Cardio vs no cardio
Options
Replies
-
TheAssyrian wrote: »Ok so I don't disagree with anyone above but you can absolutely lose weight by lifting weights. It's all about HOW you train. HIIT workouts with weights are far more effective than your average cardio. You definitely won't see the same results from jogging on a treadmill that you would see from the same amount of time doing HIIT.
Except, generally speaking, people can't.
I'm reasonably fit, athletically active (including competing) for over 15 years.
I can row all day long at steady state, which burns a high number of calories: Many hundreds to thousands, depending on hours/km rowed.
I can do about one round of classic max effort Tabata intervals on a rowing machine (warm up, 8 times (20 seconds max effort, 10 seconds easy), cool down); or a rowing machine race (warm-up, 2K race at race-pace, cool down) . . . then I'm pretty much done for the day. Either one of those is a few hundred calories, tops.
HIIT, so called, is trendy and oversold. It's a good exercise pacing strategy, and it has a useful role in building certain dimensions of fitness (like increasing V02max before competitions). It isn't universal weight-loss or fitness magic. Not even close.10 -
TheAssyrian wrote: »Ok so I don't disagree with anyone above but you can absolutely lose weight by lifting weights. It's all about HOW you train. HIIT workouts with weights are far more effective than your average cardio. You definitely won't see the same results from jogging on a treadmill that you would see from the same amount of time doing HIIT.
Except, generally speaking, people can't.
I'm reasonably fit, athletically active (including competing) for over 15 years.
I can row all day long at steady state, which burns a high number of calories: Many hundreds to thousands, depending on hours/km rowed.
I can do about one round of classic max effort Tabata intervals on a rowing machine (warm up, 8 times (20 seconds max effort, 10 seconds easy), cool down); or a rowing machine race (warm-up, 2K race at race-pace, cool down) . . . then I'm pretty much done for the day. Either one of those is a few hundred calories, tops.
HIIT, so called, is trendy and oversold. It's a good exercise pacing strategy, and it has a useful role in building certain dimensions of fitness (like increasing V02max before competitions). It isn't universal weight-loss or fitness magic. Not even close.
Yeah, I'm with you here. If you're looking for a fast workout that gets results, then HIIT might be a good fit, but it is HARD. I can go run 15K no problem, or I can go hit the heavy weights hard, but I simply can't do HIIT. I hate it, it sucks, and I can't imagine how I would ever stick with something that feels like torture to me. Seriously, I think we can all agree that the best workout is the one that you will do consistently. I wouldn't expect anyone to stick with a workout that they hate for any length of time no matter how badly they want to see results from it.
3 -
julieweberr wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »I'm a number girl and like to rationalize things with numbers. If I run 50 minutes I burn about 350kcal. Note, this depends on weight and distance run. Generally, miles * body weight in lbs * 0.64 works quite well.
So cool, 350kcal from running. If I do this for a week I'll lose 1750kcal. Or half a pound. Meh! Can I do this every day, without a break? Unlikely. Rest days are important. So I might lose a tiny bit of weight from running for 50 minutes a few times per week. Nope, doesn't seem like a good weightloss plan. (mind you, I'm maintaining. Just making a point)
Running is high impact, it's hard on your joints, bones, etc. I can ride a marathon every day, comfortably. I can walk 350 kcal every day, comfortably. Your example is about running, not exercise generally.
I believe they were just pointing out the caloric deficit part of exercise in general, saying cardio or no cardio it's not much of a difference, you can't lose a significant amount of weight with a poor diet and only exercise.
A chap called Guy Martin rode a tough mountain bike event called the Tour Divide with a very simple eating plan - eat as much as possible, whenever possible. That included a huge pizza for main course, calzone for dessert and one to take away and eat on the trail.
When he finished the event he described himself as looking emaciated and like a concentration camp survivor.
BTW - cardio or no cardio would make on average 500+ cals a day for me difference, I wouldn't call that "not much" would you? If I wanted to create a significant and long term deficit using cardio I certainly could, that some other people couldn't is also of course true.
Be very careful about using absolute terms or projecting supposed typical situations to apply to everyone.
Like I stated above, I was just trying to clarify that they were using running as an example to show the 350 deficit. All examples, not saying everyone only burns 350 or everyone only has to run. I was just pointing that out. And by "not much" I meant if you eat an unhealthy large amount of high fat/high calorie foods consistently - and you are not participating in a 2745 mile bike ride - then burning 350 calories a few times each week will not get you very far. I am not projecting situations onto anyone for the third time it is just EXAMPLES. 350 calories is 350 calories, does not matter how you burn it, it was just a situation. The bottom line was diet is extremely important when trying to lose weight. Jeez.3 -
estherdragonbat wrote: »I do both. I've always been a walker and, as a short woman, if I didn't have those extra calories, I'd miss them in social situations. I started strength training about 6 months into my weight loss (I've been losing since October 2016).
Now, I'm currently training for my second 5K. I'm 47 years old and until last summer, the last time I ran, I was probably 14 at summer camp and I was NOT fast. Well, last year, I ran my first 5K in 28:17 and won my age bracket. This year, I'm ahead of the pack in my running workshop. I'm 5'3"; my legs aren't especially long, and I haven't run since the last 5K. I feel like I have to chalk my performance up in part to the running training (modified C25K) but in part to the strength training. It all comes together.
I'm 47 too and a proper short@rse, I started losing weight in Nov 2015 and am maintaining a 150lb loss (2 years now). I started weight training around 6months in to my journey as well, absolutely love picking up heavy stuff and putting it down again, but I also love an intense cardio session and to run. Not really a 5k runner (can do under 30min but it half kills me, 33min is more comfortable), more of a distance runner, do 1 local 5 miler in the year, everything else 10k and above, with half being my favourite distance2 -
TheAssyrian wrote: »Ok so I don't disagree with anyone above but you can absolutely lose weight by lifting weights. It's all about HOW you train. HIIT workouts with weights are far more effective than your average cardio. You definitely won't see the same results from jogging on a treadmill that you would see from the same amount of time doing HIIT.
Except, generally speaking, people can't.
I'm reasonably fit, athletically active (including competing) for over 15 years.
I can row all day long at steady state, which burns a high number of calories: Many hundreds to thousands, depending on hours/km rowed.
I can do about one round of classic max effort Tabata intervals on a rowing machine (warm up, 8 times (20 seconds max effort, 10 seconds easy), cool down); or a rowing machine race (warm-up, 2K race at race-pace, cool down) . . . then I'm pretty much done for the day. Either one of those is a few hundred calories, tops.
HIIT, so called, is trendy and oversold. It's a good exercise pacing strategy, and it has a useful role in building certain dimensions of fitness (like increasing V02max before competitions). It isn't universal weight-loss or fitness magic. Not even close.
Exactly, I can run for 4-5hours at an easy pace and burn 3000+ Calories in the process, but can only manage 20-30min of sprint or hill training, which probably burns around 200 Calories2 -
You should do both and not just for the calorie deficit.
Cardio is exercise for your heart (hence...Cardio-cardiac...)
Don't just do physical activity for weight loss and for how your body looks-do it for your health. Our bodies need both. Your heart is a muscle and it needs exercise to stay strong so that if/when (god forbid) you have a heart attack, it will be strong enough to survive it. Heart disease is the leading cause of death among women...2 -
Sunflowerinbloom wrote: »So does cardio and weights help you lose weight I was told cardio does not help if going to the gym just do weights
Just in case you got lost in any/all the responses...
Both will help in so far as both burn calories that you wouldn't otherwise burn, which helps with your overall energy balance (calories in vs calories out).
Think of it like a bank account...
If you save more than you spend, the account will get bigger.
If you spend more than you save, it'll get smaller.
Your body (weight) works similarly...
If your body burns more calories over time than you feed it, it'll get smaller.
If your body burns fewer calories than you feed it, it'll get bigger.
Both cardio and weights increase how many cals you burn. But that's only part of the equation. If you're still giving your body more calories than it needs, you won't lose weight regardless of cardio vs weights.
