Importance of cardio when loosing fat
Replies
-
I just disagree.
Math:
Person A decides to go on a diet to lose 2 lbs per week and he intends to do no exercise at all. He sets himself up on MFP and quickly discovers that the 1550 cals suggested to him by MFP is ridiculously low, so he sets himself a more modest weight loss goal of 1.5 lbs, which allows him 1800 cals/day. He proceeds to lose 1.5 pounds per week.
Person B, who is the same height, weight and age, and therefore offered the same 1550 by MFP in order to lose 2 lbs/week, does 250 cals worth of cardio every day. He's happy with his 1800 and merrily bangs out his cardio every morning. Ergo, he loses the 2 lbs per week he wanted.
So, person B loses half a pound more per week (i.e. 33 % faster weight loss), eating exactly the same amount of food as Person A, due solely to his cardio workouts.
In short, cardio = weight loss. In this case, 33 % more weight loss per unit of time.
Now, if it's to be argued that cardio isn't "necessary" because Person B could've just eaten 1550 to lose his 2 lbs/week, and/or set a more modest weight loss goal, yes that is true. But maybe he wants more food than 1550 and to lose weight faster than 1.5 lbs/week, and in that case, that's where cardio comes in.
Unfortunately the physiology generates a much more complex math when hitting the empirical streets.
One study I recall gave two untrained dieters different amounts of cardio. One group had a 300 calories worth of cardio and the other had 600 calories worth. The result was the same weight loss in both groups. Getting someone unused to doing 600 calories worth of cardio is a good way to get them to sit around and do a lot less other activity during the day.10 -
How long does it take that someone to get used to 600 calories a day of exercise? That's an hour of moderate cycling...4
-
I just disagree.
Math:
Person A decides to go on a diet to lose 2 lbs per week and he intends to do no exercise at all. He sets himself up on MFP and quickly discovers that the 1550 cals suggested to him by MFP is ridiculously low, so he sets himself a more modest weight loss goal of 1.5 lbs, which allows him 1800 cals/day. He proceeds to lose 1.5 pounds per week.
Person B, who is the same height, weight and age, and therefore offered the same 1550 by MFP in order to lose 2 lbs/week, does 250 cals worth of cardio every day. He's happy with his 1800 and merrily bangs out his cardio every morning. Ergo, he loses the 2 lbs per week he wanted.
So, person B loses half a pound more per week (i.e. 33 % faster weight loss), eating exactly the same amount of food as Person A, due solely to his cardio workouts.
In short, cardio = weight loss. In this case, 33 % more weight loss per unit of time.
Now, if it's to be argued that cardio isn't "necessary" because Person B could've just eaten 1550 to lose his 2 lbs/week, and/or set a more modest weight loss goal, yes that is true. But maybe he wants more food than 1550 and to lose weight faster than 1.5 lbs/week, and in that case, that's where cardio comes in.
But look out! Here comes person C!
Person C, is the identical triplet of Person A and Person B and gets that 1550 from MFP in order to lose 2lbs/week, they too do 250 cals worth of cardio every day, however the additional exercise they're doing increases their appetite to the extent that 1800cals isn't enough so they're constantly miserable and hungry. So they set a more modest 1.5lbs goal and get 2050cal/week and end up losing at the same rate as Person A.
Then there's Person D. The long lost quadruplet that was separated at berth. He had the same 1550 cals and decided to do the 250cal per day cardio and eat 1800cals per week. Then poor Person D got injured and couldn't workout for a while so he was with less activity each day requiring fuel he was able to cut his calories back to 1550 cal per day and continue with the same rate of loss as Person B.
So if Person A can lose 1.5lbs without cardio and Person C can lose 1.5lbs with cardio and person B can lose 2lbs with cardio and person D can lose 2lbs without cardio then, ergo ipso-facto lorem ipsum deus ex-machina cardio isn't required for weight loss.11 -
I just disagree.
Math:
Person A decides to go on a diet to lose 2 lbs per week and he intends to do no exercise at all. He sets himself up on MFP and quickly discovers that the 1550 cals suggested to him by MFP is ridiculously low, so he sets himself a more modest weight loss goal of 1.5 lbs, which allows him 1800 cals/day. He proceeds to lose 1.5 pounds per week.
