Why do so many people ignore calories burned with exercise in CICO?
Replies
-
3dogsrunning wrote: »blankiefinder wrote: »Whether or not you can run a 10 min mile has nothing to do with your ability to burn calories.
it does point to better aerobic fitness, which in turn points to more ability to burn calories. If your VO2max is low your calorie burning potential is low. 14 mins vs 10 mins is only about 15% difference though.
I can't run a 10 minute mile. I can't run a half mile, period.
However, I can do a 60 minute Zumba class, ride the bike on a hills program for an hour, walk for 3 hours at a brisk pace, and do it all on the same day occasionally. I think I burn a decent number of calories even though I can't run to save my life.
<tombstone will read: Here lies the first one dead from the Zombie Apocalypse>
You won't be the first. I'm a first responder, I'll be the first one gone before anyone even realizes what is going on. The first wave is always those "hey buddy, are you ok? You look like you are having trouble, let me help you. Buddy? Ahhhh, stop biting me" people.
Once people catch on and start actively trying to avoid the zombies is when people need to worry about running speed.
SOUND EXPERT LOGIC. Thank you for your wisdom. +100 -
acorsaut89 wrote: »acorsaut89 wrote: »I have found success varying my intake and allowing myself to eat more on days i am hungrier. I find that as long as you don't eat 2-3 hours before bed and as long as what you eat isnt processed junk, it all evens out. Starvation mode isn't a myth...maybe what she meant is over training which I did a lot of in the beginning. I was training and running and didn't lose a pound. Now i only walk and am having success.
I also need to double my protein..it's a work in progress but I am working on it...
yes, starvation mode is a myth.
if starvation mode was real then all the starving people in Africa would be obese, because starvation mode....
Exactly.
Well someone around here once told me that the reason they don't get fat is that they're more active than we are. True story.
Their diet is significantly different than ours is, but they do not consume nearly the amount of calories we do. Regardless of how active they are, they still do not consume the amounts of food like we do. Plus food in developing nations is prepared much differently than here. A lot of people with these type posts/questions are under the impression that "Oh man, I'm burning X number of calories, but only eating X so I definitely need to eat more because I won't lose if I don't eat".
People in developing nations work hard in physical labour and are active far more regularly than those in North America (for the most part). The don't eat like North Americans do, so they should, based on your theory of starvation mode, be obese: huge caloric output, relatively small caloric intake.
Um yeah, I have no theory of starvation mode. I thought it was funny that someone had said that. It was meant to be a joke.
0 -
Exercise calories are SERIOUSLY overestimated in most cases.0
-
I like how the OP 8th posting in the forum but she won't post in her own thread here.
In this whole thread, there was only one person who actually answered my question, and I can't find it to quote it. It's the premise that people should eat back their exercise calories, which makes perfect sense. In this context, exercise calories would not contribute to CO.
And yes, the 4,000 and 2,000 numbers were wildly exaggerated, although, as another poster said, some people do wildly exaggerate their calories (his example was someone walking up three flights of stairs and deciding that 1,000 calories were burned).
Thanks to the poster who answered my question! Tomorrow I'll try to find it so I can quote it to give you credit.0 -
atypicalsmith wrote: »I like how the OP 8th posting in the forum but she won't post in her own thread here.
In this whole thread, there was only one person who actually answered my question, and I can't find it to quote it. It's the premise that people should eat back their exercise calories, which makes perfect sense. In this context, exercise calories would not contribute to CO.
And yes, the 4,000 and 2,000 numbers were wildly exaggerated, although, as another poster said, some people do wildly exaggerate their calories (his example was someone walking up three flights of stairs and deciding that 1,000 calories were burned).
Thanks to the poster who answered my question! Tomorrow I'll try to find it so I can quote it to give you credit.
That's because most people couldn't figure out what it was you were trying to say. I didn't even get the sense that you had a question, more of a rant.0 -
[quote="ILiftHeavyAcrylics;31864727
That's because most people couldn't figure out what it was you were trying to say. I didn't even get the sense that you had a question, more of a rant.[/quote]
I do believe the question was asked in the title of this thread. Did you miss the question mark?
0 -
atypicalsmith wrote: »"ILiftHeavyAcrylics wrote: »That's because most people couldn't figure out what it was you were trying to say. I didn't even get the sense that you had a question, more of a rant.
I do believe the question was asked in the title of this thread. Did you miss the question mark?
No, but you didn't really explain it well either. Maybe you could rephrase? Especially since you say that none of us answered you, it seems fairly obvious that it wasn't clear enough.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.
You still need to wrap your head around the fact that in terms of weight loss, CI should be the focus. This comes off the back of your other thread.
You don't understand that this DOES NOT let anyone off the hook in terms of weight loss. A lot of people aren't overwhelmed by the idea of eating less but they are by the CO side because people wrongly believe that the exercise required to lose weight has to be torturous hours of kammakazi aerobics and it puts them off even beginning on any side of the equation.
The simple fact of the matter is, even if you are couch bound, you can lose weight by controlling the CI side of the equation. Exercise is something everyone should eventually aim for but at the end of the day it can be an unreliable, inconsistant factor...there's injury, non adherence to consider. When exercise fails, the CI always dominate in terms of weight loss. Therefore there is no excuse to not at least achieve weight loss even if you can't move more.
Some people, like a mum of an autistic child with three jobs need to hear that. A step by step approach. Some people can go at it like a bull at a fence. Neither one is wrong if both are happily compliant and true to their goals.
CI is the pivotal place to begin. Get food under control - that's the main stay, get confidence, get lighter, understand your goals (composition, strength, fitness, cardio/mental health), find an exercise you love that supports that. From walking to lifting and hell, I'd even accept housework as a form of "moving more" if that area has been lax. A scaffolded approach.
I get the feeling you are proud of your own effort and can't understand that people aren't engaged in the same way. Don't assume everyone is capable of starting at the same point as you or that they share the same goal.
0 -
atypicalsmith wrote: »"ILiftHeavyAcrylics wrote: »That's because most people couldn't figure out what it was you were trying to say. I didn't even get the sense that you had a question, more of a rant.
I do believe the question was asked in the title of this thread. Did you miss the question mark?
The thread title made no sense, because nobody "ignores" exercise calories, and the first post made things worse because it was basically incomprehensible.0 -
atypicalsmith wrote: »[quote="ILiftHeavyAcrylics;31864727
That's because most people couldn't figure out what it was you were trying to say. I didn't even get the sense that you had a question, more of a rant.
I do believe the question was asked in the title of this thread. Did you miss the question mark?
[/quote]
The thread title is such a flawed premise that it is impossible to answer.
0 -
I get the feeling you are proud of your own effort and can't understand that people aren't engaged in the same way. Don't assume everyone is capable of starting at the same point as you or that they share the same goal.
Skim, you are only partially right. I am proud that I've lost 20 pounds (ten of them before joining MFP), that's a fact. Everyone misinterpreted and took the original question completely out of context, saying they didn't understand what I was asking. If I didn't make sense, why bother responding? I don't get it.0 -
I think this is what the OP is asking about. Statements similar to this are repeated frequently on mfp. They do give the appearance of ignoring or at least downplaying the CO side of the CICO equation. While you can generally maximize your deficit by decreasing CI, CO matters too. I exercise more because I like to eat more. I'm not willing to cut calories low as some people so I'm willing to exercise more so I can eat more.
Here is the answer to my original question. Thank you, Jemhh!0 -
It is early morning my time... I ran across this thread as it is still showing up in my feed.. I don't think the OP sleeps or she is in another country.. LOL
My question is, hasn't this been hashed to death yet?
6 Pages and there is no real argument or facts to be debated any more as the question is not answerable... but it really was not a question even though it had ????
It was stated that she was in a RANT but continues to argue with herself I think...0 -
atypicalsmith wrote: »I like how the OP 8th posting in the forum but she won't post in her own thread here.
In this whole thread, there was only one person who actually answered my question, and I can't find it to quote it. It's the premise that people should eat back their exercise calories, which makes perfect sense. In this context, exercise calories would not contribute to CO.
And yes, the 4,000 and 2,000 numbers were wildly exaggerated, although, as another poster said, some people do wildly exaggerate their calories (his example was someone walking up three flights of stairs and deciding that 1,000 calories were burned).
Thanks to the poster who answered my question! Tomorrow I'll try to find it so I can quote it to give you credit.
Ah so the exercise calories DON'T matter because you eat them back therefore cancelling them out.
But exercise calories could mean you can have that pizza instead of that salad. They either allow you to eat more or give you a bigger deficit therefore they DO matter.0 -
I am a zombie, and the anti-zombie bias of this thread is killing me. I was using the Zombies Run app, and, well, I just wasn't fast enough.So some of us don't burn any calories at rest, and our top speed is a shamble. Give us a break. I know it different for you, but I only burn calories when exercising. I feel like if I didn't exercise, I would just fall apart.0
-
It is early morning my time... I ran across this thread as it is still showing up in my feed.. I don't think the OP sleeps or she is in another country.. LOL
My question is, hasn't this been hashed to death yet?
6 Pages and there is no real argument or facts to be debated any more as the question is not answerable... but it really was not a question even though it had ????
It was stated that she was in a RANT but continues to argue with herself I think...
Okay, which is it? Several people complained that I didn't return to the thread on page five. You're complaining that I don't every sleep because I return to the thread. Nobody except a couple of people understood what I considered a valid question, yet there are hundreds of non-responses. Why don't you just stop posting??? My question (which most people didn't understand) was answered!0 -
atypicalsmith wrote: »It is early morning my time... I ran across this thread as it is still showing up in my feed.. I don't think the OP sleeps or she is in another country.. LOL
My question is, hasn't this been hashed to death yet?
6 Pages and there is no real argument or facts to be debated any more as the question is not answerable... but it really was not a question even though it had ????
It was stated that she was in a RANT but continues to argue with herself I think...
Okay, which is it? Several people complained that I didn't return to the thread on page five. You're complaining that I don't every sleep because I return to the thread. Nobody except a couple of people understood what I considered a valid question, yet there are hundreds of non-responses. Why don't you just stop posting??? My question (which most people didn't understand) was answered!
OOPS OP... I do not complain...Got this one wrong..
Edited to add, you actually keep "bumping" this thread by keeping on posting your self.. you could stop posting as well.. Just a thought..0 -
3dogsrunning wrote: »ILiftHeavyAcrylics wrote: »I've never seen anyone claim that exercise doesn't count toward calories out. I have heard people say that exercise calories are often overestimated and that intake is often underestimated.
This.
I have literally never seen anyone say that exercise isn't part of CICO.
But what is the answer then?
If someone is burning 4000 calories in exercise and eating only 2000 and not losing weight, where is the problem?
I'd like to see that actually be the case! I just found this:
If you weigh 185 pounds you'll burn about 622 calories per hour rowing at a moderate pace, and about 754 calories in one hour rowing at a strenuous intensity, according to Harvard Medical School.
Calories Burned From Rowing | Healthy Eating | SF Gate
healthyeating.sfgate.com/calories-burned-rowing-5813.html
And the thing is, if you were burning 4,000 and only eating 2,000 you'd be STARVING and how would you even have the energy to work that hard if you weren't consuming enough calories? LOL. But like some others have said, I think that some people don't record properly. I've done it myself where I've had dessert and then remembered the next morning LOL. :-)0 -
This thead is hopelss. I think it's time for...
0 -
stillnot2late wrote: »
NOPE. I also read through this whole thread and wondered how some other people understood what the OP meant, thinking that I was somehow dim and need to get back into reading Shakespeare to encourage better brain activity LOL. Glad it's not just me!
0 -
atypicalsmith wrote: »"ILiftHeavyAcrylics wrote: »That's because most people couldn't figure out what it was you were trying to say. I didn't even get the sense that you had a question, more of a rant.
I do believe the question was asked in the title of this thread. Did you miss the question mark?
Well if that's the question, then the answer is: We don't.0 -
atypicalsmith wrote: »
The calories burned through exercise do count towards your CICO. But, you don not need to exercise to loose weight. If you consume less cals under your BMR (Basal Metabolic Rate) you will loose (without moving). Your BMR is what your body burns just functioning to stay alive. My BMR is about 1900 cals. If I eat below this I will loose weight. TDEE includes activity, if you eat below this you will loose weight. My TDEE is about 3000 cals.
0 -
atypicalsmith wrote: »It is early morning my time... I ran across this thread as it is still showing up in my feed.. I don't think the OP sleeps or she is in another country.. LOL
My question is, hasn't this been hashed to death yet?
6 Pages and there is no real argument or facts to be debated any more as the question is not answerable... but it really was not a question even though it had ????
It was stated that she was in a RANT but continues to argue with herself I think...
Okay, which is it? Several people complained that I didn't return to the thread on page five. You're complaining that I don't every sleep because I return to the thread. Nobody except a couple of people understood what I considered a valid question, yet there are hundreds of non-responses. Why don't you just stop posting??? My question (which most people didn't understand) was answered!
OOPS OP... I do not complain...Got this one wrong..
Edited to add, you actually keep "bumping" this thread by keeping on posting your self.. you could stop posting as well.. Just a thought..
I only posted on Page 1 and Page 6 of this thread. Pages 2, 3, 4, and 5 were by others, some of whom were razing me for not returning to the thread. Keep bumping, Gia.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
atypicalsmith wrote: »
I think this is what the OP is asking about. Statements similar to this are repeated frequently on mfp. They do give the appearance of ignoring or at least downplaying the CO side of the CICO equation. While you can generally maximize your deficit by decreasing CI, CO matters too. I exercise more because I like to eat more. I'm not willing to cut calories low as some people so I'm willing to exercise more so I can eat more.
Here is the answer to my original question. Thank you, Jemhh!
Oh I see! That is not even close to how I interpreted the OP. Well done, Jemhh, you get a sticker. :laugh:
0 -
OP belongs in the "that's not how this works, that's not how any of this works" group.
0 -
OP you had the problem, that your post was so poorly written that people did not know what you were talking about and you failed to have the good manners to come back and explain whilst people were guessing at what you were trying to say. Apparently your question was answered on the first page.0 -
I don't understand. .. Are you venting about people eating back the calories they burn exercising and then saying they don't lose weight?0
-
Don't worry-Be happy!
Do do do do dodo do oooooooh!
Don't worry be happy now!0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.3K 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
- 424 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