Yes, Virginia, Exercise Matters for Weight Loss
Replies
-
JeffseekingV wrote: »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?
To you, I'm guessing nothing. It's a matter of personal preference, and that's a big deal when we're talking about changing someone's behavior.
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.
Exercise is not necessary for weight loss, because you can lose weight on a calorie deficit.
that is my point.
Exercise is an added benefit for increased burns, body recomp, and general health and fitness; however, it not necessary. Beneficial, yes; necessary, no.
0 -
girlviernes wrote: »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.
NOT eating is a form of self control. HAVING to exercise in order to get into a calorie deficit is a form of self control. Is that cookie worth the cardio? That is the self control question0 -
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.
I'm saying exercise does NOT have to matter for weight loss. Nor is it NECESSARY. Just depends how you manage your calories. Whether your calorie deficit is less calories via exercising or not.0 -
JeffseekingV wrote: »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?
To you, I'm guessing nothing. It's a matter of personal preference, and that's a big deal when we're talking about changing someone's behavior.
Both are variations of self control. Not to me but pretty much to everyone. Both are behavior related.0 -
I can totally relate to this. Activity is a huge part of success for me because...well food. I can't create a good enough deficit with my eating alone because I have a less-than-ideal relationship with food. But with activity, I can eat to a comfortable amount, lessen my chances of a binge, and still lose weight. Although admittedly, it is slower but that's ok.
Thanks for posting. It's nice to see someone experiencing the same thing.0 -
I've found the same. The only way I can get the calorie deficit I need to lose weight is by doing exercise. If I don't do that, I get hungry, and end up binging. I know there are people out there for whom this is not the case, however.0
-
JeffseekingV wrote: »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.
I'm saying exercise does NOT have to matter for weight loss. Nor is it NECESSARY. Just depends how you manage your calories. Whether your calorie deficit is less calories via exercising or not.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but that isn't your call to make for anyone who isn't you. Everyone changes their lives in a different way and from a difference perspective. Your generalities don't work for everyone, hence they are not general enough.
0 -
JeffseekingV wrote: »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.
I'm saying exercise does NOT have to matter for weight loss. Nor is it NECESSARY. Just depends how you manage your calories. Whether your calorie deficit is less calories via exercising or not.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but that isn't your call to make for anyone who isn't you. Everyone changes their lives in a different way and from a difference perspective. Your generalities don't work for everyone, hence they are not general enough.
Nor does a title like "exercise MATTERS for weight loss" Nothing like starting out with a generality to get things going right? It's not HIS call either. So what is your point?
I actually ACCOUNTED for both situations. Calorie deficits can be dealt with TWO ways, not just one. In one situation exercise DOESN'T MATTER. In the other, it DOES MATTER. You mean to tell me that wouldn't work for everyone?0 -
herrspoons wrote: »I can lose weight without exercise. It's much easier with exercise though, plus I won't be a skinny manlet when I'm done.
This.
But I'm not at all sure I could remain motivated to do it without exercise, especially at the calories I'd need. I might be able to--I am not interested in testing it--but for me exercise and fitness goals both make the diet side easier (more food) and give me more reason to care.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.
Exercise is not necessary for weight loss, because you can lose weight on a calorie deficit.
that is my point.
Exercise is an added benefit for increased burns, body recomp, and general health and fitness; however, it not necessary. Beneficial, yes; necessary, no.
And my point is that you seem to believe that your point (that managing weight loss strictly through altering intake) is some sort of axiomatic, universal Truth that will work for everyone. It should work for everyone. Physics is what it is. But if just repeating that all we need is a reduction in caloric intake (eat less), then weight loss wouldn't be the problem that it is.
I should also point out that a caloric deficit requires neither exercise nor limiting intake necessarily. You could achieve a deficit through no exercise or only exercise. The same is true for limiting intake. To be honest, I wouldn't suggest either as a starting point for most people. As I've said, eating less is certainly vastly more efficient if we're just looking at numbers, but finding strategies around behavior is more important than an oversimplified view of a system.
0 -
JeffseekingV wrote: »JeffseekingV wrote: »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.
I'm saying exercise does NOT have to matter for weight loss. Nor is it NECESSARY. Just depends how you manage your calories. Whether your calorie deficit is less calories via exercising or not.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but that isn't your call to make for anyone who isn't you. Everyone changes their lives in a different way and from a difference perspective. Your generalities don't work for everyone, hence they are not general enough.
