exercise not calories restriction

2lazytogetup · 10-10-2019 11:30am #1

Looking out the window yesterday i saw a couple of skinny teenagers walking with 5 big sweet tubs . They were wearing tracksuits and i expect they play a good bit of football, and since they are too young to drive probably walk everywhere. but even though im guessing they eat loads of junk, they were thin.

This got me thinking.

i have heard you cant out train a bad diet, and a mars bar is like 1 hour of vigourious exercise. But then there is more calories burned by having more muscles and the afterburn effect.

So im going to give up on calorie restrictions. ill still eat a healthy diet veg and fruit. but if i want cake ill eat the cake. ill have that milkshake. and enjoy the sugar buzz. there was cake and milkshakes 50 years ago and people werent fat.

but im going to get 2 hours of enjoyable exercise a day. cycling, audiobooks while a long walk, take up a new sport. no reason to sit on the couch all night.

I think people have gotten fat because they dont get exercise. everywhere i go, carparks are full, there is loads of traffic on the roads. people have gotten lazy. they think 30 min of exercise a day is alot. and you need rest days. this idea of the kitchen being the heart of the house is rubbish. should be out doing exercise rather than sitting with the fridge in sight. people sit enough during the day in offices and cafes.

Any thoughts or ideas. would prefer positive ones, but hey this is boards and im expecting the its all about diet and not exercise. Which im starting to doubt.

Oh yeah i note my username is somehow ironic going on this post. username is about my reputation of being doozy in the brain and chilled out from 15 years ago.

silverharp · 10-10-2019 11:52am

I think it comes down to (possibly) overestimating your physical output, even if you cycle 2 hours a day but are sedentary the other 14 hours , it probably wont get you that balance you are looking for. Its not exactly a 14 hour manual farm job day of yesteryear.
Its still worth doing though regardless of weight goals , all kinds of good physical and mental benefits

bladespin · 10-10-2019 12:06pm

Worth a try but you'll never outrun a bad diet, a teenager with a hormone driven body may have super turbo metabolism but it won't/doesn't last. As a father of a soon to be teen, I would not recommend their diet to anyone, a 500g tub of cola bottles followed but a boost drink then eat feck all proper food when it's offered, dinners half eaten, or heated up late etc etc. Little sod has a BF of less than 10% and is built like a shed.

I believe in balance myself, I don't deny myself a piece of cake or a chipper (even a pint or 2) but I'm very conscious of my intake and my weekly averages, I also maintain a 1hr per day, intense weight training routine 4-5 days per week.

On the down side:

'A 1 hour walk will burn between 1.6 and 2.4 calories for every pound of you weight, depending on the speed. That's 250 to 350 calories for the average person at an average walking pace.' That's approximate but not miles off, you'd have to walk for 6 hours to get rid of a good chipper.

Afterburn is a thing, though don't think it's a huge difference unless you're muscle mass is very high, it also depends on the type and intensity of exercise - high intensity training, if you like HIIT then you're off to a good start.

Sedentary lifestyle is a contributor but diet, especially the availability of calorie dense convenience food is the main culprit for obesity, that's the relatively new part, it was not there years back.
There was cake and milkshakes years ago and people were fat, well those that consistently over indulged.

riffmongous · 10-10-2019 12:20pm

'guessing that they eat a lot of junk' that's a pretty big guess to make based off one observation.

I was thinking of something similar myself though recently since I was a very skinny teenager, and about how much more exercise I did or was it due to higher metabolism or whatever.. but when it came to diet, i'd have a bowl of cereal at 7am, a small mars bar at 11, 2 cheese and ham sandwiches at lunchtime (often skipped) and then spuds and stew when I got home at 5pm. Then a few biscuits before bed. There was no snacking since you just didn't have a chance, dinner was made when I got home so no time there, wasn't allowed in school and you were full in the evening from dinner. It also helped that we were poor enough that there was never an excess of sweets lying around. Now there was a decent bit of exercise in there too, soccer at lunchtime and maybe an hour of sport after school when it was still bright, but really it all came down to diet

Macy0161 · 10-10-2019 12:23pm

I'm very much of the school of thought of everything in moderation and including (or not excluding) any food or food group from your diet. However, science says you need a calorie deficit to lose weight.

However, upping exercise enough to lose weight and pay no attention to calories in, won't be sustainable in my view. You either won't lose weight, or you'll get yourself in a physical (and perhaps mental) hole by not properly fuelling the exercise, and more importantly the recovery.

The best I've managed to do while in deficit is maintain fitness, but while trying to run a deficit from food and exercise, I did end up sick, more often. Often by trying to do the exercise while still not 100% well.

Mellor · 10-10-2019 12:29pm

2lazytogetup wrote: »

So im going to give up on calorie restrictions.

To lose weight via exercise or activity, you still need a calorie restriction/deficit.

but im going to get 2 hours of enjoyable exercise a day. cycling, audiobooks while a long walk, take up a new sport. no reason to sit on the couch all night.

2 hours of walking burns very little. Enough to cover a mars bar sure. But not enough to eat what every you want all day

GarIT · 10-10-2019 12:37pm

When I was that age I was in the same situation. But I spent at least 6 hours a day walking or running. Walk to school, run a bit if you're late, wander around for around or play sport for 45mins between the lunch breaks, walked across the school 6+ times a day, pe for two hours once a week so an average of 25 mins per day, walked home, got changed, and walked back out to friends, wandered around the town until 10ish, sometimes playing football or something else. Now I barely walk half an hour in a day and I've put on 60-70lbs in 2-3 years, diet hasn't changed, if anything it's much better now.

2lazytogetup · 10-10-2019 3:06pm

thanks for those views and insights everyone. Going on your comments above and what ive observed, obesity seems to be a mixture of more snacking and less exercise. I think Riffmongus has a good point of having 3 staple meals a day. and comments about how much exercise we got when we were young but not anymore.

So sadly to beat the bulge, ill have to get loads of exercise and keep to staple meals. no easy way around it.

i think my point was that some people think its all about diet. but really exercise is as important. methinks more important if there is enough of it.

Alf Veedersane · 10-10-2019 3:43pm

2lazytogetup wrote: »

i think my point was that some people think its all about diet. but really exercise is as important. methinks more important if there is enough of it.

Loaing weight, maintaining weight, etc is primarily about diet. That's not to say exercise isn't important. Everyone should exercise but for general wellbeing rather than just weight loss.

If you're reliant on exercise to lose weight, then you're doing it wrong. People assume they burn off a lot more than they do when they exercise.

Penn · 10-10-2019 4:19pm

2lazytogetup wrote: »

thanks for those views and insights everyone. Going on your comments above and what ive observed, obesity seems to be a mixture of more snacking and less exercise. I think Riffmongus has a good point of having 3 staple meals a day. and comments about how much exercise we got when we were young but not anymore.

So sadly to beat the bulge, ill have to get loads of exercise and keep to staple meals. no easy way around it.

i think my point was that some people think its all about diet. but really exercise is as important. methinks more important if there is enough of it.

Ultimately it's calories in vs calories out. If you burn more calories than you eat, you'll lose weight. If it's done by increasing exercise over what you eat, you'll lose weight. If it's done by reducing what you eat below what you burn off (whether through your normal day or with added exercise), you'll lose weight.

The trouble is the amount of exercise and the level you might need to do it at to lose any significant amount of weight without also changing your diet is probably too much for most people, especially as some people just have really busy schedules rather than just lazing about (job + kids can easily take 14 hours out of your day, plus 7 hours sleep leaves 3 hours, and people need relaxation time too or they'll burn out).

Exercise is important, absolutely. It can enhance your metabolism, burn calories, releases endorphins, makes you feel good, tone you up as well as just burning fat. But diet is absolutely key to get right and will have a much bigger impact, and doesn't take such a chunk of time or energy.

They say 80% diet, 20% exercise. I think it's more 90/10, but either way, diet is by far the biggest influencer.

silverharp · 11-10-2019 11:45am

if you want to be thrown a bone on this one , I saw a suggestion that 250miles cycling per week (400km) as the distance where you don't see many obese cyclists.

GreeBo · 11-10-2019 11:51am

Causation != Correlation

2lazytogetup · 11-10-2019 11:58am

Thanks for input everyone.

I'm not going to argue against biology or thermodynamics. And calories in v calories burned up is the definitive formula

But from a psychological view, i think people should concentrate on getting more exercise than trying to deny themselves small bit of cake. And in practice when you are out cycling or walking, you wont be eating, you are less likely to visit the fridge.

Its almost like the 20% exercise is more important than the 80% diet.

i always felt better being a bit heavier and fitter than skinnier but getting less exercise.

Also, on this line above "some people just have really busy schedules rather than just lazing about (job + kids can easily take 14 hours out of your day, plus 7 hours sleep leaves 3 hours, and people need relaxation time too or they'll burn out)."

I think you need to attack this 14 hours job and kids. walk the kids to school, go to gym during work lunch hour. may ultimately require to abandon office jobs. also for the 3 hours relaxation. even if only one hour relaxation. this needs to be spent going for an evening walk than flaking on the couch. especially if people were in an office sitting all day. they got enough sitting during the day.

By the way, i note my comments is the kind of thing that food industry lobby groups would say, more exercise. Dont get me wrong, food producers that high fat sugar and salt foods have alot to answer for and i dont know how they sleep at night knowing the damage they do to the population.

2lazytogetup · 11-10-2019 12:02pm

GreeBo wrote: »

Causation != Correlation

I disagree. i think it is causation

https://caloriesburnedhq.com/calories-burned-biking/#targetText=a%20150%20person%20cycling%20a,burn%2056%20calories%20per%20mile.

this website suggests 25 miles cycling will burn up about 1260 calories over 2 hours cycling.

AlmightyCushion · 11-10-2019 12:03pm

If weight loss is the goal, it's a lot easier to say no to a piece of cake than it is to motivate yourself to go for a run or a cycle.

silverharp · 11-10-2019 12:06pm

GreeBo wrote: »

Causation != Correlation

we aren't talking graphing Justin Bieber's career with gun violence here. more the area of confounding variables, likewise ive heard people say they were obese even though they ran marathons. Its tricky stuff, you have to take people's metabolism, age , genetics, how they were raised into account.
Generally though im not in favour of "the Biggest Loser" approach, it doesn't work long term for the vast majority of people

Tar.Aldarion · 11-10-2019 12:12pm

You can out train a bad diet of course, I was doing 1500 calories of cardio every day at one point, the general idea is that it is very hard to do and hard to maintain, plus you are making things harder on yourself when you eat poorly. What you are saying is you won't be 100% strict, that is a bit different.

Irish Aris · 11-10-2019 12:18pm

I think the balance could be different for different people, especially as one gets older.

I tried to lose weight the last 6 months by changing my diet, as I already do some moderate physical exercise (2k walk to get to work and back, and 4 hours of table tennis training every week). So for me the only way was to reduce calories intake.

The way I did that was primarily with portion control. I would still have a small sweet snack everyday, but I replaced the rest of the snacking with healthier options - fruit and vegetable. As other posters said already, everything in moderation.

So I was aiming for net calories intake around 1750.. It was a slow process, but I lost 11 kilos in 5 months (from 83 to 72).
I thought the best thing I got out of it was that my eating habits have changed. I can't easily go through a 3 course meal anymore.

_Brian · 11-10-2019 12:22pm

Also age dependent.
I know that pretty no matter what I do I’ll never burn calories at the rate a 17yo does, partly due to metabolism slowing with age, partly due to older body not able to sustain high levels of activity and then as an adult I just done have the free time to give over to hours of activity.

As ever in these things balance is key. Eat well, enjoy “some” treats and exercise as much as is possible.

DuckSlice · 11-10-2019 1:53pm

I think if you want to lose weight you need to control the diet and exercise as said previously. I've lost weight by just dropping one or two things out of my diet but would always put it back on. Its only when I started the gym 3 times a week and started cooking home meals rather than eating in the canteen at work.

I think that eating in canteens in workplaces is a big issue, I know my Bolognese that I make is around 600 calories including pasta/rice, but the canteen Bolognese I haven't a clue of what the calories in that is or what size portion that will get me. Less people cooking their own meals these days compared to 20/30 years ago.

as far as exercise, 3 sessions of about an hour weight training is all I done to lose weight so you don't need to be going 4/5 times a week. well I didn't need to.

AllForIt · 11-10-2019 11:44pm

AlmightyCushion wrote: »

If weight loss is the goal, it's a lot easier to say no to a piece of cake than it is to motivate yourself to go for a run or a cycle.

I would argue with you on that one.

I would say it's a lot easier to spend a period of time in the day to a bit of cardio that it is to spend the whole day denying yourself cake.

Alf Veedersane · 11-10-2019 11:57pm

AllForIt wrote: »

AlmightyCushion wrote: »

If weight loss is the goal, it's a lot easier to say no to a piece of cake than it is to motivate yourself to go for a run or a cycle.

I would argue with you on that one.

I would say it's a lot easier to spend a period of time in the day to a bit of cardio that it is to spend the whole day denying yourself cake.

It's easy to find the time in the day to get some work in. Plenty of people find excuses to not find that time.

Macy0161 · 14-10-2019 11:39am

2lazytogetup wrote: »

But from a psychological view, i think people should concentrate on getting more exercise than trying to deny themselves small bit of cake. And in practice when you are out cycling or walking, you wont be eating, you are less likely to visit the fridge.

Its almost like the 20% exercise is more important than the 80% diet.

I agree and disagree to be honest.

Because I exercise a lot, others trying to lose weight almost try to make the excuse of "it must be all the exercise you do". My response is that weight is lost in the kitchen, the exercise gives me a bit of wriggle room. I also point out I started with walking, progressed to some walk runs, started cycling a 10km loop (which I had to stop several times)...

However, now in maintenance, and maybe more performance focused, I often try to fuel my time on the bike more. I'm not necessarily aiming to be running a deficit coming out of a cycling event, especially if I've tried some kind of carb load before. But I guess that's a different stage of the process.

exercise not calories restriction

Comments