Importance of cardio when loosing fat
adammitch79
Posts: 4 Member
Staying within my daily Marco and calorie goals which is putting me in a deficit of around 1000-2000 calories a day,
working a physically demanding job and weights training 4-5 times a week,
besides obvious reasons of heart and cardiovascular health what’s the importance of cardio when wanting to shred fat?
working a physically demanding job and weights training 4-5 times a week,
besides obvious reasons of heart and cardiovascular health what’s the importance of cardio when wanting to shred fat?
5
Replies
-
Cardio is fun, and can allow you to eat more while still losing weight. Plus several forms of cardio are great transportation. Being outdoors is good for mental health.
But you shred fat with a calorie deficit. Or maybe a cheese grater.27 -
It adds to your deficit. But it's not necessary to lose weight or lose fat.
I typically don't do very much since I am active day to day and it interferes with my lifting of it's too intense. I've cut with and without cardio. Both great results although with cardio it allowed me to eat more which helped with adherence I guess.7 -
I think cardio is generally underrated here on MFP as a component of weight/fat loss. My calorie deficit is 1,000 per day but of that cardio accounts for 350. So cardio is responsible for 35 % of my weight loss. But much more importantly, those extra 350 calories I get to eat every day are a huge, huge component of my diet compliance - I'd have probably fallen off the wagon long ago if I had 350 calories less food every day. All that is totally aside from the obvious benefits of cardio for health and fitness.26
-
Your diet is to lose weight/gain weight/maintain weight. Exercise is for gaining muscle/retaining muscle/heart health. They are two separate things.
Exercising to burn calories so you can eat more is a path I don't recommend anyone walking down. Then exercise comes as a form of punishment because you ate too much, or reward because you want to eat more.
5 -
If you are following MFP's calorie goal, then exercise of any kind has nothing to do with your weight loss. MFP intends you to eat back all exercise calories assuming they are calculated accurately. You should not be using exercise to create a larger deficit if you're using the calorie goal MFP gives you.
Exercise is for health and fitness and to eat more, not for a larger deficit.6 -
Your diet is to lose weight/gain weight/maintain weight. Exercise is for gaining muscle/retaining muscle/heart health. They are two separate things.
Exercising to burn calories so you can eat more is a path I don't recommend anyone walking down. Then exercise comes as a form of punishment because you ate too much, or reward because you want to eat more.
Yes and no. Thinking that you must do additional exercise because you feel you ate too much is a potentially dangerous mindset. Having a sustainable exercise routine that allows us to eat more is a necessary long-term maintenance tool for many people. I am under 5 feet tall and my maintenance calories are depressingly low if I don't exercise.34 -
I think cardio is generally underrated here on MFP as a component of weight/fat loss. My calorie deficit is 1,000 per day but of that cardio accounts for 350. So cardio is responsible for 35 % of my weight loss. But much more importantly, those extra 350 calories I get to eat every day are a huge, huge component of my diet compliance - I'd have probably fallen off the wagon long ago if I had 350 calories less food every day. All that is totally aside from the obvious benefits of cardio for health and fitness.
If you are eating back the 350 calories that you burn from doing cardio, then cardio is responsible for 0% of your weight loss. Your weight loss is 100% coming from the calorie deficit that you are in. Granted, you do get to eat more because you are doing cardio, but you also may be more hungry because of it as well. I am not advocating against cardio, I am simply pointing out that it isn't necessary to lose weight.8 -
I just disagree.
Math:
Person A decides to go on a diet to lose 2 lbs per week and he intends to do no exercise at all. He sets himself up on MFP and quickly discovers that the 1550 cals suggested to him by MFP is ridiculously low, so he sets himself a more modest weight loss goal of 1.5 lbs, which allows him 1800 cals/day. He proceeds to lose 1.5 pounds per week.
Person B, who is the same height, weight and age, and therefore offered the same 1550 by MFP in order to lose 2 lbs/week, does 250 cals worth of cardio every day. He's happy with his 1800 and merrily bangs out his cardio every morning. Ergo, he loses the 2 lbs per week he wanted.
So, person B loses half a pound more per week (i.e. 33 % faster weight loss), eating exactly the same amount of food as Person A, due solely to his cardio workouts.
In short, cardio = weight loss. In this case, 33 % more weight loss per unit of time.
Now, if it's to be argued that cardio isn't "necessary" because Person B could've just eaten 1550 to lose his 2 lbs/week, and/or set a more modest weight loss goal, yes that is true. But maybe he wants more food than 1550 and to lose weight faster than 1.5 lbs/week, and in that case, that's where cardio comes in.23 -
I just disagree.
Math:
Person A decides to go on a diet to lose 2 lbs per week and he intends to do no exercise at all. He sets himself up on MFP and quickly discovers that the 1550 cals suggested to him by MFP is ridiculously low, so he sets himself a more modest weight loss goal of 1.5 lbs, which allows him 1800 cals/day. He proceeds to lose 1.5 pounds per week.
Person B, who is the same height, weight and age, and therefore offered the same 1550 by MFP in order to lose 2 lbs/week, does 250 cals worth of cardio every day. He's happy with his 1800 and merrily bangs out his cardio every morning. Ergo, he loses the 2 lbs per week he wanted.
So, person B loses half a pound more per week (i.e. 33 % faster weight loss), eating exactly the same amount of food as Person A, due solely to his cardio workouts.
In short, cardio = weight loss. In this case, 33 % more weight loss per unit of time.
Now, if it's to be argued that cardio isn't "necessary" because Person B could've just eaten 1550 to lose his 2 lbs/week, and/or set a more modest weight loss goal, yes that is true. But maybe he wants more food than 1550 and to lose weight faster than 1.5 lbs/week, and in that case, that's where cardio comes in.
Both people are losing weight, correct? I said that cardio was not necessary for weight loss, which you just proved by your scenario even though you made assumptions about how much each individual would need to eat to feel satiated. I could easily argue that the cardio that person B does is going to make them more hungry and make them want to eat more than the 350 calories they burned. The problem is, not every person responds in the same way which is why the only correct answer is that people should do what they think is best for them, and what is going to be the easiest for them to maintain. Like I said, I wasn't arguing against cardio, I myself did, and still do cardio, however the amount that I do has changed drastically since I made it to maintenance, and then bulked, and then cut again, and then recomped. I have been successful in each one of these phases with varying degrees of cardio, and at times with none at all.10 -
I just disagree.
Math:
Person A decides to go on a diet to lose 2 lbs per week and he intends to do no exercise at all. He sets himself up on MFP and quickly discovers that the 1550 cals suggested to him by MFP is ridiculously low, so he sets himself a more modest weight loss goal of 1.5 lbs, which allows him 1800 cals/day. He proceeds to lose 1.5 pounds per week.
Person B, who is the same height, weight and age, and therefore offered the same 1550 by MFP in order to lose 2 lbs/week, does 250 cals worth of cardio every day. He's happy with his 1800 and merrily bangs out his cardio every morning. Ergo, he loses the 2 lbs per week he wanted.
So, person B loses half a pound more per week (i.e. 33 % faster weight loss), eating exactly the same amount of food as Person A, due solely to his cardio workouts.
In short, cardio = weight loss. In this case, 33 % more weight loss per unit of time.
Now, if it's to be argued that cardio isn't "necessary" because Person B could've just eaten 1550 to lose his 2 lbs/week, and/or set a more modest weight loss goal, yes that is true. But maybe he wants more food than 1550 and to lose weight faster than 1.5 lbs/week, and in that case, that's where cardio comes in.
but if the person ate 1550 and lost 2 lbs/week they lose the same amount of weight... it is the deficit of 1,000 cals/day that is responsible for the weight lose, regardless how you achieved that deficit. In your example what if a third person has higher NEAT and still loses 2 lbs/week at 1800 cals and does no cardio?
And in your example when does an activity go from being part of NEAT to cardio exercise?7 -
Your diet is to lose weight/gain weight/maintain weight. Exercise is for gaining muscle/retaining muscle/heart health. They are two separate things.
Exercising to burn calories so you can eat more is a path I don't recommend anyone walking down. Then exercise comes as a form of punishment because you ate too much, or reward because you want to eat more.
and that is what most of the people in MFP are aiming for... isn't it?4 -
I think cardio is generally underrated here on MFP as a component of weight/fat loss. My calorie deficit is 1,000 per day but of that cardio accounts for 350. So cardio is responsible for 35 % of my weight loss. But much more importantly, those extra 350 calories I get to eat every day are a huge, huge component of my diet compliance - I'd have probably fallen off the wagon long ago if I had 350 calories less food every day. All that is totally aside from the obvious benefits of cardio for health and fitness.
Wait, but those 350 calories don't count as part of your deficit if you eat them back. I'm confused?3 -
I think cardio is generally underrated here on MFP as a component of weight/fat loss. My calorie deficit is 1,000 per day but of that cardio accounts for 350. So cardio is responsible for 35 % of my weight loss. But much more importantly, those extra 350 calories I get to eat every day are a huge, huge component of my diet compliance - I'd have probably fallen off the wagon long ago if I had 350 calories less food every day. All that is totally aside from the obvious benefits of cardio for health and fitness.
I'm not going to touch the math, but I absolutely agree that creating a calorie deficit is much easier for me with exercise calories. In fact, I inevitably fail to create a deficit on days I don't exercise, so I try to not have many of those.
I'm sleep deprived today and need to push away from the computer and go exercise.12 -
I think cardio is generally underrated here on MFP as a component of weight/fat loss. My calorie deficit is 1,000 per day but of that cardio accounts for 350. So cardio is responsible for 35 % of my weight loss. But much more importantly, those extra 350 calories I get to eat every day are a huge, huge component of my diet compliance - I'd have probably fallen off the wagon long ago if I had 350 calories less food every day. All that is totally aside from the obvious benefits of cardio for health and fitness.
Wait, but those 350 calories don't count as part of your deficit if you eat them back. I'm confused?
Well, it is a bit ambiguous.
Yeah, if you eat back the 350, then in a very literal sense, it doesn't contribute to your deficit.
But that's just a literal, "words on paper" reading of it.
If doing cardio enables you to achieve a consistent, long term net calorie deficit in excess of what you could do without exercise, then in my book the cardio is very much part of the weight loss.
MFP gives me 1580 for 2 lbs/week. There is No. Way. I could hit that targret for more than a week or two. I'm in month 6, my diet honeymoon period was over long ago, with the adrenaline pumping and the feeling of excitement as I scour my closets for old college clothes I may yet wear again, and the enthusiasm about taking on a big, new challenge. Now it's the long, slow slog and I need to be happy with the calorie target as an everyday, month in month out quota. To me the difference between 1580 and 1800 is so monumental, it's the difference between happy, easily compliance and hangry binging.
Of course, I could always just reduce my weight loss rate goal, eat my 1800 while sitting on my couch, and lose 1.5 lbs/week instead of 2.
But that is my whole point - you can always choose to lose less weight and not exercise, but in saying that, it's implicitly acknowledging that exercise contributes directly to weight loss.
As I said, ambiguous
13 -
6
-
I think cardio is generally underrated here on MFP as a component of weight/fat loss. My calorie deficit is 1,000 per day but of that cardio accounts for 350. So cardio is responsible for 35 % of my weight loss. But much more importantly, those extra 350 calories I get to eat every day are a huge, huge component of my diet compliance - I'd have probably fallen off the wagon long ago if I had 350 calories less food every day. All that is totally aside from the obvious benefits of cardio for health and fitness.
Wait, but those 350 calories don't count as part of your deficit if you eat them back. I'm confused?
Well, it is a bit ambiguous.
Yeah, if you eat back the 350, then in a very literal sense, it doesn't contribute to your deficit.
But that's just a literal, "words on paper" reading of it.
If doing cardio enables you to achieve a consistent, long term net calorie deficit in excess of what you could do without exercise, then in my book the cardio is very much part of the weight loss.
MFP gives me 1580 for 2 lbs/week. There is No. Way. I could hit that targret for more than a week or two. I'm in month 6, my diet honeymoon period was over long ago, with the adrenaline pumping and the feeling of excitement as I scour my closets for old college clothes I may yet wear again, and the enthusiasm about taking on a big, new challenge. Now it's the long, slow slog and I need to be happy with the calorie target as an everyday, month in month out quota. To me the difference between 1580 and 1800 is so monumental, it's the difference between happy, easily compliance and hangry binging.
Of course, I could always just reduce my weight loss rate goal, eat my 1800 while sitting on my couch, and lose 1.5 lbs/week instead of 2.
But that is my whole point - you can always choose to lose less weight and not exercise, but in saying that, it's implicitly acknowledging that exercise contributes directly to weight loss.
As I said, ambiguous
Your discussion is missing an important point: many people, and it sounds like you may be one of them, attempt an overly aggressive pace of weight loss for their stats and their lifestyle. This sometimes drives people to create an even larger deficit using exercise, rather than revising their expectations.
Most people should not be attempting to lose 2 pounds per week unless they have 75+ pounds to lose, and even then, that large deficit may not be sustainable for them.
If you are using MFP as intended, then you don’t use exercise to create a larger deficit. That is not an opinion; that is the way the program was designed.12 -
Many people don't exercise like it's The Biggest Loser, too.
I know a lot of people who do what you'd consider exercise, without even thinking about calories or fitness. They hike because they like being in nature. They ride a bike because it's fun, or sometimes to avoid taking their car, burning gas, and trying to find a parking space. They ski because winter is beautiful.
Let's not take up the myopic view that exercise sucks, or is a dorm of unhealthiness.18 -
I think cardio is generally underrated here on MFP as a component of weight/fat loss. My calorie deficit is 1,000 per day but of that cardio accounts for 350. So cardio is responsible for 35 % of my weight loss. But much more importantly, those extra 350 calories I get to eat every day are a huge, huge component of my diet compliance - I'd have probably fallen off the wagon long ago if I had 350 calories less food every day. All that is totally aside from the obvious benefits of cardio for health and fitness.
Wait, but those 350 calories don't count as part of your deficit if you eat them back. I'm confused?
Well, it is a bit ambiguous.
Yeah, if you eat back the 350, then in a very literal sense, it doesn't contribute to your deficit.
But that's just a literal, "words on paper" reading of it.
If doing cardio enables you to achieve a consistent, long term net calorie deficit in excess of what you could do without exercise, then in my book the cardio is very much part of the weight loss.
MFP gives me 1580 for 2 lbs/week. There is No. Way. I could hit that targret for more than a week or two. I'm in month 6, my diet honeymoon period was over long ago, with the adrenaline pumping and the feeling of excitement as I scour my closets for old college clothes I may yet wear again, and the enthusiasm about taking on a big, new challenge. Now it's the long, slow slog and I need to be happy with the calorie target as an everyday, month in month out quota. To me the difference between 1580 and 1800 is so monumental, it's the difference between happy, easily compliance and hangry binging.
Of course, I could always just reduce my weight loss rate goal, eat my 1800 while sitting on my couch, and lose 1.5 lbs/week instead of 2.
But that is my whole point - you can always choose to lose less weight and not exercise, but in saying that, it's implicitly acknowledging that exercise contributes directly to weight loss.
As I said, ambiguous
Again, I will say no... TDEE matters, whether you increase your burn from cardio, or just move more (increase non-exercise calories burned, by taking the stair, parking farther away, walk instead to the coffee shop instead of drive) those cals add up, but are not cardio exercise.6 -
I think cardio is generally underrated here on MFP as a component of weight/fat loss. My calorie deficit is 1,000 per day but of that cardio accounts for 350. So cardio is responsible for 35 % of my weight loss. But much more importantly, those extra 350 calories I get to eat every day are a huge, huge component of my diet compliance - I'd have probably fallen off the wagon long ago if I had 350 calories less food every day. All that is totally aside from the obvious benefits of cardio for health and fitness.
Wait, but those 350 calories don't count as part of your deficit if you eat them back. I'm confused?
Well, it is a bit ambiguous.
Yeah, if you eat back the 350, then in a very literal sense, it doesn't contribute to your deficit.
But that's just a literal, "words on paper" reading of it.
If doing cardio enables you to achieve a consistent, long term net calorie deficit in excess of what you could do without exercise, then in my book the cardio is very much part of the weight loss.
MFP gives me 1580 for 2 lbs/week. There is No. Way. I could hit that targret for more than a week or two. I'm in month 6, my diet honeymoon period was over long ago, with the adrenaline pumping and the feeling of excitement as I scour my closets for old college clothes I may yet wear again, and the enthusiasm about taking on a big, new challenge. Now it's the long, slow slog and I need to be happy with the calorie target as an everyday, month in month out quota. To me the difference between 1580 and 1800 is so monumental, it's the difference between happy, easily compliance and hangry binging.
Of course, I could always just reduce my weight loss rate goal, eat my 1800 while sitting on my couch, and lose 1.5 lbs/week instead of 2.
But that is my whole point - you can always choose to lose less weight and not exercise, but in saying that, it's implicitly acknowledging that exercise contributes directly to weight loss.
As I said, ambiguous
OK, so I didn't change my exercise routine to lose weight, I pretty much just kept doing what I'd been doing for over a decade while I was obese (because I was a very active obese person, even competing athletically).
When I joined MFP, I set a calorie goal based on my daily life activity level, then ate my exercise calories when I exercised. I lost a bunch of weight.
Since I didn't change my "cardio"**, then exercise doesn't contribute directly to weight loss. (Not to mention that I did bunches of "cardio" for over a decade, and didn't lose an ounce.)
You're right, what I just said doesn't make much sense. But it makes as much sense as your argument does.
Everyone's different. Some people are active in major part for fun (such as @NorthCascades and me), others are active for extra calories they can eat, some are active for fitness, some are active to speed up weight loss (not always wisely), some aren't active at all (hardly ever wisely).
You're defining the scenario relative to your own situation when you say "cardio is part of weight loss" just because it's so for you.
** I hate that umbrella term so much. So bizarrely over-broad and unhelpful, covering everything from ballet to roller derby and beyond.8 -
NorthCascades wrote: »Many people don't exercise like it's The Biggest Loser, too.
I know a lot of people who do what you'd consider exercise, without even thinking about calories or fitness. They hike because they like being in nature. They ride a bike because it's fun, or sometimes to avoid taking their car, burning gas, and trying to find a parking space. They ski because winter is beautiful.
Let's not take up the myopic view that exercise sucks, or is a dorm of unhealthiness.
Amen! I got some spectacular cardio yesterday in the Blue Hills near Boston:
https://friendsofthebluehills.org/hiking-near-boston/buck-hill-via-skyline/
16 -
I just disagree.
Math:
Person A decides to go on a diet to lose 2 lbs per week and he intends to do no exercise at all. He sets himself up on MFP and quickly discovers that the 1550 cals suggested to him by MFP is ridiculously low, so he sets himself a more modest weight loss goal of 1.5 lbs, which allows him 1800 cals/day. He proceeds to lose 1.5 pounds per week.
Person B, who is the same height, weight and age, and therefore offered the same 1550 by MFP in order to lose 2 lbs/week, does 250 cals worth of cardio every day. He's happy with his 1800 and merrily bangs out his cardio every morning. Ergo, he loses the 2 lbs per week he wanted.
So, person B loses half a pound more per week (i.e. 33 % faster weight loss), eating exactly the same amount of food as Person A, due solely to his cardio workouts.
In short, cardio = weight loss. In this case, 33 % more weight loss per unit of time.
Now, if it's to be argued that cardio isn't "necessary" because Person B could've just eaten 1550 to lose his 2 lbs/week, and/or set a more modest weight loss goal, yes that is true. But maybe he wants more food than 1550 and to lose weight faster than 1.5 lbs/week, and in that case, that's where cardio comes in.
Unfortunately the physiology generates a much more complex math when hitting the empirical streets.
One study I recall gave two untrained dieters different amounts of cardio. One group had a 300 calories worth of cardio and the other had 600 calories worth. The result was the same weight loss in both groups. Getting someone unused to doing 600 calories worth of cardio is a good way to get them to sit around and do a lot less other activity during the day.10 -
How long does it take that someone to get used to 600 calories a day of exercise? That's an hour of moderate cycling...4
-
I just disagree.
Math:
Person A decides to go on a diet to lose 2 lbs per week and he intends to do no exercise at all. He sets himself up on MFP and quickly discovers that the 1550 cals suggested to him by MFP is ridiculously low, so he sets himself a more modest weight loss goal of 1.5 lbs, which allows him 1800 cals/day. He proceeds to lose 1.5 pounds per week.
Person B, who is the same height, weight and age, and therefore offered the same 1550 by MFP in order to lose 2 lbs/week, does 250 cals worth of cardio every day. He's happy with his 1800 and merrily bangs out his cardio every morning. Ergo, he loses the 2 lbs per week he wanted.
So, person B loses half a pound more per week (i.e. 33 % faster weight loss), eating exactly the same amount of food as Person A, due solely to his cardio workouts.
In short, cardio = weight loss. In this case, 33 % more weight loss per unit of time.
Now, if it's to be argued that cardio isn't "necessary" because Person B could've just eaten 1550 to lose his 2 lbs/week, and/or set a more modest weight loss goal, yes that is true. But maybe he wants more food than 1550 and to lose weight faster than 1.5 lbs/week, and in that case, that's where cardio comes in.
But look out! Here comes person C!
Person C, is the identical triplet of Person A and Person B and gets that 1550 from MFP in order to lose 2lbs/week, they too do 250 cals worth of cardio every day, however the additional exercise they're doing increases their appetite to the extent that 1800cals isn't enough so they're constantly miserable and hungry. So they set a more modest 1.5lbs goal and get 2050cal/week and end up losing at the same rate as Person A.
Then there's Person D. The long lost quadruplet that was separated at berth. He had the same 1550 cals and decided to do the 250cal per day cardio and eat 1800cals per week. Then poor Person D got injured and couldn't workout for a while so he was with less activity each day requiring fuel he was able to cut his calories back to 1550 cal per day and continue with the same rate of loss as Person B.
So if Person A can lose 1.5lbs without cardio and Person C can lose 1.5lbs with cardio and person B can lose 2lbs with cardio and person D can lose 2lbs without cardio then, ergo ipso-facto lorem ipsum deus ex-machina cardio isn't required for weight loss.11 -
I just disagree.
Math:
Person A decides to go on a diet to lose 2 lbs per week and he intends to do no exercise at all. He sets himself up on MFP and quickly discovers that the 1550 cals suggested to him by MFP is ridiculously low, so he sets himself a more modest weight loss goal of 1.5 lbs, which allows him 1800 cals/day. He proceeds to lose 1.5 pounds per week.
Person B, who is the same height, weight and age, and therefore offered the same 1550 by MFP in order to lose 2 lbs/week, does 250 cals worth of cardio every day. He's happy with his 1800 and merrily bangs out his cardio every morning. Ergo, he loses the 2 lbs per week he wanted.
So, person B loses half a pound more per week (i.e. 33 % faster weight loss), eating exactly the same amount of food as Person A, due solely to his cardio workouts.
In short, cardio = weight loss. In this case, 33 % more weight loss per unit of time.
Now, if it's to be argued that cardio isn't "necessary" because Person B could've just eaten 1550 to lose his 2 lbs/week, and/or set a more modest weight loss goal, yes that is true. But maybe he wants more food than 1550 and to lose weight faster than 1.5 lbs/week, and in that case, that's where cardio comes in.
But look out! Here comes person C!
Person C, is the identical triplet of Person A and Person B and gets that 1550 from MFP in order to lose 2lbs/week, they too do 250 cals worth of cardio every day, however the additional exercise they're doing increases their appetite to the extent that 1800cals isn't enough so they're constantly miserable and hungry. So they set a more modest 1.5lbs goal and get 2050cal/week and end up losing at the same rate as Person A.
Then there's Person D. The long lost quadruplet that was separated at berth. He had the same 1550 cals and decided to do the 250cal per day cardio and eat 1800cals per week. Then poor Person D got injured and couldn't workout for a while so he was with less activity each day requiring fuel he was able to cut his calories back to 1550 cal per day and continue with the same rate of loss as Person B.
So if Person A can lose 1.5lbs without cardio and Person C can lose 1.5lbs with cardio and person B can lose 2lbs with cardio and person D can lose 2lbs without cardio then, ergo ipso-facto lorem ipsum deus ex-machina cardio isn't required for weight loss.
Thank you for this explanation. Its the exact same thing I was trying to stress, but apparently my "math" wasn't adding up to some people. Cardio is not required, and the affect it has varies on each individual.5 -
Your diet is to lose weight/gain weight/maintain weight. Exercise is for gaining muscle/retaining muscle/heart health. They are two separate things.
Exercising to burn calories so you can eat more is a path I don't recommend anyone walking down. Then exercise comes as a form of punishment because you ate too much, or reward because you want to eat more.
and that is what most of the people in MFP are aiming for... isn't it?
Very true. It is the bases of MFP and many people have had success with it. You are right.
However, I still disagree with using exercise as a reward to eat more
BUT....if it works for you (or anyone else), then go for it.0 -
Your diet is to lose weight/gain weight/maintain weight. Exercise is for gaining muscle/retaining muscle/heart health. They are two separate things.
Exercising to burn calories so you can eat more is a path I don't recommend anyone walking down. Then exercise comes as a form of punishment because you ate too much, or reward because you want to eat more.
and that is what most of the people in MFP are aiming for... isn't it?
Very true. It is the bases of MFP and many people have had success with it. You are right.
However, I still disagree with using exercise as a reward to eat more
BUT....if it works for you (or anyone else), then go for it.
Math isn’t a thing you can disagree with.
People can account for exercise using different methods—NEAT plus exercise, TDEE, whatever works for you—but ultimately everyone has to ensure that their calorie intake is appropriate for their body and goals, and not create an overly large deficit. That is often going to involve eating exercise calories in some form, no matter whether you think it’s a “reward” or just proper, safe nutrition.
I ran 12 miles last weekend; I’m going to run 13 this weekend. Believe me, I will be eating back every last one of those calories. Otherwise, I’d be giving my body about 200 net calories that day. It doesn’t matter whether you think of those calories as a “reward” or not; I must eat them, and I’ll enjoy every last one.15 -
Your diet is to lose weight/gain weight/maintain weight. Exercise is for gaining muscle/retaining muscle/heart health. They are two separate things.
Exercising to burn calories so you can eat more is a path I don't recommend anyone walking down. Then exercise comes as a form of punishment because you ate too much, or reward because you want to eat more.
and that is what most of the people in MFP are aiming for... isn't it?
Very true. It is the bases of MFP and many people have had success with it. You are right.
However, I still disagree with using exercise as a reward to eat more
BUT....if it works for you (or anyone else), then go for it.
The “do cardio to eat more” or reverse, the “I ate 300 calories of cookies, gotta run them off” isn’t a healthy or sustainable mindset, but I agree with some other posters that cardio does contribute to weight loss. I know it is not actually necessary for weight loss, but the only time I actually lost weight only through diet with zero exercise was after gallbladder surgery when eating everything resulted in stomach pain and therefore I was very cautious in eating anything (so eating my calorie goal was doable). So yes, I lost weight, but I was hungry all the time.
The extra buffer of a little cardio lets me eat that extra whatever (granola bar, glass of wine, etc) that I mentally (or physically, sometimes I’m just hungry) need to maintain compliance. My calorie allowance doesn’t give me any room for treats or extras without exercise. That cookie or glass of wine would cut out half a meal, leaving me extra hangry and likely to go off the deep end. 20-30 min of cardio lets me feel like a normal person and not a dieter. Sure, you can rightly argue it’s mostly a mental benefit, but so much of weight loss is a mental game.
Additionally, moderate cardio tends to depress my appetite. If I only lift, I’m a ravenous beast. So appetite suppression plus a buffer to combat lifting hunger = calorie goal maintained without overtaxing my self control.
Finally, cardio/exercise in general helps me make better food choices. I want the protein to fuel my lifting, so I’ll trade the pasta for more protein. Exercise heps my self image as a healthy/sporty person, and I’m more likely to eat in accordance with that definition image, instead of feeling like a couch potato fighting a losing fight against the lure of the snack closet.
Actually, one more: exercise/activity is time I’m spending not eating. I can enjoy myself, socialize, or zone out and read/watch tv without thinking about or having to say no to food. And sometimes I need that time to destress in a non-food related way. My sedentary pursuits (reading, hanging out in the house with friends) usually lend themselves to eating/drinking (or an expenditure of willpower to be the only one not doing so).
So in summary...not necessary physically to lose weight, but personally helpful mentally.
17 -
adammitch79 wrote: »
besides obvious reasons of heart and cardiovascular health what’s the importance of cardio when wanting to shred fat?
???
You mean except for the "obvious reasons of heart and cardiovascular health" you need more reasons?
Actually for just "wanting to shred fat" cardio-exercises are not required, stay in caloric-deficit and you will lose weight (and, sooner or later, fat).
Any workout helps to stay on track here, because it increases your daily budget.
But it is not mandatory.
3 -
gradchica27 wrote: »Your diet is to lose weight/gain weight/maintain weight. Exercise is for gaining muscle/retaining muscle/heart health. They are two separate things.
Exercising to burn calories so you can eat more is a path I don't recommend anyone walking down. Then exercise comes as a form of punishment because you ate too much, or reward because you want to eat more.
and that is what most of the people in MFP are aiming for... isn't it?
Very true. It is the bases of MFP and many people have had success with it. You are right.
However, I still disagree with using exercise as a reward to eat more
BUT....if it works for you (or anyone else), then go for it.
The “do cardio to eat more” or reverse, the “I ate 300 calories of cookies, gotta run them off” isn’t a healthy or sustainable mindset, but I agree with some other posters that cardio does contribute to weight loss. I know it is not actually necessary for weight loss, but the only time I actually lost weight only through diet with zero exercise was after gallbladder surgery when eating everything resulted in stomach pain and therefore I was very cautious in eating anything (so eating my calorie goal was doable). So yes, I lost weight, but I was hungry all the time.
The extra buffer of a little cardio lets me eat that extra whatever (granola bar, glass of wine, etc) that I mentally (or physically, sometimes I’m just hungry) need to maintain compliance. My calorie allowance doesn’t give me any room for treats or extras without exercise. That cookie or glass of wine would cut out half a meal, leaving me extra hangry and likely to go off the deep end. 20-30 min of cardio lets me feel like a normal person and not a dieter. Sure, you can rightly argue it’s mostly a mental benefit, but so much of weight loss is a mental game.
Additionally, moderate cardio tends to depress my appetite. If I only lift, I’m a ravenous beast. So appetite suppression plus a buffer to combat lifting hunger = calorie goal maintained without overtaxing my self control.
Finally, cardio/exercise in general helps me make better food choices. I want the protein to fuel my lifting, so I’ll trade the pasta for more protein. Exercise heps my self image as a healthy/sporty person, and I’m more likely to eat in accordance with that definition image, instead of feeling like a couch potato fighting a losing fight against the lure of the snack closet.
Actually, one more: exercise/activity is time I’m spending not eating. I can enjoy myself, socialize, or zone out and read/watch tv without thinking about or having to say no to food. And sometimes I need that time to destress in a non-food related way. My sedentary pursuits (reading, hanging out in the house with friends) usually lend themselves to eating/drinking (or an expenditure of willpower to be the only one not doing so).
So in summary...not necessary physically to lose weight, but personally helpful mentally.
I'm confused because the bolded doesn't agree with the rest of your post, which reads as offering support of “do cardio to eat more” as a healthy and sustainable mindset.6 -
kshama2001 wrote: »gradchica27 wrote: »Your diet is to lose weight/gain weight/maintain weight. Exercise is for gaining muscle/retaining muscle/heart health. They are two separate things.
Exercising to burn calories so you can eat more is a path I don't recommend anyone walking down. Then exercise comes as a form of punishment because you ate too much, or reward because you want to eat more.
and that is what most of the people in MFP are aiming for... isn't it?
Very true. It is the bases of MFP and many people have had success with it. You are right.
However, I still disagree with using exercise as a reward to eat more
BUT....if it works for you (or anyone else), then go for it.
The “do cardio to eat more” or reverse, the “I ate 300 calories of cookies, gotta run them off” isn’t a healthy or sustainable mindset, but I agree with some other posters that cardio does contribute to weight loss. I know it is not actually necessary for weight loss, but the only time I actually lost weight only through diet with zero exercise was after gallbladder surgery when eating everything resulted in stomach pain and therefore I was very cautious in eating anything (so eating my calorie goal was doable). So yes, I lost weight, but I was hungry all the time.
The extra buffer of a little cardio lets me eat that extra whatever (granola bar, glass of wine, etc) that I mentally (or physically, sometimes I’m just hungry) need to maintain compliance. My calorie allowance doesn’t give me any room for treats or extras without exercise. That cookie or glass of wine would cut out half a meal, leaving me extra hangry and likely to go off the deep end. 20-30 min of cardio lets me feel like a normal person and not a dieter. Sure, you can rightly argue it’s mostly a mental benefit, but so much of weight loss is a mental game.
Additionally, moderate cardio tends to depress my appetite. If I only lift, I’m a ravenous beast. So appetite suppression plus a buffer to combat lifting hunger = calorie goal maintained without overtaxing my self control.
Finally, cardio/exercise in general helps me make better food choices. I want the protein to fuel my lifting, so I’ll trade the pasta for more protein. Exercise heps my self image as a healthy/sporty person, and I’m more likely to eat in accordance with that definition image, instead of feeling like a couch potato fighting a losing fight against the lure of the snack closet.
Actually, one more: exercise/activity is time I’m spending not eating. I can enjoy myself, socialize, or zone out and read/watch tv without thinking about or having to say no to food. And sometimes I need that time to destress in a non-food related way. My sedentary pursuits (reading, hanging out in the house with friends) usually lend themselves to eating/drinking (or an expenditure of willpower to be the only one not doing so).
So in summary...not necessary physically to lose weight, but personally helpful mentally.
I'm confused because the bolded doesn't agree with the rest of your post, which reads as offering support of “do cardio to eat more” as a healthy and sustainable mindset.kshama2001 wrote: »gradchica27 wrote: »Your diet is to lose weight/gain weight/maintain weight. Exercise is for gaining muscle/retaining muscle/heart health. They are two separate things.
Exercising to burn calories so you can eat more is a path I don't recommend anyone walking down. Then exercise comes as a form of punishment because you ate too much, or reward because you want to eat more.
and that is what most of the people in MFP are aiming for... isn't it?
Very true. It is the bases of MFP and many people have had success with it. You are right.
However, I still disagree with using exercise as a reward to eat more
BUT....if it works for you (or anyone else), then go for it.
The “do cardio to eat more” or reverse, the “I ate 300 calories of cookies, gotta run them off” isn’t a healthy or sustainable mindset, but I agree with some other posters that cardio does contribute to weight loss. I know it is not actually necessary for weight loss, but the only time I actually lost weight only through diet with zero exercise was after gallbladder surgery when eating everything resulted in stomach pain and therefore I was very cautious in eating anything (so eating my calorie goal was doable). So yes, I lost weight, but I was hungry all the time.
The extra buffer of a little cardio lets me eat that extra whatever (granola bar, glass of wine, etc) that I mentally (or physically, sometimes I’m just hungry) need to maintain compliance. My calorie allowance doesn’t give me any room for treats or extras without exercise. That cookie or glass of wine would cut out half a meal, leaving me extra hangry and likely to go off the deep end. 20-30 min of cardio lets me feel like a normal person and not a dieter. Sure, you can rightly argue it’s mostly a mental benefit, but so much of weight loss is a mental game.
Additionally, moderate cardio tends to depress my appetite. If I only lift, I’m a ravenous beast. So appetite suppression plus a buffer to combat lifting hunger = calorie goal maintained without overtaxing my self control.
Finally, cardio/exercise in general helps me make better food choices. I want the protein to fuel my lifting, so I’ll trade the pasta for more protein. Exercise heps my self image as a healthy/sporty person, and I’m more likely to eat in accordance with that definition image, instead of feeling like a couch potato fighting a losing fight against the lure of the snack closet.
Actually, one more: exercise/activity is time I’m spending not eating. I can enjoy myself, socialize, or zone out and read/watch tv without thinking about or having to say no to food. And sometimes I need that time to destress in a non-food related way. My sedentary pursuits (reading, hanging out in the house with friends) usually lend themselves to eating/drinking (or an expenditure of willpower to be the only one not doing so).
So in summary...not necessary physically to lose weight, but personally helpful mentally.
I'm confused because the bolded doesn't agree with the rest of your post, which reads as offering support of “do cardio to eat more” as a healthy and sustainable mindset.kshama2001 wrote: »gradchica27 wrote: »Your diet is to lose weight/gain weight/maintain weight. Exercise is for gaining muscle/retaining muscle/heart health. They are two separate things.
Exercising to burn calories so you can eat more is a path I don't recommend anyone walking down. Then exercise comes as a form of punishment because you ate too much, or reward because you want to eat more.
and that is what most of the people in MFP are aiming for... isn't it?
Very true. It is the bases of MFP and many people have had success with it. You are right.
However, I still disagree with using exercise as a reward to eat more
BUT....if it works for you (or anyone else), then go for it.
The “do cardio to eat more” or reverse, the “I ate 300 calories of cookies, gotta run them off” isn’t a healthy or sustainable mindset, but I agree with some other posters that cardio does contribute to weight loss. I know it is not actually necessary for weight loss, but the only time I actually lost weight only through diet with zero exercise was after gallbladder surgery when eating everything resulted in stomach pain and therefore I was very cautious in eating anything (so eating my calorie goal was doable). So yes, I lost weight, but I was hungry all the time.
The extra buffer of a little cardio lets me eat that extra whatever (granola bar, glass of wine, etc) that I mentally (or physically, sometimes I’m just hungry) need to maintain compliance. My calorie allowance doesn’t give me any room for treats or extras without exercise. That cookie or glass of wine would cut out half a meal, leaving me extra hangry and likely to go off the deep end. 20-30 min of cardio lets me feel like a normal person and not a dieter. Sure, you can rightly argue it’s mostly a mental benefit, but so much of weight loss is a mental game.
Additionally, moderate cardio tends to depress my appetite. If I only lift, I’m a ravenous beast. So appetite suppression plus a buffer to combat lifting hunger = calorie goal maintained without overtaxing my self control.
Finally, cardio/exercise in general helps me make better food choices. I want the protein to fuel my lifting, so I’ll trade the pasta for more protein. Exercise heps my self image as a healthy/sporty person, and I’m more likely to eat in accordance with that definition image, instead of feeling like a couch potato fighting a losing fight against the lure of the snack closet.
Actually, one more: exercise/activity is time I’m spending not eating. I can enjoy myself, socialize, or zone out and read/watch tv without thinking about or having to say no to food. And sometimes I need that time to destress in a non-food related way. My sedentary pursuits (reading, hanging out in the house with friends) usually lend themselves to eating/drinking (or an expenditure of willpower to be the only one not doing so).
So in summary...not necessary physically to lose weight, but personally helpful mentally.
I'm confused because the bolded doesn't agree with the rest of your post, which reads as offering support of “do cardio to eat more” as a healthy and sustainable mindset.kshama2001 wrote: »gradchica27 wrote: »Your diet is to lose weight/gain weight/maintain weight. Exercise is for gaining muscle/retaining muscle/heart health. They are two separate things.
Exercising to burn calories so you can eat more is a path I don't recommend anyone walking down. Then exercise comes as a form of punishment because you ate too much, or reward because you want to eat more.
and that is what most of the people in MFP are aiming for... isn't it?
Very true. It is the bases of MFP and many people have had success with it. You are right.
However, I still disagree with using exercise as a reward to eat more
BUT....if it works for you (or anyone else), then go for it.
The “do cardio to eat more” or reverse, the “I ate 300 calories of cookies, gotta run them off” isn’t a healthy or sustainable mindset, but I agree with some other posters that cardio does contribute to weight loss. I know it is not actually necessary for weight loss, but the only time I actually lost weight only through diet with zero exercise was after gallbladder surgery when eating everything resulted in stomach pain and therefore I was very cautious in eating anything (so eating my calorie goal was doable). So yes, I lost weight, but I was hungry all the time.
The extra buffer of a little cardio lets me eat that extra whatever (granola bar, glass of wine, etc) that I mentally (or physically, sometimes I’m just hungry) need to maintain compliance. My calorie allowance doesn’t give me any room for treats or extras without exercise. That cookie or glass of wine would cut out half a meal, leaving me extra hangry and likely to go off the deep end. 20-30 min of cardio lets me feel like a normal person and not a dieter. Sure, you can rightly argue it’s mostly a mental benefit, but so much of weight loss is a mental game.
Additionally, moderate cardio tends to depress my appetite. If I only lift, I’m a ravenous beast. So appetite suppression plus a buffer to combat lifting hunger = calorie goal maintained without overtaxing my self control.
Finally, cardio/exercise in general helps me make better food choices. I want the protein to fuel my lifting, so I’ll trade the pasta for more protein. Exercise heps my self image as a healthy/sporty person, and I’m more likely to eat in accordance with that definition image, instead of feeling like a couch potato fighting a losing fight against the lure of the snack closet.
Actually, one more: exercise/activity is time I’m spending not eating. I can enjoy myself, socialize, or zone out and read/watch tv without thinking about or having to say no to food. And sometimes I need that time to destress in a non-food related way. My sedentary pursuits (reading, hanging out in the house with friends) usually lend themselves to eating/drinking (or an expenditure of willpower to be the only one not doing so).
So in summary...not necessary physically to lose weight, but personally helpful mentally.
I'm confused because the bolded doesn't agree with the rest of your post, which reads as offering support of “do cardio to eat more” as a healthy and sustainable mindset.
I suppose I’m making the same distinction as another poster—I see a difference between “ok, I burned 250 calories, now I can eat that cookie” (sole reason I’m doing it is to get a treat—so it’s the same the same punishment mentality as the “ahh! Ate a cookie! Gotta go run 2.5 miles to cancel it out!!”, only difference is whether you’re paying for the cookie in advance or on credit) and a general “I am a healthy, fit person who exercises and one of the benefits of that is having a little more leeway in my diet” (so I’m not punishing myself or linking my exercise directly to food—it’s part of who I am/what I do and one of the various benefits this gives me is the ability to eat a little more to fuel my performance).
So I suppose there’s not a huge difference, in that in both scenarios I eat more, but mentally I have a big difference in shifting from mindset 1 to 2.3
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 424 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K 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
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions