Does exercise really matter?

Options
24

Replies

  • cara4fit
    cara4fit Posts: 111 Member
    Options
    It absolutely does make a difference, for all the reasons stated above! Plus for general health and ability. Those who exercise meaningfully long-term, especially with any solid resistance-training program not only tend to look amazing as they get older, butalso they are able to live independently for a lot longer(barring sheer bad luck of course). Otherwise, age-related muscle loss is very real, and people become too weak, lethargic and stiff to do the simplest daily living tasks. Heart health, and blood sugar issues too, especially with good cardio added to the mix.
    But one must also find ways of increasing moving around BESIDES one's exercise program, as that really only accounts for part of calories burned over the day. There's more and more coming out about just how bad sitting all day with little in the way of breaks is for us, even if we exercise. There's the principle of NEAT which is Non-Exercise-Activity-Thermogenesis. If one can find ways to be on one's feet for more time each day, those little things can add up to a surprising amount of calories, even if each one is not a big calorie burner all by itself. This is why, when people go on a vacation where they are on their feet a lot, they end up dropping a few pounds, even with indulging in some local treats, and not doing their exercise program because they are literally active ALL day, and aren't sitting around thinking about one's next meal and how many calories it's going to be.
  • erickirb
    erickirb Posts: 12,293 Member
    Options
    Thanks, I know you're right. I've been trying to stay at about 1100 calories a day, but try to work off at least 300-400 calories a day with a stationary bike, walking, etc. I'm actually eating a lot of healthy food, but I probably should readjust my calorie intake and do some strength training as well as cardio. My end goal after all is to be healthy! Thanks, again!

    wow, so if you eat 1100 and burn 400, that is like eating 700 cals on a day you don't workout, I agree you should readjust. If you have trouble eating more cals, eat full fat, full cal versions of food, no diet or lite, eat nut butters, add olive oil to foods you already eat, and maybe drink more cals (less filling)
  • ErinBeth7
    ErinBeth7 Posts: 1,625 Member
    Options
    both options should have you lose weight at the same rate, the difference being #2 will make you much more healthy, and if #2 consists of strength training then a higher % of your loss will be from fat, not lean mass (some of which would be muscle)

    In summary, you will lose weight just as fast based on deficit, but will be a lower BF% and be much more athletic and healthy if you exercise (including strength training)

    Great answer!
  • DebraKing52
    DebraKing52 Posts: 7
    Options
    Thanks, I know you're right. I've been trying to stay at about 1100 calories a day, but try to work off at least 300-400 calories a day with a stationary bike, walking, etc. I'm actually eating a lot of healthy food, but I probably should readjust my calorie intake and do some strength training as well as cardio. My end goal after all is to be healthy! Thanks, again!

    wow, so if you eat 1100 and burn 400, that is like eating 700 cals on a day you don't workout, I agree you should readjust. If you have trouble eating more cals, eat full fat, full cal versions of food, no diet or lite, eat nut butters, add olive oil to foods you already eat, and maybe drink more cals (less filling)

    Thanks, Eric! I'm really taking your advice to heart. Much appreciated!
  • tigersword
    tigersword Posts: 8,059 Member
    Options
    Diet = Weight loss
    Exercise = Fitness

    Two different concepts. You need both for optimal health.
  • healthymission92
    healthymission92 Posts: 157
    Options
    Exercise makes you look good. Who doesn't want to be toned?
  • frhenderson
    frhenderson Posts: 32 Member
    Options
    Another thing to consider is what exercise does for your metabolism. As someone else posted, muscle burns more calories than fat. So as your weight decreases having the muscle you build/maintain through exercise will help you burn more calories at rest than someone who is just cutting food intake. The reason why people tend to gain weight as they age is because we lose muscle mass as we age, so eating the same number of calories with lower muscle mass=higher net calories=weight gain.

    I also find that I feel a lot more restricted (and resentful) if I have to stick to just the calories I "earn" with my sedentary lifestyle. The extra calories I can eat because of exercise make the mental difference between feeling deprived and feeling like I'm in control of my eating. When you have a long road of weight loss ahead of you, that mindset can keep you from giving up.

    One last comment: our bodies were designed to keep us alive through periods of famine. If you restrict calories too much, your body will eventually do what it thinks it needs to do to keep you alive, and you may not see your weight drop as much as it should. This can be very frustrating, and most people respond by cutting calories further, exercising more, or just giving up and saying "this is just the weight my body wants to be" (I've done all three). Sometimes you just need to reassure your body that there is still food out there by eating back your exercise calories (if you haven't been) or eating enough to maintain your current weight for a week or two.
  • ctooch99
    ctooch99 Posts: 459 Member
    Options
    Some may choose to debate this but studies show that exercise raises your resting metabolism after vigorous exercise:

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21311363
  • Trechechus
    Trechechus Posts: 2,819 Member
    Options
    I was hoping this was a joke.

    The way I see it, there is a choice. Be skinny and still unhealthy, or be fit and healthy. I want to be fit, and sexy forever, so exercise I will.
  • rachelbina
    rachelbina Posts: 32 Member
    Options
    besides all the really smart things people are answering your question with as far as how healthy exercise is for you i find that the fact that i can eat more calories when i earn them through exercise makes me feel more satisfied. seriously, for example there are days when i've eaten my calorie allowance for the day but haven't done much exercise. i feel like i'd like to eat more and so exercise to earn some more. you'd think the extra expenditure of energy from the exercise would leave me that much hungrier, but not so. getting to eat more because i've burned more calories feels physically better than eating less and not exercising. go figure. good question though!
  • darbylicious
    darbylicious Posts: 16
    Options
    My thought is that is that exercise gives me a nice buffer zone, so that I can eat a bit more each day and not feel hungry. Since I'm focusing on a longterm lifestyle change, I want to be able to have 2000 calorie days sometimes and not worry too much about it. The more active I am, the better I feel, and the more I can eat (need to eat, actually, because my body needs fuel!). The more active I am, the more active I can be, thus making my long-term lifestyle change something much more realistic, manageable, and ENJOYABLE. That's why I exercise. :)

    I think just a calorie deficit alone would be really hard to maintain over the longterm.
  • jdploki70
    jdploki70 Posts: 343
    Options
    Yes, exercise matters. If you don't use your muscles, your body treats them just like fat and uses them for energy. Unless you are going for the starved super waif look, exercising keeps your muscle mass constant as you lose weight
  • DaddyJoJo
    DaddyJoJo Posts: 5 Member
    Options
    I love the question actually :
    Boiling it down to a math-type formula might help:

    1. Diet + Exercise = FITNESS

    2. Diet only = MAINTAINS your current metabolism only

    3. Exercise only = MEAT-HEAD/ BIFF (if you're a guy)
  • lporter229
    lporter229 Posts: 4,907 Member
    Options
    both options should have you lose weight at the same rate, the difference being #2 will make you much more healthy, and if #2 consists of strength training then a higher % of your loss will be from fat, not lean mass (some of which would be muscle)

    This comment got me thinking (serious question)...It takes 3500 calories to burn a lb of fat...how much for a lb of muscle? It would seem to me that it would not be the same because they have different composition.
  • heybales
    heybales Posts: 18,842 Member
    Options
    Sounds like a stupid & controversial topic, doesn't it?

    What I mean to say is....

    #1 - If you stay under your calories just by eating
    VS.
    #2 - If you eat over your calories and then do exercise to burn off extra calories

    And the end of the day you end up with the same # of net calories.

    Is the #2 option going to make you lose weight faster? Any other advantages?

    The amount of deficit also plays a part here in what you are left with.

    If a deep deficit, studies have shown you will lose muscle mass unless you do resistance workouts.
    Even cardio didn't help as much, and no exercise was the most loss.

    If you take a reasonable deficit though, the no exercise route can work and you can retain your existing LBM.

    What normally happens though, you get down to a "safer" weight for exercise, whatever that means to you, and then you pick it up and starting make body changes related to health too.

    While being overweight does indeed have negative health consequences, so does not exercising.
  • kelseyhere
    kelseyhere Posts: 1,123 Member
    Options
    do you want to be 'skinny fat' or do you want to look good naked?

    if you want to look good naked (or in a bathing suit), then you better get some exercise. otherwise you'll be thinner but blobby. blobby in a bikini isn't exactly the look fo the season.
  • mcarter99
    mcarter99 Posts: 1,666 Member
    Options
    both options should have you lose weight at the same rate, the difference being #2 will make you much more healthy, and if #2 consists of strength training then a higher % of your loss will be from fat, not lean mass (some of which would be muscle)

    This comment got me thinking (serious question)...It takes 3500 calories to burn a lb of fat...how much for a lb of muscle? It would seem to me that it would not be the same because they have different composition.

    3500 only applies to a pound of fat.
  • UticaBoy51
    UticaBoy51 Posts: 344 Member
    Options
    If you have an excessive amount to lose, should you still eat your excercise calories? It doesn't seem to work for me.
  • SingeSange
    SingeSange Posts: 98 Member
    Options
    It hasn't mattered for me. I can't exercise very much because I have a foot injury. My doctor said as long as I'm eating healthy I should lose weight and that exercise isn't for weight loss but for having an even healthier body.
  • heybales
    heybales Posts: 18,842 Member
    Options
    This comment got me thinking (serious question)...It takes 3500 calories to burn a lb of fat...how much for a lb of muscle? It would seem to me that it would not be the same because they have different composition.

    1 lb of muscle can supply about 600 cal's of converted energy. Hence the reason it's so easy to lose "weight" by burning through some muscle.

    Not really a great way to go, though in reality there is likely some muscle that won't be used at lighter weight, so who cares if big calves for instance is burned off because they no longer carry the mass they used to.

Categories