Saw Something On The News This Morning About Exercise Being More Important Than Diet
Replies
-
I have never seen a point get so lost amongst noise in my whole life.
Coke is attempting to promote the notion that you can out-exercise over consumption of calories in order to boost lagging sales.
Instead of being appalled by that, I'm seeing a bunch of posts with people arguing about the benefits of exercise.
I don't get it.
You can't out-exercise the over-consumption of calories. This is a point people were making earlier in the thread and they got told they were ignoring the CO part of the equation. What the what now? If you keep eating more than you're burning, what's going to happen?
It's always down to eating less than you burn.
Exercise is great. I do an awful lot of it because it helps me keep my energy levels up and manages my pain levels with some medical conditions I have ... the more I do, the better I feel. Yay me. But I still watch my calories like a hawk.
I'm not going to be swallowing Coke's message any time soon.0 -
PeachyCarol wrote: »I have never seen a point get so lost amongst noise in my whole life.
Coke is attempting to promote the notion that you can out-exercise over consumption of calories in order to boost lagging sales.
Instead of being appalled by that, I'm seeing a bunch of posts with people arguing about the benefits of exercise.
I don't get it.
You can't out-exercise the over-consumption of calories. This is a point people were making earlier in the thread and they got told they were ignoring the CO part of the equation. What the what now? If you keep eating more than you're burning, what's going to happen?
It's always down to eating less than you burn.
Exercise is great. I do an awful lot of it because it helps me keep my energy levels up and manages my pain levels with some medical conditions I have ... the more I do, the better I feel. Yay me. But I still watch my calories like a hawk.
I'm not going to be swallowing Coke's message any time soon.
Agree! It's true most ppl don't exercise enough. But most of the problem is calories in. I am at 160 calories burnt after going for a 40 minute walk. I can't imagine how much I would need to move to burn off a big gulp
https://theconversation.com/big-sodas-tactics-to-confuse-science-and-protect-their-profits-459070 -
PeachyCarol wrote: »I have never seen a point get so lost amongst noise in my whole life.
Coke is attempting to promote the notion that you can out-exercise over consumption of calories in order to boost lagging sales.
Instead of being appalled by that, I'm seeing a bunch of posts with people arguing about the benefits of exercise.
I don't get it.
You can't out-exercise the over-consumption of calories. This is a point people were making earlier in the thread and they got told they were ignoring the CO part of the equation. What the what now? If you keep eating more than you're burning, what's going to happen?
It's always down to eating less than you burn.
Exercise is great. I do an awful lot of it because it helps me keep my energy levels up and manages my pain levels with some medical conditions I have ... the more I do, the better I feel. Yay me. But I still watch my calories like a hawk.
I'm not going to be swallowing Coke's message any time soon.
Agree! It's true most ppl don't exercise enough. But most of the problem is calories in. I am at 160 calories burnt after going for a 40 minute walk. I can't imagine how much I would need to move to burn off a big gulp
https://theconversation.com/big-sodas-tactics-to-confuse-science-and-protect-their-profits-45907
Well, you mentioning how many calories you burned brings up another point, that of tracking one's energy expended exercising.
Most people exercising are unaware of the energy balance involved at all.
It's already been brought up on here that exercise causes a good percentage of people to actually eat more because they think they've "earned it". Most of them are blissfully unaware of how many calories they actually earned or how many calories they're eating when they indulge that impulse to eat what they think they've "earned"
Some forms of exercise increase some people's appetites as well.
Some people are fortunate and naturally balance their energy needs. Some people need to pay better attention to the numbers. If you're not aware of your energy balance on both the CI and CO side, there's likely to be a problem if you have existing weight issues.
0 -
PeachyCarol wrote: »I have never seen a point get so lost amongst noise in my whole life.
Coke is attempting to promote the notion that you can out-exercise over consumption of calories in order to boost lagging sales.
Instead of being appalled by that, I'm seeing a bunch of posts with people arguing about the benefits of exercise.
I don't get it.
You can't out-exercise the over-consumption of calories. This is a point people were making earlier in the thread and they got told they were ignoring the CO part of the equation. What the what now? If you keep eating more than you're burning, what's going to happen?
It's always down to eating less than you burn.
Exercise is great. I do an awful lot of it because it helps me keep my energy levels up and manages my pain levels with some medical conditions I have ... the more I do, the better I feel. Yay me. But I still watch my calories like a hawk.
I'm not going to be swallowing Coke's message any time soon.
Why cant it come down to "burning more than you eat"?
I think part of the problem is that many people see things only one way, and that limits them to only one way reaching and maintaining their goals.
People can use the CO part as resting calories only, but these are the calories that we burn just to exist and be alive.
Or
People can use the CO part to their advantage by exercising, and adding more calories so they are able to eat enough variety to get what their body needs to stay healthy. This is way too much of an advantage to just ignore, and it only takes 5 to 7 hours a week. 3 to 4 hours of cardio, and 2 to 3 hours of muscular.
And IMO, its the difference between just being alive, and feeling alive.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
PeachyCarol wrote: »I have never seen a point get so lost amongst noise in my whole life.
Coke is attempting to promote the notion that you can out-exercise over consumption of calories in order to boost lagging sales.
Instead of being appalled by that, I'm seeing a bunch of posts with people arguing about the benefits of exercise.
I don't get it.
You can't out-exercise the over-consumption of calories. This is a point people were making earlier in the thread and they got told they were ignoring the CO part of the equation. What the what now? If you keep eating more than you're burning, what's going to happen?
It's always down to eating less than you burn.
Exercise is great. I do an awful lot of it because it helps me keep my energy levels up and manages my pain levels with some medical conditions I have ... the more I do, the better I feel. Yay me. But I still watch my calories like a hawk.
I'm not going to be swallowing Coke's message any time soon.
Agree! It's true most ppl don't exercise enough. But most of the problem is calories in. I am at 160 calories burnt after going for a 40 minute walk. I can't imagine how much I would need to move to burn off a big gulp
https://theconversation.com/big-sodas-tactics-to-confuse-science-and-protect-their-profits-45907
I just did a 53 minute walk and burned 401 calories. Earlier today I did 3 miles on my kayak and burned 428 calories. I also have a 68 calorie adjustment from steps on my activity tracker. So I have 897 exercise calories so far today. If you add them to my goal calories of 1580 that is 2477 calories, and the 500 and some odd calories that MFP minuses to lose 1 lb. per are already taken out. I have had breakfast and lunch which totals 919 calories, so I still have 1558 calories to eat. I will probably eat anywhere from 500 to 800 calories for dinner and a snack, so I will end up with 800 to 1,000 calories left over today.
How fast a pace do you walk?
That seems like a big difference in calories for only 13 minutes difference in time.0 -
PeachyCarol wrote: »I have never seen a point get so lost amongst noise in my whole life.
Coke is attempting to promote the notion that you can out-exercise over consumption of calories in order to boost lagging sales.
Instead of being appalled by that, I'm seeing a bunch of posts with people arguing about the benefits of exercise.
I don't get it.
You can't out-exercise the over-consumption of calories. This is a point people were making earlier in the thread and they got told they were ignoring the CO part of the equation. What the what now? If you keep eating more than you're burning, what's going to happen?
It's always down to eating less than you burn.
Exercise is great. I do an awful lot of it because it helps me keep my energy levels up and manages my pain levels with some medical conditions I have ... the more I do, the better I feel. Yay me. But I still watch my calories like a hawk.
I'm not going to be swallowing Coke's message any time soon.
By no means should my questioning a CI-centric statement be construed as support of Coke. Coke is doing the same thing, on the other side of the equation.
0 -
It can. However, for most people, most of the time, it simply isn't feasible to burn enough to offset even relatively small amounts of calories.bcalvanese wrote: »PeachyCarol wrote: »I have never seen a point get so lost amongst noise in my whole life.
Coke is attempting to promote the notion that you can out-exercise over consumption of calories in order to boost lagging sales.
Instead of being appalled by that, I'm seeing a bunch of posts with people arguing about the benefits of exercise.
I don't get it.
You can't out-exercise the over-consumption of calories. This is a point people were making earlier in the thread and they got told they were ignoring the CO part of the equation. What the what now? If you keep eating more than you're burning, what's going to happen?
It's always down to eating less than you burn.
Exercise is great. I do an awful lot of it because it helps me keep my energy levels up and manages my pain levels with some medical conditions I have ... the more I do, the better I feel. Yay me. But I still watch my calories like a hawk.
I'm not going to be swallowing Coke's message any time soon.
Why cant it come down to "burning more than you eat"?.
How long would you have to walk or run just to offset, say, four Oreos and a cup of whole milk? A 32 ounce Coke? A protein-style Double-Double at In-n-Out, even without fries or a sweetened drink?
0 -
I started this thread because I think it is a subject that needs to be talked about.
So far there are many good points, and weather we agree on certain things or not, it opens all our minds up to new possibilities, and new ways of thinking about things.
Way to go everyone.0 -
PeachyCarol wrote: »I have never seen a point get so lost amongst noise in my whole life.
Coke is attempting to promote the notion that you can out-exercise over consumption of calories in order to boost lagging sales.
Instead of being appalled by that, I'm seeing a bunch of posts with people arguing about the benefits of exercise.
I don't get it.
You can't out-exercise the over-consumption of calories. This is a point people were making earlier in the thread and they got told they were ignoring the CO part of the equation. What the what now? If you keep eating more than you're burning, what's going to happen?
It's always down to eating less than you burn.
Exercise is great. I do an awful lot of it because it helps me keep my energy levels up and manages my pain levels with some medical conditions I have ... the more I do, the better I feel. Yay me. But I still watch my calories like a hawk.
I'm not going to be swallowing Coke's message any time soon.
Agree! It's true most ppl don't exercise enough. But most of the problem is calories in. I am at 160 calories burnt after going for a 40 minute walk. I can't imagine how much I would need to move to burn off a big gulp
https://theconversation.com/big-sodas-tactics-to-confuse-science-and-protect-their-profits-45907
Yep. When I gained 50 lbs in the last year and a half before committing myself to losing weight....I was exercising on average at least 60 minutes daily. How is that so? DUM DUM DUM.
It's easy. I was eating more than I was burning.
Or you were burning less than you were eating. Depends on how you look at it.0 -
How long would it take you to burn a legitimate 500 net calories -- not double counting your BMR burn -- a day, every day, to lose a pound a week?bcalvanese wrote: »PeachyCarol wrote: »I have never seen a point get so lost amongst noise in my whole life.
Coke is attempting to promote the notion that you can out-exercise over consumption of calories in order to boost lagging sales.
Instead of being appalled by that, I'm seeing a bunch of posts with people arguing about the benefits of exercise.
I don't get it.
You can't out-exercise the over-consumption of calories. This is a point people were making earlier in the thread and they got told they were ignoring the CO part of the equation. What the what now? If you keep eating more than you're burning, what's going to happen?
It's always down to eating less than you burn.
Exercise is great. I do an awful lot of it because it helps me keep my energy levels up and manages my pain levels with some medical conditions I have ... the more I do, the better I feel. Yay me. But I still watch my calories like a hawk.
I'm not going to be swallowing Coke's message any time soon.
Agree! It's true most ppl don't exercise enough. But most of the problem is calories in. I am at 160 calories burnt after going for a 40 minute walk. I can't imagine how much I would need to move to burn off a big gulp
https://theconversation.com/big-sodas-tactics-to-confuse-science-and-protect-their-profits-45907
Yep. When I gained 50 lbs in the last year and a half before committing myself to losing weight....I was exercising on average at least 60 minutes daily. How is that so? DUM DUM DUM.
It's easy. I was eating more than I was burning.
Or you were burning less than you were eating. Depends on how you look at it.
0 -
This content has been removed.
-
I'd take any studies funded by coca cola with a big heaping of scepticism...0
-
bcalvanese wrote: »PeachyCarol wrote: »I have never seen a point get so lost amongst noise in my whole life.
Coke is attempting to promote the notion that you can out-exercise over consumption of calories in order to boost lagging sales.
Instead of being appalled by that, I'm seeing a bunch of posts with people arguing about the benefits of exercise.
I don't get it.
You can't out-exercise the over-consumption of calories. This is a point people were making earlier in the thread and they got told they were ignoring the CO part of the equation. What the what now? If you keep eating more than you're burning, what's going to happen?
It's always down to eating less than you burn.
Exercise is great. I do an awful lot of it because it helps me keep my energy levels up and manages my pain levels with some medical conditions I have ... the more I do, the better I feel. Yay me. But I still watch my calories like a hawk.
I'm not going to be swallowing Coke's message any time soon.
Agree! It's true most ppl don't exercise enough. But most of the problem is calories in. I am at 160 calories burnt after going for a 40 minute walk. I can't imagine how much I would need to move to burn off a big gulp
https://theconversation.com/big-sodas-tactics-to-confuse-science-and-protect-their-profits-45907
Yep. When I gained 50 lbs in the last year and a half before committing myself to losing weight....I was exercising on average at least 60 minutes daily. How is that so? DUM DUM DUM.
It's easy. I was eating more than I was burning.
Or you were burning less than you were eating. Depends on how you look at it.
I was exercising regularly, so I think we know which one it is. Stop playing semantics. I was eating in excess of what my body needed. I was a great example of you can't out run a bad diet. 100%.
I'm now a normal body weight. I am also still exercising regularly. What did I change...I was eating in a caloric deficit. Now I am eating in maintenance.
I'm not playing anything. just pointing out that there are 2 ways to look at the same thing is all.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
If you'll look at how much time and effort it takes to burn a meaningful number of calories, you'll see why one way is more feasible in more cases than the other way. Not eating 500 calories is much easier than burning an extra 500 calories for almost everyone, for example.bcalvanese wrote: »bcalvanese wrote: »PeachyCarol wrote: »I have never seen a point get so lost amongst noise in my whole life.
Coke is attempting to promote the notion that you can out-exercise over consumption of calories in order to boost lagging sales.
Instead of being appalled by that, I'm seeing a bunch of posts with people arguing about the benefits of exercise.
I don't get it.
You can't out-exercise the over-consumption of calories. This is a point people were making earlier in the thread and they got told they were ignoring the CO part of the equation. What the what now? If you keep eating more than you're burning, what's going to happen?
It's always down to eating less than you burn.
Exercise is great. I do an awful lot of it because it helps me keep my energy levels up and manages my pain levels with some medical conditions I have ... the more I do, the better I feel. Yay me. But I still watch my calories like a hawk.
I'm not going to be swallowing Coke's message any time soon.
Agree! It's true most ppl don't exercise enough. But most of the problem is calories in. I am at 160 calories burnt after going for a 40 minute walk. I can't imagine how much I would need to move to burn off a big gulp
https://theconversation.com/big-sodas-tactics-to-confuse-science-and-protect-their-profits-45907
Yep. When I gained 50 lbs in the last year and a half before committing myself to losing weight....I was exercising on average at least 60 minutes daily. How is that so? DUM DUM DUM.
It's easy. I was eating more than I was burning.
Or you were burning less than you were eating. Depends on how you look at it.
I was exercising regularly, so I think we know which one it is. Stop playing semantics. I was eating in excess of what my body needed. I was a great example of you can't out run a bad diet. 100%.
I'm now a normal body weight. I am also still exercising regularly. What did I change...I was eating in a caloric deficit. Now I am eating in maintenance.
I'm not playing anything. just pointing out that there are 2 ways to look at the same thing is all.
0 -
Are you doubting the intentions of The Coca Cola Company?christinev297 wrote: »I'd take any studies funded by coca cola with a big heaping of scepticism...
All they're trying to do is help humanity just as they have always done in the tireless and selfless effort to make our world a better place.
In other news...the moon is made of Swiss cheese...
0 -
bcalvanese wrote: »PeachyCarol wrote: »I have never seen a point get so lost amongst noise in my whole life.
Coke is attempting to promote the notion that you can out-exercise over consumption of calories in order to boost lagging sales.
Instead of being appalled by that, I'm seeing a bunch of posts with people arguing about the benefits of exercise.
I don't get it.
You can't out-exercise the over-consumption of calories. This is a point people were making earlier in the thread and they got told they were ignoring the CO part of the equation. What the what now? If you keep eating more than you're burning, what's going to happen?
It's always down to eating less than you burn.
Exercise is great. I do an awful lot of it because it helps me keep my energy levels up and manages my pain levels with some medical conditions I have ... the more I do, the better I feel. Yay me. But I still watch my calories like a hawk.
I'm not going to be swallowing Coke's message any time soon.
Agree! It's true most ppl don't exercise enough. But most of the problem is calories in. I am at 160 calories burnt after going for a 40 minute walk. I can't imagine how much I would need to move to burn off a big gulp
https://theconversation.com/big-sodas-tactics-to-confuse-science-and-protect-their-profits-45907
I just did a 53 minute walk and burned 401 calories. Earlier today I did 3 miles on my kayak and burned 428 calories. I also have a 68 calorie adjustment from steps on my activity tracker. So I have 897 exercise calories so far today. If you add them to my goal calories of 1580 that is 2477 calories, and the 500 and some odd calories that MFP minuses to lose 1 lb. per are already taken out. I have had breakfast and lunch which totals 919 calories, so I still have 1558 calories to eat. I will probably eat anywhere from 500 to 800 calories for dinner and a snack, so I will end up with 800 to 1,000 calories left over today.
How fast a pace do you walk?
That seems like a big difference in calories for only 13 minutes difference in time.
Bodyweight makes a big difference in calories burned from walking.
Of course, lots of walking estimates grossly overstate calories burned.
For me, 897 calories would be running about 9.5-10 miles, except even that counts the calories I would have burned anyway. To get a true 897 additional calories it would have to be even more. I don't count adjustments from steps other than in my daily overall activity.
Also, I exercise quite a lot, and at 2477 calories I'd be gaining weight.0 -
Now, if they could go back to putting cocaine in it, they might have a weight loss formula.Pinnacle_IAO wrote: »
Are you doubting the intentions of The Coca Cola Company?christinev297 wrote: »I'd take any studies funded by coca cola with a big heaping of scepticism...
All they're trying to do is help humanity just as they have always done in the tireless and selfless effort to make our world a better place.
In other news...the moon is made of Swiss cheese...
0 -
DeguelloTex wrote: »
How long would it take you to burn a legitimate 500 net calories -- not double counting your BMR burn -- a day, every day, to lose a pound a week?bcalvanese wrote: »PeachyCarol wrote: »I have never seen a point get so lost amongst noise in my whole life.
Coke is attempting to promote the notion that you can out-exercise over consumption of calories in order to boost lagging sales.
Instead of being appalled by that, I'm seeing a bunch of posts with people arguing about the benefits of exercise.
I don't get it.
You can't out-exercise the over-consumption of calories. This is a point people were making earlier in the thread and they got told they were ignoring the CO part of the equation. What the what now? If you keep eating more than you're burning, what's going to happen?
It's always down to eating less than you burn.
Exercise is great. I do an awful lot of it because it helps me keep my energy levels up and manages my pain levels with some medical conditions I have ... the more I do, the better I feel. Yay me. But I still watch my calories like a hawk.
I'm not going to be swallowing Coke's message any time soon.
Agree! It's true most ppl don't exercise enough. But most of the problem is calories in. I am at 160 calories burnt after going for a 40 minute walk. I can't imagine how much I would need to move to burn off a big gulp
https://theconversation.com/big-sodas-tactics-to-confuse-science-and-protect-their-profits-45907
Yep. When I gained 50 lbs in the last year and a half before committing myself to losing weight....I was exercising on average at least 60 minutes daily. How is that so? DUM DUM DUM.
It's easy. I was eating more than I was burning.
Or you were burning less than you were eating. Depends on how you look at it.
I can easily burn that much in an hour walking at close to a 4mph pace. Almost that much in an hour of kayaking, and more than that in an hour of biking.
I walk every day, ride my bike 2 to 3 times a week, and kayak 2 to 3 times a week. So most days I burn 800 to 1,000 calories, some times more.0 -
Not unless you weigh around 300 pounds you can't.bcalvanese wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
How long would it take you to burn a legitimate 500 net calories -- not double counting your BMR burn -- a day, every day, to lose a pound a week?bcalvanese wrote: »PeachyCarol wrote: »I have never seen a point get so lost amongst noise in my whole life.
Coke is attempting to promote the notion that you can out-exercise over consumption of calories in order to boost lagging sales.
Instead of being appalled by that, I'm seeing a bunch of posts with people arguing about the benefits of exercise.
I don't get it.
You can't out-exercise the over-consumption of calories. This is a point people were making earlier in the thread and they got told they were ignoring the CO part of the equation. What the what now? If you keep eating more than you're burning, what's going to happen?
It's always down to eating less than you burn.
Exercise is great. I do an awful lot of it because it helps me keep my energy levels up and manages my pain levels with some medical conditions I have ... the more I do, the better I feel. Yay me. But I still watch my calories like a hawk.
I'm not going to be swallowing Coke's message any time soon.
Agree! It's true most ppl don't exercise enough. But most of the problem is calories in. I am at 160 calories burnt after going for a 40 minute walk. I can't imagine how much I would need to move to burn off a big gulp
https://theconversation.com/big-sodas-tactics-to-confuse-science-and-protect-their-profits-45907
Yep. When I gained 50 lbs in the last year and a half before committing myself to losing weight....I was exercising on average at least 60 minutes daily. How is that so? DUM DUM DUM.
It's easy. I was eating more than I was burning.
Or you were burning less than you were eating. Depends on how you look at it.
I can easily burn that much in an hour walking at close to a 4mph pace.
I'm in the 220s and I burn about 500 calories -- real world, not some online calculator -- if I run for an hour. Maybe. Walking is about half that.
ETA: On my non-running days, I walk 4.5 miles at 4.5 miles per hour. I don't burn close to 500 calories and I am quite likely larger than you are.
0 -
There absolutely two ways of looking at it.bcalvanese wrote: »bcalvanese wrote: »PeachyCarol wrote: »I have never seen a point get so lost amongst noise in my whole life.
Coke is attempting to promote the notion that you can out-exercise over consumption of calories in order to boost lagging sales.
Instead of being appalled by that, I'm seeing a bunch of posts with people arguing about the benefits of exercise.
I don't get it.
You can't out-exercise the over-consumption of calories. This is a point people were making earlier in the thread and they got told they were ignoring the CO part of the equation. What the what now? If you keep eating more than you're burning, what's going to happen?
It's always down to eating less than you burn.
Exercise is great. I do an awful lot of it because it helps me keep my energy levels up and manages my pain levels with some medical conditions I have ... the more I do, the better I feel. Yay me. But I still watch my calories like a hawk.
I'm not going to be swallowing Coke's message any time soon.
Agree! It's true most ppl don't exercise enough. But most of the problem is calories in. I am at 160 calories burnt after going for a 40 minute walk. I can't imagine how much I would need to move to burn off a big gulp
https://theconversation.com/big-sodas-tactics-to-confuse-science-and-protect-their-profits-45907
Yep. When I gained 50 lbs in the last year and a half before committing myself to losing weight....I was exercising on average at least 60 minutes daily. How is that so? DUM DUM DUM.
It's easy. I was eating more than I was burning.
Or you were burning less than you were eating. Depends on how you look at it.
I was exercising regularly, so I think we know which one it is. Stop playing semantics. I was eating in excess of what my body needed. I was a great example of you can't out run a bad diet. 100%.
I'm now a normal body weight. I am also still exercising regularly. What did I change...I was eating in a caloric deficit. Now I am eating in maintenance.
I'm not playing anything. just pointing out that there are 2 ways to look at the same thing is all.
It's my experience, not yours. I was eating in way excess of what my body needed while exercising regularly. That is what was going on. No two ways of looking at it.
A>B or B<A
They're both saying the same thing!
"I ate more calories than I burned" is the same thing as "I burned fewer calories than I ate."
If you're going to trumpet CICO, you have to agree that both parts are included. It's not CI. It's not CO. ITS CICO.
You cannot separate the two. They're bound together. Can't have a CICO theory without both parts.
CICO. It's all CICO.
0 -
You don't have to separate the two to understand that most people don't have the time or the inclination to burn as many calories as it would take to offset what they eat.
There absolutely two ways of looking at it.bcalvanese wrote: »bcalvanese wrote: »PeachyCarol wrote: »I have never seen a point get so lost amongst noise in my whole life.
Coke is attempting to promote the notion that you can out-exercise over consumption of calories in order to boost lagging sales.
Instead of being appalled by that, I'm seeing a bunch of posts with people arguing about the benefits of exercise.
I don't get it.
You can't out-exercise the over-consumption of calories. This is a point people were making earlier in the thread and they got told they were ignoring the CO part of the equation. What the what now? If you keep eating more than you're burning, what's going to happen?
It's always down to eating less than you burn.
Exercise is great. I do an awful lot of it because it helps me keep my energy levels up and manages my pain levels with some medical conditions I have ... the more I do, the better I feel. Yay me. But I still watch my calories like a hawk.
I'm not going to be swallowing Coke's message any time soon.
Agree! It's true most ppl don't exercise enough. But most of the problem is calories in. I am at 160 calories burnt after going for a 40 minute walk. I can't imagine how much I would need to move to burn off a big gulp
https://theconversation.com/big-sodas-tactics-to-confuse-science-and-protect-their-profits-45907
Yep. When I gained 50 lbs in the last year and a half before committing myself to losing weight....I was exercising on average at least 60 minutes daily. How is that so? DUM DUM DUM.
It's easy. I was eating more than I was burning.
Or you were burning less than you were eating. Depends on how you look at it.
I was exercising regularly, so I think we know which one it is. Stop playing semantics. I was eating in excess of what my body needed. I was a great example of you can't out run a bad diet. 100%.
I'm now a normal body weight. I am also still exercising regularly. What did I change...I was eating in a caloric deficit. Now I am eating in maintenance.
I'm not playing anything. just pointing out that there are 2 ways to look at the same thing is all.
It's my experience, not yours. I was eating in way excess of what my body needed while exercising regularly. That is what was going on. No two ways of looking at it.
A>B or B<A
They're both saying the same thing!
"I ate more calories than I burned" is the same thing as "I burned fewer calories than I ate."
If you're going to trumpet CICO, you have to agree that both parts are included. It's not CI. It's not CO. ITS CICO.
You cannot separate the two. They're bound together. Can't have a CICO theory without both parts.
Yes, absolutely, someone can do it either way. Definitely. That doesn't mean they're equally feasible for most people.
0 -
Pinnacle_IAO wrote: »
Are you doubting the intentions of The Coca Cola Company?christinev297 wrote: »I'd take any studies funded by coca cola with a big heaping of scepticism...
All they're trying to do is help humanity just as they have always done in the tireless and selfless effort to make our world a better place.
In other news...the moon is made of Swiss cheese...
ROFL!!!0 -
This content has been removed.
-
DeguelloTex wrote: »
Now, if they could go back to putting cocaine in it, they might have a weight loss formula.Pinnacle_IAO wrote: »
Are you doubting the intentions of The Coca Cola Company?christinev297 wrote: »I'd take any studies funded by coca cola with a big heaping of scepticism...
All they're trying to do is help humanity just as they have always done in the tireless and selfless effort to make our world a better place.
In other news...the moon is made of Swiss cheese...
What makes this even funnier is that I remember those days.
Damn I'm old...
0 -
There absolutely two ways of looking at it.bcalvanese wrote: »bcalvanese wrote: »PeachyCarol wrote: »I have never seen a point get so lost amongst noise in my whole life.
Coke is attempting to promote the notion that you can out-exercise over consumption of calories in order to boost lagging sales.
Instead of being appalled by that, I'm seeing a bunch of posts with people arguing about the benefits of exercise.
I don't get it.
You can't out-exercise the over-consumption of calories. This is a point people were making earlier in the thread and they got told they were ignoring the CO part of the equation. What the what now? If you keep eating more than you're burning, what's going to happen?
It's always down to eating less than you burn.
Exercise is great. I do an awful lot of it because it helps me keep my energy levels up and manages my pain levels with some medical conditions I have ... the more I do, the better I feel. Yay me. But I still watch my calories like a hawk.
I'm not going to be swallowing Coke's message any time soon.
Agree! It's true most ppl don't exercise enough. But most of the problem is calories in. I am at 160 calories burnt after going for a 40 minute walk. I can't imagine how much I would need to move to burn off a big gulp
https://theconversation.com/big-sodas-tactics-to-confuse-science-and-protect-their-profits-45907
Yep. When I gained 50 lbs in the last year and a half before committing myself to losing weight....I was exercising on average at least 60 minutes daily. How is that so? DUM DUM DUM.
It's easy. I was eating more than I was burning.
Or you were burning less than you were eating. Depends on how you look at it.
I was exercising regularly, so I think we know which one it is. Stop playing semantics. I was eating in excess of what my body needed. I was a great example of you can't out run a bad diet. 100%.
I'm now a normal body weight. I am also still exercising regularly. What did I change...I was eating in a caloric deficit. Now I am eating in maintenance.
I'm not playing anything. just pointing out that there are 2 ways to look at the same thing is all.
It's my experience, not yours. I was eating in way excess of what my body needed while exercising regularly. That is what was going on. No two ways of looking at it.
A>B or B<A
They're both saying the same thing!
"I ate more calories than I burned" is the same thing as "I burned fewer calories than I ate."
If you're going to trumpet CICO, you have to agree that both parts are included. It's not CI. It's not CO. ITS CICO.
You cannot separate the two. They're bound together. Can't have a CICO theory without both parts.
CICO. It's all CICO.
Her point was that she was exercising an hour a day at the time. Yes, theoretically she could just exercise even more, but in the real world it was much more feasible for her to cut calories.0 -
I'm not saying anyone needs to exercise. Not here to convince anyone to exercise or not!DeguelloTex wrote: »
You don't have to separate the two to understand that most people don't have the time or the inclination to burn as many calories as it would take to offset what they eat.
There absolutely two ways of looking at it.bcalvanese wrote: »bcalvanese wrote: »PeachyCarol wrote: »I have never seen a point get so lost amongst noise in my whole life.
Coke is attempting to promote the notion that you can out-exercise over consumption of calories in order to boost lagging sales.
Instead of being appalled by that, I'm seeing a bunch of posts with people arguing about the benefits of exercise.
I don't get it.
You can't out-exercise the over-consumption of calories. This is a point people were making earlier in the thread and they got told they were ignoring the CO part of the equation. What the what now? If you keep eating more than you're burning, what's going to happen?
It's always down to eating less than you burn.
Exercise is great. I do an awful lot of it because it helps me keep my energy levels up and manages my pain levels with some medical conditions I have ... the more I do, the better I feel. Yay me. But I still watch my calories like a hawk.
I'm not going to be swallowing Coke's message any time soon.
Agree! It's true most ppl don't exercise enough. But most of the problem is calories in. I am at 160 calories burnt after going for a 40 minute walk. I can't imagine how much I would need to move to burn off a big gulp
https://theconversation.com/big-sodas-tactics-to-confuse-science-and-protect-their-profits-45907
Yep. When I gained 50 lbs in the last year and a half before committing myself to losing weight....I was exercising on average at least 60 minutes daily. How is that so? DUM DUM DUM.
It's easy. I was eating more than I was burning.
Or you were burning less than you were eating. Depends on how you look at it.
I was exercising regularly, so I think we know which one it is. Stop playing semantics. I was eating in excess of what my body needed. I was a great example of you can't out run a bad diet. 100%.
I'm now a normal body weight. I am also still exercising regularly. What did I change...I was eating in a caloric deficit. Now I am eating in maintenance.
I'm not playing anything. just pointing out that there are 2 ways to look at the same thing is all.
It's my experience, not yours. I was eating in way excess of what my body needed while exercising regularly. That is what was going on. No two ways of looking at it.
A>B or B<A
They're both saying the same thing!
"I ate more calories than I burned" is the same thing as "I burned fewer calories than I ate."
If you're going to trumpet CICO, you have to agree that both parts are included. It's not CI. It's not CO. ITS CICO.
You cannot separate the two. They're bound together. Can't have a CICO theory without both parts.
Yes, absolutely, someone can do it either way. Definitely. That doesn't mean they're equally feasible for most people.
Just pointing out that A<B is, in fact, the same thing as B>A.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »bcalvanese wrote: »PeachyCarol wrote: »I have never seen a point get so lost amongst noise in my whole life.
Coke is attempting to promote the notion that you can out-exercise over consumption of calories in order to boost lagging sales.
Instead of being appalled by that, I'm seeing a bunch of posts with people arguing about the benefits of exercise.
I don't get it.
You can't out-exercise the over-consumption of calories. This is a point people were making earlier in the thread and they got told they were ignoring the CO part of the equation. What the what now? If you keep eating more than you're burning, what's going to happen?
It's always down to eating less than you burn.
Exercise is great. I do an awful lot of it because it helps me keep my energy levels up and manages my pain levels with some medical conditions I have ... the more I do, the better I feel. Yay me. But I still watch my calories like a hawk.
I'm not going to be swallowing Coke's message any time soon.
Agree! It's true most ppl don't exercise enough. But most of the problem is calories in. I am at 160 calories burnt after going for a 40 minute walk. I can't imagine how much I would need to move to burn off a big gulp
https://theconversation.com/big-sodas-tactics-to-confuse-science-and-protect-their-profits-45907
I just did a 53 minute walk and burned 401 calories. Earlier today I did 3 miles on my kayak and burned 428 calories. I also have a 68 calorie adjustment from steps on my activity tracker. So I have 897 exercise calories so far today. If you add them to my goal calories of 1580 that is 2477 calories, and the 500 and some odd calories that MFP minuses to lose 1 lb. per are already taken out. I have had breakfast and lunch which totals 919 calories, so I still have 1558 calories to eat. I will probably eat anywhere from 500 to 800 calories for dinner and a snack, so I will end up with 800 to 1,000 calories left over today.
How fast a pace do you walk?
That seems like a big difference in calories for only 13 minutes difference in time.
Bodyweight makes a big difference in calories burned from walking.
Of course, lots of walking estimates grossly overstate calories burned.
For me, 897 calories would be running about 9.5-10 miles, except even that counts the calories I would have burned anyway. To get a true 897 additional calories it would have to be even more. I don't count adjustments from steps other than in my daily overall activity.
Also, I exercise quite a lot, and at 2477 calories I'd be gaining weight.
I wear my heart rate monitor when I exercise, and because I am so old and out of shape, I get in the 70 to 80 percent cardio zone quite easily. my activity tracker must take that into account when it calculates my calories burned, because it's always a little lower when I don't wear it.0 -
I'm not saying anyone needs to exercise. Not here to convince anyone to exercise or not!DeguelloTex wrote: »
You don't have to separate the two to understand that most people don't have the time or the inclination to burn as many calories as it would take to offset what they eat.
There absolutely two ways of looking at it.bcalvanese wrote: »bcalvanese wrote: »PeachyCarol wrote: »I have never seen a point get so lost amongst noise in my whole life.
Coke is attempting to promote the notion that you can out-exercise over consumption of calories in order to boost lagging sales.
Instead of being appalled by that, I'm seeing a bunch of posts with people arguing about the benefits of exercise.
I don't get it.
You can't out-exercise the over-consumption of calories. This is a point people were making earlier in the thread and they got told they were ignoring the CO part of the equation. What the what now? If you keep eating more than you're burning, what's going to happen?
It's always down to eating less than you burn.
Exercise is great. I do an awful lot of it because it helps me keep my energy levels up and manages my pain levels with some medical conditions I have ... the more I do, the better I feel. Yay me. But I still watch my calories like a hawk.
I'm not going to be swallowing Coke's message any time soon.
Agree! It's true most ppl don't exercise enough. But most of the problem is calories in. I am at 160 calories burnt after going for a 40 minute walk. I can't imagine how much I would need to move to burn off a big gulp
https://theconversation.com/big-sodas-tactics-to-confuse-science-and-protect-their-profits-45907
Yep. When I gained 50 lbs in the last year and a half before committing myself to losing weight....I was exercising on average at least 60 minutes daily. How is that so? DUM DUM DUM.
It's easy. I was eating more than I was burning.
Or you were burning less than you were eating. Depends on how you look at it.
I was exercising regularly, so I think we know which one it is. Stop playing semantics. I was eating in excess of what my body needed. I was a great example of you can't out run a bad diet. 100%.
I'm now a normal body weight. I am also still exercising regularly. What did I change...I was eating in a caloric deficit. Now I am eating in maintenance.
I'm not playing anything. just pointing out that there are 2 ways to look at the same thing is all.
It's my experience, not yours. I was eating in way excess of what my body needed while exercising regularly. That is what was going on. No two ways of looking at it.
A>B or B<A
They're both saying the same thing!
"I ate more calories than I burned" is the same thing as "I burned fewer calories than I ate."
If you're going to trumpet CICO, you have to agree that both parts are included. It's not CI. It's not CO. ITS CICO.
You cannot separate the two. They're bound together. Can't have a CICO theory without both parts.
Yes, absolutely, someone can do it either way. Definitely. That doesn't mean they're equally feasible for most people.
Just pointing out that A<B is, in fact, the same thing as B>A.
No one is arguing otherwise. That was not her point.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 398.3K Introduce Yourself
- 44.7K Getting Started
- 261K Health and Weight Loss
- 176.4K Food and Nutrition
- 47.7K Recipes
- 233K Fitness and Exercise
- 462 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.7K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153.5K Motivation and Support
- 8.4K Challenges
- 1.4K Debate Club
- 96.5K Chit-Chat
- 2.6K Fun and Games
- 4.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 17 News and Announcements
- 21 MyFitnessPal Academy
- 1.5K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions