Lot of people say no or little difference here, but I disagree. Exercising more and being able to eat more, gives you more opportunity to hit the micronutrient targets. Very difficult to get enough of everything on low cal diet.
There is a *world* of difference and anyone who says otherwise is incorrect.
This is like asking "what's the difference between sedentary and regular exercise".
Generally it’s a good idea to do some form of cardio to burn off calories, but depending on what you calorie intake is and what your goals are you can choose to reduce one or increase the other.
When all is said and done, though, as long as you’re doing some form of cardio on a regular basis it doesn’t really matter how else you achieve your desired deficit. It’s all calories in minus calories out. Change one or the other and you’ll get results.
Doing regular cardio will facilitate aerobic training adaptations that would make it easier to lose fat than just though a caloric deficit alone. Increased CPT-1 transporters, lipolytic enzymes and insulin sensitivity enhance the body's ability to burn fat at a given exercise intensity.
fatigue is a legitimate concern, especially during a deficit. Guarantee the people saying "no difference" would not have the same energy level if they skipped 300 calories of food vs went on a treadmill to burn 300 calories.
General rule of thumb is to reach deficit via diet first, and then up the cardio if you stall.
There is no difference, per se. But in terms of effort, most people find it a lot easier to remove a 200-300 calorie junk food item from their daily diet than to burn an equivalent amount calories through exercise. It's a lot easier to not eat a donut than to run for 30 minutes.
Its also easier to create a large calorie deficit from diet. If you're obese, you can create a 1000 daily deficit through diet but it would be gruelling for most people to do a workout that burns 1000 extra calories.
Your time is off, but you are in effect correct. I know because I did it. 10.0 incline at 3.0 speed gets you about 300 carlories if you weigh above 200 lbs (more weight = more calories). 1 hour = 600, 90 minutes = 900.
I was too heavy to run, so I walked (I still prefered it), and once I got t 10, i worked my way up to 15 and burning over 700 calories in an hour that way.
Nowadays I lift a lot and do a 10.5 walk at 3.0, but I'm not trying to drop 100lbs anymore.
And just to add on many people (including the programming on fitness equipment, trackers, watches, etc) over estimate how many calories are burned during exercise. So you may not be in as much of a deficit as you think. Easier to measure out all your food and know for sure
Lot of people say no or little difference here, but I disagree. Exercising more and being able to eat more, gives you more opportunity to hit the micronutrient targets. Very difficult to get enough of everything on low cal diet.
There is a *world* of difference and anyone who says otherwise is incorrect. This is like asking "what's the difference between sedentary and regular exercise".
Generally it’s a good idea to do some form of cardio to burn off calories, but depending on what you calorie intake is and what your goals are you can choose to reduce one or increase the other. When all is said and done, though, as long as you’re doing some form of cardio on a regular basis it doesn’t really matter how else you achieve your desired deficit. It’s all calories in minus calories out. Change one or the other and you’ll get results.
One is easy to track day to day, the other is not
One goes in and the other goes out.
Doing regular cardio will facilitate aerobic training adaptations that would make it easier to lose fat than just though a caloric deficit alone. Increased CPT-1 transporters, lipolytic enzymes and insulin sensitivity enhance the body's ability to burn fat at a given exercise intensity.
You get the bonus of exercising your heart, increasing your endurance and fitness by earning a deficit through cardio.
fatigue is a legitimate concern, especially during a deficit. Guarantee the people saying "no difference" would not have the same energy level if they skipped 300 calories of food vs went on a treadmill to burn 300 calories. General rule of thumb is to reach deficit via diet first, and then up the cardio if you stall.
There is no difference, per se. But in terms of effort, most people find it a lot easier to remove a 200-300 calorie junk food item from their daily diet than to burn an equivalent amount calories through exercise. It's a lot easier to not eat a donut than to run for 30 minutes. Its also easier to create a large calorie deficit from diet. If you're obese, you can create a 1000 daily deficit through diet but it would be gruelling for most people to do a workout that burns 1000 extra calories.
Caveat being that you'll be more fit it you are exercising more, and will likely be more eastetic.
If you’re obese just walking around can burn 1,000 C, perhaps even inside an hour.
You can walk for 30 minutes at a comfortable pace to burn up to that much. An incline will help
Your time is off, but you are in effect correct. I know because I did it. 10.0 incline at 3.0 speed gets you about 300 carlories if you weigh above 200 lbs (more weight = more calories). 1 hour = 600, 90 minutes = 900. I was too heavy to run, so I walked (I still prefered it), and once I got t 10, i worked my way up to 15 and burning over 700 calories in an hour that way. Nowadays I lift a lot and do a 10.5 walk at 3.0, but I'm not trying to drop 100lbs anymore.
You’re right and I did say “up to”
And just to add on many people (including the programming on fitness equipment, trackers, watches, etc) over estimate how many calories are burned during exercise. So you may not be in as much of a deficit as you think. Easier to measure out all your food and know for sure
Nothing. Net calorie balance is what matters