Hope that helps.6 -
There's a misconception about lifting weights and fat loss (which is the goal here): The act of lifting weights itself is intense but short lived and therefore can be relatively low caloric. However, if you are doing serious lifting, meaning ~4-8 reps to near failure for multiple sets and increasing weight regularly (doing this level of intensity will not be fun!), the recovery process from lifting weight generates a LOT of caloric burn. Muscle tissue itself also has a higher metabolic rate than fat tissue. Large amounts of cardio can lead to a 'skinny fat' look, thinner, able to run huge distances, but no definition, still a little pudgy, etc. I lost 60 lbs of fat with NO cardio, just lifting weights, and diet. I also put on 20 lbs of muscle in the 4 months as I wasn't a heavy lifter before. And when I was stable at goal weight, my daily caloric consumption had gone UP from ~2500 cal to ~3300cal. So I got to eat more when I was done!
NOw I do cardio too, but for conditioning and heart health, although even that benefit is being challenged. Still I do some aerobic activities (like hiking, biking) and being in condition is helpful, which gets to the last point. Your approach should depend on your goals: don't lift weights if you want to run a marathon for instance.7 -
"skinny fat"
GOD I hate that term.2 -
There's a misconception about lifting weights and fat loss (which is the goal here): The act of lifting weights itself is intense but short lived and therefore can be relatively low caloric. However, if you are doing serious lifting, meaning ~4-8 reps to near failure for multiple sets and increasing weight regularly (doing this level of intensity will not be fun!), the recovery process from lifting weight generates a LOT of caloric burn. Muscle tissue itself also has a higher metabolic rate than fat tissue. Large amounts of cardio can lead to a 'skinny fat' look, thinner, able to run huge distances, but no definition, still a little pudgy, etc. I lost 60 lbs of fat with NO cardio, just lifting weights, and diet. I also put on 20 lbs of muscle in the 4 months as I wasn't a heavy lifter before. And when I was stable at goal weight, my daily caloric consumption had gone UP from ~2500 cal to ~3300cal. So I got to eat more when I was done!
NOw I do cardio too, but for conditioning and heart health, although even that benefit is being challenged. Still I do some aerobic activities (like hiking, biking) and being in condition is helpful, which gets to the last point. Your approach should depend on your goals: don't lift weights if you want to run a marathon for instance.
RE: the bolded. Those are both overstated myths. Excess Post-exercise Oxygen Consumption (EPOC) for weight lifting is estimated at 7% of calories burned during the exercise. Not huge by any means. If the weight training session was a 200 calorie burn, that is 14 more calories.
The metabolic effect of adding 1 lb of muscle is about 7 to 8 calories per hour.. If you are also losing fat, fat is metabolically active at 3 to 4 calories per hour per lb. So, the net is not really that significant.
There are many great reasons for weight training. Fat burn is a minor one. If one wants to cut fat, a calorie deficit is the key.6 -
julieweberr wrote: »julieweberr wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »I'm a number girl and like to rationalize things with numbers. If I run 50 minutes I burn about 350kcal. Note, this depends on weight and distance run. Generally, miles * body weight in lbs * 0.64 works quite well.
So cool, 350kcal from running. If I do this for a week I'll lose 1750kcal. Or half a pound. Meh! Can I do this every day, without a break? Unlikely. Rest days are important. So I might lose a tiny bit of weight from running for 50 minutes a few times per week. Nope, doesn't seem like a good weightloss plan. (mind you, I'm maintaining. Just making a point)
Running is high impact, it's hard on your joints, bones, etc. I can ride a marathon every day, comfortably. I can walk 350 kcal every day, comfortably. Your example is about running, not exercise generally.
I believe they were just pointing out the caloric deficit part of exercise in general, saying cardio or no cardio it's not much of a difference, you can't lose a significant amount of weight with a poor diet and only exercise.
A chap called Guy Martin rode a tough mountain bike event called the Tour Divide with a very simple eating plan - eat as much as possible, whenever possible. That included a huge pizza for main course, calzone for dessert and one to take away and eat on the trail.
When he finished the event he described himself as looking emaciated and like a concentration camp survivor.
BTW - cardio or no cardio would make on average 500+ cals a day for me difference, I wouldn't call that "not much" would you? If I wanted to create a significant and long term deficit using cardio I certainly could, that some other people couldn't is also of course true.
Be very careful about using absolute terms or projecting supposed typical situations to apply to everyone.
Like I stated above, I was just trying to clarify that they were using running as an example to show the 350 deficit. All examples, not saying everyone only burns 350 or everyone only has to run. I was just pointing that out. And by "not much" I meant if you eat an unhealthy large amount of high fat/high calorie foods consistently - and you are not participating in a 2745 mile bike ride - then burning 350 calories a few times each week will not get you very far. I am not projecting situations onto anyone for the third time it is just EXAMPLES. 350 calories is 350 calories, does not matter how you burn it, it was just a situation. The bottom line was diet is extremely important when trying to lose weight. Jeez.
Nobody says diet isn't important. But some people are saying cardio can't help with weight loss, which is false.1 -
NorthCascades wrote: »julieweberr wrote: »julieweberr wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »I'm a number girl and like to rationalize things with numbers. If I run 50 minutes I burn about 350kcal. Note, this depends on weight and distance run. Generally, miles * body weight in lbs * 0.64 works quite well.
So cool, 350kcal from running. If I do this for a week I'll lose 1750kcal. Or half a pound. Meh! Can I do this every day, without a break? Unlikely. Rest days are important. So I might lose a tiny bit of weight from running for 50 minutes a few times per week. Nope, doesn't seem like a good weightloss plan. (mind you, I'm maintaining. Just making a point)
Running is high impact, it's hard on your joints, bones, etc. I can ride a marathon every day, comfortably. I can walk 350 kcal every day, comfortably. Your example is about running, not exercise generally.
I believe they were just pointing out the caloric deficit part of exercise in general, saying cardio or no cardio it's not much of a difference, you can't lose a significant amount of weight with a poor diet and only exercise.
A chap called Guy Martin rode a tough mountain bike event called the Tour Divide with a very simple eating plan - eat as much as possible, whenever possible. That included a huge pizza for main course, calzone for dessert and one to take away and eat on the trail.
When he finished the event he described himself as looking emaciated and like a concentration camp survivor.
BTW - cardio or no cardio would make on average 500+ cals a day for me difference, I wouldn't call that "not much" would you? If I wanted to create a significant and long term deficit using cardio I certainly could, that some other people couldn't is also of course true.
Be very careful about using absolute terms or projecting supposed typical situations to apply to everyone.
Like I stated above, I was just trying to clarify that they were using running as an example to show the 350 deficit. All examples, not saying everyone only burns 350 or everyone only has to run. I was just pointing that out. And by "not much" I meant if you eat an unhealthy large amount of high fat/high calorie foods consistently - and you are not participating in a 2745 mile bike ride - then burning 350 calories a few times each week will not get you very far. I am not projecting situations onto anyone for the third time it is just EXAMPLES. 350 calories is 350 calories, does not matter how you burn it, it was just a situation. The bottom line was diet is extremely important when trying to lose weight. Jeez.
Nobody says diet isn't important. But some people are saying cardio can't help with weight loss, which is false.
It's not false, it's incomplete/misleading. Anytime someone talks about 1 side of the equation without talking about how it fits with the other side of the equation either doesn't know what they are talking about or don't care to take the time to put together a complete and helpful response... and that's when we end up wiht threads like this that just go in circles.3 -
NorthCascades wrote: »julieweberr wrote: »julieweberr wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »I'm a number girl and like to rationalize things with numbers. If I run 50 minutes I burn about 350kcal. Note, this depends on weight and distance run. Generally, miles * body weight in lbs * 0.64 works quite well.
So cool, 350kcal from running. If I do this for a week I'll lose 1750kcal. Or half a pound. Meh! Can I do this every day, without a break? Unlikely. Rest days are important. So I might lose a tiny bit of weight from running for 50 minutes a few times per week. Nope, doesn't seem like a good weightloss plan. (mind you, I'm maintaining. Just making a point)
Running is high impact, it's hard on your joints, bones, etc. I can ride a marathon every day, comfortably. I can walk 350 kcal every day, comfortably. Your example is about running, not exercise generally.
I believe they were just pointing out the caloric deficit part of exercise in general, saying cardio or no cardio it's not much of a difference, you can't lose a significant amount of weight with a poor diet and only exercise.
A chap called Guy Martin rode a tough mountain bike event called the Tour Divide with a very simple eating plan - eat as much as possible, whenever possible. That included a huge pizza for main course, calzone for dessert and one to take away and eat on the trail.
When he finished the event he described himself as looking emaciated and like a concentration camp survivor.
BTW - cardio or no cardio would make on average 500+ cals a day for me difference, I wouldn't call that "not much" would you? If I wanted to create a significant and long term deficit using cardio I certainly could, that some other people couldn't is also of course true.
Be very careful about using absolute terms or projecting supposed typical situations to apply to everyone.
Like I stated above, I was just trying to clarify that they were using running as an example to show the 350 deficit. All examples, not saying everyone only burns 350 or everyone only has to run. I was just pointing that out. And by "not much" I meant if you eat an unhealthy large amount of high fat/high calorie foods consistently - and you are not participating in a 2745 mile bike ride - then burning 350 calories a few times each week will not get you very far. I am not projecting situations onto anyone for the third time it is just EXAMPLES. 350 calories is 350 calories, does not matter how you burn it, it was just a situation. The bottom line was diet is extremely important when trying to lose weight. Jeez.
Nobody says diet isn't important. But some people are saying cardio can't help with weight loss, which is false.
I never said it can't help with weight loss. I said it would be difficult to lose weight relying on only cardio burning only 350 calories a few times each week with a poor diet. Cardio can certainly help with weight loss.1 -
There's a misconception about lifting weights and fat loss (which is the goal here): The act of lifting weights itself is intense but short lived and therefore can be relatively low caloric. However, if you are doing serious lifting, meaning ~4-8 reps to near failure for multiple sets and increasing weight regularly (doing this level of intensity will not be fun!), the recovery process from lifting weight generates a LOT of caloric burn. Muscle tissue itself also has a higher metabolic rate than fat tissue. Large amounts of cardio can lead to a 'skinny fat' look, thinner, able to run huge distances, but no definition, still a little pudgy, etc. I lost 60 lbs of fat with NO cardio, just lifting weights, and diet. I also put on 20 lbs of muscle in the 4 months as I wasn't a heavy lifter before. And when I was stable at goal weight, my daily caloric consumption had gone UP from ~2500 cal to ~3300cal. So I got to eat more when I was done!
NOw I do cardio too, but for conditioning and heart health, although even that benefit is being challenged. Still I do some aerobic activities (like hiking, biking) and being in condition is helpful, which gets to the last point. Your approach should depend on your goals: don't lift weights if you want to run a marathon for instance.
OK, since I lost weight (close to a third of my bodyweight in less than a year) without ever doing sets of 4-8 reps to near failure (in fact, while doing remarkably little lifting of any sort, because, sadly, I find it boring and I'm too hedonistic to tolerate the boredom), then I'm obviously skinny fat, as you'll be able to see in my profile pic. Been doing lots of nice "cardio" for nearly 20 years, so I'm sure that accounts for it. So sad!
Doesn't really explain why my maintenance calories are, like yours, 25%-30% higher than they "should" be, though.
Look, I respect your accomplishments: That's wonderful. You should be proud of them. But those accomplishments should speak for themselves; it shouldn't be necessary to deprecate or misrepresent other modalities.
There's a human tendency to want to believe that our personal approach is objectively "better" than all other possible alternative approaches. That's usually not true.
The medicalnewstoday article you say challenges the benefit of cardiovascular exercise says that people should do both strength and cardiovascular exercise. It mentions a survey of 4000 people that showed those who self-reported static exercise had reduced risk of (presumably self-reported) cardiovascular disease vs. those who self-reported dynamic exercise. The actual study was behind a login, or I would've read it.
Personally, I hate the term "cardio". So broad, so uniformative.maureenseel1984 wrote: »"skinny fat"
GOD I hate that term.
That, too. :flowerforyou:4 -
Sunflowerinbloom wrote: »So does cardio and weights help you lose weight I was told cardio does not help if going to the gym just do weights
Weight loss comes down to having a calorie deficit. Yes, both cardio and weights can help create a calorie deficit...or not. If that was the default then people who exercise regularly and are maintaining like me would wither away and die. At any rate, cardio is very good for your cardiovascular health...resistance training is beneficial in maintaining or gaining muscle mass, bone density, etc. Both are very good for you regardless of your weight management objectives.1 -
NorthCascades wrote: »julieweberr wrote: »julieweberr wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »I'm a number girl and like to rationalize things with numbers. If I run 50 minutes I burn about 350kcal. Note, this depends on weight and distance run. Generally, miles * body weight in lbs * 0.64 works quite well.
So cool, 350kcal from running. If I do this for a week I'll lose 1750kcal. Or half a pound. Meh! Can I do this every day, without a break? Unlikely. Rest days are important. So I might lose a tiny bit of weight from running for 50 minutes a few times per week. Nope, doesn't seem like a good weightloss plan. (mind you, I'm maintaining. Just making a point)
Running is high impact, it's hard on your joints, bones, etc. I can ride a marathon every day, comfortably. I can walk 350 kcal every day, comfortably. Your example is about running, not exercise generally.
I believe they were just pointing out the caloric deficit part of exercise in general, saying cardio or no cardio it's not much of a difference, you can't lose a significant amount of weight with a poor diet and only exercise.
A chap called Guy Martin rode a tough mountain bike event called the Tour Divide with a very simple eating plan - eat as much as possible, whenever possible. That included a huge pizza for main course, calzone for dessert and one to take away and eat on the trail.
When he finished the event he described himself as looking emaciated and like a concentration camp survivor.
BTW - cardio or no cardio would make on average 500+ cals a day for me difference, I wouldn't call that "not much" would you? If I wanted to create a significant and long term deficit using cardio I certainly could, that some other people couldn't is also of course true.
Be very careful about using absolute terms or projecting supposed typical situations to apply to everyone.
Like I stated above, I was just trying to clarify that they were using running as an example to show the 350 deficit. All examples, not saying everyone only burns 350 or everyone only has to run. I was just pointing that out. And by "not much" I meant if you eat an unhealthy large amount of high fat/high calorie foods consistently - and you are not participating in a 2745 mile bike ride - then burning 350 calories a few times each week will not get you very far. I am not projecting situations onto anyone for the third time it is just EXAMPLES. 350 calories is 350 calories, does not matter how you burn it, it was just a situation. The bottom line was diet is extremely important when trying to lose weight. Jeez.
Nobody says diet isn't important. But some people are saying cardio can't help with weight loss, which is false.
It's not false, it's incomplete/misleading. Anytime someone talks about 1 side of the equation without talking about how it fits with the other side of the equation either doesn't know what they are talking about or don't care to take the time to put together a complete and helpful response... and that's when we end up wiht threads like this that just go in circles.
I bet more people would find more success if they weren't discouraged from exercising.4 -
NorthCascades wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »julieweberr wrote: »julieweberr wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »I'm a number girl and like to rationalize things with numbers. If I run 50 minutes I burn about 350kcal. Note, this depends on weight and distance run. Generally, miles * body weight in lbs * 0.64 works quite well.
So cool, 350kcal from running. If I do this for a week I'll lose 1750kcal. Or half a pound. Meh! Can I do this every day, without a break? Unlikely. Rest days are important. So I might lose a tiny bit of weight from running for 50 minutes a few times per week. Nope, doesn't seem like a good weightloss plan. (mind you, I'm maintaining. Just making a point)
Running is high impact, it's hard on your joints, bones, etc. I can ride a marathon every day, comfortably. I can walk 350 kcal every day, comfortably. Your example is about running, not exercise generally.
