exercising less so I can eat less? good? bad?

that titles is all wrong sounding, but I have a silly question for all you CCers.

yesterday, I ran for 20 minutes, and then went for a hike in which I was climbing and going up hills and such (which I didn't log), so I ate more than usual (1400 or something like that) for a deficit of about 700.  But honestly It was a struggle.  Around 9pm I was stuffing myself with Fiber One and blueberries.

Today my knee hurts, and I'm exhausted (long story), and also, not as hungry.  Is it stupid to workout/exercise less so that I don't have to eat as much?  I decided to ditch my run today, and walk instead so I could eat my 1200-1300 and not hurt myself both physically and CC wise.  I try to use the simple math idea, keep a deficit of about 500-800 and lose slowly.  But then I get all guilty feeling like, "you should run!"

Truth is I've been having a hard time running, and I know it's because I'm bored.  I was going to kind of take it easy, go for walks, and shorter (15-20min) runs for a few weeks and then when I get back to school hit the GYM so I have more of a variety.  But I wasn't sure if it was stupid of me to eat less, so I can do less, and do less so i can eat less (and not be scrambling at 9pm to eat) -- I'm just having a food/exercise ratio issue at the moment :\

I do this sometimes. Really, I thought the whole idea of exercising was to give you caloric leeway so you could eat more. It all comes out in the wash, right? If I eat 1500 and burn 300 what's the difference between that and simply eating 1200 on a resting day? You can't bust out with exercise everyday.

I like to exercise, but you're right, it's a math thing. If you've met your workout goals and are tired and low on appetite, rest and eat less to account for the running you won't be doing.

Not a silly question at all.  I tend to think along the same lines.  If I'm tired and don't feel like working out, then I think to myself "cut 200 calories from dinner - just have a light salad or a broth soup and only walk 1 mile tonight instead of 2." 

I don't know how long you've been dieting and working out, but for the first 2 weeks, I didn't feel hungry, even on 1200 calories/day and walking 2 miles/day.  Then, I guess my metabolism kicked in or something because now I'm hungry a lot and have actually upped my alotted calories to 1500/day.  I had originally set a goal of 1400.  I am trying to get more protein in my diet to help with the hunger, but not much of a meat person. 

But, yep, it's a math thing and that's pretty much all that matters.  The only difference I would think is that if you cut back your exercise, you won't build as much muscle and therefore won't burn as many calories just living.  I would think the difference would be minimal, though.   

500-800 deficit - I never knew how much a difference it was supposed to be (I shoot for 750/day since that's 1.5 pounds in a week, but usually only achieve 550-650.)

I originally tried weight watchers and was alotted 24 points/day.  I struggled to get to those points every day and felt stuffed and miserable.  I ended up gaining 8 pounds the first month I was on WW. 

You're not just not building muscle if you diet without exercise: you're losing it. That isn't good for your health or your metabolism. And you won't look as good as you could otherwise once you reach your goal weight, either. If you lose weight without maintaining muscle, you're headed toward the land of Skinny Fat.

I think it's fine to choose not to exercise and to eat less to compensate—occasionally. But it definitely does not all "come out in the wash" if you do it over the long term.

That being said, though, running can actually break down muscle, so if that constituted the majority of your exercise it wasn't necessarily helping you in that department. The best way to be both fit and healthy is to combine diet, weight training and cardio. You won't put on much muscle that way—not while operating at a calorie deficit—but you will maintain what you have while getting fit and looking tighter.

Try to find things you enjoy doing that will also push your body. But don't push yourself so hard that you don't feel up to exercising anymore. Just take it one day at a time.

I wish I had advice on the calories issue. At 5' 3 1/2 and 109 lbs. I eat a ton to maintain my weight and I could eat more with ease most days. Have you tried calorie-dense foods like peanut butter, nuts, etc. to up your calories? Do you cook with olive oil? These are foods that are good for you and that can help you add to your calorie count with a minimum of effort.

"exercising less to eat less" is over-dramatizing the situation.    Things are not so black and white.

Weight loss, weight gain, and fitness happen over time, not based on what you do for a single day.

So, if you have a really hard workout and are tired and just can't eat enough, don't worry about it. You'll probably feel hungry the next day and eat more to make up for it. It'll be ok.  

If you work out so hard that you are tired the next day, then rest.  It is better for you to rest when you are exhausted than to work out some more.  Working out while exhausted will just make you overtrained and less fit.

If you are starting to feel unmotivated to exercise, and chronically tired too, you are probably overtrained. Rest for a few days in a row.

If you are tired, unmotivated, and bored with your workout, then rest for a while, and then change your workout by adding different exercises.

I don't think the issue is about "exercising less in general to eat less in general." It's about respecting your body when you need to rest, and to not worry so much if you deviate from the norm on a single day.

duplicate post

Kind of off topic, but

"running can actually break down muscle"

WHAAAA?  I doubt it. 

Original Post by dog_lady:

Kind of off topic, but

"running can actually break down muscle"

WHAAAA?  I doubt it. 

It absolutely can, and does. The body breaks down the muscles to some degree for fuel but largely to lighten the load and enable you to run for longer.

Marathon runners often have a far higher percentage of body fat than, say, sprinters, because long-distance running is a catabolic process (the body suffers muscle loss), whereas sprinting is anabolic (the body is in growth mode). Lifting weights, however, can help long-distance runners maintain their muscle mass and achieve a lower body-fat percentage.

It just sounds like some crazy thing people throw out there with no backing whatsoever....  I mean, doesn't ALL exercise break down muscle?  Isn't that how we get bigger, stronger muscles?  From what my trainer says, working out creates little tiny tears in our muscle fibers and the building up of the fibers is how we make muscles stronger.

And we're talking marathon runners, elite runners.  Not me or you or the OP who says they run 15-20 minutes a day.  When stuff gets thrown out there that sounds like "running is going to destroy your muscles" it can scare people off, no?

I'm not talking strictly marathon running, just long-distance running, something many people engage in. I just used marathoners versus sprinters as an example of how even elite athletes can be deceptively skinny fat due to running. Because most people end up increasing their distance as they become better runners, I mentioned the muscle-loss issue. It doesn't take a lot: There are many posts on this site from people who say they got flabbier by running and had to turn to lifting to lose the body fat—and they aren't elite athletes. I came across two more such posts just this morning.

The muscle tears you receive when lifting weights—which are, as you say, the key to building muscle—are not the same thing as breaking down muscle tissue to streamline the body because the densest cells in the body are muscle cells. You do not build muscle as a result in the latter case: It is being lost.

Cardio is important for your overall health. I do it, though I am into anabolic cardio, and I keep it to a minimum. But running has its advantages. Cardio—and especially catabolic cardio—just should not be the only thing you do. Weight lifting/resistance training builds (or at the very least maintains, depending on how you go about it) muscle, and builds bone mass as well. And diet and weight training are bigger contributors to weight loss than cardio. Cardio comes in third in that equation.

So if you ("you" in the general sense) like to run, run. I'm all for finding exercises you like to do, because that means you're more likely to stick with exercise for the long haul. But just know that you can't get everything you need to be healthy, especially over the long term, from running. Over the age of 25 we naturally lose muscle if we don't maintain it. Estimates range as high as 7 lbs. of lost muscle mass per decade for women. After menopause 14 lbs. per decade is considered the average. Add in the muscle lost through dieting and catabolic exercises without weight training, and.... That way trouble lies.