Person B, who is the same height, weight and age, and therefore offered the same 1550 by MFP in order to lose 2 lbs/week, does 250 cals worth of cardio every day. He's happy with his 1800 and merrily bangs out his cardio every morning. Ergo, he loses the 2 lbs per week he wanted.
So, person B loses half a pound more per week (i.e. 33 % faster weight loss), eating exactly the same amount of food as Person A, due solely to his cardio workouts.
In short, cardio = weight loss. In this case, 33 % more weight loss per unit of time.
Now, if it's to be argued that cardio isn't "necessary" because Person B could've just eaten 1550 to lose his 2 lbs/week, and/or set a more modest weight loss goal, yes that is true. But maybe he wants more food than 1550 and to lose weight faster than 1.5 lbs/week, and in that case, that's where cardio comes in.
But look out! Here comes person C!
Person C, is the identical triplet of Person A and Person B and gets that 1550 from MFP in order to lose 2lbs/week, they too do 250 cals worth of cardio every day, however the additional exercise they're doing increases their appetite to the extent that 1800cals isn't enough so they're constantly miserable and hungry. So they set a more modest 1.5lbs goal and get 2050cal/week and end up losing at the same rate as Person A.
Then there's Person D. The long lost quadruplet that was separated at berth. He had the same 1550 cals and decided to do the 250cal per day cardio and eat 1800cals per week. Then poor Person D got injured and couldn't workout for a while so he was with less activity each day requiring fuel he was able to cut his calories back to 1550 cal per day and continue with the same rate of loss as Person B.
So if Person A can lose 1.5lbs without cardio and Person C can lose 1.5lbs with cardio and person B can lose 2lbs with cardio and person D can lose 2lbs without cardio then, ergo ipso-facto lorem ipsum deus ex-machina cardio isn't required for weight loss.
Thank you for this explanation. Its the exact same thing I was trying to stress, but apparently my "math" wasn't adding up to some people. Cardio is not required, and the affect it has varies on each individual.5 -
Your diet is to lose weight/gain weight/maintain weight. Exercise is for gaining muscle/retaining muscle/heart health. They are two separate things.
Exercising to burn calories so you can eat more is a path I don't recommend anyone walking down. Then exercise comes as a form of punishment because you ate too much, or reward because you want to eat more.
and that is what most of the people in MFP are aiming for... isn't it?
Very true. It is the bases of MFP and many people have had success with it. You are right.
However, I still disagree with using exercise as a reward to eat more
BUT....if it works for you (or anyone else), then go for it.0 -
Your diet is to lose weight/gain weight/maintain weight. Exercise is for gaining muscle/retaining muscle/heart health. They are two separate things.
Exercising to burn calories so you can eat more is a path I don't recommend anyone walking down. Then exercise comes as a form of punishment because you ate too much, or reward because you want to eat more.
and that is what most of the people in MFP are aiming for... isn't it?
Very true. It is the bases of MFP and many people have had success with it. You are right.
However, I still disagree with using exercise as a reward to eat more
BUT....if it works for you (or anyone else), then go for it.
Math isn’t a thing you can disagree with.
People can account for exercise using different methods—NEAT plus exercise, TDEE, whatever works for you—but ultimately everyone has to ensure that their calorie intake is appropriate for their body and goals, and not create an overly large deficit. That is often going to involve eating exercise calories in some form, no matter whether you think it’s a “reward” or just proper, safe nutrition.
I ran 12 miles last weekend; I’m going to run 13 this weekend. Believe me, I will be eating back every last one of those calories. Otherwise, I’d be giving my body about 200 net calories that day. It doesn’t matter whether you think of those calories as a “reward” or not; I must eat them, and I’ll enjoy every last one.15 -
Your diet is to lose weight/gain weight/maintain weight. Exercise is for gaining muscle/retaining muscle/heart health. They are two separate things.
Exercising to burn calories so you can eat more is a path I don't recommend anyone walking down. Then exercise comes as a form of punishment because you ate too much, or reward because you want to eat more.
and that is what most of the people in MFP are aiming for... isn't it?
Very true. It is the bases of MFP and many people have had success with it. You are right.
However, I still disagree with using exercise as a reward to eat more
BUT....if it works for you (or anyone else), then go for it.
The “do cardio to eat more” or reverse, the “I ate 300 calories of cookies, gotta run them off” isn’t a healthy or sustainable mindset, but I agree with some other posters that cardio does contribute to weight loss. I know it is not actually necessary for weight loss, but the only time I actually lost weight only through diet with zero exercise was after gallbladder surgery when eating everything resulted in stomach pain and therefore I was very cautious in eating anything (so eating my calorie goal was doable). So yes, I lost weight, but I was hungry all the time.
The extra buffer of a little cardio lets me eat that extra whatever (granola bar, glass of wine, etc) that I mentally (or physically, sometimes I’m just hungry) need to maintain compliance. My calorie allowance doesn’t give me any room for treats or extras without exercise. That cookie or glass of wine would cut out half a meal, leaving me extra hangry and likely to go off the deep end. 20-30 min of cardio lets me feel like a normal person and not a dieter. Sure, you can rightly argue it’s mostly a mental benefit, but so much of weight loss is a mental game.
Additionally, moderate cardio tends to depress my appetite. If I only lift, I’m a ravenous beast. So appetite suppression plus a buffer to combat lifting hunger = calorie goal maintained without overtaxing my self control.
Finally, cardio/exercise in general helps me make better food choices. I want the protein to fuel my lifting, so I’ll trade the pasta for more protein. Exercise heps my self image as a healthy/sporty person, and I’m more likely to eat in accordance with that definition image, instead of feeling like a couch potato fighting a losing fight against the lure of the snack closet.
Actually, one more: exercise/activity is time I’m spending not eating. I can enjoy myself, socialize, or zone out and read/watch tv without thinking about or having to say no to food. And sometimes I need that time to destress in a non-food related way. My sedentary pursuits (reading, hanging out in the house with friends) usually lend themselves to eating/drinking (or an expenditure of willpower to be the only one not doing so).
So in summary...not necessary physically to lose weight, but personally helpful mentally.
17 -
adammitch79 wrote: »
besides obvious reasons of heart and cardiovascular health what’s the importance of cardio when wanting to shred fat?
???
You mean except for the "obvious reasons of heart and cardiovascular health" you need more reasons?
Actually for just "wanting to shred fat" cardio-exercises are not required, stay in caloric-deficit and you will lose weight (and, sooner or later, fat).
Any workout helps to stay on track here, because it increases your daily budget.
But it is not mandatory.
3 -
gradchica27 wrote: »Your diet is to lose weight/gain weight/maintain weight. Exercise is for gaining muscle/retaining muscle/heart health. They are two separate things.
Exercising to burn calories so you can eat more is a path I don't recommend anyone walking down. Then exercise comes as a form of punishment because you ate too much, or reward because you want to eat more.
and that is what most of the people in MFP are aiming for... isn't it?
Very true. It is the bases of MFP and many people have had success with it. You are right.
However, I still disagree with using exercise as a reward to eat more
BUT....if it works for you (or anyone else), then go for it.
The “do cardio to eat more” or reverse, the “I ate 300 calories of cookies, gotta run them off” isn’t a healthy or sustainable mindset, but I agree with some other posters that cardio does contribute to weight loss. I know it is not actually necessary for weight loss, but the only time I actually lost weight only through diet with zero exercise was after gallbladder surgery when eating everything resulted in stomach pain and therefore I was very cautious in eating anything (so eating my calorie goal was doable). So yes, I lost weight, but I was hungry all the time.
The extra buffer of a little cardio lets me eat that extra whatever (granola bar, glass of wine, etc) that I mentally (or physically, sometimes I’m just hungry) need to maintain compliance. My calorie allowance doesn’t give me any room for treats or extras without exercise. That cookie or glass of wine would cut out half a meal, leaving me extra hangry and likely to go off the deep end. 20-30 min of cardio lets me feel like a normal person and not a dieter. Sure, you can rightly argue it’s mostly a mental benefit, but so much of weight loss is a mental game.
Additionally, moderate cardio tends to depress my appetite. If I only lift, I’m a ravenous beast. So appetite suppression plus a buffer to combat lifting hunger = calorie goal maintained without overtaxing my self control.
Finally, cardio/exercise in general helps me make better food choices. I want the protein to fuel my lifting, so I’ll trade the pasta for more protein. Exercise heps my self image as a healthy/sporty person, and I’m more likely to eat in accordance with that definition image, instead of feeling like a couch potato fighting a losing fight against the lure of the snack closet.
Actually, one more: exercise/activity is time I’m spending not eating. I can enjoy myself, socialize, or zone out and read/watch tv without thinking about or having to say no to food. And sometimes I need that time to destress in a non-food related way. My sedentary pursuits (reading, hanging out in the house with friends) usually lend themselves to eating/drinking (or an expenditure of willpower to be the only one not doing so).
So in summary...not necessary physically to lose weight, but personally helpful mentally.
I'm confused because the bolded doesn't agree with the rest of your post, which reads as offering support of “do cardio to eat more” as a healthy and sustainable mindset.6 -
kshama2001 wrote: »gradchica27 wrote: »Your diet is to lose weight/gain weight/maintain weight. Exercise is for gaining muscle/retaining muscle/heart health. They are two separate things.
Exercising to burn calories so you can eat more is a path I don't recommend anyone walking down. Then exercise comes as a form of punishment because you ate too much, or reward because you want to eat more.
and that is what most of the people in MFP are aiming for... isn't it?
Very true. It is the bases of MFP and many people have had success with it. You are right.
However, I still disagree with using exercise as a reward to eat more
BUT....if it works for you (or anyone else), then go for it.
The “do cardio to eat more” or reverse, the “I ate 300 calories of cookies, gotta run them off” isn’t a healthy or sustainable mindset, but I agree with some other posters that cardio does contribute to weight loss. I know it is not actually necessary for weight loss, but the only time I actually lost weight only through diet with zero exercise was after gallbladder surgery when eating everything resulted in stomach pain and therefore I was very cautious in eating anything (so eating my calorie goal was doable). So yes, I lost weight, but I was hungry all the time.
The extra buffer of a little cardio lets me eat that extra whatever (granola bar, glass of wine, etc) that I mentally (or physically, sometimes I’m just hungry) need to maintain compliance. My calorie allowance doesn’t give me any room for treats or extras without exercise. That cookie or glass of wine would cut out half a meal, leaving me extra hangry and likely to go off the deep end. 20-30 min of cardio lets me feel like a normal person and not a dieter. Sure, you can rightly argue it’s mostly a mental benefit, but so much of weight loss is a mental game.
Additionally, moderate cardio tends to depress my appetite. If I only lift, I’m a ravenous beast. So appetite suppression plus a buffer to combat lifting hunger = calorie goal maintained without overtaxing my self control.
Finally, cardio/exercise in general helps me make better food choices. I want the protein to fuel my lifting, so I’ll trade the pasta for more protein. Exercise heps my self image as a healthy/sporty person, and I’m more likely to eat in accordance with that definition image, instead of feeling like a couch potato fighting a losing fight against the lure of the snack closet.
Actually, one more: exercise/activity is time I’m spending not eating. I can enjoy myself, socialize, or zone out and read/watch tv without thinking about or having to say no to food. And sometimes I need that time to destress in a non-food related way. My sedentary pursuits (reading, hanging out in the house with friends) usually lend themselves to eating/drinking (or an expenditure of willpower to be the only one not doing so).
So in summary...not necessary physically to lose weight, but personally helpful mentally.
I'm confused because the bolded doesn't agree with the rest of your post, which reads as offering support of “do cardio to eat more” as a healthy and sustainable mindset.kshama2001 wrote: »gradchica27 wrote: »Your diet is to lose weight/gain weight/maintain weight. Exercise is for gaining muscle/retaining muscle/heart health. They are two separate things.
Exercising to burn calories so you can eat more is a path I don't recommend anyone walking down. Then exercise comes as a form of punishment because you ate too much, or reward because you want to eat more.
and that is what most of the people in MFP are aiming for... isn't it?
Very true. It is the bases of MFP and many people have had success with it. You are right.
However, I still disagree with using exercise as a reward to eat more
BUT....if it works for you (or anyone else), then go for it.
The “do cardio to eat more” or reverse, the “I ate 300 calories of cookies, gotta run them off” isn’t a healthy or sustainable mindset, but I agree with some other posters that cardio does contribute to weight loss. I know it is not actually necessary for weight loss, but the only time I actually lost weight only through diet with zero exercise was after gallbladder surgery when eating everything resulted in stomach pain and therefore I was very cautious in eating anything (so eating my calorie goal was doable). So yes, I lost weight, but I was hungry all the time.
The extra buffer of a little cardio lets me eat that extra whatever (granola bar, glass of wine, etc) that I mentally (or physically, sometimes I’m just hungry) need to maintain compliance. My calorie allowance doesn’t give me any room for treats or extras without exercise. That cookie or glass of wine would cut out half a meal, leaving me extra hangry and likely to go off the deep end. 20-30 min of cardio lets me feel like a normal person and not a dieter. Sure, you can rightly argue it’s mostly a mental benefit, but so much of weight loss is a mental game.
Additionally, moderate cardio tends to depress my appetite. If I only lift, I’m a ravenous beast. So appetite suppression plus a buffer to combat lifting hunger = calorie goal maintained without overtaxing my self control.
Finally, cardio/exercise in general helps me make better food choices. I want the protein to fuel my lifting, so I’ll trade the pasta for more protein. Exercise heps my self image as a healthy/sporty person, and I’m more likely to eat in accordance with that definition image, instead of feeling like a couch potato fighting a losing fight against the lure of the snack closet.
Actually, one more: exercise/activity is time I’m spending not eating. I can enjoy myself, socialize, or zone out and read/watch tv without thinking about or having to say no to food. And sometimes I need that time to destress in a non-food related way. My sedentary pursuits (reading, hanging out in the house with friends) usually lend themselves to eating/drinking (or an expenditure of willpower to be the only one not doing so).
So in summary...not necessary physically to lose weight, but personally helpful mentally.
I'm confused because the bolded doesn't agree with the rest of your post, which reads as offering support of “do cardio to eat more” as a healthy and sustainable mindset.kshama2001 wrote: »gradchica27 wrote: »Your diet is to lose weight/gain weight/maintain weight. Exercise is for gaining muscle/retaining muscle/heart health. They are two separate things.
Exercising to burn calories so you can eat more is a path I don't recommend anyone walking down. Then exercise comes as a form of punishment because you ate too much, or reward because you want to eat more.
and that is what most of the people in MFP are aiming for... isn't it?
Very true. It is the bases of MFP and many people have had success with it. You are right.
However, I still disagree with using exercise as a reward to eat more
BUT....if it works for you (or anyone else), then go for it.
The “do cardio to eat more” or reverse, the “I ate 300 calories of cookies, gotta run them off” isn’t a healthy or sustainable mindset, but I agree with some other posters that cardio does contribute to weight loss. I know it is not actually necessary for weight loss, but the only time I actually lost weight only through diet with zero exercise was after gallbladder surgery when eating everything resulted in stomach pain and therefore I was very cautious in eating anything (so eating my calorie goal was doable). So yes, I lost weight, but I was hungry all the time.
The extra buffer of a little cardio lets me eat that extra whatever (granola bar, glass of wine, etc) that I mentally (or physically, sometimes I’m just hungry) need to maintain compliance. My calorie allowance doesn’t give me any room for treats or extras without exercise. That cookie or glass of wine would cut out half a meal, leaving me extra hangry and likely to go off the deep end. 20-30 min of cardio lets me feel like a normal person and not a dieter. Sure, you can rightly argue it’s mostly a mental benefit, but so much of weight loss is a mental game.
Additionally, moderate cardio tends to depress my appetite. If I only lift, I’m a ravenous beast. So appetite suppression plus a buffer to combat lifting hunger = calorie goal maintained without overtaxing my self control.
Finally, cardio/exercise in general helps me make better food choices. I want the protein to fuel my lifting, so I’ll trade the pasta for more protein. Exercise heps my self image as a healthy/sporty person, and I’m more likely to eat in accordance with that definition image, instead of feeling like a couch potato fighting a losing fight against the lure of the snack closet.
Actually, one more: exercise/activity is time I’m spending not eating. I can enjoy myself, socialize, or zone out and read/watch tv without thinking about or having to say no to food. And sometimes I need that time to destress in a non-food related way. My sedentary pursuits (reading, hanging out in the house with friends) usually lend themselves to eating/drinking (or an expenditure of willpower to be the only one not doing so).
So in summary...not necessary physically to lose weight, but personally helpful mentally.
I'm confused because the bolded doesn't agree with the rest of your post, which reads as offering support of “do cardio to eat more” as a healthy and sustainable mindset.kshama2001 wrote: »gradchica27 wrote: »Your diet is to lose weight/gain weight/maintain weight. Exercise is for gaining muscle/retaining muscle/heart health. They are two separate things.
Exercising to burn calories so you can eat more is a path I don't recommend anyone walking down. Then exercise comes as a form of punishment because you ate too much, or reward because you want to eat more.
and that is what most of the people in MFP are aiming for... isn't it?
Very true. It is the bases of MFP and many people have had success with it. You are right.
However, I still disagree with using exercise as a reward to eat more
BUT....if it works for you (or anyone else), then go for it.
The “do cardio to eat more” or reverse, the “I ate 300 calories of cookies, gotta run them off” isn’t a healthy or sustainable mindset, but I agree with some other posters that cardio does contribute to weight loss. I know it is not actually necessary for weight loss, but the only time I actually lost weight only through diet with zero exercise was after gallbladder surgery when eating everything resulted in stomach pain and therefore I was very cautious in eating anything (so eating my calorie goal was doable). So yes, I lost weight, but I was hungry all the time.
The extra buffer of a little cardio lets me eat that extra whatever (granola bar, glass of wine, etc) that I mentally (or physically, sometimes I’m just hungry) need to maintain compliance. My calorie allowance doesn’t give me any room for treats or extras without exercise. That cookie or glass of wine would cut out half a meal, leaving me extra hangry and likely to go off the deep end. 20-30 min of cardio lets me feel like a normal person and not a dieter. Sure, you can rightly argue it’s mostly a mental benefit, but so much of weight loss is a mental game.
Additionally, moderate cardio tends to depress my appetite. If I only lift, I’m a ravenous beast. So appetite suppression plus a buffer to combat lifting hunger = calorie goal maintained without overtaxing my self control.
Finally, cardio/exercise in general helps me make better food choices. I want the protein to fuel my lifting, so I’ll trade the pasta for more protein. Exercise heps my self image as a healthy/sporty person, and I’m more likely to eat in accordance with that definition image, instead of feeling like a couch potato fighting a losing fight against the lure of the snack closet.
Actually, one more: exercise/activity is time I’m spending not eating. I can enjoy myself, socialize, or zone out and read/watch tv without thinking about or having to say no to food. And sometimes I need that time to destress in a non-food related way. My sedentary pursuits (reading, hanging out in the house with friends) usually lend themselves to eating/drinking (or an expenditure of willpower to be the only one not doing so).
So in summary...not necessary physically to lose weight, but personally helpful mentally.
I'm confused because the bolded doesn't agree with the rest of your post, which reads as offering support of “do cardio to eat more” as a healthy and sustainable mindset.
I suppose I’m making the same distinction as another poster—I see a difference between “ok, I burned 250 calories, now I can eat that cookie” (sole reason I’m doing it is to get a treat—so it’s the same the same punishment mentality as the “ahh! Ate a cookie! Gotta go run 2.5 miles to cancel it out!!”, only difference is whether you’re paying for the cookie in advance or on credit) and a general “I am a healthy, fit person who exercises and one of the benefits of that is having a little more leeway in my diet” (so I’m not punishing myself or linking my exercise directly to food—it’s part of who I am/what I do and one of the various benefits this gives me is the ability to eat a little more to fuel my performance).
So I suppose there’s not a huge difference, in that in both scenarios I eat more, but mentally I have a big difference in shifting from mindset 1 to 2.3 -
There have been plenty of times when I've had an hour to kill, and chosen to enjoy a bike ride instead of sitting on my butt, in part to have a bigger and more delicious dinner, and obviously also because riding a bike is fun. I don't agree that this is unhealthy at all. Neither does my bloodwork.12
-
The bordering-on-flippant dismissal of "Some people think they can eat a cookie and then do a bunch of cardio to work it off" isn't really where most people are at.
I hold to my original position in all this. I could not possibly eat and be sated with the 1600 calories per day MFP tells me is necessary to lose the amount of weight MFP itself says is appropriate for my weight: 2 lbs/week. But add 200 or 300 calories to that number, and I'm golden. If watching some Netflix on an exercise bike for 45 minutes gives me the calories I need to feel sated and happy, then I'm loving it. All told, I get my 2 lbs per week, plenty of food, and therefore can continue in full diet compliance 29 days per month. I see no downside to the "do cardio so you get more food" formula. To me, it is pure upside.
Light cardio does not make me hungrier. It makes me less hungry. I imagine it could be otherwise for some people. I experience no "oh my god, I just exercised for a 1/2 hour and now I'm starving" sensation. Quite the opposite. I get more food, with less hunger, by doing daily cardio. As I think a lot of people do.
The straw-men being discussed here, who do 5 hours of cardio so they can eat Haagen-Dasz with a soup ladle, are not germane enough to a serious discussion about the role of cardio workouts in weight loss for them to be as central to the discussion as they've been in this thread.11 -
If I look back at the reason I gained weight and lost it activity would be at the top of this list. It's difficult to eat when walking, reading, and being active. When I stopped being active and watching more TV I invited opportunities to mindlessly eat. When I gradually become more active I consciously minimized these opportunities and developed behaviors and habits supporting activity.
There's a reason why CICO isn't just CI.
13 -
Your diet is to lose weight/gain weight/maintain weight. Exercise is for gaining muscle/retaining muscle/heart health. They are two separate things.
Exercising to burn calories so you can eat more is a path I don't recommend anyone walking down. Then exercise comes as a form of punishment because you ate too much, or reward because you want to eat more.
and that is what most of the people in MFP are aiming for... isn't it?
Very true. It is the bases of MFP and many people have had success with it. You are right.
However, I still disagree with using exercise as a reward to eat more
BUT....if it works for you (or anyone else), then go for it.
It is not why I exercise, and I don't agree either with the idea of killing oneself at the gym in order to eat more. My original comment was kind of sarcastic, and based on what many people post in the forums. I eat to live, and I exercise to keep myself happy and fit.3 -
Personally, my appetite does not keep up when I am pushing my limits with either intensity or duration. It keeps up when I maintain the same levels. When I'm injured and have to abruptly stop, it doesn't diminish immediately.
So for me, if I'm getting that extra 350 calories in @lgfrie 's example, it will only make life easier for a short while. After that I have to increase my cardio efforts, or ignore a bit of hunger. Or do something differently with food (increase fibre or protein).1 -
I think cardio is generally underrated here on MFP as a component of weight/fat loss. My calorie deficit is 1,000 per day but of that cardio accounts for 350. So cardio is responsible for 35 % of my weight loss. But much more importantly, those extra 350 calories I get to eat every day are a huge, huge component of my diet compliance - I'd have probably fallen off the wagon long ago if I had 350 calories less food every day. All that is totally aside from the obvious benefits of cardio for health and fitness.
Wait, but those 350 calories don't count as part of your deficit if you eat them back. I'm confused?
Well, it is a bit ambiguous.
Yeah, if you eat back the 350, then in a very literal sense, it doesn't contribute to your deficit.
But that's just a literal, "words on paper" reading of it.
If doing cardio enables you to achieve a consistent, long term net calorie deficit in excess of what you could do without exercise, then in my book the cardio is very much part of the weight loss.
MFP gives me 1580 for 2 lbs/week. There is No. Way. I could hit that targret for more than a week or two. I'm in month 6, my diet honeymoon period was over long ago, with the adrenaline pumping and the feeling of excitement as I scour my closets for old college clothes I may yet wear again, and the enthusiasm about taking on a big, new challenge. Now it's the long, slow slog and I need to be happy with the calorie target as an everyday, month in month out quota. To me the difference between 1580 and 1800 is so monumental, it's the difference between happy, easily compliance and hangry binging.
Of course, I could always just reduce my weight loss rate goal, eat my 1800 while sitting on my couch, and lose 1.5 lbs/week instead of 2.
But that is my whole point - you can always choose to lose less weight and not exercise, but in saying that, it's implicitly acknowledging that exercise contributes directly to weight loss.
As I said, ambiguous
Yeah sure, but that 350 that you eat back is not part of a deficit. Your math is wrong.
On the other points -- other folks have already responded to that. I'm glad that what is working for you is working for you, but it's not true across the board so it shouldn't be spread like the secret sauce to weight loss because that's a false truth.4 -
Could we maybe consider answering the question as regards the OP, @adammitch79 ?
Looking at the OP’s profile photo I see a slim, muscular man, who asked specifically about getting shredded while lifting weights multiple times a week and working an active job. He’s not trying to lose weight because he’s fat, he’s trying to lower his BF percentage.
OP, if your goal is to maximize muscle retention while losing body fat, there’s no particular reason to make a special effort to do extra cardio. Just eat at a slight deficit and lift heavy. You may get better answers asking about recomp in the part of the forum dedicated to body building. Cardio does have huge heart and BP benefits but if your job is an active one you may already have that covered.
6 -
The bordering-on-flippant dismissal of "Some people think they can eat a cookie and then do a bunch of cardio to work it off" isn't really where most people are at.
I hold to my original position in all this. I could not possibly eat and be sated with the 1600 calories per day MFP tells me is necessary to lose the amount of weight MFP itself says is appropriate for my weight: 2 lbs/week. But add 200 or 300 calories to that number, and I'm golden. If watching some Netflix on an exercise bike for 45 minutes gives me the calories I need to feel sated and happy, then I'm loving it. All told, I get my 2 lbs per week, plenty of food, and therefore can continue in full diet compliance 29 days per month. I see no downside to the "do cardio so you get more food" formula. To me, it is pure upside.
Light cardio does not make me hungrier. It makes me less hungry. I imagine it could be otherwise for some people. I experience no "oh my god, I just exercised for a 1/2 hour and now I'm starving" sensation. Quite the opposite. I get more food, with less hunger, by doing daily cardio. As I think a lot of people do.
The straw-men being discussed here, who do 5 hours of cardio so they can eat Haagen-Dasz with a soup ladle, are not germane enough to a serious discussion about the role of cardio workouts in weight loss for them to be as central to the discussion as they've been in this thread.
How sure are you that you have yourself and your hunger figured out? What I am reading is that the cardio helps suppress your hunger and give you the 1850ish calories a day to eat that you are sure you cannot go without. So how much suppression are you getting? If it is another 200ish calories and cardio was not an option you would be stuck losing under 1 pound a week at a weight that you say supports 2.
I am glad you have a plan that you passionately love and for now at least it seems like your easiest path forward but I would personally try to experiment a little more. Even if you intend to make no changes it doesn't hurt to have a food only hunger solution in your back pocket.
I am not saying any of this as part of the debate. I do not completely agree with everything you have said here but I do get that you are highly enthusiastic about the awesome progress you are making and it spills out sometimes. It is amazing when you find the key to changing your life and from what I remember the life of your wife. It just won't be everyone's key.
4 -
I'm glad that what is working for you is working for you, but it's not true across the board so it shouldn't be spread like the secret sauce to weight loss because that's a false truth.
Noting that doing exercise and eating back the calories helps with weight loss is akin to spreading a "secret sauce"? Okey doke then. Perhaps you should write to MFP about this. It is, after all, their methodology.
What is the "false truth", exactly - that if you exercise, you'll lose weight faster than if you don't? Is that the secret sauce you don't want to see spread around?4 -
rheddmobile wrote: »Could we maybe consider answering the question as regards the OP, @adammitch79 ?
Looking at the OP’s profile photo I see a slim, muscular man, who asked specifically about getting shredded while lifting weights multiple times a week and working an active job. He’s not trying to lose weight because he’s fat, he’s trying to lower his BF percentage.
OP, if your goal is to maximize muscle retention while losing body fat, there’s no particular reason to make a special effort to do extra cardio. Just eat at a slight deficit and lift heavy. You may get better answers asking about recomp in the part of the forum dedicated to body building. Cardio does have huge heart and BP benefits but if your job is an active one you may already have that covered.
It was answered in the first reply, and then people moved on, because that's how conversations go. But we can answer it a few more times if it'll make you feel better.
You don't need cardio for weight loss, only a calorie deficit. Cardiovascular exercise is great for a number of reasons and it not being necessary for this one thing doesn't mean you shouldn't do it.4
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
- 901 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.2K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions