Drop calories or do cardio? Which would you prefer?
Replies
-
Could you explain what your BMR consist of, that uses 1983 calories in 24 hours ? Excuse my earlier comment as I did NOT understand what you saying.0
-
100% drop calories. Why waste energy on "cardio" when you can pump iron instead? I'm 46 and dropped 40 lbs and 8 inches off my waste in 18 months by lifting heavy compound movements 4 days a week, NO CARDIO AT ALL, and just eating at a slight caloric deficit, with plenty of fat and protein. I think cardio is woefully overrated, unless you are just using it for basic conditioning or specifically for a sport. But for body composition? It sucks. Lift weights and eat a bit less.0
-
-
100% drop calories. Why waste energy on "cardio" when you can pump iron instead? I'm 46 and dropped 40 lbs and 8 inches off my waste in 18 months by lifting heavy compound movements 4 days a week, NO CARDIO AT ALL, and just eating at a slight caloric deficit, with plenty of fat and protein. I think cardio is woefully overrated, unless you are just using it for basic conditioning or specifically for a sport. But for body composition? It sucks. Lift weights and eat a bit less.
I lost 80 in 8 months doing nothing but cardio. And in the 10 months since (equally your 18 months) I have lifted heavy and did cardio to get to a 6' tall, 180lb, and 10-12% bf, dropped 11" from my waist all while eating 3500 cals a day. I'd say my body composition is pretty solid and only getting better. Just sayin'.0 -
I understand what calculator you used, can you explain what is in the calculation of 1983 calories ?0 -
CharlieRuns7225 wrote: »
I understand what calculator you used, can you explain what is in the calculation of 1983 calories ?
That's what I burn sedentary based on no movement. Doing nothing this is what my body burns.0 -
CharlieRuns7225 wrote: »
Exercise calories are an addition-too, not a replacement for your BMR !
You do realise Charlieruns is 100% correct above and your understanding is fundamentally flawed. How can you be so confused about such a simple concept?
Oh and my answer was, its a balance of both and will depend on the day whether I have enough energy and willpower to do more exercise (subject to an overtraining excess) or whether I want to eat less or sacrifice some of my deficit.
The only one confused is you .
0 -
peter56765 wrote: »carolynmo1969 wrote: »For me, a healthy heart muscle is more important than shapely delts. However, since I mix up cardio and strength training, I'm getting to be smoking hot on the inside and out.
This. As I get older, looking ripped is less and less important to me, but a strong heart muscle is something I still want.
This absolutely. Id rather be fit including having a good cv system and lowering the risk of heart disease or a weak heart. I do both, but quite a bit of cardio. Why on earth wouldnt you want a good cv system?0 -
peter56765 wrote: »carolynmo1969 wrote: »For me, a healthy heart muscle is more important than shapely delts. However, since I mix up cardio and strength training, I'm getting to be smoking hot on the inside and out.
This. As I get older, looking ripped is less and less important to me, but a strong heart muscle is something I still want.
This absolutely. Id rather be fit including having a good cv system and lowering the risk of heart disease or a weak heart. I do both, but quite a bit of cardio. Why on earth wouldnt you want a good cv system?
How's says that I don't? And where did I say I didn't?
0 -
Cardio makes me happy, as does eating, so I'd opt for exercise + more food most days. That said, some days are crazy and others are lazy (especially when I've got a good book to read), so focusing entirely on calories has its place as well.
Thank goodness I don't have to choose one or the other forever.0 -
peter56765 wrote: »carolynmo1969 wrote: »For me, a healthy heart muscle is more important than shapely delts. However, since I mix up cardio and strength training, I'm getting to be smoking hot on the inside and out.
This. As I get older, looking ripped is less and less important to me, but a strong heart muscle is something I still want.
This absolutely. Id rather be fit including having a good cv system and lowering the risk of heart disease or a weak heart. I do both, but quite a bit of cardio. Why on earth wouldnt you want a good cv system?
How's says that I don't? And where did I say I didn't?
Dude it wasnt addressed to you. U was expressing agreement with those 2 posters.0 -
Mezzie1024 wrote: »Cardio makes me happy, as does eating, so I'd opt for exercise + more food most days. That said, some days are crazy and others are lazy (especially when I've got a good book to read), so focusing entirely on calories has its place as well.
Thank goodness I don't have to choose one or the other forever.
Agree 100 % find what works and maintain it. Make life easy
0 -
peter56765 wrote: »carolynmo1969 wrote: »For me, a healthy heart muscle is more important than shapely delts. However, since I mix up cardio and strength training, I'm getting to be smoking hot on the inside and out.
This. As I get older, looking ripped is less and less important to me, but a strong heart muscle is something I still want.
This absolutely. Id rather be fit including having a good cv system and lowering the risk of heart disease or a weak heart. I do both, but quite a bit of cardio. Why on earth wouldnt you want a good cv system?
How's says that I don't? And where did I say I didn't?
Dude it wasnt addressed to you. U was expressing agreement with those 2 posters.
Oops my bad
0 -
angelasfree1 wrote: »Definitely do more cardio! I find the more exercise I do, the less inclined I am to binge on bad foods!
0 -
CharlieRuns7225 wrote: »
I understand what calculator you used, can you explain what is in the calculation of 1983 calories ?
That's what I burn sedentary based on no movement. Doing nothing this is what my body burns.What does not eating for 3 or 5 hours have to do with anything? = Based on your BMR you could burn equivalent calories per hour instead of jogging or doing cardio.
Basal Metabolic Rate is measured under the following conditions:
The person is lying at rest.
The person has just awoken from a normal overnight sleep.
Ten to 12 hours have elapsed since the person's last meal
No physical activity has taken place - usually for 12-18 hours.
Your calculator does not represent the basic physiological functions such as breathing and blood circulation.
BMR cannot be measured correctly with an on-line calculator.
BMR and RMR are often used interchangeably, but differ slightly, RMR is measured three to four hours after a person eats or does significant physical work. RMR tends to be somewhat higher than BMR and is more practical for measuring.
RMR is tipically 60-75% of your energy expenditure. 10% thermic effect of food and 15-30% Physical activity.
Things that can increase RMR are: higher total body weight, gender, ambient temperature, caffeine, smoking, increased lean body mass, pregnancy, hyperthyroidism, some medications, genetics.
Things that can decrease RMR are: aging, gender, fasting / starvation, hypothyroidism, sleep, some medications, and genetics.
Which brings me to my problem with your statement, " Based on your BMR you could burn equivalent calories per hour instead of jogging or doing cardio. " An average 80 KG (175 lb) person burns approximately 95 calories per hour sleeping or doing absolutely nothing. The same person burns 1273 calories per hour running @ 10 miles per hour.
Lets use your Quote:
My BMR being Sedentary is 1983 Calories per day. So if you divide that by 24 hours (1 Day) 1983 divided by 24 = 82.625 Calories per hour being burnt over a 24hour period (And use I know we sleep and metab etc but keeping things simple) So lets say if I don't eat 3 hours i would burn 3x 82.625 = 247.875 Calories. Or say I don't eat for 5 hours thats 413 Calories! Now how long would i have to walk or jog on the treadmill to gain the same calorie loss?
To answer your question. Your 5 hours is equivalent to, "about 20 Minutes of my running" @ 1273 per hour / 60 minutes X 20 minutes = 424 calories which leaves me with 11 more calories. PLUS the next 4 hours and 40 minutes of calories being burned, which is higher than your RMR because of, " EPOC, " Excess, Post-Exercise, Oxygen, Consumption: a state where the body is burning more calories following exercise than BEFORE the exercise was initiated: Following exercise, the body must utilize increased amounts of oxygen to replenish energy supplies, lower tissue temperature, and return the body to a resting state, all of which requires calories to do.
I'm sorry it had to end this way, I hope I entertained you but your statement is incorrect. I'm glad to here that what ever it is, its working for you, but it would never work for me and I commend you for defending it all day. Well done !
0 -
BILLBRYTAN wrote: »
But that doesn't change the fact that for the vast majority of people**, a small eating window will make no noticeable difference compared to eating the same calories in some other pattern.
I used to believe this until I researched intermittent fasting and actually tried it.
Agree with you there Bill
0 -
Cardio.
I lost 22kg without counting calories, without significantly changing my diet, and without a single scale check other than the first last summer and then again ten days ago when I finally bought a scale for the house.
I've dropped four belt notches, two+ pant sizes, my resting heart rate is 50, I've got more energy, more drive, sleep better, and I'm super motivated.
I knew that I could drop weight, and improve fitness, with running. Fitness is as important to me as weight or how I look and feel in my skin.
Could i have arrived at this point faster by counting calories in as well as cardio calories out? Yes, absolutely, but early on I doubt I was ready to take on both. With success in hand, it's easy(er). 18kg to go. 0 -
CharlieRuns7225 wrote: »CharlieRuns7225 wrote: »
I understand what calculator you used, can you explain what is in the calculation of 1983 calories ?
That's what I burn sedentary based on no movement. Doing nothing this is what my body burns.What does not eating for 3 or 5 hours have to do with anything? = Based on your BMR you could burn equivalent calories per hour instead of jogging or doing cardio.
Basal Metabolic Rate is measured under the following conditions:
The person is lying at rest.
The person has just awoken from a normal overnight sleep.
Ten to 12 hours have elapsed since the person's last meal
No physical activity has taken place - usually for 12-18 hours.
Your calculator does not represent the basic physiological functions such as breathing and blood circulation.
BMR cannot be measured correctly with an on-line calculator.
BMR and RMR are often used interchangeably, but differ slightly, RMR is measured three to four hours after a person eats or does significant physical work. RMR tends to be somewhat higher than BMR and is more practical for measuring.
RMR is tipically 60-75% of your energy expenditure. 10% thermic effect of food and 15-30% Physical activity.
Things that can increase RMR are: higher total body weight, gender, ambient temperature, caffeine, smoking, increased lean body mass, pregnancy, hyperthyroidism, some medications, genetics.
Things that can decrease RMR are: aging, gender, fasting / starvation, hypothyroidism, sleep, some medications, and genetics.
Which brings me to my problem with your statement, " Based on your BMR you could burn equivalent calories per hour instead of jogging or doing cardio. " An average 80 KG (175 lb) person burns approximately 95 calories per hour sleeping or doing absolutely nothing. The same person burns 1273 calories per hour running @ 10 miles per hour.
Lets use your Quote:
My BMR being Sedentary is 1983 Calories per day. So if you divide that by 24 hours (1 Day) 1983 divided by 24 = 82.625 Calories per hour being burnt over a 24hour period (And use I know we sleep and metab etc but keeping things simple) So lets say if I don't eat 3 hours i would burn 3x 82.625 = 247.875 Calories. Or say I don't eat for 5 hours thats 413 Calories! Now how long would i have to walk or jog on the treadmill to gain the same calorie loss?
To answer your question. Your 5 hours is equivalent to, "about 20 Minutes of my running" @ 1273 per hour / 60 minutes X 20 minutes = 424 calories which leaves me with 11 more calories. PLUS the next 4 hours and 40 minutes of calories being burned, which is higher than your RMR because of, " EPOC, " Excess, Post-Exercise, Oxygen, Consumption: a state where the body is burning more calories following exercise than BEFORE the exercise was initiated: Following exercise, the body must utilize increased amounts of oxygen to replenish energy supplies, lower tissue temperature, and return the body to a resting state, all of which requires calories to do.
I'm sorry it had to end this way, I hope I entertained you but your statement is incorrect. I'm glad to here that what ever it is, its working for you, but it would never work for me and I commend you for defending it all day. Well done !
Meanwhile...
Please go Find a Sharp tip of an object and touch it............... Because you are missing the point.
The Basic reason for the post was to give a perspective/approach on how one might be thinking.. to aid in their mission to achieve a desired goal. IF thinking this way helps then take it on board and utilise it. like it did for me. you can argue my concept but not my results and my results are from my concept.
I see others have grasped the idea and my perspective by you lack somewhat.
You said the following:*
Basal Metabolic Rate is measured under the following conditions:
The person is lying at rest.
The person has just awoken from a normal overnight sleep.
Ten to 12 hours have elapsed since the person's last meal
No physical activity has taken place - usually for 12-18 hours.
Your calculator does not represent the basic physiological functions such as breathing and blood circulation.
BMR cannot be measured correctly with an on-line calculator.
BMR and RMR are often used interchangeably, but differ slightly, RMR is measured three to four hours after a person eats or does significant physical work. RMR tends to be somewhat higher than BMR and is more practical for measuring.
RMR is tipically 60-75% of your energy expenditure. 10% thermic effect of food and 15-30% Physical activity.
ANSWER:
"OK, Thank you for sharing?" lol? Did I ask for a technical break down. No, as its not needed to achieve the result in my example. As I understand what I am saying, But I do see that you asked for one in pretence. That I may be misinforming people. No. This says more about you than me. Please RE- read posts from myself and other members to aid in understanding my stance/Opinions on the INTENTION of this post/Subject.
Secondly:
You said the following:*
(Your calculator does not represent the basic physiological functions such as breathing and blood circulation.
BMR cannot be measured correctly with an on-line calculator)
ANSWER:
"Oh really you don't say lol?" Its an online calculator, That's a no BRAINER??? There to give basics to aid people in the right direction.. Getting a basic example of where your BMR sit's is not a problem or a dissolution to stop you from forming an idea/understanding* about your BMR - Never did I say anything other wise
Once again I'm confused about the aspect of "you providing this information" at this point.
Moving ahead...
Thirdly:
You Said:
(To answer your question. Your 5 hours is equivalent to, "about 20 Minutes of my running" @ 1273 per hour / 60 minutes X 20 minutes = 424 calories which leaves me with 11 more calories. PLUS the next 4 hours and 40 minutes of calories being burned, which is higher than your RMR because of, " EPOC, " Excess, Post-Exercise, Oxygen, Consumption: a state where the body is burning more calories following exercise than BEFORE the exercise was initiated: Following exercise, the body must utilize increased amounts of oxygen to replenish energy supplies, lower tissue temperature, and return the body to a resting state, all of which requires calories to do)
ANSWER:
"Thanks for the general basic knowledge and I am aware that your metabolic rate is raised somewhat after Exercise. What I say still stands however. and is very efficient" This does not negate the basis of my example in its simplest form.
You run. 424. (Raising of metabolic rate)
I don't. 413.
This does not change the fact of asking people to view the perspective.
Moving on...
You Said the following:
(Things that can decrease RMR are: aging, gender, fasting / starvation, hypothyroidism, sleep, some medications, and genetics)
For some reason more information you feel the need to expend? lol I wont even start on the Fasting Subject here.
Lastly:
You finished with the following:
I'm sorry it had to end this way, I hope I entertained you but your statement is incorrect. I'm glad to here that what ever it is, its working for you, but it would never work for me and I commend you for defending it all day. Well done !
Answer:
"I'm sorry it had to end this way?"
Yes, That you failed to understand the basic and fundamental position of this post, and spend time unessarily justifying yourself. I am sorry also.
And....by the way? As you have ALOT of KNOWLEDGE to SHARE and Hope to ENTERTAIN.
What advice/perspective do you have for me wanting to maintain single digit body fat year round with minimal effort, without worrying too much about food, but holding muscle mass and not losing strength. While doing little to no Cardio
I'm Eager to learn more from you please share.
0 -
Cardio.
I lost 22kg without counting calories, without significantly changing my diet, and without a single scale check other than the first last summer and then again ten days ago when I finally bought a scale for the house.
I've dropped four belt notches, two+ pant sizes, my resting heart rate is 50, I've got more energy, more drive, sleep better, and I'm super motivated.
I knew that I could drop weight, and improve fitness, with running. Fitness is as important to me as weight or how I look and feel in my skin.
Could i have arrived at this point faster by counting calories in as well as cardio calories out? Yes, absolutely, but early on I doubt I was ready to take on both. With success in hand, it's easy(er). 18kg to go.
That's Awesome keep it up 0 -
@mtvstaff i still don't know what your "concept" is.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392.9K Introduce Yourself
- 43.7K Getting Started
- 260.1K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.8K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 415 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.9K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.6K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.5K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions