Why the 80% diet 20% exercise rule?
Options
Replies
-
80/20 (our any other ratio) is not right or wrong. It is meaningless. Or at least I can't figure out what it means. How would you falsify the statement? A statement that can't be falsified is meaningless.0
-
Thank you all for your input. What I have gathered from all your comments is that theoretically it is possible to lose weight just by adding vigorous exercise without increasing calorie intake but practically/in real life its very hard to do it that way.0
-
Thank you all for your input. What I have gathered from all your comments is that theoretically it is possible to lose weight just by adding vigorous exercise without increasing calorie intake but practically/in real life its very hard to do it that way.
That sounds about right. Researchers have found that calorie reduction tends to work better for weight loss, but exercise tends to work better for maintenance.
0 -
Please help me understand why this is the general assumption to weight loss. I'll try to keep my thoughts simple using the example below:
A female athlete eats 2500 calories and burns 500 calories with exercise to maintain weight X. She stops her training and leads a sedentary life whilst still eating 2500 calories. Over time she gains weight until she reaches weight XY. She maintains this weight for a number of years. If she starts her athletic training again, burning 500 calories whilst still eating 2500 calories, my simple brain tells me that she would loose weight until she reaches weight X.
Is that not weightloss due 100% exercise?
The actual rule is 100% diet and 0% exercise because you can lose weight without exercise. Plenty of people who don't like to exercise, or who cannot, lose weight and keep it off.
However, I love my weight lifting and running and just moving, but that helps keep me toned (or at least to look toned.
), retains muscle integrity, and provides strength and endurance.
Years ago, my uncle decided he was going to lose weight and started running five miles every day but did not change his eating habits. He lost weight because with the exercise he created a calorie deficit. However, once he decided not to run anymore, but continued eating the same, he killed his calorie deficit, thus he gained all his weight back plus more.
Even with the creation of a calorie deficit through exercise, weight loss still comes down to the calories in/calories out equation.0 -
TimothyFish wrote: »Thank you all for your input. What I have gathered from all your comments is that theoretically it is possible to lose weight just by adding vigorous exercise without increasing calorie intake but practically/in real life its very hard to do it that way.
That sounds about right. Researchers have found that calorie reduction tends to work better for weight loss, but exercise tends to work better for maintenance.
Which researchers are these? I would think exercise would work in any situation.
0 -
TimothyFish wrote: »One problem that people who exercise have is that they tend to eat more when they exercise, so they won't actually lose weight. That being said, I find that it is very difficult to create a calorie deficit without exercise. It is possible, yes, but it is more difficult.
I think most people would be better off if they would focus more on exercise than on diet. When your goals are exercise based, you aren't thinking so much about having to cut out certain foods or some number of calories. Instead, you are thinking in terms of how you can go faster or perform longer. Your focus on food becomes a focus on fueling your workout rather than eating for pleasure.
Why focus on exercise when a surplus of food is actually the problem to weight gain?
0 -
TimothyFish wrote: »Thank you all for your input. What I have gathered from all your comments is that theoretically it is possible to lose weight just by adding vigorous exercise without increasing calorie intake but practically/in real life its very hard to do it that way.
That sounds about right. Researchers have found that calorie reduction tends to work better for weight loss, but exercise tends to work better for maintenance.
what?
calorie adherence is what is required for fat loss, maintenance, and gaining...0 -
TimothyFish wrote: »One problem that people who exercise have is that they tend to eat more when they exercise, so they won't actually lose weight. That being said, I find that it is very difficult to create a calorie deficit without exercise. It is possible, yes, but it is more difficult.
I think most people would be better off if they would focus more on exercise than on diet. When your goals are exercise based, you aren't thinking so much about having to cut out certain foods or some number of calories. Instead, you are thinking in terms of how you can go faster or perform longer. Your focus on food becomes a focus on fueling your workout rather than eating for pleasure.
Why focus on exercise when a surplus of food is actually the problem to weight gain?
In my example there was no 'surplus of food' but rather a reduction on exercise. She was on a 2500 calorie the whole time. The only thing that changed was her activity.0 -
TimothyFish wrote: »Thank you all for your input. What I have gathered from all your comments is that theoretically it is possible to lose weight just by adding vigorous exercise without increasing calorie intake but practically/in real life its very hard to do it that way.
That sounds about right. Researchers have found that calorie reduction tends to work better for weight loss, but exercise tends to work better for maintenance.
Which researchers are these? I would think exercise would work in any situation.
I saw it in an article on the Mayo Clinic website. (http://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-living/weight-loss/expert-answers/weight-loss/faq-20058292) Exercise will certainly work and if a person can actually keep their calorie intake constant, the increased activity will result in weight loss. But the amount of exercise people put in isn't generally enough for drastic weight loss. But for maintenance, exercise is a big help because it reduces ones desire to overeat, but it doesn't have to create a significant deficit.
0 -
TimothyFish wrote: »One problem that people who exercise have is that they tend to eat more when they exercise, so they won't actually lose weight. That being said, I find that it is very difficult to create a calorie deficit without exercise. It is possible, yes, but it is more difficult.
I think most people would be better off if they would focus more on exercise than on diet. When your goals are exercise based, you aren't thinking so much about having to cut out certain foods or some number of calories. Instead, you are thinking in terms of how you can go faster or perform longer. Your focus on food becomes a focus on fueling your workout rather than eating for pleasure.
Why focus on exercise when a surplus of food is actually the problem to weight gain?
In my example there was no 'surplus of food' but rather a reduction on exercise. She was on a 2500 calorie the whole time. The only thing that changed was her activity.
But 2500 calories would be a surplus if she didn't exercise, so yes, there was a surplus.
0 -
TimothyFish wrote: »One problem that people who exercise have is that they tend to eat more when they exercise, so they won't actually lose weight. That being said, I find that it is very difficult to create a calorie deficit without exercise. It is possible, yes, but it is more difficult.
I think most people would be better off if they would focus more on exercise than on diet. When your goals are exercise based, you aren't thinking so much about having to cut out certain foods or some number of calories. Instead, you are thinking in terms of how you can go faster or perform longer. Your focus on food becomes a focus on fueling your workout rather than eating for pleasure.
Why focus on exercise when a surplus of food is actually the problem to weight gain?
In my example there was no 'surplus of food' but rather a reduction on exercise. She was on a 2500 calorie the whole time. The only thing that changed was her activity.
But 2500 calories would be a surplus if she didn't exercise, so yes, there was a surplus.
Right.... I see it now! Reduce activity➡️Reduce calorie to maintain weight. Thanks0 -
I find it amazing how hard people try to complicate such a simple formula.
Calories in<calories out = weight loss. How you achieve that is entirely up to you.0 -
When I started exercising more after significant weight loss through diet, my loss slowed down. Heck, if I'm hungry, I'm going to eat. So I was eating back most of the calories "earned" through exercise. I had a good long think about what I really wanted. What I want is a sustainable lifestyle, and I prefer this active version of me. So I keep my food intake at a moderate level, run a lot more, and enjoy a slow reduction in weight.0
-
For me, weight loss is all from exercise, because I find it very difficult to eat at a deficit unless I'm physically active and burning quite a bit extra.
So it's 100% exercise for me...0 -
I see it as a balance. With your scenario, she would never be able to vary at all. If she went out to dinner and added a 1000 calorie dessert just one time in a week, she has a 1000 calories overage at the end of that week and she would not lose a pound that she might otherwise. On top of that, she must guarantee that her heartrate is constant to keep a constant burn - she can't slow down or wait for a traffic light to change.
Perfect balance is difficult. To further make it even more of a problem, the more weight she loses, the less her TDEE will be and the less calories she will burn with the same effort. So, at some time she will have to constantly increase her exercise while she has to work even harder while burning less calories/min. to do it.
It is easier to cut back on food intake than to keep increasing calorie burn. Even then, she will need to make adjustments as she loses weight or lose more slowly.
Finally, we live in the real world and most of us aren't athletes. There are only so many hours in a day! For me, I have to commute, go to work, take care of the house, eat and sleep. I do work out most days for about 1-1 1/2 hours, but at only 5'1", down to 154 pounds, and 63 years old, and with some heart problems, if I want to continue to lose weight, I had better continue to cut back on calories! I couldn't exercise that much!
0 -
sgthaggard wrote: »I find it amazing how hard people try to complicate such a simple formula.
Calories in<calories out = weight loss. How you achieve that is entirely up to you.
Simple to express, yes, but not so simple to calculate, let alone achieve. Your initial goal calorie level determination is just an educated guess. Even the more advanced formulas suggest that we try that level on for size for a while and adjust accordingly. Calories burned during exercise are another educated guess. Were there hills on today's route? Was it windy? Was your pace off for some reason? Tennis is my main cardio activity. I have played matches where I was so exhausted near the end of the match that I couldn't think clearly. And I have played matches where I barely broke a sweat. I try to compensate in the calories I enter, but once again, it's just a guess.
Not to mention variations in my day to day activity level. Or changes to my body over time. Technically I would think that I should be lowering my goal for net calories with every pound I lose. But if I am lucky enough to have put on some muscle (let's go with newbie gains), maybe I want to decrease goal for net calories less, if at all.
Plus I do think your metabolism does some adjusting to whatever your new level of net calories is. If I set my goal too low, I may get to see big changes on the scales in the beginning, but petering off as my body compensates. Even if that compensation is just me unconsciously sitting more and fidgeting less.
Not to suggest that none of this is worthwhile. Somewhat accurate tracking is much better than no tracking. Not to mention the support of friends and the motivation of knowing others are watching your attempts. It's worthwhile, but simple only in theory.
0 -
sgthaggard wrote: »I find it amazing how hard people try to complicate such a simple formula.
Calories in<calories out = weight loss. How you achieve that is entirely up to you.
Formulas are "simple". Execution is not, and varies between individuals. Hence the need to "complicate".
I find it amazing that people still don't seem to grasp that.
0 -
goldthistime wrote: »sgthaggard wrote: »I find it amazing how hard people try to complicate such a simple formula.
Calories in<calories out = weight loss. How you achieve that is entirely up to you.
Simple to express, yes, but not so simple to calculate, let alone achieve. Your initial goal calorie level determination is just an educated guess. Even the more advanced formulas suggest that we try that level on for size for a while and adjust accordingly. Calories burned during exercise are another educated guess. Were there hills on today's route? Was it windy? Was your pace off for some reason? Tennis is my main cardio activity. I have played matches where I was so exhausted near the end of the match that I couldn't think clearly. And I have played matches where I barely broke a sweat. I try to compensate in the calories I enter, but once again, it's just a guess.
Not to mention variations in my day to day activity level. Or changes to my body over time. Technically I would think that I should be lowering my goal for net calories with every pound I lose. But if I am lucky enough to have put on some muscle (let's go with newbie gains), maybe I want to decrease goal for net calories less, if at all.
Plus I do think your metabolism does some adjusting to whatever your new level of net calories is. If I set my goal too low, I may get to see big changes on the scales in the beginning, but petering off as my body compensates. Even if that compensation is just me unconsciously sitting more and fidgeting less.
Not to suggest that none of this is worthwhile. Somewhat accurate tracking is much better than no tracking. Not to mention the support of friends and the motivation of knowing others are watching your attempts. It's worthwhile, but simple only in theory.
I agree that it's difficult to calculate but compared to 80% diet/20% exercise it's a piece of cake.0 -
SergeantSausage wrote: »It doesn't matter. The only thing that matters is creating a calorie deficit.
For most folks, though, a 500 calorie defect in the kitchen is far, far easier that a 500 calorie deficit in the gym. You can cut out soda for the day, or run 5 miles. Which is easier for your generally sedentary, overweight individual?
This.
Currently I eat at maintenance for a sedentary person of my height, or even a bit higher. I lose weight through exercise, arguably. But I don't think of it that way--I calculated my maintenance given how active I am and cut calories from that.
Both result in me eating the same way, exercising the same way, and losing the same weight.
As others have said, I think all that rule means is that you need to keep track of calories or otherwise do something to keep your calories constant in addition to exercising. I personally (once upon a time) increased my exercise when training for a marathon and gained about 10 lbs, because I ended up eating more without really meaning to or realizing it. That's super easy to do.0 -
TimothyFish wrote: »I think most people would be better off if they would focus more on exercise than on diet. When your goals are exercise based, you aren't thinking so much about having to cut out certain foods or some number of calories. Instead, you are thinking in terms of how you can go faster or perform longer. Your focus on food becomes a focus on fueling your workout rather than eating for pleasure.
I basically agree with this, although it's easier as you start to become more fit.
0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 401 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 992 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions