Why the 80% diet 20% exercise rule?
Replies
-
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 -
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?
yes but your athlete is on maintenance at 2500
if she brings back her exercise she will back at maintenance but at a higher weight
she has to cut calories - easiest in the kitchen
^this.0 -
But, exercise created a calorie deficit so the net calories eaten was no longer 2500.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 -
As far as I can tell, it's a rule simply because many people overestimate their calories burned during exercise and underestimate their calories consumed. So I think the 80/20 rule is really a way of saying that it's hard to out-exercise a crappy diet. IMO it's just a lazy little saying that shouldn't matter if you're counting calories in and out.
0 -
Sure, you can lose if you keep your diet the same but also exercise enough to have a calorie deficit. But in the end it's the calorie count that is making you lose weight, not the exercise. Do you understand the difference?dramaqueen45 wrote: »I think it's possible to lose on just exercise- my husband has lost about 16 pounds not really changing his diet but he took up walking daily and lifting as well as swimming...0 -
-
You can't out exercise a bad diet.....maybe at first but eventually it will catch up with you
This ^^ I was going to the gym 4/5 times a week, but still stuffing my face a lot of the time with takeaway and chocolate - and unsurprisingly i gained weight !! Diet is key - exercise is a bonus.
0 -
Personally, I would say that she's controlling her food intake, so it's diet.0
-
Not so much a rule as it is a good idea. You see it is totally possible to create a huge deficit through exercise. However it really isn't a good idea to do this. Basically these things tend to happen.
1. You overdo things and you injure yourself. And once your activity falls off your deficit goes to pot.
2. You don't injure yourself and lose weight but the extreme levels of activity you sustained to create a deficit resulted in quite a bit of muscle loss.
3. You develop exercise anorexia. Which is a condition where instead of not eating every time you eat something naughty you immediatly have to exercise it off.
Exercising for a calorie deficit tends, in general to foster an unhealthy relationship with exercise. You should be exercising to get fitter and improve your performance while keeping things sane so you don't overdo it or get injured.
That being said it is hard to ignore the affect large amounts of exercise has on a deficit. So basically I use this rule. I plan my diet around my exercise. Not my exercise around my diet. If my activity level goes up I eat to maintain my current surplus or deficit. I don't work my *kitten* off and overdo it in order to create a deficit.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
This content has been removed.
-
Workout4Health wrote: »
ummm.. yea..
Diet refers to the calories you eat... not a specific type like Paleo, Vegetarian or other... It implies CICO..
0 -
athletes who retire usually gain weight as they eat as much as they were when training so they are fuelling their bodies for a workout they aren't going to do therefore no longer in deficit. an athlete that is active will burn more calories therefore able to eat more once you cut down exercise the deficit also shrinks as you cant eat back exercise calories0
-
This whole argument is really just an "Is the glass half full or half empty?" kind of thing.
You can say that since your calories in are less than your calories out, it is the amount of IN that is responsible.
You can say that since your calories out are more than your calories in, it is the amount of OUT that is responsible.
Either way, you're wrong. Either way, you're right.
These two things are happening together and one is not more responsible than the other.
There is no 80/20 rule.0 -
This whole argument is really just an "Is the glass half full or half empty?" kind of thing.
You can say that since your calories in are less than your calories out, it is the amount of IN that is responsible.
You can say that since your calories out are more than your calories in, it is the amount of OUT that is responsible.
Either way, you're wrong. Either way, you're right.
These two things are happening together and one is not more responsible than the other.
There is no 80/20 rule.
Agree. That's basically what I was trying to say above too.0 -
In 2009, I lost 15 pounds with exercise alone. Then a constellation of circumstances resulted in me losing the exercise habit and that weight came right back. I should have changed my diet.0
-
lmao you're thinking about this way too much. its a concept that reach your goals 80% of the time but realizing nobody Is 100% perfect 100% of the time.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. Calorie deficit is how you lose weight. You can create a calorie deficit by eating less or by exercising more, or a combination of both.
0 -
It's simpler than that and a basic calculation - less calories that you need = weight loss therfore eating less and/ or exercising more should create a defecit and theerefore loss. Remember 3500 calories is generally accepted as equaling 1Lb so 500 cals less per day = 1Lb loss in a week. well it worked for me0
-
80/20 is just a basic rule of thumb that works for the average person.
Sure, you could, in theory, lose weight from exercise alone, but most people won't.
Assuming a person was eating at maintenance (which is probably not the case if that ends up needing to lose weight), he or she could lose weight by eating exactly the same amount and adding exercise. But many people who add exercise and don't track calories will end up eating slightly more because exercise makes them hungrier.
It is also far easier to cut calories through food than exercise. It can take just a few moments to eat several hundred calories, but hours to burn that same amount.
And for the record I think it IS possibly to out-exercise a "bad diet", but it takes hours a day of training, time that most people don't have.0 -
It's a phrase - nothing more. There is no real 80% or 20%.
It's simply shorthand to state that you have to keep your overall diet (Calories) in check. Exercise can help, but if you're not paying attention to your diet, it's more difficult to achieve your goals.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions