Long exercise purely to eat more?
Replies
-
ModernRock wrote: »CattOfTheGarage wrote: »ModernRock wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »ModernRock wrote: »I totally get your point, but much in life is a matter of perspective and motivation. You really can't go wrong with your argument as any movement beyond sedentary could be argued as moving more to eat more. The distinction is the motivation behind the activity vis-à-vis sustainability and overall wellness.
Sustainability is over-rated in this case. People should adapt to their current circumstance, and continue to do so in the future. Nobody goes around giving the advice to quit your job because you'll have to retire some day.
Your retirement analogy misses my point. Try this one instead:. Somebody working extra shifts to support the lifestyle to which they've grown accustomed might do well to learn how to live within their future means in retirement. If somebody already knows how, or never plans to retire, or has some other resources to rely on (savings, family), then the advice is admittedly less useful.
I don't understand what it is you are recommending by the "live within their future means" analogy. Are you saying we should eat less, and do less exercise? Or are you saying we should still do the exercise, but undereat?
Neither of these seems healthy.
Neither. It's nothing to do with undereating, starving, developing new eating disorders, or any other thing you read into it. My only point is that many people struggle to maintain weight loss because they never address the underlying issues with their eating habits. Instead, they use exercise PURELY (see title of thread) to create a deficit and maintain.
The recommendation I made was for those who exercise PURELY to make up for over-eating to see if they have the habits and knowledge to maintain their loss when exercise (or as much exercise) isn't an option. Its not a lifelong plan and doesn't involve starving or even giving up activities motivated by fun or fitness.
If exercising regularly PURELY for the sake of eating more doesn't apply to you, and you already know you can adjust your intake up and down as necessary, then the suggestion really doesn't apply to you.
So do you mean just every now and then having a day where you don't exercise and eat less?
I am honestly not trying to read things into what you or anyone else is saying, I am just honestly confused by what is being suggested and I'm trying to understand. The "living within your means" metaphor doesn't really work, because the aim with finance is to consistently spend significantly less than you earn over time. You just can't take that approach with eating or you will create too large a deficit. Your only choices are: high level of exercise and eat more; low level of exercise and eat less; or high level of exercise and eat too little to properly fuel it. I could not work out which of these you were recommending.
Now I'm understanding you to say that you should just not be exercising hard every single day in order to practice eating less? I guess...
I genuinely, honestly don't see what difference the motivation ("exercising PURELY to eat more") makes to the health of it, and why that is a bad thing for people who maintain on 1200 or similar - it seems like a completely reasonable motivation and certainly (as I've said before) no worse than exercising to look good, which is common enough.
4 -
CattOfTheGarage wrote: »ModernRock wrote: »CattOfTheGarage wrote: »ModernRock wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »ModernRock wrote: »I totally get your point, but much in life is a matter of perspective and motivation. You really can't go wrong with your argument as any movement beyond sedentary could be argued as moving more to eat more. The distinction is the motivation behind the activity vis-à-vis sustainability and overall wellness.
Sustainability is over-rated in this case. People should adapt to their current circumstance, and continue to do so in the future. Nobody goes around giving the advice to quit your job because you'll have to retire some day.
Your retirement analogy misses my point. Try this one instead:. Somebody working extra shifts to support the lifestyle to which they've grown accustomed might do well to learn how to live within their future means in retirement. If somebody already knows how, or never plans to retire, or has some other resources to rely on (savings, family), then the advice is admittedly less useful.
I don't understand what it is you are recommending by the "live within their future means" analogy. Are you saying we should eat less, and do less exercise? Or are you saying we should still do the exercise, but undereat?
Neither of these seems healthy.
Neither. It's nothing to do with undereating, starving, developing new eating disorders, or any other thing you read into it. My only point is that many people struggle to maintain weight loss because they never address the underlying issues with their eating habits. Instead, they use exercise PURELY (see title of thread) to create a deficit and maintain.
The recommendation I made was for those who exercise PURELY to make up for over-eating to see if they have the habits and knowledge to maintain their loss when exercise (or as much exercise) isn't an option. Its not a lifelong plan and doesn't involve starving or even giving up activities motivated by fun or fitness.
If exercising regularly PURELY for the sake of eating more doesn't apply to you, and you already know you can adjust your intake up and down as necessary, then the suggestion really doesn't apply to you.
So do you mean just every now and then having a day where you don't exercise and eat less?
I am honestly not trying to read things into what you or anyone else is saying, I am just honestly confused by what is being suggested and I'm trying to understand. The "living within your means" metaphor doesn't really work, because the aim with finance is to consistently spend significantly less than you earn over time. You just can't take that approach with eating or you will create too large a deficit. Your only choices are: high level of exercise and eat more; low level of exercise and eat less; or high level of exercise and eat too little to properly fuel it. I could not work out which of these you were recommending.
Now I'm understanding you to say that you should just not be exercising hard every single day in order to practice eating less? I guess...
I genuinely, honestly don't see what difference the motivation ("exercising PURELY to eat more") makes to the health of it, and why that is a bad thing for people who maintain on 1200 or similar - it seems like a completely reasonable motivation and certainly (as I've said before) no worse than exercising to look good, which is common enough.
The way I understand it is that you need to develop the ability to adapt. Someone who exercises a lot for the sake of calories in order to eat like they always have before weight loss and has not learned how to moderate their intake properly to adapt to situations where exercise is not an option would have a hard time learning that skill on the spot when the need calls for it. I know someone who is like that. They crash dieted to lose, then increased their activity substantially to maintain the loss. They keep their eating behavior the same every day, even on days where they aren't as active, instead of lowering their intake on less active days. Needless to say, their weight slowly crept back up.
It happens even with those who diet more sensibly, but do not want to control their intake during maintenance (they would rather just move more) because it makes them feel like they are on perpetual diet, and they don't like feeling that way (which is understandable). When weight loss is over, dieting is over and now it's time to live. It's more about the mindset and accepting that flexibility and adaptability are crucial to successful maintenance, even if it means "semi-dieting" sometimes (lower intake compared to high activity days or to make up for a heavy intake day).
The way "living within your means" metaphor applies here is if your income changes (if your activity level changes due to injury or some other circumstances) you would need to make changes to your spending habits (lower calorie intake to fit). Maintaining the same spending habits (eating the same way you did when you were active) when you have limited means (lower calorie needs) would lead to some nasty results (weight gain). It's not meant to be taken literally, calorie for dollar.2 -
So it's not really "exercising to eat more" per se that is the problem, it's not having learnt the skills needed to be adaptable to different circumstances. The motivation for the exercise is not that relevant - someone who is naturally very active, or exercises a lot for enjoyment, will have exactly the same problem - and professional athletes definitely do when they retire, I've heard them talk about it in interviews.
So I take that point. Notwithstanding, I still stand by "exercising to eat more" as a valid and healthy motivation, as much as any other motivation to exercise, and no more prone to cause these sorts of disadvantages than regular exercise for any other motivation.
I doubt that someone like your example, who has the discipline to exercise their way around a completely unreconstructed junk diet (that's A LOT of calories to burn) is incapable of also adjusting said diet in the event of injury or similar. They've got the willpower. Anyway, they are an extreme example, most people we are taking about are moderating their diet already, just want a bit more elbow room, which exercise gives them.
3 -
CattOfTheGarage wrote: »
So I take that point. Notwithstanding,I still stand by "exercising to eat more" as a valid and healthy motivation, as much as any other motivation to exercise, and no more prone to cause these sorts of disadvantages than regular exercise for any other motivation.
Oh definitely! I'm all for that. It's entirely valid and entirely healthy if not driven by disordered tendencies. It can be just as effective or as error-prone as any other motivation. Your athlete example is an excellent one. If an athlete does not control their calories during downtime they gain weight, regardless of the motivation behind their exercise.I doubt that someone like your example, who has the discipline to exercise their way around a completely unreconstructed junk diet (that's A LOT of calories to burn) is incapable of also adjusting said diet in the event of injury or similar.
I don't understand why this is usually taken to mean extreme calorie consumption like the usual "you can't outrun a bad diet". Someone who has lost 30 lbs would only need to increase their expenditure by 200 or fewer calories to maintain the new weight, if we assume they exercised for 500 calories and compensated by increasing consumption by 300 calories, they would still maintain eating the same way they used to eat and with little need for control. If they were weight stable eating a "completely unreconstructed junk diet" why should we assume that they would need to increase their intake of said junk by some unreasonable calorie count all of a sudden after they lose 30 lbs?
Discipline does not necessarily bleed into all areas of life, either. How many overweight people are very successful and disciplined in many areas of life but they lack discipline around food? Again, it all comes down to maintenance expectations and willingness to overcome the mental hurdle of wanting to let go of food control. But I agree with you 100% that what motivates activity has little to do with that.
1 -
CattOfTheGarage wrote: »ModernRock wrote: »CattOfTheGarage wrote: »ModernRock wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »ModernRock wrote: »I totally get your point, but much in life is a matter of perspective and motivation. You really can't go wrong with your argument as any movement beyond sedentary could be argued as moving more to eat more. The distinction is the motivation behind the activity vis-à-vis sustainability and overall wellness.
Sustainability is over-rated in this case. People should adapt to their current circumstance, and continue to do so in the future. Nobody goes around giving the advice to quit your job because you'll have to retire some day.
Your retirement analogy misses my point. Try this one instead:. Somebody working extra shifts to support the lifestyle to which they've grown accustomed might do well to learn how to live within their future means in retirement. If somebody already knows how, or never plans to retire, or has some other resources to rely on (savings, family), then the advice is admittedly less useful.
I don't understand what it is you are recommending by the "live within their future means" analogy. Are you saying we should eat less, and do less exercise? Or are you saying we should still do the exercise, but undereat?
Neither of these seems healthy.
Neither. It's nothing to do with undereating, starving, developing new eating disorders, or any other thing you read into it. My only point is that many people struggle to maintain weight loss because they never address the underlying issues with their eating habits. Instead, they use exercise PURELY (see title of thread) to create a deficit and maintain.
The recommendation I made was for those who exercise PURELY to make up for over-eating to see if they have the habits and knowledge to maintain their loss when exercise (or as much exercise) isn't an option. Its not a lifelong plan and doesn't involve starving or even giving up activities motivated by fun or fitness.
If exercising regularly PURELY for the sake of eating more doesn't apply to you, and you already know you can adjust your intake up and down as necessary, then the suggestion really doesn't apply to you.
So do you mean just every now and then having a day where you don't exercise and eat less?
I am honestly not trying to read things into what you or anyone else is saying, I am just honestly confused by what is being suggested and I'm trying to understand. The "living within your means" metaphor doesn't really work, because the aim with finance is to consistently spend significantly less than you earn over time. You just can't take that approach with eating or you will create too large a deficit. Your only choices are: high level of exercise and eat more; low level of exercise and eat less; or high level of exercise and eat too little to properly fuel it. I could not work out which of these you were recommending.
Now I'm understanding you to say that you should just not be exercising hard every single day in order to practice eating less? I guess...
I genuinely, honestly don't see what difference the motivation ("exercising PURELY to eat more") makes to the health of it, and why that is a bad thing for people who maintain on 1200 or similar - it seems like a completely reasonable motivation and certainly (as I've said before) no worse than exercising to look good, which is common enough.
All money that is earned is spent somehow from an economist's point of view, even if that means "buying" increased security and buying power by contributing to a savings account. So, unless you burn the money that isn't spent, the analogy does not imply undereating (i.e. spending/eating fewer dollars/calories than what you've earned through income/exercise.)
MFPer Amusedmonkey explained my analogy better than I did. Learning sustainable ways to adapt to changing means. Yes, the real issue then might be an inability to adapt, and for lots of reasons other than relying on exercise to enable surplus eating. But, those weren't the topic of the thread.0 -
I do this, but then again I'm also in training so...0
-
ModernRock wrote: »CattOfTheGarage wrote: »ModernRock wrote: »CattOfTheGarage wrote: »ModernRock wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »ModernRock wrote: »I totally get your point, but much in life is a matter of perspective and motivation. You really can't go wrong with your argument as any movement beyond sedentary could be argued as moving more to eat more. The distinction is the motivation behind the activity vis-à-vis sustainability and overall wellness.
Sustainability is over-rated in this case. People should adapt to their current circumstance, and continue to do so in the future. Nobody goes around giving the advice to quit your job because you'll have to retire some day.
Your retirement analogy misses my point. Try this one instead:. Somebody working extra shifts to support the lifestyle to which they've grown accustomed might do well to learn how to live within their future means in retirement. If somebody already knows how, or never plans to retire, or has some other resources to rely on (savings, family), then the advice is admittedly less useful.
I don't understand what it is you are recommending by the "live within their future means" analogy. Are you saying we should eat less, and do less exercise? Or are you saying we should still do the exercise, but undereat?
Neither of these seems healthy.
Neither. It's nothing to do with undereating, starving, developing new eating disorders, or any other thing you read into it. My only point is that many people struggle to maintain weight loss because they never address the underlying issues with their eating habits. Instead, they use exercise PURELY (see title of thread) to create a deficit and maintain.
The recommendation I made was for those who exercise PURELY to make up for over-eating to see if they have the habits and knowledge to maintain their loss when exercise (or as much exercise) isn't an option. Its not a lifelong plan and doesn't involve starving or even giving up activities motivated by fun or fitness.
If exercising regularly PURELY for the sake of eating more doesn't apply to you, and you already know you can adjust your intake up and down as necessary, then the suggestion really doesn't apply to you.
So do you mean just every now and then having a day where you don't exercise and eat less?
I am honestly not trying to read things into what you or anyone else is saying, I am just honestly confused by what is being suggested and I'm trying to understand. The "living within your means" metaphor doesn't really work, because the aim with finance is to consistently spend significantly less than you earn over time. You just can't take that approach with eating or you will create too large a deficit. Your only choices are: high level of exercise and eat more; low level of exercise and eat less; or high level of exercise and eat too little to properly fuel it. I could not work out which of these you were recommending.
Now I'm understanding you to say that you should just not be exercising hard every single day in order to practice eating less? I guess...
I genuinely, honestly don't see what difference the motivation ("exercising PURELY to eat more") makes to the health of it, and why that is a bad thing for people who maintain on 1200 or similar - it seems like a completely reasonable motivation and certainly (as I've said before) no worse than exercising to look good, which is common enough.
All money that is earned is spent somehow from an economist's point of view, even if that means "buying" increased security and buying power by contributing to a savings account. So, unless you burn the money that isn't spent, the analogy does not imply undereating (i.e. spending/eating fewer dollars/calories than what you've earned through income/exercise.)
MFPer Amusedmonkey explained my analogy better than I did. Learning sustainable ways to adapt to changing means. Yes, the real issue then might be an inability to adapt, and for lots of reasons other than relying on exercise to enable surplus eating. But, those weren't the topic of the thread.
I totally understand what you are saying, but I really think the issue is not the goal behind exercising per se, but expectations behind picking that goal. Building future plans and goals on the expectation of always being able to eat a lot is bound to be met by a rude awakening when exercise is not an option and the person is unable (or able but not willing) to be flexible with their intake.0 -
CattOfTheGarage wrote: »CattOfTheGarage wrote: »I love to exercise and if I had my way I would be doing it several times a day, although I have to be careful. I struggled with an eating disorder in my past, I would run on average 70-90 miles a week and at most consume 2,000 calories a day. Needless to say my body shut down and I was unable to do any sort of exercise for over a year. Exercising to eat more is a huge trigger for me, I just want to push myself more and more until I burn out thinking the more I burn the more I can eat. So for me I have to stick to moderation with both eating & exercise.
Thanks for this input. I'm not actually surprised that it can be a trigger for some people who are predisposed, just as calorie counting can be a trigger for someone predisposed to anorexia. If you have any thoughts on how to spot if you have a tendency to this kind of problem, I think that would be useful.
The thing that we need to remember is that a behaviour can be perfectly safe for the majority, but unhealthy for those who are predisposed to a certain problem. The solution is not for everyone to avoid it, any more than everyone should avoid gluten because some people have coeliac disease. The important thing is that each person can judge if it is healthy for them or not.
I have never had an eating disorder, but it seems to me that one of the hallmarks is anxiety, and another would be feeling driven to increase your deficit beyond a moderate level. Like, having a planned deficit of 500 but doing crazy exercise and feeling compelled to leave a thousand or more in the bank. I feel like being driven or compelled is also part of it, rather than calmly choosing to do something. Does that fit with your experience?
Anxiety is a huge part of it. In the past I have started exercising in order to eat more, the problem is I begin to think I can exercise that much everyday. I start to ignore the signs (fatigue, insomnia, moodiness) and continue to push myself because I get anxious if I am not doing as much as I did the day before. I eventually burn out and have to stop all exercise. I am an all or nothing type person and I have to work really hard at moderation when it comes to exercising and also eating. If I keep my exercise to moderate, I know I can eat and enjoy the foods I want in moderation. When I tend to over exercise I might eat more, then feel like I need to exercise more and more and not give my body the rest that it needs. In the end I usually end up exercising way more than I am consuming. Weight lifting has been a blessing for me because I am not so focused on numbers on the screen or on a watch, and I love the results.
Your comments on anxiety is so me! That is 100% me. And then, if I can't workout, I start to feel like I can't eat. I have major issues with anxiety, but never thought about how it might play into my eating disorder issues.
My understanding is that most eating disorders are related to OCD, which is an anxiety disorder. People tend to think the distinctive thing about OCD is neatness, or perfectionism, or odd repeated behaviours, but it isn't at all. The distinctive feature is anxiety. If you spend all morning arranging the shampoo bottles in the bathroom, but you're enjoying yourself, it's not OCD. similarly, as I understand it, if you go for a really long run and then eat a pizza, and you end the day feeling quite cheerful about it, or at least neutral, it's unlikely to be disordered. But if there was anxiety, guilt or a feeling of compulsion involved, that's when you need to be alert.
I know this was in response to another discussion in the thread, but whether somebody has ocd is not determined by how much they "enjoy" their compulsive behaviors/thoughts or are made anxious by them. The behaviors are thought to be a manifestation of an underlying anxiety, and treated as such. OCD is diagnosed in response to the extent to which it interferes with relationships, employment, adequate nutrition, and overall well-being.0 -
amusedmonkey wrote: »ModernRock wrote: »CattOfTheGarage wrote: »ModernRock wrote: »CattOfTheGarage wrote: »ModernRock wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »ModernRock wrote: »I totally get your point, but much in life is a matter of perspective and motivation. You really can't go wrong with your argument as any movement beyond sedentary could be argued as moving more to eat more. The distinction is the motivation behind the activity vis-à-vis sustainability and overall wellness.
Sustainability is over-rated in this case. People should adapt to their current circumstance, and continue to do so in the future. Nobody goes around giving the advice to quit your job because you'll have to retire some day.
Your retirement analogy misses my point. Try this one instead:. Somebody working extra shifts to support the lifestyle to which they've grown accustomed might do well to learn how to live within their future means in retirement. If somebody already knows how, or never plans to retire, or has some other resources to rely on (savings, family), then the advice is admittedly less useful.
I don't understand what it is you are recommending by the "live within their future means" analogy. Are you saying we should eat less, and do less exercise? Or are you saying we should still do the exercise, but undereat?
Neither of these seems healthy.
Neither. It's nothing to do with undereating, starving, developing new eating disorders, or any other thing you read into it. My only point is that many people struggle to maintain weight loss because they never address the underlying issues with their eating habits. Instead, they use exercise PURELY (see title of thread) to create a deficit and maintain.
The recommendation I made was for those who exercise PURELY to make up for over-eating to see if they have the habits and knowledge to maintain their loss when exercise (or as much exercise) isn't an option. Its not a lifelong plan and doesn't involve starving or even giving up activities motivated by fun or fitness.
If exercising regularly PURELY for the sake of eating more doesn't apply to you, and you already know you can adjust your intake up and down as necessary, then the suggestion really doesn't apply to you.
So do you mean just every now and then having a day where you don't exercise and eat less?
I am honestly not trying to read things into what you or anyone else is saying, I am just honestly confused by what is being suggested and I'm trying to understand. The "living within your means" metaphor doesn't really work, because the aim with finance is to consistently spend significantly less than you earn over time. You just can't take that approach with eating or you will create too large a deficit. Your only choices are: high level of exercise and eat more; low level of exercise and eat less; or high level of exercise and eat too little to properly fuel it. I could not work out which of these you were recommending.
Now I'm understanding you to say that you should just not be exercising hard every single day in order to practice eating less? I guess...
I genuinely, honestly don't see what difference the motivation ("exercising PURELY to eat more") makes to the health of it, and why that is a bad thing for people who maintain on 1200 or similar - it seems like a completely reasonable motivation and certainly (as I've said before) no worse than exercising to look good, which is common enough.
All money that is earned is spent somehow from an economist's point of view, even if that means "buying" increased security and buying power by contributing to a savings account. So, unless you burn the money that isn't spent, the analogy does not imply undereating (i.e. spending/eating fewer dollars/calories than what you've earned through income/exercise.)
MFPer Amusedmonkey explained my analogy better than I did. Learning sustainable ways to adapt to changing means. Yes, the real issue then might be an inability to adapt, and for lots of reasons other than relying on exercise to enable surplus eating. But, those weren't the topic of the thread.
I totally understand what you are saying, but I really think the issue is not the goal behind exercising per se, but expectations behind picking that goal. Building future plans and goals on the expectation of always being able to eat a lot is bound to be met by a rude awakening when exercise is not an option and the person is unable (or able but not willing) to be flexible with their intake.
Agreed.0 -
amusedmonkey wrote: »ModernRock wrote: »CattOfTheGarage wrote: »ModernRock wrote: »CattOfTheGarage wrote: »ModernRock wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »ModernRock wrote: »I totally get your point, but much in life is a matter of perspective and motivation. You really can't go wrong with your argument as any movement beyond sedentary could be argued as moving more to eat more. The distinction is the motivation behind the activity vis-à-vis sustainability and overall wellness.
Sustainability is over-rated in this case. People should adapt to their current circumstance, and continue to do so in the future. Nobody goes around giving the advice to quit your job because you'll have to retire some day.
Your retirement analogy misses my point. Try this one instead:. Somebody working extra shifts to support the lifestyle to which they've grown accustomed might do well to learn how to live within their future means in retirement. If somebody already knows how, or never plans to retire, or has some other resources to rely on (savings, family), then the advice is admittedly less useful.
I don't understand what it is you are recommending by the "live within their future means" analogy. Are you saying we should eat less, and do less exercise? Or are you saying we should still do the exercise, but undereat?
Neither of these seems healthy.
Neither. It's nothing to do with undereating, starving, developing new eating disorders, or any other thing you read into it. My only point is that many people struggle to maintain weight loss because they never address the underlying issues with their eating habits. Instead, they use exercise PURELY (see title of thread) to create a deficit and maintain.
The recommendation I made was for those who exercise PURELY to make up for over-eating to see if they have the habits and knowledge to maintain their loss when exercise (or as much exercise) isn't an option. Its not a lifelong plan and doesn't involve starving or even giving up activities motivated by fun or fitness.
If exercising regularly PURELY for the sake of eating more doesn't apply to you, and you already know you can adjust your intake up and down as necessary, then the suggestion really doesn't apply to you.
So do you mean just every now and then having a day where you don't exercise and eat less?
I am honestly not trying to read things into what you or anyone else is saying, I am just honestly confused by what is being suggested and I'm trying to understand. The "living within your means" metaphor doesn't really work, because the aim with finance is to consistently spend significantly less than you earn over time. You just can't take that approach with eating or you will create too large a deficit. Your only choices are: high level of exercise and eat more; low level of exercise and eat less; or high level of exercise and eat too little to properly fuel it. I could not work out which of these you were recommending.
Now I'm understanding you to say that you should just not be exercising hard every single day in order to practice eating less? I guess...
I genuinely, honestly don't see what difference the motivation ("exercising PURELY to eat more") makes to the health of it, and why that is a bad thing for people who maintain on 1200 or similar - it seems like a completely reasonable motivation and certainly (as I've said before) no worse than exercising to look good, which is common enough.
All money that is earned is spent somehow from an economist's point of view, even if that means "buying" increased security and buying power by contributing to a savings account. So, unless you burn the money that isn't spent, the analogy does not imply undereating (i.e. spending/eating fewer dollars/calories than what you've earned through income/exercise.)
MFPer Amusedmonkey explained my analogy better than I did. Learning sustainable ways to adapt to changing means. Yes, the real issue then might be an inability to adapt, and for lots of reasons other than relying on exercise to enable surplus eating. But, those weren't the topic of the thread.
I totally understand what you are saying, but I really think the issue is not the goal behind exercising per se, but expectations behind picking that goal. Building future plans and goals on the expectation of always being able to eat a lot is bound to be met by a rude awakening when exercise is not an option and the person is unable (or able but not willing) to be flexible with their intake.
Thinking about this, just because it interests me some, one reason I wouldn't focus on the motives for exercising is that it's really impossible to say there's one reason. I mean, when I first started getting more active I would have said it was because it was healthier to be more active, but of course it was in the back of my mind that I could eat more or lose faster. When I was exercising the most while tri training over the past year, I was doing it for specific training goals, but part of why I enjoyed those goals was that I could fuel them.
I think part of it does relate to sustainability -- if you are doing something that is stressful to fit in or not enjoyable anymore because you are scared that if you stop you will gain. (But even so, I would advice someone who preferred to eat 1200 and do no exercise to at least try to increase activity and see if they can learn to enjoy something, including just more walking, as that's better for fitness/health.)
I think the question is whether one feels panicky if one can't exercise or is really stressed about getting in the exercise or feels like they are exercising to work off things they ate, maybe. (I don't think this applies to OP's original post and the follow up, but I think the discussion has kind of moved.)
I did regain weight in part because I had had a really active lifestyle and became sedentary and did not adjust (partly because I wasn't conscious enough of the need, partly for the same reasons that led to me becoming sedentary), but I don't think that means the activity was bad or unsustainable when I was doing it. I would say it was really good for me, overall.1 -
To elaborate on what lemurcat said, I have variable health. I have chronic migraines and psoriatic arthritis. My ability to exercise is affected by these things.
While I can enjoy days of being able to eat more from lots of activity and definitely vastly prefer being active, I have no issue dropping my calories if I'm sidelined by a flare or a migraine.
I don't think this whole issue is necessarily black or white.
You don't have to be either someone who exercises to "earn food" or someone who exercises for the lofty goal of being fit. There's a whole spectrum here where you can fall and make adjustments as your circumstances change and a lot of those circumstances most likely constitute healthy behaviors and attitudes.2 -
ModernRock wrote: »My only point is that many people struggle to maintain weight loss because they never address the underlying issues with their eating habits. Instead, they use exercise PURELY (see title of thread) to create a deficit and maintain.
The underlying cause of any weight gain is a calorie surplus. I'll go out on a limb and say that most people don't understand what calories are or the concept of energy balance and weight. If a person is using exercise purely to create a deficit and maintain their weight, then they've necessarily addressed the calorie surplus issue, and almost certainly the knowledge one too.1 -
ModernRock wrote: »CattOfTheGarage wrote: »CattOfTheGarage wrote: »I love to exercise and if I had my way I would be doing it several times a day, although I have to be careful. I struggled with an eating disorder in my past, I would run on average 70-90 miles a week and at most consume 2,000 calories a day. Needless to say my body shut down and I was unable to do any sort of exercise for over a year. Exercising to eat more is a huge trigger for me, I just want to push myself more and more until I burn out thinking the more I burn the more I can eat. So for me I have to stick to moderation with both eating & exercise.
Thanks for this input. I'm not actually surprised that it can be a trigger for some people who are predisposed, just as calorie counting can be a trigger for someone predisposed to anorexia. If you have any thoughts on how to spot if you have a tendency to this kind of problem, I think that would be useful.
The thing that we need to remember is that a behaviour can be perfectly safe for the majority, but unhealthy for those who are predisposed to a certain problem. The solution is not for everyone to avoid it, any more than everyone should avoid gluten because some people have coeliac disease. The important thing is that each person can judge if it is healthy for them or not.
I have never had an eating disorder, but it seems to me that one of the hallmarks is anxiety, and another would be feeling driven to increase your deficit beyond a moderate level. Like, having a planned deficit of 500 but doing crazy exercise and feeling compelled to leave a thousand or more in the bank. I feel like being driven or compelled is also part of it, rather than calmly choosing to do something. Does that fit with your experience?
Anxiety is a huge part of it. In the past I have started exercising in order to eat more, the problem is I begin to think I can exercise that much everyday. I start to ignore the signs (fatigue, insomnia, moodiness) and continue to push myself because I get anxious if I am not doing as much as I did the day before. I eventually burn out and have to stop all exercise. I am an all or nothing type person and I have to work really hard at moderation when it comes to exercising and also eating. If I keep my exercise to moderate, I know I can eat and enjoy the foods I want in moderation. When I tend to over exercise I might eat more, then feel like I need to exercise more and more and not give my body the rest that it needs. In the end I usually end up exercising way more than I am consuming. Weight lifting has been a blessing for me because I am not so focused on numbers on the screen or on a watch, and I love the results.
Your comments on anxiety is so me! That is 100% me. And then, if I can't workout, I start to feel like I can't eat. I have major issues with anxiety, but never thought about how it might play into my eating disorder issues.
My understanding is that most eating disorders are related to OCD, which is an anxiety disorder. People tend to think the distinctive thing about OCD is neatness, or perfectionism, or odd repeated behaviours, but it isn't at all. The distinctive feature is anxiety. If you spend all morning arranging the shampoo bottles in the bathroom, but you're enjoying yourself, it's not OCD. similarly, as I understand it, if you go for a really long run and then eat a pizza, and you end the day feeling quite cheerful about it, or at least neutral, it's unlikely to be disordered. But if there was anxiety, guilt or a feeling of compulsion involved, that's when you need to be alert.
I know this was in response to another discussion in the thread, but whether somebody has ocd is not determined by how much they "enjoy" their compulsive behaviors/thoughts or are made anxious by them. The behaviors are thought to be a manifestation of an underlying anxiety, and treated as such. OCD is diagnosed in response to the extent to which it interferes with relationships, employment, adequate nutrition, and overall well-being.
Thanks for the input. You make a good point. Perhaps I should not have simplified it to a judgement on whether or not the compulsive behaviors are enjoyed or not, I suppose you could enjoy the feeling of control that comes from them (though not the underlying obsession that drives them). My meaning was just that anxiety is the driver behind it, not joy or fun. People so often fail to understand OCD (the classic "I wish I was OCD so I could keep my house tidy" sort of comments), not realising that it is an anxiety disorder and pretty miserable for those who have it. If there is no anxiety associated with what you are doing then it does not seem likely that it is OCD related.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393K 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
- 416 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