Activity really matters, people

Options
2

Replies

  • canteronkat
    canteronkat Posts: 126 Member
    Options
    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
    Options
    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
    Options
    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: 25,170 Member
    Options
    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
    Options
    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:
  • StaciMarie1974
    StaciMarie1974 Posts: 4,138 Member
    Options
    This is true for me also. At 'goal weight' I only burn 1400-1500 calories a day based on sedentary life/desk job. And if I don't make the effort to move more, then I AM truly sedentary. We were not meant to live this way. So my options are a) gain weight b) eat at a reduced level forever or c) move more and eat at a reasonable level.

    The Fitbit helps put my activity into a measurable form. :)
    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.

  • Francl27
    Francl27 Posts: 26,371 Member
    Options
    NorthCascades wrote: »
    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:

    Interestingly your resting heart rate is higher during PMS too... Mine was 67/69 instead of 59/63!
  • Cylphin60
    Cylphin60 Posts: 863 Member
    Options
    _Justinian_ wrote: »
    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.

    I've had mine for about 2 months now and love it, especially since I learned to properly sync it with mfp.

  • Cylphin60
    Cylphin60 Posts: 863 Member
    Options
    Tacklewasher wrote: »
    Geez. I was feeling good about upping my step goal to 8000. Now you gotta go and burst that bubble with your 38K.

    I thought the same thing :D

    arggg
  • Francl27
    Francl27 Posts: 26,371 Member
    Options
    Cylphin60 wrote: »
    Tacklewasher wrote: »
    Geez. I was feeling good about upping my step goal to 8000. Now you gotta go and burst that bubble with your 38K.

    I thought the same thing :D

    arggg

    One step at a time... literally, lol.
  • Cylphin60
    Cylphin60 Posts: 863 Member
    Options
    Francl27 wrote: »
    Cylphin60 wrote: »
    Tacklewasher wrote: »
    Geez. I was feeling good about upping my step goal to 8000. Now you gotta go and burst that bubble with your 38K.

    I thought the same thing :D

    arggg

    One step at a time... literally, lol.
    I have to drag myself by my lips after 20 :D
  • Need2Exerc1se
    Need2Exerc1se Posts: 13,575 Member
    Options
    I honestly don't know how anyone loses weight and keeps it off without being pretty active. I'd probably just decide I'd rather be fat than eat as few calories as I'd need to stay thin and be sedentary. I'm more active that most everyone I know that is my age and I still find it hard not to overeat.
  • ladyreva78
    ladyreva78 Posts: 4,080 Member
    Options
    I wholeheartedly agree!

    I've just spent two months recovering from a messed up back and could barely move. My daily step average was barely 3k during that time and my calorie allowance was a pittance. I preferred to eat at maintenance than kill myself on 1300 cals a day. And even the 1800 from maintenance were hard...

Categories