Yes, Virginia, Exercise Matters for Weight Loss
Replies
-
I can agree with this to a point. The key word to me is "comfortably". I lose my comfort level below about 1950 no matter my activity level. Creating the deficit is much easier with exercise then having to eat less than that.
Every time I have gotten "stuck" it was picking up the activity that got it going again, not eating less.0 -
I can agree with this to a point. The key word to me is "comfortably". I lose my comfort level below about 1950 no matter my activity level. Creating the deficit is much easier with exercise then having to eat less than that.
Every time I have gotten "stuck" it was picking up the activity that got it going again, not eating less.
Ugh. Me too. Hi!
Also, I'm going to proclaim my undying love for usmcmp right here. She knows of what she speaks.0 -
OK...
but if you could maintain a deficit then you would lose without exercising..
and plenty of people don't exercise and lose weight..
so again ..
exercise is helpful, but not necessary, for weight loss.
0 -
JeffseekingV wrote: »In general, it's never better to exercise your way into a calorie deficit. I do on occasion do cardio for an extra 100-200 calories but since most of my workout is lifting, it's a very inefficient way to get under your calorie goal. It's much more efficient to manage your calories vs exercising more. Unless your goals require exercising. ie.. weights for mass/strength. running for cardiovascular health/endurance. HIIT for speed/explosiveness. Or sports in general for enjoyment.
You're conflating "better" with "efficient." You're 100% correct that simply not eating is a more efficient way of creating a deficit. Except...
What's being discussed here involves long-term adherence, which makes things somewhat more complex. So saying that it's generally never better to use exercise as a means of creating a deficit is an oversimplification. Instead, I'd say that it's good to be as efficient as you can (i.e. eat as little as your satiety, nutritional, and energy/performance needs will allow for, assuming a healthy goal), and then adjust the deficit through exercise if necessary. The second part of that, the exercise part, may not be necessary for everyone but that wasn't implied either.
Long term, short term, same thing. To ME, it's more efficient not to eat 200 calories than jog for 2 miles. Because I hate jogging but it's more of the more efficient calorie burning exercises.
If you want to talk long term, the exercise is essential. BUT not for losing weight. But for general health.
Besides, long term, you wouldn't want to stay at a deficit. Because in theory, one would reach their goal weight and then maintain. What happens then? No longer exercise? Doesn't make sense.0 -
You lose weight in a deficite - less going in than being used. That can happen without exercise.
However, if you want to be healthier, live longer, more easily maintain that weight loss then becoming first physically active, then physically fit are the answer.0 -
Conceptually I agree...but I will always tell people "diet for weight control; exercise for fitness" because many, if not most people think you have to crash your diet and do a bunch of exercise on top of that to lose weight...many if not most people do not understand the correlation between their overall activity (including exercise) and their energy requirements...they don't actually understand that they can and should eat more when they're doing more.0
-
JeffseekingV wrote: »JeffseekingV wrote: »In general, it's never better to exercise your way into a calorie deficit. I do on occasion do cardio for an extra 100-200 calories but since most of my workout is lifting, it's a very inefficient way to get under your calorie goal. It's much more efficient to manage your calories vs exercising more. Unless your goals require exercising. ie.. weights for mass/strength. running for cardiovascular health/endurance. HIIT for speed/explosiveness. Or sports in general for enjoyment.
You're conflating "better" with "efficient." You're 100% correct that simply not eating is a more efficient way of creating a deficit. Except...
What's being discussed here involves long-term adherence, which makes things somewhat more complex. So saying that it's generally never better to use exercise as a means of creating a deficit is an oversimplification. Instead, I'd say that it's good to be as efficient as you can (i.e. eat as little as your satiety, nutritional, and energy/performance needs will allow for, assuming a healthy goal), and then adjust the deficit through exercise if necessary. The second part of that, the exercise part, may not be necessary for everyone but that wasn't implied either.
Long term, short term, same thing. To ME, it's more efficient not to eat 200 calories than jog for 2 miles. Because I hate jogging but it's more of the more efficient calorie burning exercises.
If you want to talk long term, the exercise is essential. BUT not for losing weight. But for general health.
Besides, long term, you wouldn't want to stay at a deficit. Because in theory, one would reach their goal weight and then maintain. What happens then? No longer exercise? Doesn't make sense.
*sigh*
Did you actually read what I wrote?Instead, I'd say that it's good to be as efficient as you can (i.e. eat as little as your satiety, nutritional, and energy/performance needs will allow for, assuming a healthy goal), and then adjust the deficit through exercise if necessary. The second part of that, the exercise part, may not be necessary for everyone but that wasn't implied either.
Because that statement includes people for whom exercise may not be necessary as a means of counteracting satiety needs. If we just made statements that apply to you, I can't imagine why anyone who doesn't happen function like you would care. That's why we make statements that try to apply to as many people as possible. And saying that "exercise isn't necessary" just isn't realistic because for some people issues of adherence and satiety are going to trump energy balance every time. And that's fine. We have a way of dealing with those issues; it's called exercise.
As far as maintenance goes, you'd just evaluate it the same way as you would a deficit. Speaking only for weight loss and no other health reasons, if you can maintain your weight "comfortably" without exercise, then there would be no need to exercise from an energy balance standpoint.
0 -
If you're worried about eating until your satisfied, then it would be more efficient to consider eating less calorie dense foods. VOLUME per weight.
Exercise ISN'T necessary. Why? Because what if you weight lift as your main form of exercise? I only burn about 230 calories for 1 hour of lifting. Are you telling me to go out and lift for ANOTHER hour so I can have 1 Subway chocolate chip cookie? No. I'm dead after my lift session.0 -
JeffseekingV wrote: »JeffseekingV wrote: »In general, it's never better to exercise your way into a calorie deficit. I do on occasion do cardio for an extra 100-200 calories but since most of my workout is lifting, it's a very inefficient way to get under your calorie goal. It's much more efficient to manage your calories vs exercising more. Unless your goals require exercising. ie.. weights for mass/strength. running for cardiovascular health/endurance. HIIT for speed/explosiveness. Or sports in general for enjoyment.
You're conflating "better" with "efficient." You're 100% correct that simply not eating is a more efficient way of creating a deficit. Except...
What's being discussed here involves long-term adherence, which makes things somewhat more complex. So saying that it's generally never better to use exercise as a means of creating a deficit is an oversimplification. Instead, I'd say that it's good to be as efficient as you can (i.e. eat as little as your satiety, nutritional, and energy/performance needs will allow for, assuming a healthy goal), and then adjust the deficit through exercise if necessary. The second part of that, the exercise part, may not be necessary for everyone but that wasn't implied either.
Long term, short term, same thing. To ME, it's more efficient not to eat 200 calories than jog for 2 miles. Because I hate jogging but it's more of the more efficient calorie burning exercises.
If you want to talk long term, the exercise is essential. BUT not for losing weight. But for general health.
Besides, long term, you wouldn't want to stay at a deficit. Because in theory, one would reach their goal weight and then maintain. What happens then? No longer exercise? Doesn't make sense.
*sigh*
Did you actually read what I wrote?Instead, I'd say that it's good to be as efficient as you can (i.e. eat as little as your satiety, nutritional, and energy/performance needs will allow for, assuming a healthy goal), and then adjust the deficit through exercise if necessary. The second part of that, the exercise part, may not be necessary for everyone but that wasn't implied either.
Because that statement includes people for whom exercise may not be necessary as a means of counteracting satiety needs. If we just made statements that apply to you, I can't imagine why anyone who doesn't happen function like you would care. That's why we make statements that try to apply to as many people as possible. And saying that "exercise isn't necessary" just isn't realistic because for some people issues of adherence and satiety are going to trump energy balance every time. And that's fine. We have a way of dealing with those issues; it's called exercise.
As far as maintenance goes, you'd just evaluate it the same way as you would a deficit. Speaking only for weight loss and no other health reasons, if you can maintain your weight "comfortably" without exercise, then there would be no need to exercise from an energy balance standpoint.
that is a pretty broad statement..
there are plenty of people on MFP that just create a calorie deficit by eating less and not exercise...
why is saying that exercise isn't necessary not realistic? If you can create a calorie deficit without exercise,, then exercise is not necessary...0 -
llUndecidedll wrote: »I feel better creating a calorie deficit through exercise alone versus diet alone. I don't feel hangry and the extra calories give me the energy I need to exercise to make them disappear.... The 75 pounds I've lost thus far is from exercise alone, the treadmill mostly. I really hate the elliptical.....
If I were the type of person to mostly eat clean, someone who didn't care for fast food or [a lot of] steak and potatoes, then I think I could stick to say 1200 calories a day... but that's just an impossible feat for me.
Honestly, I wish I was a man because I love to eat.
I'm the opposite, I've lost pretty much all my weight so far simply through creating my deficit through diet, though I have become more active in general as the weight has dropped off, I don't really do anything consistently that anyone would call "exercise".
Different strokes
0 -
JeffseekingV wrote: »If you're worried about eating until your satisfied, then it would be more efficient to consider eating less calorie dense foods. VOLUME per weight.
Exercise ISN'T necessary. Why? Because what if you weight lift as your main form of exercise? I only burn about 230 calories for 1 hour of lifting. Are you telling me to go out and lift for ANOTHER hour so I can have 1 Subway chocolate chip cookie? No. I'm dead after my lift session.
As to satiety, your suggestion is a good general advice, but anyone with hunger issues is going to have to experiment with what works for them. Volume per weight actually doesn't do much for me personally. I have to pay closer attention to specific macro combinations to help control hunger.
If you came to me saying that you're having problem losing weight because eating at specific deficit is causing satiety issues and binges issues, I would not suggest just sucking up and eat less anyway, because that would be silly. I'd probably suggest some additional low level activity that would have a minimal effect on your weight lifting (e.g. walking). It's certainly not as time efficient as high intensity cardio, which I hate and never do, but it is some extra activity. You'd have experiment to see how much of that you can fit into your week and what effect it has on your weight over time.
Alternatively, you could experiment to see what deficit stops triggering the undesirable eating behavior and adjust your goal from there. It would probably result in a slower weight loss. It's not a one-size-fits-all situation
But since you don't have any satiety issues, I wouldn't suggest you change anything if it's working for you : )
0 -
I never said "suck it up and eat less" Why would you come to that conclusion when I just suggesting eating MORE volume but less calories. It's actually eating MORE.
I do have issues. Or I wouldn't be here right? There are many ways of skinning a cat. Not just the way the OP suggested.0 -
JeffseekingV wrote: »JeffseekingV wrote: »In general, it's never better to exercise your way into a calorie deficit. I do on occasion do cardio for an extra 100-200 calories but since most of my workout is lifting, it's a very inefficient way to get under your calorie goal. It's much more efficient to manage your calories vs exercising more. Unless your goals require exercising. ie.. weights for mass/strength. running for cardiovascular health/endurance. HIIT for speed/explosiveness. Or sports in general for enjoyment.
You're conflating "better" with "efficient." You're 100% correct that simply not eating is a more efficient way of creating a deficit. Except...
What's being discussed here involves long-term adherence, which makes things somewhat more complex. So saying that it's generally never better to use exercise as a means of creating a deficit is an oversimplification. Instead, I'd say that it's good to be as efficient as you can (i.e. eat as little as your satiety, nutritional, and energy/performance needs will allow for, assuming a healthy goal), and then adjust the deficit through exercise if necessary. The second part of that, the exercise part, may not be necessary for everyone but that wasn't implied either.
Long term, short term, same thing. To ME, it's more efficient not to eat 200 calories than jog for 2 miles. Because I hate jogging but it's more of the more efficient calorie burning exercises.
If you want to talk long term, the exercise is essential. BUT not for losing weight. But for general health.
Besides, long term, you wouldn't want to stay at a deficit. Because in theory, one would reach their goal weight and then maintain. What happens then? No longer exercise? Doesn't make sense.
*sigh*
Did you actually read what I wrote?Instead, I'd say that it's good to be as efficient as you can (i.e. eat as little as your satiety, nutritional, and energy/performance needs will allow for, assuming a healthy goal), and then adjust the deficit through exercise if necessary. The second part of that, the exercise part, may not be necessary for everyone but that wasn't implied either.
Because that statement includes people for whom exercise may not be necessary as a means of counteracting satiety needs. If we just made statements that apply to you, I can't imagine why anyone who doesn't happen function like you would care. That's why we make statements that try to apply to as many people as possible. And saying that "exercise isn't necessary" just isn't realistic because for some people issues of adherence and satiety are going to trump energy balance every time. And that's fine. We have a way of dealing with those issues; it's called exercise.
As far as maintenance goes, you'd just evaluate it the same way as you would a deficit. Speaking only for weight loss and no other health reasons, if you can maintain your weight "comfortably" without exercise, then there would be no need to exercise from an energy balance standpoint.
that is a pretty broad statement..
there are plenty of people on MFP that just create a calorie deficit by eating less and not exercise...
why is saying that exercise isn't necessary not realistic? If you can create a calorie deficit without exercise,, then exercise is not necessary...
And my statement includes those people who don't need exercise.
Saying that exercise isn't necessary isn't realistic for some people because it doesn't fit their eating behavior and hunger issues. Sometimes hunger issues are just a matter of volume and density of food, and sometimes it really just a matter of having a minimum amount of energy coming in. Frequently it seems to be a combination of a lot of things. It would be nice if telling everyone that all they need to do is eat less, but that doesn't work very well frequently. We could respond with some variation of "Oh well. It's your fault just eat less" and watch them fail some more or we could do something helpful..like work within their personal constraints to find an individualized solution.
0 -
Look at the thread title. It plainly states exercise is necessary for weight loss. Don't tell us it isn't necessary, we know this.0
-
JeffseekingV wrote: »JeffseekingV wrote: »In general, it's never better to exercise your way into a calorie deficit. I do on occasion do cardio for an extra 100-200 calories but since most of my workout is lifting, it's a very inefficient way to get under your calorie goal. It's much more efficient to manage your calories vs exercising more. Unless your goals require exercising. ie.. weights for mass/strength. running for cardiovascular health/endurance. HIIT for speed/explosiveness. Or sports in general for enjoyment.
You're conflating "better" with "efficient." You're 100% correct that simply not eating is a more efficient way of creating a deficit. Except...
What's being discussed here involves long-term adherence, which makes things somewhat more complex. So saying that it's generally never better to use exercise as a means of creating a deficit is an oversimplification. Instead, I'd say that it's good to be as efficient as you can (i.e. eat as little as your satiety, nutritional, and energy/performance needs will allow for, assuming a healthy goal), and then adjust the deficit through exercise if necessary. The second part of that, the exercise part, may not be necessary for everyone but that wasn't implied either.
Long term, short term, same thing. To ME, it's more efficient not to eat 200 calories than jog for 2 miles. Because I hate jogging but it's more of the more efficient calorie burning exercises.
If you want to talk long term, the exercise is essential. BUT not for losing weight. But for general health.
Besides, long term, you wouldn't want to stay at a deficit. Because in theory, one would reach their goal weight and then maintain. What happens then? No longer exercise? Doesn't make sense.
*sigh*
Did you actually read what I wrote?Instead, I'd say that it's good to be as efficient as you can (i.e. eat as little as your satiety, nutritional, and energy/performance needs will allow for, assuming a healthy goal), and then adjust the deficit through exercise if necessary. The second part of that, the exercise part, may not be necessary for everyone but that wasn't implied either.
Because that statement includes people for whom exercise may not be necessary as a means of counteracting satiety needs. If we just made statements that apply to you, I can't imagine why anyone who doesn't happen function like you would care. That's why we make statements that try to apply to as many people as possible. And saying that "exercise isn't necessary" just isn't realistic because for some people issues of adherence and satiety are going to trump energy balance every time. And that's fine. We have a way of dealing with those issues; it's called exercise.
As far as maintenance goes, you'd just evaluate it the same way as you would a deficit. Speaking only for weight loss and no other health reasons, if you can maintain your weight "comfortably" without exercise, then there would be no need to exercise from an energy balance standpoint.
that is a pretty broad statement..
there are plenty of people on MFP that just create a calorie deficit by eating less and not exercise...
why is saying that exercise isn't necessary not realistic? If you can create a calorie deficit without exercise,, then exercise is not necessary...
And my statement includes those people who don't need exercise.
Saying that exercise isn't necessary isn't realistic for some people because it doesn't fit their eating behavior and hunger issues. Sometimes hunger issues are just a matter of volume and density of food, and sometimes it really just a matter of having a minimum amount of energy coming in. Frequently it seems to be a combination of a lot of things. It would be nice if telling everyone that all they need to do is eat less, but that doesn't work very well frequently. We could respond with some variation of "Oh well. It's your fault just eat less" and watch them fail some more or we could do something helpful..like work within their personal constraints to find an individualized solution.
It always comes down to eat less. If you exercise and still eat over maintenance then you are going to gain. You can't out train a bad diet.
By your example of satiety and hunger, someone could exercise, still be hungry, and overeat. So at the end of the day it comes don to getting ones diet under control.
so calorie deficit trumps exercise...
0 -
JeffseekingV wrote: »I never said "suck it up and eat less" Why would you come to that conclusion when I just suggesting eating MORE volume but less calories. It's actually eating MORE.
I do have issues. Or I wouldn't be here right? There are many ways of skinning a cat. Not just the way the OP suggested.
Umm..fascinatingly, the OP never suggested that his way was the only way. The title doesn't even imply it. It's just his experience.
As far as volume goes, I find that it doesn't matter. At all. Energy density matters.
The "suck it up" comment wasn't necessarily directed at you, but I can see why it would seem so. Frequently, that seems to be the attitude of people who just reduce satiety down to light switch we can turn on or off.
0 -
JeffseekingV wrote: »Look at the thread title. It plainly states exercise is necessary for weight loss. Don't tell us it isn't necessary, we know this.
No, it really doesn't.....It says it matters...and it does. Seriously, can you not read? Those two things aren't equivalent. Wow.
0 -
-
JeffseekingV wrote: »JeffseekingV wrote: »In general, it's never better to exercise your way into a calorie deficit. I do on occasion do cardio for an extra 100-200 calories but since most of my workout is lifting, it's a very inefficient way to get under your calorie goal. It's much more efficient to manage your calories vs exercising more. Unless your goals require exercising. ie.. weights for mass/strength. running for cardiovascular health/endurance. HIIT for speed/explosiveness. Or sports in general for enjoyment.
You're conflating "better" with "efficient." You're 100% correct that simply not eating is a more efficient way of creating a deficit. Except...
What's being discussed here involves long-term adherence, which makes things somewhat more complex. So saying that it's generally never better to use exercise as a means of creating a deficit is an oversimplification. Instead, I'd say that it's good to be as efficient as you can (i.e. eat as little as your satiety, nutritional, and energy/performance needs will allow for, assuming a healthy goal), and then adjust the deficit through exercise if necessary. The second part of that, the exercise part, may not be necessary for everyone but that wasn't implied either.
Long term, short term, same thing. To ME, it's more efficient not to eat 200 calories than jog for 2 miles. Because I hate jogging but it's more of the more efficient calorie burning exercises.
If you want to talk long term, the exercise is essential. BUT not for losing weight. But for general health.
Besides, long term, you wouldn't want to stay at a deficit. Because in theory, one would reach their goal weight and then maintain. What happens then? No longer exercise? Doesn't make sense.
*sigh*
Did you actually read what I wrote?Instead, I'd say that it's good to be as efficient as you can (i.e. eat as little as your satiety, nutritional, and energy/performance needs will allow for, assuming a healthy goal), and then adjust the deficit through exercise if necessary. The second part of that, the exercise part, may not be necessary for everyone but that wasn't implied either.
Because that statement includes people for whom exercise may not be necessary as a means of counteracting satiety needs. If we just made statements that apply to you, I can't imagine why anyone who doesn't happen function like you would care. That's why we make statements that try to apply to as many people as possible. And saying that "exercise isn't necessary" just isn't realistic because for some people issues of adherence and satiety are going to trump energy balance every time. And that's fine. We have a way of dealing with those issues; it's called exercise.
As far as maintenance goes, you'd just evaluate it the same way as you would a deficit. Speaking only for weight loss and no other health reasons, if you can maintain your weight "comfortably" without exercise, then there would be no need to exercise from an energy balance standpoint.
that is a pretty broad statement..
there are plenty of people on MFP that just create a calorie deficit by eating less and not exercise...
why is saying that exercise isn't necessary not realistic? If you can create a calorie deficit without exercise,, then exercise is not necessary...
And my statement includes those people who don't need exercise.
Saying that exercise isn't necessary isn't realistic for some people because it doesn't fit their eating behavior and hunger issues. Sometimes hunger issues are just a matter of volume and density of food, and sometimes it really just a matter of having a minimum amount of energy coming in. Frequently it seems to be a combination of a lot of things. It would be nice if telling everyone that all they need to do is eat less, but that doesn't work very well frequently. We could respond with some variation of "Oh well. It's your fault just eat less" and watch them fail some more or we could do something helpful..like work within their personal constraints to find an individualized solution.
It always comes down to eat less. If you exercise and still eat over maintenance then you are going to gain. You can't out train a bad diet.
By your example of satiety and hunger, someone could exercise, still be hungry, and overeat. So at the end of the day it comes don to getting ones diet under control.
so calorie deficit trumps exercise...
We should quantify, eat less = eat less calories. One could eat more (volume) and still eat less calories.0 -
JeffseekingV wrote: »JeffseekingV wrote: »In general, it's never better to exercise your way into a calorie deficit. I do on occasion do cardio for an extra 100-200 calories but since most of my workout is lifting, it's a very inefficient way to get under your calorie goal. It's much more efficient to manage your calories vs exercising more. Unless your goals require exercising. ie.. weights for mass/strength. running for cardiovascular health/endurance. HIIT for speed/explosiveness. Or sports in general for enjoyment.
You're conflating "better" with "efficient." You're 100% correct that simply not eating is a more efficient way of creating a deficit. Except...
What's being discussed here involves long-term adherence, which makes things somewhat more complex. So saying that it's generally never better to use exercise as a means of creating a deficit is an oversimplification. Instead, I'd say that it's good to be as efficient as you can (i.e. eat as little as your satiety, nutritional, and energy/performance needs will allow for, assuming a healthy goal), and then adjust the deficit through exercise if necessary. The second part of that, the exercise part, may not be necessary for everyone but that wasn't implied either.
Long term, short term, same thing. To ME, it's more efficient not to eat 200 calories than jog for 2 miles. Because I hate jogging but it's more of the more efficient calorie burning exercises.
If you want to talk long term, the exercise is essential. BUT not for losing weight. But for general health.
Besides, long term, you wouldn't want to stay at a deficit. Because in theory, one would reach their goal weight and then maintain. What happens then? No longer exercise? Doesn't make sense.
*sigh*
Did you actually read what I wrote?Instead, I'd say that it's good to be as efficient as you can (i.e. eat as little as your satiety, nutritional, and energy/performance needs will allow for, assuming a healthy goal), and then adjust the deficit through exercise if necessary. The second part of that, the exercise part, may not be necessary for everyone but that wasn't implied either.
Because that statement includes people for whom exercise may not be necessary as a means of counteracting satiety needs. If we just made statements that apply to you, I can't imagine why anyone who doesn't happen function like you would care. That's why we make statements that try to apply to as many people as possible. And saying that "exercise isn't necessary" just isn't realistic because for some people issues of adherence and satiety are going to trump energy balance every time. And that's fine. We have a way of dealing with those issues; it's called exercise.
As far as maintenance goes, you'd just evaluate it the same way as you would a deficit. Speaking only for weight loss and no other health reasons, if you can maintain your weight "comfortably" without exercise, then there would be no need to exercise from an energy balance standpoint.
that is a pretty broad statement..
there are plenty of people on MFP that just create a calorie deficit by eating less and not exercise...
why is saying that exercise isn't necessary not realistic? If you can create a calorie deficit without exercise,, then exercise is not necessary...
And my statement includes those people who don't need exercise.
Saying that exercise isn't necessary isn't realistic for some people because it doesn't fit their eating behavior and hunger issues. Sometimes hunger issues are just a matter of volume and density of food, and sometimes it really just a matter of having a minimum amount of energy coming in. Frequently it seems to be a combination of a lot of things. It would be nice if telling everyone that all they need to do is eat less, but that doesn't work very well frequently. We could respond with some variation of "Oh well. It's your fault just eat less" and watch them fail some more or we could do something helpful..like work within their personal constraints to find an individualized solution.
It always comes down to eat less. If you exercise and still eat over maintenance then you are going to gain. You can't out train a bad diet.
By your example of satiety and hunger, someone could exercise, still be hungry, and overeat. So at the end of the day it comes don to getting ones diet under control.
so calorie deficit trumps exercise...
It's not either/or. In the energy balance equation, we move multiple variables (calories In and Out) to achieve whatever goal given the constraints I point out (satiety, nutritional needs, and energy needs for performance). Maybe I prefer just eating less, maybe I prefer doing more cardio because I like eating more than I like avoiding cardio. Could go either way.
I'm not suggesting we out train a bad diet. I'm suggesting that some people add training to a realistic diet to achieve their goals in a way that will work for them. For some people that requires exercise due to their specific eating behaviors and preferences. The extreme case you point out, out training a bad diet, isn't what I'm talking about.0 -
JeffseekingV wrote: »I never said "suck it up and eat less" Why would you come to that conclusion when I just suggesting eating MORE volume but less calories. It's actually eating MORE.
I do have issues. Or I wouldn't be here right? There are many ways of skinning a cat. Not just the way the OP suggested.
Umm..fascinatingly, the OP never suggested that his way was the only way. The title doesn't even imply it. It's just his experience.
As far as volume goes, I find that it doesn't matter. At all. Energy density matters.
The "suck it up" comment wasn't necessarily directed at you, but I can see why it would seem so. Frequently, that seems to be the attitude of people who just reduce satiety down to light switch we can turn on or off.
If you need XX amount of energy calories, you have choices. One confined in a very small package or one confined in a much larger package.
You never defined satiety. If feel full, I'll tend to be satiated. If you lack the self control to manage your calories then sure, you either gain weight or have to burn calories somehow.0 -
JeffseekingV wrote: »JeffseekingV wrote: »I never said "suck it up and eat less" Why would you come to that conclusion when I just suggesting eating MORE volume but less calories. It's actually eating MORE.
I do have issues. Or I wouldn't be here right? There are many ways of skinning a cat. Not just the way the OP suggested.
Umm..fascinatingly, the OP never suggested that his way was the only way. The title doesn't even imply it. It's just his experience.
As far as volume goes, I find that it doesn't matter. At all. Energy density matters.
The "suck it up" comment wasn't necessarily directed at you, but I can see why it would seem so. Frequently, that seems to be the attitude of people who just reduce satiety down to light switch we can turn on or off.
If you need XX amount of energy calories, you have choices. One confined in a very small package or one confined in a much larger package.
You never defined satiety. If feel full, I'll tend to be satiated. If you lack the self control to manage your calories then sure, you either gain weight or have to burn calories somehow.
And that right there is the problem. You casually throw that out as if people should just put some more quarters in the self-control slot in their heads. Sometimes it's a combination of knowing what our limits are an working around them. And there's no shame in that. At all.
0 -
JeffseekingV wrote: »JeffseekingV wrote: »In general, it's never better to exercise your way into a calorie deficit. I do on occasion do cardio for an extra 100-200 calories but since most of my workout is lifting, it's a very inefficient way to get under your calorie goal. It's much more efficient to manage your calories vs exercising more. Unless your goals require exercising. ie.. weights for mass/strength. running for cardiovascular health/endurance. HIIT for speed/explosiveness. Or sports in general for enjoyment.
You're conflating "better" with "efficient." You're 100% correct that simply not eating is a more efficient way of creating a deficit. Except...
What's being discussed here involves long-term adherence, which makes things somewhat more complex. So saying that it's generally never better to use exercise as a means of creating a deficit is an oversimplification. Instead, I'd say that it's good to be as efficient as you can (i.e. eat as little as your satiety, nutritional, and energy/performance needs will allow for, assuming a healthy goal), and then adjust the deficit through exercise if necessary. The second part of that, the exercise part, may not be necessary for everyone but that wasn't implied either.
Long term, short term, same thing. To ME, it's more efficient not to eat 200 calories than jog for 2 miles. Because I hate jogging but it's more of the more efficient calorie burning exercises.
If you want to talk long term, the exercise is essential. BUT not for losing weight. But for general health.
Besides, long term, you wouldn't want to stay at a deficit. Because in theory, one would reach their goal weight and then maintain. What happens then? No longer exercise? Doesn't make sense.
*sigh*
Did you actually read what I wrote?Instead, I'd say that it's good to be as efficient as you can (i.e. eat as little as your satiety, nutritional, and energy/performance needs will allow for, assuming a healthy goal), and then adjust the deficit through exercise if necessary. The second part of that, the exercise part, may not be necessary for everyone but that wasn't implied either.
Because that statement includes people for whom exercise may not be necessary as a means of counteracting satiety needs. If we just made statements that apply to you, I can't imagine why anyone who doesn't happen function like you would care. That's why we make statements that try to apply to as many people as possible. And saying that "exercise isn't necessary" just isn't realistic because for some people issues of adherence and satiety are going to trump energy balance every time. And that's fine. We have a way of dealing with those issues; it's called exercise.
As far as maintenance goes, you'd just evaluate it the same way as you would a deficit. Speaking only for weight loss and no other health reasons, if you can maintain your weight "comfortably" without exercise, then there would be no need to exercise from an energy balance standpoint.
that is a pretty broad statement..
there are plenty of people on MFP that just create a calorie deficit by eating less and not exercise...
why is saying that exercise isn't necessary not realistic? If you can create a calorie deficit without exercise,, then exercise is not necessary...
And my statement includes those people who don't need exercise.
Saying that exercise isn't necessary isn't realistic for some people because it doesn't fit their eating behavior and hunger issues. Sometimes hunger issues are just a matter of volume and density of food, and sometimes it really just a matter of having a minimum amount of energy coming in. Frequently it seems to be a combination of a lot of things. It would be nice if telling everyone that all they need to do is eat less, but that doesn't work very well frequently. We could respond with some variation of "Oh well. It's your fault just eat less" and watch them fail some more or we could do something helpful..like work within their personal constraints to find an individualized solution.
It always comes down to eat less. If you exercise and still eat over maintenance then you are going to gain. You can't out train a bad diet.
By your example of satiety and hunger, someone could exercise, still be hungry, and overeat. So at the end of the day it comes don to getting ones diet under control.
so calorie deficit trumps exercise...
It's not either/or. In the energy balance equation, we move multiple variables (calories In and Out) to achieve whatever goal given the constraints I point out (satiety, nutritional needs, and energy needs for performance). Maybe I prefer just eating less, maybe I prefer doing more cardio because I like eating more than I like avoiding cardio. Could go either way.
I'm not suggesting we out train a bad diet. I'm suggesting that some people add training to a realistic diet to achieve their goals in a way that will work for them. For some people that requires exercise due to their specific eating behaviors and preferences. The extreme case you point out, out training a bad diet, isn't what I'm talking about.
I never said you were suggesting you out train a bad diet; however, you are the one that brought satiety into the argument and said that people that can't control it will need exercise...
I am simply making the point that if they cannot control their appetite then what happens when they exercise and over eat, they gain weight.
so back to my original point...exercise is not necessary for weight loss, period.
All you need is a calorie deficit.
You can twist and turn all you want, but that is the essential fact.0 -
Activity level is part of calorie deficit.
The truth is that most of the time people get themselves into trouble by trying to lose weight through exercise, because they think doing so means they don't need to watch their diet carefully.
But IF you are watching your diet carefully, increasing your activity is a great component to focus on as it will increase the calorie deficit (if you hold your calories constant), it can help with insulin if that's an issue, can reduce stress eating, and if you do raise your calories (ideally less than the additional burn) then you will be getting more nutrition and be able to have a more flexible eating pattern.
0 -
JeffseekingV wrote: »JeffseekingV wrote: »I never said "suck it up and eat less" Why would you come to that conclusion when I just suggesting eating MORE volume but less calories. It's actually eating MORE.
I do have issues. Or I wouldn't be here right? There are many ways of skinning a cat. Not just the way the OP suggested.
Umm..fascinatingly, the OP never suggested that his way was the only way. The title doesn't even imply it. It's just his experience.
As far as volume goes, I find that it doesn't matter. At all. Energy density matters.
The "suck it up" comment wasn't necessarily directed at you, but I can see why it would seem so. Frequently, that seems to be the attitude of people who just reduce satiety down to light switch we can turn on or off.
If you need XX amount of energy calories, you have choices. One confined in a very small package or one confined in a much larger package.
You never defined satiety. If feel full, I'll tend to be satiated. If you lack the self control to manage your calories then sure, you either gain weight or have to burn calories somehow.
And that right there is the problem. You casually throw that out as if people should just put some more quarters in the self-control slot in their heads. Sometimes it's a combination of knowing what our limits are an working around them. And there's no shame in that. At all.
What's the difference in the issues of self control in between not eating and having to gut it out and burn more calories?0 -
JeffseekingV wrote: »JeffseekingV wrote: »In general, it's never better to exercise your way into a calorie deficit. I do on occasion do cardio for an extra 100-200 calories but since most of my workout is lifting, it's a very inefficient way to get under your calorie goal. It's much more efficient to manage your calories vs exercising more. Unless your goals require exercising. ie.. weights for mass/strength. running for cardiovascular health/endurance. HIIT for speed/explosiveness. Or sports in general for enjoyment.
You're conflating "better" with "efficient." You're 100% correct that simply not eating is a more efficient way of creating a deficit. Except...
What's being discussed here involves long-term adherence, which makes things somewhat more complex. So saying that it's generally never better to use exercise as a means of creating a deficit is an oversimplification. Instead, I'd say that it's good to be as efficient as you can (i.e. eat as little as your satiety, nutritional, and energy/performance needs will allow for, assuming a healthy goal), and then adjust the deficit through exercise if necessary. The second part of that, the exercise part, may not be necessary for everyone but that wasn't implied either.
Long term, short term, same thing. To ME, it's more efficient not to eat 200 calories than jog for 2 miles. Because I hate jogging but it's more of the more efficient calorie burning exercises.
If you want to talk long term, the exercise is essential. BUT not for losing weight. But for general health.
Besides, long term, you wouldn't want to stay at a deficit. Because in theory, one would reach their goal weight and then maintain. What happens then? No longer exercise? Doesn't make sense.
*sigh*
Did you actually read what I wrote?Instead, I'd say that it's good to be as efficient as you can (i.e. eat as little as your satiety, nutritional, and energy/performance needs will allow for, assuming a healthy goal), and then adjust the deficit through exercise if necessary. The second part of that, the exercise part, may not be necessary for everyone but that wasn't implied either.
Because that statement includes people for whom exercise may not be necessary as a means of counteracting satiety needs. If we just made statements that apply to you, I can't imagine why anyone who doesn't happen function like you would care. That's why we make statements that try to apply to as many people as possible. And saying that "exercise isn't necessary" just isn't realistic because for some people issues of adherence and satiety are going to trump energy balance every time. And that's fine. We have a way of dealing with those issues; it's called exercise.
As far as maintenance goes, you'd just evaluate it the same way as you would a deficit. Speaking only for weight loss and no other health reasons, if you can maintain your weight "comfortably" without exercise, then there would be no need to exercise from an energy balance standpoint.
that is a pretty broad statement..
there are plenty of people on MFP that just create a calorie deficit by eating less and not exercise...
why is saying that exercise isn't necessary not realistic? If you can create a calorie deficit without exercise,, then exercise is not necessary...
And my statement includes those people who don't need exercise.
Saying that exercise isn't necessary isn't realistic for some people because it doesn't fit their eating behavior and hunger issues. Sometimes hunger issues are just a matter of volume and density of food, and sometimes it really just a matter of having a minimum amount of energy coming in. Frequently it seems to be a combination of a lot of things. It would be nice if telling everyone that all they need to do is eat less, but that doesn't work very well frequently. We could respond with some variation of "Oh well. It's your fault just eat less" and watch them fail some more or we could do something helpful..like work within their personal constraints to find an individualized solution.
It always comes down to eat less. If you exercise and still eat over maintenance then you are going to gain. You can't out train a bad diet.
By your example of satiety and hunger, someone could exercise, still be hungry, and overeat. So at the end of the day it comes don to getting ones diet under control.
so calorie deficit trumps exercise...
It's not either/or. In the energy balance equation, we move multiple variables (calories In and Out) to achieve whatever goal given the constraints I point out (satiety, nutritional needs, and energy needs for performance). Maybe I prefer just eating less, maybe I prefer doing more cardio because I like eating more than I like avoiding cardio. Could go either way.
I'm not suggesting we out train a bad diet. I'm suggesting that some people add training to a realistic diet to achieve their goals in a way that will work for them. For some people that requires exercise due to their specific eating behaviors and preferences. The extreme case you point out, out training a bad diet, isn't what I'm talking about.
I never said you were suggesting you out train a bad diet; however, you are the one that brought satiety into the argument and said that people that can't control it will need exercise...
I am simply making the point that if they cannot control their appetite then what happens when they exercise and over eat, they gain weight.
so back to my original point...exercise is not necessary for weight loss, period.
All you need is a calorie deficit.
You can twist and turn all you want, but that is the essential fact.
I'm not twisting anything. And you did kind of say that I was suggesting that we out train a poor diet. Not sure how else I'm supposed to interpret your post otherwise.
When you say exercise isn't necessary, the usefulness of that statement varies from person to person. It's a fun soundbite, I get it. It looks good on a meme.
Naturally we agree that a caloric deficit is what's needed : ) But people should feel free to determine the best way to achieve that deficit for themselves. And for some people that means that increasing activity level to some degree is the most realistic option in combination with moderating intake.
0 -
JeffseekingV wrote: »Look at the thread title. It plainly states exercise is necessary for weight loss. Don't tell us it isn't necessary, we know this.
No, it really doesn't.....It says it matters...and it does. Seriously, can you not read? Those two things aren't equivalent. Wow.
So what if it says "matters"? It's the same point. It neither matters or is necessary.0 -
JeffseekingV wrote: »What's the difference in the issues of self control in between not eating and having to gut it out and burn more calories?
Just the nature of NOT doing something versus DOING something is quite different.
It's also what works for the individual. It doesn't require much self-control for me to exercise because I LOVE to dance so can easily do so for hours a time. I also enjoy weight lifting, although that is a bit harder for me to get the momentum to go do. However, nothing compared to sticking with a lower calorie amount. But that's me.
0 -
JeffseekingV wrote: »JeffseekingV wrote: »Look at the thread title. It plainly states exercise is necessary for weight loss. Don't tell us it isn't necessary, we know this.
No, it really doesn't.....It says it matters...and it does. Seriously, can you not read? Those two things aren't equivalent. Wow.
So what if it says "matters"? It's the same point. It neither matters or is necessary.
First, the two words "matters" and "necessary" aren't the same in this or any other context. Second, exercise does matter. Whether or not you exercise is a factor in determining your energy out. Activity level matters and should not be ignored. It's a true statement and does not conflict with the content of his post.
If you're assuming that the title is actually saying that exercise is required for weight loss, then you're inferring too much.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.3K 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
- 424 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