Why do so many people ignore calories burned with exercise in CICO?
Options
Replies
-
CherokeeBabe wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »
Well, yes. It DOES happen when you're just laying around on the sofa watching television. Unless you're a zombie. I don't want any zombies on this forum.
I vote 'Yes' for Zombies on the forum.
I know, right? What is all this "I don't want any zombies on this forum," bigotry.
I'm pro-zombie rights. They deserve to be welcomed and encouraged to buy a food scale to weigh appropriate portions of brains.
As long as they aren't my brains that's fine with me.0 -
sgthaggard wrote: »
300 calories is my daily deficit. Exercise, for me, is the difference between losing weight and maintaining.ruggedshutter wrote: »I don't see what the problem is by telling people that weight loss happens in the kitchen and exercise is to increase your health. I say it because it's true. 90% of your weight loss is going to come from having a calorie deficit. Burning 200-300 calories is only about 10% of most people's daily calorie burn. Increasing that 10% isn't going to do a whole lot to your overall calorie deficit each day. That's equivalent to not eating a couple of cookies or a handful of peanuts.
I don't understand -- a deficit doesn't "care" if it is created through diet or exercise. I understand that exercise can help make a deficit a lot easier (I do this myself) because we can eat more, but a deficit is a deficit.0 -
-
atypicalsmith wrote: »
I've never seen anyone say this. I see people say that they choose not to eat back their exercise calories. I see people say they put their activity level at highly active and don't log their exercise. I see people say they do TDEE so they don't eat back their exercise calories. I have seen people say where you don't need to exercise to lose weight/create a deficit.
I have never ever seen anyone say that calories expended via exercise don't count in CICO.
0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »sgthaggard wrote: »
The ever-popular "exercise for fitness, diet for weight loss" makes me a bit nuts.Some people manage to dismiss exercise altogether and the contribution it can make towards burning calories and potential deficit.
They first focus on consuming less because thats easier for most people to do than burn the equivalent. I think I get your point OP in that exercise can still make a significant contribution in terms of calories burned towards helping you stay in deficit. You are annoyed because people dismiss it?
I get that a lot of people overestimate their burn. I see it daily amongst my friends. But that's really not a reason to discount it's effect on weight loss.
I ran 5k yesterday. That allowed me to have a sizeable dinner with hundreds of calories to spare. Throughout this whole process, exercise has allowed me to eat at a reasonable level so that I don't feel deprived and I don't feel like giving up.
It frustrates me as well. My TDEE without exercise is about 1600 calories. So I simultaneously have people on here insisting that no one should eat 1200 calories and people insisting that we don't burn that many calories with exercise, so don't count on it too much for your deficit.
I have never seen anyone here insist that no one should ever eat 1,200 calories. I have seen people point out that 1,200 isn't a good goal for many of the people who select it (usually because they set their weekly goal too high or because they have a mistaken idea this is what they "need" to eat for weight loss).
OK, to be fair, the thread I saw the other day said 99.9% of people shouldn't eat 1200 calories.
0 -
in
This will be good.0 -
That's exactly my point - a deficit doesn't care how it's created. I could create a deficit through diet alone, I could create one through exercise alone, or I could create one through a combination of both. Discounting exercise by saying it improves your health but has nothing to do with weight loss is where I take issue.janejellyroll wrote: »sgthaggard wrote: »
300 calories is my daily deficit. Exercise, for me, is the difference between losing weight and maintaining.ruggedshutter wrote: »I don't see what the problem is by telling people that weight loss happens in the kitchen and exercise is to increase your health. I say it because it's true. 90% of your weight loss is going to come from having a calorie deficit. Burning 200-300 calories is only about 10% of most people's daily calorie burn. Increasing that 10% isn't going to do a whole lot to your overall calorie deficit each day. That's equivalent to not eating a couple of cookies or a handful of peanuts.
I don't understand -- a deficit doesn't "care" if it is created through diet or exercise. I understand that exercise can help make a deficit a lot easier (I do this myself) because we can eat more, but a deficit is a deficit.
Not everyone needs exercise to lose weight but it can play a major role.0 -
ruggedshutter wrote: »I don't see what the problem is by telling people that weight loss happens in the kitchen and exercise is to increase your health. I say it because it's true. 90% of your weight loss is going to come from having a calorie deficit. Burning 200-300 calories is only about 10% of most people's daily calorie burn. Increasing that 10% isn't going to do a whole lot to your overall calorie deficit each day. That's equivalent to not eating a couple of cookies or a handful of peanuts.
100%, Bro.
ALL of you weight loss comes from a calorie deficit (modulo water).
All of it.
0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »sgthaggard wrote: »
The ever-popular "exercise for fitness, diet for weight loss" makes me a bit nuts.Some people manage to dismiss exercise altogether and the contribution it can make towards burning calories and potential deficit.
They first focus on consuming less because thats easier for most people to do than burn the equivalent. I think I get your point OP in that exercise can still make a significant contribution in terms of calories burned towards helping you stay in deficit. You are annoyed because people dismiss it?
I get that a lot of people overestimate their burn. I see it daily amongst my friends. But that's really not a reason to discount it's effect on weight loss.
I ran 5k yesterday. That allowed me to have a sizeable dinner with hundreds of calories to spare. Throughout this whole process, exercise has allowed me to eat at a reasonable level so that I don't feel deprived and I don't feel like giving up.
It frustrates me as well. My TDEE without exercise is about 1600 calories. So I simultaneously have people on here insisting that no one should eat 1200 calories and people insisting that we don't burn that many calories with exercise, so don't count on it too much for your deficit.
I have never seen anyone here insist that no one should ever eat 1,200 calories. I have seen people point out that 1,200 isn't a good goal for many of the people who select it (usually because they set their weekly goal too high or because they have a mistaken idea this is what they "need" to eat for weight loss).
OK, to be fair, the thread I saw the other day said 99.9% of people shouldn't eat 1200 calories.
So even that poster acknowledges there would still be some people for whom it is an appropriate goal, right? You just disagree with that poster about the percentages.0 -
sgthaggard wrote: »
That's exactly my point - a deficit doesn't care how it's created. I could create a deficit through diet alone, I could create one through exercise alone, or I could create one through a combination of both. Discounting exercise by saying it improves your health but has nothing to do with weight loss is where I take issue.janejellyroll wrote: »sgthaggard wrote: »
300 calories is my daily deficit. Exercise, for me, is the difference between losing weight and maintaining.ruggedshutter wrote: »I don't see what the problem is by telling people that weight loss happens in the kitchen and exercise is to increase your health. I say it because it's true. 90% of your weight loss is going to come from having a calorie deficit. Burning 200-300 calories is only about 10% of most people's daily calorie burn. Increasing that 10% isn't going to do a whole lot to your overall calorie deficit each day. That's equivalent to not eating a couple of cookies or a handful of peanuts.
I don't understand -- a deficit doesn't "care" if it is created through diet or exercise. I understand that exercise can help make a deficit a lot easier (I do this myself) because we can eat more, but a deficit is a deficit.
Not everyone needs exercise to lose weight but it can play a major role.
The deficit creates the weight loss. We can choose how we want to create it. It can play a major role. It can play no role.0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »sgthaggard wrote: »
The ever-popular "exercise for fitness, diet for weight loss" makes me a bit nuts.Some people manage to dismiss exercise altogether and the contribution it can make towards burning calories and potential deficit.
They first focus on consuming less because thats easier for most people to do than burn the equivalent. I think I get your point OP in that exercise can still make a significant contribution in terms of calories burned towards helping you stay in deficit. You are annoyed because people dismiss it?
I get that a lot of people overestimate their burn. I see it daily amongst my friends. But that's really not a reason to discount it's effect on weight loss.
I ran 5k yesterday. That allowed me to have a sizeable dinner with hundreds of calories to spare. Throughout this whole process, exercise has allowed me to eat at a reasonable level so that I don't feel deprived and I don't feel like giving up.
It frustrates me as well. My TDEE without exercise is about 1600 calories. So I simultaneously have people on here insisting that no one should eat 1200 calories and people insisting that we don't burn that many calories with exercise, so don't count on it too much for your deficit.
I have never seen anyone here insist that no one should ever eat 1,200 calories. I have seen people point out that 1,200 isn't a good goal for many of the people who select it (usually because they set their weekly goal too high or because they have a mistaken idea this is what they "need" to eat for weight loss).
OK, to be fair, the thread I saw the other day said 99.9% of people shouldn't eat 1200 calories.
So even that poster acknowledges there would still be some people for whom it is an appropriate goal, right? You just disagree with that poster about the percentages.
I'd guess that about 99.9% of us people who believe that 1200 isn't a good goal for many of the people who select it would disagree with that particular poster about the percentages.0 -
To paraphrase what I just said, yes, exactly that.janejellyroll wrote: »sgthaggard wrote: »
That's exactly my point - a deficit doesn't care how it's created. I could create a deficit through diet alone, I could create one through exercise alone, or I could create one through a combination of both. Discounting exercise by saying it improves your health but has nothing to do with weight loss is where I take issue.janejellyroll wrote: »sgthaggard wrote: »
300 calories is my daily deficit. Exercise, for me, is the difference between losing weight and maintaining.ruggedshutter wrote: »I don't see what the problem is by telling people that weight loss happens in the kitchen and exercise is to increase your health. I say it because it's true. 90% of your weight loss is going to come from having a calorie deficit. Burning 200-300 calories is only about 10% of most people's daily calorie burn. Increasing that 10% isn't going to do a whole lot to your overall calorie deficit each day. That's equivalent to not eating a couple of cookies or a handful of peanuts.
I don't understand -- a deficit doesn't "care" if it is created through diet or exercise. I understand that exercise can help make a deficit a lot easier (I do this myself) because we can eat more, but a deficit is a deficit.
Not everyone needs exercise to lose weight but it can play a major role.
The deficit creates the weight loss. We can choose how we want to create it. It can play a major role. It can play no role.
0 -
jofjltncb6 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »sgthaggard wrote: »
The ever-popular "exercise for fitness, diet for weight loss" makes me a bit nuts.Some people manage to dismiss exercise altogether and the contribution it can make towards burning calories and potential deficit.
They first focus on consuming less because thats easier for most people to do than burn the equivalent. I think I get your point OP in that exercise can still make a significant contribution in terms of calories burned towards helping you stay in deficit. You are annoyed because people dismiss it?
I get that a lot of people overestimate their burn. I see it daily amongst my friends. But that's really not a reason to discount it's effect on weight loss.
I ran 5k yesterday. That allowed me to have a sizeable dinner with hundreds of calories to spare. Throughout this whole process, exercise has allowed me to eat at a reasonable level so that I don't feel deprived and I don't feel like giving up.
It frustrates me as well. My TDEE without exercise is about 1600 calories. So I simultaneously have people on here insisting that no one should eat 1200 calories and people insisting that we don't burn that many calories with exercise, so don't count on it too much for your deficit.
I have never seen anyone here insist that no one should ever eat 1,200 calories. I have seen people point out that 1,200 isn't a good goal for many of the people who select it (usually because they set their weekly goal too high or because they have a mistaken idea this is what they "need" to eat for weight loss).
OK, to be fair, the thread I saw the other day said 99.9% of people shouldn't eat 1200 calories.
So even that poster acknowledges there would still be some people for whom it is an appropriate goal, right? You just disagree with that poster about the percentages.
I'd guess that about 99.9% of us people who believe that 1200 isn't a good goal for many of the people who select it would disagree with that particular poster about the percentages.
I disagree myself.
0 -
Exercise plays a bigger part than I realized. I would go to the gym daily and cut my calories... but it wasn't enough. Nothing was ever enough. I focused more on calories than on my workouts. THAT did not work.
Ever since I got a Fitbit 3 weeks ago I lost 5 lbs. I am always moving trying to get more steps and beat people at challenges. I now workout EASILY 2-4 times a day and this helps cravings and bad eating because I am more focused on moving and less on food.
This is what works best for me.0 -
atypicalsmith wrote: »I don't get it. Writer says, "I'm exercising 4,000 calories a day and eating 2,000 calories but I'm not losing weight" and the answer is almost always CICO. Then there's the accusations that the poster is not logging calories accurately, not weighing the food, and that even though they claim to exercise, it's always "CICO". Huh? Is not burning calories by exercising calories out?
How can you say that you don't have to burn calories to have the CO part of CICO? Do you think it happens when we just lay around on the sofa watching television? EXERCISE burns calories and is part of the CALORIES OUT! Whoever is guilty, stop saying that exercise doesn't contribute, because it does. To those who cannot exercise for health reasons, I am not talking about you, even though I have a friend here who has everything against her yet she is still excelling.
Okay, off my soapbox.
If you're alive, then yes you do.0 -
I bought a bike Monday last week. Ive eaten basically the same calories as before but because of the extra effort of riding the bike to the gym and back - I lost 6 pounds this week ! Ive had to up the calories and slow down the exercise.0
-
I was told by a fitness expert that if an individual is unable to run for two miles within 20 minutes, cardiovascular efforts will be mostly futile in terms of significant calorie burning.
ETA: Thanks all, for the tips on manually adjusting exercise calories burned. I didn't know that could be done.
That "expert" sounds like they're full of ****.
0 -
nannersp61 wrote: »I want to add a point about calories in. A few weeks ago I noticed I was not losing weight. I was eating between 1200 to 1500 a day and exercising 1 1/2 hours to 2 hours every day. Averaging 10,000 to 12,000 steps a day. I talked to my health coach about it. She suggested that because of all the exercise I was doing that I was not eating enough food. Specifically, I needed to double my protein intake, up my carbs and watch my sodium to keep it under 2200 a day. I did that and lo and behold, the pounds began coming off, easily! I am no longer having rebound weight gain after a loss. So, consider the kinds of foods you are eating and the effect exercise is having on your body. Sometimes exercising for more than two hours begins to tell your body that you are in starvation mode so it shuts off your metabolism and holds back on releasing fat. Eat more of the right kinds of food and you will begin to see progress again.
Um but no . . . this type of starvation mode is a myth.
Chances are that before you saw you body coach you were eating more than you thought you were and therefore consuming more than you needed to.
If you eat less than what you burn in a day, you will lose weight. This whole eat more to lose is also a myth.
Further - what exactly is the "right kind of food" because I eat burgers and pasta and pizza and ice cream and cupcakes and well everything and I still lose weight. It's not the right kind of food, it's the right amount of food that counts. Everything in moderation.0 -
sgthaggard wrote: »
The ever-popular "exercise for fitness, diet for weight loss" makes me a bit nuts.Some people manage to dismiss exercise altogether and the contribution it can make towards burning calories and potential deficit.
They first focus on consuming less because thats easier for most people to do than burn the equivalent. I think I get your point OP in that exercise can still make a significant contribution in terms of calories burned towards helping you stay in deficit. You are annoyed because people dismiss it?
I get that a lot of people overestimate their burn. I see it daily amongst my friends. But that's really not a reason to discount it's effect on weight loss.
I ran 5k yesterday. That allowed me to have a sizeable dinner with hundreds of calories to spare. Throughout this whole process, exercise has allowed me to eat at a reasonable level so that I don't feel deprived and I don't feel like giving up.
But because you ran that 5K you get some extra calories (I don't know how many in your case) to essentially "play with for the day" so that you can eat your sizeable dinner. Working out gives you extra calories, so you can eat more without eating more than your body needs in a day. It helps you get fit, but you can lose weight without actually exercising as long as your intake is less than your output.
So really, you are exercising for fitness, "dieting" for weight loss. If you didn't have that run, you still could have eaten the dinner you had but you wouldn't have had extra calories, and you may have even gone over your TDEE.
0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.9K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 399 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 981 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions