Naturally thin?

[ORD]

otolith said:

If you are already controlling your diet tightly, and the weight isn't coming off as quickly as you'd like, it gives you something additional you can do. And it increases your fitness, which helps make you feel that the changes you are making are worthwhile. And it builds habits likely to help you maintain your weight. And even if you're ultimately going to stay fat, better to be fat and fit than fat and unfit. Spending an hour a day cycling to and from work makes a big difference, and if it would take you as long to drive it's essentially free.

All good reasons but only one is about burning calories! That's what I find weird: people trying to exercise off calories is usually bonkers (especially as almost everyone 'rewards' themselves after exercise by eating the calories they just burned).

Not saying it cannot play a part, but exercising to burn calories is usually a bit misguided.

[johnwilliams77]

ORD said:

All good reasons but only one is about burning calories! That's what I find weird: people trying to exercise off calories is usually bonkers (especially as almost everyone 'rewards' themselves after exercise by eating the calories they just burned).

Not saying it cannot play a part, but exercising to burn calories is usually a bit misguided.

Not really. I am guessing you aren't very active with all these conclusions?

[okgo]

ORD said:

Basic point is that, unless you're an exercise nutter cycling miles and miles, the number of calories you burn through exercise in a week is likely to be almost negligible relative to your food intake.

I always think 'Better to spend the mental energy sticking to a diet' when I see very fat people doing cardio. A bit harsh, maybe, but the numbers do sort of back it up. All sorts of other reasons to exercise, but it's not a great way of generating a calorie deficit.

An hour of very hard work in the gym burns about 300 calories for me. A snack, in other words.

Even if you are your point still remains. I probably burn about 12000 calories a week via cycling. Which is easily a couple of days overeating.

300 cals for a hard hour in the gym isn't correct BTW.

[otolith]

Depends what you are doing, though. A hard hour of low reps / high weight resistance training with rests isn't going to burn much (my watch says it does, but I disbelieve it)

I have removed almost all of my cardio from my gym sessions with my trainer, because I have cut down to twice a week. The idea was to chuck in some more cycling to make up, but work has got in the way. I have noticed the effect, and I am going to have to do something about it. Basically going to have to say that taking a lunch break and going for a ride is non-negotiable.

[ORD]

johnwilliams77 said:

ORD said:

All good reasons but only one is about burning calories! That's what I find weird: people trying to exercise off calories is usually bonkers (especially as almost everyone 'rewards' themselves after exercise by eating the calories they just burned).

Not saying it cannot play a part, but exercising to burn calories is usually a bit misguided.

Not really. I am guessing you aren't very active with all these conclusions?

Not terribly active, no. Like most people, I simply don't have time to waste when it comes to exercise. Aiming at burning calories is vastly time-consuming. Not a lot of bang for the few bucks I have! If I had hours and hours every week, I might take calorie burning into account. As it is, the 1000 or 2000 calories I could burn are an irrelevance: much easier to simply not eat that 1-2 meals.

[Bill]

otolith said:

Depends what you are doing, though. A hard hour of low reps / high weight resistance training with rests isn't going to burn much (my watch says it does, but I disbelieve it)

I have removed almost all of my cardio from my gym sessions with my trainer, because I have cut down to twice a week. The idea was to chuck in some more cycling to make up, but work has got in the way. I have noticed the effect, and I am going to have to do something about it. Basically going to have to say that taking a lunch break and going for a ride is non-negotiable.

But that's his point. You're doing less exercise than you were, so your calorie intake no longer matches your activity and you've gained weight. You could (and probably should, really) do more exercise but it's far less time consuming to eat a bit less.

Fitness is a good thing, and having muscle bulk helps with weight loss, but exercise is not a good weight loss tool because a run equals a bag of crisps and that's just inefficient.

[johnwilliams77]

ORD said:

Not terribly active, no. Like most people, I simply don't have time to waste when it comes to exercise. Aiming at burning calories is vastly time-consuming. Not a lot of bang for the few bucks I have! If I had hours and hours every week, I might take calorie burning into account. As it is, the 1000 or 2000 calories I could burn are an irrelevance: much easier to simply not eat that 1-2 meals.

Thought so
It comes hand in hand for me - i find it easier to eat well when I am exercising (running/cycling) at least 7hrs a week (hardly a lot of time)

[Flibble]

johnwilliams77 said:

Thought so
It comes hand in hand for me - i find it easier to eat well when I am exercising (running/cycling) at least 7hrs a week (hardly a lot of time)

That a full hour a day, excluding prep time. Not an insignificant amount of time really.

[johnwilliams77]

Flibble said:

That a full hour a day, excluding prep time. Not an insignificant amount of time really.

I never said it was 'insignificant'. I do not think it is a significant amount of time when its directly linked to your well being.
It is the foundation of making the rest of life better and downtime. I would imagine most of the UK watch tv or surf the net for more in a couple of days
Many people get this amount of activity or much much more in by cycle/run commutes anyway and often beating the time they would spend stuck in rows of traffic. Win win

[ORD]

johnwilliams77 said:

I never said it was 'insignificant'. I do not think it is a significant amount of time when its directly linked to your well being.
It is the foundation of making the rest of life better and downtime. I would imagine most of the UK watch tv or surf the net for more in a couple of days
Many people get this amount of activity or much much more in by cycle/run commutes anyway and often beating the time they would spend stuck in rows of traffic. Win win

Very true. If I didn't have a toddler to deal with before and after work, I would probably exercise for an hour or so every day. But how many people do anything like that much exercise? 0.1% of UK adults, I would guess.

A lot depends on your family and partner. If my wife liked exercise as much as I do, we could go for a jog together rather than watch a film!

[johnwilliams77]

ORD said:

Very true. If I didn't have a toddler to deal with before and after work, I would probably exercise for an hour or so every day. But how many people do anything like that much exercise? 0.1% of UK adults, I would guess.

A lot depends on your family and partner. If my wife liked exercise as much as I do, we could go for a jog together rather than watch a film!

I don't know - but about 90% of people i interact with socially. Many triathletes / marathon runners / ultra marathon runners also have families they just are very disciplined and get up earlier / run at lunch / have flexible working conditions (own businesses)

[otolith]

Bill said:

otolith said:

Depends what you are doing, though. A hard hour of low reps / high weight resistance training with rests isn't going to burn much (my watch says it does, but I disbelieve it)

I have removed almost all of my cardio from my gym sessions with my trainer, because I have cut down to twice a week. The idea was to chuck in some more cycling to make up, but work has got in the way. I have noticed the effect, and I am going to have to do something about it. Basically going to have to say that taking a lunch break and going for a ride is non-negotiable.

But that's his point. You're doing less exercise than you were, so your calorie intake no longer matches your activity and you've gained weight. You could (and probably should, really) do more exercise but it's far less time consuming to eat a bit less.

Fitness is a good thing, and having muscle bulk helps with weight loss, but exercise is not a good weight loss tool because a run equals a bag of crisps and that's just inefficient.

The weight gain was more to do with a couple of holidays and too many weekends away - but that's been knocked on the head now. I am currently living on about 1500 calories a day, using the resistance training and a high protein intake to try to minimise lean tissue loss. I could knock that down to 900 calories a day, or I could go out on my bike in my lunch hour - I know which sounds easier.

[johnwilliams77]

otolith said:

The weight gain was more to do with a couple of holidays and too many weekends away - but that's been knocked on the head now. I am currently living on about 1500 calories a day, using the resistance training and a high protein intake to try to minimise lean tissue loss. I could knock that down to 900 calories a day, or I could go out on my bike in my lunch hour - I know which sounds easier.

As I understand there is a fine line in weight loss between of being in the right amount of calorie deficit. MyFitnessPal would recommend net 2000 calories a day (after activity)

[otolith]

There's a great deal of individual variation in maintenance calories, though. 2000 calories net isn't going to have the same effect on two people of completely different size and body composition.

[ORD]

johnwilliams77 said:

I don't know - but about 90% of people i interact with socially. Many triathletes / marathon runners / ultra marathon runners also have families they just are very disciplined and get up earlier / run at lunch / have flexible working conditions (own businesses)

Not people who are doing exercise in order to burn calories, then. Nobody is going to get up early to for a run just to burn fewer calories than they will eat between meals in a day! Not unless they are a bit strange. That's my point - it's an inefficient way to create a calorie deficit. Might be the best thing in your life and hugely important to you for all sorts of other reasons.

[johnwilliams77]

ORD said:

Not people who are doing exercise in order to burn calories, then. Nobody is going to get up early to for a run just to burn fewer calories than they will eat between meals in a day! Not unless they are a bit strange. That's my point - it's an inefficient way to create a calorie deficit. Might be the best thing in your life and hugely important to you for all sorts of other reasons.

Well yes, helping to stay in shape by burning calories is one of the key benefits (allows me to eat lots too, especially during marathon training!)

Exercise is important for all of us it's just that many people don't make the time or make excuses to explain away their laziness.

[J4CKO]

People say they dont have time, an awful lot of telly is watched and computer games played, I go for a walk most nights with the dog, half an hour, wont burn many calories, maybe 100 ? but thats that KitKat dealt with, the one with 105 calories that, if you go over by that much every day, its potentially ten pounds of fat over a year.

I think that people think to lose weight you need to exercise like mad, for hours, whilst starving yourself, the expectation is a little bit of misery, then I will be sorted, then back to old habits, it just needs to be slight changes, staged one at a time, keep consistent and dont expect ten years of weight gain and inactivity to be sorted overnight.