I believe they were just pointing out the caloric deficit part of exercise in general, saying cardio or no cardio it's not much of a difference, you can't lose a significant amount of weight with a poor diet and only exercise.
A chap called Guy Martin rode a tough mountain bike event called the Tour Divide with a very simple eating plan - eat as much as possible, whenever possible. That included a huge pizza for main course, calzone for dessert and one to take away and eat on the trail.
When he finished the event he described himself as looking emaciated and like a concentration camp survivor.
BTW - cardio or no cardio would make on average 500+ cals a day for me difference, I wouldn't call that "not much" would you? If I wanted to create a significant and long term deficit using cardio I certainly could, that some other people couldn't is also of course true.
Be very careful about using absolute terms or projecting supposed typical situations to apply to everyone.
Like I stated above, I was just trying to clarify that they were using running as an example to show the 350 deficit. All examples, not saying everyone only burns 350 or everyone only has to run. I was just pointing that out. And by "not much" I meant if you eat an unhealthy large amount of high fat/high calorie foods consistently - and you are not participating in a 2745 mile bike ride - then burning 350 calories a few times each week will not get you very far. I am not projecting situations onto anyone for the third time it is just EXAMPLES. 350 calories is 350 calories, does not matter how you burn it, it was just a situation. The bottom line was diet is extremely important when trying to lose weight. Jeez.
Nobody says diet isn't important. But some people are saying cardio can't help with weight loss, which is false.
It's not false, it's incomplete/misleading. Anytime someone talks about 1 side of the equation without talking about how it fits with the other side of the equation either doesn't know what they are talking about or don't care to take the time to put together a complete and helpful response... and that's when we end up wiht threads like this that just go in circles.
I bet more people would find more success if they weren't discouraged from exercising.
I don't disagree.
But I also bet more people would find more success if their expectations about exercise, as it relates to weight loss, were more realistic.4 -
Maybe if we stopped caring SO MUCH about how our bodies look and cared more about HEALTH...
People only get discouraged because we all feel like we have to live up to these ridiculous standards of what health should LOOK like. Washboard abs, low BF%, thigh gaps, bikini bridges, bubble butts, runner's calves, etc. It's all just so stupid.
Things like "skinny fat" and "chubby" and "not toned"...really doesn't help.
At my thinnest and "most fit" I was also my least healthy...living off maybe 5 saltines and a salad a day...while running 5 miles and obsessing over every morsel I ate.
So. Very. Stupid.5 -
maureenseel1984 wrote: »Maybe if we stopped caring SO MUCH about how our bodies look and cared more about HEALTH...
People only get discouraged because we all feel like we have to live up to these ridiculous standards of what health should LOOK like. Washboard abs, low BF%, thigh gaps, bikini bridges, bubble butts, runner's calves, etc. It's all just so stupid.
Things like "skinny fat" and "chubby" and "not toned"...really doesn't help.
At my thinnest and "most fit" I was also my least healthy...living off maybe 5 saltines and a salad a day...while running 5 miles and obsessing over every morsel I ate.
So. Very. Stupid.
WORD.1 -
maureenseel1984 wrote: »Maybe if we stopped caring SO MUCH about how our bodies look and cared more about HEALTH...
People only get discouraged because we all feel like we have to live up to these ridiculous standards of what health should LOOK like. Washboard abs, low BF%, thigh gaps, bikini bridges, bubble butts, runner's calves, etc. It's all just so stupid.
Things like "skinny fat" and "chubby" and "not toned"...really doesn't help.
At my thinnest and "most fit" I was also my least healthy...living off maybe 5 saltines and a salad a day...while running 5 miles and obsessing over every morsel I ate.
So. Very. Stupid.
Also same to your last sentiment. I was my thinnest in high school, when I (unintentionally) ate nothing but crap, but not very much of it. I was active and went to the gym almost every day, and if someone didn't know my diet, would assume I was super healthy. Even though that day I probably just ate Pop-Tarts and fast food for lunch, skipping dinner because I was too busy.
3
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.5K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 391 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
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 922 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions