Do you pay for exercise?

Questions on how we spend our money and our time - consumer goods and services, home and vehicle, leisure and recreational activities
stoptothink
Posts: 4523
Joined: Fri Dec 31, 2010 9:53 am

Re: Do you pay for exercise?

Post by stoptothink » Thu Jan 28, 2016 12:22 pm

simplesimon wrote:
stoptothink wrote:
Drew777 wrote:
stoptothink wrote:
CFM300 wrote: Bodybuilding has nothing to do with fitness. But then again, this thread started as a question about "exercise", not training. So both of us have probably wandered off the path.
I definitely side with you on this, bodybuilding makes zero sense to me, but we all have different goals. I actually think most people are far more concerned with how they look aesthetically than whether or not their body functions correctly. That being said, how somebody looks is far from the first factor in why I would choose a trainer; not only is genetics a huge factor in muscular development (and nutrition is the biggest factor, and one that most "trainers" legally can not be addressing further than very general advice), but one person's development tells you absolutely nothing about what they know about addressing your specific concerns.
That's exactly my point, most people ultimately just want to look good. Nutrition is definitely the biggest factor by far, but I don't buy the whole genetics argument except for a very limited number of people. Sure, it's harder for some people, but almost anyone can at least get fairly lean. I've been lifting weights for about 12 years but was still overweight until a couple years ago when I finally got my diet straightened out. Most people just don't realize how strict you have to be with your diet to stay lean if you're not genetically lean already. Just eating healthy isn't going to cut it.
Everybody can make gains, drastic ones, but you are fooling yourself if you think genetics isn't a HUGE factor. It's the same with athletic development; the child of a professional athlete is exponentially more like to become a professional athlete than their peers, regardless of how much time and effort is spent on training. It is, what it is.

Also, I think you are misunderstanding the audience. My impression from this thread is that the majority of people on this board are looking to look good (obviously) and stay healthy - standing on stage in a speedo, neon orange, slathered in oil doing a front double biceps pose is not a part of their goals. When they come looking for help because they are having lumbar problems due to uneven patellar tracking, how's that trainer that they picked because they are big and lean going to help them? If you want to compete in bodybuilding you should probably choose someone who looks the part and has a work/competition history to back it up, but that means zilch if you have different goals or underlying issues. I might as well say pick a trainer only if they have their OW-1 (olympic weightlifting certification) and can deadlift a house because I am an olympic and power lifter. It's like anything else, nothing is a sure bet, but formal education and credentials is always going to be the greatest predictor of whether or not someone knows what they are doing.

BTW, I know tons of competitive bodybuilders who absolutely know what they are doing and can train people with all manners of goals.
I agree with Drew777 on the genetics part - I think we're talking about getting to about 15% body fat for men (I don't know the equivalent for women, maybe 20-25%?), which is what I would consider looking healthy and is what we all seem to agree is what most people want. It doesn't take superior genetics for someone to eat less calories than they burn per day.
You are misunderstanding my point. The difference between them being 10% and 6% at 200+ is far more a combination of genetics and "other" factors (let's be real, use of anabolics) then what they know. I'm not going to trust an out-of-shape trainer, you should not even have the option to choose a trainer who is not in shape, but the fact that one may appear more muscular or lean than another is not going to encourage me to choose them over someone who is more qualified. If you are focused on bodybuilding, sure, otherwise it is pretty irrelevant (as long as they are what you'd consider in shape) - know your goals.

leonard
Posts: 5993
Joined: Wed Feb 21, 2007 11:56 am

Re: Do you pay for exercise?

Post by leonard » Thu Jan 28, 2016 12:31 pm

simplesimon wrote:It doesn't take superior genetics for someone to eat less calories than they burn per day.
Spoken like someone that has not had a tough time losing weight. It isn't that simple for some.
Leonard | | Market Timing: Do you seriously think you can predict the future? What else do the voices tell you? | | If employees weren't taking jobs with bad 401k's, bad 401k's wouldn't exist.

stoptothink
Posts: 4523
Joined: Fri Dec 31, 2010 9:53 am

Re: Do you pay for exercise?

Post by stoptothink » Thu Jan 28, 2016 12:32 pm

Rodc wrote: Near as I can tell my genetics are pretty good for being lean which helps, but history shows I am fully capable of putting on fat if I don't pay attention to diet.
There are no two ways about it, nutrition is the huge majority of the equation. Most people far overvalue the impact of exercise and undervalue nutrition on their body composition. The value of a trainer is in teaching you how to perform movements correctly (primarily to avoid injury so you can continue training), to help you understand exercise programming (to avoid overtraining and make the best use of your training time), and motivation - if your goal is to be lean, the real work is done by you, regulating what you put in your mouth.

randomguy
Posts: 6635
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2014 9:00 am

Re: Do you pay for exercise?

Post by randomguy » Thu Jan 28, 2016 12:55 pm

Drew777 wrote:
Exactly, I'm not talking about getting shredded down to 4% bodyfat. Most people just want to look lean and in shape, 12-15% (for men) is achievable by almost anyone. People assume it's their genetics when they workout hard several days a week and don't see results. In reality 90% of the fat loss is going to come from diet. You can train hard every day for the rest of your life and never get lean if you don't change how you eat. Sure it's easier for some people than others, but it's possible for nearly everyone.

nah it is that they don't understand that hard work isn't a couple hours of week. It is a couple hours/day (45 min swim in the morning, 45 min bike ride to work, 45 min bike ride home, and then a 40 min run. 40 mins at the gym 3x/week during lunch. More on the weekend when you try and do things like 2 hour runs and 4 hour bike rides.). Body builders don't try to out work their diet because they can't (that much aerobics would inhibit muscle growth and getting enough protein at the right time is critical for muscle growth). Triathletes know you can eat a crappy diet and be super skinny if you just put in a enough work. I wouldn't guess how bad some of their lipid counts are though:)

People struggle with understanding genetics and the role it plays. Peoples genes have not changed over the past 40 years. The reason people have gotten fat is because of lifestyle (i.e. more food, less exercise), changes in gut bacteria (that DNA matters more than yours according to recent research. And the use of antibiotics seems to have caused some significant shifts), and a potentially different food (the evidence for things like corn syrup, hormones in meat, and the rest is borderline. I wouldn't be shocked to learn though that a couple of them aren't helping though). Yeah it sucks (from a weight maintainence pov) to be the person that gets 2400 calories compared to the person who only gets 1600 out of the same diet but that is something that can be worked around through diet and exercise.

User avatar
dm200
Posts: 18907
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2007 2:21 pm
Location: Washington DC area

Re: Do you pay for exercise?

Post by dm200 » Thu Jan 28, 2016 1:28 pm

People struggle with understanding genetics and the role it plays. Peoples genes have not changed over the past 40 years.
In my opinion and experience, becoming "motivated" and remaining so, is a huge factor with regular and proper/good exercise habits. What works for me ("motivation") may be quite different than what works for others. This time around (late 60's) what (I think) has worked for the last five years (of regular - almost daily) exercise in becoming "motivated" and remaining so has several components. One is the accessibilty and low cost of a County gym (as well as several others in the County system) that has an indoor 1/8 mile track, rowing machines, 3 kinds of ellipticals, 3 kinds of stationary bikes, clibing machines, etc. Gaining an understanding (from credible health/medical sources) of the importance of exercise helps with "motivation" as well. My body is NOT good at knowing intensity and duration of exercise, so I use the displays on the various equipment to note and track them. I also try to remind myself of older relatives that either lived a long and healthy life vs. those who did not - and note that those who were active physically (farmers) into their elderly years tended to do much better than those who were not.

I am near certain that if I tried to do regular, appropriate and sufficiently intense exercise at home - that it would not be as succesful as using the equipment at the gym I use - and the cost of setting up a good set of equipment at home would be a lot. I also find that, from time to time for various reasons, I like to switch to and from different equipment as well as new and better equipment being installed at the gym.

While I have no credentials in medical/health areas, I think I do remember (and can become informed about) enough genetics to know, with near certainty, that our genes do NOT change much in one or two generations. So, if folks in their 50's, for example, weigh on average, 20-30 pounds MORE than folks in their 50's 20 - 40 years ago, it is impossible to blame that on genetics alone. I believe that genetics may strongly affect how and how much excess food consumption increases body weight - but if the current generation did what the previous generations did, they would be like those generations.

protagonist
Posts: 5487
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 12:47 pm

Re: Do you pay for exercise?

Post by protagonist » Thu Jan 28, 2016 1:30 pm

Yes I do. $28/year.

I got in on an outstanding promo when my gym was recruiting new members. $19/month for as long as I remained a member and had auto debit from my bank acct. That was around 7 years ago.

That's $228/year minus the $200 I get rebated from health insurance each year= $28/yr.

Gyms often offer promos, and health insurance often offers rebates. Keep your eyes open and maybe you will find a great deal too.

I do find that belonging to a gym encourages me to exercise.

stoptothink
Posts: 4523
Joined: Fri Dec 31, 2010 9:53 am

Re: Do you pay for exercise?

Post by stoptothink » Thu Jan 28, 2016 1:43 pm

dm200 wrote: While I have no credentials in medical/health areas, I think I do remember (and can become informed about) enough genetics to know, with near certainty, that our genes do NOT change much in one or two generations. So, if folks in their 50's, for example, weigh on average, 20-30 pounds MORE than folks in their 50's 20 - 40 years ago, it is impossible to blame that on genetics alone. I believe that genetics may strongly affect how and how much excess food consumption increases body weight - but if the current generation did what the previous generations did, they would be like those generations.
The near quadrupling of obesity rates in the last four decades has essentially nothing to do with genetics, pretty much everything to do with changing eating habits.

When I made reference to genetics, it was because of the mention of bodybuilding. With the exception of a very small segment of the population who have severe uncontrollable underlying issues, everybody is capable of being in pretty good shape through lifestyle behaviors. Being in good health and being in bodybuilding shape are two completely different things - for the most part, competitive bodybuilding has nothing whatsoever to do with health.

User avatar
simplesimon
Posts: 3198
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 8:53 pm
Location: Boston, MA

Re: Do you pay for exercise?

Post by simplesimon » Thu Jan 28, 2016 2:20 pm

leonard wrote:
simplesimon wrote:It doesn't take superior genetics for someone to eat less calories than they burn per day.
Spoken like someone that has not had a tough time losing weight. It isn't that simple for some.
Ah this is not true - I am 6'3" and I was around 300lbs (30-40% body fat) and suffered from high blood pressure starting from my senior year in high school in 2003 up until 2012 when I decided to focus on a good diet and exercise plan. I got to as low as 225lbs before changing my exercise routine to focus on strength training and have been at about 240lbs +/- 5 lbs for the last two years at around 17-18% body fat and happy to say my blood pressure is normal.

I understand the struggle. It's not the 1-2 hours a day in the gym...it's the other 14 waking hours when someone faces multiple opportunities to consume where he or she needs the discipline to make good choices to keep that weight off.

The biggest key to my weight loss was creating a system to eliminate these decision points. I prepare a lot of my meals in advance and don't keep much other food beyond that in the house. I mentioned earlier in this thread that the gym needed to be close to the house or close to work. I know how difficult it can be to make that decision to go to the gym if it was far away. I pay a little extra for a gym nearby so that decision is made for me.

It's not easy...to get that low body fat % like the fitness models on the magazines take a lot of mental discipline - to eat right every single meal because it's their job. I'm not anywhere close to that, but then again my income isn't derived from looking that fit.
Last edited by simplesimon on Thu Jan 28, 2016 2:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
dm200
Posts: 18907
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2007 2:21 pm
Location: Washington DC area

Re: Do you pay for exercise?

Post by dm200 » Thu Jan 28, 2016 2:41 pm

The near quadrupling of obesity rates in the last four decades has essentially nothing to do with genetics, pretty much everything to do with changing eating habits.
I agree 99%. Where "genetics" may play a role (to some degree) is that some individuals have (or may have) a higher propensity to turn what (and how much) they eat into excess weight.

Five years ago, I lost about 55 pounds in 11 months, lowering my Body mass index from just over 30 (obese) to about 23 (within 'normal'). I did NOT do anything far out or radical and did NOT enroll in any system, plan, etc. I mainly just stopped eating crap and later in the year started regular exercise. I received some degree of (sometimes harsh) criticism from some folks I know that I must be sick, starving myself, etc. None of it true. Everything I did (and did not do) was from credible health and medical persons and sources AND was (and is) 100% endorsed by my physicians. I got off of multiple hypertension prescriptions and cholesterol prescription. ALL with concurrence of my prescribing physicians. While the criticisms of me and my weight loss have decreased, I still get the occasional commnts that I must be starving myself, or somethig is "wrong" with me. I have to bite my tongue because every such "comment" or "criticism" somes from someone who appers to me to be, not just overweight, but obese. Some of these folks spend time and money with this weight loss plan or that. And they have the gall to find fault with me! When folks ask me how I lost so much weight and how I got off the medications, I tell them - including the fact that I have stopped 4 prescription drugs (with 100% concurrence of my physicians). They tend to say they can't do that or that their method (which obviously has not worked) is, somehow, "better".

Fallible
Posts: 6567
Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 4:44 pm
Contact:

Re: Do you pay for exercise?

Post by Fallible » Thu Jan 28, 2016 7:50 pm

I've paid only for my outdoor and stationary bikes, good walking shoes, sturdy hiking boots, and dumbells. Also take the stairs at home several times a day.
Bogleheads® wiki | Investing Advice Inspired by Jack Bogle

jimkinny
Posts: 1274
Joined: Sun Mar 14, 2010 1:51 pm

Re: Do you pay for exercise?

Post by jimkinny » Fri Jan 29, 2016 8:01 am

YMCA
Most/many facilities have weight machines, free weights, racquetball courts, basketball courts,cardio,pool, many different type of classes for all ages, child care and a welcoming attitude.

larklea
Posts: 225
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 2:48 pm

Re: Do you pay for exercise?

Post by larklea » Sat Jan 30, 2016 8:10 am

$10 for a copy of "Your Are Your Own Gym" and then $1 for same phone app. No monthly fees. It's all body-weight exercises. I've ended up with two 20 exercise routines that I alternate days with. 25-30 minutes each day. Right in the Living Room.

Before this I was doing the army tc 3-22.20 (or at least part of it).

For me, I have to do it early in the am. Right out of bed. If it takes driving to the gym, it ain't going to happen.

Re - other posts on diet/exercise. IMHO - It's all about the diet for weight control. The exercise is for cardiovascular health and maintaining/building muscle mass for (hopefully) better life quality especially as you age. Yes, you may get a slight metabolic rate increase with muscle vs. fat. Not enough to make up for the Oreos.

User avatar
beyou
Posts: 2094
Joined: Sat Feb 27, 2010 3:57 pm
Location: Northeastern US

Re: Do you pay for exercise?

Post by beyou » Sat Jan 30, 2016 8:18 am

What is your health worth to you ?

Whatever will get you to exercise, that is what you should do. If you need to spend more to get yourself to do,
better than paying medical bills. I also find I am more productive when I exercise regularly, may improve income. If you can accomplish you fitness goals at home,
no question cheaper and more accessible.

Personally, I tried home, inexpensive nearby gym and very expensive gym farther away. Why expensive/farther ? Was open 24 hrs, had tons of variety of equipment which helps to reduce boredom and repetitive stress injuries. It has incredible conveniences (provides bath and hand towel service, locker room with all possible amenities included). You can put on shorts and bring little with you, anytime you want, do anything you want, alone or in groups. Was one if my least boglehead expenses, but then again, it motivated me, attended 3-6x week for years. Fortunately due to competition, this outstanding club forced other to improve services, giving me more and less expensive but acceptable options, so I moved to a place closer/cheaper, but I do miss going to the premium gym. Was worth paying more to me.

Meanwhile I got rid of my old bowlflex from my house.
Still have an older elliptical, which we use sometimes
but will not replace when at end of useful life. Would rather have less clutter at home.

amd2135
Posts: 196
Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2014 8:48 pm

Re: Do you pay for exercise?

Post by amd2135 » Sat Jan 30, 2016 1:24 pm

We already have a Wii U, so I purchased Wii Fit U a few months ago for ~$30. I love it. Even my SO uses it now. It even came with a pedometer that can measure activity intensity to some degree. That pedometer syncs to the Wii and graphs my daily activity and altitude changes.

randomguy
Posts: 6635
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2014 9:00 am

Re: Do you pay for exercise?

Post by randomguy » Sat Jan 30, 2016 2:11 pm

larklea wrote:$10 for a copy of "Your Are Your Own Gym" and then $1 for same phone app. No monthly fees. It's all body-weight exercises. I've ended up with two 20 exercise routines that I alternate days with. 25-30 minutes each day. Right in the Living Room.

Before this I was doing the army tc 3-22.20 (or at least part of it).

For me, I have to do it early in the am. Right out of bed. If it takes driving to the gym, it ain't going to happen.

Re - other posts on diet/exercise. IMHO - It's all about the diet for weight control. The exercise is for cardiovascular health and maintaining/building muscle mass for (hopefully) better life quality especially as you age. Yes, you may get a slight metabolic rate increase with muscle vs. fat. Not enough to make up for the Oreos.
60 mins of running a 8:30 pace (i.e not too long and not too fast ) burns ~800 calories. That is like 15 oreo cookies. And you burn another hundred or so calories from elevated metabolism. Your diet has to be really bad for you not to be able to control your weight by putting in 1-2 hours of aerobic exercise/day.

stoptothink
Posts: 4523
Joined: Fri Dec 31, 2010 9:53 am

Re: Do you pay for exercise?

Post by stoptothink » Sat Jan 30, 2016 2:31 pm

randomguy wrote:
larklea wrote:$10 for a copy of "Your Are Your Own Gym" and then $1 for same phone app. No monthly fees. It's all body-weight exercises. I've ended up with two 20 exercise routines that I alternate days with. 25-30 minutes each day. Right in the Living Room.

Before this I was doing the army tc 3-22.20 (or at least part of it).

For me, I have to do it early in the am. Right out of bed. If it takes driving to the gym, it ain't going to happen.

Re - other posts on diet/exercise. IMHO - It's all about the diet for weight control. The exercise is for cardiovascular health and maintaining/building muscle mass for (hopefully) better life quality especially as you age. Yes, you may get a slight metabolic rate increase with muscle vs. fat. Not enough to make up for the Oreos.
60 mins of running a 8:30 pace (i.e not too long and not too fast ) burns ~800 calories. That is like 15 oreo cookies. And you burn another hundred or so calories from elevated metabolism. Your diet has to be really bad for you not to be able to control your weight by putting in 1-2 hours of aerobic exercise/day.
Not many people have the time, energy, or dedication to do 1-2hrs of cardiovascular activity daily, but most of them could extremely easily put down 800kcals extra for dessert without even realizing it. Not to mention, a lot of people simply don't want to look and feel like they do 1-2hrs of cardiovascular activity - as a former very competitive triathlete, I have zero interest in looking and feeling like that again. It is so much easier and more effective to balance the energy equation by regulating what you eat; the old bodybuilding adage that "you can't out-train a bad diet" is so true.

birdy
Posts: 319
Joined: Sun May 02, 2010 7:31 pm

Re: Do you pay for exercise?

Post by birdy » Sat Jan 30, 2016 2:58 pm

Let my gym membership go 4 years ago when my self employment started. Schedule for work has been so varied I could not get there---gained 45 lbs! Now partially retired so rejoined gym in November. I use their indoor pool 3-4 times per week (and go to the water aerobics classes). I am already feeling happier and have lots more energy. Cost $30/month. Use to have some equipment at home but got rid of it. I find that cardio in the pool is much easier on my body. I am also making new friends!

birdy

randomguy
Posts: 6635
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2014 9:00 am

Re: Do you pay for exercise?

Post by randomguy » Sat Jan 30, 2016 3:16 pm

stoptothink wrote:
randomguy wrote:
larklea wrote:$10 for a copy of "Your Are Your Own Gym" and then $1 for same phone app. No monthly fees. It's all body-weight exercises. I've ended up with two 20 exercise routines that I alternate days with. 25-30 minutes each day. Right in the Living Room.

Before this I was doing the army tc 3-22.20 (or at least part of it).

For me, I have to do it early in the am. Right out of bed. If it takes driving to the gym, it ain't going to happen.

Re - other posts on diet/exercise. IMHO - It's all about the diet for weight control. The exercise is for cardiovascular health and maintaining/building muscle mass for (hopefully) better life quality especially as you age. Yes, you may get a slight metabolic rate increase with muscle vs. fat. Not enough to make up for the Oreos.
60 mins of running a 8:30 pace (i.e not too long and not too fast ) burns ~800 calories. That is like 15 oreo cookies. And you burn another hundred or so calories from elevated metabolism. Your diet has to be really bad for you not to be able to control your weight by putting in 1-2 hours of aerobic exercise/day.
Not many people have the time, energy, or dedication to do 1-2hrs of cardiovascular activity daily, but most of them could extremely easily put down 800kcals extra for dessert without even realizing it. Not to mention, a lot of people simply don't want to look and feel like they do 1-2hrs of cardiovascular activity - as a former very competitive triathlete, I have zero interest in looking and feeling like that again. It is so much easier and more effective to balance the energy equation by regulating what you eat; the old bodybuilding adage that "you can't out-train a bad diet" is so true.
It is true for body builders. They can't put in the endurance work required (it would inhibit muscle growth to some extent). But bodybuilders are fat. They talk about the struggle to get down under 10% body fat. All the serious marathon guys I know were at ~4-6% (hydrostatic weighing) and held that weight level with no work. And definitely no serious diet constraints other than making sure to eat constantly. You might not want to outtrain your diet but that is a lot different than saying you can't.

When people talk about aerobic exercise not working, it is because they are doing minimal training. No 30 mins of walking 3/week isn't going to get you skinny. That is like a big mac of calories per week. Compare that to the moderate person I mentioned that is doing the big mac meal per day. Most people have small calorie surpluses (i.e. they are gaining 5 lbs/yr, not 50 lbs/yr) over long periods of time. Changing that to break even through exercise is doable. If that is easier than trying to restructure your diet or not is iffy. I know no one who has done the diet thing for 5 years (I am sure it happens). I know a couple of people that did the pure aerobic exercise and keep the weight off. They found out spending the time exercising was a lot of fun. There are also a few that have been doing crossfit and diet and they have been doing ok. But they are only ~2 years in. Have to see the long term trend.

There are a lot of paths to getting in shape. You need to pick the one that matches you goals and desires.

stoptothink
Posts: 4523
Joined: Fri Dec 31, 2010 9:53 am

Re: Do you pay for exercise?

Post by stoptothink » Sat Jan 30, 2016 5:08 pm

randomguy wrote:
stoptothink wrote:
randomguy wrote:
larklea wrote:$10 for a copy of "Your Are Your Own Gym" and then $1 for same phone app. No monthly fees. It's all body-weight exercises. I've ended up with two 20 exercise routines that I alternate days with. 25-30 minutes each day. Right in the Living Room.

Before this I was doing the army tc 3-22.20 (or at least part of it).

For me, I have to do it early in the am. Right out of bed. If it takes driving to the gym, it ain't going to happen.

Re - other posts on diet/exercise. IMHO - It's all about the diet for weight control. The exercise is for cardiovascular health and maintaining/building muscle mass for (hopefully) better life quality especially as you age. Yes, you may get a slight metabolic rate increase with muscle vs. fat. Not enough to make up for the Oreos.
60 mins of running a 8:30 pace (i.e not too long and not too fast ) burns ~800 calories. That is like 15 oreo cookies. And you burn another hundred or so calories from elevated metabolism. Your diet has to be really bad for you not to be able to control your weight by putting in 1-2 hours of aerobic exercise/day.
Not many people have the time, energy, or dedication to do 1-2hrs of cardiovascular activity daily, but most of them could extremely easily put down 800kcals extra for dessert without even realizing it. Not to mention, a lot of people simply don't want to look and feel like they do 1-2hrs of cardiovascular activity - as a former very competitive triathlete, I have zero interest in looking and feeling like that again. It is so much easier and more effective to balance the energy equation by regulating what you eat; the old bodybuilding adage that "you can't out-train a bad diet" is so true.
It is true for body builders. They can't put in the endurance work required (it would inhibit muscle growth to some extent). But bodybuilders are fat. They talk about the struggle to get down under 10% body fat. All the serious marathon guys I know were at ~4-6% (hydrostatic weighing) and held that weight level with no work. And definitely no serious diet constraints other than making sure to eat constantly. You might not want to outtrain your diet but that is a lot different than saying you can't.
I'm a power and olympic lifter, no longer competitively, but still remain well under 10% bodyfat at all times. About a year or so ago I measured just above 7% in a DEXA at ~210lbs. While competing in triathlons I hovered around 170-185 and was HUGE compared to most of my (serious) competitors; I could post pics, I did not look like a prototypical triathlete. Not only did I feel disgusting because I was constantly on the brink of overtrainning, but I had an endless series of injuries, lost all of my upperbody strength, and simply looked sickly (my mother was in tears the first time she came to watch me compete because she thought I looked like I just stepped out of an internment camp). Too each their own, but other than being a better long-distance swimmer/cyclist/runner I wasn't any more healthy than I am now based upon basic vitals and I felt awful.

I am hardly a fan of bodybuilding, just check the rest of my posts on this thread, but the statement that bodybuilders are fat is a massive (and usually false) generalization. Go to a triathlon or a marathon, the huge majority there competing are hardly lean by any standard, on the other hand I have never seen someone step on a stage in a speedo slathered in oil that I would consider fat. I've spent about half of my life in human performance labs working with people of all types as a grad student and exercise physiology professor - my experience and published research is a bit different than yours.

It really comes down to your own personal goals, I'm not trying to discount the merits of a lot of cardio training in any way, but I just have to shake my head when people undervalue the influence of nutrition on your health.

hicabob
Posts: 2720
Joined: Fri May 27, 2011 5:35 pm
Location: cruz

Re: Do you pay for exercise?

Post by hicabob » Sat Jan 30, 2016 5:20 pm

Yup - a big $12.71 / month at the local 24hours (I joined years ago). I like the variety of equipment, machines and cardio but my favorite part is having a decent sauna afterwards - it gets quite addictive and you meet all manner of folk in there. A nice hot sauna raises your heart rate a little too, approaching the mythical effortless exercise!

randomguy
Posts: 6635
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2014 9:00 am

Re: Do you pay for exercise?

Post by randomguy » Sat Jan 30, 2016 6:29 pm

stoptothink wrote: I'm a power and olympic lifter, no longer competitively, but still remain well under 10% bodyfat at all times. About a year or so ago I measured just above 7% in a DEXA at ~210lbs. While competing in triathlons I hovered around 170-185 and was HUGE compared to most of my (serious) competitors; I could post pics, I did not look like a prototypical triathlete. Not only did I feel disgusting because I was constantly on the brink of overtrainning, but I had an endless series of injuries, lost all of my upperbody strength, and simply looked sickly (my mother was in tears the first time she came to watch me compete because she thought I looked like I just stepped out of an internment camp). Too each their own, but other than being a better long-distance swimmer/cyclist/runner I wasn't any more healthy than I am now based upon basic vitals and I felt awful.

I am hardly a fan of bodybuilding, just check the rest of my posts on this thread, but the statement that bodybuilders are fat is a massive (and usually false) generalization. Go to a triathlon or a marathon, the huge majority there competing are hardly lean by any standard, on the other hand I have never seen someone step on a stage in a speedo slathered in oil that I would consider fat. I've spent about half of my life in human performance labs working with people of all types as a grad student and exercise physiology professor - my experience and published research is a bit different than yours.

It really comes down to your own personal goals, I'm not trying to discount the merits of a lot of cardio training in any way, but I just have to shake my head when people undervalue the influence of nutrition on your health.

I didn't see a single fat person at the olympic marathon. When I went to my local gym, I saw a lot of fat people lifting free weights. Most people running marathoners are a lot closer to the people in gym than they are to the body builders you see in terms of commitment. They are not serious about the sport. They are there for the experience and to have fun.

I have not seen any research that suggest diets work long term. Changing eat habits is incredibly hard and for the most people it simply results in yo-yo weight gain where they eat clean for 3-4 months and then regress. Is any type of exercise better? Probably not. Most people drop their programs after a couple months also. It is very easy to write run a hour/day or to eat 1750 clean calories but in reality most people will find it very hard.

Nutrition matters but so does exercise. It is very hard to out diet lack of activity. The number of weight loss schemes that have any success that don't also involve increasing activity is very low. Especially when we are talking about the moderately fat people (call it the 25-30 BMI group) versus the super obese (call it 35+) group.

Reality is people need to do both. As humans we are designed to get hours of moderate exercise/day. We are also designed not to drink sugar and eat ho-hos.

User avatar
TheTimeLord
Posts: 5284
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2013 2:05 pm

Re: Do you pay for exercise?

Post by TheTimeLord » Sat Jan 30, 2016 6:34 pm

Currently I am paying Planet Fitness so I have access to a gym. Once I retire I will hire a trainer for at least 6 months, hopefully longer.
IMHO, Investing should be about living the life you want, not avoiding the life you fear. | Run, You Clever Boy! [9085]

Gardener246
Posts: 59
Joined: Wed Dec 17, 2014 3:42 pm

Re: Do you pay for exercise?

Post by Gardener246 » Sat Jan 30, 2016 6:37 pm

After 15 years doing yoga with videos at home, I just last month joined a yoga studio two miles from home, which I walk to for the 8am session, seven days/week (a littler later on weekends).

Meeting friends there, and really enjoy the comradarie. Bought the unlimited package which works out to less than $5/day; a real treat that I don't take for granted.

FedGuy
Posts: 1232
Joined: Sun Jul 25, 2010 3:36 pm

Re: Do you pay for exercise?

Post by FedGuy » Sat Jan 30, 2016 6:57 pm

randomguy wrote: 60 mins of running a 8:30 pace (i.e not too long and not too fast )
Wow. I always knew I was never a top athlete, but suggesting that running at over 7 miles per hour for 60 minutes is a moderate speed and amount of time seems like a stretch to me. I once spent a year running on the treadmill every day and don't think I ever made it past 6.5 miles per hour. I was able to go for an hour and maybe could have pushed it a little harder, but I think that's hardly a casual jog for most people.

stoptothink
Posts: 4523
Joined: Fri Dec 31, 2010 9:53 am

Re: Do you pay for exercise?

Post by stoptothink » Sat Jan 30, 2016 8:11 pm

randomguy wrote: It is very hard to out diet lack of activity. The number of weight loss schemes that have any success that don't also involve increasing activity is very low. Especially when we are talking about the moderately fat people (call it the 25-30 BMI group) versus the super obese (call it 35+) group.

Reality is people need to do both. As humans we are designed to get hours of moderate exercise/day. We are also designed not to drink sugar and eat ho-hos.
Of course there is a balance, but if you are just looking to maintain your weight, it isn't that difficult at all to do it with little activity and zero regimented exercise. There are literally hundred of longitudinal studies on the subject, I got to do several years of literature reviews on them while completing my doctoral dissertation on the epidemiology of obesity. Despite this perception that people have suddenly gotten physically lazy in the last half-century, the actual data doesn't really show it and actual regimented exercise has gone way up. No denying that eating behaviors have drastically changed though. I sort of see what you are coming from and as an exercise physiologist I wish you were right.

lightheir
Posts: 2303
Joined: Mon Oct 03, 2011 11:43 pm

Re: Do you pay for exercise?

Post by lightheir » Sat Jan 30, 2016 9:16 pm

FedGuy wrote:
randomguy wrote: 60 mins of running a 8:30 pace (i.e not too long and not too fast )
Wow. I always knew I was never a top athlete, but suggesting that running at over 7 miles per hour for 60 minutes is a moderate speed and amount of time seems like a stretch to me. I once spent a year running on the treadmill every day and don't think I ever made it past 6.5 miles per hour. I was able to go for an hour and maybe could have pushed it a little harder, but I think that's hardly a casual jog for most people.


For the off-the-couch runner, sure, 8:30s are fast, but for real, 8:30 pace is pretty leisurely to dedicated runners of even middling (meaning joe-average) talent. Even my 22 mile marathon training runs were run a bit faster than that, despite being 'conversational' pace and I can't even place in my age group at a most running events.

User avatar
dm200
Posts: 18907
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2007 2:21 pm
Location: Washington DC area

Re: Do you pay for exercise?

Post by dm200 » Sat Jan 30, 2016 9:28 pm

As part of my "getting healthy" five years ago, there was one book (and philosophy/approach) that became the center point of motivating my: "Younger Next Year". Referenced in that were several other (to me) informational and motivational publications, including "The Okinawa Program" and "Eat, Drink and Be Healthy". A follow up to "Younger Next Year" is "Thinner This Year" that goes into much more detail on exercise and nutrition.

I an say that it all worked very well for me and continues to work well. I hope and plan to continue this kind of "lifestyle" indefinitely.

reggiesimpson
Posts: 1610
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2011 12:47 pm

Re: Do you pay for exercise?

Post by reggiesimpson » Sun Jan 31, 2016 7:36 pm

dm200 wrote:As part of my "getting healthy" five years ago, there was one book (and philosophy/approach) that became the center point of motivating my: "Younger Next Year". Referenced in that were several other (to me) informational and motivational publications, including "The Okinawa Program" and "Eat, Drink and Be Healthy". A follow up to "Younger Next Year" is "Thinner This Year" that goes into much more detail on exercise and nutrition.

I an say that it all worked very well for me and continues to work well. I hope and plan to continue this kind of "lifestyle" indefinitely.

+1
I have bought a dozen Younger Next year books as gifts for friends. I just gave it to my sons girlfriend to get his butt out of the chair (he is a tech nerd). A practical common sense (and humorous) approach to a healthy life for all ages. Highly recommend it.

leonard
Posts: 5993
Joined: Wed Feb 21, 2007 11:56 am

Re: Do you pay for exercise?

Post by leonard » Wed Feb 03, 2016 11:55 am

simplesimon wrote:
leonard wrote:
simplesimon wrote:It doesn't take superior genetics for someone to eat less calories than they burn per day.
Spoken like someone that has not had a tough time losing weight. It isn't that simple for some.
Ah this is not true - I am 6'3" and I was around 300lbs (30-40% body fat) and suffered from high blood pressure starting from my senior year in high school in 2003 up until 2012 when I decided to focus on a good diet and exercise plan. I got to as low as 225lbs before changing my exercise routine to focus on strength training and have been at about 240lbs +/- 5 lbs for the last two years at around 17-18% body fat and happy to say my blood pressure is normal.

I understand the struggle. It's not the 1-2 hours a day in the gym...it's the other 14 waking hours when someone faces multiple opportunities to consume where he or she needs the discipline to make good choices to keep that weight off.

The biggest key to my weight loss was creating a system to eliminate these decision points. I prepare a lot of my meals in advance and don't keep much other food beyond that in the house. I mentioned earlier in this thread that the gym needed to be close to the house or close to work. I know how difficult it can be to make that decision to go to the gym if it was far away. I pay a little extra for a gym nearby so that decision is made for me.

It's not easy...to get that low body fat % like the fitness models on the magazines take a lot of mental discipline - to eat right every single meal because it's their job. I'm not anywhere close to that, but then again my income isn't derived from looking that fit.
My point is that - for some - simply eating less calories than they burn in a day does not necessarily result in weight loss. I know. I have been there. Diet was on point. 2 hours of fast paced walking (any more intensity would have meant burn out), weight training 3-4 days a week. And, weight loss leveled off. Oh, and around 1800 calories per day - for someone at the time 220+ pounds. I was burning well north of 1800 calories and keeping a calorie log - so no "extra's" here and there.

Some folks simply have bodies that defy the calories in vs calories burn "truism".
Leonard | | Market Timing: Do you seriously think you can predict the future? What else do the voices tell you? | | If employees weren't taking jobs with bad 401k's, bad 401k's wouldn't exist.

randomguy
Posts: 6635
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2014 9:00 am

Re: Do you pay for exercise?

Post by randomguy » Wed Feb 03, 2016 12:29 pm

lightheir wrote:
FedGuy wrote:
randomguy wrote: 60 mins of running a 8:30 pace (i.e not too long and not too fast )
Wow. I always knew I was never a top athlete, but suggesting that running at over 7 miles per hour for 60 minutes is a moderate speed and amount of time seems like a stretch to me. I once spent a year running on the treadmill every day and don't think I ever made it past 6.5 miles per hour. I was able to go for an hour and maybe could have pushed it a little harder, but I think that's hardly a casual jog for most people.


For the off-the-couch runner, sure, 8:30s are fast, but for real, 8:30 pace is pretty leisurely to dedicated runners of even middling (meaning joe-average) talent. Even my 22 mile marathon training runs were run a bit faster than that, despite being 'conversational' pace and I can't even place in my age group at a most running events.
Running has a steep curve. If you are out of shape, you pretty much can't run an hour at any pace. Once you are in shape, time pretty much doesn't matter (well up to about 2 hours) and it is strictly about pace. There is also an issue where most people don't understand how hard you can push your body. And obviously if you are lugging around an extra 40+ lbs you will run slower. Good news is that extra weight will up the calorie burn.

If you don't like running, you can get the same effect with a biking, swiming. They tend to burn less calories/hr but since they are low impact you can do a lot more of them.

Yossarian
Posts: 139
Joined: Thu May 31, 2007 6:19 pm

Re: Do you pay for exercise?

Post by Yossarian » Wed Feb 03, 2016 3:02 pm

leonard wrote: My point is that - for some - simply eating less calories than they burn in a day does not necessarily result in weight loss. I know. I have been there. Diet was on point. 2 hours of fast paced walking (any more intensity would have meant burn out), weight training 3-4 days a week. And, weight loss leveled off. Oh, and around 1800 calories per day - for someone at the time 220+ pounds. I was burning well north of 1800 calories and keeping a calorie log - so no "extra's" here and there.

Some folks simply have bodies that defy the calories in vs calories burn "truism".
No one's bodies defy the math of caloric consumption vs expenditure. Either you weren't burning as many calories as you thought you were, or your diet contained more calories than you thought. The former is more likely.

randomguy
Posts: 6635
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2014 9:00 am

Re: Do you pay for exercise?

Post by randomguy » Wed Feb 03, 2016 5:02 pm

Yossarian wrote:
leonard wrote: My point is that - for some - simply eating less calories than they burn in a day does not necessarily result in weight loss. I know. I have been there. Diet was on point. 2 hours of fast paced walking (any more intensity would have meant burn out), weight training 3-4 days a week. And, weight loss leveled off. Oh, and around 1800 calories per day - for someone at the time 220+ pounds. I was burning well north of 1800 calories and keeping a calorie log - so no "extra's" here and there.

Some folks simply have bodies that defy the calories in vs calories burn "truism".
No one's bodies defy the math of caloric consumption vs expenditure. Either you weren't burning as many calories as you thought you were, or your diet contained more calories than you thought. The former is more likely.
The laws of thermodynamics can't be broken. But measuring calories from labels and calories burned has a huge error margin. Very few people go to a lab and measure their BMR. Instead most people look at a chart that has error ranges of 20%. And a similiar thing happens with calories. 1k of sugar and 1k of protein has the same amount of calories when burned in a open flame. When put through the digestive track, your body gets different amounts of energy out. And then the same people eating the same diet have noticeably different amounts of calorie absorbtion. And so on. In the real world, when you stop losing weight, you got to up the exercise or reduce the calories.

leonard
Posts: 5993
Joined: Wed Feb 21, 2007 11:56 am

Re: Do you pay for exercise?

Post by leonard » Wed Feb 03, 2016 6:43 pm

Yossarian wrote:
leonard wrote: My point is that - for some - simply eating less calories than they burn in a day does not necessarily result in weight loss. I know. I have been there. Diet was on point. 2 hours of fast paced walking (any more intensity would have meant burn out), weight training 3-4 days a week. And, weight loss leveled off. Oh, and around 1800 calories per day - for someone at the time 220+ pounds. I was burning well north of 1800 calories and keeping a calorie log - so no "extra's" here and there.

Some folks simply have bodies that defy the calories in vs calories burn "truism".
No one's bodies defy the math of caloric consumption vs expenditure. Either you weren't burning as many calories as you thought you were, or your diet contained more calories than you thought. The former is more likely.
Nope. Food was weighed at first. Then, I overestimated their calories slightly - so as to not overshoot.

Some folks simple have a harder time losing than others. That's my only point.
Leonard | | Market Timing: Do you seriously think you can predict the future? What else do the voices tell you? | | If employees weren't taking jobs with bad 401k's, bad 401k's wouldn't exist.

investor1
Posts: 1040
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 8:15 pm

Re: Do you pay for exercise?

Post by investor1 » Wed Feb 03, 2016 8:38 pm

Yes, I pay $10/month and an additional $25/year for 24/7 access to a gym that provides both cardio and weights (free weights and cable machines) as well as a locker room, shower, bathroom, steam room, and sauna. They offer more services, but they cost more, and I don't use or pay for them.

It rains a lot where I am, so I prefer to exercise inside, and I rent, so I don't have the space to put together a home gym.

User avatar
pennstater2005
Posts: 2463
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2012 8:50 pm

Re: Do you pay for exercise?

Post by pennstater2005 » Wed Feb 03, 2016 8:54 pm

Don't go to a gym. I bought a boxing bag awhile back and was pretty faithful at using it for about 2 months then that fell off. I'm amazed at how hard it is to find time between work and kids to work out. Part of that is true and part of that is me being lazy.

I work in a physical therapy clinic and I am around exercise equipment all day and could easily stay an extra 20 minutes at the end of my day but usually don't. It's hard to work out where you work at.

I do agree with what goes into my mouth being a huge part of not packing on pounds as just today someone brought in a big box of chocolates and of course I indulged. After I did, I wished I hadn't. I just went up from a 32 to 34 waist after the insides of my pockets were nearly bursting out and stitches were starting to pop! I might do like Seinfeld though and re label them all 32.

I feel fat.
“If you think nobody cares if you're alive, try missing a couple of car payments.” – Earl Wilson

CFM300
Posts: 1384
Joined: Sat Oct 27, 2007 5:13 am

Re: Do you pay for exercise?

Post by CFM300 » Thu Feb 04, 2016 12:04 am

leonard wrote:My point is that - for some - simply eating less calories than they burn in a day does not necessarily result in weight loss.
Are you really suggesting that someone could consistently burn more calories than they consume (let alone absorb) and yet they don't lose weight? How would that be possible?

I understand, of course, that one's metabolism might slow down once they begin eating less, but that would be a case where they're not burning as many calories as they think and thus perhaps less than they are consuming.

protagonist
Posts: 5487
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 12:47 pm

Re: Do you pay for exercise?

Post by protagonist » Thu Feb 04, 2016 7:42 am

black jack wrote:
There is a bit of magical thinking about gyms that many people are subject to; I've experienced it myself. You want to get fit, and believe that joining a gym is the key to that. Spending the money to join a gym feels like you've done something serious towards your goal of getting fit, and then you go a few times, work out a little, then your enthusiasm flags, and going to the gym is inconvenient, and so you go less often, and eventually stop. If you actually do go regularly this works out well, since your membership is subsidized by the magical thinkers, while the gym is less crowded than it would otherwise be (except for January, when all the people whose New Year resolutions included getting fit join up and are enthused; by mid-February they're gone).
I agree with the first part of that but disagree with the second, at least for myself. If I try to start doing body weight exercises at home, or buy equipment, I rapidly lose the willpower. I recall that cross country ski machine that I bought in the 80s, that, like for so many of my friends and colleagues, became an ugly part of the furniture. The mystique of the gym, plus the commitment that goes with paying a monthly bill, is what keeps me going. It's not that I enjoy it. I don't. But I enjoy being fit, and psychologically it provides me with incentive. Plus I like the variety of equipment available, and in my case, it is cheap and I can walk or ride my bike there.

I combine the gym with vigorous outdoor activity (cardio). But it would take wild horses to drag me onto a bicycle or into a kayak or onto a windsurfer in the winter in New England, and cross-country skiing requires snow and driving.

I suppose we are all different in that regard.

User avatar
peterinjapan
Posts: 468
Joined: Fri May 15, 2015 8:41 am
Location: Japan!

Re: Do you pay for exercise?

Post by peterinjapan » Thu Feb 04, 2016 8:21 am

I love going to the gym, and would never be able to do I do there at home. That said, most of the weight loss I did last year was from a) deciding to walk 4-5 km every day at lunch (which I currently can't do because I injured my knee), and b) recording all my food with MyFitnessPal and sticking to its advice.

User avatar
dm200
Posts: 18907
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2007 2:21 pm
Location: Washington DC area

Re: Do you pay for exercise?

Post by dm200 » Thu Feb 04, 2016 10:07 am

CFM300 wrote:
leonard wrote:My point is that - for some - simply eating less calories than they burn in a day does not necessarily result in weight loss.
Are you really suggesting that someone could consistently burn more calories than they consume (let alone absorb) and yet they don't lose weight? How would that be possible?
I understand, of course, that one's metabolism might slow down once they begin eating less, but that would be a case where they're not burning as many calories as they think and thus perhaps less than they are consuming.
I agree. This cited allegation defies the laws of science. Except, perhaps, for some small and/or temporary weight change due to things like change in water retention.

Some foods have a higher ow lower rate of absorbtion/digestion and there are variances in metabolism rates due to various factors as well. Perhaps the actual caloric content is higher than the estimated or evaluated amount.

User avatar
dm200
Posts: 18907
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2007 2:21 pm
Location: Washington DC area

Re: Do you pay for exercise?

Post by dm200 » Thu Feb 04, 2016 10:15 am

Some folks simple have a harder time losing than others. That's my only point.
Absolutely. Some of us may be descended from populations that encountered severe famine and food shortgages where may died. Those whose bodies retined more fat lived and the other died. These traits may have then been passed on to descendants.
Last edited by dm200 on Thu Feb 04, 2016 10:42 am, edited 1 time in total.

randomguy
Posts: 6635
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2014 9:00 am

Re: Do you pay for exercise?

Post by randomguy » Thu Feb 04, 2016 10:16 am

CFM300 wrote:
leonard wrote:My point is that - for some - simply eating less calories than they burn in a day does not necessarily result in weight loss.
Are you really suggesting that someone could consistently burn more calories than they consume (let alone absorb) and yet they don't lose weight? How would that be possible?

I understand, of course, that one's metabolism might slow down once they begin eating less, but that would be a case where they're not burning as many calories as they think and thus perhaps less than they are consuming.
The error margin in calories measurement is huge. The difference in preparation is huge (cooked food tends to give more calories than raw ). The difference in energy cost to digest various foods with the same calories is huge (protein takes about 30% more calories to digest than fat.). The difference in exercise efficency (i.e. one person need 90 calories to run a mile the other person needs 110) and basal metabolism (one person needs 1500 to stay alive, another needs 1200) are huge. Throw it all together and your ability to add up calories and exercise and say you are calorie negative or positive is borderline except in extreme examples.

lightheir
Posts: 2303
Joined: Mon Oct 03, 2011 11:43 pm

Re: Do you pay for exercise?

Post by lightheir » Thu Feb 04, 2016 10:46 am

randomguy wrote:
CFM300 wrote:
leonard wrote:My point is that - for some - simply eating less calories than they burn in a day does not necessarily result in weight loss.
Are you really suggesting that someone could consistently burn more calories than they consume (let alone absorb) and yet they don't lose weight? How would that be possible?

I understand, of course, that one's metabolism might slow down once they begin eating less, but that would be a case where they're not burning as many calories as they think and thus perhaps less than they are consuming.
The error margin in calories measurement is huge. The difference in preparation is huge (cooked food tends to give more calories than raw ). The difference in energy cost to digest various foods with the same calories is huge (protein takes about 30% more calories to digest than fat.). The difference in exercise efficency (i.e. one person need 90 calories to run a mile the other person needs 110) and basal metabolism (one person needs 1500 to stay alive, another needs 1200) are huge. Throw it all together and your ability to add up calories and exercise and say you are calorie negative or positive is borderline except in extreme examples.
I actually have NOT found this to be the case for myself. I expected huge error margins when I started using a calorie tracking app (I'm not overweight, but I have to stay extra lean for racing, which isn't easy) and to my surprise, things were more accurate than not.

I started out the first few weeks meticulously chasing down and logging every calorie, and even double checking values online in multiple sources to make sure I was getting the right number. Then I quickly found that that level of meticulousness was unnecessary, even for small (0.5lbs/wk or less) weight loss numbers that I generally target which means the margin of error needs to be smaller.

I find you can even ballpark the estimates using the food apps and pretty much always get close enough to your target to work for weight loss. I can even pretty closely guesstimate the calories in food items, but I tend not to guesstimate whenever I'm hungry since that does throw things off.

I strongly think that it's not the exact calories that are the make or break - it's avoiding the big binge eating that destroys your diet. And I suspect if it works for me with such small caloric margins, it'll probably work for others who have more generous caloric margins. The accountability to what you eat is the critical factor - it does mean you have to force yourself to STOP when you've hit your limit, which does take practice, and you have to reset your limit lower every time you're going for a new weight goal.

Of course, be reasonable. If you're making a salad, and adding 3 Tbsp of oil to it, 4 oz of cheese and bacon topping, but only counting it as 'greens', it doesn't work like that. (I'll however often omit that 1tsp oil I do throw on salads - it's part of the rounding error)

The online exercise calorie calculators are also surprisingly good. I race endurance sports as a serious hobby so I'd definitely notice if they weren't. As it stands, they're almost all good enough for me that I use them for my numbers without problem.

Data is good nowadays - it's definitely not as fuzzy and inaccurate as some make it out to be.

User avatar
dm200
Posts: 18907
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2007 2:21 pm
Location: Washington DC area

Re: Do you pay for exercise?

Post by dm200 » Thu Feb 04, 2016 10:54 am

randomguy wrote:
CFM300 wrote:
leonard wrote:My point is that - for some - simply eating less calories than they burn in a day does not necessarily result in weight loss.
Are you really suggesting that someone could consistently burn more calories than they consume (let alone absorb) and yet they don't lose weight? How would that be possible?

I understand, of course, that one's metabolism might slow down once they begin eating less, but that would be a case where they're not burning as many calories as they think and thus perhaps less than they are consuming.
The error margin in calories measurement is huge. The difference in preparation is huge (cooked food tends to give more calories than raw ). The difference in energy cost to digest various foods with the same calories is huge (protein takes about 30% more calories to digest than fat.). The difference in exercise efficency (i.e. one person need 90 calories to run a mile the other person needs 110) and basal metabolism (one person needs 1500 to stay alive, another needs 1200) are huge. Throw it all together and your ability to add up calories and exercise and say you are calorie negative or positive is borderline except in extreme examples.
When I successfully lost about 55 pounds five years ago in an 11 month period (and have kept it off) I took the "approach" that I did NOT (and still do not) "count calories". On the other hand I recognized (and still reconnize) that "calories count". While that may seem contradictory, I do not believe that it is. I look at the caloric content of food I buy and consume, noting especially high or low caloric content as a giude towards food choices. I note the calories burned at the gym using exercise equipment, but do not believe this is very precise - just a guide towards more vs less. Once I "adjusted" my eating to better choices and, later, added exercise, I note my weight almost every day and if/when (during the weight loss 11 months) my weight did not go down about a pound a week, I "adjusted" eating slightly downward. If the weight dropped about a pound a week (or so), then I knew my eating amounts and types were OK. After that 11 months, I watch the daily weight and if it goes up from one week to the next, I "adjust" content of what I eat downward. If the weight is in my target range, then I know I can keep doing what I am doing.

To this day (and for the past five years), I could not tell you how many calories I consume in a particular day, or how many I consume on average. I just do NOT count calories.

livesoft
Posts: 62963
Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2007 8:00 pm

Re: Do you pay for exercise?

Post by livesoft » Thu Feb 04, 2016 11:02 am

Great in-depth article on calories from this week's BBC: http://www.bbc.com/future/story/2016020 ... -is-broken
Wiki This signature message sponsored by sscritic: Learn to fish.

protagonist
Posts: 5487
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 12:47 pm

Re: Do you pay for exercise?

Post by protagonist » Thu Feb 04, 2016 11:08 am

dm200 wrote: When I successfully lost about 55 pounds five years ago in an 11 month period (and have kept it off) I took the "approach" that I did NOT (and still do not) "count calories". On the other hand I recognized (and still reconnize) that "calories count". While that may seem contradictory, I do not believe that it is. I look at the caloric content of food I buy and consume, noting especially high or low caloric content as a giude towards food choices. I note the calories burned at the gym using exercise equipment, but do not believe this is very precise - just a guide towards more vs less. Once I "adjusted" my eating to better choices and, later, added exercise, I note my weight almost every day and if/when (during the weight loss 11 months) my weight did not go down about a pound a week, I "adjusted" eating slightly downward. If the weight dropped about a pound a week (or so), then I knew my eating amounts and types were OK. After that 11 months, I watch the daily weight and if it goes up from one week to the next, I "adjust" content of what I eat downward. If the weight is in my target range, then I know I can keep doing what I am doing.

To this day (and for the past five years), I could not tell you how many calories I consume in a particular day, or how many I consume on average. I just do NOT count calories.
I think that makes sense, dm.

Just like with managing personal finances, learning the info necessary to lose weight or get in shape is easy and the minute details and tweaks don't matter much....what is extremely difficult for most people is the discipline. My guess is that the simpler and more flexible and easier the approach for most people, the greater the likelihood that they will make it a lifetime pursuit rather than just losing a ton of weight in a few months and then gaining it back in the following years (as is the case with most dieters) . Of course, this may be a personal thing (some are more compulsive than others and deal with things differently). And losing weight was never an issue for me, so I am not speaking from experience. But it just seems to make sense.

livesoft
Posts: 62963
Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2007 8:00 pm

Re: Do you pay for exercise?

Post by livesoft » Thu Feb 04, 2016 11:09 am

dm200 wrote:
Some folks simple have a harder time losing than others. That's my only point.
Absolutely. Some of us may be descended from populations that encountered severe famine and food shortgages where may died. Those whose bodies retined more fat lived and the other died. These traits may have then been passed on to descendants.
Although the genes ("traits") may have been passed on, it does not mean that those genes are expressed all the time in sufficient quantities to be useful. The genes can be turned on in times of stress or as needed, but the expressed proteins and metabolic/catabolic pathways have to be rebuilt and are not instant on/off things.

One's body can get "used to" or adapt to a specific diet or exercise regiment which also affects outcomes. This adaptation is not often discussed and likely arises from different levels of gene expression for different genes both in the human body AND in the microbes in the gut.
Wiki This signature message sponsored by sscritic: Learn to fish.

randomguy
Posts: 6635
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2014 9:00 am

Re: Do you pay for exercise?

Post by randomguy » Thu Feb 04, 2016 11:21 am

lightheir wrote:
randomguy wrote:
CFM300 wrote:
leonard wrote:My point is that - for some - simply eating less calories than they burn in a day does not necessarily result in weight loss.
Are you really suggesting that someone could consistently burn more calories than they consume (let alone absorb) and yet they don't lose weight? How would that be possible?

I understand, of course, that one's metabolism might slow down once they begin eating less, but that would be a case where they're not burning as many calories as they think and thus perhaps less than they are consuming.
The error margin in calories measurement is huge. The difference in preparation is huge (cooked food tends to give more calories than raw ). The difference in energy cost to digest various foods with the same calories is huge (protein takes about 30% more calories to digest than fat.). The difference in exercise efficency (i.e. one person need 90 calories to run a mile the other person needs 110) and basal metabolism (one person needs 1500 to stay alive, another needs 1200) are huge. Throw it all together and your ability to add up calories and exercise and say you are calorie negative or positive is borderline except in extreme examples.
I actually have NOT found this to be the case for myself. I expected huge error margins when I started using a calorie tracking app (I'm not overweight, but I have to stay extra lean for racing, which isn't easy) and to my surprise, things were more accurate than not.

I started out the first few weeks meticulously chasing down and logging every calorie, and even double checking values online in multiple sources to make sure I was getting the right number. Then I quickly found that that level of meticulousness was unnecessary, even for small (0.5lbs/wk or less) weight loss numbers that I generally target which means the margin of error needs to be smaller.

I find you can even ballpark the estimates using the food apps and pretty much always get close enough to your target to work for weight loss. I can even pretty closely guesstimate the calories in food items, but I tend not to guesstimate whenever I'm hungry since that does throw things off.

I strongly think that it's not the exact calories that are the make or break - it's avoiding the big binge eating that destroys your diet. And I suspect if it works for me with such small caloric margins, it'll probably work for others who have more generous caloric margins. The accountability to what you eat is the critical factor - it does mean you have to force yourself to STOP when you've hit your limit, which does take practice, and you have to reset your limit lower every time you're going for a new weight goal.

Of course, be reasonable. If you're making a salad, and adding 3 Tbsp of oil to it, 4 oz of cheese and bacon topping, but only counting it as 'greens', it doesn't work like that. (I'll however often omit that 1tsp oil I do throw on salads - it's part of the rounding error)

The online exercise calorie calculators are also surprisingly good. I race endurance sports as a serious hobby so I'd definitely notice if they weren't. As it stands, they're almost all good enough for me that I use them for my numbers without problem.

Data is good nowadays - it's definitely not as fuzzy and inaccurate as some make it out to be.
Unless you are going to a lab and measuring everything, the numbers are wrong.:) And by a good chunk. Does it matter? It depends on how you are using them. If with your math 2k calories in and 2.0k out results in weight loss, does it matter if the real numbers are 1.8k in and 2.2k out? Not really. If you are not losing weight, learning that you are actually eating 2.2k and burning 1.8, explains a lot. For people doing relative changes (replace that ice cream with a bannana, run an extra 3 miles/day), calories work pretty well. For a person sitting down with a piece of paper and making up some imaginary diet and exercise plan and trying to predict how skinny they will be in 6 months, not so much. YMMV

User avatar
dm200
Posts: 18907
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2007 2:21 pm
Location: Washington DC area

Re: Do you pay for exercise?

Post by dm200 » Thu Feb 04, 2016 12:05 pm

Because I like them (and the seem to satisfy hunger) and they are nutritious, I consume several handfuls of (raw, plain) tree nuts (mostly almonds and walnuts) almost every day. These are listed as fairly high in calories, mostly because of the fat content). BUT - I don't gain weight. What I believe are credible articles seem to conclude that the "calories" from such nuts in the diet are not (or may not be) absorbed or digested.

http://www.drmirkin.com/nutrition/good-fat-in-nuts.html

stoptothink
Posts: 4523
Joined: Fri Dec 31, 2010 9:53 am

Re: Do you pay for exercise?

Post by stoptothink » Thu Feb 04, 2016 12:11 pm

dm200 wrote:Because I like them (and the seem to satisfy hunger) and they are nutritious, I consume several handfuls of (raw, plain) tree nuts (mostly almonds and walnuts) almost every day. These are listed as fairly high in calories, mostly because of the fat content). BUT - I don't gain weight. What I believe are credible articles seem to conclude that the "calories" from such nuts in the diet are not (or may not be) absorbed or digested.

http://www.drmirkin.com/nutrition/good-fat-in-nuts.html
I love nuts, I eat a ton of them. Their lipid profile has a lot of benefits and they are overall quite nutrient dense, but nothing in that article and nothing that I have ever read suggests that the energy from nuts is processed by the body any differently. You eat a lot of nuts, to the point where it represents an energy imbalance, you will gain weight.

User avatar
FreeAtLast
Posts: 647
Joined: Tue Nov 04, 2014 9:08 pm

Re: Do you pay for exercise?

Post by FreeAtLast » Thu Feb 04, 2016 12:14 pm

Never have. Never will. Outdoor runner all year round in Upstate NY.
Illegitimi non carborundum.

Post Reply