Activity really matters, people

Francl27
Francl27 Posts: 26,371 Member
edited November 14 in Health and Weight Loss
I got a new Fitbit for Christmas. I used one for a bit 3.5 years ago when I was losing weight, but it was a clip on, and I stopped using it in the Summer because I wasn't going to clip it on my bra... So I got a charge HR 2 this time.

I knew this already, but it's become extremely obvious that activity makes a HUGE difference. For reference, I'm 5'5", 138 lbs (and 38yo). I lost 80 lbs, been maintaining for 2.5 years (put on 3-5 pounds over the Holidays that I'm working on losing now). Fitbit's default calories for me to maintain my weight is 2335, assuming that I meet all the daily goals (250 steps every hour, 10 stairs a day, 10k steps).

In those 3 weeks, my calories have been all over the place from 1600 calories in a day to 3300. And all that is from my activity (my main exercise is just walking).

So yes, weight loss depends on diet... but you would really make it MUCH easier on you if you increased your activity too. I've been on a Fitbit challenge with friends this week and trying to walk more and yes, I'm much hungrier from all that walking - but it's so much easier to stay under my goal too... I can eat pretty much what I want and still keep a deficit.

But it's so important to eat back exercise calories too... Yesterday I walked 38k steps. That's 16 miles total. I would have crashed and burned if I had stayed at my goal of 1800 calories (I've been eating 400-500 calories over that all week and I still have enough of a deficit to lose half a pound so far in just 3 days).

Anyway, just thought I'd share my experience.
«1

Replies

  • jonjaxmom
    jonjaxmom Posts: 77 Member
    Great point! I find this to be very true! I am a Type 1 Diabetic since 2004, and activity makes a big difference in how my body responds to food. Also, because of my disease, really HAVE to eat something most every evening before bed (to avoid going too low in my sleep). That's not always what I want to do, though, because there are times I am really not hungry or have maxed out my calories!! But say during my day, I go over my calorie allotment by 200 calories. I know I can go on my stationary bike and burn 400 calories doing an hour of exercise after dinner, and then I will be able to eat a decent 200 calorie or less snack to satisfy my blood glucose needs yet remain on track.

    For me, this is all really just a crazy numbers game at the end of the day. Yes, I want the best nutrients as possible. But in terms of the scale, its all about the numbers sometimes.
  • endlessfall16
    endlessfall16 Posts: 932 Member
    I no longer "count" regular, everyday type activities anymore as they don't seem to have much impact of my weight!!! Walking is one of them, regardless how many hours and I could walk for 3 hours daily!!!!


    These days I pay attention to activities that raise my heart rate to 85% of its max performance. I read that's the fat burning zone and very beneficial to heart health which seems to make a difference in my wt control effort. (Unfortunately the knees can't seem to keep up :( )

    How immediately do you eat back exercise calories? I suppose in the same day or immediately after the exercise session like most people?

    I don't necessarily eat in that pattern. Occasionally I find that my workout performance or overall physical feeling feels the best after 10 or 24 hours since the last big meal. This pattern is important in my "diet" because it allows flexibility with meals and also optimizes my body activities.

  • Francl27
    Francl27 Posts: 26,371 Member
    edited January 2017
    endlessfall16 wrote: »
    I no longer "count" regular, everyday type activities anymore as they don't seem to have much impact of my weight!!! Walking is one of them, regardless how many hours and I could walk for 3 hours daily!!!!


    These days I pay attention to activities that raise my heart rate to 85% of its max performance. I read that's the fat burning zone and very beneficial to heart health which seems to make a difference in my wt control effort. (Unfortunately the knees can't seem to keep up :( )

    How immediately do you eat back exercise calories? I suppose in the same day or immediately after the exercise session like most people?

    I don't necessarily eat in that pattern. Occasionally I find that my workout performance or overall physical feeling feels the best after 10 or 24 hours since the last big meal. This pattern is important in my "diet" because it allows flexibility with meals and also optimizes my body activities.

    Well for most of my walking my heart rate is usually over 100 (usually 120-140).. which really isn't bad. My resting HR is 60-68, depending on the time of the month.

    I don't typically eat after exercise.. just when I'm hungry.

    Most of my walking is for exercise though. On a busy day baking at home I barely hit 8k steps.
    OhMsDiva wrote: »
    Francl27 wrote: »
    I got a new Fitbit for Christmas. I used one for a bit 3.5 years ago when I was losing weight, but it was a clip on, and I stopped using it in the Summer because I wasn't going to clip it on my bra... So I got a charge HR 2 this time.

    I knew this already, but it's become extremely obvious that activity makes a HUGE difference. For reference, I'm 5'5", 138 lbs (and 38yo). I lost 80 lbs, been maintaining for 2.5 years (put on 3-5 pounds over the Holidays that I'm working on losing now). Fitbit's default calories for me to maintain my weight is 2335, assuming that I meet all the daily goals (250 steps every hour, 10 stairs a day, 10k steps).

    In those 3 weeks, my calories have been all over the place from 1600 calories in a day to 3300. And all that is from my activity (my main exercise is just walking).

    So yes, weight loss depends on diet... but you would really make it MUCH easier on you if you increased your activity too. I've been on a Fitbit challenge with friends this week and trying to walk more and yes, I'm much hungrier from all that walking - but it's so much easier to stay under my goal too... I can eat pretty much what I want and still keep a deficit.

    But it's so important to eat back exercise calories too... Yesterday I walked 38k steps. That's 16 miles total. I would have crashed and burned if I had stayed at my goal of 1800 calories (I've been eating 400-500 calories over that all week and I still have enough of a deficit to lose half a pound so far in just 3 days).

    Anyway, just thought I'd share my experience.

    I am tired just reading that you walked 38,000 steps. That is awesome. I am happy when I hit 14,000

    Haha it was a very long day. I really wanted to hit 40,000 but my legs just couldn't take it anymore. Before this challenge I would typically have 14-15k a day. This week it's been closer to 20k. I don't think I'll be able to walk at all this week end at this point.
  • Francl27
    Francl27 Posts: 26,371 Member
    SusanMFindlay wrote: »
    endlessfall16 wrote: »
    I no longer "count" regular, everyday type activities anymore as they don't seem to have much impact of my weight!!! Walking is one of them, regardless how many hours and I could walk for 3 hours daily!!!!


    These days I pay attention to activities that raise my heart rate to 85% of its max performance. I read that's the fat burning zone and very beneficial to heart health which seems to make a difference in my wt control effort. (Unfortunately the knees can't seem to keep up :( )

    How immediately do you eat back exercise calories? I suppose in the same day or immediately after the exercise session like most people?

    I don't necessarily eat in that pattern. Occasionally I find that my workout performance or overall physical feeling feels the best after 10 or 24 hours since the last big meal. This pattern is important in my "diet" because it allows flexibility with meals and also optimizes my body activities.

    50% of my daily calorie burn comes from "regular, everyday type activities". If I ignored them, I'd be massively undereating (as I was when I first joined MFP and made the mistake of following the activity level instructions which place me at "lightly active" for teaching as my job).

    (BMR ~ 1450 cals/day; daily burn ~ 2750 cals/day. I "work out" for two hours a week; that's less than 1000 cals/week.)

    Yep. I burned as many calories that busy day on my feet at home than if I walked for 1.5 hour then stayed on the couch all day.
  • Blueseraphchaos
    Blueseraphchaos Posts: 843 Member
    My step goal is 8000 a day
  • Blueseraphchaos
    Blueseraphchaos Posts: 843 Member
    Omg it just deleted most of my post. Or it's glitching so i can't see it...ugh.
  • kshama2001
    kshama2001 Posts: 28,052 Member
    endlessfall16 wrote: »
    I no longer "count" regular, everyday type activities anymore as they don't seem to have much impact of my weight!!! Walking is one of them, regardless how many hours and I could walk for 3 hours daily!!!!

    These days I pay attention to activities that raise my heart rate to 85% of its max performance. I read that's the fat burning zone and very beneficial to heart health which seems to make a difference in my wt control effort. (Unfortunately the knees can't seem to keep up :( )

    How immediately do you eat back exercise calories? I suppose in the same day or immediately after the exercise session like most people?

    I don't necessarily eat in that pattern. Occasionally I find that my workout performance or overall physical feeling feels the best after 10 or 24 hours since the last big meal. This pattern is important in my "diet" because it allows flexibility with meals and also optimizes my body activities.

    Does your activity level account for your hours of walking? I have a desk job, so use the Sedentary activity level, and count my walks separately (or let my FitBit count them.)

    You may have very different stats than I do, but if I walked for three hours, MFP would give me 890 calories, and I need to eat back at least 50% of that.

  • neldabg
    neldabg Posts: 1,452 Member
    Yes to everything you posted, especially in eating back exercise calories to fuel properly. Also, congrats on reaching 38k steps! The 30k+ range is so hard to hit.
    Over winter break, I came across a new competitive stepper in a challenge, but my highest steps were ~35k. That 40k badge looked good, but my legs weren't going past that xD
  • Francl27
    Francl27 Posts: 26,371 Member
    neldabg wrote: »
    Yes to everything you posted, especially in eating back exercise calories to fuel properly. Also, congrats on reaching 38k steps! The 30k+ range is so hard to hit.
    Over winter break, I came across a new competitive stepper in a challenge, but my highest steps were ~35k. That 40k badge looked good, but my legs weren't going past that xD

    Lol yep. I was outside walking, and at 35k my legs were like NOPE. So I went back home, just ended up doing 3k extra steps getting there and at home later.
  • _Justinian_
    _Justinian_ Posts: 232 Member
    You guys are making want to buy a Fitbit now. lol I was going to just get a watch, but this seems a much better alternative.
  • endlessfall16
    endlessfall16 Posts: 932 Member
    kshama2001 wrote: »
    endlessfall16 wrote: »
    I no longer "count" regular, everyday type activities anymore as they don't seem to have much impact of my weight!!! Walking is one of them, regardless how many hours and I could walk for 3 hours daily!!!!

    These days I pay attention to activities that raise my heart rate to 85% of its max performance. I read that's the fat burning zone and very beneficial to heart health which seems to make a difference in my wt control effort. (Unfortunately the knees can't seem to keep up :( )

    How immediately do you eat back exercise calories? I suppose in the same day or immediately after the exercise session like most people?

    I don't necessarily eat in that pattern. Occasionally I find that my workout performance or overall physical feeling feels the best after 10 or 24 hours since the last big meal. This pattern is important in my "diet" because it allows flexibility with meals and also optimizes my body activities.

    Does your activity level account for your hours of walking? I have a desk job, so use the Sedentary activity level, and count my walks separately (or let my FitBit count them.)

    You may have very different stats than I do, but if I walked for three hours, MFP would give me 890 calories, and I need to eat back at least 50% of that.

    I set light activity level as I think that's what it is if I take an average of 7 days which include everything except my competitive tennis. I also have a desk job but even that doesn't mean my day to day activeness is consistent. I walk as much as I could convince my wife and my daughter to go, plus my own walking at work when I need to clear my head.

    I think the point I want to make is everything is accounted for, whether your activity is a lot or medium or even little, and the level over time matches your eating (or it should)! You no longer be able to notice a huge difference. My sister in law doesn't seem to exercise or hugely active but she is at her good weight and looks fit. I guess she just goes on her days but eats appropriately so exercise or activities to her is a low priority. On the opposite end I see people struggle with intensive daily exercise but constantly complain about not being able to lose pounds.

    This understanding is important to me since it helped me to figure out my default/natural self when it comes to having an activity level and eating.
  • canteronkat
    canteronkat Posts: 126 Member
    It has a lot to do with your heart rate, if you do not hit fat burning zone you will not lose weight. That why when you first start walking you lose weight because your heart rate goes up but than your body stops increasing heart rate - stop losing weight
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    edited January 2017
    canteronkat wrote: »
    It has a lot to do with your heart rate, if you do not hit fat burning zone you will not lose weight.

    No, that's not so. First of all, you can lose weight entirely without any exercise at all (although I agree with OP's initial post).

    Second, fat burning rate is LOWER and burns fewer calories. For athletic/endurance purposes it's something potentially helpful to know, as it has to do with whether you are primarily burning fat or primarily burning glycogen (and so may need to refuel). There are health reasons to include some more intense exercise too, if possible, but for the purposes of weight (fat) loss you will lose weight if you burn (from all activity over the course of a day or week or whatever) more than you eat in the same period.

    So say you run a hard (for you) 10K and spend 50 minutes primarily above the fat burning zone. Depending on weight you probably burned about 500-600 calories. You won't have burned a lot of fat DURING the run, though.

    During the same time you could have walked not too hard and stayed in the fat burning zone easily. Burned many fewer calories, maybe 250 or so (I am not checking the numbers of this and it depends whether you deduct what you would have burned anyway). You will have used fat as a significant fuel source while walking (how much so depends on a bunch of things).

    Did you benefit by staying in the fat burning zone and eschewing the higher-intensity run? Well, maybe, depending on your specific situation, but not because it's burning more fat. What matters for weight loss is total calories burned and you burned more with the run.

    How can that be if you burned more fat walking? Well, you need to fuel all of your activities for the day, and if you eat 1800 and burn 2250, on the walking day, yay, deficit of about 450, you will have to make up that deficit with about 500 calories of fat from the fat that is on your body.

    But if you eat the same 1800 and burn 2550, on the running day, deficit of 750 -- so it seems the run did some good after all!
    That why when you first start walking you lose weight because your heart rate goes up but than your body stops increasing heart rate - stop losing weight

    This is confused. Again, fat burning rate is the LOWER rate when we are talking exercise,* and you lose depending on total calories burned. And, frankly, I don't think calories burned in a 3 mile walk are going to be much higher because you are so out of shape it makes your heart go up a lot to walk it slowly and then decline drastically when you can do that with ease. Calories burned from a walk varies basically based on your weight and how fast it is (since the longer it takes the less difference from what you would have burned just sitting around).

    *To add to this, sleep is a prime fat burning time. You tend to burn fat when not engaging in high intensity activity.
  • SusanMFindlay
    SusanMFindlay Posts: 1,804 Member
    I have the flu right now and my heartrate has been over 100 all day (even while sleeping). I'm curious if that's considered equivalent calorie burn to exercise with the same heartrate (body using energy to heal itself, etc.). Unlikely.

    I'm not considering this as an actual weight loss strategy; just academic curiosity. I'm having to force myself to eat anything at all, so not terribly worried about a deficit.
  • Machka9
    Machka9 Posts: 25,630 Member
    I spent years struggling to keep from becoming underweight because I cycled a whole lot + walking + winter sports in winter + weightlifting. I ate whatever I wanted, and the only time I looked at the calorie count of food was to find something both small and high calorie which I could eat on my rides.

    When my cycling quantity diminished, I did adjust my diet somewhat, but not quite enough and slowly gained a bit of weight.

    Now my cycling and other exercise is increasing again ... with lots of benefits, including:

    -- being able to eat more
    -- sleeping better
    -- feeling stronger
    -- that sense of accomplishment
  • NorthCascades
    NorthCascades Posts: 10,968 Member
    SusanMFindlay wrote: »
    I have the flu right now and my heartrate has been over 100 all day (even while sleeping). I'm curious if that's considered equivalent calorie burn to exercise with the same heartrate (body using energy to heal itself, etc.). Unlikely.

    When you go for a run, your heart rate will be very elevated; when I run a 10K, my average HR is just a hair under 165 bpm.

    I burn a lot of calories running a 10K, but it isn't my heart that burns most of them.

    My legs have to do a lot of work for me to run. I'm jumping from one foot to the other, lifting my body weight up into the air, roughly 10,000 times. My leg muscles are working real hard. The reason my heart rate goes up is to supply oxygenated blood to my leg muscles. They need oxygen to unlock the energy stored in my fat cells.

    Walking requires less of my legs than running, so my leg muscles don't have to produce energy as quickly (since they're not using as much of it), so they need less oxygen to walk than they do to run. That's why your HR is lower when you walk then when you run.

    While you're sick (or stressed, or drinking caffeine, or dehydrated, etc) your heart rate will be higher than normal. It's true your heart is a muscle and it's using more energy now, like your BMR is slightly higher. But it's not the same as exercise. Also, it's out of your control, so it's not like you can use it as a weight loss strategy. :wink:
This discussion has been closed.

Categories