What's the Point of Working Out? Calling All Chicks!
Hey everyone,
This could either be a ridiculously stupid question or a genius one. My question to you is: what's the point of working out?
Haha let me explain! No, I am not downward-spiralling from a bad workout. Essentially, I calorie count and I spent my night reading articles discussing "eating back your calories" (I know we all have different opinions on this). I started to wonder about calories, weight loss in general, etc. This is what is bugging me:
Ultimately, if a person wants to eat 1500 calories a day only, vs. eat 2000 and burn 500 working out, why bother working out in general? The calorie amount is going to end up being the same if they just ate 1500 in the first place!
Now, I KNOW working out boosts your mood, helps fight disease, makes you happy mentally/emotionally/physically, but when it comes to weight loss, why does it matter? Jillian Michaels always talks about burning calories, but if you only ate 1200, you couldn't really "burn" anymore, as you'd be possibly entering dangerous levels, depending on your size. With me, for example, I eat more calories on days I work out because otherwise, my calorie intake would only be 900. If I just didn't work out, I wouldn't have this particular problem!
We all have things we struggle to get our head around and this is mine for the night. I love working out for a variety of reasons, but can't understand, in layman's terms, why it's essential for weight loss. Wouldn't watching calories for a specific deficit be all the burn you need, mathematically speaking? Do we work out for other health benefits, and not for weight loss if we're already eating healthy?!
Thoughts?
Last edited by NorthernChick13; 04-25-2013 at 12:21 AM.
Thanks for posting the article! I just read it and I like the idea of exercise and nutrition working together to almost double-motivate people when making lifestyle changes.
My question is more centred around the numbers game, though. My boyfriend just came home and I ran it by him and his take is that not everyone eats the same number of calories, and that some people would rather eat 2000 and then burn some off (as a random example). He suggested that in regards to weight loss, true, it isn't really helping me since I am getting 1200 calories no matter what, but that it may be more relevant for those not at that magic calorie threshold? And, good for muscle development and other healthy benefits, geared to FITNESS, but not WEIGHT LOSS in itself?
Ugh. This is why English teachers shouldn't think about math! Also, I have absolutely NO BIAS to whatever type of fitness plan anyone chooses. I am just trying to learn as I go so I hope I have not offended anyone. I am not trying to suggest everyone can just magically eat a lower number of calories, as I am still figuring out my calories too. I love you all
Last edited by NorthernChick13; 04-25-2013 at 12:51 AM.
There really isn't a point if your only goal is to lose weight. I lost my first 30 pounds doing hardly any exercise. Mainly it was because I started in November and it got way too cold for me to do stuff outside, I'm too cheap to buy a gym membership and the lady living below me complained when I tried to do exercise videos!
When I started running again (about 4 weeks ago) I realized that even though I'm 30+ pounds lighter, my fitness level sucks. It was just as difficult as when I attempted to run last fall. I went for the tiniest hike last weekend and was out of breath way too early on. For me, my main goal for losing weight was getting healthy so it was really disappointing that my fitness level is still really terrible which is why I've implemented an exercise regiment even though I've had success losing weight without it. You have to think about the reason you are losing weight, if it's just to be physically smaller then I wouldn't worry about exercising however if it's to be in better shape then I'd recommend doing some sort of exercise.
Humans are not meant to be sedentary. If your goal is even a teeny-tiny bit to be healthy, you MUST exercise.
For me, lowering my calorie intake without exercise would be a bit pointless. I wouldn't see the changes in my body that I want to see. I wouldn't FEEL better, in fact, I'd feel worse...starving myself down.
But as far as the numbers go.... since I'm not calorie counting, I use those as a rough guide for intensity. Then again - there are a number of exercises I do in which I cannot count calories. I can't wear any type of heart rate monitor while in rugby training or a match. It's too dangerous. And there are several where I don't...hot yoga, boxing class, etc. etc.
Exercise is also a weight loss accelerant for me, I won't lie. But my main motivation is fitness - and it's fitness to have fun and feel good and be strong.
This could either be a ridiculously stupid question or a genius one. My question to you is: what's the point of working out?
[...] Ultimately, if a person wants to eat 1500 calories a day only, vs. eat 2000 and burn 500 working out, why bother working out in general? The calorie amount is going to end up being the same if they just ate 1500 in the first place!
[..]
We all have things we struggle to get our head around and this is mine for the night. I love working out for a variety of reasons, but can't understand, in layman's terms, why it's essential for weight loss. Wouldn't watching calories for a specific deficit be all the burn you need, mathematically speaking? Do we work out for other health benefits, and not for weight loss if we're already eating healthy?!
Thoughts?
Once I learned that weight loss is 80% kitchen, I kind of asked myself why I keep on exercising. Even now that I've started calorie counting with MyFitnessPal and struggling to eat 1200 before exercise is making me want to give up the burn. However, I can't and I won't.
1. I know that cutting my calories isn't enough. I have to be actively involved in the things that I do or else I'll completely lose interest.
2. I've always been good and giving up. I wrote the book on excuses as to why I shouldn't do something. In fact, I used to conveniently disappear when something remotely difficult was presented to me. Calling in sick, my parents or partner would do it; going for a walk to the shops, my knees were sore; doing extra training outside of my soccer training and game days, I had no time; and so on.
Forcing myself to push my mind and body past their limits has been the hardest thing I've done in my life. I'll admit that I was lazy, I still am. However, I feel so much better about everything when I do my 30 minute exercise 3-5 days a week (now 5). It's even improved my patience and mental strength with writing my novels and staying focused on other tasks. Before, I used to write (on paper and pc) about 40 pages and then quit. That's about 10,000 odd words. Now I'm up to 52,000 words with no signs of quitting in my horizon. I'm determined to get one published!
3. Exercising also gets me outside of the house. If given the chance, I'd leave the house twice a month, maybe 3 times. I dislike the outdoors because I dislike the sun but getting outside makes me happier. Not because of the endorphins, just the fact I'm outside. I still spend 80% of my day indoors though
I believe exercise is important for my reasons, for the reasons others have posted, and for everything positive that hasn't been mentioned. I get to challenge myself every time I get on the cycle track (that I walk and jog around).
I'm a lazy, lazy person who gets a thrill from exercise!
I think your question is a very good one. Numbers wise, I think it's just down to calories and yes, if someone can stick to eating 1500 calories they would probably lose around the same amount as someone who is eating 2,000 calories who is burning off 500 calories via exercise. The point of exercise is for fitness. Also, if you develop muscle, you will be burning off calories even at rest. In addition, people often underestimate how many calories they're consuming so keeping active and some form of exercise (without eating back those calories) can off set those errors. When we measure, we often use teaspoons and measuring cups but those aren't very accurate as compared with weight, so there are errors in that method. When we workout, there are errros in how we measure how much we burn too. For example people say you burn 100 calories for each mile you walk but you only burn 80 calories or so because the other 20, you would have burned just sitting around.
I think that as long as what you're doing works, then great. All the numbers and theories aren't as important as what works for every individual.
I look forward to reading other answers as I'm not really sure about what I've written...it's just based on things I've read but as you know, there's a lot of conflicting info out there on just about everything related to exercise. One thing I do know is that lifting weights is very good for speeding up the metabolism.
Thank you for the in-depth responses, everyone! I feel much more sane having read them!! I think some census I see building is that exercise is beneficial for fitness, and that really, fitness ought to go hand in hand with weight loss, but doesnt HAVE to.
I want to be a toned beast so I shall keep up with my 30 day shred and working out! Now I understand the "why" a little better, which makes the "how" so much easier! THANK YOU!
Well, really, it isn't so much a math game. It's about the mechanics of the human body.
Whatever we're doing, from sleeping to running a race, our body is using up the food we are eating and the stored glycogen in the liver. There's about 1800 calories available in there. As I understand it: When we eat, the food is converted into fuel that our body uses right then. If we have eaten more than we need, it gets stored in the liver. But if the liver can only hold just so much (not like a stomach that can stretch and shrink), so it starts to convert glycogen into fat for storage.
When we exercise, we are using up the food we ate first, then dipping into supplies in the liver for added energy. At some point, the liver senses that it's low, and that's when it goes into stored fat to be replenished. And that's when you've used the stored fat.
If we're cutting calories and not exercising, our liver still functions the same way, going into stored fat. But it also gets calories from depleted muscles that you're not using. And so your metabolic rate drops and it takes less and less food to keep your engine running.
So choose a variety of exercises, cardio for your heart and lungs, and weight resistance for your muscles. And you need to feed your muscles adequately for growth too. This will slow your rate of weight loss down, but understand that you're packing on some muscle while you're burning stored fat.
Ultimately, if a person wants to eat 1500 calories a day only, vs. eat 2000 and burn 500 working out, why bother working out in general? The calorie amount is going to end up being the same if they just ate 1500 in the first place!
I'm pretty sure when most people pick their arbitrary goal weight, it is based on some idea of final outcome that includes looking a certain way/fitting into clothing a certain way/being able to do certain things. Maybe this is a weight they used to be or the weight of someone else the same height who looks great. Ultimately, the goal is NOT just seeing a certain number on the scale (though I am the first to admit that is nice too!), it is what is envisioned to accompany weighing a certain amount. There is a less tangible quality of "shape" that I would venture to guess that most people are striving for with their weight goals - could be a certain size, certain proportions, certain definition... It appears to be a rare person who can get to that desired goal without any exercise. In my case, if I don't exercise, I could diet my way down to a "goal weight" but I would be - and AM! - skinny-fat (emphasis on the second part).
I think the bottom line is that YES, what you stated above is true, BUT calories and a person's weight are probably not the entire story for most people. Except maybe for models who want a very slender look with undefined muscles?
And "fitness" itself without regard to weight/size is of course another aspect. I keep telling myself that my goal is just to be more healthy and fit and there is no way to do this without physical activity of some kind.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Changergirl
... I went for the tiniest hike last weekend and was out of breath way too early on. For me, my main goal for losing weight was getting healthy so it was really disappointing that my fitness level is still really terrible which is why I've implemented an exercise regiment even though I've had success losing weight without it. ...
OMG - that is my experience too!
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlmostMe
Humans are not meant to be sedentary. If your goal is even a teeny-tiny bit to be healthy, you MUST exercise.
... my main motivation is fitness - and it's fitness to have fun and feel good and be strong.
For strictly WEIGHT loss, it really is a numbers game - you don't need to exercise to lose weight, you just need to eat at a calorie deficit.
However, if you want to keep some/most/all(!) of your MUSCLE mass while you lose weight, you need to exercise, and strength train in particular.
But exercise has other benefits (including, but not limited to) the fact that your metabolism is raised for a period of time after you finish exercising, so you burn more calories at rest for a period of time after exercising than you would burn just existing.
Honestly, do you know what it came down to in the beginning with me? I wanted to eat more! I liked the rate of loss at an ultra low calorie level, but I wanted to eat more than just tiny portions of food. So I got back in the pool. Now I swim, occasionally kettlebells, do yoga etc. Because I feel amazing.
The human body is MADE for movement. And quite frankly, even with so much left to lose, I am amazed every day at the improvements in my stamina.
Well, number one, you are making an assumption that you should "eat back" your exercise calories. I NEVER have and, even in maintenance I don't. Sure, when I ran 15 miles on Sunday, I ate more then I would have without exercise, but not anywhere near what my HRM said I burned.
Secondly, what I don't think anyone here has said, is that people that exercise look SO MUCH BETTER then people that don't. Take someone who weighs say 125 and works out and then look at a 125 pound person who sits on their *** all day. The difference is remarkable!
It's not. There's are lots of people who simply lose weight with diet alone.
"Wouldn't watching calories for a specific deficit be all the burn you need, mathematically speaking?"
Yes.
"Do we work out for other health benefits, and not for weight loss if we're already eating healthy?!"
Tons. For healthy living, exercise is essential. There are thin people who die of heart attacks every day. Besides heart strength (Cardio) there's quality of life. We live longer but we want to enjoy mobility for as long as possible. People who exercise are more likely to be able to walk and move at an old age. There are psychological impacts like mood but also how motivated you are to stay within your diet restrictions. When people exercise, they're more likely to maintain diet.
But exercise is not "essential" for weight loss. I am obese and still do triathlons and run 1/2 marathons and love spin class. If it was all exercise, I would be there. But exercise is a huge part of making me who I am. And that person is active!
What's the Point of Working Out? Calling All Chicks!
but getting outside makes me happier. Not because of the endorphins, just the fact I'm outside. I still spend 80% of my day indoors though 
One thing I do know is that lifting weights is very good for speeding up the metabolism.
