7 ms·

> doesn't exercising mean you have to consume more calories You can't exercise off calories. The difference in burning rate vs consumption is far too high for

by erklik 3y ago

> doesn't exercising mean you have to consume more calories You can't exercise off calories. The difference in burning rate vs consumption is far too high for most cases.. I always thought the exercise that helped age better, was largely that the diet remains constant..

whirlwin 3y ago
Consider the case of an individual who manages to have a stable body mass without training. One would most certainly require more calories if he/her started training.
- silisili 3y ago
  It -really- depends on what you're doing. If you're an olympic athlete swimming 10 miles a day, you need more calories. If you're the typical American walking or jogging even for an hour, you burn basically a can of Coke or two.
- ekianjo 3y ago
  Unless you are exercising 10 hours per day you dont lose much calories by exercising
  - arghnoname 3y ago
    I ran 15 miles on Monday at a pretty relaxed pace (took 2.5 hours). My watch, while probably not perfectly accurate, nevertheless suggested I burned approximately 1640 additional calories during this time. This is 1/4 as much as 10 hours and is a significant proportion of my basal metabolic expenditure. On a more typical day, I may run closer to an hour and be closer to 600-700 calories. I'd still call this significant. You can burn significant calories exercising, but the exercise is probably kind of unpleasant.
    - ekianjo 3y ago
      Good. What I mean is that it is a lot more effort than cutting down on an extra snack. Running a hour for 600 calories does not sound like its very effective since its just about the calories of 2 cookies.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > One would most certainly require more calories if he/her started training Not necessarily. Consider the calories you're burning carrying around fat or being inflamed or from a higher resting heart rate.
arghnoname 3y ago
This is a myth, one I used to believe, until I started exercising to just improve my cardiovascular health. Lo and behold, I started losing fat unintentionally (my weight only dropped a little, but I think my body composition is better as well, so some muscle was gained). My weight lifting doesn't burn many calories, but I typically burn 2000-3000 calories a week running. This is close enough to my basal metabolic rate that it is calorically equivalent to fasting one day per week. This is more exercise than is typical, granted, but it does suggest that one can exercise off calories and it doesn't take all that much time to make a dent. I will say, this kind of caloric burn ups my appetite and I'm not trying to lose weight, so I eat more to compensate.
bartonfink 3y ago
You can absolutely outrun your fork, you just have to run a lot farther than you think. There are no fat people who run 50 miles a week. Some people hear "one mile burns roughly a soda", look at the numbers and assume that weight loss through exercise is not going to work for them or anyone. These people give up way too easy.

by erklik 3y ago

whirlwin 3y ago

Consider the case of an individual who manages to have a stable body mass without training. One would most certainly require more calories if he/her started training.

silisili 3y ago
It -really- depends on what you're doing. If you're an olympic athlete swimming 10 miles a day, you need more calories. If you're the typical American walking or jogging even for an hour, you burn basically a can of Coke or two.
ekianjo 3y ago
Unless you are exercising 10 hours per day you dont lose much calories by exercising
- arghnoname 3y ago
  I ran 15 miles on Monday at a pretty relaxed pace (took 2.5 hours). My watch, while probably not perfectly accurate, nevertheless suggested I burned approximately 1640 additional calories during this time. This is 1/4 as much as 10 hours and is a significant proportion of my basal metabolic expenditure. On a more typical day, I may run closer to an hour and be closer to 600-700 calories. I'd still call this significant. You can burn significant calories exercising, but the exercise is probably kind of unpleasant.
  - ekianjo 3y ago
    Good. What I mean is that it is a lot more effort than cutting down on an extra snack. Running a hour for 600 calories does not sound like its very effective since its just about the calories of 2 cookies.
JumpCrisscross 3y ago
> One would most certainly require more calories if he/her started training Not necessarily. Consider the calories you're burning carrying around fat or being inflamed or from a higher resting heart rate.

arghnoname 3y ago

This is a myth, one I used to believe, until I started exercising to just improve my cardiovascular health. Lo and behold, I started losing fat unintentionally (my weight only dropped a little, but I think my body composition is better as well, so some muscle was gained). My weight lifting doesn't burn many calories, but I typically burn 2000-3000 calories a week running. This is close enough to my basal metabolic rate that it is calorically equivalent to fasting one day per week. This is more exercise than is typical, granted, but it does suggest that one can exercise off calories and it doesn't take all that much time to make a dent. I will say, this kind of caloric burn ups my appetite and I'm not trying to lose weight, so I eat more to compensate.

bartonfink 3y ago

You can absolutely outrun your fork, you just have to run a lot farther than you think. There are no fat people who run 50 miles a week. Some people hear "one mile burns roughly a soda", look at the numbers and assume that weight loss through exercise is not going to work for them or anyone. These people give up way too easy.