Cardio vs no cardio
Replies
-
julieweberr wrote: »julieweberr wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »I'm a number girl and like to rationalize things with numbers. If I run 50 minutes I burn about 350kcal. Note, this depends on weight and distance run. Generally, miles * body weight in lbs * 0.64 works quite well.
So cool, 350kcal from running. If I do this for a week I'll lose 1750kcal. Or half a pound. Meh! Can I do this every day, without a break? Unlikely. Rest days are important. So I might lose a tiny bit of weight from running for 50 minutes a few times per week. Nope, doesn't seem like a good weightloss plan. (mind you, I'm maintaining. Just making a point)
Running is high impact, it's hard on your joints, bones, etc. I can ride a marathon every day, comfortably. I can walk 350 kcal every day, comfortably. Your example is about running, not exercise generally.
I believe they were just pointing out the caloric deficit part of exercise in general, saying cardio or no cardio it's not much of a difference, you can't lose a significant amount of weight with a poor diet and only exercise.
A chap called Guy Martin rode a tough mountain bike event called the Tour Divide with a very simple eating plan - eat as much as possible, whenever possible. That included a huge pizza for main course, calzone for dessert and one to take away and eat on the trail.
When he finished the event he described himself as looking emaciated and like a concentration camp survivor.
BTW - cardio or no cardio would make on average 500+ cals a day for me difference, I wouldn't call that "not much" would you? If I wanted to create a significant and long term deficit using cardio I certainly could, that some other people couldn't is also of course true.
Be very careful about using absolute terms or projecting supposed typical situations to apply to everyone.
Like I stated above, I was just trying to clarify that they were using running as an example to show the 350 deficit. All examples, not saying everyone only burns 350 or everyone only has to run. I was just pointing that out. And by "not much" I meant if you eat an unhealthy large amount of high fat/high calorie foods consistently - and you are not participating in a 2745 mile bike ride - then burning 350 calories a few times each week will not get you very far. I am not projecting situations onto anyone for the third time it is just EXAMPLES. 350 calories is 350 calories, does not matter how you burn it, it was just a situation. The bottom line was diet is extremely important when trying to lose weight. Jeez.
Nobody says diet isn't important. But some people are saying cardio can't help with weight loss, which is false.1 -
NorthCascades wrote: »julieweberr wrote: »julieweberr wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »I'm a number girl and like to rationalize things with numbers. If I run 50 minutes I burn about 350kcal. Note, this depends on weight and distance run. Generally, miles * body weight in lbs * 0.64 works quite well.
So cool, 350kcal from running. If I do this for a week I'll lose 1750kcal. Or half a pound. Meh! Can I do this every day, without a break? Unlikely. Rest days are important. So I might lose a tiny bit of weight from running for 50 minutes a few times per week. Nope, doesn't seem like a good weightloss plan. (mind you, I'm maintaining. Just making a point)
Running is high impact, it's hard on your joints, bones, etc. I can ride a marathon every day, comfortably. I can walk 350 kcal every day, comfortably. Your example is about running, not exercise generally.
I believe they were just pointing out the caloric deficit part of exercise in general, saying cardio or no cardio it's not much of a difference, you can't lose a significant amount of weight with a poor diet and only exercise.
A chap called Guy Martin rode a tough mountain bike event called the Tour Divide with a very simple eating plan - eat as much as possible, whenever possible. That included a huge pizza for main course, calzone for dessert and one to take away and eat on the trail.
When he finished the event he described himself as looking emaciated and like a concentration camp survivor.
BTW - cardio or no cardio would make on average 500+ cals a day for me difference, I wouldn't call that "not much" would you? If I wanted to create a significant and long term deficit using cardio I certainly could, that some other people couldn't is also of course true.
Be very careful about using absolute terms or projecting supposed typical situations to apply to everyone.
Like I stated above, I was just trying to clarify that they were using running as an example to show the 350 deficit. All examples, not saying everyone only burns 350 or everyone only has to run. I was just pointing that out. And by "not much" I meant if you eat an unhealthy large amount of high fat/high calorie foods consistently - and you are not participating in a 2745 mile bike ride - then burning 350 calories a few times each week will not get you very far. I am not projecting situations onto anyone for the third time it is just EXAMPLES. 350 calories is 350 calories, does not matter how you burn it, it was just a situation. The bottom line was diet is extremely important when trying to lose weight. Jeez.
Nobody says diet isn't important. But some people are saying cardio can't help with weight loss, which is false.
It's not false, it's incomplete/misleading. Anytime someone talks about 1 side of the equation without talking about how it fits with the other side of the equation either doesn't know what they are talking about or don't care to take the time to put together a complete and helpful response... and that's when we end up wiht threads like this that just go in circles.3 -
NorthCascades wrote: »julieweberr wrote: »julieweberr wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »I'm a number girl and like to rationalize things with numbers. If I run 50 minutes I burn about 350kcal. Note, this depends on weight and distance run. Generally, miles * body weight in lbs * 0.64 works quite well.
So cool, 350kcal from running. If I do this for a week I'll lose 1750kcal. Or half a pound. Meh! Can I do this every day, without a break? Unlikely. Rest days are important. So I might lose a tiny bit of weight from running for 50 minutes a few times per week. Nope, doesn't seem like a good weightloss plan. (mind you, I'm maintaining. Just making a point)
Running is high impact, it's hard on your joints, bones, etc. I can ride a marathon every day, comfortably. I can walk 350 kcal every day, comfortably. Your example is about running, not exercise generally.
I believe they were just pointing out the caloric deficit part of exercise in general, saying cardio or no cardio it's not much of a difference, you can't lose a significant amount of weight with a poor diet and only exercise.
A chap called Guy Martin rode a tough mountain bike event called the Tour Divide with a very simple eating plan - eat as much as possible, whenever possible. That included a huge pizza for main course, calzone for dessert and one to take away and eat on the trail.
When he finished the event he described himself as looking emaciated and like a concentration camp survivor.
BTW - cardio or no cardio would make on average 500+ cals a day for me difference, I wouldn't call that "not much" would you? If I wanted to create a significant and long term deficit using cardio I certainly could, that some other people couldn't is also of course true.
Be very careful about using absolute terms or projecting supposed typical situations to apply to everyone.
Like I stated above, I was just trying to clarify that they were using running as an example to show the 350 deficit. All examples, not saying everyone only burns 350 or everyone only has to run. I was just pointing that out. And by "not much" I meant if you eat an unhealthy large amount of high fat/high calorie foods consistently - and you are not participating in a 2745 mile bike ride - then burning 350 calories a few times each week will not get you very far. I am not projecting situations onto anyone for the third time it is just EXAMPLES. 350 calories is 350 calories, does not matter how you burn it, it was just a situation. The bottom line was diet is extremely important when trying to lose weight. Jeez.
Nobody says diet isn't important. But some people are saying cardio can't help with weight loss, which is false.
I never said it can't help with weight loss. I said it would be difficult to lose weight relying on only cardio burning only 350 calories a few times each week with a poor diet. Cardio can certainly help with weight loss.1 -
There's a misconception about lifting weights and fat loss (which is the goal here): The act of lifting weights itself is intense but short lived and therefore can be relatively low caloric. However, if you are doing serious lifting, meaning ~4-8 reps to near failure for multiple sets and increasing weight regularly (doing this level of intensity will not be fun!), the recovery process from lifting weight generates a LOT of caloric burn. Muscle tissue itself also has a higher metabolic rate than fat tissue. Large amounts of cardio can lead to a 'skinny fat' look, thinner, able to run huge distances, but no definition, still a little pudgy, etc. I lost 60 lbs of fat with NO cardio, just lifting weights, and diet. I also put on 20 lbs of muscle in the 4 months as I wasn't a heavy lifter before. And when I was stable at goal weight, my daily caloric consumption had gone UP from ~2500 cal to ~3300cal. So I got to eat more when I was done!
NOw I do cardio too, but for conditioning and heart health, although even that benefit is being challenged. Still I do some aerobic activities (like hiking, biking) and being in condition is helpful, which gets to the last point. Your approach should depend on your goals: don't lift weights if you want to run a marathon for instance.
OK, since I lost weight (close to a third of my bodyweight in less than a year) without ever doing sets of 4-8 reps to near failure (in fact, while doing remarkably little lifting of any sort, because, sadly, I find it boring and I'm too hedonistic to tolerate the boredom), then I'm obviously skinny fat, as you'll be able to see in my profile pic. Been doing lots of nice "cardio" for nearly 20 years, so I'm sure that accounts for it. So sad!
Doesn't really explain why my maintenance calories are, like yours, 25%-30% higher than they "should" be, though.
Look, I respect your accomplishments: That's wonderful. You should be proud of them. But those accomplishments should speak for themselves; it shouldn't be necessary to deprecate or misrepresent other modalities.
There's a human tendency to want to believe that our personal approach is objectively "better" than all other possible alternative approaches. That's usually not true.
The medicalnewstoday article you say challenges the benefit of cardiovascular exercise says that people should do both strength and cardiovascular exercise. It mentions a survey of 4000 people that showed those who self-reported static exercise had reduced risk of (presumably self-reported) cardiovascular disease vs. those who self-reported dynamic exercise. The actual study was behind a login, or I would've read it.
Personally, I hate the term "cardio". So broad, so uniformative.maureenseel1984 wrote: »"skinny fat"
GOD I hate that term.
That, too. :flowerforyou:4 -
Sunflowerinbloom wrote: »So does cardio and weights help you lose weight I was told cardio does not help if going to the gym just do weights
Weight loss comes down to having a calorie deficit. Yes, both cardio and weights can help create a calorie deficit...or not. If that was the default then people who exercise regularly and are maintaining like me would wither away and die. At any rate, cardio is very good for your cardiovascular health...resistance training is beneficial in maintaining or gaining muscle mass, bone density, etc. Both are very good for you regardless of your weight management objectives.1 -
NorthCascades wrote: »julieweberr wrote: »julieweberr wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »I'm a number girl and like to rationalize things with numbers. If I run 50 minutes I burn about 350kcal. Note, this depends on weight and distance run. Generally, miles * body weight in lbs * 0.64 works quite well.
So cool, 350kcal from running. If I do this for a week I'll lose 1750kcal. Or half a pound. Meh! Can I do this every day, without a break? Unlikely. Rest days are important. So I might lose a tiny bit of weight from running for 50 minutes a few times per week. Nope, doesn't seem like a good weightloss plan. (mind you, I'm maintaining. Just making a point)
Running is high impact, it's hard on your joints, bones, etc. I can ride a marathon every day, comfortably. I can walk 350 kcal every day, comfortably. Your example is about running, not exercise generally.
I believe they were just pointing out the caloric deficit part of exercise in general, saying cardio or no cardio it's not much of a difference, you can't lose a significant amount of weight with a poor diet and only exercise.
A chap called Guy Martin rode a tough mountain bike event called the Tour Divide with a very simple eating plan - eat as much as possible, whenever possible. That included a huge pizza for main course, calzone for dessert and one to take away and eat on the trail.
When he finished the event he described himself as looking emaciated and like a concentration camp survivor.
BTW - cardio or no cardio would make on average 500+ cals a day for me difference, I wouldn't call that "not much" would you? If I wanted to create a significant and long term deficit using cardio I certainly could, that some other people couldn't is also of course true.
Be very careful about using absolute terms or projecting supposed typical situations to apply to everyone.
Like I stated above, I was just trying to clarify that they were using running as an example to show the 350 deficit. All examples, not saying everyone only burns 350 or everyone only has to run. I was just pointing that out. And by "not much" I meant if you eat an unhealthy large amount of high fat/high calorie foods consistently - and you are not participating in a 2745 mile bike ride - then burning 350 calories a few times each week will not get you very far. I am not projecting situations onto anyone for the third time it is just EXAMPLES. 350 calories is 350 calories, does not matter how you burn it, it was just a situation. The bottom line was diet is extremely important when trying to lose weight. Jeez.
Nobody says diet isn't important. But some people are saying cardio can't help with weight loss, which is false.
It's not false, it's incomplete/misleading. Anytime someone talks about 1 side of the equation without talking about how it fits with the other side of the equation either doesn't know what they are talking about or don't care to take the time to put together a complete and helpful response... and that's when we end up wiht threads like this that just go in circles.
I bet more people would find more success if they weren't discouraged from exercising.4 -
NorthCascades wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »julieweberr wrote: »julieweberr wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »I'm a number girl and like to rationalize things with numbers. If I run 50 minutes I burn about 350kcal. Note, this depends on weight and distance run. Generally, miles * body weight in lbs * 0.64 works quite well.
So cool, 350kcal from running. If I do this for a week I'll lose 1750kcal. Or half a pound. Meh! Can I do this every day, without a break? Unlikely. Rest days are important. So I might lose a tiny bit of weight from running for 50 minutes a few times per week. Nope, doesn't seem like a good weightloss plan. (mind you, I'm maintaining. Just making a point)
Running is high impact, it's hard on your joints, bones, etc. I can ride a marathon every day, comfortably. I can walk 350 kcal every day, comfortably. Your example is about running, not exercise generally.
I believe they were just pointing out the caloric deficit part of exercise in general, saying cardio or no cardio it's not much of a difference, you can't lose a significant amount of weight with a poor diet and only exercise.
A chap called Guy Martin rode a tough mountain bike event called the Tour Divide with a very simple eating plan - eat as much as possible, whenever possible. That included a huge pizza for main course, calzone for dessert and one to take away and eat on the trail.
When he finished the event he described himself as looking emaciated and like a concentration camp survivor.
BTW - cardio or no cardio would make on average 500+ cals a day for me difference, I wouldn't call that "not much" would you? If I wanted to create a significant and long term deficit using cardio I certainly could, that some other people couldn't is also of course true.
Be very careful about using absolute terms or projecting supposed typical situations to apply to everyone.
Like I stated above, I was just trying to clarify that they were using running as an example to show the 350 deficit. All examples, not saying everyone only burns 350 or everyone only has to run. I was just pointing that out. And by "not much" I meant if you eat an unhealthy large amount of high fat/high calorie foods consistently - and you are not participating in a 2745 mile bike ride - then burning 350 calories a few times each week will not get you very far. I am not projecting situations onto anyone for the third time it is just EXAMPLES. 350 calories is 350 calories, does not matter how you burn it, it was just a situation. The bottom line was diet is extremely important when trying to lose weight. Jeez.
Nobody says diet isn't important. But some people are saying cardio can't help with weight loss, which is false.
It's not false, it's incomplete/misleading. Anytime someone talks about 1 side of the equation without talking about how it fits with the other side of the equation either doesn't know what they are talking about or don't care to take the time to put together a complete and helpful response... and that's when we end up wiht threads like this that just go in circles.
I bet more people would find more success if they weren't discouraged from exercising.
I don't disagree.
But I also bet more people would find more success if their expectations about exercise, as it relates to weight loss, were more realistic.4 -
Maybe if we stopped caring SO MUCH about how our bodies look and cared more about HEALTH...
People only get discouraged because we all feel like we have to live up to these ridiculous standards of what health should LOOK like. Washboard abs, low BF%, thigh gaps, bikini bridges, bubble butts, runner's calves, etc. It's all just so stupid.
Things like "skinny fat" and "chubby" and "not toned"...really doesn't help.
At my thinnest and "most fit" I was also my least healthy...living off maybe 5 saltines and a salad a day...while running 5 miles and obsessing over every morsel I ate.
So. Very. Stupid.5 -
maureenseel1984 wrote: »Maybe if we stopped caring SO MUCH about how our bodies look and cared more about HEALTH...
People only get discouraged because we all feel like we have to live up to these ridiculous standards of what health should LOOK like. Washboard abs, low BF%, thigh gaps, bikini bridges, bubble butts, runner's calves, etc. It's all just so stupid.
Things like "skinny fat" and "chubby" and "not toned"...really doesn't help.
At my thinnest and "most fit" I was also my least healthy...living off maybe 5 saltines and a salad a day...while running 5 miles and obsessing over every morsel I ate.
So. Very. Stupid.
WORD.1 -
maureenseel1984 wrote: »Maybe if we stopped caring SO MUCH about how our bodies look and cared more about HEALTH...
People only get discouraged because we all feel like we have to live up to these ridiculous standards of what health should LOOK like. Washboard abs, low BF%, thigh gaps, bikini bridges, bubble butts, runner's calves, etc. It's all just so stupid.
Things like "skinny fat" and "chubby" and "not toned"...really doesn't help.
At my thinnest and "most fit" I was also my least healthy...living off maybe 5 saltines and a salad a day...while running 5 miles and obsessing over every morsel I ate.
So. Very. Stupid.
Also same to your last sentiment. I was my thinnest in high school, when I (unintentionally) ate nothing but crap, but not very much of it. I was active and went to the gym almost every day, and if someone didn't know my diet, would assume I was super healthy. Even though that day I probably just ate Pop-Tarts and fast food for lunch, skipping dinner because I was too busy.
3 -
Also same to your last sentiment. I was my thinnest in high school, when I (unintentionally) ate nothing but crap, but not very much of it. I was active and went to the gym almost every day, and if someone didn't know my diet, would assume I was super healthy. Even though that day I probably just ate Pop-Tarts and fast food for lunch, skipping dinner because I was too busy.
This is also where things like "calories in vs calories out" gets to be so dangerous.
That mentality can be quite disordered and also doesn't take into account individual metabolic variables. No mathematical equation can accurately tell you how many calories your body really needs...maybe a rough estimate to go by-but I certainly don't see it as a hard and fast rule.
And if it really is calories in vs calories out, maybe I should just eat minuscule amounts of the foods I like (cheeseburgers, donuts, chips) and forget nutrition all together...(note sarcasm here, folks-not actually suggesting this).
My approach:
Everything in moderation, including moderation from time to time.
Exercise because it is good for you and because you enjoy it. Not as a form of punishment or a way to try to change yourself to fit some mold that honestly...is VERY difficult to achieve without becoming restrictive or obsessive.
7 -
maureenseel1984 wrote: »Also same to your last sentiment. I was my thinnest in high school, when I (unintentionally) ate nothing but crap, but not very much of it. I was active and went to the gym almost every day, and if someone didn't know my diet, would assume I was super healthy. Even though that day I probably just ate Pop-Tarts and fast food for lunch, skipping dinner because I was too busy.
This is also where things like "calories in vs calories out" gets to be so dangerous.
That mentality can be quite disordered and also doesn't take into account individual metabolic variables. No mathematical equation can accurately tell you how many calories your body really needs...maybe a rough estimate to go by-but I certainly don't see it as a hard and fast rule.
And if it really is calories in vs calories out, maybe I should just eat minuscule amounts of the foods I like (cheeseburgers, donuts, chips) and forget nutrition all together...(note sarcasm here, folks-not actually suggesting this).
My approach:
Everything in moderation, including moderation from time to time.
Exercise because it is good for you and because you enjoy it. Not as a form of punishment or a way to try to change yourself to fit some mold that honestly...is VERY difficult to achieve without becoming restrictive or obsessive.
I'm not sure you really understand what CICO is...
It's a concept that is relative to energy balance. It is not counting calories, 1200 calories per day, or whatever else. It is also completely separate from nutrition (which obviously is important)... so your sarcastic comment about cheeseburgers isn't really applicable as CICO does not negate nutrition, they are separate things. Imagine a Venn diagram. Nutrition and calorie intake are separate circles. Where they overlap is your target sweet spot. How much they overlap can and well vary person to person.
CICO absolutely does take into account metabolic variables - those things fall under the umbrella that is CO. CICO often times gets oversimplified, but that's a problem with the assumptions people make applying the concept of CICO, not actually with CICO.
And you're right - no formula can guarantee an accurate calorie goal. But they can and do offer a good place to start. It's up to the individual to adjust based on their specific circumstances, experiences, etc.9 -
I'm not sure you really understand what CICO is...
It's a concept that is relative to energy balance. It is not counting calories, 1200 calories per day, or whatever else. It is also completely separate from nutrition (which obviously is important)... so your sarcastic comment about cheeseburgers isn't really applicable as CICO does not negate nutrition, they are separate things.
CICO absolutely does take into account metabolic variables - those things fall under the umbrella that is CO. CICO often times gets oversimplified, but that's a problem with the assumptions people make applying the concept of CICO, not actually with CICO.
And you're right - no formula can guarantee an accurate calorie goal. But they can and do offer a good place to start. It's up to the individual to adjust based on their specific circumstances, experiences, etc.
I also think you're willfully misunderstanding or misinterpreting what I am saying.
Also do not make assumptions about what I do and do not understand. I am a registered dietitian.
I have a little more of a scientific and professional background than you give me credit for. 3 -
maureenseel1984 wrote: »I'm not sure you really understand what CICO is...
It's a concept that is relative to energy balance. It is not counting calories, 1200 calories per day, or whatever else. It is also completely separate from nutrition (which obviously is important)... so your sarcastic comment about cheeseburgers isn't really applicable as CICO does not negate nutrition, they are separate things.
CICO absolutely does take into account metabolic variables - those things fall under the umbrella that is CO. CICO often times gets oversimplified, but that's a problem with the assumptions people make applying the concept of CICO, not actually with CICO.
And you're right - no formula can guarantee an accurate calorie goal. But they can and do offer a good place to start. It's up to the individual to adjust based on their specific circumstances, experiences, etc.
I also think you're willfully misunderstanding or misinterpreting what I am saying.
Also do not make assumptions about what I do and do not understand. I am a registered dietitian. I have a little more of a scientific and professional background than you give me credit for.
Not willfully, no. Just reading what you typed and responding to the point that it conveyed to me. Feel free to point out where/what I misunderstood.8 -
Weight loss comes down to energy balance.
Strength train for your muscles and bones.
Do cardio for your heart and lungs.
Manage your intake to ensure you are in negative energy balance.
And get plenty of sleep...6 -
"so your sarcastic comment about cheeseburgers isn't really applicable as CICO does not negate nutrition, they are separate things."
The concept of CICO is to eat less than you burn. Plain and simple. And this is also where insane diets such as the cabbage soup diet, the donut diet...
CICO is also proven wrong by the ketogenic diet. People who do keto eat an insane amount of calories due to the high fat content of what they eat, however, by manipulating the body's primary source of fuel, you can cause rapid and significant weight loss.
The rub there of course is that once you return to normal eating, many folks gain the weight back (and then some).
I also happen to know that most equations (be it Harris-Benedict, Mifflin St. Jeor and others-calories per kg, etc) could work for one individual and not work for another individual of the same weight.
To say that CICO and eating nutritious foods are two different things-well...yes. I realize that. Hence why CICO alone is not adequate for weight loss for most people and certainly not for optimal health. 14 -
Weight loss comes down to energy balance.
Strength train for your muscles and bones.
Do cardio for your heart and lungs.
Manage your intake to ensure you are in negative energy balance...
Sometimes the simplest answer, like above, is the best answer(at least in my opinion). And there's no one way to do strength training or cardio, and you can do both at the same time(rowing, weighted walking, yoga, HIIT as just a few examples - my personal favourite is VR boxing or playing Beat Saber
). Do whatever activity makes you feel good and that you'll stick with and don't stress the minutiae of it. That's always been my philosophy.
4 -
NorthCascades wrote: »julieweberr wrote: »julieweberr wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »I'm a number girl and like to rationalize things with numbers. If I run 50 minutes I burn about 350kcal. Note, this depends on weight and distance run. Generally, miles * body weight in lbs * 0.64 works quite well.
So cool, 350kcal from running. If I do this for a week I'll lose 1750kcal. Or half a pound. Meh! Can I do this every day, without a break? Unlikely. Rest days are important. So I might lose a tiny bit of weight from running for 50 minutes a few times per week. Nope, doesn't seem like a good weightloss plan. (mind you, I'm maintaining. Just making a point)
Running is high impact, it's hard on your joints, bones, etc. I can ride a marathon every day, comfortably. I can walk 350 kcal every day, comfortably. Your example is about running, not exercise generally.
I believe they were just pointing out the caloric deficit part of exercise in general, saying cardio or no cardio it's not much of a difference, you can't lose a significant amount of weight with a poor diet and only exercise.
A chap called Guy Martin rode a tough mountain bike event called the Tour Divide with a very simple eating plan - eat as much as possible, whenever possible. That included a huge pizza for main course, calzone for dessert and one to take away and eat on the trail.
When he finished the event he described himself as looking emaciated and like a concentration camp survivor.
BTW - cardio or no cardio would make on average 500+ cals a day for me difference, I wouldn't call that "not much" would you? If I wanted to create a significant and long term deficit using cardio I certainly could, that some other people couldn't is also of course true.
Be very careful about using absolute terms or projecting supposed typical situations to apply to everyone.
Like I stated above, I was just trying to clarify that they were using running as an example to show the 350 deficit. All examples, not saying everyone only burns 350 or everyone only has to run. I was just pointing that out. And by "not much" I meant if you eat an unhealthy large amount of high fat/high calorie foods consistently - and you are not participating in a 2745 mile bike ride - then burning 350 calories a few times each week will not get you very far. I am not projecting situations onto anyone for the third time it is just EXAMPLES. 350 calories is 350 calories, does not matter how you burn it, it was just a situation. The bottom line was diet is extremely important when trying to lose weight. Jeez.
Nobody says diet isn't important. But some people are saying cardio can't help with weight loss, which is false.
It's not false, it's incomplete/misleading. Anytime someone talks about 1 side of the equation without talking about how it fits with the other side of the equation either doesn't know what they are talking about or don't care to take the time to put together a complete and helpful response... and that's when we end up wiht threads like this that just go in circles.
Ha, this is nothing...4 -
True, but that's a problem with people looking to make a buck or searching for quick fixes. Not a problem with energy balance. The problem is with the people, not with the science.maureenseel1984 wrote: »The concept of CICO is to eat less than you burn. Plain and simple. And this is also where insane diets such as the cabbage soup diet, the donut diet...
I've heard that claimed before, but I'm yet to see anyone actually defy thermodynamics. The energy from calories absorbed (which is actually what CI is, not simply calories eaten) simply don't disappear. If you can point me to examples of this happening, I'd greatly appreciate it.maureenseel1984 wrote: »CICO is also proven wrong by the ketogenic diet. People who do keto eat an insane amount of calories due to the high fat content of what they eat, however, by manipulating the body's primary source of fuel, you can cause rapid and significant weight loss.
The rub there of course is that once you return to normal eating, many folks gain the weight back (and then some).
Right. Has anyone said those equations are fool proof? Not that I've seen. They are starting points.maureenseel1984 wrote: »I also happen to know that most equations (be it Harris-Benedict, Mifflin St. Jeor and others-calories per kg, etc) could work for one individual and not work for another individual of the same weight.
Let me ask you this... as a registered dietitian, if someone comes to you with the goal of losing weight, calorie intake has to be part of your advice/strategy, right? How do you determine what that should be?
Again, I've yet to see CICO not be adequate for weight loss. For nutrition, sure.maureenseel1984 wrote: »To say that CICO and eating nutritious foods are two different things-well...yes. I realize that. Hence why CICO alone is not adequate for weight loss for most people and certainly not for optimal health.
6 -
maureenseel1984 wrote: »CICO is also proven wrong by the ketogenic diet.
I don't think that has been proven...
6 -
maureenseel1984 wrote: »Hence why CICO alone is not adequate for weight loss for most people and certainly not for optimal health.
CICO is not a weight loss tool, it is just an energy equation that describes what is going on inside the body.
CI>CO = Weight gain.
CI=CO = Maintenance.
CI<CO = Weight loss.
You can not lose weight in an energy surplus...4 -
maureenseel1984 wrote: »"so your sarcastic comment about cheeseburgers isn't really applicable as CICO does not negate nutrition, they are separate things."
The concept of CICO is to eat less than you burn. Plain and simple. And this is also where insane diets such as the cabbage soup diet, the donut diet...
CICO is also proven wrong by the ketogenic diet. People who do keto eat an insane amount of calories due to the high fat content of what they eat, however, by manipulating the body's primary source of fuel, you can cause rapid and significant weight loss.
The rub there of course is that once you return to normal eating, many folks gain the weight back (and then some).
I also happen to know that most equations (be it Harris-Benedict, Mifflin St. Jeor and others-calories per kg, etc) could work for one individual and not work for another individual of the same weight.
To say that CICO and eating nutritious foods are two different things-well...yes. I realize that. Hence why CICO alone is not adequate for weight loss for most people and certainly not for optimal health.
People losing weight on keto don't eat insane amounts of calories. There are keto food loggers here, and they lose weight exactly as they'd expect to based on their calories. There are larger losses up front due to dropping water weight and because people who drastically change their fat macro feel stuffed on less calories at first and end up under eating until their system acclimates. But they think they are eating a lot of calories because they're so full.
CICO isn't just running a calculator and then eating those calories. It's getting a starting goal, sticking to it for 6-8 weeks, doing the math, tweaking your cals up or down, going another 6-8 weeks, etc until you are losing at a reasonable pace. The various TDEE calculators are all just a generalization. Most people will have to tweak up or down based on their results over the long term. That doesn't mean CICO doesn't apply, it means the calculators are generalizations.Sunflowerinbloom wrote: »So does cardio and weights help you lose weight I was told cardio does not help if going to the gym just do weights
Cardio can help you lose weight if you are already controlling your calories in, you properly fuel your exercise, and you don't do so much that it leaves you starving or makes you fatigued and actually ends up lowering your NEAT in the process.
Weights probably don't help you lose weight much at all, but it can help you look better through the process and when you reach goal.
Both are important for all around health, regardless of your weight and which direction it's heading in.5 -
maureenseel1984 wrote: »"so your sarcastic comment about cheeseburgers isn't really applicable as CICO does not negate nutrition, they are separate things."
The concept of CICO is to eat less than you burn. Plain and simple. And this is also where insane diets such as the cabbage soup diet, the donut diet...
CICO is also proven wrong by the ketogenic diet. People who do keto eat an insane amount of calories due to the high fat content of what they eat, however, by manipulating the body's primary source of fuel, you can cause rapid and significant weight loss.
The rub there of course is that once you return to normal eating, many folks gain the weight back (and then some).
I also happen to know that most equations (be it Harris-Benedict, Mifflin St. Jeor and others-calories per kg, etc) could work for one individual and not work for another individual of the same weight.
To say that CICO and eating nutritious foods are two different things-well...yes. I realize that. Hence why CICO alone is not adequate for weight loss for most people and certainly not for optimal health.
People do all kinds of stupid *kitten*...nothing to do with CICO. CICO is just the energy equation. Eat less than you burn doesn't mean eat nothing or crash your diet. I lost about 1 Lb per week eating 2300-2500 calories per day...hardly "insane"
And no, people don't eat in calorie surpluses doing keto and lose weight...you can't lose weight in an energy surplus. Studies actually show that after the initial water loss, there is no other advantage long term to keto vs anything else, calories being equal.
Nobody talking about CICO here is saying to ignore nutrition.8 -
maureenseel1984 wrote: »CICO is also proven wrong by the ketogenic diet. People who do keto eat an insane amount of calories due to the high fat content of what they eat, however, by manipulating the body's primary source of fuel, you can cause rapid and significant weight loss.
The rub there of course is that once you return to normal eating, many folks gain the weight back (and then some).
This statement is patently false. There has been much research into this. Bottom line is when protein and calories are held constant, there is no metabolic advantage for any diet method including keto. On keto folks lose some water weight at first, but long term fat loss results are the same. Here are some good examples of actual research as opposed to opinion and internet woo. The first is a meta-analysis of 32 controlled feeding studies.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5568065/
The next is a study of 609 overweight adults:
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/2673150?redirect=true
Tl/dnr version. No difference is weight loss for keto over any other diet.Conclusions and Relevance In this 12-month weight loss diet study, there was no significant difference in weight change between a healthy low-fat diet vs a healthy low-carbohydrate diet, and neither genotype pattern nor baseline insulin secretion was associated with the dietary effects on weight loss. In the context of these 2 common weight loss diet approaches, neither of the 2 hypothesized predisposing factors was helpful in identifying which diet was better for whom.
The quote above is from the 2nd study.I also happen to know that most equations (be it Harris-Benedict, Mifflin St. Jeor and others-calories per kg, etc) could work for one individual and not work for another individual of the same weight.
As has already been pointed out, all equations are estimates. Yes, there is metabolic variation. Real world data trumps estimate and equations. That in no way invalidates the energy balance equation. As a registered dietician, I'm surprised you would not be more familiar with this research that relates directly to your field of practice.
10 -
maureenseel1984 wrote: »CICO is also proven wrong by the ketogenic diet. People who do keto eat an insane amount of calories due to the high fat content of what they eat, however, by manipulating the body's primary source of fuel, you can cause rapid and significant weight loss.
This is simply not true at all. People who lose on this diet are just not hungry enough to eat insane amounts of calories. Just one example is enough to disprove this (like me gaining on the ketogenic diet because it didn't reduce my appetite, and the gain was in line with my surplus), but there are plenty of people who use the diet while losing, maintaining, or gaining.3 -
amusedmonkey wrote: »maureenseel1984 wrote: »CICO is also proven wrong by the ketogenic diet. People who do keto eat an insane amount of calories due to the high fat content of what they eat, however, by manipulating the body's primary source of fuel, you can cause rapid and significant weight loss.
This is simply not true at all. People who lose on this diet are just not hungry enough to eat insane amounts of calories. Just one example is enough to disprove this (like me gaining on the ketogenic diet because it didn't reduce my appetite, and the gain was in line with my surplus), but there are plenty of people who use the diet while losing, maintaining, or gaining.
I mean if you're using one example my husband ate a ridiculous amount of calories and dropped a ton of weight...there are a lot of details that people are overlooking.
Nowhere did I say that CICO was invalid. I said it is over-simplified. And it is.11 -
I also suppose the set point theory is lost on many folks here...there's more to weight loss than CICO. Not saying it's not valid. Again. Over-simplified.10
-
maureenseel1984 wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »maureenseel1984 wrote: »CICO is also proven wrong by the ketogenic diet. People who do keto eat an insane amount of calories due to the high fat content of what they eat, however, by manipulating the body's primary source of fuel, you can cause rapid and significant weight loss.
This is simply not true at all. People who lose on this diet are just not hungry enough to eat insane amounts of calories. Just one example is enough to disprove this (like me gaining on the ketogenic diet because it didn't reduce my appetite, and the gain was in line with my surplus), but there are plenty of people who use the diet while losing, maintaining, or gaining.
I mean if you're using one example my husband ate a ridiculous amount of calories and dropped a ton of weight...there are a lot of details that people are overlooking.
Nowhere did I say that CICO was invalid. I said it is over-simplified. And it is.
To be fair, you said "CICO is also proven wrong by the ketogenic diet".
Your husband may very well have eaten a ridiculous amount of food and lost weight. He clearly was in an energy deficit. If he was not, he would have not lost weight.
You can not lose weight in a surplus.
CICO is not overly simplified. It does not do anything other then inform you of what is happening inside your body.
Of course, none of this negates that many have great success on Keto. Just maybe not for the reasons they think...7 -
maureenseel1984 wrote: »CICO is also proven wrong by the ketogenic diet. People who do keto eat an insane amount of calories due to the high fat content of what they eat, however, by manipulating the body's primary source of fuel, you can cause rapid and significant weight loss.
My dad lost *a lot* of weight while still eating above maintenance. He wasn't keto, though. Turns out he had stomach cancer. Likely the only way that someone eating in a consistent calorie surplus would be able to drop weight. Unless they binge and purge, of course. I don't recommend either of those.
And in case I wasn't clear, anyone eating a keto diet (or any other way of eating, for that matter) and losing weight IS in a caloric deficit.
7 -
maureenseel1984 wrote: »And if it really is calories in vs calories out, maybe I should just eat minuscule amounts of the foods I like (cheeseburgers, donuts, chips) and forget nutrition all together...(note sarcasm here, folks-not actually suggesting this).
I don't understand this claim at all.
That I am aware that weight loss is about calories in vs. calories out is helpful for me. It does not mean that I cease caring about anything but weight loss. Of course I still care about nutrition, health, etc. It also does not mean that I ignore factors that make it easier or harder to maintain the calorie balance I want -- eating tiny amounts of high cal foods would be difficult for me to sustain. Lucky for me the diet I most enjoy tends to also be based around higher nutrient foods, but even if it wasn't I'd be eating lots of those because they tend to (on average) be most satiating overall for me.
It's like saying that if I know that my account balance is determined by dollars in vs. dollars out that I will then immediately ignore other goals like investing for retirement or the value of what I purchase or whether it's worth the cost to me.My approach:
Everything in moderation, including moderation from time to time.
Exercise because it is good for you and because you enjoy it. Not as a form of punishment or a way to try to change yourself to fit some mold that honestly...is VERY difficult to achieve without becoming restrictive or obsessive.
This seems reasonable, although exercising to meet goals (running a marathon or doing a tri) was something I found valuable in pushing myself, even at times when it meant doing things not in the moment enjoyable. Not everyone has a tendency to become restrictive or obsessive.4
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