I know I need to be flexible.
5 -
I love to exercise and if I had my way I would be doing it several times a day, although I have to be careful. I struggled with an eating disorder in my past, I would run on average 70-90 miles a week and at most consume 2,000 calories a day. Needless to say my body shut down and I was unable to do any sort of exercise for over a year. Exercising to eat more is a huge trigger for me, I just want to push myself more and more until I burn out thinking the more I burn the more I can eat. So for me I have to stick to moderation with both eating & exercise.1
-
SusanMFindlay wrote: »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?!
Dr Oetker Ristorante pizza. 210 calories for 1/4 of the pizza. We cut it in 8ths, and I have three slices plus salad for a tasty low cal pizza dinner.
Yep. I had a whole mushroom on tonight. Worth it.0 -
This content has been removed.
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