Anyone have any results working out two hours or day
Replies
-
I view exercise as more than tool for weight loss. I definitely see it as a focus and stress relief tool. So in those terms, I just put on music and hit the treadmill or Spinning bike until the playlist is over.1
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »lucerorojo wrote: »Also, if one is working a job, it can be challenging to put in that many hours.
Yet people have no problem working a job and plopping their butt on the couch for more than 2 hours a day of television, video games internet surfing, etc.
When people feel worn out or like they've had a stressful day, it's sometimes hard to get the energy/will to go exercise vs. a fast and immediate pleasure like just vegging or something they think of as relaxation and not just more work. Often they'd actually feel better (and even more relaxed) if they worked out to de-stress instead, but it's far less immediate and takes time before you realize that will be the result.
I was thinking about this (oddly!) when running yesterday, because it was one of those runs where it took a couple of miles for the pleasure to kick in and although I was then really enjoying it my mind wanders when I run and I was thinking about how it's not surprising that people will choose quick ways to relax (TV, food, a drink) vs. exercise often. Even I have to talk myself into it sometimes, and I KNOW how much better it makes me feel.
I totally understand (even if it's something I fight with in myself) why someone who gets up, does chores, commutes to a stressful or (sometimes) unpleasant or not liked job, commutes home, cooks, deals with kid stuff, whatever, may feel like their 2 free hours before bed need to be something fun or relaxing or social with the family and choose TV, vs. yet more work/chores (how they think of exercise).
This is even assuming that you are correct about the people saying they lack time being the same ones who watch the TV and also assuming that working out is possible (you can watch TV when kids are asleep, but may not be able to go out to exercise or have a space where you can exercise indoors easily).
I don't really see the point of being snotty or overly judgmental about people who are purely hypothetical anyway. If someone asks for how to find time or why or how to fit it in when they are tired, there are probably ways to be encouraging without suggesting that they must just be spending all their free time watching TV.
(For example, for me that I can combine commuting and exercise often makes it way easier. I know not everyone is able to do that, so in that way I am lucky.)
Agree with @TimothyFish people in general find time for what they want to do. Not snotty or judgmental at all. You don't need to exercise 2 hours a day, but do a few searches concerning the non-work time spent by the average US adult vs the exercise time, you can see what people are choosing to do.
They are finding time to do what they want to do and it's generally a poor choice.
It's all about your personal priorities.
Being active has almost always been a priority for me. It's something I look forward to, especially when I've had a tough/stressful day. Those days when I work full-time, attend university part-time, and know that I'll have to be up till 2 am working on an assignment ... those are the days when I've got to get at least a brisk walk in there somewhere or I feel like I'm going to go crazy.
I think for many people that's true, but it may be a learned thing. I have past experience where I know if I've had a stressful day that exercise is a great way to de-stress and feel better (and good for my mental health long term), but when things are at their worst is exactly when it's the biggest struggle -- especially since I'm likely to be panicking and thinking I need to go to work extra early or cannot be away from my desk or (especially) to be at work until late into the evening. When I'm in the habit, it's possible to fit exercise into the day, and then my mental state is better, I deal with stress and that feeling of mental exhaustion better, and even feel like I have more hours in the day, am more efficient in general. But if I'm not in the habit getting myself to realize that and not to think "I'm so tired, I cannot" becomes much more difficult. And that's despite the fact that from past experience I KNOW it will be beneficial and make me feel better. This is why I think starting out and learning this can be so difficult.
I actually find that getting away from whatever I'm doing for an hour or two or more is often more beneficial than sitting there trying to work on it.
I agree. My point is that's not always intuitive to someone who hasn't yet had that experience or is not in the habit of it and therefore adequately aware of the benefit.
(I spend a lot of my day writing or strategizing, and running is something that really helps with that in a way that officially working does not.)1 -
I used to exercise 90 mins - 2 hrs a day. I was so hungry I ate more so although I lost weight, it was slow going at 0.5lb per week if even that....
Fast forward a few years and being in maintenance, knee and hip joint issues ensued from running (averaged 21k steps per day and basically was wearing my body out)... also a change of work schedule so I cut to 30 mins of conscious exercise a day. Moving a bit less equals less hunger and guess what, I ended up losing a further 5lbs - I'm now 7lbs under my original goal weight.
My body thanks me more as I am not wearing it out, (gone are my achy knees and stiff heels/Achilles tendons yayy).
My 30 mins consist of biking intervals and strength training. I still can eat almost 2000 calories a day to maintain my weight (I'm 5ft 2/48). When I was exercising more I got to eat 2200 calories to maintain my weight - go figure that I only gained 200 more calories from doing more exercise. I know what I prefer! having more time to do other things I love. Its all about balance.
If you enjoy and have the time to exercise then go for it, but if its mostly about losing weight, it just takes being in calorie deficit.5 -
I do 2 to 3 faithfully a day. but I enjoy it, I burn over 1000 calories a day, I like to go go go, I am very hyper.1
-
RunRutheeRun wrote: »I used to exercise 90 mins - 2 hrs a day. I was so hungry I ate more so although I lost weight, it was slow going at 0.5lb per week if even that....
Fast forward a few years and being in maintenance, knee and hip joint issues ensued from running (averaged 21k steps per day and basically was wearing my body out)... also a change of work schedule so I cut to 30 mins of conscious exercise a day. Moving a bit less equals less hunger and guess what, I ended up losing a further 5lbs - I'm now 7lbs under my original goal weight.
My body thanks me more as I am not wearing it out, (gone are my achy knees and stiff heels/Achilles tendons yayy).
My 30 mins consist of biking intervals and strength training. I still can eat almost 2000 calories a day to maintain my weight (I'm 5ft 2/48). When I was exercising more I got to eat 2200 calories to maintain my weight - go figure that I only gained 200 more calories from doing more exercise. I know what I prefer! having more time to do other things I love. Its all about balance.
If you enjoy and have the time to exercise then go for it, but if its mostly about losing weight, it just takes being in calorie deficit.
Your running most likely was not causing knee and hip issues. More likely caused by improper training muscle imbalances (no or incorrect strength training) or lack of proper recovery.3 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »lucerorojo wrote: »Also, if one is working a job, it can be challenging to put in that many hours.
Yet people have no problem working a job and plopping their butt on the couch for more than 2 hours a day of television, video games internet surfing, etc.
When people feel worn out or like they've had a stressful day, it's sometimes hard to get the energy/will to go exercise vs. a fast and immediate pleasure like just vegging or something they think of as relaxation and not just more work. Often they'd actually feel better (and even more relaxed) if they worked out to de-stress instead, but it's far less immediate and takes time before you realize that will be the result.
I was thinking about this (oddly!) when running yesterday, because it was one of those runs where it took a couple of miles for the pleasure to kick in and although I was then really enjoying it my mind wanders when I run and I was thinking about how it's not surprising that people will choose quick ways to relax (TV, food, a drink) vs. exercise often. Even I have to talk myself into it sometimes, and I KNOW how much better it makes me feel.
I totally understand (even if it's something I fight with in myself) why someone who gets up, does chores, commutes to a stressful or (sometimes) unpleasant or not liked job, commutes home, cooks, deals with kid stuff, whatever, may feel like their 2 free hours before bed need to be something fun or relaxing or social with the family and choose TV, vs. yet more work/chores (how they think of exercise).
This is even assuming that you are correct about the people saying they lack time being the same ones who watch the TV and also assuming that working out is possible (you can watch TV when kids are asleep, but may not be able to go out to exercise or have a space where you can exercise indoors easily).
I don't really see the point of being snotty or overly judgmental about people who are purely hypothetical anyway. If someone asks for how to find time or why or how to fit it in when they are tired, there are probably ways to be encouraging without suggesting that they must just be spending all their free time watching TV.
(For example, for me that I can combine commuting and exercise often makes it way easier. I know not everyone is able to do that, so in that way I am lucky.)
Agree with @TimothyFish people in general find time for what they want to do. Not snotty or judgmental at all. You don't need to exercise 2 hours a day, but do a few searches concerning the non-work time spent by the average US adult vs the exercise time, you can see what people are choosing to do.
They are finding time to do what they want to do and it's generally a poor choice.
I think the difference between people who fit exercise in their life and those who do not (and I do, it's important to me) is simply NOT that those who do are less lazy or more virtuous. Maybe you don't intend to, but that is the impression your posts seem to give, and IMO if you actually want to promote a healthy lifestyle and encourage people to exercise that's not particularly helpful.
We are going to have to agree to disagree. My point is many people claim lack of time prevents them from exercising (if you Google, many studies will say this is the number one reason). Also if you check you will find looking at a screen is the number one leisure activity in the US.
To me that's a disconnect. Sure there are some reasons people can't move more which I understand. But, if people's priority is to optimize their health there needs to be some change in the balance between these two. No use to sugar coat it.4 -
@packerjohn are you a runner? for 3 years I had no issues running, no aches/pains at all but gradually I did start to have knee pain, really bad pain. I have ongoing hip problems something I've had since birth. I didn't want to stop running but its strange how within two weeks of changing to biking that I was virtually pain free. I haven't looked back. I'm happy with my current regime, it suits my busy life, I am fit, strong, slim and healthy. And perhaps I did have the wrong gait for running, all I care is I found something else that I love which is all that matters, the fact that its time efficient is even better
Strength training is something I still do so its not bad form in regards to lifting weights, been doing that for 4 years so I know what I'm doing.
3 -
Tiffanyisalibra wrote: »Anyone have any results doing cardio for two hours or more than two hours . What was your weight loss results ? How many calories did you eat .
I do more than 2hours cardio in a day 3-4x a week, but I don't do it all in one go (except for my long runs).
For example so far today I've had 30 mins of PT followed by a 45min Zumba class and tonight I'll be doing 45min Insanity followed by 45 mins Boxercise. But I do this because I enjoy it and love the challenge not to lose weight and I eat a LOT of food, like 3000+Calories a day to maintain my weight. (and that takes my rest day and the lower activity days in to account). Today I'll probably burn a total of at least 4000 Calories (including those I'd burn just by breathing etc) and even on my active rest day (when I just walk) I burn around 2500Calories (according to my fitbit, which has been pretty accurate during losing and maintaining over the last 2 years)0 -
TavistockToad wrote: »Tiffanyisalibra wrote: »Anyone lose weight working out 2 hours a day everyday ? Or more ? How much weight did you lose and how many calories did you eat per day ?
On my long runs I will be running for 2 hours plus... it makes me rungry!
I generally find it's the next couple of days that I want to eat everything in sight after a long run rather than the day of the run. I only did an hour on Sunday but was still a real carb monster yesterday, anything 10km and over seems to do that to me.1 -
RunRutheeRun wrote: »@packerjohn are you a runner? for 3 years I had no issues running, no aches/pains at all but gradually I did start to have knee pain, really bad pain. I have ongoing hip problems something I've had since birth. I didn't want to stop running but its strange how within two weeks of changing to biking that I was virtually pain free. I haven't looked back. I'm happy with my current regime, it suits my busy life, I am fit, strong, slim and healthy. And perhaps I did have the wrong gait for running, all I care is I found something else that I love which is all that matters, the fact that its time efficient is even better
Strength training is something I still do so its not bad form in regards to lifting weights, been doing that for 4 years so I know what I'm doing.
Yes, been a fitness runner for about 40 years, including a couple marathons. Sorry you have pain running but glad you found something you love.
Much of the literature out there saying running will not "wear out" your joints. If you have had lifelong hip issues since birth, that may well impact your gait and cause pain. Glad you are also lifting but even if you are using perfect form, your routine may not be emphasizing movements that will optimize your body's function.
As an extreme example, someone may have perfect bench press form but neglects back work and sits at a computer 8 hours a day for work. That person most likely will have rounded shoulders and back and shoulder pain to go with it. Modifying their routine to include more back work will in many cases improve functions.3 -
Thanks for your helpful reply @Packerjohn. you have made some valid points. 2
-
People keep telling me that I work out too hard and don't eat enough, which is why I am not losing weight. I have no idea why that is the case but sure it might be since the weight really isn't dropping off. I would imagine two hours of cardio would mean you would have to eat a ton more to be in that sweet spot of losing weight or you could be like my husband who starves himself and yep...the weight just drops off. You won't know until you try.3
-
Marcie9278 wrote: »I would imagine two hours of cardio would mean you would have to eat a ton more to be in that sweet spot of losing weight .
No.
If "cardio" is a brisk walk, 2 hours will only get you about 400 calories. If you're aiming to lose weight, you'd probably only want to eat about 200-300 of those.
If "cardio" is a bicycle ride, 2 hours will get you 800-1000. Again, if you're aiming to lose weight, you'd probably only want to eat about 400-700 of those.
Sadly ... even 700 calories doesn't equate to "a ton". It doesn't even cover a small frozen pizza.
2 -
Marcie9278 wrote: »People keep telling me that I work out too hard and don't eat enough, which is why I am not losing weight. I have no idea why that is the case but sure it might be since the weight really isn't dropping off. I would imagine two hours of cardio would mean you would have to eat a ton more to be in that sweet spot of losing weight or you could be like my husband who starves himself and yep...the weight just drops off. You won't know until you try.
you don't stop losing weight because you don't eat enough - don't listen to whoever is telling you that!3 -
Packerjohn wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »lucerorojo wrote: »Also, if one is working a job, it can be challenging to put in that many hours.
Yet people have no problem working a job and plopping their butt on the couch for more than 2 hours a day of television, video games internet surfing, etc.
When people feel worn out or like they've had a stressful day, it's sometimes hard to get the energy/will to go exercise vs. a fast and immediate pleasure like just vegging or something they think of as relaxation and not just more work. Often they'd actually feel better (and even more relaxed) if they worked out to de-stress instead, but it's far less immediate and takes time before you realize that will be the result.
I was thinking about this (oddly!) when running yesterday, because it was one of those runs where it took a couple of miles for the pleasure to kick in and although I was then really enjoying it my mind wanders when I run and I was thinking about how it's not surprising that people will choose quick ways to relax (TV, food, a drink) vs. exercise often. Even I have to talk myself into it sometimes, and I KNOW how much better it makes me feel.
I totally understand (even if it's something I fight with in myself) why someone who gets up, does chores, commutes to a stressful or (sometimes) unpleasant or not liked job, commutes home, cooks, deals with kid stuff, whatever, may feel like their 2 free hours before bed need to be something fun or relaxing or social with the family and choose TV, vs. yet more work/chores (how they think of exercise).
This is even assuming that you are correct about the people saying they lack time being the same ones who watch the TV and also assuming that working out is possible (you can watch TV when kids are asleep, but may not be able to go out to exercise or have a space where you can exercise indoors easily).
I don't really see the point of being snotty or overly judgmental about people who are purely hypothetical anyway. If someone asks for how to find time or why or how to fit it in when they are tired, there are probably ways to be encouraging without suggesting that they must just be spending all their free time watching TV.
(For example, for me that I can combine commuting and exercise often makes it way easier. I know not everyone is able to do that, so in that way I am lucky.)
Agree with @TimothyFish people in general find time for what they want to do. Not snotty or judgmental at all. You don't need to exercise 2 hours a day, but do a few searches concerning the non-work time spent by the average US adult vs the exercise time, you can see what people are choosing to do.
They are finding time to do what they want to do and it's generally a poor choice.
I think the difference between people who fit exercise in their life and those who do not (and I do, it's important to me) is simply NOT that those who do are less lazy or more virtuous. Maybe you don't intend to, but that is the impression your posts seem to give, and IMO if you actually want to promote a healthy lifestyle and encourage people to exercise that's not particularly helpful.
We are going to have to agree to disagree. My point is many people claim lack of time prevents them from exercising (if you Google, many studies will say this is the number one reason). Also if you check you will find looking at a screen is the number one leisure activity in the US.
To me that's a disconnect. Sure there are some reasons people can't move more which I understand. But, if people's priority is to optimize their health there needs to be some change in the balance between these two. No use to sugar coat it.
This approach of saying "surveys say Americans claim not to have enough time to exercise" and "surveys say Americans watch a lot of TV" so we should just say "anyone claiming not to have enough time to exercise is wasting time watching a lot of TV" is useless. Anyone in that camp is not listening anyway (most people say stuff in surveys, but it's always more complicated).
Rather than just try to dismiss as lazy people who don't exercise, why not try to address real people with specific issues. If there is someone who claims not to have time, discuss it with him or her, and help that person see ways to add it in.
I'm really not sure how it even came into this thread, and am too lazy to look back to see. ;-)
I would agree that the average person (the vast majority of people) OF COURSE have enough time to exercise the extent needed for health (which is not 2 hours per day -- I think exercising 2 hours per day can be great, but putting it out there as something needed probably is more discouraging than encouraging for many, especially since they don't think "exercise means brisk walking, in part" but "I have to spend 2 hours in the gym on a treadmill or elliptical or in an aerobics class?" (note, intentionally dated for the people who have not worked out in ages).
I don't think the fact that lots of people say "not enough time" means they really think it's that simple -- it's about thinking it will add more things they hate to their day, add to stress (rather than reduce it), add to exhaustion (rather than maybe help with it), and time-management (not seeing how it can be added in after dark or in the morning or while they are at work or whatever). Saying -- as you seem to -- that they are just lying and lazy doesn't help.
Also, there are differences. I did work crazy hours at a stressful job, not get home until around 10 most nights, and rarely watch TV back in the day (my late 20s) when I would have said I had no time to exercise. I was wrong, but your saying "just watch less TV" would have made me dismiss you as not knowing what you were talking about. What helped me was deciding it was important, even more important than my job (which I had considered the most important thing, period, where I could never say no), and -- even better -- looking around at others with the same or similar jobs and seeing that they were structuring their lives more effectively and getting in exercise and self-care to some degree.5 -
Marcie9278 wrote: »I would imagine two hours of cardio would mean you would have to eat a ton more to be in that sweet spot of losing weight .
No.
If "cardio" is a brisk walk, 2 hours will only get you about 400 calories. If you're aiming to lose weight, you'd probably only want to eat about 200-300 of those.
If "cardio" is a bicycle ride, 2 hours will get you 800-1000. Again, if you're aiming to lose weight, you'd probably only want to eat about 400-700 of those.
Sadly ... even 700 calories doesn't equate to "a ton". It doesn't even cover a small frozen pizza.
Sorry..... I guess I have to put some things into perspective when I respond. 700 is a ton to me when eating healthy, but yeah 700 calories goes quick when eating a pizza. LOL I definitely know that.... Hehehe
I work out at OrangeTheory and burn 500-600 each time, so I get pretty excited with that because it means I get to eat more, and sometimes those calories take me far, and other times, it doesn't.... like when I decide to have Dairy Queen.1 -
Muscleflex79 wrote: »Marcie9278 wrote: »People keep telling me that I work out too hard and don't eat enough, which is why I am not losing weight. I have no idea why that is the case but sure it might be since the weight really isn't dropping off. I would imagine two hours of cardio would mean you would have to eat a ton more to be in that sweet spot of losing weight or you could be like my husband who starves himself and yep...the weight just drops off. You won't know until you try.
you don't stop losing weight because you don't eat enough - don't listen to whoever is telling you that!
It's so annoying how there is so much conflicted information out there. Even on these forums. Some people tell me that I need to eat more, and then some people say that the less you eat, the more you will lose. What in the world do I believe?
I started on this journey to lose weight. Now, I'm on a journey of figuring myself out. I want to know the truth in all this, at least where my body is concerned. Do I need to eat more to lose weight? I don't know, but I'll try it. Do I need to eat less than 1200 for me to lose weight? I don't know, but I'll try it. Do I need to eat less carbs? More carbs? Less protein? More protein? Less fat? More fat? There are people on both sides of every single question of what you should do or what you shouldn't do.
I really believe it all comes down to figuring out what works for you, and that means testing out different things to see what happens.
So, for OP, sure, try working out for two hours and see what happens. It might be awesome, or it might not.3 -
I do HIIT programs 45-50 minutes, 5 times a week and lost 51 lbs in total and still counting! Eating 1500-1700 calories a day.1
-
I think a lot of it is trial and error for every individual.
Exercise is clearly important - some kind of cardio related activity for heart health (and burning calories), resistance training for muscle strength and maintenance, weight bearing activity for bone density... I think all those have been proven beyond a doubt. And maybe something involving flexibility too, because I'd still quite like to tie my own shoelaces when I'm 90.
But everyone's mind and body have different limits.
I've done all sorts of things over the years, from a walking marathon (where the training plan is basically identical to a running marathon, just takes a ton longer!), to open water swims of up to 2.5 miles, to 5-day a week HIIT, doing my own thing on an elliptical, weight training, a short-lived attempt at cycling, 5 years of reformer pilates... Heaven knows I've pushed my limits over the years, but it's taught me where they are.
Everyone has to find...
- Something they enjoy doing (or at least don't loathe!)
- A training volume that fits with other aspects of their lives, be that work, sleep, family, a pretty serious Netflix addiction, hobbies, whatever. Not everyone will be willing to make the same compromises across these and that needs to be respected.
- A training volume that their body can handle. Recovery is as important as exercise. I know that I need more recovery time than the average, and I just have to work with that. My big changes to my body came when I cut back to just 3 fairly intense but not very long lifting sessions a week (plus about 12k steps a day). Some people can, for example, cycle hundreds of miles a week, year in year out. Some people can't, and that's ok too. Those people might be able to do something else a lot better, after all.
- A type of exercise that their body can handle. We all have our strengths and weaknesses in various bits of our bodies. Mine are pretty obvious because I have a neurological disease that's kind of fried the nerves to my legs, and my ankles have been screwed together by the orthopaedic surgeons a number of times. I know that I shouldn't be running. I also gave myself CNS fatigue through HIIT, and now know that I need to make sure I'm not trying to make it my main form of exercise. My friend with RA has particularly bad flare ups in her knees, and has been advised to make sure anything she does involves controlled motion of her knees - so squats are fine (nice, linear movement), so is cycling, but Zumba and basketball are a bad idea for her.
- A way of eating that accounts for all of the above. In my mind, if you can't properly fuel your body for what you're asking it to do, then maybe you need to ask it to do something different. This way of eating will very hugely from person to person, but everyone should be making sure that their nutritional bases are covered (adequate protein, adequate fats, adequate micronutrients), they're well hydrated and they're not running some loony mahoosive deficit without medical supervision.
So is 2 hours of dedicated exercise a day too much?
For me personally, absolutely yes. I have no desire to make the compromises to other areas of my life that would allow me to fit this in on a regular basis, and it almost certainly wouldn't give my body adequate recovery time.
For other people? Well, I know plenty of people who do it. I know some who love their dawn (at this time of year, pre-dawn) bike rides, and some who love their double body pump sessions. I also know some who have burnt out from it, lost jobs and lost relationships.
It's not for everyone, and the only way to find out where your limits are is to push them. But maybe a little at a time!5 -
My cardio is mostly from walking. And I LOVE taking walks of 2 hours or more. Not "power" walks; the last time I checked my speed (got a route from Google maps, timed how long it took to do the distance) I was going about 3.25 mph. I worked up to it. When I started I was only walking 25 minutes most days. But in 13 months, between eating in a deficit, 2-hours daily of walking (or an hour on a glider when I can't get out) and strength training 3 days a week? I'm down 94.4 lbs as of last weigh-in.5
-
This whole thing about "lazy" people not having time to exercise was started because I wrote in my post that fitting in 2 hours of exercise per day might be a challenge with a job. Someone followed up with people sitting on the coach for 2 hours watching TV. I thank those who have responded to that because as you've written people have different lives and situations and it might not just be "laziness" driving these decisions.2
-
Who has time to workout 2 hours a day? Hiking on weekends is the only time that I do that much cardio in a day.3
-
Who has time to workout 2 hours a day? Hiking on weekends is the only time that I do that much cardio in a day.
I would think that *many* people would have time to exercise for two hours a day if they made it their priority. The real issue is that most of us have hobbies, non-work obligations (school, volunteer work, housework etc), a desire to spend time with family, and things like commuting that we prioritize over working out that much.
I *could* work out two hours a day if I wanted to, it would just come at the expense of other things in my life.4 -
I think it all depends on your goals and your lifestyle... I work out for more than 2 hours several days a week--especially if I combine a yoga class and a run, or if I go skiing, surfing, or cycling...
As they say though--you can't outrun a bad diet... If you are working out for 2 hours or more because you are bingeing, or working out for 2 hours or more and undereating to lose weight quickly then it may be considered disordered.3 -
-
Marcie9278 wrote: »I would imagine two hours of cardio would mean you would have to eat a ton more to be in that sweet spot of losing weight .
No.
If "cardio" is a brisk walk, 2 hours will only get you about 400 calories. If you're aiming to lose weight, you'd probably only want to eat about 200-300 of those.
If "cardio" is a bicycle ride, 2 hours will get you 800-1000. Again, if you're aiming to lose weight, you'd probably only want to eat about 400-700 of those.
Sadly ... even 700 calories doesn't equate to "a ton". It doesn't even cover a small frozen pizza.
I don't understand this idea. I walk an hour or two a day, every day. If I burn an extra 400 calories a day that's an extra 12,000 calories a month. On top of the calorie benefit for weightloss I am becoming healthier. When I'm healthier I feel better. When I feel better I don't feel the need to make myself feel better by eating. It's a great cycle.
Exercising plus running a calorie deficit is a wonderfully effective way for a lot of people to lose weight. However isn't the whole point of losing weight to become healthier? There are plenty of unhealthy skinny people. I guess I just can't imagine not doing both if I've made a decision to become healthier.7 -
Marcie9278 wrote: »I would imagine two hours of cardio would mean you would have to eat a ton more to be in that sweet spot of losing weight .
No.
If "cardio" is a brisk walk, 2 hours will only get you about 400 calories. If you're aiming to lose weight, you'd probably only want to eat about 200-300 of those.
If "cardio" is a bicycle ride, 2 hours will get you 800-1000. Again, if you're aiming to lose weight, you'd probably only want to eat about 400-700 of those.
Sadly ... even 700 calories doesn't equate to "a ton". It doesn't even cover a small frozen pizza.
I don't understand this idea. I walk an hour or two a day, every day. If I burn an extra 400 calories a day that's an extra 12,000 calories a month. On top of the calorie benefit for weightloss I am becoming healthier. When I'm healthier I feel better. When I feel better I don't feel the need to make myself feel better by eating. It's a great cycle.
Exercising plus running a calorie deficit is a wonderfully effective way for a lot of people to lose weight. However isn't the whole point of losing weight to become healthier? There are plenty of unhealthy skinny people. I guess I just can't imagine not doing both if I've made a decision to become healthier.
The post you quoted was responding to someone who said you would have to eat a "ton" more if you did cardio for 2 hours a day. Unfortunately, many people overestimate how many cals their exercise burns and end up out-eating their calorie burns. Or the exercise increases their appetite and if they aren't logging accurately this bites them in the keister.
Not to split hairs, but not everyone wants to lose weight to be healthier, and not everyone is ready to commit to both the diet and exercise portions of the equation. I know plenty of people who stay fat because they aren't ready to commit to exercise and think they can't lose the weight if they don't exercise. I know plenty of people who feel healthy enough, but want to look better. So there is value in making it clear that you can lose weight sitting on the couch by just eating less. You are absolutely right though, if your goal is "as healthy as I can be" exercise is super important, possibly even more important than diet. It is for sure the most powerful tool in my toolbox :drinker:7 -
Exercise is for health and fitnessTiffanyisalibra wrote: »Anyone have any results doing cardio for two hours or more than two hours . What was your weight loss results ? How many calories did you eat .
Exercise is for whatever reason people want to exercise. Don't try to limit other people.3 -
Marcie9278 wrote: »I would imagine two hours of cardio would mean you would have to eat a ton more to be in that sweet spot of losing weight .
No.
If "cardio" is a brisk walk, 2 hours will only get you about 400 calories. If you're aiming to lose weight, you'd probably only want to eat about 200-300 of those.
If "cardio" is a bicycle ride, 2 hours will get you 800-1000. Again, if you're aiming to lose weight, you'd probably only want to eat about 400-700 of those.
Sadly ... even 700 calories doesn't equate to "a ton". It doesn't even cover a small frozen pizza.
I don't understand this idea. I walk an hour or two a day, every day. If I burn an extra 400 calories a day that's an extra 12,000 calories a month. On top of the calorie benefit for weightloss I am becoming healthier. When I'm healthier I feel better. When I feel better I don't feel the need to make myself feel better by eating. It's a great cycle.
Exercising plus running a calorie deficit is a wonderfully effective way for a lot of people to lose weight. However isn't the whole point of losing weight to become healthier? There are plenty of unhealthy skinny people. I guess I just can't imagine not doing both if I've made a decision to become healthier.
The post you quoted was responding to someone who said you would have to eat a "ton" more if you did cardio for 2 hours a day. Unfortunately, many people overestimate how many cals their exercise burns and end up out-eating their calorie burns. Or the exercise increases their appetite and if they aren't logging accurately this bites them in the keister.
Not to split hairs, but not everyone wants to lose weight to be healthier, and not everyone is ready to commit to both the diet and exercise portions of the equation. I know plenty of people who stay fat because they aren't ready to commit to exercise and think they can't lose the weight if they don't exercise. I know plenty of people who feel healthy enough, but want to look better. So there is value in making it clear that you can lose weight sitting on the couch by just eating less. You are absolutely right though, if your goal is "as healthy as I can be" exercise is super important, possibly even more important than diet. It is for sure the most powerful tool in my toolbox :drinker:
In my case, I exercise to meet goals. I'm a long distance cyclist. In order for me to be a long distance cyclists, I have to put in the hours.
Being lighter helps me be a better long distance cyclist, so I lost weight by eating fewer calories than I burn.
But I also have a fairly strong appetite and like a whole variety of food. So one of the benefits of cycling long distances is that I can get a pizza after, or go out for Indian food, or hit the fish and chips shop or whatever. 2
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions