Exercise doesn't help you lose weight...say what?
Replies
-
I've seen a lot of people in my gym over the years who basically look the same now as they did years ago...haven't really lost any weight because their diets aren't in order. IMO, a lot of people are under the impression that exercise simply defaults to losing weight...I see it here all the time too.
Years ago I thought pretty much the same. I started hitting the gym and was pretty religious about it for about a year and I never dropped weight like I thought I should because I was working out and wasn't before...I was just eating more and felt justified in eating more because I was working out.
I think these statements are to illustrate that point which many people don't get.8 -
azironasun wrote: »Muscle toning is done in the gym. Weight loss is done in the kitchen.
I understand this sentiment, but it just doesn't work well for me. Obviously I could lose weight by just controlling my eating. But for me, exercise and diet are intertwined. For me, if one falls off, the other is right behind it. Happens every single time. And I find it much easier to maintain a deficit with exercise.
I find it easier to eat like a "healthy" or fit person if I ecercise like a healthy or fit person. My weight loss is always spurred by activity rather than by my eating.
2 -
Get new friends.1
-
In the end It's 100% diet. Exercise just adds to the amount of calories you burn in a day, but what you eat is going to decide what the deficit is. If you burn more and eat more, you're in the same boat.
That's like saying a coin is 100% heads and but at all tails. For anyone who exercises, it's both.1 -
YepItsKriss wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »azironasun wrote: »Muscle toning is done in the gym. Weight loss is done in the kitchen.
Still just catch phrases that are only sometimes true. Muscles can be toned outside a gym. Weight loss can happen even if you never enter a kitchen.
Yeah sometimes someone might toss a sandwich to you sitting in the living room lol
Yah. Would you make me a sammich?
(Kidding, just kidding).1 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »I've seen a lot of people in my gym over the years who basically look the same now as they did years ago...haven't really lost any weight because their diets aren't in order. IMO, a lot of people are under the impression that exercise simply defaults to losing weight...I see it here all the time too.
Years ago I thought pretty much the same. I started hitting the gym and was pretty religious about it for about a year and I never dropped weight like I thought I should because I was working out and wasn't before...I was just eating more and felt justified in eating more because I was working out.
I think these statements are to illustrate that point which many people don't get.
Yup. I'm as into the importance of exercise as anyone (it's very important for managing a chronic medical condition I have), however, the bottom line is that if your diet is not on point, all the exercise in the world is not going to do you a lick of good.
I'm a runner. I didn't start out as one, and I've been walking/running pretty much the same route for three years. There are people of all different body types out there running every day. I can safely say that there are quite a few of them who most definitely do not have the diet portion of the CICO equation dialed in.
I really, really, really do not get this thing to say that it's one or the other.
Why does there have to be some pithy little saying to cover this whole deal?2 -
Exercise helps and it's part of keeping healthy, but it's not necessary to lose weight. When I cut, I rarely count any exercise I do. I figure that's a bonus to get my deficit larger. I have no idea how many steps I do in one day. I don't wear a heart monitor when I do work out - which isn't very often. Mostly do 1-2 mile walks with my dog daily, and maybe a 20 minute kettlebell video. But I'm gonna weigh my food and log it accurately to make sure my calories are on point.0
-
Got into a discussion with some friends the other day regarding diet and exercise and losing weight, etc. One of my friends said that exercise does not help you lose weight, it's 100% diet. I disagreed and said that whether you take in less calories (diet) or burn more calories (exercise), if you're in a deficit you'll lose weight, therefore exercise does in fact help you lose weight. She disagreed with me still.
Your thoughts?
Well ... actually, you are correct ... exercise helps us use up more calories so we end up in a larger deficit than if we had not done it. But actually, any additional/extra activity or physical movement will help to burn up some extra calories.
That said ... your friend is correct also ... If you sat in a chair or laid on a bed 24 hours a day, and your calorie intake were low enough, you would lose weight. However, you would also lose muscle mass and less muscle means a slower metabolism so you would have to progressively consume less calories just to stay even. That's why us senior citizens get to eat less when we are 70 than when we were 40 ... our metabolism has slowed down.
And ... yo-yo dieting also causes our metabolism to slow down because every time we lose weight we lose some muscle and some fat, not just fat ... and it takes really HARD physical strength activity to help us hold on to muscle. However, when we gain weight, we gain more fat than we do muscle ... and when it goes on and on like that, we end up being a big soft blob of loose skin and fat instead of tight skin and big strong muscles.0 -
I think diet is most important with losing weight because it is easier. Most people simply don't have the time in the day to burn 500 calories for a deficit and those that do can easily eat that deficit back if they are not logging what they are eating. It is much easier to cut out the can of soda and a snickers bar instead to create a deficit.
I would say though that my weight loss was closer to a 50/50 ratio. I watched what I ate while significantly increasing exercise but I have to time to walk 12+ kms a day. Many don't. I am also short so the only way I could have a 500 deficit and eat at least 1200 calories a day was through exercise and diet.0 -
Calliope610 wrote: »comeonnow142857 wrote: »There's typically a lot more room to adjust CI, vs adjusting CO (especially if you're not at a spectacular fitness & endurance level).
I strongly disagree. It is so much easier for me to get off my couch and go for walk or ride and earn 300 - 600 calories than to restrict myself to 1200-1400 calories on a long term basis.
If you have the time to go for up to 2 hour walks daily instead of creating a deficit by just not eating something.2 -
Got into a discussion with some friends the other day regarding diet and exercise and losing weight, etc. One of my friends said that exercise does not help you lose weight, it's 100% diet. I disagreed and said that whether you take in less calories (diet) or burn more calories (exercise), if you're in a deficit you'll lose weight, therefore exercise does in fact help you lose weight. She disagreed with me still.
Your thoughts?
Well ... actually, you are correct ... exercise helps us use up more calories so we end up in a larger deficit than if we had not done it. But actually, any additional/extra activity or physical movement will help to burn up some extra calories.
That said ... your friend is correct also ... If you sat in a chair or laid on a bed 24 hours a day, and your calorie intake were low enough, you would lose weight. However, you would also lose muscle mass and less muscle means a slower metabolism so you would have to progressively consume less calories just to stay even. That's why us senior citizens get to eat less when we are 70 than when we were 40 ... our metabolism has slowed down.
And ... yo-yo dieting also causes our metabolism to slow down because every time we lose weight we lose some muscle and some fat, not just fat ... and it takes really HARD physical strength activity to help us hold on to muscle. However, when we gain weight, we gain more fat than we do muscle ... and when it goes on and on like that, we end up being a big soft blob of loose skin and fat instead of tight skin and big strong muscles.
My goal is to avoid the bolded from happening. Metabolism doesn't slow much solely because of age. It's because of becoming progressively more sedentary.0 -
So, we are mostly all saying the same thing.
There are 14 sides to every coin! LOL!
There are two sides here (getting very simplistic): CI (Calories In) and CO (Calories Out).
If CI = CO then you maintain (read: do not gain weight, but do not lose weight).
If CI > CO then you gain weight (whatever that might mean)
If CI < CO then you lose weight (whatever that might mean).
The challenge here is that it is NOT really that simple.
What is your TDEE? And, how do we know what our TDEE is? It is BMR + PA + NEAT + TEF. Sure, we all know that. But what is that number? And, is it the same for me as it is for you? Heck no.
Anyway, just thinking out loud....1 -
stevencloser wrote: »Calliope610 wrote: »comeonnow142857 wrote: »There's typically a lot more room to adjust CI, vs adjusting CO (especially if you're not at a spectacular fitness & endurance level).
I strongly disagree. It is so much easier for me to get off my couch and go for walk or ride and earn 300 - 600 calories than to restrict myself to 1200-1400 calories on a long term basis.
If you have the time to go for up to 2 hour walks daily instead of creating a deficit by just not eating something.
I MAKE the time for about 60-75 minutes of activity I enjoy. For me, that is time very well spent.3 -
CWShultz27105 wrote: »So, we are mostly all saying the same thing.
There are 14 sides to every coin! LOL!
There are two sides here (getting very simplistic): CI (Calories In) and CO (Calories Out).
If CI = CO then you maintain (read: do not gain weight, but do not lose weight).
If CI > CO then you gain weight (whatever that might mean)
If CI < CO then you lose weight (whatever that might mean).
The challenge here is that it is NOT really that simple.
What is your TDEE? And, how do we know what our TDEE is? It is BMR + PA + NEAT + TEF. Sure, we all know that. But what is that number? And, is it the same for me as it is for you? Heck no.
Anyway, just thinking out loud....
It's simple, it's just humans (in general) don't like effort. The most accurate way is to eat the same calories every day, track it every day, average it out at the end of the week and compare with the previous 3 weeks. Did you gain weight or lose weight??? If you gained or stayed the same, adjust the calories, repeat and see after 3 weeks what result you get. It takes effort, but not everyone is willing to do it. If it would be easy, nobody would be obese. Unfortunately, everyone wants to lose weight, but find all kinds of excuse not to put the effort into it or the most common answer I get "It's my genetics" (only 1% of the population can actually say it's because of their genetic or health issue). No, the reason most people fail is they lack discipline, most people (not everyone of course) are not capable of telling themselves "No", they like to do what they do because it feels good even though they know it hurts them too in the long run.
Ture. If I had to do all that just to control my weight I'm not sure I would.0 -
@filbo132 - you said it, man! I can go on and on about people want the results but don't want to put forth the effort. Preach, man! Preach! Unfortunately, what you say is so very true. Oh, so as not to offend anyone...."generally speaking".
I see it all the time....as I have mentioned a few times.....I was working with some guys my age and they were having issues with "time" so I asked them "Let's map out what you do all day" and it is funny how ESPN was higher on their priority list than training. Not judging....truly not. Just don't get it. But, that is my problem.6 -
If you're only going to do one or the other, dieting would be more effective in my opinion. You should be doing both though! In my own personal experience, as someone who moves in some capacity every single day, I don't drop weight unless I clean up my diet. Which makes me sad. :-)
1 -
Calliope610 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Calliope610 wrote: »comeonnow142857 wrote: »There's typically a lot more room to adjust CI, vs adjusting CO (especially if you're not at a spectacular fitness & endurance level).
I strongly disagree. It is so much easier for me to get off my couch and go for walk or ride and earn 300 - 600 calories than to restrict myself to 1200-1400 calories on a long term basis.
If you have the time to go for up to 2 hour walks daily instead of creating a deficit by just not eating something.
I MAKE the time for about 60-75 minutes of activity I enjoy. For me, that is time very well spent.
That's true that you make the time.
You know what? So do I.
I still have to keep my calories on point.
You can't have one without the other.
3
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 388 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 910 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.2K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions