There is no way that the five minutes of sustained exercise I could do when I started was anything like as effective as the 60 minutes I can do now. Yes, minute by minute it certainly burned more energy, but total duration is really important. Certainly the early benefits for my cardiovascular system were tremendous, but I continue to hold that exercise is a long-term investment.
Sorry, I think I was unclear. Also, I'm speaking from my own experience here with heart rate monitors and such.
When I first started exercising, I would do 30 minutes of fairly light activity (fast-ish walking, bouncing on a rebounder). My heart rate would be in the high 150s to low 160s, and because my heart rate was so high and my weight was so much higher, I could burn maybe 300-400 calories in that 30 minutes (which was sustainable for me, to walk for 30 minutes, at that time...I certainly wouldn't have been able to kickbox for 30 minutes, but I COULD walk, and that walking got my heart rate pretty darned high).
Now, because my weight is lower and I am more fit, I have to perform even more intense activity to get my heartrate up to the same training levels that I reached just by walking (running, fast walks at very high incline, kickboxing), and therefore get close to the same calorie burns. Walking barely even raises my heart rate anymore, unfortunate because I walk my dog every darned day and no longer "count" it as cardio.
Sorry, I think I was unclear. Also, I'm speaking from my own experience here with heart rate monitors and such.
[snip]
.
I think we largely agree, and that I was somewhat unclear. My point is this:
If you weigh 300 lbs, it's fairly simple to maintain a 1000 calorie/day deficit through diet alone while still getting all the nutrition you need. Even if you are burning 250 calories through light exercise, exercise will still only represent 20% of your 1250 calorie deficit.
When that same person weighs 150 pounds, it's now basically impossible to maintain a 1000 calorie/day deficit through diet: the body just doesn't need that much fuel anymore. Even if they are continuing to burn 250 calories a day, that 250 is now a much larger percentage of their deficit. If, even better, they have built up their endurance, their cardiovascular system, and developed healthy habits and attitudes toward exercising (all of which takes time), they can now burn twice as much as when they started. At this point, exercise may well represent the majority of their calorie deficit.
I am not at all trying to discourage beginners to exercise: to the contrary, I am arguing that even if it does not seem immediately helpful, it's worth sticking with it (and experimenting to find things you enjoy) because it's essential at the end.
As far as a larger person exercising - I say use that larger size to your advantage. The larger you are, the more calories you burn performing your tasks. In other words a 285 lb person is going to burn more calories walking 5 blocks than a 150 lbs person. So for a 150 lb person to walk those 5 blocks, not many calories being burned - doesn't "pay" all that much. But that 285 person walking those same 5 blocks - they will burn more calories - and therefore it "pays" more.
Absolutely, use that weight to your advantage and burn up those calories!
Yes, we are agreeing, just stating in different ways. You're absolutely right that, as a percentage of calorie deficit, exercise plays a bigger role closer to goal, when it is harder to eat huge amounts under your resting metabolism, and having an exercise habit in place makes it that much easier to get it done when you really NEED it.
We had a big discussion about this when the article first came out.
For me, intense exercise will actaully curb my hunger in the evening. you know when you are really sweaty and gross afterwards. If I do something like pilates or yogo or play on wii fit I can be hungry afterwards. But then I'll just eat dinner like a normal person now.
At times I've had the "well, I excersised today so I can eat this" mentalilty. I know it's completely wrong because there is no way that the amount of exercise I did will compensate for the big piece of pizza I'm thinking about eating. but when you are in the quassey not quite ready to be serious about weight loss and taking care of yourself it's easy to kid yourself if you don't look too hard.
For me exercise does so much more then burn calories. It helps stabalize my moods, makes me feel more energetic, stregthens problem areas like my core and lower back.
After I joined the YMCA I started doing very regular cardio at least 5x a week, and some weight training too. I felt more fit, and people said I looked better, but I did not lose ONE SINGLE POUND over 9 months. Or any pants sizes either, at least not noticeably. I thought I ate pretty healthy -- never any junk food, no desserts, ate vegetables and skim milk and so on. And I never, at least consciously, ate more or rewarded myself with treats for exercising.
It was only when I got my LoseIt app and started deliberate calorie restriction and counting (added to the exercise) that the weight started coming off. This is how I know I will never be a successful "intuitive eater".
It was only when I got my LoseIt app and started deliberate calorie restriction and counting (added to the exercise) that the weight started coming off. This is how I know I will never be a successful "intuitive eater".
You and me both. You and me both.
For me, the bottom, bottom line is the calories I'm taking IN. I could exercise till the cows come home, stay away from sweets, eat only healthy, but if I'm not tracking the AMOUNT of calories I'm ingesting - no weight loss. Waaay to easy to take in more than you utilize without tracking them.
Anyone think I should go back to 
smoking 
