Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
Finding time to Exercise
System
Posts: 1,920 MFP Staff
This discussion was created from replies split from: Is my metabolism that screwed up?.
1
Replies
-
Maxematics wrote: »Actually, if the before picture is you, you might be able to maintain on fewer calories than the calculators suggest. Studies disagree about whether preserving lean mass helps prevent the "reduced obese" phenomenon, but it does exist - people who lost a lot of weight are found to burn fewer calories than people of the same (current) weight who were never obese.
But THAT much? I'm 5'3", 113 pounds, and I lose on 2000 calories. I truly think, depending on how long he's been at this, he's being impatient or highly underestimating his food intake. I'm leaning toward the latter even though he says he weighs everything in grams. Do you have cheat days?
Do you run a daily half marathon to get that kind of burn?1 -
heiliskrimsli wrote: »Maxematics wrote: »Actually, if the before picture is you, you might be able to maintain on fewer calories than the calculators suggest. Studies disagree about whether preserving lean mass helps prevent the "reduced obese" phenomenon, but it does exist - people who lost a lot of weight are found to burn fewer calories than people of the same (current) weight who were never obese.
But THAT much? I'm 5'3", 113 pounds, and I lose on 2000 calories. I truly think, depending on how long he's been at this, he's being impatient or highly underestimating his food intake. I'm leaning toward the latter even though he says he weighs everything in grams. Do you have cheat days?
Do you run a daily half marathon to get that kind of burn?
She walks up to 20,000 steps and exercises up to an hour per day.2 -
heiliskrimsli wrote: »Maxematics wrote: »Actually, if the before picture is you, you might be able to maintain on fewer calories than the calculators suggest. Studies disagree about whether preserving lean mass helps prevent the "reduced obese" phenomenon, but it does exist - people who lost a lot of weight are found to burn fewer calories than people of the same (current) weight who were never obese.
But THAT much? I'm 5'3", 113 pounds, and I lose on 2000 calories. I truly think, depending on how long he's been at this, he's being impatient or highly underestimating his food intake. I'm leaning toward the latter even though he says he weighs everything in grams. Do you have cheat days?
Do you run a daily half marathon to get that kind of burn?
I'm 5'3" and about 120 pounds and I regularly burn 2200-2300 calories a day. And that's being over 40 with a desk job.7 -
kshama2001 wrote: »heiliskrimsli wrote: »Maxematics wrote: »Actually, if the before picture is you, you might be able to maintain on fewer calories than the calculators suggest. Studies disagree about whether preserving lean mass helps prevent the "reduced obese" phenomenon, but it does exist - people who lost a lot of weight are found to burn fewer calories than people of the same (current) weight who were never obese.
But THAT much? I'm 5'3", 113 pounds, and I lose on 2000 calories. I truly think, depending on how long he's been at this, he's being impatient or highly underestimating his food intake. I'm leaning toward the latter even though he says he weighs everything in grams. Do you have cheat days?
Do you run a daily half marathon to get that kind of burn?
She walks up to 20,000 steps and exercises up to an hour per day.
Thank you for this! Yes, that's what I usually do. I feel like people really underestimate the power of being active. They see exercise calories as a bad thing and think they have to eat so little to maintain their weight.18 -
Maxematics wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »heiliskrimsli wrote: »Maxematics wrote: »Actually, if the before picture is you, you might be able to maintain on fewer calories than the calculators suggest. Studies disagree about whether preserving lean mass helps prevent the "reduced obese" phenomenon, but it does exist - people who lost a lot of weight are found to burn fewer calories than people of the same (current) weight who were never obese.
But THAT much? I'm 5'3", 113 pounds, and I lose on 2000 calories. I truly think, depending on how long he's been at this, he's being impatient or highly underestimating his food intake. I'm leaning toward the latter even though he says he weighs everything in grams. Do you have cheat days?
Do you run a daily half marathon to get that kind of burn?
She walks up to 20,000 steps and exercises up to an hour per day.
Thank you for this! Yes, that's what I usually do. I feel like people really underestimate the power of being active. They see exercise calories as a bad thing and think they have to eat so little to maintain their weight.
How long does it take you to walk 8 miles a day and do your additional hour of exercise?0 -
Mouse_Potato wrote: »heiliskrimsli wrote: »Maxematics wrote: »Actually, if the before picture is you, you might be able to maintain on fewer calories than the calculators suggest. Studies disagree about whether preserving lean mass helps prevent the "reduced obese" phenomenon, but it does exist - people who lost a lot of weight are found to burn fewer calories than people of the same (current) weight who were never obese.
But THAT much? I'm 5'3", 113 pounds, and I lose on 2000 calories. I truly think, depending on how long he's been at this, he's being impatient or highly underestimating his food intake. I'm leaning toward the latter even though he says he weighs everything in grams. Do you have cheat days?
Do you run a daily half marathon to get that kind of burn?
I'm 5'3" and about 120 pounds and I regularly burn 2200-2300 calories a day. And that's being over 40 with a desk job.
Are you including BMR in that number? and I think I just found some ones
1 -
Maxematics wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »heiliskrimsli wrote: »Maxematics wrote: »Actually, if the before picture is you, you might be able to maintain on fewer calories than the calculators suggest. Studies disagree about whether preserving lean mass helps prevent the "reduced obese" phenomenon, but it does exist - people who lost a lot of weight are found to burn fewer calories than people of the same (current) weight who were never obese.
But THAT much? I'm 5'3", 113 pounds, and I lose on 2000 calories. I truly think, depending on how long he's been at this, he's being impatient or highly underestimating his food intake. I'm leaning toward the latter even though he says he weighs everything in grams. Do you have cheat days?
Do you run a daily half marathon to get that kind of burn?
She walks up to 20,000 steps and exercises up to an hour per day.
Thank you for this! Yes, that's what I usually do. I feel like people really underestimate the power of being active. They see exercise calories as a bad thing and think they have to eat so little to maintain their weight.
Yay for exercise calories!
At 5'2", @WinoGelato is an inch shorter than you and maintains on 2200 calories because she's active. I find her story about how she gradually increased her activity level and was able to lose weight without deprivation inspirational.14 -
heiliskrimsli wrote: »Maxematics wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »heiliskrimsli wrote: »Maxematics wrote: »Actually, if the before picture is you, you might be able to maintain on fewer calories than the calculators suggest. Studies disagree about whether preserving lean mass helps prevent the "reduced obese" phenomenon, but it does exist - people who lost a lot of weight are found to burn fewer calories than people of the same (current) weight who were never obese.
But THAT much? I'm 5'3", 113 pounds, and I lose on 2000 calories. I truly think, depending on how long he's been at this, he's being impatient or highly underestimating his food intake. I'm leaning toward the latter even though he says he weighs everything in grams. Do you have cheat days?
Do you run a daily half marathon to get that kind of burn?
She walks up to 20,000 steps and exercises up to an hour per day.
Thank you for this! Yes, that's what I usually do. I feel like people really underestimate the power of being active. They see exercise calories as a bad thing and think they have to eat so little to maintain their weight.
How long does it take you to walk 8 miles a day and do your additional hour of exercise?
Well, the hour of exercise, I do that in the morning before work. I walk around 4 miles per hour and usually walk the 5 miles to and from work every day so that's another 2 hours. If I don't walk to and from work I still walk there from the train station that's 2 miles away. I'm also on my feet at work all day. I have a TDEE of 2400 calories on average.12 -
kshama2001 wrote: »Maxematics wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »heiliskrimsli wrote: »Maxematics wrote: »Actually, if the before picture is you, you might be able to maintain on fewer calories than the calculators suggest. Studies disagree about whether preserving lean mass helps prevent the "reduced obese" phenomenon, but it does exist - people who lost a lot of weight are found to burn fewer calories than people of the same (current) weight who were never obese.
But THAT much? I'm 5'3", 113 pounds, and I lose on 2000 calories. I truly think, depending on how long he's been at this, he's being impatient or highly underestimating his food intake. I'm leaning toward the latter even though he says he weighs everything in grams. Do you have cheat days?
Do you run a daily half marathon to get that kind of burn?
She walks up to 20,000 steps and exercises up to an hour per day.
Thank you for this! Yes, that's what I usually do. I feel like people really underestimate the power of being active. They see exercise calories as a bad thing and think they have to eat so little to maintain their weight.
Yay for exercise calories!
At 5'2", @WinoGelato is an inch shorter than you and maintains on 2200 calories because she's active. I find her story about how she gradually increased her activity level and was able to lose weight without deprivation inspirational.
I'm 4'11" and I maintain on 2000 a day, she is inspiring.3 -
Maxematics wrote: »heiliskrimsli wrote: »Maxematics wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »heiliskrimsli wrote: »Maxematics wrote: »Actually, if the before picture is you, you might be able to maintain on fewer calories than the calculators suggest. Studies disagree about whether preserving lean mass helps prevent the "reduced obese" phenomenon, but it does exist - people who lost a lot of weight are found to burn fewer calories than people of the same (current) weight who were never obese.
But THAT much? I'm 5'3", 113 pounds, and I lose on 2000 calories. I truly think, depending on how long he's been at this, he's being impatient or highly underestimating his food intake. I'm leaning toward the latter even though he says he weighs everything in grams. Do you have cheat days?
Do you run a daily half marathon to get that kind of burn?
She walks up to 20,000 steps and exercises up to an hour per day.
Thank you for this! Yes, that's what I usually do. I feel like people really underestimate the power of being active. They see exercise calories as a bad thing and think they have to eat so little to maintain their weight.
How long does it take you to walk 8 miles a day and do your additional hour of exercise?
Well, the hour of exercise, I do that in the morning before work. I walk around 4 miles per hour and usually walk the 5 miles to and from work every day so that's another 2 hours. If I don't walk to and from work I still walk there from the train station that's 2 miles away. I'm also on my feet at work all day. I have a TDEE of 2400 calories on average.
Lots of people don't have three hours a day to devote to exercise. In fact, I would say most people who work full time, particularly in office jobs, do not have that kind of time. Also, based on your math, walking for 75 minutes (4 miles per hour, five miles takes 75 minutes, not 60) each way to and from work means you're spending more like 2.5 hours walking to and from, so we're up to 3.5 hours per day.
Do you consider your calorie burn typical and exercise for someone your size, or would you consider yourself unusual in that regard?6 -
heiliskrimsli wrote: »Maxematics wrote: »heiliskrimsli wrote: »Maxematics wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »heiliskrimsli wrote: »Maxematics wrote: »Actually, if the before picture is you, you might be able to maintain on fewer calories than the calculators suggest. Studies disagree about whether preserving lean mass helps prevent the "reduced obese" phenomenon, but it does exist - people who lost a lot of weight are found to burn fewer calories than people of the same (current) weight who were never obese.
But THAT much? I'm 5'3", 113 pounds, and I lose on 2000 calories. I truly think, depending on how long he's been at this, he's being impatient or highly underestimating his food intake. I'm leaning toward the latter even though he says he weighs everything in grams. Do you have cheat days?
Do you run a daily half marathon to get that kind of burn?
She walks up to 20,000 steps and exercises up to an hour per day.
Thank you for this! Yes, that's what I usually do. I feel like people really underestimate the power of being active. They see exercise calories as a bad thing and think they have to eat so little to maintain their weight.
How long does it take you to walk 8 miles a day and do your additional hour of exercise?
Well, the hour of exercise, I do that in the morning before work. I walk around 4 miles per hour and usually walk the 5 miles to and from work every day so that's another 2 hours. If I don't walk to and from work I still walk there from the train station that's 2 miles away. I'm also on my feet at work all day. I have a TDEE of 2400 calories on average.
Lots of people don't have three hours a day to devote to exercise. In fact, I would say most people who work full time, particularly in office jobs, do not have that kind of time. Also, based on your math, walking for 75 minutes (4 miles per hour, five miles takes 75 minutes, not 60) each way to and from work means you're spending more like 2.5 hours walking to and from, so we're up to 3.5 hours per day.
Do you consider your calorie burn typical and exercise for someone your size, or would you consider yourself unusual in that regard?
I work full time and have a busy life but I make the time. Most people find the time to watch TV or sit at their computers/on their phone for hours a day but claim not to have time to exercise. I also said I walk around 4mph. My average is slightly over that. I don't walk to and from work every day though.
Yes, I decided to give ballpark numbers and not exact amounts; my apologies. Some days my workouts are only 45 minutes. The distance from work is also a slight bit under 5 miles but it's easier to round.
Anyway, I definitely don't think my calorie burn and activity level are the average for my size. Most people aren't as active and that's okay. They drive everywhere and have desk jobs. They can lose their weight on 1200 to 1500. I prefer an active lifestyle. I'm no longer in the weight loss phase, rather, I'm trying not to be. However, in comparison to a man who is over 6 feet and over 200 pounds, as the OP is, my calorie burn is most likely less, which is why I found it odd that the OP isn't losing on that amount.15 -
Maxematics wrote: »heiliskrimsli wrote: »Maxematics wrote: »heiliskrimsli wrote: »Maxematics wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »heiliskrimsli wrote: »Maxematics wrote: »Actually, if the before picture is you, you might be able to maintain on fewer calories than the calculators suggest. Studies disagree about whether preserving lean mass helps prevent the "reduced obese" phenomenon, but it does exist - people who lost a lot of weight are found to burn fewer calories than people of the same (current) weight who were never obese.
But THAT much? I'm 5'3", 113 pounds, and I lose on 2000 calories. I truly think, depending on how long he's been at this, he's being impatient or highly underestimating his food intake. I'm leaning toward the latter even though he says he weighs everything in grams. Do you have cheat days?
Do you run a daily half marathon to get that kind of burn?
She walks up to 20,000 steps and exercises up to an hour per day.
Thank you for this! Yes, that's what I usually do. I feel like people really underestimate the power of being active. They see exercise calories as a bad thing and think they have to eat so little to maintain their weight.
How long does it take you to walk 8 miles a day and do your additional hour of exercise?
Well, the hour of exercise, I do that in the morning before work. I walk around 4 miles per hour and usually walk the 5 miles to and from work every day so that's another 2 hours. If I don't walk to and from work I still walk there from the train station that's 2 miles away. I'm also on my feet at work all day. I have a TDEE of 2400 calories on average.
Lots of people don't have three hours a day to devote to exercise. In fact, I would say most people who work full time, particularly in office jobs, do not have that kind of time. Also, based on your math, walking for 75 minutes (4 miles per hour, five miles takes 75 minutes, not 60) each way to and from work means you're spending more like 2.5 hours walking to and from, so we're up to 3.5 hours per day.
Do you consider your calorie burn typical and exercise for someone your size, or would you consider yourself unusual in that regard?
I work full time and have a busy life but I make the time. Most people find the time to watch TV or sit at their computers/on their phone for hours a day but claim not to have time to exercise. I also said I walk around 4mph. My average is slightly over that. I don't walk to and from work every day though.
Yes, I decided to give ballpark numbers and not exact amounts; my apologies. Some days my workouts are only 45 minutes. The distance from work is also a slight bit under 5 miles but it's easier to round.
Anyway, I definitely don't think my calorie burn and activity level are the average for my size. Most people aren't as active and that's okay. They drive everywhere and have desk jobs. They can lose their weight on 1200 to 1500. I prefer an active lifestyle. I'm no longer in the weight loss phase, rather, I'm trying not to be. However, in comparison to a man who is over 6 feet and over 200 pounds, as the OP is, my calorie burn is most likely less, which is why I found it odd that the OP isn't losing on that amount.
Do you think that anyone who spends less than three hours a day on exercise is simply lazy and sitting around doing nothing but watching television? That anyone who does less than you do is inactive or doesn't have an active lifestyle?
You really seem to be implying that anyone who doesn't spend as much time as you do exercising is simply lazily watching television all day.1 -
heiliskrimsli wrote: »Maxematics wrote: »heiliskrimsli wrote: »Maxematics wrote: »heiliskrimsli wrote: »Maxematics wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »heiliskrimsli wrote: »Maxematics wrote: »Actually, if the before picture is you, you might be able to maintain on fewer calories than the calculators suggest. Studies disagree about whether preserving lean mass helps prevent the "reduced obese" phenomenon, but it does exist - people who lost a lot of weight are found to burn fewer calories than people of the same (current) weight who were never obese.
But THAT much? I'm 5'3", 113 pounds, and I lose on 2000 calories. I truly think, depending on how long he's been at this, he's being impatient or highly underestimating his food intake. I'm leaning toward the latter even though he says he weighs everything in grams. Do you have cheat days?
Do you run a daily half marathon to get that kind of burn?
She walks up to 20,000 steps and exercises up to an hour per day.
Thank you for this! Yes, that's what I usually do. I feel like people really underestimate the power of being active. They see exercise calories as a bad thing and think they have to eat so little to maintain their weight.
How long does it take you to walk 8 miles a day and do your additional hour of exercise?
Well, the hour of exercise, I do that in the morning before work. I walk around 4 miles per hour and usually walk the 5 miles to and from work every day so that's another 2 hours. If I don't walk to and from work I still walk there from the train station that's 2 miles away. I'm also on my feet at work all day. I have a TDEE of 2400 calories on average.
Lots of people don't have three hours a day to devote to exercise. In fact, I would say most people who work full time, particularly in office jobs, do not have that kind of time. Also, based on your math, walking for 75 minutes (4 miles per hour, five miles takes 75 minutes, not 60) each way to and from work means you're spending more like 2.5 hours walking to and from, so we're up to 3.5 hours per day.
Do you consider your calorie burn typical and exercise for someone your size, or would you consider yourself unusual in that regard?
I work full time and have a busy life but I make the time. Most people find the time to watch TV or sit at their computers/on their phone for hours a day but claim not to have time to exercise. I also said I walk around 4mph. My average is slightly over that. I don't walk to and from work every day though.
Yes, I decided to give ballpark numbers and not exact amounts; my apologies. Some days my workouts are only 45 minutes. The distance from work is also a slight bit under 5 miles but it's easier to round.
Anyway, I definitely don't think my calorie burn and activity level are the average for my size. Most people aren't as active and that's okay. They drive everywhere and have desk jobs. They can lose their weight on 1200 to 1500. I prefer an active lifestyle. I'm no longer in the weight loss phase, rather, I'm trying not to be. However, in comparison to a man who is over 6 feet and over 200 pounds, as the OP is, my calorie burn is most likely less, which is why I found it odd that the OP isn't losing on that amount.
Do you think that anyone who spends less than three hours a day on exercise is simply lazy and sitting around doing nothing but watching television? That anyone who does less than you do is inactive or doesn't have an active lifestyle?
You really seem to be implying that anyone who doesn't spend as much time as you do exercising is simply lazily watching television all day.
No, I don't and I wasn't intending to imply such. My sister has MS and has no choice but to live a sedentary lifestyle so I don't automatically assume that people who are less active are lazy. The reason I framed my responses as such is because from your very first reply to me, you seemed to be trying to call me out on BS for my TDEE. I could be wrong in my interpretation of that though.
In further posts you seemed to want to delve more into my routine. I gave you approximations and you tried to pick them apart. First you stated that most people don't have time because they work full time, which could be taken as you implying I must not do so. That's why I commented back about those who claim they have no time but honestly just don't make the time. Let's face it, many people don't make exercise a priority.
I also said that I realize most people aren't as active and that's okay. I don't know how that implies I think anyone else is lazy or inactive or that anyone who does less than me isn't active. For as active as I am, there are many people twice as active as I am. For me, the walks I take aren't exercise. Sure I'm burning calories but I do it because I enjoy it, not because I consider it part of a three hour exercise routine. Walking is actually my time to destress after a hard day. I've stated several times that I don't even walk to and from work every day either.
I don't know what it was about my initial post that seemed to hit a sore spot for you but the only reason I mentioned losing on 2000 calories at my size was to give the OP some perspective that 2000 should be enough for him to lose given his stats. I didn't expect to derail his topic. My apologies, OP.40 -
Maxematics wrote: »heiliskrimsli wrote: »Maxematics wrote: »heiliskrimsli wrote: »Maxematics wrote: »heiliskrimsli wrote: »Maxematics wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »heiliskrimsli wrote: »Maxematics wrote: »Actually, if the before picture is you, you might be able to maintain on fewer calories than the calculators suggest. Studies disagree about whether preserving lean mass helps prevent the "reduced obese" phenomenon, but it does exist - people who lost a lot of weight are found to burn fewer calories than people of the same (current) weight who were never obese.
But THAT much? I'm 5'3", 113 pounds, and I lose on 2000 calories. I truly think, depending on how long he's been at this, he's being impatient or highly underestimating his food intake. I'm leaning toward the latter even though he says he weighs everything in grams. Do you have cheat days?
Do you run a daily half marathon to get that kind of burn?
She walks up to 20,000 steps and exercises up to an hour per day.
Thank you for this! Yes, that's what I usually do. I feel like people really underestimate the power of being active. They see exercise calories as a bad thing and think they have to eat so little to maintain their weight.
How long does it take you to walk 8 miles a day and do your additional hour of exercise?
Well, the hour of exercise, I do that in the morning before work. I walk around 4 miles per hour and usually walk the 5 miles to and from work every day so that's another 2 hours. If I don't walk to and from work I still walk there from the train station that's 2 miles away. I'm also on my feet at work all day. I have a TDEE of 2400 calories on average.
Lots of people don't have three hours a day to devote to exercise. In fact, I would say most people who work full time, particularly in office jobs, do not have that kind of time. Also, based on your math, walking for 75 minutes (4 miles per hour, five miles takes 75 minutes, not 60) each way to and from work means you're spending more like 2.5 hours walking to and from, so we're up to 3.5 hours per day.
Do you consider your calorie burn typical and exercise for someone your size, or would you consider yourself unusual in that regard?
I work full time and have a busy life but I make the time. Most people find the time to watch TV or sit at their computers/on their phone for hours a day but claim not to have time to exercise. I also said I walk around 4mph. My average is slightly over that. I don't walk to and from work every day though.
Yes, I decided to give ballpark numbers and not exact amounts; my apologies. Some days my workouts are only 45 minutes. The distance from work is also a slight bit under 5 miles but it's easier to round.
Anyway, I definitely don't think my calorie burn and activity level are the average for my size. Most people aren't as active and that's okay. They drive everywhere and have desk jobs. They can lose their weight on 1200 to 1500. I prefer an active lifestyle. I'm no longer in the weight loss phase, rather, I'm trying not to be. However, in comparison to a man who is over 6 feet and over 200 pounds, as the OP is, my calorie burn is most likely less, which is why I found it odd that the OP isn't losing on that amount.
Do you think that anyone who spends less than three hours a day on exercise is simply lazy and sitting around doing nothing but watching television? That anyone who does less than you do is inactive or doesn't have an active lifestyle?
You really seem to be implying that anyone who doesn't spend as much time as you do exercising is simply lazily watching television all day.
No, I don't and I wasn't intending to imply such. My sister has MS and has no choice but to live a sedentary lifestyle so I don't automatically assume that people who are less active are lazy. The reason I framed my responses as such is because from your very first reply to me, you seemed to be trying to call me out on BS for my TDEE. I could be wrong in my interpretation of that though.
In further posts you seemed to want to delve more into my routine. I gave you approximations and you tried to pick them apart. First you stated that most people don't have time because they work full time, which could be taken as you implying I must not do so. That's why I commented back about those who claim they have no time but honestly just don't make the time. Let's face it, many people don't make exercise a priority.
I also said that I realize most people aren't as active and that's okay. I don't know how that implies I think anyone else is lazy or inactive or that anyone who does less than me isn't active. For as active as I am, there are many people twice as active as I am. For me, the walks I take aren't exercise. Sure I'm burning calories but I do it because I enjoy it, not because I consider it part of a three hour exercise routine. Walking is actually my time to destress after a hard day. I've stated several times that I don't even walk to and from work every day either.
I don't know what it was about my initial post that seemed to hit a sore spot for you but the only reason I mentioned losing on 2000 calories at my size was to give the OP some perspective that 2000 should be enough for him to lose given his stats. I didn't expect to derail his topic. My apologies, OP.
Good to know that you aren't judging by defining people who exercise one or two hours each day as not having active lives, and that you haven made any assumption that they don't enjoy exercise either.
I'd love to have as much free time to do the activities I love as you have to do yours. Unfortunately, I have responsibilities that have to come first. I'll be very happy if after all the chores are done today, I get two hours to go cycling. Because that's more free time than I usually get.
1 -
Oh how I wish I had 3 free hours a day to exercise, the food I'd eat 9
-
heiliskrimsli wrote: »
Good to know that you aren't judging by defining people who exercise one or two hours each day as not having active lives, and that you haven made any assumption that they don't enjoy exercise either.
I'd love to have as much free time to do the activities I love as you have to do yours. Unfortunately, I have responsibilities that have to come first. I'll be very happy if after all the chores are done today, I get two hours to go cycling. Because that's more free time than I usually get.
It didn't seem at all to me @Maxematics was judging anyone. They were just talking about their choices. It does seem as though you're picking apart their posts and lifestyle because you're frustrated about yours. Sorry you don't have as much free time as you wish, but there's no reason to take that out on someone else.
45 -
heiliskrimsli wrote: »
Good to know that you aren't judging by defining people who exercise one or two hours each day as not having active lives, and that you haven made any assumption that they don't enjoy exercise either.
I'd love to have as much free time to do the activities I love as you have to do yours. Unfortunately, I have responsibilities that have to come first. I'll be very happy if after all the chores are done today, I get two hours to go cycling. Because that's more free time than I usually get.
It didn't seem at all to me @Maxematics was judging anyone. They were just talking about their choices. It does seem as though you're picking apart their posts and lifestyle because you're frustrated about yours. Sorry you don't have as much free time as you wish, but there's no reason to take that out on someone else.
Thanks. I don't get the free time comments either. I've stated so many times that I don't walk to and from work every day yet it's emphasized that I exercise for three hours every day when I don't. I do an hour workout five days a week. My steps come from longer walks and day to day life. I have a full time job in which I'm on my feet most of the day, I have family members to take care of, errands to run daily, housework to do. All of this is part of one's activity level, yet I'm perceived to have this crazy amount of free time because I burn off more calories than the average person my size due to my lifestyle and therefore have a higher calorie allowance. I honestly don't understand the hostility.24 -
Maxematics wrote: »heiliskrimsli wrote: »
Good to know that you aren't judging by defining people who exercise one or two hours each day as not having active lives, and that you haven made any assumption that they don't enjoy exercise either.
I'd love to have as much free time to do the activities I love as you have to do yours. Unfortunately, I have responsibilities that have to come first. I'll be very happy if after all the chores are done today, I get two hours to go cycling. Because that's more free time than I usually get.
It didn't seem at all to me @Maxematics was judging anyone. They were just talking about their choices. It does seem as though you're picking apart their posts and lifestyle because you're frustrated about yours. Sorry you don't have as much free time as you wish, but there's no reason to take that out on someone else.
Thanks. I don't get the free time comments either. I've stated so many times that I don't walk to and from work every day yet it's emphasized that I exercise for three hours every day when I don't. I do an hour workout five days a week. My steps come from longer walks and day to day life. I have a full time job in which I'm on my feet most of the day, I have family members to take care of, errands to run daily, housework to do. All of this is part of one's activity level, yet I'm perceived to have this crazy amount of free time because I burn off more calories than the average person my size due to my lifestyle and therefore have a higher calorie allowance. I honestly don't understand the hostility.
Yeah, I don't get it either. I have a full time job and two toddlers. Free time is certainly not something I have a lot of. I still average just under 20,000 steps/day. Making the time to do that is a choice (and, to some degree, the result of a semi-active job and happenstance like my parking spot being clear across campus from my office). I prioritize taking my kids to the park. My husband and I like to go for walks. I chase kids a lot.
Not everyone can (or even wants to) make those choices, but there's no need to attack those who can.20 -
SusanMFindlay wrote: »Maxematics wrote: »heiliskrimsli wrote: »
Good to know that you aren't judging by defining people who exercise one or two hours each day as not having active lives, and that you haven made any assumption that they don't enjoy exercise either.
I'd love to have as much free time to do the activities I love as you have to do yours. Unfortunately, I have responsibilities that have to come first. I'll be very happy if after all the chores are done today, I get two hours to go cycling. Because that's more free time than I usually get.
It didn't seem at all to me @Maxematics was judging anyone. They were just talking about their choices. It does seem as though you're picking apart their posts and lifestyle because you're frustrated about yours. Sorry you don't have as much free time as you wish, but there's no reason to take that out on someone else.
Thanks. I don't get the free time comments either. I've stated so many times that I don't walk to and from work every day yet it's emphasized that I exercise for three hours every day when I don't. I do an hour workout five days a week. My steps come from longer walks and day to day life. I have a full time job in which I'm on my feet most of the day, I have family members to take care of, errands to run daily, housework to do. All of this is part of one's activity level, yet I'm perceived to have this crazy amount of free time because I burn off more calories than the average person my size due to my lifestyle and therefore have a higher calorie allowance. I honestly don't understand the hostility.
Yeah, I don't get it either. I have a full time job and two toddlers. Free time is certainly not something I have a lot of. I still average just under 20,000 steps/day. Making the time to do that is a choice (and, to some degree, the result of a semi-active job and happenstance like my parking spot being clear across campus from my office). I prioritize taking my kids to the park. My husband and I like to go for walks. I chase kids a lot.
Not everyone can (or even wants to) make those choices, but there's no need to attack those who can.
People are just jealous. I'm one of those people who has free time because I'm a SAHM actually, and my kids are in school... but you know what... all the other stay at home parents I know still don't get as many steps as I do, because they just can't be bothered. So sure, I do have the time, but I'm not looking down on people who don't, and I'm not going to be felt bad either because I do make the choice every day to use that time to be active instead of watching TV on the couch - and believe me... I don't know many people who choose to do that.
OP, I'm not sure how long you've been dieting but I'd agree with dropping 100 calories a day and see from there. Loose skin really does change things, you could have 5 lbs of it, and that would impact your TDEE estimations.7 -
Maxematics wrote: »heiliskrimsli wrote: »
Good to know that you aren't judging by defining people who exercise one or two hours each day as not having active lives, and that you haven made any assumption that they don't enjoy exercise either.
I'd love to have as much free time to do the activities I love as you have to do yours. Unfortunately, I have responsibilities that have to come first. I'll be very happy if after all the chores are done today, I get two hours to go cycling. Because that's more free time than I usually get.
It didn't seem at all to me @Maxematics was judging anyone. They were just talking about their choices. It does seem as though you're picking apart their posts and lifestyle because you're frustrated about yours. Sorry you don't have as much free time as you wish, but there's no reason to take that out on someone else.
Thanks. I don't get the free time comments either. I've stated so many times that I don't walk to and from work every day yet it's emphasized that I exercise for three hours every day when I don't. I do an hour workout five days a week. My steps come from longer walks and day to day life. I have a full time job in which I'm on my feet most of the day, I have family members to take care of, errands to run daily, housework to do. All of this is part of one's activity level, yet I'm perceived to have this crazy amount of free time because I burn off more calories than the average person my size due to my lifestyle and therefore have a higher calorie allowance. I honestly don't understand the hostility.
I commute an hour to work each day, driving. I think a lot of people put in that kind of time. If I could walk to work in that time I would definitely do it. You've found a way to incorporate activity into your daily life. I'm jealous that you can do that, I don't resent the fact that you do. Yay you!16 -
Maxematics wrote: »heiliskrimsli wrote: »
Good to know that you aren't judging by defining people who exercise one or two hours each day as not having active lives, and that you haven made any assumption that they don't enjoy exercise either.
I'd love to have as much free time to do the activities I love as you have to do yours. Unfortunately, I have responsibilities that have to come first. I'll be very happy if after all the chores are done today, I get two hours to go cycling. Because that's more free time than I usually get.
It didn't seem at all to me @Maxematics was judging anyone. They were just talking about their choices. It does seem as though you're picking apart their posts and lifestyle because you're frustrated about yours. Sorry you don't have as much free time as you wish, but there's no reason to take that out on someone else.
Thanks. I don't get the free time comments either. I've stated so many times that I don't walk to and from work every day yet it's emphasized that I exercise for three hours every day when I don't. I do an hour workout five days a week. My steps come from longer walks and day to day life. I have a full time job in which I'm on my feet most of the day, I have family members to take care of, errands to run daily, housework to do. All of this is part of one's activity level, yet I'm perceived to have this crazy amount of free time because I burn off more calories than the average person my size due to my lifestyle and therefore have a higher calorie allowance. I honestly don't understand the hostility.
I commute an hour to work each day, driving. I think a lot of people put in that kind of time. If I could walk to work in that time I would definitely do it. You've found a way to incorporate activity into your daily life. I'm jealous that you can do that, I don't resent the fact that you do. Yay you!
Thanks. I live in NYC so I don't drive. My options are walking, the subway, or biking. I don't own a bike but even if I did I wouldn't feel safe/confident biking because drivers can be aggressive. When I take the train, it normally takes 50 to 60 minutes anyway, so when I have some extra time and the weather permits, I choose to walk. Saving $2.75 every time I skip the train is also a motivator for me, as I put that money toward bills and any way I can save money helps.24 -
SusanMFindlay wrote: »Maxematics wrote: »heiliskrimsli wrote: »
Good to know that you aren't judging by defining people who exercise one or two hours each day as not having active lives, and that you haven made any assumption that they don't enjoy exercise either.
I'd love to have as much free time to do the activities I love as you have to do yours. Unfortunately, I have responsibilities that have to come first. I'll be very happy if after all the chores are done today, I get two hours to go cycling. Because that's more free time than I usually get.
It didn't seem at all to me @Maxematics was judging anyone. They were just talking about their choices. It does seem as though you're picking apart their posts and lifestyle because you're frustrated about yours. Sorry you don't have as much free time as you wish, but there's no reason to take that out on someone else.
Thanks. I don't get the free time comments either. I've stated so many times that I don't walk to and from work every day yet it's emphasized that I exercise for three hours every day when I don't. I do an hour workout five days a week. My steps come from longer walks and day to day life. I have a full time job in which I'm on my feet most of the day, I have family members to take care of, errands to run daily, housework to do. All of this is part of one's activity level, yet I'm perceived to have this crazy amount of free time because I burn off more calories than the average person my size due to my lifestyle and therefore have a higher calorie allowance. I honestly don't understand the hostility.
Yeah, I don't get it either. I have a full time job and two toddlers. Free time is certainly not something I have a lot of. I still average just under 20,000 steps/day. Making the time to do that is a choice (and, to some degree, the result of a semi-active job and happenstance like my parking spot being clear across campus from my office). I prioritize taking my kids to the park. My husband and I like to go for walks. I chase kids a lot.
Not everyone can (or even wants to) make those choices, but there's no need to attack those who can.
A lot of people spend upward of an hour a day commuting each way to a job that involves spending hours in meetings and the rest of that time trying to do the work that gets talked about in meetings. There went 12 hours of my day already. Inside the other 12, everything else has to happen. There are only 24 in a day, after all. Out of the 12 that are not part of either being at work or getting there and back, there's everything else: do the yard work, do the laundry, cook, clean up, do the grocery shopping, take a shower twice a day (after all the sweaty stuff, and before work), eat dinner, find time to exercise, my other activities like photography, have some sort of a social life, and sleep.
That whole thing about how people find the time to watch television 3 hours a day and that's why they're not out walking 8 miles a day? I guess it's easier to think that.3 -
heiliskrimsli wrote: »SusanMFindlay wrote: »Maxematics wrote: »heiliskrimsli wrote: »
Good to know that you aren't judging by defining people who exercise one or two hours each day as not having active lives, and that you haven made any assumption that they don't enjoy exercise either.
I'd love to have as much free time to do the activities I love as you have to do yours. Unfortunately, I have responsibilities that have to come first. I'll be very happy if after all the chores are done today, I get two hours to go cycling. Because that's more free time than I usually get.
It didn't seem at all to me @Maxematics was judging anyone. They were just talking about their choices. It does seem as though you're picking apart their posts and lifestyle because you're frustrated about yours. Sorry you don't have as much free time as you wish, but there's no reason to take that out on someone else.
Thanks. I don't get the free time comments either. I've stated so many times that I don't walk to and from work every day yet it's emphasized that I exercise for three hours every day when I don't. I do an hour workout five days a week. My steps come from longer walks and day to day life. I have a full time job in which I'm on my feet most of the day, I have family members to take care of, errands to run daily, housework to do. All of this is part of one's activity level, yet I'm perceived to have this crazy amount of free time because I burn off more calories than the average person my size due to my lifestyle and therefore have a higher calorie allowance. I honestly don't understand the hostility.
Yeah, I don't get it either. I have a full time job and two toddlers. Free time is certainly not something I have a lot of. I still average just under 20,000 steps/day. Making the time to do that is a choice (and, to some degree, the result of a semi-active job and happenstance like my parking spot being clear across campus from my office). I prioritize taking my kids to the park. My husband and I like to go for walks. I chase kids a lot.
Not everyone can (or even wants to) make those choices, but there's no need to attack those who can.
A lot of people spend upward of an hour a day commuting each way to a job that involves spending hours in meetings and the rest of that time trying to do the work that gets talked about in meetings. There went 12 hours of my day already. Inside the other 12, everything else has to happen. There are only 24 in a day, after all. Out of the 12 that are not part of either being at work or getting there and back, there's everything else: do the yard work, do the laundry, cook, clean up, do the grocery shopping, take a shower twice a day (after all the sweaty stuff, and before work), eat dinner, find time to exercise, my other activities like photography, have some sort of a social life, and sleep.
That whole thing about how people find the time to watch television 3 hours a day and that's why they're not out walking 8 miles a day? I guess it's easier to think that.
People don't realize what a difference a semi active versus sedentary job makes. You can do 8k step in a 6 hour shift in a fast food place, for example... that's still 8k more than someone who works 6 hours at a computer. So yeah... saying 'I have a job but still have 20k step a day' when you're on your feet at your job is not a very fair comparison. It IS hard for some people to get even 10k steps. I mean, a lazy day at home for me would be around 5000-7000 steps (doing those tasks like laundry, cooking, cleaning), but that's 16 hours at home (when not sleeping) and not spending 8 hours sitting at a desk...
That being said, there are a lot of people who watch 2 hours of television at night, and they *could* exercise at the same time if they really wanted it (like my husband. But he chose to put the exercise bike in the basement instead of spending those 2 hours on it). Or even that hour spent browsing Facebook or these forums... people could be going for a walk instead. It's still about choice. Like I choose to go for a walk instead of stitching/reading/playing video games (although obviously sometimes there isn't much of a choice if you have kids at home and/or are disabled).9 -
heiliskrimsli wrote: »SusanMFindlay wrote: »Maxematics wrote: »heiliskrimsli wrote: »
Good to know that you aren't judging by defining people who exercise one or two hours each day as not having active lives, and that you haven made any assumption that they don't enjoy exercise either.
I'd love to have as much free time to do the activities I love as you have to do yours. Unfortunately, I have responsibilities that have to come first. I'll be very happy if after all the chores are done today, I get two hours to go cycling. Because that's more free time than I usually get.
It didn't seem at all to me @Maxematics was judging anyone. They were just talking about their choices. It does seem as though you're picking apart their posts and lifestyle because you're frustrated about yours. Sorry you don't have as much free time as you wish, but there's no reason to take that out on someone else.
Thanks. I don't get the free time comments either. I've stated so many times that I don't walk to and from work every day yet it's emphasized that I exercise for three hours every day when I don't. I do an hour workout five days a week. My steps come from longer walks and day to day life. I have a full time job in which I'm on my feet most of the day, I have family members to take care of, errands to run daily, housework to do. All of this is part of one's activity level, yet I'm perceived to have this crazy amount of free time because I burn off more calories than the average person my size due to my lifestyle and therefore have a higher calorie allowance. I honestly don't understand the hostility.
Yeah, I don't get it either. I have a full time job and two toddlers. Free time is certainly not something I have a lot of. I still average just under 20,000 steps/day. Making the time to do that is a choice (and, to some degree, the result of a semi-active job and happenstance like my parking spot being clear across campus from my office). I prioritize taking my kids to the park. My husband and I like to go for walks. I chase kids a lot.
Not everyone can (or even wants to) make those choices, but there's no need to attack those who can.
A lot of people spend upward of an hour a day commuting each way to a job that involves spending hours in meetings and the rest of that time trying to do the work that gets talked about in meetings. There went 12 hours of my day already. Inside the other 12, everything else has to happen. There are only 24 in a day, after all. Out of the 12 that are not part of either being at work or getting there and back, there's everything else: do the yard work, do the laundry, cook, clean up, do the grocery shopping, take a shower twice a day (after all the sweaty stuff, and before work), eat dinner, find time to exercise, my other activities like photography, have some sort of a social life, and sleep.
That whole thing about how people find the time to watch television 3 hours a day and that's why they're not out walking 8 miles a day? I guess it's easier to think that.
I tried to be kind in going back and clarifying my position but you don't want to bother. You seem to be projecting and feel the need to attack others. That's on you. You seem to still be stuck on the assumption that I exercise three hours per day; I'm not rehashing that again. Never once did I write that anyone who doesn't walk 8 miles per day is lazy. I wrote the following:
I work full time and have a busy life but I make the time. Most people find the time to watch TV or sit at their computers/on their phone for hours a day but claim not to have time to exercise. Most people aren't as active and that's okay. They drive everywhere and have desk jobs. They can lose their weight on 1200 to 1500. I prefer an active lifestyle.
Notice I wrote MOST people find the time to watch TV or sit at their computers/on their phone for hours, not ALL people. I should know as I used to be one of them long ago. I wasn't always as active as I am now and I make the choice to be such because I know what the alternative feels like and I'm not fond of it. I also said that most people aren't as active. That doesn't mean I see myself as the beacon of all that is physical activity. I'm recognizing the reality of many people; overall physical activity has decreased and calorie consumption has increased. That's a fact. Some because they have hectic lives, some because they are disabled to some capacity, some out of pure laziness, etc. There are different reasons for every person and I don't assume to know anyone's story; their lifestyles are not my business.
Also, I recognized that 1) Most people drive everywhere and have desk jobs, 2) That it's perfectly fine to not be as active, and 3) I prefer an active lifestyle, meaning I choose not to drive and I choose not to have a desk job. Yes I'm aware that not everyone has that choice. What I didn't elaborate on earlier is that I'm a fidgeter and wouldn't do well with a desk job anyway, so I have to make the choice of a job that allows me movement. Right after that post, you assumed I look down on anyone that lives a lifestyle different than mine. You seem determined to prove such when it doesn't align with my beliefs at all. If you want to continue to think such, go for it.25 -
heiliskrimsli wrote: »SusanMFindlay wrote: »Maxematics wrote: »heiliskrimsli wrote: »
Good to know that you aren't judging by defining people who exercise one or two hours each day as not having active lives, and that you haven made any assumption that they don't enjoy exercise either.
I'd love to have as much free time to do the activities I love as you have to do yours. Unfortunately, I have responsibilities that have to come first. I'll be very happy if after all the chores are done today, I get two hours to go cycling. Because that's more free time than I usually get.
It didn't seem at all to me @Maxematics was judging anyone. They were just talking about their choices. It does seem as though you're picking apart their posts and lifestyle because you're frustrated about yours. Sorry you don't have as much free time as you wish, but there's no reason to take that out on someone else.
Thanks. I don't get the free time comments either. I've stated so many times that I don't walk to and from work every day yet it's emphasized that I exercise for three hours every day when I don't. I do an hour workout five days a week. My steps come from longer walks and day to day life. I have a full time job in which I'm on my feet most of the day, I have family members to take care of, errands to run daily, housework to do. All of this is part of one's activity level, yet I'm perceived to have this crazy amount of free time because I burn off more calories than the average person my size due to my lifestyle and therefore have a higher calorie allowance. I honestly don't understand the hostility.
Yeah, I don't get it either. I have a full time job and two toddlers. Free time is certainly not something I have a lot of. I still average just under 20,000 steps/day. Making the time to do that is a choice (and, to some degree, the result of a semi-active job and happenstance like my parking spot being clear across campus from my office). I prioritize taking my kids to the park. My husband and I like to go for walks. I chase kids a lot.
Not everyone can (or even wants to) make those choices, but there's no need to attack those who can.
A lot of people spend upward of an hour a day commuting each way to a job that involves spending hours in meetings and the rest of that time trying to do the work that gets talked about in meetings. There went 12 hours of my day already. Inside the other 12, everything else has to happen. There are only 24 in a day, after all. Out of the 12 that are not part of either being at work or getting there and back, there's everything else: do the yard work, do the laundry, cook, clean up, do the grocery shopping, take a shower twice a day (after all the sweaty stuff, and before work), eat dinner, find time to exercise, my other activities like photography, have some sort of a social life, and sleep.
That whole thing about how people find the time to watch television 3 hours a day and that's why they're not out walking 8 miles a day? I guess it's easier to think that.
People don't realize what a difference a semi active versus sedentary job makes. You can do 8k step in a 6 hour shift in a fast food place, for example... that's still 8k more than someone who works 6 hours at a computer. So yeah... saying 'I have a job but still have 20k step a day' when you're on your feet at your job is not a very fair comparison. It IS hard for some people to get even 10k steps. I mean, a lazy day at home for me would be around 5000-7000 steps (doing those tasks like laundry, cooking, cleaning), but that's 16 hours at home (when not sleeping) and not spending 8 hours sitting at a desk...
That being said, there are a lot of people who watch 2 hours of television at night, and they *could* exercise at the same time if they really wanted it (like my husband. But he chose to put the exercise bike in the basement instead of spending those 2 hours on it). Or even that hour spent browsing Facebook or these forums... people could be going for a walk instead. It's still about choice. Like I choose to go for a walk instead of stitching/reading/playing video games (although obviously sometimes there isn't much of a choice if you have kids at home and/or are disabled).
Eight hours at a desk would be a short day for me. It's usually closer to ten. I still usually walk about 4 miles a day in addition to whatever other exercise I do.
My contention was at the "some of us prefer to have an active lifestyle" way that it was put. I have to make time to have an active lifestyle because I'm not working in the kind of job where I walk around all day (like serving food). Choosing to do one thing means something else has to go. At this point, there's nothing else I can just cut out and not end up with over-training problems. But the idea that the line between an "active lifestyle" is 20,000 daily steps / 8 miles of walking is a little far fetched.
When I think of people with an active lifestyle, I consider more than how many steps a day they take, because otherwise pretty much every white-collar office worker in the world cannot possibly have an active lifestyle - no matter how many marathons they run or centuries they ride - because they're not walking 8 miles a day and also going to the gym for another hour.2 -
heiliskrimsli wrote: »heiliskrimsli wrote: »SusanMFindlay wrote: »Maxematics wrote: »heiliskrimsli wrote: »
Good to know that you aren't judging by defining people who exercise one or two hours each day as not having active lives, and that you haven made any assumption that they don't enjoy exercise either.
I'd love to have as much free time to do the activities I love as you have to do yours. Unfortunately, I have responsibilities that have to come first. I'll be very happy if after all the chores are done today, I get two hours to go cycling. Because that's more free time than I usually get.
It didn't seem at all to me @Maxematics was judging anyone. They were just talking about their choices. It does seem as though you're picking apart their posts and lifestyle because you're frustrated about yours. Sorry you don't have as much free time as you wish, but there's no reason to take that out on someone else.
Thanks. I don't get the free time comments either. I've stated so many times that I don't walk to and from work every day yet it's emphasized that I exercise for three hours every day when I don't. I do an hour workout five days a week. My steps come from longer walks and day to day life. I have a full time job in which I'm on my feet most of the day, I have family members to take care of, errands to run daily, housework to do. All of this is part of one's activity level, yet I'm perceived to have this crazy amount of free time because I burn off more calories than the average person my size due to my lifestyle and therefore have a higher calorie allowance. I honestly don't understand the hostility.
Yeah, I don't get it either. I have a full time job and two toddlers. Free time is certainly not something I have a lot of. I still average just under 20,000 steps/day. Making the time to do that is a choice (and, to some degree, the result of a semi-active job and happenstance like my parking spot being clear across campus from my office). I prioritize taking my kids to the park. My husband and I like to go for walks. I chase kids a lot.
Not everyone can (or even wants to) make those choices, but there's no need to attack those who can.
A lot of people spend upward of an hour a day commuting each way to a job that involves spending hours in meetings and the rest of that time trying to do the work that gets talked about in meetings. There went 12 hours of my day already. Inside the other 12, everything else has to happen. There are only 24 in a day, after all. Out of the 12 that are not part of either being at work or getting there and back, there's everything else: do the yard work, do the laundry, cook, clean up, do the grocery shopping, take a shower twice a day (after all the sweaty stuff, and before work), eat dinner, find time to exercise, my other activities like photography, have some sort of a social life, and sleep.
That whole thing about how people find the time to watch television 3 hours a day and that's why they're not out walking 8 miles a day? I guess it's easier to think that.
People don't realize what a difference a semi active versus sedentary job makes. You can do 8k step in a 6 hour shift in a fast food place, for example... that's still 8k more than someone who works 6 hours at a computer. So yeah... saying 'I have a job but still have 20k step a day' when you're on your feet at your job is not a very fair comparison. It IS hard for some people to get even 10k steps. I mean, a lazy day at home for me would be around 5000-7000 steps (doing those tasks like laundry, cooking, cleaning), but that's 16 hours at home (when not sleeping) and not spending 8 hours sitting at a desk...
That being said, there are a lot of people who watch 2 hours of television at night, and they *could* exercise at the same time if they really wanted it (like my husband. But he chose to put the exercise bike in the basement instead of spending those 2 hours on it). Or even that hour spent browsing Facebook or these forums... people could be going for a walk instead. It's still about choice. Like I choose to go for a walk instead of stitching/reading/playing video games (although obviously sometimes there isn't much of a choice if you have kids at home and/or are disabled).
Eight hours at a desk would be a short day for me. It's usually closer to ten. I still usually walk about 4 miles a day in addition to whatever other exercise I do.
My contention was at the "some of us prefer to have an active lifestyle" way that it was put. I have to make time to have an active lifestyle because I'm not working in the kind of job where I walk around all day (like serving food). Choosing to do one thing means something else has to go. At this point, there's nothing else I can just cut out and not end up with over-training problems. But the idea that the line between an "active lifestyle" is 20,000 daily steps / 8 miles of walking is a little far fetched.
When I think of people with an active lifestyle, I consider more than how many steps a day they take, because otherwise pretty much every white-collar office worker in the world cannot possibly have an active lifestyle - no matter how many marathons they run or centuries they ride - because they're not walking 8 miles a day and also going to the gym for another hour.
For me an active lifestyle is being on your feet most of the time when you're not working, pretty much. I'd say that steps are a pretty big part of that. It's the difference between someone spending their free time walking/exercising/doing chores and someone spending most of those 'free' hours reading or watching tv.7 -
heiliskrimsli wrote: »My contention was at the "some of us prefer to have an active lifestyle" way that it was put. I have to make time to have an active lifestyle because I'm not working in the kind of job where I walk around all day (like serving food). Choosing to do one thing means something else has to go. At this point, there's nothing else I can just cut out and not end up with over-training problems. But the idea that the line between an "active lifestyle" is 20,000 daily steps / 8 miles of walking is a little far fetched.
When I said "Active", I meant that with regard to the guidelines used by many sites, including MFP. Sedentary, Lightly Active, Active, Very Active, etc. I did not mean that anyone who does not do everything that I do isn't active at all and does absolutely nothing with themselves. According to those guidelines, I would be Active to Very Active in my day-to-day life. Recognizing that most people do not get that amount of steps or even exercise, they'd be considered Sedentary to Lightly Active.8 -
heiliskrimsli wrote: »heiliskrimsli wrote: »SusanMFindlay wrote: »Maxematics wrote: »heiliskrimsli wrote: »
Good to know that you aren't judging by defining people who exercise one or two hours each day as not having active lives, and that you haven made any assumption that they don't enjoy exercise either.
I'd love to have as much free time to do the activities I love as you have to do yours. Unfortunately, I have responsibilities that have to come first. I'll be very happy if after all the chores are done today, I get two hours to go cycling. Because that's more free time than I usually get.
It didn't seem at all to me @Maxematics was judging anyone. They were just talking about their choices. It does seem as though you're picking apart their posts and lifestyle because you're frustrated about yours. Sorry you don't have as much free time as you wish, but there's no reason to take that out on someone else.
Thanks. I don't get the free time comments either. I've stated so many times that I don't walk to and from work every day yet it's emphasized that I exercise for three hours every day when I don't. I do an hour workout five days a week. My steps come from longer walks and day to day life. I have a full time job in which I'm on my feet most of the day, I have family members to take care of, errands to run daily, housework to do. All of this is part of one's activity level, yet I'm perceived to have this crazy amount of free time because I burn off more calories than the average person my size due to my lifestyle and therefore have a higher calorie allowance. I honestly don't understand the hostility.
Yeah, I don't get it either. I have a full time job and two toddlers. Free time is certainly not something I have a lot of. I still average just under 20,000 steps/day. Making the time to do that is a choice (and, to some degree, the result of a semi-active job and happenstance like my parking spot being clear across campus from my office). I prioritize taking my kids to the park. My husband and I like to go for walks. I chase kids a lot.
Not everyone can (or even wants to) make those choices, but there's no need to attack those who can.
A lot of people spend upward of an hour a day commuting each way to a job that involves spending hours in meetings and the rest of that time trying to do the work that gets talked about in meetings. There went 12 hours of my day already. Inside the other 12, everything else has to happen. There are only 24 in a day, after all. Out of the 12 that are not part of either being at work or getting there and back, there's everything else: do the yard work, do the laundry, cook, clean up, do the grocery shopping, take a shower twice a day (after all the sweaty stuff, and before work), eat dinner, find time to exercise, my other activities like photography, have some sort of a social life, and sleep.
That whole thing about how people find the time to watch television 3 hours a day and that's why they're not out walking 8 miles a day? I guess it's easier to think that.
People don't realize what a difference a semi active versus sedentary job makes. You can do 8k step in a 6 hour shift in a fast food place, for example... that's still 8k more than someone who works 6 hours at a computer. So yeah... saying 'I have a job but still have 20k step a day' when you're on your feet at your job is not a very fair comparison. It IS hard for some people to get even 10k steps. I mean, a lazy day at home for me would be around 5000-7000 steps (doing those tasks like laundry, cooking, cleaning), but that's 16 hours at home (when not sleeping) and not spending 8 hours sitting at a desk...
That being said, there are a lot of people who watch 2 hours of television at night, and they *could* exercise at the same time if they really wanted it (like my husband. But he chose to put the exercise bike in the basement instead of spending those 2 hours on it). Or even that hour spent browsing Facebook or these forums... people could be going for a walk instead. It's still about choice. Like I choose to go for a walk instead of stitching/reading/playing video games (although obviously sometimes there isn't much of a choice if you have kids at home and/or are disabled).
Eight hours at a desk would be a short day for me. It's usually closer to ten. I still usually walk about 4 miles a day in addition to whatever other exercise I do.
My contention was at the "some of us prefer to have an active lifestyle" way that it was put. I have to make time to have an active lifestyle because I'm not working in the kind of job where I walk around all day (like serving food). Choosing to do one thing means something else has to go. At this point, there's nothing else I can just cut out and not end up with over-training problems. But the idea that the line between an "active lifestyle" is 20,000 daily steps / 8 miles of walking is a little far fetched.
When I think of people with an active lifestyle, I consider more than how many steps a day they take, because otherwise pretty much every white-collar office worker in the world cannot possibly have an active lifestyle - no matter how many marathons they run or centuries they ride - because they're not walking 8 miles a day and also going to the gym for another hour.
For me an active lifestyle is being on your feet most of the time when you're not working, pretty much. I'd say that steps are a pretty big part of that. It's the difference between someone spending their free time walking/exercising/doing chores and someone spending most of those 'free' hours reading or watching tv.
Only steps-based activity counts as activity?Maxematics wrote: »heiliskrimsli wrote: »My contention was at the "some of us prefer to have an active lifestyle" way that it was put. I have to make time to have an active lifestyle because I'm not working in the kind of job where I walk around all day (like serving food). Choosing to do one thing means something else has to go. At this point, there's nothing else I can just cut out and not end up with over-training problems. But the idea that the line between an "active lifestyle" is 20,000 daily steps / 8 miles of walking is a little far fetched.
When I said "Active", I meant that with regard to the guidelines used by many sites, including MFP. Sedentary, Lightly Active, Active, Very Active, etc. I did not mean that anyone who does not do everything that I do isn't active at all and does absolutely nothing with themselves. According to those guidelines, I would be Active to Very Active in my day-to-day life. Recognizing that most people do not get that amount of steps or even exercise, they'd be considered Sedentary to Lightly Active.
I think defining activity in terms of steps ignores that there is a lot of activity that isn't based on steps at all. Rowing isn't steps. Cycling isn't steps. Swimming isn't steps. Martial arts aren't steps.
The obsession with steps, and defining a lifestyle as active vs. inactive based upon nothing other than steps is ridiculous.0 -
heiliskrimsli wrote: »heiliskrimsli wrote: »heiliskrimsli wrote: »SusanMFindlay wrote: »Maxematics wrote: »heiliskrimsli wrote: »
Good to know that you aren't judging by defining people who exercise one or two hours each day as not having active lives, and that you haven made any assumption that they don't enjoy exercise either.
I'd love to have as much free time to do the activities I love as you have to do yours. Unfortunately, I have responsibilities that have to come first. I'll be very happy if after all the chores are done today, I get two hours to go cycling. Because that's more free time than I usually get.
It didn't seem at all to me @Maxematics was judging anyone. They were just talking about their choices. It does seem as though you're picking apart their posts and lifestyle because you're frustrated about yours. Sorry you don't have as much free time as you wish, but there's no reason to take that out on someone else.
Thanks. I don't get the free time comments either. I've stated so many times that I don't walk to and from work every day yet it's emphasized that I exercise for three hours every day when I don't. I do an hour workout five days a week. My steps come from longer walks and day to day life. I have a full time job in which I'm on my feet most of the day, I have family members to take care of, errands to run daily, housework to do. All of this is part of one's activity level, yet I'm perceived to have this crazy amount of free time because I burn off more calories than the average person my size due to my lifestyle and therefore have a higher calorie allowance. I honestly don't understand the hostility.
Yeah, I don't get it either. I have a full time job and two toddlers. Free time is certainly not something I have a lot of. I still average just under 20,000 steps/day. Making the time to do that is a choice (and, to some degree, the result of a semi-active job and happenstance like my parking spot being clear across campus from my office). I prioritize taking my kids to the park. My husband and I like to go for walks. I chase kids a lot.
Not everyone can (or even wants to) make those choices, but there's no need to attack those who can.
A lot of people spend upward of an hour a day commuting each way to a job that involves spending hours in meetings and the rest of that time trying to do the work that gets talked about in meetings. There went 12 hours of my day already. Inside the other 12, everything else has to happen. There are only 24 in a day, after all. Out of the 12 that are not part of either being at work or getting there and back, there's everything else: do the yard work, do the laundry, cook, clean up, do the grocery shopping, take a shower twice a day (after all the sweaty stuff, and before work), eat dinner, find time to exercise, my other activities like photography, have some sort of a social life, and sleep.
That whole thing about how people find the time to watch television 3 hours a day and that's why they're not out walking 8 miles a day? I guess it's easier to think that.
People don't realize what a difference a semi active versus sedentary job makes. You can do 8k step in a 6 hour shift in a fast food place, for example... that's still 8k more than someone who works 6 hours at a computer. So yeah... saying 'I have a job but still have 20k step a day' when you're on your feet at your job is not a very fair comparison. It IS hard for some people to get even 10k steps. I mean, a lazy day at home for me would be around 5000-7000 steps (doing those tasks like laundry, cooking, cleaning), but that's 16 hours at home (when not sleeping) and not spending 8 hours sitting at a desk...
That being said, there are a lot of people who watch 2 hours of television at night, and they *could* exercise at the same time if they really wanted it (like my husband. But he chose to put the exercise bike in the basement instead of spending those 2 hours on it). Or even that hour spent browsing Facebook or these forums... people could be going for a walk instead. It's still about choice. Like I choose to go for a walk instead of stitching/reading/playing video games (although obviously sometimes there isn't much of a choice if you have kids at home and/or are disabled).
Eight hours at a desk would be a short day for me. It's usually closer to ten. I still usually walk about 4 miles a day in addition to whatever other exercise I do.
My contention was at the "some of us prefer to have an active lifestyle" way that it was put. I have to make time to have an active lifestyle because I'm not working in the kind of job where I walk around all day (like serving food). Choosing to do one thing means something else has to go. At this point, there's nothing else I can just cut out and not end up with over-training problems. But the idea that the line between an "active lifestyle" is 20,000 daily steps / 8 miles of walking is a little far fetched.
When I think of people with an active lifestyle, I consider more than how many steps a day they take, because otherwise pretty much every white-collar office worker in the world cannot possibly have an active lifestyle - no matter how many marathons they run or centuries they ride - because they're not walking 8 miles a day and also going to the gym for another hour.
For me an active lifestyle is being on your feet most of the time when you're not working, pretty much. I'd say that steps are a pretty big part of that. It's the difference between someone spending their free time walking/exercising/doing chores and someone spending most of those 'free' hours reading or watching tv.
Only steps-based activity counts as activity?Maxematics wrote: »heiliskrimsli wrote: »My contention was at the "some of us prefer to have an active lifestyle" way that it was put. I have to make time to have an active lifestyle because I'm not working in the kind of job where I walk around all day (like serving food). Choosing to do one thing means something else has to go. At this point, there's nothing else I can just cut out and not end up with over-training problems. But the idea that the line between an "active lifestyle" is 20,000 daily steps / 8 miles of walking is a little far fetched.
When I said "Active", I meant that with regard to the guidelines used by many sites, including MFP. Sedentary, Lightly Active, Active, Very Active, etc. I did not mean that anyone who does not do everything that I do isn't active at all and does absolutely nothing with themselves. According to those guidelines, I would be Active to Very Active in my day-to-day life. Recognizing that most people do not get that amount of steps or even exercise, they'd be considered Sedentary to Lightly Active.
I think defining activity in terms of steps ignores that there is a lot of activity that isn't based on steps at all. Rowing isn't steps. Cycling isn't steps. Swimming isn't steps. Martial arts aren't steps.
The obsession with steps, and defining a lifestyle as active vs. inactive based upon nothing other than steps is ridiculous.
Sigh, I never said it was all about steps. You really do seem hyperfocused on making assumptions. If I thought everything was about steps, I wouldn't bother lifting weights, doing yoga or pilates, or anything else that isn't step heavy. At this point, I'm going to guess that no matter who explains what it will be scrutinized to the fullest.22 -
heiliskrimsli wrote: »Maxematics wrote: »heiliskrimsli wrote: »heiliskrimsli wrote: »heiliskrimsli wrote: »SusanMFindlay wrote: »Maxematics wrote: »heiliskrimsli wrote: »
Good to know that you aren't judging by defining people who exercise one or two hours each day as not having active lives, and that you haven made any assumption that they don't enjoy exercise either.
I'd love to have as much free time to do the activities I love as you have to do yours. Unfortunately, I have responsibilities that have to come first. I'll be very happy if after all the chores are done today, I get two hours to go cycling. Because that's more free time than I usually get.
It didn't seem at all to me @Maxematics was judging anyone. They were just talking about their choices. It does seem as though you're picking apart their posts and lifestyle because you're frustrated about yours. Sorry you don't have as much free time as you wish, but there's no reason to take that out on someone else.
Thanks. I don't get the free time comments either. I've stated so many times that I don't walk to and from work every day yet it's emphasized that I exercise for three hours every day when I don't. I do an hour workout five days a week. My steps come from longer walks and day to day life. I have a full time job in which I'm on my feet most of the day, I have family members to take care of, errands to run daily, housework to do. All of this is part of one's activity level, yet I'm perceived to have this crazy amount of free time because I burn off more calories than the average person my size due to my lifestyle and therefore have a higher calorie allowance. I honestly don't understand the hostility.
Yeah, I don't get it either. I have a full time job and two toddlers. Free time is certainly not something I have a lot of. I still average just under 20,000 steps/day. Making the time to do that is a choice (and, to some degree, the result of a semi-active job and happenstance like my parking spot being clear across campus from my office). I prioritize taking my kids to the park. My husband and I like to go for walks. I chase kids a lot.
Not everyone can (or even wants to) make those choices, but there's no need to attack those who can.
A lot of people spend upward of an hour a day commuting each way to a job that involves spending hours in meetings and the rest of that time trying to do the work that gets talked about in meetings. There went 12 hours of my day already. Inside the other 12, everything else has to happen. There are only 24 in a day, after all. Out of the 12 that are not part of either being at work or getting there and back, there's everything else: do the yard work, do the laundry, cook, clean up, do the grocery shopping, take a shower twice a day (after all the sweaty stuff, and before work), eat dinner, find time to exercise, my other activities like photography, have some sort of a social life, and sleep.
That whole thing about how people find the time to watch television 3 hours a day and that's why they're not out walking 8 miles a day? I guess it's easier to think that.
People don't realize what a difference a semi active versus sedentary job makes. You can do 8k step in a 6 hour shift in a fast food place, for example... that's still 8k more than someone who works 6 hours at a computer. So yeah... saying 'I have a job but still have 20k step a day' when you're on your feet at your job is not a very fair comparison. It IS hard for some people to get even 10k steps. I mean, a lazy day at home for me would be around 5000-7000 steps (doing those tasks like laundry, cooking, cleaning), but that's 16 hours at home (when not sleeping) and not spending 8 hours sitting at a desk...
That being said, there are a lot of people who watch 2 hours of television at night, and they *could* exercise at the same time if they really wanted it (like my husband. But he chose to put the exercise bike in the basement instead of spending those 2 hours on it). Or even that hour spent browsing Facebook or these forums... people could be going for a walk instead. It's still about choice. Like I choose to go for a walk instead of stitching/reading/playing video games (although obviously sometimes there isn't much of a choice if you have kids at home and/or are disabled).
Eight hours at a desk would be a short day for me. It's usually closer to ten. I still usually walk about 4 miles a day in addition to whatever other exercise I do.
My contention was at the "some of us prefer to have an active lifestyle" way that it was put. I have to make time to have an active lifestyle because I'm not working in the kind of job where I walk around all day (like serving food). Choosing to do one thing means something else has to go. At this point, there's nothing else I can just cut out and not end up with over-training problems. But the idea that the line between an "active lifestyle" is 20,000 daily steps / 8 miles of walking is a little far fetched.
When I think of people with an active lifestyle, I consider more than how many steps a day they take, because otherwise pretty much every white-collar office worker in the world cannot possibly have an active lifestyle - no matter how many marathons they run or centuries they ride - because they're not walking 8 miles a day and also going to the gym for another hour.
For me an active lifestyle is being on your feet most of the time when you're not working, pretty much. I'd say that steps are a pretty big part of that. It's the difference between someone spending their free time walking/exercising/doing chores and someone spending most of those 'free' hours reading or watching tv.
Only steps-based activity counts as activity?Maxematics wrote: »heiliskrimsli wrote: »My contention was at the "some of us prefer to have an active lifestyle" way that it was put. I have to make time to have an active lifestyle because I'm not working in the kind of job where I walk around all day (like serving food). Choosing to do one thing means something else has to go. At this point, there's nothing else I can just cut out and not end up with over-training problems. But the idea that the line between an "active lifestyle" is 20,000 daily steps / 8 miles of walking is a little far fetched.
When I said "Active", I meant that with regard to the guidelines used by many sites, including MFP. Sedentary, Lightly Active, Active, Very Active, etc. I did not mean that anyone who does not do everything that I do isn't active at all and does absolutely nothing with themselves. According to those guidelines, I would be Active to Very Active in my day-to-day life. Recognizing that most people do not get that amount of steps or even exercise, they'd be considered Sedentary to Lightly Active.
I think defining activity in terms of steps ignores that there is a lot of activity that isn't based on steps at all. Rowing isn't steps. Cycling isn't steps. Swimming isn't steps. Martial arts aren't steps.
The obsession with steps, and defining a lifestyle as active vs. inactive based upon nothing other than steps is ridiculous.
Sigh, I never said it was all about steps. You really do seem hyperfocused on making assumptions. If I thought everything was about steps, I wouldn't bother lifting weights, doing yoga or pilates, or anything else that isn't step heavy. At this point, I'm going to guess that no matter who explains what it will be scrutinized to the fullest.
You drew the dichotomy and started saying things like "not everyone has an active lifestyle". My point is that your active lifestyle is not the only kind that exists. You also said that essentially everyone (except people with MS) can do it, they just don't choose to make the time.
I'd love to see you make an extra 3 hours a day in my life.
So because I gave my sister who has MS as an example of someone who has no choice but to be sedentary, you take that as me saying only people with MS have a legitimate reason to be sedentary? Wow. The logical fallacies. At first I thought we just had a misunderstanding but it's evident that something else is at play with you. I'm done here. Good luck.27
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
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K 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