3 ms·
Ish? Yes, you can't just "run off the calories" of food, per se. That said, the more time you spend running/walking/whatever, the less time you spend eating,
by taeric 3y ago
Ish? Yes, you can't just "run off the calories" of food, per se. That said, the more time you spend running/walking/whatever, the less time you spend eating, in many cases. That marathon, for example, is not nearly as simple as eating a burger. One takes several hours for a very fit athlete. The other is minutes for most people.
That is, it is easy to view some exercising as a substitute for some snacking. And, in that job, it works rather well. Is my hypothesis on why the simple walk around the neighborhood has outsized impact on weight loss.
- Kirby64 3y agoJust walking around is much better for calories burned vs. exertion. It's just worse from a time standpoint. Running has been shown to induce hunger, so erasing the caloric benefit of it with a snack is very easy. Walking, since it's so much lower impact, doesn't really have the same issue, and you can sustain it for much longer periods (especially if you're untrained) than you can with running.
- taeric 3y agoRight, agreed that the time is the important part. If you can sustain a run for an hour or so a day, that is a lot different than a 20 minute one. And, my assertion is that a lot of the benefit of the extra 40 minutes is the substitution effect. This is a lot of what I think many studies find that show benefits to coffee and such. Nowadays, that is as often a substitute for sodas. And the amount of calories you get from a soda is just flat out absurd. I'm fairly certain even those of us that know it is bad for you underestimate just how bad it is.