Exercise doesn't help you lose weight...say what?
Replies
-
stevencloser wrote: »
25 hours per week free time left isn't that much if you also subtract things like getting groceries, household chores, cooking and eating etc.stevencloser wrote: »Here's how I look at it: I can go on a strenuous, hour-long bike ride and burn maybe 500-600 calories. Cool. I can then get home and cancel all of that out in three minutes just by eating two donuts. Or maybe I eat half a dozen and cancel out three days' worth of exercise.
That's how I interpret "you can't outrun a bad diet."
But now start cycling 3-4 hours a day during the week ... and double that on weekends. Plus other exercise as well. For example, I had to walk 2 km each time I got groceries.
Sure, you can eat half a dozen donuts one day, and you might break even ... but now you've got to do that everyday just to maintain your weight + twice that on weekends.
Personally, when I was cycling that much, I got sick of eating. It became a chore ... but every time I would slack off, I'd lose weight. I was constantly fighting to keep from being underweight. I would usually try to start a season at the high end of normal, and by the end of a season I was underweight.
In order to use the "exercise only" option of the three weightloss options ... (to recap, that's "exercise only", "diet only", or "combination of exercise and diet") ... you've really got to exercise a lot. An hour a day probably isn't going to do it. From my experience, it has to be a minimum of 90 minutes a day, 7 days a week (10.5 hours a week) ... and preferably a lot more.
I usually don't say that but... ain't nobody got time for that. Biking 3-4 hours daily during the week and up to 8 on the weekend because you don't want to eat a bit less instead?
No ... not because I didn't want to eat a bit less ..........
Because I was training for cycling events.
I wasn't overweight and I wasn't overly concerned about my weight. My only small concerns were eating enough to keep the weight on, because losing weight is a side effect of that much exercise.
And I had time for it ... while working full-time and taking night classes.
Think about it.
There are 168 hours in a week.
Subtract 50 for work = 118
Subtract 30 for exercise = 88
Subtract 58 for sleep = 30
Subtract 5 for night classes = 25 hours for ... whatever else.
Truth! That's barely more than 3.5 hours per day. That's not much, especially if you have a family.0 -
Well, I've got to say I'm pretty flabbergasted by the responses but, sadly, not really surprised. As a few have said, it IS a balance between diet and exercise if you want healthy weight loss. And you are absolutely correct in saying, if you are I a calorie deficit, you are going to lose weight, regardless of how that is achieved.
Someone pointed out - erroneously - CICO (calories in, calories out) as an argument against exercise as a necessity for losing weight. The fact is, your own argument is the best, and only, one you need.
If you are in a calories deficit, regardless how you achieve that deficit, you will lose weight. HOWEVER, if you choose to sit in a chair and do nothing and eat a minimal measure of calories, while you may lose weight, you will not be healthy. Conversely, if you eat like a horse but always exercise, burning off more calories than you consume, you may well appear more fit but, depending upon what you are putting in your mouth, you may not be.
But the concept that "weight management is all about diet" is one hundred percent incorrect.
Anytime you try to shortcut or circumvent you health, whether by over-exercising (Yes, you can) or under-eating, you are putting your health and well-being at risk. Almost everyone, I should think, is aware of the reality that a good balanced program of diet and exercise is key to good health. There is no way around it. You can try to avoid exercise and you will lose weight, but be flabby and with weak, un-toned muscle. And you can pretend that, if you don't want to exercise, it's okay just as long as you don't eat too much. But somewhere in-between, there is a median line and a concept alien to both extremes... Fitness, good health, strong mind and body require a combination of moving your body and putting good things into it!
RECAP:
You can lose weight by eating less.
You can lose weight by exercising more.
You can live right and be healthy by doing BOTH - eating less and exercising more. PERIOD. And anyone who tells you otherwise, either hasn't fully thought out the issue, or they are complete fools.1 -
bcalvanese wrote: »I have to disagree and say that fitness is just as (if not more) important than diet. I know I will be attacked for this, but I just cannot agree.
Fitness is key to weight control. If a person is at a good fitness level, they would have to literally be a glutton to become over weight. In addition, the more over weight a person is, the lower their fitness level.
Let the attacks begin...
So... Where is your like button?????0 -
lithezebra wrote: »It's the energy deficit that causes you to lose weight. In practical terms, some people find it easier to diet or exercise their way into a deficit. I'm better at doing it with both, but I'm starting to think that activity level matters even more, for me, than the time I spend exercising. I've over trained in the past, and I'm getting used to the idea that I can't just exercise more, and harder, to balance my TDEE.
Yes, all of this.
I find that exercising is important to my overall mindset and I do a lot, but I was probably burning the most per week last summer when I was just focusing on being consistently active and riding my bike to commute a lot--lots of activity that I didn't consider intentional exercise, but it make a huge difference in my TDEE and was less prone to being up and down.
I'm so confused on what people are arguing about here. It seems like many are saying the same things but perceive themselves as arguing with others saying the same things.0 -
My body does not know if I ate less calories or if I burned more calories to get the same net result.
This is NOT CORRECT. Your body DOES know HOW the calories were made deficit. Your body knows whether you achieved that deficit by exercise or by diet. The human body knows when it has burned calories through exercise. The adrenal system triggers a response to the exercise. In fact, when you exercise, your body will continue to burn calories even after you have stopped exercising - potentially for as much as up to an hour - while your body 'heals' itself after the exercise. This is how muscle is built/developed.
On the flip side, however, if you simply do not eat as much, it could conceivably cause you to GAIN weight. If the body is not getting enough calories/nourishment, it will begin to slow down its internal processes - your metabolism. Thus, making it more difficult to lose weight. As the body slows, it also begins to horde the nutrients and calories is does take in. This is a holdover from our cave man ancestors. It is a part of the feast or famine mechanism. When times are poor (less food/nutrients/calories) the body will hold onto what meager nutrients it takes in to sustain it until there is more food. Thankfully, the human body knows more than its occupant. Otherwise the species would never have survived.
Furthermore, the higher percentage of fat you have, the harder your body will have to work to get rid of it. Whereas, the higher percentage of muscle you have, the easier it will be to burn fat - i.e. calories.
So, yes, the body DOES, most assuredly, know how its calories are used.1 -
But now start cycling 3-4 hours a day during the week ... and double that on weekends. Plus other exercise as well. For example, I had to walk 2 km each time I got groceries.
Sure, you can eat half a dozen donuts one day, and you might break even ... but now you've got to do that everyday just to maintain your weight + twice that on weekends.
Personally, when I was cycling that much, I got sick of eating. It became a chore ... but every time I would slack off, I'd lose weight. I was constantly fighting to keep from being underweight. I would usually try to start a season at the high end of normal, and by the end of a season I was underweight.
In order to use the "exercise only" option of the three weightloss options ... (to recap, that's "exercise only", "diet only", or "combination of exercise and diet") ... you've really got to exercise a lot. An hour a day probably isn't going to do it. From my experience, it has to be a minimum of 90 minutes a day, 7 days a week (10.5 hours a week) ... and preferably a lot more.
That's fantastic what you're achieving, but I think my point was more in the context of a non-endurance athlete -- someone with significant weight to lose, a job, family, and most of all, someone starting out with horrible eating habits and little or no physical activity. I think you would agree that, from that perspective, emphasizing diet is probably where you want to start.
Put another way, food has a greater "effect size" on your CICO calculation.
0 -
stevencloser wrote: »
25 hours per week free time left isn't that much if you also subtract things like getting groceries, household chores, cooking and eating etc.stevencloser wrote: »Here's how I look at it: I can go on a strenuous, hour-long bike ride and burn maybe 500-600 calories. Cool. I can then get home and cancel all of that out in three minutes just by eating two donuts. Or maybe I eat half a dozen and cancel out three days' worth of exercise.
That's how I interpret "you can't outrun a bad diet."
But now start cycling 3-4 hours a day during the week ... and double that on weekends. Plus other exercise as well. For example, I had to walk 2 km each time I got groceries.
Sure, you can eat half a dozen donuts one day, and you might break even ... but now you've got to do that everyday just to maintain your weight + twice that on weekends.
Personally, when I was cycling that much, I got sick of eating. It became a chore ... but every time I would slack off, I'd lose weight. I was constantly fighting to keep from being underweight. I would usually try to start a season at the high end of normal, and by the end of a season I was underweight.
In order to use the "exercise only" option of the three weightloss options ... (to recap, that's "exercise only", "diet only", or "combination of exercise and diet") ... you've really got to exercise a lot. An hour a day probably isn't going to do it. From my experience, it has to be a minimum of 90 minutes a day, 7 days a week (10.5 hours a week) ... and preferably a lot more.
I usually don't say that but... ain't nobody got time for that. Biking 3-4 hours daily during the week and up to 8 on the weekend because you don't want to eat a bit less instead?
No ... not because I didn't want to eat a bit less ..........
Because I was training for cycling events.
I wasn't overweight and I wasn't overly concerned about my weight. My only small concerns were eating enough to keep the weight on, because losing weight is a side effect of that much exercise.
And I had time for it ... while working full-time and taking night classes.
Think about it.
There are 168 hours in a week.
Subtract 50 for work = 118
Subtract 30 for exercise = 88
Subtract 58 for sleep = 30
Subtract 5 for night classes = 25 hours for ... whatever else.
There wasn't much of that going on.
That much exercise isn't for everyone ... and in fact, it's not recommended to do that all year for years on end. You build up in the spring, go full on over the summer, and ease back in autumn. Then change sports for the winter to avoid burnout.
But nevertheless, it is possible to lose weight on the "exercise only" side of the spectrum.
And I look at the whole thing like a spectrum ...
Exercise Only ~~~~~~~~~~ Combination of Exercise and Diet ~~~~~~~~~~ Diet Only
Each of us has chosen a point on that spectrum that works for us at a certain point in time.
Right now, I'm pretty much right in the middle, but I'd like to work my way a little more toward the Exercise Only end come summer.
I think the combination is the best since it softens the downsides of both extremes. No need to exercise for hours on end every day + being able to eat more.0 -
Mostly it's diet but from the other hand exercising has way bigger impact than food on how your body will look after losing the weight (lose skin isn't pretty, tone body hell yea!)0
-
But now start cycling 3-4 hours a day during the week ... and double that on weekends. Plus other exercise as well. For example, I had to walk 2 km each time I got groceries.
Sure, you can eat half a dozen donuts one day, and you might break even ... but now you've got to do that everyday just to maintain your weight + twice that on weekends.
Personally, when I was cycling that much, I got sick of eating. It became a chore ... but every time I would slack off, I'd lose weight. I was constantly fighting to keep from being underweight. I would usually try to start a season at the high end of normal, and by the end of a season I was underweight.
In order to use the "exercise only" option of the three weightloss options ... (to recap, that's "exercise only", "diet only", or "combination of exercise and diet") ... you've really got to exercise a lot. An hour a day probably isn't going to do it. From my experience, it has to be a minimum of 90 minutes a day, 7 days a week (10.5 hours a week) ... and preferably a lot more.
That's fantastic what you're achieving, but I think my point was more in the context of a non-endurance athlete -- someone with significant weight to lose, a job, family, and most of all, someone starting out with horrible eating habits and little or no physical activity. I think you would agree that, from that perspective, emphasizing diet is probably where you want to start.
Put another way, food has a greater "effect size" on your CICO calculation.
Like I said ...I look at the whole thing like a spectrum ...
Exercise Only ~~~~~~~~~~ Combination of Exercise and Diet ~~~~~~~~~~ Diet Only
Each of us has chosen a point on that spectrum that works for us at a certain point in time.
0 -
I am sorry you had all the medical issues, and congratulations on overcoming them. You gained weight because you took in too many calories. Had you eaten less, you would not have gained. It's science. You did not have to exercise to lose weight.bcalvanese wrote: »bcalvanese wrote: »It's amazing to see how many people think exercise is not that important. I don't know one person (not athletes or body builders) who is at a good fitness level that has any kind of weight control issue.
And this is a "MyFitnessPal" forum, not "MyCaloriePal"...
I have been using exercise as my primary method of losing the weight because lack of exercise over decades is what made me gain all the weight. Sure I watch what I eat more, and have learned a little more about nutrition. I have always liked vegetables, fruits, and foods that are good for me, but I also like a cheesesteak or a couple slices of pizza once in a while.
I'm going to be the person who uses fitness to control my weight, and once I get fit and get to a healthy weight, I'm going to be the person who doesn't have a weight control issue anymore.
JMO.
No, eating too many calories over decades is what made you gain weight. Exercise might have helped you create a calorie deficit, but the calorie deficit is what made you lose the weight.
I agree with this.
I love exercise. I weight lift, I run 2-4 times a week, I do the elliptical cross trainer too. I love to go on long walks sometimes too. In fact, I have always loved to exercise, even when I was fat.
I weight lifted, ran, and walked and gained 33 pounds over a 3-5 year period because I ate too much, not because I exercised too little.
Exercise is for fitness, and there is no doubt that when you exercise you generally have room to eat more calories. But, the bottom line is if you don't know how much you are eating, it's easy to get out of hand in the food area and put weight on even when exercising.
Weight gain is all about eating too many calories in general, whether or not you exercise, it's not about exercising more so you lost weight or don't gain weight.
Ok, so you know how I gained the weight too.
Let me try to explain.
I was in good shape and always maintained a healthy weight without the need to count calories.
I got in a car accident and could not exercise for a year due to internal injuries. (did not change my diet)
Got lazy and never started exercising again. (I gained weight)
I made a career change from a very physical job to sitting at a desk all day. (still did not change my diet)
Got lazier and still no exercise. (I gained more weight)
Had to get clearances (heart and lungs) for surgery to remove part of my colon (diverticulitis), and was told I had COPD and an enlarged area at the bottom of my heart and could have had a mini heart attack at some point. Also have blood clotting issues (from sitting on my fat butt for decades and getting no exercise)
Recovered from the surgery (went back to the same diet)
Got an activity tracker (key word being "activity"), and set it to lose 1 pound a week.
Started walking (watched what I ate a little, but basically the same diet).
Started walking more, got a bike and started biking. (basically the same diet).
Started walking and biking more. got a kayak and started kayaking. (still same diet).
Have been losing a pound a week (32 pounds so far with another 43 to go). (same diet)
Now I burn so many calories that I can't even eat them all without resorting to gluttony.
I feel so much better, and can ride my bike 10 miles at a cardio pace, and that is pretty darn good for someone who is supposed to have COPD.
I know its all about calories in calories out, and you can twist it that way if you want to, but I attribute my weight loss to 90% increasing my fitness level, and 10% diet.
And once I get to a good fitness level, a healthy weight will happen all by itself, and I wont have to sit there and count calories, and log stuff. I'll just have to stay in shape and not be a glutton.
Plain and simple just like it was back when I was in good shape.
Getting to a "good fitness level" does not ensure that a healthy weight will happen all by itself. You may not have to literally count calories, but you will still have to be aware of portion size and eat less calories than you burn.
What is a glutton, but the way? I'd say that's all in the perception Some people would view my diary and say I'm a glutton, or say that others who eat higher calorie diets are gluttons.
Fitness is very important--I weight lift and run and do other cardio, but I am very well aware it has nil to do with the very basics of weight loss.0 -
Although this is digging much deeper than the original question the debate depends on whether you are considering this in the short term or long term. There are several "experts" who demean exercise as part of weight loss as they consider this unsustainable, but in reviewing the habits of those who have lost 30lbs and kept this off over at least a year 90% report daily exercise of 60mins.
In the short term it is easier to create a deficit through diet, but hardly sustainable in the long term. We are designed to eat. Those who include multiple options to maintain are going to be more successful than those only considering one option.0 -
I've lost 146 pounds so far not doing any exercise. My knees are bone on bone and I can't do much.0
-
hockey7fan wrote: »I've lost 146 pounds so far not doing any exercise. My knees are bone on bone and I can't do much.
Congratulations: that's amazing! You can almost certainly use a recumbent bike, or even a regular bike, stationary or otherwise; swim; and do other water exercise. It will help you keep up with that beautiful son of yours, as he grows and becomes more active! It will help you keep the weight off. (It will help you maintain muscle mass; burn more calories; stay mobile, and sharp as you age; lower your risk of diabetes; and keep your heart and brain healthy). I've had a broken bone in my knee for the past 3 months, and I've been able to bike enough not only to stay in shape, but to improve my fitness from where I was.
0 -
-
Diet to lose weight, exercise to be sexy af.1
-
Or is it because he didn't burn enough calories? Had he burned more, he would not have gained. It's science (and math).I am sorry you had all the medical issues, and congratulations on overcoming them. You gained weight because you took in too many calories. Had you eaten less, you would not have gained. It's science. You did not have to exercise to lose weight.
Yin & yang, baby, yin & yang.
1 -
I stick with my daily calories. I exercise every day but do not eat back burnt calories. I lose weight as I am calorie deficient in my diet. I add to this by burning calories, also develop healthier heart, lungs n muscles at the same time. Exercise stimulates feel good chemicals so I feel energetic and happier. Win, win!0
-
ReeseG4350 wrote: »On the flip side, however, if you simply do not eat as much, it could conceivably cause you to GAIN weight. If the body is not getting enough calories/nourishment, it will begin to slow down its internal processes - your metabolism. Thus, making it more difficult to lose weight. As the body slows, it also begins to horde the nutrients and calories is does take in. This is a holdover from our cave man ancestors. It is a part of the feast or famine mechanism. When times are poor (less food/nutrients/calories) the body will hold onto what meager nutrients it takes in to sustain it until there is more food. Thankfully, the human body knows more than its occupant. Otherwise the species would never have survived.
No. If you eat at a deficit over time, it can cause metabolic adaptation, and there are a variety of factors that play into how much this happens (for example, there's been a study that suggests it is worse with Biggest Loser contestants than bariatric surgery patients, despite the greater exercise of the former, likely because of the extreme deficits). However, you do not GAIN weight by eating less and your body does not HORDE fat. That's the starvation mode myth and if you think about it it makes no sense (and obviously is false in practice, as people who are actually starving, well, continue losing weight.)Furthermore, the higher percentage of fat you have, the harder your body will have to work to get rid of it. Whereas, the higher percentage of muscle you have, the easier it will be to burn fat - i.e. calories.
Overstated. There's a slight increase in metabolic rate as muscle increases, but typically you can drop fat much faster (and maintain a higher deficit with no ill effects) when you have more fat as a percentage of the total. Also, of course, it's unlikely people will be increasing muscle while in a deficit anyway. Trying to maintain the muscle you have is certainly worth it, IMO, of course (although some seem not to care and that's their business).
Also, IME, it's easier to lose more rapidly (which for me at the moment would mean 1 lb/week) if you exercise less (meaning intense exercise), although keeping the general activity level up is helpful. That's because I find it difficult to maintain much of a deficit while training hard. (I didn't when I had more to lose, but I probably also didn't exercise as intensely.)
Anyway, for me the slower loss with training gains is worth it -- I think exercise is really important for fitness, of course, as well as to make weight loss easier on average -- but I just think you are exaggerating things.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
IMO, how important one side is vs. the other is just personal preference or individual psychology.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
IMO, how important one side is vs. the other is just personal preference or individual psychology.
How so? I can understand personal preference determining which you choose to alter for weight loss, but I can't see how it has any bearing on importance.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
IMO, how important one side is vs. the other is just personal preference or individual psychology.
How so? I can understand personal preference determining which you choose to alter for weight loss, but I can't see how it has any bearing on importance.
For a particular person, it may be easier/more helpful to focus on activity more, on eating more (er, more on eating less, that is) ;-), or a perfect mix. That's all I was saying. Easier/more helpful=more important for that person. You seem to be reading something in that wasn't intended.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
IMO, how important one side is vs. the other is just personal preference or individual psychology.
How so? I can understand personal preference determining which you choose to alter for weight loss, but I can't see how it has any bearing on importance.
For a particular person, it may be easier/more helpful to focus on activity more, on eating more (er, more on eating less, that is) ;-), or a perfect mix. That's all I was saying. Easier/more helpful=more important for that person. You seem to be reading something in that wasn't intended.
Fair enough. Sounds like we are saying the same thing.0 -
bcalvanese wrote: »bcalvanese wrote: »It's amazing to see how many people think exercise is not that important. I don't know one person (not athletes or body builders) who is at a good fitness level that has any kind of weight control issue.
And this is a "MyFitnessPal" forum, not "MyCaloriePal"...
I have been using exercise as my primary method of losing the weight because lack of exercise over decades is what made me gain all the weight. Sure I watch what I eat more, and have learned a little more about nutrition. I have always liked vegetables, fruits, and foods that are good for me, but I also like a cheesesteak or a couple slices of pizza once in a while.
I'm going to be the person who uses fitness to control my weight, and once I get fit and get to a healthy weight, I'm going to be the person who doesn't have a weight control issue anymore.
JMO.
No, eating too many calories over decades is what made you gain weight. Exercise might have helped you create a calorie deficit, but the calorie deficit is what made you lose the weight.
Double no, going from being at a very good fitness level to a very poor fitness level, and exercising to absolutely no exercise after a car accident and decades of sitting on my butt due to a career change is what made me gain the weight. I never changed my diet at all.
How could you possibly know what caused me to gain weight?
Because there is only one way to gain weight. CICO.
McCindy is right. I sat on my butt for the last week because of sore feet, stayed in a calorie deficit for the week, weighed myself today and I am down 3 lbs. Sitting on my butt and CICO is working for me!! lol0 -
My personal view is that both exercise and diet are important. I started of just losing weight via diet. I then found that I couldn't sustain the deficit so started exercising but I am glad I did because the danger with prolonged diet based deficit is muscle loss and a loss of bone density. In other words, exercise to try to maintain a bit of muscle mass and a nicer shape0
-
Sitting on your butt is part of CO. Exercise is part of CO.bcalvanese wrote: »bcalvanese wrote: »It's amazing to see how many people think exercise is not that important. I don't know one person (not athletes or body builders) who is at a good fitness level that has any kind of weight control issue.
And this is a "MyFitnessPal" forum, not "MyCaloriePal"...
I have been using exercise as my primary method of losing the weight because lack of exercise over decades is what made me gain all the weight. Sure I watch what I eat more, and have learned a little more about nutrition. I have always liked vegetables, fruits, and foods that are good for me, but I also like a cheesesteak or a couple slices of pizza once in a while.
I'm going to be the person who uses fitness to control my weight, and once I get fit and get to a healthy weight, I'm going to be the person who doesn't have a weight control issue anymore.
JMO.
No, eating too many calories over decades is what made you gain weight. Exercise might have helped you create a calorie deficit, but the calorie deficit is what made you lose the weight.
Double no, going from being at a very good fitness level to a very poor fitness level, and exercising to absolutely no exercise after a car accident and decades of sitting on my butt due to a career change is what made me gain the weight. I never changed my diet at all.
How could you possibly know what caused me to gain weight?
Because there is only one way to gain weight. CICO.
McCindy is right. I sat on my butt for the last week because of sore feet, stayed in a calorie deficit for the week, weighed myself today and I am down 3 lbs. Sitting on my butt and CICO is working for me!! lol
All weight matters are part of CICO. People gain weight with CICO. They maintain with CICO.
CICO is not a weight loss strategy. It's just the very basic concept that calories are related to weight.
0 -
Sitting on your butt is part of CO. Exercise is part of CO.bcalvanese wrote: »bcalvanese wrote: »It's amazing to see how many people think exercise is not that important. I don't know one person (not athletes or body builders) who is at a good fitness level that has any kind of weight control issue.
And this is a "MyFitnessPal" forum, not "MyCaloriePal"...
I have been using exercise as my primary method of losing the weight because lack of exercise over decades is what made me gain all the weight. Sure I watch what I eat more, and have learned a little more about nutrition. I have always liked vegetables, fruits, and foods that are good for me, but I also like a cheesesteak or a couple slices of pizza once in a while.
I'm going to be the person who uses fitness to control my weight, and once I get fit and get to a healthy weight, I'm going to be the person who doesn't have a weight control issue anymore.
JMO.
No, eating too many calories over decades is what made you gain weight. Exercise might have helped you create a calorie deficit, but the calorie deficit is what made you lose the weight.
Double no, going from being at a very good fitness level to a very poor fitness level, and exercising to absolutely no exercise after a car accident and decades of sitting on my butt due to a career change is what made me gain the weight. I never changed my diet at all.
How could you possibly know what caused me to gain weight?
Because there is only one way to gain weight. CICO.
McCindy is right. I sat on my butt for the last week because of sore feet, stayed in a calorie deficit for the week, weighed myself today and I am down 3 lbs. Sitting on my butt and CICO is working for me!! lol
All weight matters are part of CICO. People gain weight with CICO. They maintain with CICO.
CICO is not a weight loss strategy. It's just the very basic concept that calories are related to weight.
Did I word it wrong for you? I was in a calorie deficit for the week and did not exercise. Better? wow...lol0 -
Sitting on your butt is part of CO. Exercise is part of CO.bcalvanese wrote: »bcalvanese wrote: »It's amazing to see how many people think exercise is not that important. I don't know one person (not athletes or body builders) who is at a good fitness level that has any kind of weight control issue.
And this is a "MyFitnessPal" forum, not "MyCaloriePal"...
I have been using exercise as my primary method of losing the weight because lack of exercise over decades is what made me gain all the weight. Sure I watch what I eat more, and have learned a little more about nutrition. I have always liked vegetables, fruits, and foods that are good for me, but I also like a cheesesteak or a couple slices of pizza once in a while.
I'm going to be the person who uses fitness to control my weight, and once I get fit and get to a healthy weight, I'm going to be the person who doesn't have a weight control issue anymore.
JMO.
No, eating too many calories over decades is what made you gain weight. Exercise might have helped you create a calorie deficit, but the calorie deficit is what made you lose the weight.
Double no, going from being at a very good fitness level to a very poor fitness level, and exercising to absolutely no exercise after a car accident and decades of sitting on my butt due to a career change is what made me gain the weight. I never changed my diet at all.
How could you possibly know what caused me to gain weight?
Because there is only one way to gain weight. CICO.
McCindy is right. I sat on my butt for the last week because of sore feet, stayed in a calorie deficit for the week, weighed myself today and I am down 3 lbs. Sitting on my butt and CICO is working for me!! lol
All weight matters are part of CICO. People gain weight with CICO. They maintain with CICO.
CICO is not a weight loss strategy. It's just the very basic concept that calories are related to weight.
Did I word it wrong for you? I was in a calorie deficit for the week and did not exercise. Better? wow...lol
I believe the point was that saying exercise isn't important to weight loss because you didn't do it is like saying eating less isn't important because someone else didn't eat less and created a deficit through activity.
What you don't do doesn't necessarily equal "not helpful" in a general sense.0 -
What? LOL!
It's not about what happens to the calories. It's about exercise being 100% not necessary to lose weight. If it were necessary, then people who can't exercise would never lose weight.
If I want to lose weight, I need to eat less food. If already exercise, which makes my TDEE higher, then I still need to eat less not exercise more.
If I want to lose weight, I need to eat less food. If I don't exercise, which makes my TDEE lower, I just need to eat less food, not start exercising.0 -
Or is it because he didn't burn enough calories? Had he burned more, he would not have gained. It's science (and math).I am sorry you had all the medical issues, and congratulations on overcoming them. You gained weight because you took in too many calories. Had you eaten less, you would not have gained. It's science. You did not have to exercise to lose weight.
Yin & yang, baby, yin & yang.
Did you get a chance to read his whole scenerio? He was struggling with medical issues and did not exercise for quite some time. In that situation, if you don't want to gain weght, you eat less.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
- 423 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