Sitting in office....can it derail exercise...read on...

13»

Replies

  • sassyjae21
    sassyjae21 Posts: 1,217 Member
    There are too many comments that I want to quote and i'm not about to go through all of that because i'll just mess them up lol. But

    Lol @ shake weight

    Lol @ arguing like children- didn't see any of that.

    I hate sitting at work. So i've concocted a standing work station. So I stand for most of the day; sit for a small percentage of the day.

    I've had sedentary jobs and active jobs. If you're not moving much, you gotta eat less to not get fat. If you're moving all day, you can eat more.

    Of course I could have lost weight much quicker if I moved around all day, worked out when I got home, and then ate at a deficit, but it isn't possible for me to move around all day. i try to stay as active as I can, but I have a desk job.

    It didn't stop me from reaching my goals. I've been in maintenance for a little over a month, but because of this website and the smart folks here, I know that if I'm going to keep the weight off I better continue moving when I get off work :P

    I don't buy the theory that if you sit all day, it makes no difference what you do at home. That doesn't even make sense. Of course it matters.
  • WalkingAlong
    WalkingAlong Posts: 4,926 Member
    As I understand it, the theory is more that you can't make up for a day's worth of inactivity purely with 30 minutes of heavy activity in the evening.

    It would be better if you were able to achieve regular periods of light to moderate activity throughout the day. Which is why I, for example, take a walking break every hour during which I walk round the office and then up and down 5 flights of stairs.

    It's not intense activity, but it is regular activity.

    But why would this be, does anyone have a logical explanation?
    If timing of calorie intake doesn't matter, then why would timing of calorie expenditure matter? Wouldn't it be as long as you are expending X amount of calories per day?
    It matters because you would typically spend a lot more time moving and burn more calories being moderately active throughout the day, or for several hours a day, than by being sedentary for 23 hours and going to the gym for one or worse, 30 minutes. If you use an activity monitor, this shows up really clearly (or it does for me).

    Plus you don't feel like you earned a smoothie or a burger at the end like a gym workout seems to make a lot of people feel.
  • martinel2099
    martinel2099 Posts: 899 Member
    Try not to over think it, it's ok if you're job doesn't have you as active as a pro football or basketball player. You can achieve amazing results for your body working out at the gym 1-2 hours, 3-4 days a week and eating a diet proper to your weight loss or body building goals.
  • Alluminati
    Alluminati Posts: 6,208 Member
    As I understand it, the theory is more that you can't make up for a day's worth of inactivity purely with 30 minutes of heavy activity in the evening.

    It would be better if you were able to achieve regular periods of light to moderate activity throughout the day. Which is why I, for example, take a walking break every hour during which I walk round the office and then up and down 5 flights of stairs.

    It's not intense activity, but it is regular activity.

    But why would this be, does anyone have a logical explanation?
    If timing of calorie intake doesn't matter, then why would timing of calorie expenditure matter? Wouldn't it be as long as you are expending X amount of calories per day?
    It matters because you would typically spend a lot more time moving and burn more calories being moderately active throughout the day, or for several hours a day, than by being sedentary for 23 hours and going to the gym for one or worse, 30 minutes. If you use an activity monitor, this shows up really clearly (or it does for me).

    Plus you don't feel like you earned a smoothie or a burger at the end like a gym workout seems to make a lot of people feel.

    The person I quoted was talking about health, not weight loss. I think a few people are misunderstanding the main OP's question.
  • Alluminati
    Alluminati Posts: 6,208 Member
    Try not to over think it, it's ok if you're job doesn't have you as active as a pro football or basketball player. You can achieve amazing results for your body working out at the gym 1-2 hours, 3-4 days a week and eating a diet proper to your weight loss or body building goals.
    ^^^+1
  • jimmmer
    jimmmer Posts: 3,515 Member
    I really don't understand what you are asking. It is absolutely impossible for an office job to derail anything. It has to do with energy. it's a simple math problem. Energy in = energy out = maintain weight. More energy in than out = weight gain. Less energy in than out = weight loss. Very simple math. Has nothing to do with an office job, that is relative to the amount you eat and the amount of exercise you do. You don't have to exercise at all, and can still lose weight.

    I honestly don't understand what you are asking.

    ^what this guy said.

Categories