Cardio vs. eating less

[pyroknife]

My cut is stalling and I do not want to cut my calories any lower. If I burn, say, 100 calories on a treadmill, would that be equivalent to just eating 100 calories less?

[cameronpgormley]

My cut is stalling and I do not want to cut my calories any lower. If I burn, say, 100 calories on a treadmill, would that be equivalent to just eating 100 calories less?

yes

[tacoeater]

Only if you run to burn the 100.. elliptical or biking to burn the 100 is really only like around 80 because it’s a tad bit easier.

Example ; eating 100 less calories would be equivalent to burning 120 calories on the bike.

[AdamWW]

Only if you run to burn the 100.. elliptical or biking to burn the 100 is really only like around 80 because it’s a tad bit easier.

Example ; eating 100 less calories would be equivalent to burning 120 calories on the bike.

lol... uh... no... what?

I think you're confusing distance traveled with calories burned, or perhaps workout duration with calories burned.

If you burn 100 calories, you burn 100 calories. Period.

[ErikTheElectric]

My cut is stalling and I do not want to cut my calories any lower. If I burn, say, 100 calories on a treadmill, would that be equivalent to just eating 100 calories less?

Yes.

[okayest]

No it’s not equivalent and this is why people stall out when they think they can exercise off calories based on calculations.

1) you burn a certain number of calories at rest. For example if your maintenance is 2400 then you average hourly burn of just going about your day is 100 calories in an hour. It’s actually higher during waking hours and lower during sleeping hours though. So when you calculate that you burned 300 calories during an hour of cardio and happily add 300 calories of food thinking that you’re breaking even, reality is that you only burned an extra <200 calories. So you end up eating in less of a deficit then before you started to do cardio and compensate with food.

2) over time you’ll burn less calories due to getting more efficient at whatever cardio you’re doing. For example say, 50 calories less. So now you’re burning <150 calories during that cardio that you think burns 300 calories.

3) whatever you’re using to calculate your calories burned isn’t going to be that accurate. Maybe you’re burning more than 150, maybe less.

You can increase your activity and it will lead to a bigger deficit if it isn’t so much that it exhausts you and decreases NEAT. But you can’t quantify how much as easily as you can with adjusting food. My advice is to be very consistent with both activity and intake rather than to try to count activity and rely on the numbers from it.

[DutchTeamUltra]

Yes, BUT:

Burning 100 calories is an estimate.
Eating 100 calories less is "accurate".

Eating less > moving more, 99% of the time.

[Strawng]

I get what people are saying with estimations being more accurate with eating than activity, but make no mistake, adding cardio can absolutely cause people to lose massive amounts of weight. If you live a sedentary lifestyle and add say a 5 mile jog in every couple days & you keep your diet the same, you will absolutely lose weight. Your TDEE doesn’t down regulate THAT much. & believe me, countless exercise bulimics & my own years with anorexia have proven this to be true.

[d2mini]

You have to figure in ACTIVE calories, not total calories burned. Some of those calories are just what it takes for you to exist in this world.
Apple Watch shows you this.
And like above, none of these devices are truly accurate, just an estimate.

[jb_alphamale]

I would mention here at no. 1 that all the serious fitness trackers now have your age, weight, height, level of activity etc. so when they show how many calories you burn during a physical activity they do take in consideration your TDEE so this would be on top. Is it accurate? Definitely not but it is a number.

No it’s not equivalent and this is why people stall out when they think they can exercise off calories based on calculations.

1) you burn a certain number of calories at rest. For example if your maintenance is 2400 then you average hourly burn of just going about your day is 100 calories in an hour. It’s actually higher during waking hours and lower during sleeping hours though. So when you calculate that you burned 300 calories during an hour of cardio and happily add 300 calories of food thinking that you’re breaking even, reality is that you only burned an extra <200 calories. So you end up eating in less of a deficit then before you started to do cardio and compensate with food.

2) over time you’ll burn less calories due to getting more efficient at whatever cardio you’re doing. For example say, 50 calories less. So now you’re burning <150 calories during that cardio that you think burns 300 calories.

3) whatever you’re using to calculate your calories burned isn’t going to be that accurate. Maybe you’re burning more than 150, maybe less.

You can increase your activity and it will lead to a bigger deficit if it isn’t so much that it exhausts you and decreases NEAT. But you can’t quantify how much as easily as you can with adjusting food. My advice is to be very consistent with both activity and intake rather than to try to count activity and rely on the numbers from it.

[okayest]

I would mention here at no. 1 that all the serious fitness trackers now have your age, weight, height, level of activity etc. so when they show how many calories you burn during a physical activity they do take in consideration your TDEE so this would be on top. Is it accurate? Definitely not but it is a number.

I wasn’t thinking about those things at all, I forget they exist. I was thinking of the machine’s estimation or using an activity calculator.

[EjnarKolinkar]

I don't need to know how many calories I use taking a walk around the block. I know it's more than I use watching Netflix.

No need to consult a complex formula, or strap on any electronics for me to figure that out.