Weird question about activity level

[pitching101]

If I was to do enough activity to bring my calories burned in the day to 4500 and ate 4000, would it be better than laying in bed all day and burning 2000 cals and eating 1500. In both cases I would be eating the same foods in the same proportions, just more in the higher calorie burned day. If it is better, than why?

 

[babywifey]

Exercising more and bumping your cals up accordingly is better for one all the way around. Not only will it be healthier for one's heart and muscles, but it will give the kind of physique that is more desired.

 

[pitching101]

Why is that though?

 

[JDK5386]

Why is that though?

Because the benefits of exercise are not limited to weight loss. If this were your only goal, then, yes, laying in bed at -500 would do the same as exerscising at -500. But the other effects - strength, cardiovascular improvements, mood enhancement, etc.

Additionally, if you consume 4k calories, you're bound to get basically as many nutrients as your body can handle, and I don't think you could do that with 1500.

 

[timziums88]

Because the benefits of exercise are not limited to weight loss. If this were your only goal, then, yes, laying in bed at -500 would do the same as exerscising at -500. But the other effects - strength, cardiovascular improvements, mood enhancement, etc.

Additionally, if you consume 4k calories, you're bound to get basically as many nutrients as your body can handle, and I don't think you could do that with 1500.

Very true. Plus, if you lay around, your muscles will atrophy instead of get stronger. Likewise, your metabolism will decrease because your body will go into "conservation mode" from lack of exercise.

Personally, when I was working out intensely (2 hours per day 6 days per week) I was eating probably 5,000 calories per day. I was super lean, but very strong. On the other hand, dropping workouts to 1 hour per day 2 days per week and cutting calories, I lost A LOT of strength and I'm not very lean.

Just my 2 cents