Importance of cardio when loosing fat
Replies
-
There have been plenty of times when I've had an hour to kill, and chosen to enjoy a bike ride instead of sitting on my butt, in part to have a bigger and more delicious dinner, and obviously also because riding a bike is fun. I don't agree that this is unhealthy at all. Neither does my bloodwork.12
-
The bordering-on-flippant dismissal of "Some people think they can eat a cookie and then do a bunch of cardio to work it off" isn't really where most people are at.
I hold to my original position in all this. I could not possibly eat and be sated with the 1600 calories per day MFP tells me is necessary to lose the amount of weight MFP itself says is appropriate for my weight: 2 lbs/week. But add 200 or 300 calories to that number, and I'm golden. If watching some Netflix on an exercise bike for 45 minutes gives me the calories I need to feel sated and happy, then I'm loving it. All told, I get my 2 lbs per week, plenty of food, and therefore can continue in full diet compliance 29 days per month. I see no downside to the "do cardio so you get more food" formula. To me, it is pure upside.
Light cardio does not make me hungrier. It makes me less hungry. I imagine it could be otherwise for some people. I experience no "oh my god, I just exercised for a 1/2 hour and now I'm starving" sensation. Quite the opposite. I get more food, with less hunger, by doing daily cardio. As I think a lot of people do.
The straw-men being discussed here, who do 5 hours of cardio so they can eat Haagen-Dasz with a soup ladle, are not germane enough to a serious discussion about the role of cardio workouts in weight loss for them to be as central to the discussion as they've been in this thread.11 -
If I look back at the reason I gained weight and lost it activity would be at the top of this list. It's difficult to eat when walking, reading, and being active. When I stopped being active and watching more TV I invited opportunities to mindlessly eat. When I gradually become more active I consciously minimized these opportunities and developed behaviors and habits supporting activity.
There's a reason why CICO isn't just CI.
13 -
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.
It is not why I exercise, and I don't agree either with the idea of killing oneself at the gym in order to eat more. My original comment was kind of sarcastic, and based on what many people post in the forums. I eat to live, and I exercise to keep myself happy and fit.3 -
Personally, my appetite does not keep up when I am pushing my limits with either intensity or duration. It keeps up when I maintain the same levels. When I'm injured and have to abruptly stop, it doesn't diminish immediately.
So for me, if I'm getting that extra 350 calories in @lgfrie 's example, it will only make life easier for a short while. After that I have to increase my cardio efforts, or ignore a bit of hunger. Or do something differently with food (increase fibre or protein).1 -
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
Yeah sure, but that 350 that you eat back is not part of a deficit. Your math is wrong.
On the other points -- other folks have already responded to that. I'm glad that what is working for you is working for you, but it's not true across the board so it shouldn't be spread like the secret sauce to weight loss because that's a false truth.4 -
Could we maybe consider answering the question as regards the OP, @adammitch79 ?
Looking at the OP’s profile photo I see a slim, muscular man, who asked specifically about getting shredded while lifting weights multiple times a week and working an active job. He’s not trying to lose weight because he’s fat, he’s trying to lower his BF percentage.
OP, if your goal is to maximize muscle retention while losing body fat, there’s no particular reason to make a special effort to do extra cardio. Just eat at a slight deficit and lift heavy. You may get better answers asking about recomp in the part of the forum dedicated to body building. Cardio does have huge heart and BP benefits but if your job is an active one you may already have that covered.
6 -
The bordering-on-flippant dismissal of "Some people think they can eat a cookie and then do a bunch of cardio to work it off" isn't really where most people are at.
I hold to my original position in all this. I could not possibly eat and be sated with the 1600 calories per day MFP tells me is necessary to lose the amount of weight MFP itself says is appropriate for my weight: 2 lbs/week. But add 200 or 300 calories to that number, and I'm golden. If watching some Netflix on an exercise bike for 45 minutes gives me the calories I need to feel sated and happy, then I'm loving it. All told, I get my 2 lbs per week, plenty of food, and therefore can continue in full diet compliance 29 days per month. I see no downside to the "do cardio so you get more food" formula. To me, it is pure upside.
Light cardio does not make me hungrier. It makes me less hungry. I imagine it could be otherwise for some people. I experience no "oh my god, I just exercised for a 1/2 hour and now I'm starving" sensation. Quite the opposite. I get more food, with less hunger, by doing daily cardio. As I think a lot of people do.
The straw-men being discussed here, who do 5 hours of cardio so they can eat Haagen-Dasz with a soup ladle, are not germane enough to a serious discussion about the role of cardio workouts in weight loss for them to be as central to the discussion as they've been in this thread.
How sure are you that you have yourself and your hunger figured out? What I am reading is that the cardio helps suppress your hunger and give you the 1850ish calories a day to eat that you are sure you cannot go without. So how much suppression are you getting? If it is another 200ish calories and cardio was not an option you would be stuck losing under 1 pound a week at a weight that you say supports 2.
I am glad you have a plan that you passionately love and for now at least it seems like your easiest path forward but I would personally try to experiment a little more. Even if you intend to make no changes it doesn't hurt to have a food only hunger solution in your back pocket.
I am not saying any of this as part of the debate. I do not completely agree with everything you have said here but I do get that you are highly enthusiastic about the awesome progress you are making and it spills out sometimes. It is amazing when you find the key to changing your life and from what I remember the life of your wife. It just won't be everyone's key.
4 -
I'm glad that what is working for you is working for you, but it's not true across the board so it shouldn't be spread like the secret sauce to weight loss because that's a false truth.
Noting that doing exercise and eating back the calories helps with weight loss is akin to spreading a "secret sauce"? Okey doke then. Perhaps you should write to MFP about this. It is, after all, their methodology.
What is the "false truth", exactly - that if you exercise, you'll lose weight faster than if you don't? Is that the secret sauce you don't want to see spread around?4 -
rheddmobile wrote: »Could we maybe consider answering the question as regards the OP, @adammitch79 ?
Looking at the OP’s profile photo I see a slim, muscular man, who asked specifically about getting shredded while lifting weights multiple times a week and working an active job. He’s not trying to lose weight because he’s fat, he’s trying to lower his BF percentage.
OP, if your goal is to maximize muscle retention while losing body fat, there’s no particular reason to make a special effort to do extra cardio. Just eat at a slight deficit and lift heavy. You may get better answers asking about recomp in the part of the forum dedicated to body building. Cardio does have huge heart and BP benefits but if your job is an active one you may already have that covered.
It was answered in the first reply, and then people moved on, because that's how conversations go. But we can answer it a few more times if it'll make you feel better.
You don't need cardio for weight loss, only a calorie deficit. Cardiovascular exercise is great for a number of reasons and it not being necessary for this one thing doesn't mean you shouldn't do it.4 -
I'm glad that what is working for you is working for you, but it's not true across the board so it shouldn't be spread like the secret sauce to weight loss because that's a false truth.
Noting that doing exercise and eating back the calories helps with weight loss is akin to spreading a "secret sauce"? Okey doke then. Perhaps you should write to MFP about this. It is, after all, their methodology.
What is the "false truth", exactly - that if you exercise, you'll lose weight faster than if you don't? Is that the secret sauce you don't want to see spread around?
but you wont lose faster with exercise, if your deficit is 1000 cals/day you will lose the same amount of weight regardless. Exercise allows you to eat more while hitting your goal deficit/maintnenace/surplus3 -
This content has been removed.
-
I'm glad that what is working for you is working for you, but it's not true across the board so it shouldn't be spread like the secret sauce to weight loss because that's a false truth.
Noting that doing exercise and eating back the calories helps with weight loss is akin to spreading a "secret sauce"? Okey doke then. Perhaps you should write to MFP about this. It is, after all, their methodology.
What is the "false truth", exactly - that if you exercise, you'll lose weight faster than if you don't? Is that the secret sauce you don't want to see spread around?
but you wont lose faster with exercise, if your deficit is 1000 cals/day you will lose the same amount of weight regardless. Exercise allows you to eat more while hitting your goal deficit/maintnenace/surplus
Exactly, and this point keeps getting ignored. The "math" that was given is absolutely incorrect. Deficit of 1000+350 from exercise -350 extra calories still equals a deficit of 1000. Whether the poster can stick to the calorie goal without the exercise calories is individual to them, and maybe hints that they are attempting to lose at a too aggressive rate. Just because one person thinks they can lose at a faster rate with cardio doesn't make it necessary. They still have the ability to lose weight without cardio and that was the question. Again, I would like to point out that I am a proponent of cardio and get plenty of it myself, but for weight loss I think the focus needs to be on the CI part of CICO, because the CO is not always guaranteed. I found that out when I had to take a break from working out because of chemo.5 -
I'm glad that what is working for you is working for you, but it's not true across the board so it shouldn't be spread like the secret sauce to weight loss because that's a false truth.
Noting that doing exercise and eating back the calories helps with weight loss is akin to spreading a "secret sauce"? Okey doke then. Perhaps you should write to MFP about this. It is, after all, their methodology.
What is the "false truth", exactly - that if you exercise, you'll lose weight faster than if you don't? Is that the secret sauce you don't want to see spread around?
The false truth is that you need exercise (specifically cardio) to lose weight. It can help sure, but you don't need it, and that has been proven by scientists and trainers and nutritionists and academics and a lot of people who know a *kitten* ton about this.
I also want to point out the ableism in this, because I don't think anyone else did. Some people can't exercise and lose weight just fine. Also, in the thick of my eating disorder, I subscribed to your same belief, and I did a ton of cardio, barely lost weight, but made myself completely sick.
But considering people will believe just about anything when it comes to weight loss, it's important to stick to the facts because it's dangerous not to.
I don't want you to think I'm jumping on you, I eat my calories back too. That's fine and that's what one should do. It's prescribing cardio as a must that is wrong (and dangerous).6 -
NorthCascades wrote: »rheddmobile wrote: »Could we maybe consider answering the question as regards the OP, @adammitch79 ?
Looking at the OP’s profile photo I see a slim, muscular man, who asked specifically about getting shredded while lifting weights multiple times a week and working an active job. He’s not trying to lose weight because he’s fat, he’s trying to lower his BF percentage.
OP, if your goal is to maximize muscle retention while losing body fat, there’s no particular reason to make a special effort to do extra cardio. Just eat at a slight deficit and lift heavy. You may get better answers asking about recomp in the part of the forum dedicated to body building. Cardio does have huge heart and BP benefits but if your job is an active one you may already have that covered.
It was answered in the first reply, and then people moved on, because that's how conversations go. But we can answer it a few more times if it'll make you feel better.
You don't need cardio for weight loss, only a calorie deficit. Cardiovascular exercise is great for a number of reasons and it not being necessary for this one thing doesn't mean you shouldn't do it.
Yeah, but he didn’t ask whether cardio was necessary for weight loss. That’s a common question here and it’s the one everyone jumped to answer. What this poster actually asked was whether cardio during weight loss was important given his specific goals.
If I understand his goals correctly, it’s not all that important and too much cardio is possibly even detrimental, if it’s timed to interfere with muscle growth. A slight deficit and focus on protein and lifting is more likely to be helpful.2 -
I'm glad that what is working for you is working for you, but it's not true across the board so it shouldn't be spread like the secret sauce to weight loss because that's a false truth.
Noting that doing exercise and eating back the calories helps with weight loss is akin to spreading a "secret sauce"? Okey doke then. Perhaps you should write to MFP about this. It is, after all, their methodology.
What is the "false truth", exactly - that if you exercise, you'll lose weight faster than if you don't? Is that the secret sauce you don't want to see spread around?
The false truth is that you need exercise (specifically cardio) to lose weight. It can help sure, but you don't need it, and that has been proven by scientists and trainers and nutritionists and academics and a lot of people who know a *kitten* ton about this.
I also want to point out the ableism in this, because I don't think anyone else did. Some people can't exercise and lose weight just fine. Also, in the thick of my eating disorder, I subscribed to your same belief, and I did a ton of cardio, barely lost weight, but made myself completely sick.
But considering people will believe just about anything when it comes to weight loss, it's important to stick to the facts because it's dangerous not to.
I don't want you to think I'm jumping on you, I eat my calories back too. That's fine and that's what one should do. It's prescribing cardio as a must that is wrong (and dangerous).
OK, fair enough, but I never, ever said cardio was "needed", "required", or a "must" in order to lose weight. In fact, today only, am I offering a $100 million prize to anyone who can find a post where I said cardio was required or necessary to lose weight.
All I said was: cardio is an extremely useful way to get more calories to eat so that diet compliance will be easier, and that cardio is part of the weight loss. The latter point I fully stand on. If your maintenance is 2200, you eat 1700, and then do 300 worth of cardio each day and eat it back, 38 % of all the weight you lose will be attributable to the cardio. Those arguing here that you coulda just skipped the cardio and eaten 1700 instead of 2000 are missing the point -- yes, you could technically do that, but at 1700 you are orders of magnitude more likely to fall off your diet and go on a binge fest. The exercise + additional food makes it much more likely that you'll stay on track. As long as you keep it up with the exercise, it is part of the weight you lose. In fact it's absurd to insist that cardio doesn't contribute to weight loss. Everyone knows that doing exercise helps with weight loss, and not because they're all stupid or didn't read the MFP threads - it's because it's just prima facie true. It requires no studies, corroboration, nutritionists to evaluate it, or peer reviewed papers to make a case for it. If I get up from this computer and go for a nice long walk, I will lose more weight than if I keep tying this reply. The walk calories will be baked into my overall weight loss. It's that simple and obvious.
The real "false truth" and secret sauce that people need to watch out for is that exercise is unnecessary as long as you have a calorie deficit and so therefore you don't need to bother with exercise if you can keep your food calories low. I couldn't even count the number of friends and family who tried that approach and failed. Eventually, losing weight solely through food deficit gets exhausting and frustrating. As MFP itself is designed, an able person should work out so they're getting a satisfying amount of food everyday.5 -
I'm glad that what is working for you is working for you, but it's not true across the board so it shouldn't be spread like the secret sauce to weight loss because that's a false truth.
Noting that doing exercise and eating back the calories helps with weight loss is akin to spreading a "secret sauce"? Okey doke then. Perhaps you should write to MFP about this. It is, after all, their methodology.
What is the "false truth", exactly - that if you exercise, you'll lose weight faster than if you don't? Is that the secret sauce you don't want to see spread around?
The false truth is that you need exercise (specifically cardio) to lose weight. It can help sure, but you don't need it, and that has been proven by scientists and trainers and nutritionists and academics and a lot of people who know a *kitten* ton about this.
I also want to point out the ableism in this, because I don't think anyone else did. Some people can't exercise and lose weight just fine. Also, in the thick of my eating disorder, I subscribed to your same belief, and I did a ton of cardio, barely lost weight, but made myself completely sick.
But considering people will believe just about anything when it comes to weight loss, it's important to stick to the facts because it's dangerous not to.
I don't want you to think I'm jumping on you, I eat my calories back too. That's fine and that's what one should do. It's prescribing cardio as a must that is wrong (and dangerous).
OK, fair enough, but I never, ever said cardio was "needed", "required", or a "must" in order to lose weight. In fact, today only, am I offering a $100 million prize to anyone who can find a post where I said cardio was required or necessary to lose weight.
All I said was: cardio is an extremely useful way to get more calories to eat so that diet compliance will be easier, and that cardio is part of the weight loss. The latter point I fully stand on. If your maintenance is 2200, you eat 1700, and then do 300 worth of cardio each day and eat it back, 38 % of all the weight you lose will be attributable to the cardio. Those arguing here that you coulda just skipped the cardio and eaten 1700 instead of 2000 are missing the point -- yes, you could technically do that, but at 1700 you are orders of magnitude more likely to fall off your diet and go on a binge fest. The exercise + additional food makes it much more likely that you'll stay on track. As long as you keep it up with the exercise, it is part of the weight you lose. In fact it's absurd to insist that cardio doesn't contribute to weight loss. Everyone knows that doing exercise helps with weight loss, and not because they're all stupid or didn't read the MFP threads - it's because it's just prima facie true. It requires no studies, corroboration, nutritionists to evaluate it, or peer reviewed papers to make a case for it. If I get up from this computer and go for a nice long walk, I will lose more weight than if I keep tying this reply. The walk calories will be baked into my overall weight loss. It's that simple and obvious.
The real "false truth" and secret sauce that people need to watch out for is that exercise is unnecessary as long as you have a calorie deficit and so therefore you don't need to bother with exercise if you can keep your food calories low. I couldn't even count the number of friends and family who tried that approach and failed. Eventually, losing weight solely through food deficit gets exhausting and frustrating. As MFP itself is designed, an able person should work out so they're getting a satisfying amount of food everyday.
You may have never specifically stated that cardio is necessary for weight loss, but in the same post you contradict yourself by saying that it is a false truth to say that exercise is unnecessary. Everyone understands what you are trying to say. You find cardio useful in your weight loss efforts, and thats great, but your math is just flat out wrong as many have pointed out. Also, according to the calorie numbers that you provided, you could still eat as you are now, cut out all cardio, and still lose a pound and a half a week. I'm not sure how that is unsustainable since you would be eating the exact same amount of calories as you are now.
I am sure you will disagree, so I have one more question for you: Since you attribute cardio to your weight loss, would you say that weight gain is attributed to lack of cardio? I was doing a ton of cardio in the 5 years or so that lead to my weight gain. I was doing far more cardio during my weight gain, than I do now that I am recomping and even when I was cutting. It wasn't until I figured out the CI part of the equation that something changed. You keep talking about what is and is not sustainable, but I don't feel you are in a place to make that judgement. I have been through every phase there is. I have cut weight, I have bulked, I have been in maintenance(for over three years now), and I am currently recomping. I have had various degrees of exercise/cardio through each phase, to the point that I had almost none at all for the year that I went through chemo. None of what I accomplished would have been possible without focusing on the calories I was consuming, but all of it absolutely would have been possible without cardio(and much was accomplished without any).3 -
rheddmobile wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »rheddmobile wrote: »Could we maybe consider answering the question as regards the OP, @adammitch79 ?
Looking at the OP’s profile photo I see a slim, muscular man, who asked specifically about getting shredded while lifting weights multiple times a week and working an active job. He’s not trying to lose weight because he’s fat, he’s trying to lower his BF percentage.
OP, if your goal is to maximize muscle retention while losing body fat, there’s no particular reason to make a special effort to do extra cardio. Just eat at a slight deficit and lift heavy. You may get better answers asking about recomp in the part of the forum dedicated to body building. Cardio does have huge heart and BP benefits but if your job is an active one you may already have that covered.
It was answered in the first reply, and then people moved on, because that's how conversations go. But we can answer it a few more times if it'll make you feel better.
You don't need cardio for weight loss, only a calorie deficit. Cardiovascular exercise is great for a number of reasons and it not being necessary for this one thing doesn't mean you shouldn't do it.
Yeah, but he didn’t ask whether cardio was necessary for weight loss. That’s a common question here and it’s the one everyone jumped to answer. What this poster actually asked was whether cardio during weight loss was important given his specific goals.
If I understand his goals correctly, it’s not all that important and too much cardio is possibly even detrimental, if it’s timed to interfere with muscle growth. A slight deficit and focus on protein and lifting is more likely to be helpful.
As far as the OP I completely agree. Since he is close to goal, I would be in a mild calorie deficit with a good amount of protein to preserve muscle, and I would have a good strength training plan. I would limit cardio because it could be detrimental to the strength training.3 -
... I have one more question for you: Since you attribute cardio to your weight loss, would you say that weight gain is attributed to lack of cardio?
No, of course I would not say that, nor have I ever said it. It would be an idiotic thing to say. Nor did I "attribute cardio to my weight loss". I said cardio is part of my weight loss and have shown the math underlying my argument, several times. I have been throwing around numbers like 33 % and 38 % in my examples and that's approximately what I believe exercise contributes to my weight loss. Or put another way, I believe that over the last 6 months, without intentional exercise I would've lost about 1/3 less weight.
You keep talking about what is and is not sustainable, but I don't feel you are in a place to make that judgement.
Beware making assumptions about other people. You have no idea what I have or haven't been through, in diets or recomps or maintenance or dieting with and without cardio and lifting or in life more generally. And that's fine, because we don't know each other, but assuming I lack the experience to make judgments on these things isn't productive. You disagree with what I'm saying so you are assuming I lack knowledge or judgment; but it could just be that we are both looking at the same fact base and both have good judgment and experience but have still arrived at different conclusions.
My conclusion is that intentional exercise can play an enormous role in weight loss. I think I'm in good, or at least voluminous, company in thinking so. I never said a word about it being "necessary" or that one would gain weight if one didn't do it. Sorry, but I am a stickler for "what was said" as opposed to "what one might have meant".
You asked. I answered. 4 -
I'm glad that what is working for you is working for you, but it's not true across the board so it shouldn't be spread like the secret sauce to weight loss because that's a false truth.
Noting that doing exercise and eating back the calories helps with weight loss is akin to spreading a "secret sauce"? Okey doke then. Perhaps you should write to MFP about this. It is, after all, their methodology.
What is the "false truth", exactly - that if you exercise, you'll lose weight faster than if you don't? Is that the secret sauce you don't want to see spread around?
The false truth is that you need exercise (specifically cardio) to lose weight. It can help sure, but you don't need it, and that has been proven by scientists and trainers and nutritionists and academics and a lot of people who know a *kitten* ton about this.
I also want to point out the ableism in this, because I don't think anyone else did. Some people can't exercise and lose weight just fine. Also, in the thick of my eating disorder, I subscribed to your same belief, and I did a ton of cardio, barely lost weight, but made myself completely sick.
But considering people will believe just about anything when it comes to weight loss, it's important to stick to the facts because it's dangerous not to.
I don't want you to think I'm jumping on you, I eat my calories back too. That's fine and that's what one should do. It's prescribing cardio as a must that is wrong (and dangerous).
I think mentioning ableism is a strawman and I don't think you're giving the disabled enough credit.
My position is that everyone who can exercise, should exercise, for the health benefits. Sure, a disabled person's exercise might look different, but that doesn't make it of no value.
I can't do traditional lower body exercises like squats, but that doesn't mean I do nothing for my lower body, or skip upper body.
My OH's cousin is a partial quadriplegic and while eligible for transportation and other services, has chosen to do as much for himself as he can, which includes driving himself in an adapted van. He'd likely have withered away and died decades ago if he'd chosen otherwise.
This disabled veteran paratrooper chose to not listen to the doctors who told him he'd never walk unassisted again:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bIXOo8D9Qsc&t=30s 5 -
I'm glad that what is working for you is working for you, but it's not true across the board so it shouldn't be spread like the secret sauce to weight loss because that's a false truth.
Noting that doing exercise and eating back the calories helps with weight loss is akin to spreading a "secret sauce"? Okey doke then. Perhaps you should write to MFP about this. It is, after all, their methodology.
What is the "false truth", exactly - that if you exercise, you'll lose weight faster than if you don't? Is that the secret sauce you don't want to see spread around?
but you wont lose faster with exercise, if your deficit is 1000 cals/day you will lose the same amount of weight regardless. Exercise allows you to eat more while hitting your goal deficit/maintnenace/surplus
What if you're estimating your exercise calories pretty well, but buy into the eat half of them because reasons mantra that's so incredibly common here? Walking is very easy to get an accurate enough calorie number for (1/3 your weight in pounds per mile) and if you adjust it down by half because people on this app say to, how does that affect the math?0 -
Long slow cardio can have positive benefits on recovery time for your weight training and physical job.
https://robertsontrainingsystems.com/blog/long-duration-low-intensity-cardio/2 -
NorthCascades wrote: »I'm glad that what is working for you is working for you, but it's not true across the board so it shouldn't be spread like the secret sauce to weight loss because that's a false truth.
Noting that doing exercise and eating back the calories helps with weight loss is akin to spreading a "secret sauce"? Okey doke then. Perhaps you should write to MFP about this. It is, after all, their methodology.
What is the "false truth", exactly - that if you exercise, you'll lose weight faster than if you don't? Is that the secret sauce you don't want to see spread around?
but you wont lose faster with exercise, if your deficit is 1000 cals/day you will lose the same amount of weight regardless. Exercise allows you to eat more while hitting your goal deficit/maintnenace/surplus
What if you're estimating your exercise calories pretty well, but buy into the eat half of them because reasons mantra that's so incredibly common here? Walking is very easy to get an accurate enough calorie number for (1/3 your weight in pounds per mile) and if you adjust it down by half because people on this app say to, how does that affect the math?
That may be so, but if you enter the exercise in the database it will most likely give you a higher number than what you really burned (your calculation), so if you don't override MFP's cals with your clac, most likely over estimated.
Not to mention with walking. some walking is included in your NEAT, so even if your calc is correct (which it is pretty accurate for most) you may overestimate by double-counting some of the steps.0 -
NorthCascades wrote: »I'm glad that what is working for you is working for you, but it's not true across the board so it shouldn't be spread like the secret sauce to weight loss because that's a false truth.
Noting that doing exercise and eating back the calories helps with weight loss is akin to spreading a "secret sauce"? Okey doke then. Perhaps you should write to MFP about this. It is, after all, their methodology.
What is the "false truth", exactly - that if you exercise, you'll lose weight faster than if you don't? Is that the secret sauce you don't want to see spread around?
but you wont lose faster with exercise, if your deficit is 1000 cals/day you will lose the same amount of weight regardless. Exercise allows you to eat more while hitting your goal deficit/maintnenace/surplus
What if you're estimating your exercise calories pretty well, but buy into the eat half of them because reasons mantra that's so incredibly common here? Walking is very easy to get an accurate enough calorie number for (1/3 your weight in pounds per mile) and if you adjust it down by half because people on this app say to, how does that affect the math?
That math is a starting place and it really doesn't matter that much as long as a person is not fatigued by eating too little. The math that matters is based on actual results.3 -
adammitch79 wrote: »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?
Hey @adammitch79 ! For me cardio is mental - it keeps me going. I like the calorie burn as well!
0 -
NorthCascades wrote: »I'm glad that what is working for you is working for you, but it's not true across the board so it shouldn't be spread like the secret sauce to weight loss because that's a false truth.
Noting that doing exercise and eating back the calories helps with weight loss is akin to spreading a "secret sauce"? Okey doke then. Perhaps you should write to MFP about this. It is, after all, their methodology.
What is the "false truth", exactly - that if you exercise, you'll lose weight faster than if you don't? Is that the secret sauce you don't want to see spread around?
but you wont lose faster with exercise, if your deficit is 1000 cals/day you will lose the same amount of weight regardless. Exercise allows you to eat more while hitting your goal deficit/maintnenace/surplus
What if you're estimating your exercise calories pretty well, but buy into the eat half of them because reasons mantra that's so incredibly common here? Walking is very easy to get an accurate enough calorie number for (1/3 your weight in pounds per mile) and if you adjust it down by half because people on this app say to, how does that affect the math?
That may be so, but if you enter the exercise in the database it will most likely give you a higher number than what you really burned (your calculation), so if you don't override MFP's cals with your clac, most likely over estimated.
Not to mention with walking. some walking is included in your NEAT, so even if your calc is correct (which it is pretty accurate for most) you may overestimate by double-counting some of the steps.
For what it's worth, I lose weight faster than the calories would predict from spring until late fall. I finally realized why, MFP math includes BMR calories. I bike a lot. I use a power meter, which gives me a maximum error of +/- 2.5% for calories, but doesn't include BMR ones. (If I stay home, it says zero.) I just let me Garmin send the data over here and don't give it much thought.1 -
... I have one more question for you: Since you attribute cardio to your weight loss, would you say that weight gain is attributed to lack of cardio?
No, of course I would not say that, nor have I ever said it. It would be an idiotic thing to say. Nor did I "attribute cardio to my weight loss". I said cardio is part of my weight loss and have shown the math underlying my argument, several times. I have been throwing around numbers like 33 % and 38 % in my examples and that's approximately what I believe exercise contributes to my weight loss. Or put another way, I believe that over the last 6 months, without intentional exercise I would've lost about 1/3 less weight.
You keep talking about what is and is not sustainable, but I don't feel you are in a place to make that judgement.
Beware making assumptions about other people. You have no idea what I have or haven't been through, in diets or recomps or maintenance or dieting with and without cardio and lifting or in life more generally. And that's fine, because we don't know each other, but assuming I lack the experience to make judgments on these things isn't productive. You disagree with what I'm saying so you are assuming I lack knowledge or judgment; but it could just be that we are both looking at the same fact base and both have good judgment and experience but have still arrived at different conclusions.
My conclusion is that intentional exercise can play an enormous role in weight loss. I think I'm in good, or at least voluminous, company in thinking so. I never said a word about it being "necessary" or that one would gain weight if one didn't do it. Sorry, but I am a stickler for "what was said" as opposed to "what one might have meant".
You asked. I answered.
I agree with the bolded and I never disputed that. What I did dispute is your math claiming that cardio is responsible for your weight loss because you said you ate back all of your exercise calories. Your weight loss is because of your calorie deficit plain and simple. I also disputed that it is a false truth that exercise is necessary for weight loss. That's just simply untrue. The only thing necessary for weight loss is a caloric deficit and cardio is not required.
I think we both agree on the value that exercise brings, but for different reasons. We disagree on whether or not it is necessary. I think in addition to burning calories, exercise can be great as a stress reliever, and as motivation throughout the weight loss process. Strength training is great for preserving muscle during weight loss. There are tons of health benefits of both cardio, and exercise in general, and I would always advocate for that during weight loss, however I refuse to buy into the idea that its required. People should do what they find to be the most sustainable for themselves. For me, that includes strength training and some cardio. For someone else, that might not include any of that. For the OP, I think that cardio could end up being more detrimental than it would be helpful considering his goals.
The reason I said that I didn't feel like you were in a place to make the judgement about what is sustainable is because every one of your responses seems to be based on what works best for you, and you don't seem to be understanding that everyone is different. People have different goals, and your goals at this point don't seem to match up with what the OP is looking for.2 -
I think we both agree on the value that exercise brings, but for different reasons. We disagree on whether or not it is necessary.
This might be a good time for me to point out (for the third time) that I never, ever said exercise was necessary for weight loss. I offered a $100 million prize to anyone who could show me where I'd said exercise was necessary or required to lose weight, and there were no takers -- for a reason, and not just that the economy's booming and people don't need the extra cash.
1 -
I think we both agree on the value that exercise brings, but for different reasons. We disagree on whether or not it is necessary.
This might be a good time for me to point out (for the third time) that I never, ever said exercise was necessary for weight loss. I offered a $100 million prize to anyone who could show me where I'd said exercise was necessary or required to lose weight, and there were no takers -- for a reason, and not just that the economy's booming and people don't need the extra cash.
Right, but then in the same post, you followed it up with this:
"The real "false truth" and secret sauce that people need to watch out for is that exercise is unnecessary as long as you have a calorie deficit and so therefore you don't need to bother with exercise if you can keep your food calories low"
Do you not see why that might confuse some people? Sure, you don't flat out say exercise is unnecessary, but calling it a false truth certainly implies it.
5 -
I think we both agree on the value that exercise brings, but for different reasons. We disagree on whether or not it is necessary.
This might be a good time for me to point out (for the third time) that I never, ever said exercise was necessary for weight loss. I offered a $100 million prize to anyone who could show me where I'd said exercise was necessary or required to lose weight, and there were no takers -- for a reason, and not just that the economy's booming and people don't need the extra cash.
Right, but then in the same post, you followed it up with this:
"The real "false truth" and secret sauce that people need to watch out for is that exercise is unnecessary as long as you have a calorie deficit and so therefore you don't need to bother with exercise if you can keep your food calories low"
Do you not see why that might confuse some people? Sure, you don't flat out say exercise is unnecessary, but calling it a false truth certainly implies it.
I did not originate discussion of "false truths" in this thread. or "secret sauce"; those were your phrases, not mine.
The in-going assumption of many people who launch ambitious diet efforts is that they can get there solely by restricting their caloric intake. You see it literally everyday here, with people showing up to ask if their plan to starve themselves on 1200 calories to lose 100 pounds is sound, and if maybe they should eat less carbs or take some supplement or other to help it along, without a word about exercise and activity. For most people, this doesn't work. It's easy to do pure calorie restriction for a few weeks but exceptionally hard to do it over an extended period of time, which is why that approach has led to probably billions of failed, yo-yo, diets followed by re-gains. You just can't starve your way to a new you. Suggesting that that's as valid a way to go as an integrated diet-and-exercise lifestyle change may not rise to the level of a "false truth" but it isn't sound advice.
Lifestyle changes involving not just a different relationship with food but also physical activity are, for many people, the very cornerstone of a successful long term weight loss effort, for both physical (including weight loss) and psychological reasons, and it's hardly solipsistic of me to have that viewpoint. MFP and its NEAT+exercise methodology encourage that mindset, and so does the entire nutrition industry, doctors, etc. I'm stumped as to why this is even a source of disagreement. My doc's been telling me for 20 years to go out and get some exercise to lose weight. Is he, as apparently I am, buried in false truths based on individual experiences that don't apply to other people? No, he isn't. He's just stating the truth. If you go for a walk instead of surfing the web, you'll lose more weight. It's obvious.
I never said exercise was "necessary" for weight loss. Never. Never implied it. Never insinuated it. Never thought it. It's a dead horse, so why are we still beating it? My point was, and remains, that if there's bad advice out there, it isn't "try to exercise" but rather, "you don't need to". If you disagree, fine. We don't have to agree. In any event, this discussion is not going to win any awards for High Value Add, so let's call it a day on this one.1
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