move less and eat less
Replies
-
]
IIRC, the epoc on steady state cardio is very low; this is why interval training is far superior as it has a higher epoc effect and HIIT can help with muscle retention.
Hmm.. my reading doesn't show much of a difference at all, in EPOC, just that you can (typically) burn more during the exercise with HIIT during a certain period of time than steady state (which is kind of a no brainer).
And a lot of THAT came from the last, oh, decade or so, when the marketing of fitness machines and programs moved to "You can have THIS BODY for just 20 minutes a day, 3 days a week".
They tend to push HIIT simply because it gets max cardio burn in the period of time they have allotted for the workout.
HIIT also tends to hit specific groups harder and faster, which can build muscle faster.
Look at it this way:
Walk at 3.5 MPH for 20 minutes.
Do walk/sprint/walk intervals for 20 minutes.
Your overall cardio burn is going to be higher on the second one.
BUT: I'll wager at 10 and 15 and 20 minutes post workout, on both, you will be at the same level, as far as the EPOC, or very close.
(Caveat: If you are horribly out of shape, etc, YMMV).0 -
It has taken me a year to figure out, and I'd be a jerk if I didn't share.
Trying to lose weight? Working out more than 3 times a week? There is your problem.
Take a look around at posts from people "doing everything right and not losing". What do almost all of them have in common? Crazy exercise regimen.
Losing weight is a destructive process. By definition. While you are tearing down the body you have now, don't think of training as anything but a way to reduce the damage from this process. Eat less, move less. Find a distraction that isn't going to prolong your weight loss. Working out is not a good one!
I was going to guess an inability to count.0 -
Is this a joke post? Someone please tell me that this is a joke post.
Nope. It isn't. It reads like one considering how clustered it is, but no, it was a serious post.0 -
0 -
]
IIRC, the epoc on steady state cardio is very low; this is why interval training is far superior as it has a higher epoc effect and HIIT can help with muscle retention.
Hmm.. my reading doesn't show much of a difference at all, in EPOC, just that you can (typically) burn more during the exercise with HIIT during a certain period of time than interval (which is kind of a no brainer).
And a lot of THAT came from the last, oh, decade or so, when the marketing of fitness machines and programs moved to "You can have THIS BODY for just 20 minutes a day, 3 days a week".
They tend to push HIIT simply because it gets max cardio burn in the period of time they have allotted for the workout.
HIIT also tends to hit specific groups harder and faster, which can build muscle faster.
Look at it this way:
Walk at 3.5 MPH for 20 minutes.
Do walk/sprint/walk intervals for 20 minutes.
Your overall cardio burn is going to be higher on the second one.
BUT: I'll wager at 10 and 15 and 20 minutes post workout, on both, you will be at the same level, as far as the EPOC, or very close.
(Caveat: If you are horribly out of shape, etc, YMMV).
Any chance you have any studies? I would love to read them. I definitely will have to look in my archive again. I could be wrong though.0 -
To your point, yes, exercise is not as important as dieting when it comes to weight loss... I know a girl who went from 105lbs to 88lbs in 3 months and her "key to success" was to never exercise except for going clothes shopping, and to eat nothing but raw veggies.
Had she lost weight? Yes. Did she look better? Hell no. She's 5'2" and 105lbs already put her on the low end of healthy weight. She looked like a 13-yr-old pre-puberty girl at the age of 21 and worst of all she suffered from low glucose level, low blood pressure and anemia.
So my point is, the whole purpose of losing weight is to be "better", and hurting your own health while losing all your muscle mess/curves sure aren't part of "better"....0 -
What I read:
"If you jeopardize your muscle and heart health, you can lose weight faster."
Then you are just making it up, sorry.
Cardio belongs in a good all around fitness program, especially if you are bulking.
You aren't getting better conditioning by training every day, which is why professional training regimens are PERIODIC. Yes, I do think many people don't rest enough, because they follow the same pattern I did. They do too much cardio. But nowhere in here or anywhere else do I claim cardio shouldn't be part of a balanced program. The question here is "what is appropriate, and when it is appropriate, given your goals".
The only valid argument against what I'm advocating here has been the mental health one. I would suggest to someone concerned about this to see what happens to their mood on a steeper deficit and more rest though, rather than just assume. In my experience, if I run a steep enough deficit, it's enough to keep the cabin fever at bay.0 -
SCIENCE tells us that activating a muscle group once a week is what prevents the muscle loss.
I think this is heavily context dependent, but do you have a resource on the above?
This appears to have been missed. Interested myself.
More like postponed, until I'm not limited by iOS.
I can never get one over on you, Sara. Which is probably why you always ignore my friend requests.0 -
To your point, yes, exercise is not as important as dieting when it comes to weight loss... I know a girl who went from 105lbs to 88lbs in 3 months and her "key to success" was to never exercise except for going clothes shopping, and to eat nothing but raw veggies.
Had she lost weight? Yes. Did she look better? Hell no. She's 5'2" and 105lbs already put her on the low end of healthy weight. She looked like a 13-yr-old pre-puberty girl at the age of 21 and worst of all she suffered from low glucose level, low blood pressure and anemia.
So my point is, the whole purpose of losing weight is to be "better", and hurting your own health while losing all your muscle mess/curves sure aren't part of "better"....
Eating in a manner designed to starve the body (vs. make it run in a caloric deficit) and cause extreme nutrient deficiency in order to cause extreme weight loss is a far cry from what the OP advocated.0 -
You're talking about not over training, which is basically any combination of too much exercise, too little calories, and/or too little rest. Not sure what's so controversial here.
When cutting you do the minimum amount of exercise necessary to maintain mass, then when bulking/at maintenance you push it to the max. Pretty common sense, really.0 -
It has taken me a year to figure out, and I'd be a jerk if I didn't share.
Trying to lose weight? Working out more than 3 times a week? There is your problem.
Take a look around at posts from people "doing everything right and not losing". What do almost all of them have in common? Crazy exercise regimen.
Losing weight is a destructive process. By definition. While you are tearing down the body you have now, don't think of training as anything but a way to reduce the damage from this process. Eat less, move less. Find a distraction that isn't going to prolong your weight loss. Working out is not a good one!
I was going to guess an inability to count.
You would be guessing wrong, the truth is that most people are pretty much around your intelligence, and definitely smart enough to count calories.
Lots of intelligent people on here choosing to set up a straw man and attack that instead of actually discussing the idea of BACKING OFF YOUR TRAINING WHILE YOU LOSE WEIGHT (which implies you put it back in when you are eating, which believe it or not, is actually going to happen someday if you stick with it).
No, I think the smarter you are, the harder this is. You just wind up better at coming up with reasons why YOU don't need the same rest, or that your rest doesn't need to be rest, or any other version of unicornism.0 -
You're talking about not over training, which is basically any combination of too much exercise, too little calories, and/or too little rest. Not sure what's so controversial here.
When cutting you do the minimum amount of exercise necessary to maintain mass, then when bulking/at maintenance you push it to the max. Pretty common sense, really.
As far as I see, a lot of people jumped to the conclusion that OP meant "no exercise, very little amount of food". The point of overtraining seems being missed for some reason...maybe somewhat due to the way how OP crafted his post.0 -
You're talking about not over training, which is basically any combination of too much exercise, too little calories, and/or too little rest. Not sure what's so controversial here.
When cutting you do the minimum amount of exercise necessary to maintain mass, then when bulking/at maintenance you push it to the max. Pretty common sense, really.
As far as I see, a lot of people jumped to the conclusion that OP meant "no exercise, very little amount of food". The point of overtraining seems being missed for some reason...maybe the way how OP crafted his post.
It is also unclear to me (but I may have missed the clarification) as to whether we are talking about cardio or lifting. If cardio, whether LISS or something else. If lifting, whether backing off intensity, frequency or volume. They all have different 'answers' and so again, context is important.0 -
You're talking about not over training, which is basically any combination of too much exercise, too little calories, and/or too little rest. Not sure what's so controversial here.
When cutting you do the minimum amount of exercise necessary to maintain mass, then when bulking/at maintenance you push it to the max. Pretty common sense, really.
As far as I see, a lot of people jumped to the conclusion that OP meant "no exercise, very little amount of food". The point of overtraining seems being missed for some reason...maybe somewhat due to the way how OP crafted his post.
Or a combination of my poor craftsmanship and people being people, more likely.
Although I did hope to bring out the specious arguments, so mission sort of accomplished.0 -
You're talking about not over training, which is basically any combination of too much exercise, too little calories, and/or too little rest. Not sure what's so controversial here.
When cutting you do the minimum amount of exercise necessary to maintain mass, then when bulking/at maintenance you push it to the max. Pretty common sense, really.
As far as I see, a lot of people jumped to the conclusion that OP meant "no exercise, very little amount of food". The point of overtraining seems being missed for some reason...maybe the way how OP crafted his post.
It is also unclear to me (but I may have missed the clarification) as to whether we are talking about cardio or lifting. If cardio, whether LISS or something else. If lifting, whether backing off intensity, frequency or volume. They all have different 'answers' and so again, context is important.
I thought overtraining can take place whether doing cardio or weight, or combined? So "backing off" would be a relatively generic term, right?0 -
Man, I'm almost 23 years old. I can do whatever I want and not be "torn down due to this destructive process". Thanks though for the horrible advice, but I am going to keep doing what I'm doing.0
-
You can find a balance and achieve similar results while doing 3 hours or 6 hours of exercise. Its about balance between exercise and caloric consumption... now there is a point of diminishing gains but there hasnt been any conclusive evidence in this thread to discuss that point.0
-
You're talking about not over training, which is basically any combination of too much exercise, too little calories, and/or too little rest. Not sure what's so controversial here.
When cutting you do the minimum amount of exercise necessary to maintain mass, then when bulking/at maintenance you push it to the max. Pretty common sense, really.
As far as I see, a lot of people jumped to the conclusion that OP meant "no exercise, very little amount of food". The point of overtraining seems being missed for some reason...maybe the way how OP crafted his post.
It is also unclear to me (but I may have missed the clarification) as to whether we are talking about cardio or lifting. If cardio, whether LISS or something else. If lifting, whether backing off intensity, frequency or volume. They all have different 'answers' and so again, context is important.
It's context independent, but I was hoping to get people asking about the relative merits.
Capacity for both endurance and strength adaptations are restricted when running a negative energy balance. You can either wait longer for the same change, or settle for less change. Incidentally, other adaptation responses are affected too by a negative energy balance, notably the immune and endocrine systems.
I'm saying to focus on decreasing your mass when that is your goal, and try not to have a competing goal at the same time. Ideally, as I stated before, heavy lifting, not too much, and just enough cardio to prevent or reduce deconditioning. If anyone wants to quibble with my recommendations, there they are, and they ONLY apply when your goals are weight loss with the least negative effects.
If your goal is fitness, this isn't your thread.0 -
At the risk of wading back in with you, you haven't brought out any "specious arguments" as you completely failed to set any parameters whatsoever for what you are advocating.
Set up some actual theoretical instances, and maybe we'll have a better idea what you are saying.
What size person, at what fitness level? What sort of "Training". amounts/rate/frequency of cardio training.
What would, in your mind be a "Resonable" amount to drop back to?
If it's a 230lb 6' guy who is 4% body fat and spends 50 hours in the gym, that's going to be a totally different answer than a 5'6 400# guy who has just cut his calories back to 2500/day and is doing 30 minutes on a treadmill a day.
You gave absolutely no indication of what you meant by "eat less, move less".
Heck, you didn't even cite anything about it beyond "I have read". I have read that there's a magic berry that will make you lose 20 lbs in a week, and that eating nothing but bacon will drop weight in a heartbeat. That doesn't make it true, or safe.
And the site quoted here, Lyle McDonald.. ehh.. snake oil.0 -
To your point, yes, exercise is not as important as dieting when it comes to weight loss... I know a girl who went from 105lbs to 88lbs in 3 months and her "key to success" was to never exercise except for going clothes shopping, and to eat nothing but raw veggies.
Had she lost weight? Yes. Did she look better? Hell no. She's 5'2" and 105lbs already put her on the low end of healthy weight. She looked like a 13-yr-old pre-puberty girl at the age of 21 and worst of all she suffered from low glucose level, low blood pressure and anemia.
So my point is, the whole purpose of losing weight is to be "better", and hurting your own health while losing all your muscle mess/curves sure aren't part of "better"....
Eating in a manner designed to starve the body (vs. make it run in a caloric deficit) and cause extreme nutrient deficiency in order to cause extreme weight loss is a far cry from what the OP advocated.
Agreed. Guess I wasn't being clear enough... It's all about finding the balance so you can get actually "better". And it depends on whether shedding the extra pounds or "building fitness" takes higher health priority0 -
At the risk of wading back in with you, you haven't brought out any "specious arguments" as you completely failed to set any parameters whatsoever for what you are advocating.
Set up some actual theoretical instances, and maybe we'll have a better idea what you are saying.
What size person, at what fitness level? What sort of "Training". amounts/rate/frequency of cardio training.
What would, in your mind be a "Resonable" amount to drop back to?
If it's a 230lb 6' guy who is 4% body fat and spends 50 hours in the gym, that's going to be a totally different answer than a 5'6 400# guy who has just cut his calories back to 2500/day and is doing 30 minutes on a treadmill a day.
You gave absolutely no indication of what you meant by "eat less, move less".
Heck, you didn't even cite anything about it beyond "I have read". I have read that there's a magic berry that will make you lose 20 lbs in a week, and that eating nothing but bacon will drop weight in a heartbeat. That doesn't make it true, or safe.
And the site quoted here, Lyle McDonald.. ehh.. snake oil.
My post is about the psychological journey from ignoring this very oft repeated and common recommendation, to realizing every expert I followed was making it, to actually taking it and being astounded by the results. It's meant to remind anyone else undergoing a similar journey to remember the stuff they've been reading since the start.
If that doesn't resonate with you, please feel free to steer this towards the data, which I like to process on my own because it's not productive here, for me anyway.0 -
You're talking about not over training, which is basically any combination of too much exercise, too little calories, and/or too little rest. Not sure what's so controversial here.
When cutting you do the minimum amount of exercise necessary to maintain mass, then when bulking/at maintenance you push it to the max. Pretty common sense, really.
As far as I see, a lot of people jumped to the conclusion that OP meant "no exercise, very little amount of food". The point of overtraining seems being missed for some reason...maybe the way how OP crafted his post.
It is also unclear to me (but I may have missed the clarification) as to whether we are talking about cardio or lifting. If cardio, whether LISS or something else. If lifting, whether backing off intensity, frequency or volume. They all have different 'answers' and so again, context is important.
It's context independent, but I was hoping to get people asking about the relative merits.
Capacity for both endurance and strength adaptations are restricted when running a negative energy balance. You can either wait longer for the same change, or settle for less change.
I'm saying to focus on decreasing your mass when that is your goal, and try not to have a competing goal at the same time. Ideally, as I stated before, heavy lifting, not too much, and just enough cardio to prevent or reduce deconditioning.
While I agree that there is some element of competing goals, they are not mutually exclusive, assuming you are looking for fat loss and particularly if you are looking for strength maintenance/gain.
Lifting uses energy and it also gives a preferential nutrient partitioning for fat loss. When at a deficit, volume generally should dropped to ensure enough recovery (depending on individual circumstances), but intensity should not.
Also, to add some context, some people need to do a decent amount of cardio in order to be able to eat enough for satiety and nutrient reasons and still have a deficit (smaller, leaner females generally). I do no cardio whether bulking or cutting as I do not need to - but some people do. Cardio is not always about conditioning.
ETA: just noticed your edit....does not change my comments above as I was talking about fat loss and not only about fitness (I do not see that it is that relevant to completely ignore fitness however).0 -
A lot of speculative and nonsense science spewed at the body re-composition web site.
"Welcome to Bodyrecomposition, the home of Lyle McDonald. "
And McDonald is......?
lol....if you have to ask.....
I'm asking.
Who is he?
Take the time to check out his site a little more0 -
To your point, yes, exercise is not as important as dieting when it comes to weight loss... I know a girl who went from 105lbs to 88lbs in 3 months and her "key to success" was to never exercise except for going clothes shopping, and to eat nothing but raw veggies.
Had she lost weight? Yes. Did she look better? Hell no. She's 5'2" and 105lbs already put her on the low end of healthy weight. She looked like a 13-yr-old pre-puberty girl at the age of 21 and worst of all she suffered from low glucose level, low blood pressure and anemia.
So my point is, the whole purpose of losing weight is to be "better", and hurting your own health while losing all your muscle mess/curves sure aren't part of "better"....
Eating in a manner designed to starve the body (vs. make it run in a caloric deficit) and cause extreme nutrient deficiency in order to cause extreme weight loss is a far cry from what the OP advocated.
Agreed. Guess I wasn't being clear enough... It's all about finding the balance so you can get actually "better". And it depends on whether shedding the extra pounds or "building fitness" takes higher health priority
If one of these is your priority, but not the other, you are on the wrong path.
They are competing goals. This does not mean you ignore one and just go for the other, but it MIGHT mean you can't do both at once as well as you can shift your focus from one to the other and back again.
You see how this works? Just because two things are equally important, doesn't mean it's a good idea to do both at the same time.0 -
You're talking about not over training, which is basically any combination of too much exercise, too little calories, and/or too little rest. Not sure what's so controversial here.
When cutting you do the minimum amount of exercise necessary to maintain mass, then when bulking/at maintenance you push it to the max. Pretty common sense, really.
As far as I see, a lot of people jumped to the conclusion that OP meant "no exercise, very little amount of food". The point of overtraining seems being missed for some reason...maybe the way how OP crafted his post.
It is also unclear to me (but I may have missed the clarification) as to whether we are talking about cardio or lifting. If cardio, whether LISS or something else. If lifting, whether backing off intensity, frequency or volume. They all have different 'answers' and so again, context is important.
It's context independent, but I was hoping to get people asking about the relative merits.
Capacity for both endurance and strength adaptations are restricted when running a negative energy balance. You can either wait longer for the same change, or settle for less change.
I'm saying to focus on decreasing your mass when that is your goal, and try not to have a competing goal at the same time. Ideally, as I stated before, heavy lifting, not too much, and just enough cardio to prevent or reduce deconditioning.
While I agree that there is some element of competing goals, they are not mutually exclusive, assuming you are looking for fat loss and particularly if you are looking for strength maintenance/gain.
Lifting uses energy and it also gives a preferential nutrient partitioning for fat loss. When at a deficit, volume generally should dropped to ensure enough recovery (depending on individual circumstances), but intensity should not.
Also, to add some context, some people need to do a decent amount of cardio in order to be able to eat enough for satiety and nutrient reasons and still have a deficit (smaller, leaner females generally). I do no cardio whether bulking or cutting as I do not need to - but some people do. Cardio is not always about conditioning.
ETA: just noticed your edit....does not change my comments above as I was talking about fat loss and not fitness.
Great points. I like the concept of focus. When you focus light with a lens, the surroundings don't go dark.
Having focus and having blinders are note the same,0 -
I was naughty and didn't read all of the responses, apologies if this has all been covered.You're talking about not over training, which is basically any combination of too much exercise, too little calories, and/or too little rest. Not sure what's so controversial here.
When cutting you do the minimum amount of exercise necessary to maintain mass, then when bulking/at maintenance you push it to the max. Pretty common sense, really.
As far as I see, a lot of people jumped to the conclusion that OP meant "no exercise, very little amount of food". The point of overtraining seems being missed for some reason...maybe the way how OP crafted his post.
It is also unclear to me (but I may have missed the clarification) as to whether we are talking about cardio or lifting. If cardio, whether LISS or something else. If lifting, whether backing off intensity, frequency or volume. They all have different 'answers' and so again, context is important.
It's context independent, but I was hoping to get people asking about the relative merits.
Capacity for both endurance and strength adaptations are restricted when running a negative energy balance. You can either wait longer for the same change, or settle for less change. Incidentally, other adaptation responses are affected too by a negative energy balance, notably the immune and endocrine systems.
I'm saying to focus on decreasing your mass when that is your goal, and try not to have a competing goal at the same time. Ideally, as I stated before, heavy lifting, not too much, and just enough cardio to prevent or reduce deconditioning.
I would think that one of the reasons that people can stall out when exercising a lot is that they overestimate their calorie burns. It's easy to do.
My goals are not just weight loss. I want to be strong, and to be able to run for hours (so that I can backpack for days and actually enjoy it). I also would like to look good when I get down to my weight goal.
The other variable is that I was quite obese when I started, as many on here are. That meant that I could see some decent strength and endurance gains while still losing. Of course now that I have less to lose, and as I'm not a new lifter, it's slowed, but I am still seeing progress.
Adherence is another factor. When I don't get exercise calories, I have a very difficult time meeting my calorie goals. That's just how it is. When you have a large amount to lose, it's going to take a long time no matter how you do it, and anything that makes adherence easier is extremely important.
Having multiple pathways to see improvement is also huge when you are looking at a long road ahead. If my scale isn't moving, my running distance or my lifting stats are. SOMETHING is always improving and that's a huge motivator.
I've seen what other women who lose weight without lifting look like, and it may be exactly what they want, but it's not what I want. As the fat goes away, I'm seeing some nice definition and getting a shape that I'm thrilled with. Yes, I will have extra skin when I get to my goal size, but my body composition is going to be pretty dang great. Knowing this (and seeing it as I shrink) is yet another piece to what is the MOST important part of losing: adherence.
That's the variable that you seem to be taking for granted.0 -
If anyone wants to discuss further, please keep in mind it doesn't matter if your program works. They pretty much all work. This is about working BETTER.
Lol.
So what makes one program better?
I've had pretty much the opposite experience and fantastic results, both with fitness and weight loss.0 -
A lot of speculative and nonsense science spewed at the body re-composition web site.
"Welcome to Bodyrecomposition, the home of Lyle McDonald. "
And McDonald is......?
lol....if you have to ask.....
I'm asking.
Who is he?
A snake oil salesman, far as I can tell.0 -
You're talking about not over training, which is basically any combination of too much exercise, too little calories, and/or too little rest. Not sure what's so controversial here.
When cutting you do the minimum amount of exercise necessary to maintain mass, then when bulking/at maintenance you push it to the max. Pretty common sense, really.
You'd think so, and you'd think having read you say as much ages ago would be enough. Yet, this light bulb just went on recently, around when I started this cut.0 -
It has taken me a year to figure out, and I'd be a jerk if I didn't share.
Trying to lose weight? Working out more than 3 times a week? There is your problem.
Take a look around at posts from people "doing everything right and not losing". What do almost all of them have in common? Crazy exercise regimen.
Losing weight is a destructive process. By definition. While you are tearing down the body you have now, don't think of training as anything but a way to reduce the damage from this process. Eat less, move less. Find a distraction that isn't going to prolong your weight loss. Working out is not a good one!
I was going to guess an inability to count.
You would be guessing wrong, the truth is that most people are pretty much around your intelligence, and definitely smart enough to count calories.
Lots of intelligent people on here choosing to set up a straw man and attack that instead of actually discussing the idea of BACKING OFF YOUR TRAINING WHILE YOU LOSE WEIGHT (which implies you put it back in when you are eating, which believe it or not, is actually going to happen someday if you stick with it).
No, I think the smarter you are, the harder this is. You just wind up better at coming up with reasons why YOU don't need the same rest, or that your rest doesn't need to be rest, or any other version of unicornism.
I'm going to stick with 'inability to count.' (With special focus on improper counting methods/lack of understanding of what food should have what calories. If I had a dollar for every "6ounce chicken thigh-130 calories I've seen in people's diaries)
I don't attribute this to a lack of intelligence (or else I would have said "because stupid.") But a lack of knowledge.
But hey, opinions and all that.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions