Is 270 minutes a week to much?

FitnessFreak1821
FitnessFreak1821 Posts: 242 Member
edited May 2020 in Health and Weight Loss
How much is to much? I was doing 30-45 minutes 3-5 days a week. I am now increasing my work outs to 45 minutes and 60 minutes every other day 5 days a week. Weekends are my rest days. Im eating 1400 calories. Hopefully this kick starts my weightloss again and I can lose these 10 pounds I got left. I don't care how long it takes me but I'm not giving up. Working out is still doing me good physically and mentally even if the number on the scale is not going down at the moment.

Replies

  • Strudders67
    Strudders67 Posts: 989 Member
    I assume you're eating 1400 calories PLUS your exercise calories on top of that.

    Otherwise, yes 270 minutes a week is too much - by about 270 minutes a week.
  • mmapags
    mmapags Posts: 8,934 Member
    edited May 2020
    AnnPT77 wrote: »
    They're both right.

    Also, I'd add (mostly to Jane's comment) that if 270 minutes isn't something you see yourself wanting to do long term, because it interferes with good overall life balance for you, then it's too much.

    By "good overall life balance", I mean enough time and energy for work, chores, family and other social relationships, other things important in your life (maybe religious practice, volunteering, non-exercise hobbies, education, whatever).

    I feel really strongly that weight loss - especially the last stages of it - is better thought of as "maintenance practice". Most of us want not just to lose the weight, but also stay at a healthy weight long term. That's a matter of finding sustainable habits. Finding them during weight loss is a good plan.

    Your stress level over this, and impulse to change things up, is not helping you here, either.

    This all day long!!
  • FitnessFreak1821
    FitnessFreak1821 Posts: 242 Member
    edited May 2020
    PAV8888 wrote: »
    Exercise will make you healthier assuming you have enough energy availability to benefit from it.

    Exercise and activity does not equal energy balance or weight control.

    I have lost weight faster (within normal weight) by being less active and eating less. Was this a meaningful and beneficial weight loss? I have my doubts. But it was faster!

    I would NOT have been able to lose the weight I lost starting from obese (at least I don't believe that I would have been--not planning to A-B test anytime soon) had I not gradually increased my activity level from below sedentary to above very active.

    Is less than an hour of deliberate activity a day too much?

    If you're NOT feeding yourself enough, yes. If this is not something you're planning to continue doing for your health and for weight control, yes. If it is causing you hardship and physical, or mental, anguish, yes--it is too much.

    If it is something that you enjoy and that you fuel appropriately it probably falls closer to what people SHOULD be doing in the context of a normal, healthy, lifestyle, assuming that their health allows them to.

    Garbage In-Garbage Out. If you don't have good enough data you are going by "feelz". You CAN go by "feelz" but it is less consistent and less optimal. Your weight trend is best seen by consistent daily weigh-ins and a weight trend app. You should also be working around monthly hormonal water weight changes by comparing your weight trend level today to your weight trend level during the same time-frame in your previous cycle. Your food logging can only be as accurate as the effort you make into making it accurate.

    You can always eat less exercise more and try for faster results. There are side-effects to these decisions. Maybe it takes 1 year to lose 10lbs. Maybe it takes 2. Maybe it takes 10 or you only move 2-3lbs or it never happens--but you maintain which is a victory for many of us all and by itself! Or maybe you do it in a month and have more, as opposed to less, side effects.

    You were BMI 23 in 2011 and mentioning that you exercise more for a couple of weeks and then give up. You're BMI 23, and essentially the same weight, in 2020, nine years later.

    What happened in-between? Has your weight been steady for almost 10 years or have you been going up and down?

    BMI 23 is healthy.

    Is your goal really "losing weight", is your goal becoming stronger, what are you truly after? Why and what changes are you trying to make given that you're already at a healthy BMI?

    Somehow given all the above, I don't think that 2lbs a week and extra exercise will get you to where you want to be.

    Well in between where I have not logged my weight has been all over from 140s to 150s. I got pregnant early 2018 at my heaviest of 158. Gained 31 pounds in my pregnancy bringing me to 189 pounds and now have lost 33-34 pounds over the year and abit I have been consistently doing this. It has finally become a habit where I don't give up after a couple weeks or so. Which I am very proud of myself. Now I'm determined to reach my goal of 130 and I will one day. I will definitely be happier at that number. Then I will be maintaining, I can see myself keeping this up now cause I love to work out I crave it. Today i wanted to do another hour of hiit but I decided I shouldn't go to crazy.
  • FitnessFreak1821
    FitnessFreak1821 Posts: 242 Member
    janejellyroll wrote: »
    "Too much" would be more than your body can support physically based on your fitness level, how much recovery you're allowing yourself, and how much you're eating.

    Too much exercise is going to be detrimental to your weight loss as it will drive down your overall energy level (meaning you're moving less the rest of the day and actually reducing the number of calories you're using) and increase the stress response in your body. You're also raising your risk of injury, which means you're facing potential downtime from fitness.

    In your other posts you indicated, I believe, that you aren't using a food scale to measure your food. I'm thinking that focusing on the accuracy of your calorie-in estimate may be a better investment than increasing your workouts (although there is no reason why you can't do both). 1,400 seems very low for someone with this level of activity.

    Well I'm aiming 1400 but if I go to 1600 its okay. I'm just trying to change things up since 1600-1700 plus excercising is not getting me out of this plateau. I'm trying to kick things up again. I'm very determined to get to my goal however long it takes.
  • FitnessFreak1821
    FitnessFreak1821 Posts: 242 Member
    PAV8888 wrote: »
    So, yeah, you've lost below your pre-pregnancy weight within a year!

    I don't think anyone thinks that exercising is bad for you.

    Eating too little in order to push (faster) weight loss? I am sure that many of us don't think that's a great idea (well, except for the couple of MFPeops who often click on disagree on my posts advocating reasonable weight loss--they obviously think that the faster the better!)

    HIIT does take something out of you. It may increase your cardiovascular development more than steady state cardio. But as an overall caloric burn? I would argue that when you consider potential reduction in overall activity you may be ending up with less total caloric expenditure.

    That said, exercise is not / should not be solely for calories. So your athletic goals should be coming first.

    Do consider that if you're sore... by definition you're retaining water. So extra exercise is GOOD. But it may be playing with your scale feedback. Which is fine as long as you're aware of it. Please have a second look at what I wrote above in terms of weight trend...

    Thanks for the information.
  • rheddmobile
    rheddmobile Posts: 6,840 Member
    A general rule for runners is not to increase mileage by more than 10% a week. A similar rule might apply to other activity. If you increase your activity so much that you get injured, it’s going to result in a setback.

    If you wake up still feeling tired and stressed from the day before, consider a rest day.

    270 minutes is 4.5 hours, which seems quite moderate.
  • janejellyroll
    janejellyroll Posts: 25,763 Member
    XoXashleighXoX wrote: »
    janejellyroll wrote: »
    "Too much" would be more than your body can support physically based on your fitness level, how much recovery you're allowing yourself, and how much you're eating.

    Too much exercise is going to be detrimental to your weight loss as it will drive down your overall energy level (meaning you're moving less the rest of the day and actually reducing the number of calories you're using) and increase the stress response in your body. You're also raising your risk of injury, which means you're facing potential downtime from fitness.

    In your other posts you indicated, I believe, that you aren't using a food scale to measure your food. I'm thinking that focusing on the accuracy of your calorie-in estimate may be a better investment than increasing your workouts (although there is no reason why you can't do both). 1,400 seems very low for someone with this level of activity.

    Well I'm aiming 1400 but if I go to 1600 its okay. I'm just trying to change things up since 1600-1700 plus excercising is not getting me out of this plateau. I'm trying to kick things up again. I'm very determined to get to my goal however long it takes.

    You need to account for your activity when planning how much to eat.

    Exercise will never get you out of a plateau unless it also creates a calorie deficit. The calories are what you need to focus on, the exercise is for fitness.
  • bubbles330
    bubbles330 Posts: 1 Member
    I am a 72 year old, overweight female and am doing Keto using the CarbManager app to manage my calories, fats, proteins and carbs. I am also water walking in a lap pool 90 min. 3 days a week for a total of 270 min. Now I'm reading that I may be overdoing it. The expenditure of calories due to my exercise regime is keeping me on a very, very low calorie platform and I have to admit the weight is not coming off as easily as a lot of Keto folks experience. My benefit so far has been the loss of inches which is great. So my question is, do I cut back to 30 minutes daily? I am looking for some positive direction.
  • AnnPT77
    AnnPT77 Posts: 34,168 Member
    edited August 2021
    bubbles330 wrote: »
    I am a 72 year old, overweight female and am doing Keto using the CarbManager app to manage my calories, fats, proteins and carbs. I am also water walking in a lap pool 90 min. 3 days a week for a total of 270 min. Now I'm reading that I may be overdoing it. The expenditure of calories due to my exercise regime is keeping me on a very, very low calorie platform and I have to admit the weight is not coming off as easily as a lot of Keto folks experience. My benefit so far has been the loss of inches which is great. So my question is, do I cut back to 30 minutes daily? I am looking for some positive direction.

    How fast is weight coming off, as in how many pounds per week average? How long have you been at it?

    The implied question there is whether your expectations are realistic. I'm wondering that because there's a lot of information circulating on the web about fast weight loss, tabloid headlines advertising "lose 20 pounds in a month" kind of stuff, etc.

    Keto weight loss, ultimately, works like any other diet: You lose fat based on how many calories you eat, compared to how many you burn. Some people see fast scale-weight loss at first on keto, but that's primarily because lots of water weight drops off when carb intake is dramatically reduced. The scale drops, which is exciting, but it's a lot of water loss and a more moderate amount of fat. Sometimes, after that initial drop, there can be a rebalancing period that looks like a plateau or stall on the scale, but is just the body rebalancing water weight. After a bit, with patience, if at appropriate calories, the scale will start dropping again, but more gradually.

    Some people get discouraged during those pseudo-plateau and slower loss phases, if they experience them, especially if they've been exposed to the fast loss rhetoric.

    Other than that initial water weight drop, a pound a week loss is good for most people, with 2 pounds maybe viable at a body weight over 200 pounds and not too many other major life stressors in the picture. Two pounds a week is pretty aggressive, about the most that's reasonable unless under close medical supervision. Any rate is going to be "on average over 4-6 weeks", faster at times and slower at others. Bodies are weird that way.

    I'm not suggesting there's anything wrong with keto. It works great for some people, especially those for whom it reduces appetite/cravings.

    I don't know how CarbManager sets your goals, but if it doesn't vary your calorie goal based on how active you are, that's potentially a problem. Since you're older, like me (I'm 65), you probably get a fairly low calorie estimate from the app.

    If you increase your exercise but not your calorie intake, you can be eating too little for your activity level, get fatigued, and the fatigue reduces daily life activity, which is counterproductive. Undereating can also limit needed nutrition (even when hitting macro goals, if the total intake is too low), compromise immune system, increase health risks, and all manner of bad things.

    I don't know about you, but a difference between younger me and current me is that I'm not as resilient. If I overstress my body, the consequences come quicker, and take longer to recover from, than they did when I was 20. For me, during weight loss, that meant trying not to lose too fast.

    If you think something's out of whack for you when it comes to eating/exercise balance, there are two ways to tackle it. You can reduce exercise, or you can increase calorie intake. Weight-loss-wise, they're equivalent. Health-wise, if the exercise is manageable for you (not punitive, exhausting, etc., doesn't mess up other life priorities), then increasing intake would be more health promoting than reducing exercise. If the exercise is unpleasant, exhausting, hard to fit in, that makes reducing exercise a more attractive option.

    If you're truly not losing weight over a period of at least 4-6 weeks, and there are zero other signs of fatigue or stress, then reducing calories may be necessary. I wouldn't go there first, though, personally . . . and certainly not before a multi-week period being fully compliant with calorie goals, still seeing no loss.

    If you're losing inches, you're probably losing fat. If your exercise regimen is new, you may be retaining some water to help with muscle repair, and that can mask fat loss on the scale. It's kind of hard to guess, based on the basic information you've given us.

    There is no sense in which 270 minutes of exercise is "too much" for anyone and everyone, universally. It can be too much for some, totally manageable for others. Age can be relevant, but it's not absolute. It matters how fit the person is, what their lifestyle is otherwise, whether they're fueling the exercise adequately, and more. I normally exercise more than 270 minutes a week (sometimes quite a bit more), but I've worked up to that gradually, and I fuel it (even if I'm trying to lose weight at a sensible rate at the time).

    Does that make sense? I hope so.
  • kshama2001
    kshama2001 Posts: 28,052 Member
    rheddmobile wrote: »
    A general rule for runners is not to increase mileage by more than 10% a week. A similar rule might apply to other activity. If you increase your activity so much that you get injured, it’s going to result in a setback.

    If you wake up still feeling tired and stressed from the day before, consider a rest day.

    270 minutes is 4.5 hours, which seems quite moderate.

    Yes, during the planting season, my mother will do more than 4.5 hours of gardening per DAY, but she has been doing this for 50 years so has the conditioning for it.

    On the other hand, I've had decades of desk jobs and tend to injure myself when I try to ramp up my activity level too much.

    However, HIIT should indeed be limited. I see a wide range of answers and am going with Les Mills's:

    https://www.lesmills.com/us/fit-planet/fitness/how-much-hiit/

    ...40-50 minutes of intensity above 85 percent max per week is optimal to allow for proper recovery and ideal performance. This newest study backs up this recommendation, and narrows in on the range to show that 30-40 minutes above 90 percent maximum per week is the recommended total.
  • AnnPT77
    AnnPT77 Posts: 34,168 Member
    kshama2001 wrote: »
    rheddmobile wrote: »
    A general rule for runners is not to increase mileage by more than 10% a week. A similar rule might apply to other activity. If you increase your activity so much that you get injured, it’s going to result in a setback.

    If you wake up still feeling tired and stressed from the day before, consider a rest day.

    270 minutes is 4.5 hours, which seems quite moderate.

    Yes, during the planting season, my mother will do more than 4.5 hours of gardening per DAY, but she has been doing this for 50 years so has the conditioning for it.

    On the other hand, I've had decades of desk jobs and tend to injure myself when I try to ramp up my activity level too much.

    However, HIIT should indeed be limited. I see a wide range of answers and am going with Les Mills's:

    https://www.lesmills.com/us/fit-planet/fitness/how-much-hiit/

    ...40-50 minutes of intensity above 85 percent max per week is optimal to allow for proper recovery and ideal performance. This newest study backs up this recommendation, and narrows in on the range to show that 30-40 minutes above 90 percent maximum per week is the recommended total.

    Yes, and . . .

    (grump mode: on) That's somewhat complicated by everybody and their trainer claiming every darned form of exercise in the known universe is "HIIT" nowadays, since HIIT is super hyped and trendy. "Really really hard" doesn't necessarily mean actual HIIT, with the research-based limitations and benefits that actual CV HIIT has been shown to have. (grump: off)

    The HR guidance is good, but somewhat complicated by the fact that the age-based methods of estimating HRmax are quite far off for surprisingly many people (via genetics, more than via training history, IMU). The most common 220-age one, I believe is especially likely to be inaccurate, compared to some more complex age-based estimating algorithms.

    As an aside: With most mainstream health authorities recommending the average person work their way up to a minimum of 30 minutes of moderate cardiovascular (CV) exercise most days, for a total of 150 minutes weekly; plus 2 sessions of strength training weekly in addition . . . 270 minutes/4.5 hours of exercise per week is maybe an hour or so above the minimums? How is that going to be abstractly "too much" for all? That would be weird. 🤷‍♀️

Categories