Nor does a title like "exercise MATTERS for weight loss" Nothing like starting out with a generality to get things going right? It's not HIS call either. So what is your point?
I actually ACCOUNTED for both situations. Calorie deficits can be dealt with TWO ways, not just one. In one situation exercise DOESN'T MATTER. In the other, it DOES MATTER. You mean to tell me that wouldn't work for everyone?
As I've said, exercise matters. That could mean a lack of exercise or an abundance. It sounds like you're just being intentionally obtuse at this point with regard to semantics. Words matter.
Exercise always matters. In every situation it's something that needs to be accounted for. It may not be preferable or necessary for all situations.
0 -
JeffseekingV wrote: »JeffseekingV wrote: »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.
I'm saying exercise does NOT have to matter for weight loss. Nor is it NECESSARY. Just depends how you manage your calories. Whether your calorie deficit is less calories via exercising or not.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but that isn't your call to make for anyone who isn't you. Everyone changes their lives in a different way and from a difference perspective. Your generalities don't work for everyone, hence they are not general enough.
Nor does a title like "exercise MATTERS for weight loss" Nothing like starting out with a generality to get things going right? It's not HIS call either. So what is your point?
I actually ACCOUNTED for both situations. Calorie deficits can be dealt with TWO ways, not just one. In one situation exercise DOESN'T MATTER. In the other, it DOES MATTER. You mean to tell me that wouldn't work for everyone?
As I've said, exercise matters. That could mean a lack of exercise or an abundance. It sounds like you're just being intentionally obtuse at this point with regard to semantics. Words matter.
Exercise always matters. In every situation it's something that needs to be accounted for. It may not be preferable or necessary for all situations.
When he says "exercise matters" he CLEARLY means PEFORMING exercise matters as it pertains to the calories it burns. Please don't try to twist his meaning in order to have a debate.0 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »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.
Agree with that. I also heard an awesome description of the difference between diet and exercise for weight / fat loss:
"Diet makes you look good in clothes, exercise makes you look good naked"
0 -
JeffseekingV wrote: »JeffseekingV wrote: »JeffseekingV wrote: »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.
I'm saying exercise does NOT have to matter for weight loss. Nor is it NECESSARY. Just depends how you manage your calories. Whether your calorie deficit is less calories via exercising or not.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but that isn't your call to make for anyone who isn't you. Everyone changes their lives in a different way and from a difference perspective. Your generalities don't work for everyone, hence they are not general enough.
Nor does a title like "exercise MATTERS for weight loss" Nothing like starting out with a generality to get things going right? It's not HIS call either. So what is your point?
I actually ACCOUNTED for both situations. Calorie deficits can be dealt with TWO ways, not just one. In one situation exercise DOESN'T MATTER. In the other, it DOES MATTER. You mean to tell me that wouldn't work for everyone?
As I've said, exercise matters. That could mean a lack of exercise or an abundance. It sounds like you're just being intentionally obtuse at this point with regard to semantics. Words matter.
Exercise always matters. In every situation it's something that needs to be accounted for. It may not be preferable or necessary for all situations.
When he says "exercise matters" he CLEARLY means PEFORMING exercise matters as it pertains to the calories it burns. Please don't try to twist his meaning in order to have a debate.
...
I'm not twisting anything. You seem to think that the title either states or directly implies that increasing activity level (performing exercise) is necessary for weight loss. The title neither states nor implies that.
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.
Exercise is not necessary for weight loss, because you can lose weight on a calorie deficit.
that is my point.
Exercise is an added benefit for increased burns, body recomp, and general health and fitness; however, it not necessary. Beneficial, yes; necessary, no.
And my point is that you seem to believe that your point (that managing weight loss strictly through altering intake) is some sort of axiomatic, universal Truth that will work for everyone. It should work for everyone. Physics is what it is. But if just repeating that all we need is a reduction in caloric intake (eat less), then weight loss wouldn't be the problem that it is.
I should also point out that a caloric deficit requires neither exercise nor limiting intake necessarily. You could achieve a deficit through no exercise or only exercise. The same is true for limiting intake. To be honest, I wouldn't suggest either as a starting point for most people. As I've said, eating less is certainly vastly more efficient if we're just looking at numbers, but finding strategies around behavior is more important than an oversimplified view of a system.
so your saying calorie deficit does not work for everyone?
or am I not understanding the bolded part...0 -
JeffseekingV wrote: »JeffseekingV wrote: »JeffseekingV wrote: »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.
I'm saying exercise does NOT have to matter for weight loss. Nor is it NECESSARY. Just depends how you manage your calories. Whether your calorie deficit is less calories via exercising or not.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but that isn't your call to make for anyone who isn't you. Everyone changes their lives in a different way and from a difference perspective. Your generalities don't work for everyone, hence they are not general enough.
Nor does a title like "exercise MATTERS for weight loss" Nothing like starting out with a generality to get things going right? It's not HIS call either. So what is your point?
I actually ACCOUNTED for both situations. Calorie deficits can be dealt with TWO ways, not just one. In one situation exercise DOESN'T MATTER. In the other, it DOES MATTER. You mean to tell me that wouldn't work for everyone?
As I've said, exercise matters. That could mean a lack of exercise or an abundance. It sounds like you're just being intentionally obtuse at this point with regard to semantics. Words matter.
Exercise always matters. In every situation it's something that needs to be accounted for. It may not be preferable or necessary for all situations.
When he says "exercise matters" he CLEARLY means PEFORMING exercise matters as it pertains to the calories it burns. Please don't try to twist his meaning in order to have a debate.
...
I'm not twisting anything. You seem to think that the title either states or directly implies that increasing activity level (performing exercise) is necessary for weight loss. The title neither states nor implies that.
It clearly does. Why? Because the title exactly says so. There's no implication needed. the body of the post verifies it.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.
Exercise is not necessary for weight loss, because you can lose weight on a calorie deficit.
that is my point.
Exercise is an added benefit for increased burns, body recomp, and general health and fitness; however, it not necessary. Beneficial, yes; necessary, no.
And my point is that you seem to believe that your point (that managing weight loss strictly through altering intake) is some sort of axiomatic, universal Truth that will work for everyone. It should work for everyone. Physics is what it is. But if just repeating that all we need is a reduction in caloric intake (eat less), then weight loss wouldn't be the problem that it is.
I should also point out that a caloric deficit requires neither exercise nor limiting intake necessarily. You could achieve a deficit through no exercise or only exercise. The same is true for limiting intake. To be honest, I wouldn't suggest either as a starting point for most people. As I've said, eating less is certainly vastly more efficient if we're just looking at numbers, but finding strategies around behavior is more important than an oversimplified view of a system.
so your saying calorie deficit does not work for everyone?
or am I not understanding the bolded part...
I may be over-interpreting here but it reads to me like 'we tell people all the time that losing weight is just a matter of eating less. Communicating that is easy, people actually doing it is difficult. ' i.e. easier said than done 0 -
Acceptance and Commitment Therapy
Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT) gets it name from one of its core messages: accept what is out of your personal control, and commit to action that improves and enriches your life.
example:
My body type, PCOS, whatever...menapause...is out of my control. I will commit to exercise, that will improve and enrich my life. One of the basis of ACT therapy, is to accept that some things in life are unpleasant. For some of us, exercise is one of those things. You tell yourself, "This will help me meet my goal, it is only 55 minutes of my day, I can stand it". Accept it, do it, move on..fighting it does not change anything. Not liking exercise, fine, get over it.0 -
mumblemagic wrote: »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.
Exercise is not necessary for weight loss, because you can lose weight on a calorie deficit.
that is my point.
Exercise is an added benefit for increased burns, body recomp, and general health and fitness; however, it not necessary. Beneficial, yes; necessary, no.
And my point is that you seem to believe that your point (that managing weight loss strictly through altering intake) is some sort of axiomatic, universal Truth that will work for everyone. It should work for everyone. Physics is what it is. But if just repeating that all we need is a reduction in caloric intake (eat less), then weight loss wouldn't be the problem that it is.
I should also point out that a caloric deficit requires neither exercise nor limiting intake necessarily. You could achieve a deficit through no exercise or only exercise. The same is true for limiting intake. To be honest, I wouldn't suggest either as a starting point for most people. As I've said, eating less is certainly vastly more efficient if we're just looking at numbers, but finding strategies around behavior is more important than an oversimplified view of a system.
so your saying calorie deficit does not work for everyone?
or am I not understanding the bolded part...
I may be over-interpreting here but it reads to me like 'we tell people all the time that losing weight is just a matter of eating less. Communicating that is easy, people actually doing it is difficult. ' i.e. easier said than done
He is saying calorie deficit works. Whether you eat less calories or you eat more and exercise more to account for it.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.
Exercise is not necessary for weight loss, because you can lose weight on a calorie deficit.
that is my point.
Exercise is an added benefit for increased burns, body recomp, and general health and fitness; however, it not necessary. Beneficial, yes; necessary, no.
And my point is that you seem to believe that your point (that managing weight loss strictly through altering intake) is some sort of axiomatic, universal Truth that will work for everyone. It should work for everyone. Physics is what it is. But if just repeating that all we need is a reduction in caloric intake (eat less), then weight loss wouldn't be the problem that it is.
I should also point out that a caloric deficit requires neither exercise nor limiting intake necessarily. You could achieve a deficit through no exercise or only exercise. The same is true for limiting intake. To be honest, I wouldn't suggest either as a starting point for most people. As I've said, eating less is certainly vastly more efficient if we're just looking at numbers, but finding strategies around behavior is more important than an oversimplified view of a system.
so your saying calorie deficit does not work for everyone?
or am I not understanding the bolded part...
Certainly not. I would say that caloric deficit is required to lose weight. In fact, I find it kind of irritating when people say that they're eating at a deficit but not losing weight. Clearly, if a deficit was happening, there would be a reduction in weight. There could be multiple reasons why the deficit isn't happening, but that's digression.
I'm saying that just eating less may not be an effective way for everyone change their lives in a way that produce a deficit and thus weight loss. The reality of the situation, outside of napkin math, is that they more successful long term by adding exercise than not. And that we should use that a means of determining what's really necessary for weight loss. I'm desperately trying to avoid the term "lifestyle change" because it seems cliche at this point, but it is apt.
I'm also suggesting that we don't treat the terms "caloric deficit" and "eating less" as the same concept because they're not.
0 -
Effectively eating less can be handled two ways. Eating less calories or eating more calories and exercising to account for that. Either way works. It does not "matter" which way you do it.
/thread0 -
JeffseekingV wrote: »JeffseekingV wrote: »JeffseekingV wrote: »JeffseekingV wrote: »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.
I'm saying exercise does NOT have to matter for weight loss. Nor is it NECESSARY. Just depends how you manage your calories. Whether your calorie deficit is less calories via exercising or not.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but that isn't your call to make for anyone who isn't you. Everyone changes their lives in a different way and from a difference perspective. Your generalities don't work for everyone, hence they are not general enough.
Nor does a title like "exercise MATTERS for weight loss" Nothing like starting out with a generality to get things going right? It's not HIS call either. So what is your point?
I actually ACCOUNTED for both situations. Calorie deficits can be dealt with TWO ways, not just one. In one situation exercise DOESN'T MATTER. In the other, it DOES MATTER. You mean to tell me that wouldn't work for everyone?
As I've said, exercise matters. That could mean a lack of exercise or an abundance. It sounds like you're just being intentionally obtuse at this point with regard to semantics. Words matter.
Exercise always matters. In every situation it's something that needs to be accounted for. It may not be preferable or necessary for all situations.
When he says "exercise matters" he CLEARLY means PEFORMING exercise matters as it pertains to the calories it burns. Please don't try to twist his meaning in order to have a debate.
...
I'm not twisting anything. You seem to think that the title either states or directly implies that increasing activity level (performing exercise) is necessary for weight loss. The title neither states nor implies that.
It clearly does. Why? Because the title exactly says so. There's no implication needed. the body of the post verifies it.
"Hey look kids, there's big ben, and there's parliament" -Kudos if you catch the reference.
The title doesn't say that because the words "matters" and "required" or "necessary" don't mean the same thing. The content of the article is specific to the poster himself; he states so. I can't really speak to the author's intent, but it seems clear that the use of the word "matters" instead of "required" in the title becomes essential then...or else you'd have a legit point about him stating that exercise is required for everyone. But that's not what's happening.
0 -
JeffseekingV wrote: »JeffseekingV wrote: »JeffseekingV wrote: »JeffseekingV wrote: »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.
I'm saying exercise does NOT have to matter for weight loss. Nor is it NECESSARY. Just depends how you manage your calories. Whether your calorie deficit is less calories via exercising or not.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but that isn't your call to make for anyone who isn't you. Everyone changes their lives in a different way and from a difference perspective. Your generalities don't work for everyone, hence they are not general enough.
Nor does a title like "exercise MATTERS for weight loss" Nothing like starting out with a generality to get things going right? It's not HIS call either. So what is your point?
I actually ACCOUNTED for both situations. Calorie deficits can be dealt with TWO ways, not just one. In one situation exercise DOESN'T MATTER. In the other, it DOES MATTER. You mean to tell me that wouldn't work for everyone?
As I've said, exercise matters. That could mean a lack of exercise or an abundance. It sounds like you're just being intentionally obtuse at this point with regard to semantics. Words matter.
Exercise always matters. In every situation it's something that needs to be accounted for. It may not be preferable or necessary for all situations.
When he says "exercise matters" he CLEARLY means PEFORMING exercise matters as it pertains to the calories it burns. Please don't try to twist his meaning in order to have a debate.
...
I'm not twisting anything. You seem to think that the title either states or directly implies that increasing activity level (performing exercise) is necessary for weight loss. The title neither states nor implies that.
It clearly does. Why? Because the title exactly says so. There's no implication needed. the body of the post verifies it.
"Hey look kids, there's big ben, and there's parliament" -Kudos if you catch the reference.
The title doesn't say that because the words "matters" and "required" or "necessary" don't mean the same thing. The content of the article is specific to the poster himself; he states so. I can't really speak to the author's intent, but it seems clear that the use of the word "matters" instead of "required" in the title becomes essential then...or else you'd have a legit point about him stating that exercise is required for everyone. But that's not what's happening.
It matters to HIM. But the title doesn't imply is a self examination of his specific method. He's trying to extrapolate HIS example to others.
If not, then clearly the post would have made more sense in the "success" portion of this forum and not a section discussing general weight loss.
If he thought exercise DIDN'T matter, then why put "EXERCISE MATTERS" in the title?0 -
No deficit or decent exercise for me for quite sometime.
The process I made working out made me feel better and eating more is always a plus.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.
Exercise is not necessary for weight loss, because you can lose weight on a calorie deficit.
that is my point.
Exercise is an added benefit for increased burns, body recomp, and general health and fitness; however, it not necessary. Beneficial, yes; necessary, no.
And my point is that you seem to believe that your point (that managing weight loss strictly through altering intake) is some sort of axiomatic, universal Truth that will work for everyone. It should work for everyone. Physics is what it is. But if just repeating that all we need is a reduction in caloric intake (eat less), then weight loss wouldn't be the problem that it is.
I should also point out that a caloric deficit requires neither exercise nor limiting intake necessarily. You could achieve a deficit through no exercise or only exercise. The same is true for limiting intake. To be honest, I wouldn't suggest either as a starting point for most people. As I've said, eating less is certainly vastly more efficient if we're just looking at numbers, but finding strategies around behavior is more important than an oversimplified view of a system.
so your saying calorie deficit does not work for everyone?
or am I not understanding the bolded part...
Certainly not. I would say that caloric deficit is required to lose weight. In fact, I find it kind of irritating when people say that they're eating at a deficit but not losing weight. Clearly, if a deficit was happening, there would be a reduction in weight. There could be multiple reasons why the deficit isn't happening, but that's digression.
I'm saying that just eating less may not be an effective way for everyone change their lives in a way that produce a deficit and thus weight loss. The reality of the situation, outside of napkin math, is that they more successful long term by adding exercise than not. And that we should use that a means of determining what's really necessary for weight loss. I'm desperately trying to avoid the term "lifestyle change" because it seems cliche at this point, but it is apt.
I'm also suggesting that we don't treat the terms "caloric deficit" and "eating less" as the same concept because they're not.
got ya...thanks for clarifying..
I will stand by my point that exercise is beneficial but not necessary..
but I see where you are coming from ...0 -
JeffseekingV wrote: »JeffseekingV wrote: »JeffseekingV wrote: »JeffseekingV wrote: »JeffseekingV wrote: »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.
I'm saying exercise does NOT have to matter for weight loss. Nor is it NECESSARY. Just depends how you manage your calories. Whether your calorie deficit is less calories via exercising or not.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but that isn't your call to make for anyone who isn't you. Everyone changes their lives in a different way and from a difference perspective. Your generalities don't work for everyone, hence they are not general enough.
Nor does a title like "exercise MATTERS for weight loss" Nothing like starting out with a generality to get things going right? It's not HIS call either. So what is your point?
I actually ACCOUNTED for both situations. Calorie deficits can be dealt with TWO ways, not just one. In one situation exercise DOESN'T MATTER. In the other, it DOES MATTER. You mean to tell me that wouldn't work for everyone?
As I've said, exercise matters. That could mean a lack of exercise or an abundance. It sounds like you're just being intentionally obtuse at this point with regard to semantics. Words matter.
Exercise always matters. In every situation it's something that needs to be accounted for. It may not be preferable or necessary for all situations.
When he says "exercise matters" he CLEARLY means PEFORMING exercise matters as it pertains to the calories it burns. Please don't try to twist his meaning in order to have a debate.
...
I'm not twisting anything. You seem to think that the title either states or directly implies that increasing activity level (performing exercise) is necessary for weight loss. The title neither states nor implies that.
It clearly does. Why? Because the title exactly says so. There's no implication needed. the body of the post verifies it.
"Hey look kids, there's big ben, and there's parliament" -Kudos if you catch the reference.
The title doesn't say that because the words "matters" and "required" or "necessary" don't mean the same thing. The content of the article is specific to the poster himself; he states so. I can't really speak to the author's intent, but it seems clear that the use of the word "matters" instead of "required" in the title becomes essential then...or else you'd have a legit point about him stating that exercise is required for everyone. But that's not what's happening.
It matters to HIM. But the title doesn't imply is a self examination of his specific method. He's trying to extrapolate HIS example to others.
If not, then clearly the post would have made more sense in the "success" portion of this forum and not a section discussing general weight loss.
If he thought exercise DIDN'T matter, then why put "EXERCISE MATTERS" in the title?
Because exercise (its dearth or presence) does matter whether or not someone feels that it's required for their own personal success. That would be why.
If you feel that the title is somehow magically more "correct" if it read "Yes, Virginia, Exercise Matters for Weight Loss-for my personal experience" then I'd say you're just picky for no good reason. As it is, there's no conflict between the content and the title.0 -
I have a suspicion that everyone arguing in this thread actually agrees, just interpreting words slightly differently.0
-
JeffseekingV wrote: »JeffseekingV wrote: »JeffseekingV wrote: »JeffseekingV wrote: »JeffseekingV wrote: »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.
I'm saying exercise does NOT have to matter for weight loss. Nor is it NECESSARY. Just depends how you manage your calories. Whether your calorie deficit is less calories via exercising or not.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but that isn't your call to make for anyone who isn't you. Everyone changes their lives in a different way and from a difference perspective. Your generalities don't work for everyone, hence they are not general enough.
Nor does a title like "exercise MATTERS for weight loss" Nothing like starting out with a generality to get things going right? It's not HIS call either. So what is your point?
I actually ACCOUNTED for both situations. Calorie deficits can be dealt with TWO ways, not just one. In one situation exercise DOESN'T MATTER. In the other, it DOES MATTER. You mean to tell me that wouldn't work for everyone?
As I've said, exercise matters. That could mean a lack of exercise or an abundance. It sounds like you're just being intentionally obtuse at this point with regard to semantics. Words matter.
Exercise always matters. In every situation it's something that needs to be accounted for. It may not be preferable or necessary for all situations.
When he says "exercise matters" he CLEARLY means PEFORMING exercise matters as it pertains to the calories it burns. Please don't try to twist his meaning in order to have a debate.
...
I'm not twisting anything. You seem to think that the title either states or directly implies that increasing activity level (performing exercise) is necessary for weight loss. The title neither states nor implies that.
It clearly does. Why? Because the title exactly says so. There's no implication needed. the body of the post verifies it.
"Hey look kids, there's big ben, and there's parliament" -Kudos if you catch the reference.
The title doesn't say that because the words "matters" and "required" or "necessary" don't mean the same thing. The content of the article is specific to the poster himself; he states so. I can't really speak to the author's intent, but it seems clear that the use of the word "matters" instead of "required" in the title becomes essential then...or else you'd have a legit point about him stating that exercise is required for everyone. But that's not what's happening.
It matters to HIM. But the title doesn't imply is a self examination of his specific method. He's trying to extrapolate HIS example to others.
If not, then clearly the post would have made more sense in the "success" portion of this forum and not a section discussing general weight loss.
If he thought exercise DIDN'T matter, then why put "EXERCISE MATTERS" in the title?
Because exercise (its dearth or presence) does matter whether or not someone feels that it's required for their own personal success. That would be why.
If you feel that the title is somehow magically more "correct" if it read "Yes, Virginia, Exercise Matters for Weight Loss-for my personal experience" then I'd say you're just picky for no good reason. As it is, there's no conflict between the content and the title.
No. He says "exercise matters for losing weight" Which as a stand alone statement is incorrect. There is quite a bit of conflict inbetween title and fact because they are in direct conflict with each other.0 -
JeffseekingV wrote: »There are many ways of skinning a cat. Not just the way the OP suggested.
I explicitly said that.
Thanks for agreeing. :drinker:
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