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
Replies
-
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 -
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.
How is this 2 page detour related to the OP?
OP, if you are still reading at this point (perhaps with fascinated horror at the train wreck this has become), sounds like you have become pretty meticulous with your logging. How quickly have you lost the weight? Have you ever taken a diet break? Hormones can respond to prolonged deficits, it may be worth considering to slowly increase calories for a period of time (couple weeks), and then come back at it. Great job so far!10 -
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.
You're way overthinking this. I don't think ANYONE would ever imply that cycling, swimming, or rowing, are not activity. I think you're the one who's obsessed over the step 'obsession' and nobody EVER said that steps are the only measure of your activity (I myself said that it's a 'big part of it'. Not all of it).17 -
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.
I'm someone who does have time, being a homeschooling SAHM, but that doesn't mean I judge people who chose to spend their time (however much they have or don't) differently. My current Fitbit running total shows me averaging around 22K a day. I also do shred workouts.
That aside, I fail to see how the OP's initial post in any way was meant to do anything but help the OP, in spite of the direction this thread went in.4 -
Hey folks - this discussion was split from https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10557138/is-my-metabolism-that-screwed-up
If instead of an 'exercise' debate, you were looking to help an OP figure out what's going on with him, head on over there. If instead, you wanted to debate about finding exercise time, please stick around and add your two cents.
I'd like to remind you that we have community guidelines. When someone posts a plea for help, lets try actually helping them. If you find yourself wanting to discuss something that ISN"T what the OP is about, start your own thread.
Now, back to your regularly scheduled program...
Happy freaking Sunday,
Em13 -
To this particular topic. Back when I did work, but wasn't particularly interested in exercise, I did do a fair bit of walking. It's one of the reasons so much of my activity is walking based now. I've always found it to be a great stress reliever. When I'd be wrestling with a particular job-related problem, I used to get up from my desk and do a few laps around the building's atrium to clear my mind and help me focus. I had walking built into my daily commute, too.
In addition to purposeful bouts of exercise (planned runs or speed walks, which I do depends on the condition of my joints) and Shred workouts, I do little walks throughout the day while I'm waiting for tea to steep or 10-15 minutes every hour when my watch move reminder goes off. I put on my shoes and go around the block and rack up another mile (our street is a loop that is just about a mile around and I walk very briskly).
Sitting around is bad for my medical condition. Getting up and moving every hour is good for it. It's important for me to make time for activity due to my circumstances.7 -
I don't get many steps in though in theory I could as I have a lot of free time. Often I can't and often when I can I just plain old don't. I'm not bitter about those who do and rightly say that if you can make some time in your day it's perfectly possible to get extra activity and increase your TDEE.
I've joined the National Trust today to try and encourage myself to get and do more walking in our national parks and even walk round stately homes, sites of national significance etc.
Be active or don't, have the time or don't, be in a position to have active job or work a desk job but don't pick someone apart because they happen to be more active/have the time to be more active/deliberately make the time.9 -
If/when fitness is important to you, you make the time. It doesn't have to be a gazillion hours per day...people really underestimate the value of doing some kind of moderate physical activity for 30-60 minutes per day and maybe throwing in a more vigorous workout in 1-2 times per week.
My wife and I are busy people...we both work and we have a 7 & 4 year old at home. We both work in an office environment and understand as sedentary workers, it's very important that we make time to move everyday outside of that circumstance simply for our general health and well being...beyond that, we're both just pretty into fitness.
My wife is an avid runner and enjoys participating in 1/2 marathons and the occasional marathon here and there. She runs a 10K 4x per week and usually a longer run on the weekend at some point. She also lifts with our friend and her trainer 1x per week and does some body weight stuff a couple times per week after her runs.
I'm a cycling enthusiast and typically ride 50-60 miles per week as a baseline...I like doing a couple of endurance events annually so I up the miles when I'm specifically training for one of those. I lift 2x per week in the gym and have one body weight workout weekly. I walk my dog most mornings when I get up...it's not far, but it's something and it's good for her and a nice way for me to wake up...love drinking my coffee and watching the sun come up on a new day. I recently got involved in Jiu Jitsu, but alas, that's not going to work out with scheduling unless I drop some cycling which I'm not really willing to do.
On weekends we like going out and being active as a family...family hike in the mountains or like yesterday, we took the boys to the rock climbing gym and climbed for a couple of hours and then all went out for lunch.
Being active is important to us...fitness is important to us. Because it is important to us, we make the time. We don't spend all day exercising...basically 45-60 minutes per day of deliberate exercise. It has made a tremendous difference in both our fitness and was instrumental in losing weight as well as maintaining our weights. Neither of us eat like little birdies either.
13 -
Ah yes, I should have added, my steps are generally low but I lift and do bodyweight HIIT/Tabata type stuff 3-6 days a week. So on the odd day I do walk 15-20k steps it's no issue as I'm fit enough for it.2
-
I'm incredibly fortunate that i have time to exercise. I'm retired and don't have small kids to look after, so i can walk for miles everyday.
I too would struggle if i had a desk job, plus a two hour commute everyday. Sure, i could get up early and pound the pavement, but i know myself and my lack of motivation in the early hours, and chances are high i wouldn't do it! When my kids were little and i worked full time, i did go to the gym for an hour or two most nights, but that was about it.
My sister works in an office, she decided to get a fitbit to motivate her to move more. She walked to the next floor instead of emailing, went to the furthest toilet, went to the photocopier multiple times instead of copying everything all at once etc etc. The result of this was she got in more steps, but she also got pulled into her bosses office for "time wasting" even though she got all of her work done. So now, her fitbit sits in her drawer at home
I get in so much walking because, I never watch tv during the day, i read the forums on my phone while i'm walking instead of sitting in front of my laptop, i walk when i'm talking on the phone which can be problematic for the other person because i'm huffing and puffing while trying to talk lol
I have great admiration for people who work full time and still manage to get hours of exercise in every single day, it just goes to show where there's a will there's a way.6 -
I have 5 kids with the youngest being 6 months and I find time to gym 5-6 days a week. I even go for 3-4 hours on the weekend. I make time for me. Happy mom/wife... Happy life.9
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 387 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 897 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.2K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions