Saw Something On The News This Morning About Exercise Being More Important Than Diet
Options
Replies
-
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »I'm just curious why the statement was made that MFP calories burned were double or triple what is accurate. Most specifically, what backs up the statement.
It's been explained in considerable detail, more than once now.
In this thread? Can you give me the cliff notes, I missed it. And I'm not being flip, I really did miss it. Unless you mean double counting BMR, which I concede but don't believe could explains that big of a difference.
Walking burns about the same amount of calories as BMR. That means any exercise calculator that doesn't exclude BMR (like MFP and most others) is - this is basic math - doubling the real calorie burn for walking and other low intensity exercises.
Something like interval training combines periods of low intensity (like walking/resting) with periods of high intensity. Since we established above that the low intensity periods will be greatly over-estimated, we've also established that burn estimates for interval training will also be over-estimated - unless you *only* count the time spent in actual high intensity (which will only be a few minutes because that's what high intensity means).
Yes. I calculated through TDEE calculations and sleeping burn rate estimations that I burn 120 calories per hour awake and resting. Therefore, no matter what workout I do, I deduct a proportioned amount from the calorie burn output my Timex has. This morning, I burned 750 calories in 45 minutes. Resting, I would have burned 90 calories, so I take 750-90=660 calories. 660 is the burn I log.
0 -
Exercise is for health. How much you eat and whether you are in deficit or not will cause a weight gain or weight loss.
Actually exercise is the only way I get to eat a satisfying amount of food while remaining in deficit. Since it helps me stick to a deficit, it does indeed cause weight loss.
I personally hate study after study about weight loss. As if it's a competition between diet and exercise. BOTH. Do both. If I'm sitting at the beach and notice my skin is getting burned, do I turn to scientific studies to determine if I should a) reapply sunscreen or b) get in the shade? No, of course not. I do both, and fast.
0 -
0 -
Maybe we need to re-formulate the statement a bit and say that " the average person does better when it comes to losing weight with a caloric deficit than with increased exercise ".
Agreed.I've never understood people trying to completely separate exercise and diet as being more or less important than the other for weight loss. You need a deficit. You can get that through, relative to maintenance, exercising more, or eating less. Or you can get that through eating more calories, but exercising in a way that burns even more calories. You can get that through reducing your exercise burns, as long as you reduce your intake even more.
Now, I certainly get people focusing on whichever method works best for them. But the whole "you can't out-exercise a bad diet" thing is kinda nonsense (from a weight loss perspective). You can. Are you likely to? Well, that may depend on how bad you mean by bad. But there's a while lot of eating you can out-exercise if you're willing to say, run 100 miles a week (not that I'd recommend that).
It's very silly to try to separate the CI from the CO, as if they don't both count.
Weight loss happens in the kitchen, but it happens in the pool, too.
The average person ( according to the WHO ) in the US does not exercise and even those who do, often don't exercise enough to make a big enough difference to use exercise as a constant tool for weight loss.In order to do so, many would have to sacrifice a lot of other activities, which I think most people are not willing to do.
Only a very small group has the interest and lives in the circumstances that make running a 100 miles a week ( or going to the gym every day for more than minimum time ) even possible.
As a former competitive weight lifter I still know people who bike, run or lift weights in a way that they can almost eat anything they want ( and lots of it ! ), because they burn a lot of calories.
One has not been on vacation for ten years or so, because he feels he cannot stay away from a gym. Another is obsessed with his ( very limited ) diet and his shredding & bulking cycles. He is socially fairly withdrawn, because his " program " is before anything including family birthdays and other celebrations.
The daughter of a friend of mine got so involved with exercise that her family life suffered and her husband asked for a divorce.
I know, those are extreme cases as well as you do also, because the average person will not forgo the spouses birthday party to go to the gym, or will exercise so much that a somewhat varied and normal life is not possible. Most people look for a middle way and that means that for most of us it is easier to lose with a caloric deficit than with exercise.
I agree that exercise is important to maintain good physical, emotional and psychological health, which imo makes eating at a deficit and therefore weight loss much easier
0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »I'm just curious why the statement was made that MFP calories burned were double or triple what is accurate. Most specifically, what backs up the statement.
It's been explained in considerable detail, more than once now.
In this thread? Can you give me the cliff notes, I missed it. And I'm not being flip, I really did miss it. Unless you mean double counting BMR, which I concede but don't believe could explains that big of a difference.
Walking burns about the same amount of calories as BMR. That means any exercise calculator that doesn't exclude BMR (like MFP and most others) is - this is basic math - doubling the real calorie burn for walking and other low intensity exercises.
Something like interval training combines periods of low intensity (like walking/resting) with periods of high intensity. Since we established above that the low intensity periods will be greatly over-estimated, we've also established that burn estimates for interval training will also be over-estimated - unless you *only* count the time spent in actual high intensity (which will only be a few minutes because that's what high intensity means).
I'm not sure I believe that brisk walking burns the same as BMR (source?), but let's say it does. It would never explain the counts being tripled.
What if I run a 5k, or hike for 3 hours, or go rock climbing, or split wood for an hour, or go on a 15 mile bike ride? Would all those be doubled or tripled., or are we assuming walking and interval training are the only exercises?0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »I'm just curious why the statement was made that MFP calories burned were double or triple what is accurate. Most specifically, what backs up the statement.
It's been explained in considerable detail, more than once now.
In this thread? Can you give me the cliff notes, I missed it. And I'm not being flip, I really did miss it. Unless you mean double counting BMR, which I concede but don't believe could explains that big of a difference.
Walking burns about the same amount of calories as BMR. That means any exercise calculator that doesn't exclude BMR (like MFP and most others) is - this is basic math - doubling the real calorie burn for walking and other low intensity exercises.
Something like interval training combines periods of low intensity (like walking/resting) with periods of high intensity. Since we established above that the low intensity periods will be greatly over-estimated, we've also established that burn estimates for interval training will also be over-estimated - unless you *only* count the time spent in actual high intensity (which will only be a few minutes because that's what high intensity means).
I'm not sure I believe that brisk walking burns the same as BMR (source?), but let's say it does. It would never explain the counts being tripled.
What if I run a 5k, or hike for 3 hours, or go rock climbing, or split wood for an hour, or go on a 15 mile bike ride? Would all those be doubled or tripled., or are we assuming walking and interval training are the only exercises?
Right, bed rest burning the same amount of calories as brisk walking is not logical.
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/tools/bmr-calculator
Your BMR (Basal Metabolic Rate) is an estimate of how many calories you'd burn if you were to do nothing but rest for 24 hours. It represents the minimum amount of energy needed to keep your body functioning, including breathing and keeping your heart beating.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »My Fitbit was spot on when I used it to calculate burn. (Too bad it's broken and I've yet to get it fixed/replaced. If I hadn't gone to TDEE method, I can't imagine I would have waited to do so.)
If you let Fitbit know yours broke they will replace it for you for free. They'll do the same if you lose it.0 -
bcalvanese wrote: »Saw something on the news this morning about Coca Cola supporting a study that exercise is more important for weight loss than diet. I can see why they would support such a study because they sell sugary drinks, but it still seems interesting to me because I always felt that exercise is more important.
Just wondering what other people think about this.
I personally don't like the idea of giving one more weight than the other. True, you could eat great and never exercise and lose weight, but won't lose of you eat horrifying and exercise, but the combo is awesome for your body and also has health benefits, so really what difference does it make which is more important?0 -
kshama2001 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »I'm just curious why the statement was made that MFP calories burned were double or triple what is accurate. Most specifically, what backs up the statement.
It's been explained in considerable detail, more than once now.
In this thread? Can you give me the cliff notes, I missed it. And I'm not being flip, I really did miss it. Unless you mean double counting BMR, which I concede but don't believe could explains that big of a difference.
Walking burns about the same amount of calories as BMR. That means any exercise calculator that doesn't exclude BMR (like MFP and most others) is - this is basic math - doubling the real calorie burn for walking and other low intensity exercises.
Something like interval training combines periods of low intensity (like walking/resting) with periods of high intensity. Since we established above that the low intensity periods will be greatly over-estimated, we've also established that burn estimates for interval training will also be over-estimated - unless you *only* count the time spent in actual high intensity (which will only be a few minutes because that's what high intensity means).
I'm not sure I believe that brisk walking burns the same as BMR (source?), but let's say it does. It would never explain the counts being tripled.
What if I run a 5k, or hike for 3 hours, or go rock climbing, or split wood for an hour, or go on a 15 mile bike ride? Would all those be doubled or tripled., or are we assuming walking and interval training are the only exercises?
Right, bed rest burning the same amount of calories as brisk walking is not logical.
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/tools/bmr-calculator
Your BMR (Basal Metabolic Rate) is an estimate of how many calories you'd burn if you were to do nothing but rest for 24 hours. It represents the minimum amount of energy needed to keep your body functioning, including breathing and keeping your heart beating.
I may have worded that poorly. They were saying the "extra" calories from exercise = the calories from BMR.
So if my BMR burns 56 per hour (about right for me), if I also exercise for an hour I will only burn 56 more calories, for a total of 112. But under their theory MFP will tell me I burned 112 or 168 and cause me to overeat.
Mind you this is not my theory, just what I gather they are saying. I just wanted some type of confirmation or source of why they believe this. So far it's just been "because everyone says so".0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »I'm just curious why the statement was made that MFP calories burned were double or triple what is accurate. Most specifically, what backs up the statement.
It's been explained in considerable detail, more than once now.
In this thread? Can you give me the cliff notes, I missed it. And I'm not being flip, I really did miss it. Unless you mean double counting BMR, which I concede but don't believe could explains that big of a difference.
Walking burns about the same amount of calories as BMR. That means any exercise calculator that doesn't exclude BMR (like MFP and most others) is - this is basic math - doubling the real calorie burn for walking and other low intensity exercises.
Something like interval training combines periods of low intensity (like walking/resting) with periods of high intensity. Since we established above that the low intensity periods will be greatly over-estimated, we've also established that burn estimates for interval training will also be over-estimated - unless you *only* count the time spent in actual high intensity (which will only be a few minutes because that's what high intensity means).
I get the difficulty with calculating HIIT calories but I have a bit of a problem with the idea that walking burns basically the same amount of calories as one's BMR. BMR is by definition the amount of calories you'd burn laying in bed all day. How does walking not burn significantly more calories than lying in bed? How does walking at any speed burn the same amount of calories which is still not significantly more than one's BMR? It's just not logical. In addition, why all of the push to walk 10,000 steps per day if it doesn't "count" as exercise by giving you extra calories?
ETA: OK, I think I get it? Walking supposedly burns the same amount of calories as BMR but in addition to BMR? I always subtract BMR calories from my exercise calories, or at least I used to manually do it before my Fitbit started doing it for me.0 -
Not sure if you're asking for this, but what I believe people have been meaning is MFP doesn't remove the BMR calories from the exercise calories burned. When it adds, for example, 250 calories for an hour of walking, it includes BMR (BMR + Exercise Calories Burned = MFP number) into that total.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »I'm just curious why the statement was made that MFP calories burned were double or triple what is accurate. Most specifically, what backs up the statement.
It's been explained in considerable detail, more than once now.
In this thread? Can you give me the cliff notes, I missed it. And I'm not being flip, I really did miss it. Unless you mean double counting BMR, which I concede but don't believe could explains that big of a difference.
Walking burns about the same amount of calories as BMR. That means any exercise calculator that doesn't exclude BMR (like MFP and most others) is - this is basic math - doubling the real calorie burn for walking and other low intensity exercises.
Something like interval training combines periods of low intensity (like walking/resting) with periods of high intensity. Since we established above that the low intensity periods will be greatly over-estimated, we've also established that burn estimates for interval training will also be over-estimated - unless you *only* count the time spent in actual high intensity (which will only be a few minutes because that's what high intensity means).
I'm not sure I believe that brisk walking burns the same as BMR (source?), but let's say it does. It would never explain the counts being tripled.
What if I run a 5k, or hike for 3 hours, or go rock climbing, or split wood for an hour, or go on a 15 mile bike ride? Would all those be doubled or tripled., or are we assuming walking and interval training are the only exercises?
Right, bed rest burning the same amount of calories as brisk walking is not logical.
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/tools/bmr-calculator
Your BMR (Basal Metabolic Rate) is an estimate of how many calories you'd burn if you were to do nothing but rest for 24 hours. It represents the minimum amount of energy needed to keep your body functioning, including breathing and keeping your heart beating.
I may have worded that poorly. They were saying the "extra" calories from exercise = the calories from BMR.
So if my BMR burns 56 per hour (about right for me), if I also exercise for an hour I will only burn 56 more calories, for a total of 112. But under their theory MFP will tell me I burned 112 or 168 and cause me to overeat.
Mind you this is not my theory, just what I gather they are saying. I just wanted some type of confirmation or source of why they believe this. So far it's just been "because everyone says so".
Example: 1 hours of walking = 250 calories burned
BMR = 50 of those
Actual exercise = 200 of those
You should eat 200 calories, not the 250.
Does that help, or did I misunderstand the PP?
0 -
I love cola. And Coke is tops. Care to compare physiques sometime? Quit blamin the world around you and live your life0
-
-
I have a soda maybe once every couple of months, I refuse to be one of those "I'm addicted to soda people". Wow sorry, really straying off topic. I just finished reading another one such thread, and it just grinds me
0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »I'm just curious why the statement was made that MFP calories burned were double or triple what is accurate. Most specifically, what backs up the statement.
It's been explained in considerable detail, more than once now.
In this thread? Can you give me the cliff notes, I missed it. And I'm not being flip, I really did miss it. Unless you mean double counting BMR, which I concede but don't believe could explains that big of a difference.
Walking burns about the same amount of calories as BMR. That means any exercise calculator that doesn't exclude BMR (like MFP and most others) is - this is basic math - doubling the real calorie burn for walking and other low intensity exercises.
Something like interval training combines periods of low intensity (like walking/resting) with periods of high intensity. Since we established above that the low intensity periods will be greatly over-estimated, we've also established that burn estimates for interval training will also be over-estimated - unless you *only* count the time spent in actual high intensity (which will only be a few minutes because that's what high intensity means).
I'm not sure I believe that brisk walking burns the same as BMR (source?), but let's say it does. It would never explain the counts being tripled.
Tripling is typically seen when out of shape people use HRMs during interval-y training. That follows from the walking example.What if I run a 5k or hike for 3 hours, or go rock climbing, or split wood for an hour, or go on a 15 mile bike ride? Would all those be doubled or tripled., or are we assuming walking and interval training are the only exercises?
Running is typically in the 20-30% overestimated range. Bike riding is highly dependent on speed - highly - so that would be a "depends". Splitting wood will be a low burner - I'd just book it as walking for the same amount of time. Rock climbing is extremely variable on terrain, no easy way to estimate that one other than using the rule of thumb of 1 calorie per 100kg of body weight per metre of elevation gained.
0 -
Not sure I am buying this double and triple thing.
my Garmin Vivoactive uses a pedometer, heart rate (chest strap monitor), GPS, elevation, height, weight, and age to calculate calories burned when an activity is recorded.
I compared the results with several on line calculators (including one that uses heart rate in the calculation), and the MFP database.
MFP and the other calculators came up a lower than my Garmin, and the calculator that uses heart rate came up higher than my Garmin. I have to assume that since my Garmin uses all the variables, that it would have to be pretty close.
0 -
bcalvanese wrote: »Not sure I am buying this double and triple thing.
my Garmin Vivoactive uses a pedometer, heart rate (chest strap monitor), GPS, elevation, height, weight, and age to calculate calories burned when an activity is recorded.
I compared the results with several on line calculators (including one that uses heart rate in the calculation), and the MFP database.
MFP and the other calculators came up a lower than my Garmin, and the calculator that uses heart rate came up higher than my Garmin. I have to assume that since my Garmin uses all the variables, that it would have to be pretty close.
Admittedly, it really depresses me when I read done trust this, don't trust that. And especially so when I hear my beloved fitbit is lying to me too
0 -
I'm not suggesting anyone phrase things in any way. I'm not suggesting that exercise is more important or even that anyone do it.
Maybe we need to re-formulate the statement a bit and say that " the average person does better when it comes to losing weight with a caloric deficit than with increased exercise ".
Agreed.I've never understood people trying to completely separate exercise and diet as being more or less important than the other for weight loss. You need a deficit. You can get that through, relative to maintenance, exercising more, or eating less. Or you can get that through eating more calories, but exercising in a way that burns even more calories. You can get that through reducing your exercise burns, as long as you reduce your intake even more.
Now, I certainly get people focusing on whichever method works best for them. But the whole "you can't out-exercise a bad diet" thing is kinda nonsense (from a weight loss perspective). You can. Are you likely to? Well, that may depend on how bad you mean by bad. But there's a while lot of eating you can out-exercise if you're willing to say, run 100 miles a week (not that I'd recommend that).
It's very silly to try to separate the CI from the CO, as if they don't both count.
Weight loss happens in the kitchen, but it happens in the pool, too.
The average person ( according to the WHO ) in the US does not exercise and even those who do, often don't exercise enough to make a big enough difference to use exercise as a constant tool for weight loss.In order to do so, many would have to sacrifice a lot of other activities, which I think most people are not willing to do.
Only a very small group has the interest and lives in the circumstances that make running a 100 miles a week ( or going to the gym every day for more than minimum time ) even possible.
As a former competitive weight lifter I still know people who bike, run or lift weights in a way that they can almost eat anything they want ( and lots of it ! ), because they burn a lot of calories.
One has not been on vacation for ten years or so, because he feels he cannot stay away from a gym. Another is obsessed with his ( very limited ) diet and his shredding & bulking cycles. He is socially fairly withdrawn, because his " program " is before anything including family birthdays and other celebrations.
The daughter of a friend of mine got so involved with exercise that her family life suffered and her husband asked for a divorce.
I know, those are extreme cases as well as you do also, because the average person will not forgo the spouses birthday party to go to the gym, or will exercise so much that a somewhat varied and normal life is not possible. Most people look for a middle way and that means that for most of us it is easier to lose with a caloric deficit than with exercise.
I agree that exercise is important to maintain good physical, emotional and psychological health, which imo makes eating at a deficit and therefore weight loss much easier
I'm simply saying that when it comes to CICO, as it applies to gaining, losing or maintaining weight, has two parts, the CI and the CO. They both count.
That's all.
0 -
Struggled with my weight for years. Pretty much since getting out of the Army in 1996. A good friend made it simple for me. With few exceptions, weight loss is simply a matter of input vs. output. If you are taking in more calories than your burning, you'll gain weight. If you take in less than your burning, you'll lose weight. I have been maintaining a weight of about 160 since February. Started at about 220. Didn't exercise at all the first few months. When I started, the weight came off faster, but I didn't eat the extra calories earned from exercise. I feel good and thank God for it daily.
0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.9K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 399 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 979 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions