The truth about calories tv series
Options
Replies
-
I watched this back in April here in the UK. The calorie burn test is very subjuctive! If I remember correctly it was 1 hour gym workout vs the morning cleaning the whole house. How can you compare? It's not the same time unit. Also my point of view was surely you should do the hour at the gym then go home and do the house work anyway. What wrong with doing both! The house work is every day life for most of us any way.0
-
Was it good? Did they explain how they measure calories? That's something I'd like to see. I have precious little knowledge about how they come up with how many calories are in this or that. I know what a "calorie" represents, but the actual process of measuring and totaling is something I'd enjoy watching.0
-
louise5779 wrote: »I watched this back in April here in the UK. The calorie burn test is very subjuctive! If I remember correctly it was 1 hour gym workout vs the morning cleaning the whole house. How can you compare? It's not the same time unit. Also my point of view was surely you should do the hour at the gym then go home and do the house work anyway. What wrong with doing both! The house work is every day life for most of us any way.
Didn't watch it. If their claim approximates as "you can burn as much in four hours of walking around as with one hour of running" - yeah, there's considerable validity to that. It would scale to something around 3 hours of casual walking around for 45 minutes of 30DS or etc.
0 -
Blueseraphchaos wrote: »I'd say anyone on here who has lost weight by counting calories will find this show to be particularly worthless, lol
Truth
0 -
Was it good? Did they explain how they measure calories? That's something I'd like to see. I have precious little knowledge about how they come up with how many calories are in this or that. I know what a "calorie" represents, but the actual process of measuring and totaling is something I'd enjoy watching.
It was good. I sat with the kids and it was a good vehicle for discussing energy in and energy out. I don't want them to end up counting calories as such but to be aware of why some choices are better than others (in a non calorie counting population to maintain weight). They did show how they come up with the numbers.
It really hit home with the kids I think how a little extra every day over the course of a year can add up. Eg, they were quite shocked at his dismay at the serving size of Doritos (for an experiment and he saw it as too large) - the kids thought it was too small. So Dad pulls out a bag of chips and we showed them a serving size (approx 15chips). Kids were disgusted - way too small lol. So then we discussed how some foods are better to think of as purely for taste...if you are truly hungry eat something satisfying first. Anyhow, big discussion in all areas. I know they won't have grasped it all but It was worth it.
0 -
DeguelloTex wrote: »What was the truth about calories, then? That they should be delicious?
Yes but perhaps swap for less dense calorie options in cooking without sacrificing delish (this is non calorie counting context).0 -
louise5779 wrote: »I watched this back in April here in the UK. The calorie burn test is very subjuctive! If I remember correctly it was 1 hour gym workout vs the morning cleaning the whole house. How can you compare? It's not the same time unit. Also my point of view was surely you should do the hour at the gym then go home and do the house work anyway. What wrong with doing both! The house work is every day life for most of us any way.
Didn't watch it. If their claim approximates as "you can burn as much in four hours of walking around as with one hour of running" - yeah, there's considerable validity to that. It would scale to something around 3 hours of casual walking around for 45 minutes of 30DS or etc.
NEAT is undervalued? For some it can make a big difference to get that NEAT up to "average"? In the very beginning I know it made a difference to think of averaging my NEAT at least. Less overwhelming when I realised moving more was simply that - not aerobicise till I die.
Not arguing just thinking out loud.0 -
There wasn't anything on the show that I hadn't already learned here. Next weeks sugar episode should be interesting tho, as this is always a huge debate here..0
-
louise5779 wrote: »I watched this back in April here in the UK. The calorie burn test is very subjuctive! If I remember correctly it was 1 hour gym workout vs the morning cleaning the whole house. How can you compare? It's not the same time unit. Also my point of view was surely you should do the hour at the gym then go home and do the house work anyway. What wrong with doing both! The house work is every day life for most of us any way.
Didn't watch it. If their claim approximates as "you can burn as much in four hours of walking around as with one hour of running" - yeah, there's considerable validity to that. It would scale to something around 3 hours of casual walking around for 45 minutes of 30DS or etc.
NEAT is undervalued? For some it can make a big difference to get that NEAT up to "average"? In the very beginning I know it made a difference to think of averaging my NEAT at least. Less overwhelming when I realised moving more was simply that - not aerobicise till I die.
Not arguing just thinking out loud.
NEAT shouldn't be undervalued. The military figured this out ages ago - boot camp isn't hard because you have PT a few mornings a week, it's hard because you spend 10 hours a day on your feet in low intensity movement. That burn adds up...0 -
louise5779 wrote: »I watched this back in April here in the UK. The calorie burn test is very subjuctive! If I remember correctly it was 1 hour gym workout vs the morning cleaning the whole house. How can you compare? It's not the same time unit. Also my point of view was surely you should do the hour at the gym then go home and do the house work anyway. What wrong with doing both! The house work is every day life for most of us any way.
Didn't watch it. If their claim approximates as "you can burn as much in four hours of walking around as with one hour of running" - yeah, there's considerable validity to that. It would scale to something around 3 hours of casual walking around for 45 minutes of 30DS or etc.
NEAT is undervalued? For some it can make a big difference to get that NEAT up to "average"? In the very beginning I know it made a difference to think of averaging my NEAT at least. Less overwhelming when I realised moving more was simply that - not aerobicise till I die.
Not arguing just thinking out loud.
NEAT shouldn't be undervalued. The military figured this out ages ago - boot camp isn't hard because you have PT a few mornings a week, it's hard because you spend 10 hours a day on your feet in low intensity movement. That burn adds up...
That's what I've been thinking. NEAT is more sustainable for the average Joe. Plus it has knock on effect...being more organised, clearing head and suddenly realising you can fit in extra enjoyable activity. Read that Lyle McDonald article (ages old but I think you'd have seen it too) re...people exercise and then crash on couch rest of day...basically wipe out exercise benefit or at least lessen the burn factor.
And then I think of ageing and how our pace/fidget factor decreases without being conscious of it. 1/2hour walking to compensate....so I can see the value in making something like that a life long habit.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
- 398 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
- 976 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions