Saw Something On The News This Morning About Exercise Being More Important Than Diet
Replies
-
TimothyFish wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »The studies coming out about maintenance showing nearly complete overlap between significant exercise and long term weigh management are telling.
In theory, not necessary. In practice? Maybe a different story.
Could also just be that the people who successfully maintain also realize that exercise is good for you, apart from the calories it burns.
You're right, that could be. But if that's the case, I would like to see a study that looks at that. It seems more logical to conclude that exercise encourages successful maintenance than that successful maintenance encourages people to exercise.
I can only speak for myself, but I do only exercise for the body composition aspect, not to burn extra calories. It's an awful lot of work creating a deficit from exercise when instead I can just eat less.0 -
stevencloser wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
BMR is scarcely different between a 50 year old man and a teenager, let alone a 20-something man and a teenager.TimothyFish wrote: »A man in his twenties puts on weight while eating the same number of calories as he did when he was a teenager.
There is a difference of 50 calories per day between a 15 year old and a 25 year old. It is a whole 175 calories per day between a 15 year old and a 50 year old. If a 25 year old ate the same amount as a 15 year old and they both did nothing but sat around on the couch all day, the 25 year old would gain more than five pounds in one year. The 50 year old would gain 18 pounds. So, I'm not sure I want to call it "scarcely different."
However, you make a good point. We often see teenagers eating significant amounts of food without gaining weight. I would think that is more than 50 calories per day more than the adult versions of themselves, yet we see people gain weight after reaching adulthood. If it isn't how much they are growing that makes them thin and it isn't because they are eating less than adults, then it has to be something else. The other thing that is different between thin teenagers and the fat adult version of themselves is that teenagers are involved in sports, band, and other activities, while the fat adults just sit on the sidelines watching their children participate.
That is an average 15, 25 and 50 year old. The differences in BMR there are mostly due to foreseen LBM losses as you age which may not happen if you're paying attention to that.
This is true, but if you want to maintain LBM as you age you MUST exercise. There really isn't any other way to do it.0 -
Here are some more details. Seems like its not really a single study, but an organization of scientists who hold this opinion and have done various bits of research, and coca-cola has given them some money to publicize their opinions. http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/08/09/coca-cola-funds-scientists-who-shift-blame-for-obesity-away-from-bad-diets/?&hp&action=click&pgtype0
-
NYT June 15, 2015: To Lose Weight, Eating Less Is Far More Important Than Exercising More
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/16/upshot/to-lose-weight-eating-less-is-far-more-important-than-exercising-more.html?_r=0
0 -
\Need2Exerc1se wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
BMR is scarcely different between a 50 year old man and a teenager, let alone a 20-something man and a teenager.TimothyFish wrote: »A man in his twenties puts on weight while eating the same number of calories as he did when he was a teenager.
There is a difference of 50 calories per day between a 15 year old and a 25 year old. It is a whole 175 calories per day between a 15 year old and a 50 year old. If a 25 year old ate the same amount as a 15 year old and they both did nothing but sat around on the couch all day, the 25 year old would gain more than five pounds in one year. The 50 year old would gain 18 pounds. So, I'm not sure I want to call it "scarcely different."
However, you make a good point. We often see teenagers eating significant amounts of food without gaining weight. I would think that is more than 50 calories per day more than the adult versions of themselves, yet we see people gain weight after reaching adulthood. If it isn't how much they are growing that makes them thin and it isn't because they are eating less than adults, then it has to be something else. The other thing that is different between thin teenagers and the fat adult version of themselves is that teenagers are involved in sports, band, and other activities, while the fat adults just sit on the sidelines watching their children participate.
That is an average 15, 25 and 50 year old. The differences in BMR there are mostly due to foreseen LBM losses as you age which may not happen if you're paying attention to that.
This is true, but if you want to maintain LBM as you age you MUST exercise. There really isn't any other way to do it.
You mean weight train that really doesn't burn a lot of calories?
0 -
I think diet is more important but i know that this is not cut and dried. Different experts have different views and of course like you say coca cola have vested interest in this angle. There's a program called the men who make you fat on you tube and one of them talks about the industry and how they are all gung ho with sponsoring all sorts of sporty things. I can't remember which one of hte episodes deals wiht it but they are all good and after that you should watch the men who make you thin.0
-
ValerieMartini2Olives wrote: »So, if you eat 5000 calories a day but run a half mile, you'll lose weight because you exercised?
ONly if you're really fat.
0 -
Patttience wrote: »I think diet is more important but i know that this is not cut and dried. Different experts have different views and of course like you say coca cola have vested interest in this angle. There's a program called the men who make you fat on you tube and one of them talks about the industry and how they are all gung ho with sponsoring all sorts of sporty things. I can't remember which one of hte episodes deals wiht it but they are all good and after that you should watch the men who make you thin.
Are these youtube clips entertaining?
0 -
If you're the sort of person who enjoys berating overweight people for not exercising enough, I suppose that this is the study for you.
It still comes down to CI<CO for weight loss. You can manipulate either side to maintain that balance, but it comes down to what you can sustain. Manipulating only one side limits your options. It is easier and faster to consume calories than to burn the same number of calories off, however. The adage "you can't outrun a bad diet" still applies.
And it helps to consider that a calorie not consumed is a calorie you don't have to burn. It's a lot like helping a person get out of debt, the first and easiest measure to take is to stop digging the hole deeper, since a dollar not spent is a dollar that you don't have to pay back.
0 -
Shockingly self-serving of the Coca Cola folks! Just like all those studies that used to tell us how cigarettes weren't really all that dangerous. Obviously, weight is a factor of consumption, exercise and metabolism, so exercise is important. As for me though, I can't imagine walking for an hour just so I can go home and down a sugar-laden Coke and negate all that benefit. Will either go with water or the diet drinks.0
-
I know I look better when I'm exercising regularly, plus I get to eat more. It makes it much easier to lose weight for me. But that's on top of the calorie reduction.0
-
This content has been removed.
-
Just remember who is financing the study -- Coca Cola. They have been working hard for years to convince the public that it is "lifestyle," i.e., being sedentary that is more responsible for overweight, thus deflecting their own responsibility in pushing sugary soft drinks on the public, particularly on children and young people. Remember, Coke even sponsors athletic events! I've worked for years instructing students in research and writing argument and cause and effect essays. One of the articles I had used was from a 2009 columnist recommending a soda tax to stem the tide of childhood obesity; in response, a nutritionist wrote a letter claiming that soft drinks were not responsible for obesity, but other lifestyle choices, particularly not exercising. The class then looked at the "nutritionist"'s credentials. She worked for the American Beverage Association, the very powerful lobby of which Coca Cola is a major member.
At this point, Coca Cola probably going into a higher level defense mode because the sale of soft drinks is dropping by about 3% a year because more people are now more conscious of how many empty calories they are consuming when they drink those products. I have friends who don't even buy soda for their kids anymore, either at home or when eating out.0 -
It's a shame the OP neglected to actually cite his sources since he says that the information he "heard about" is the reason he started this thread.
It also appears that linked editorials reported on today (and I suppose are what the OP is referring to) aren't actually claiming that exercise is more important than diet. The discussion is focused on the impact of funding sources on research about exercise versus diet - specifically Coca-Cola's efforts to prop up their declining sales of soda by trying to promote exercise rather than dietary changes for weight loss.
I think that's an entirely different discussion than what the OP presented. And frankly it would have been more interesting than re-hashing the "diet is more important than exercise for achieving weight loss" information which has been confirmed many times over.
Cite his sources?? He said he saw it briefly on tv. Geez, you can't allow someone to simply start a conversation?
0 -
Just remember who is financing the study -- Coca Cola. They have been working hard for years to convince the public that it is "lifestyle," i.e., being sedentary that is more responsible for overweight, thus deflecting their own responsibility in pushing sugary soft drinks on the public, particularly on children and young people. Remember, Coke even sponsors athletic events! I've worked for years instructing students in research and writing argument and cause and effect essays. One of the articles I had used was from a 2009 columnist recommending a soda tax to stem the tide of childhood obesity; in response, a nutritionist wrote a letter claiming that soft drinks were not responsible for obesity, but other lifestyle choices, particularly not exercising. The class then looked at the "nutritionist"'s credentials. She worked for the American Beverage Association, the very powerful lobby, of which Coca Cola is a major member.
Who funded the research that came up with the idea of taxing the items?0 -
It still comes down to CI<CO for weight loss. You can manipulate either side to maintain that balance, but it comes down to what you can sustain.
This. I really don't understand this debate about what's more important. Clearly it depends on the individual, how the individual responses to the exercise, what the individual finds easier to sustain, so on.
My perception is that when I exercise I am more likely to eat well. When I stopped exercising in the past I gained weight, since I did not adjust my calories (I was not thinking about calories at the time). But I also think the fact I stopped exercising was related to an overall loss of motivation, not that it caused the loss of motivation, so who knows.
It's helpful to me now that I am thinking more about calories, so that if something happens that affects my exercise I will be able to cut back calories appropriately, unlike what I did before. It's also a LOT faster to lose weight by controlling my diet as well as my exercise, rather than just exercising more and seeing what happens. This is so even though did lose a good bit of weight eating at or near my maintenance level if sedentary.0 -
Cutting 500, 1000, or more calories from my intake was exponentially easier than trying to burn a legitimate 500, 1000, or more calories every single day would have been.
I don't think it's either/or, but it takes a pretty substantial amount of effort to burn enough calories to offset even pretty modest eating. It wouldn't take all that many extra calories before it just wasn't feasible for someone without hours of free time every day. I think that's why diet is more important, even if it's not the only thing.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
TimothyFish wrote: »For maintenance, exercise is most definitely more important than diet. During weight loss, it looks a little different because most people find it easier to create a calorie deficit through cutting calories than by exercise.
No, no. Maintenance is still all about CICO. I can work out sometimes, and do whenever I can, but there are times when I cannot. Those times, I still maintain my weight the same way I do when I can work out. I weigh my food, and log it, and stick to my calorie goals. It's just an adjustment when I do work out to eat back the exercise calories.0 -
yopeeps025 wrote: »
\Need2Exerc1se wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
BMR is scarcely different between a 50 year old man and a teenager, let alone a 20-something man and a teenager.TimothyFish wrote: »A man in his twenties puts on weight while eating the same number of calories as he did when he was a teenager.
There is a difference of 50 calories per day between a 15 year old and a 25 year old. It is a whole 175 calories per day between a 15 year old and a 50 year old. If a 25 year old ate the same amount as a 15 year old and they both did nothing but sat around on the couch all day, the 25 year old would gain more than five pounds in one year. The 50 year old would gain 18 pounds. So, I'm not sure I want to call it "scarcely different."
However, you make a good point. We often see teenagers eating significant amounts of food without gaining weight. I would think that is more than 50 calories per day more than the adult versions of themselves, yet we see people gain weight after reaching adulthood. If it isn't how much they are growing that makes them thin and it isn't because they are eating less than adults, then it has to be something else. The other thing that is different between thin teenagers and the fat adult version of themselves is that teenagers are involved in sports, band, and other activities, while the fat adults just sit on the sidelines watching their children participate.
That is an average 15, 25 and 50 year old. The differences in BMR there are mostly due to foreseen LBM losses as you age which may not happen if you're paying attention to that.
This is true, but if you want to maintain LBM as you age you MUST exercise. There really isn't any other way to do it.
You mean weight train that really doesn't burn a lot of calories?
Weights are not required to maintain LBM. Many activities can provide the necessary resistance and burn a lot of calories.0 -
Just remember who is financing the study -- Coca Cola. They have been working hard for years to convince the public that it is "lifestyle," i.e., being sedentary that is more responsible for overweight, thus deflecting their own responsibility in pushing sugary soft drinks on the public, particularly on children and young people. Remember, Coke even sponsors athletic events! I've worked for years instructing students in research and writing argument and cause and effect essays. One of the articles I had used was from a 2009 columnist recommending a soda tax to stem the tide of childhood obesity; in response, a nutritionist wrote a letter claiming that soft drinks were not responsible for obesity, but other lifestyle choices, particularly not exercising. The class then looked at the "nutritionist"'s credentials. She worked for the American Beverage Association, the very powerful lobby, of which Coca Cola is a major member.
Who funded the research that came up with the idea of taxing the items?
The idea of taxing soda was the idea of a Boston Globe columnist, Derrick Jackson (although he is not the only one who has proposed this over the past few years -- a number of cities and towns have considered this). He wasn't stating facts (although he did present some linking soda to obesity), but proposing a policy change. This is a bit different from actually presenting a study by experts, but that is financed by an entity that may be biased about results. The purpose of the class was to look at argument (Jackson's proposal), rebuttal, and evidence. In this case, the rebuttal's evidence was "tainted."0 -
stevencloser wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »The studies coming out about maintenance showing nearly complete overlap between significant exercise and long term weigh management are telling.
In theory, not necessary. In practice? Maybe a different story.
Could also just be that the people who successfully maintain also realize that exercise is good for you, apart from the calories it burns.
You're right, that could be. But if that's the case, I would like to see a study that looks at that. It seems more logical to conclude that exercise encourages successful maintenance than that successful maintenance encourages people to exercise.
I can only speak for myself, but I do only exercise for the body composition aspect, not to burn extra calories. It's an awful lot of work creating a deficit from exercise when instead I can just eat less.
So, you're saying you don't know what would happen if you didn't exercise. And keep in mind that in maintenance you don't "create a deficit."TimothyFish wrote: »For maintenance, exercise is most definitely more important than diet. During weight loss, it looks a little different because most people find it easier to create a calorie deficit through cutting calories than by exercise.
No, no. Maintenance is still all about CICO. I can work out sometimes, and do whenever I can, but there are times when I cannot. Those times, I still maintain my weight the same way I do when I can work out. I weigh my food, and log it, and stick to my calorie goals. It's just an adjustment when I do work out to eat back the exercise calories.
No one is saying that it isn't about the balance between calories in and calories out. But the evidence seems to point to it being easier to eat the proper amount when one exercises. What causes it isn't clear. That's why there needs to be a study. Some people think our bodies try to burn the same number of calories whether we are fat or thin, so to burn that many calories you either need to carry extra weight or you need to exercise. Obviously, if you take a few days off from exercising and reduce your intake during that time, you won't gain weight. But most people don't watch their calories that closely. Their eating habits will be about the same whether they are physically active or not. Part of this is due to what they see other people eating. If a person eats the same amount as other people they know, the person who exercises will naturally maintain weight while the person who doesn't will gain weight.0 -
sheermomentum wrote: »Did it specifically say for weigh loss? Or did it perhaps say for maintaining a healthy weight? Could be the company spinning a particular study for their own ends, but the actual conclusion of any study is in the details that often get overlooked in popular reporting.
I'm pretty sure it said for losing weight.0 -
kshama2001 wrote: »
I can't help you on your confusion.
It is CI/CO, some people can't exercise for whatever reasons, like injury, sickness or just don't like to exercise. I've had to take some exercise breaks because of surgery, but I still lose weight, because why?? I was in a deficit. Plain and simple.
That's not what you said. You said "Exercise is for health" which implies that it has no weight loss benefits, especially after going on to add "How much you eat and whether you are in deficit or not will cause a weight gain or weight loss."
If you had started with "I've had to take some exercise breaks because of surgery, but I still lose weight, because why?? I was in a deficit." I wouldn't have argued.0 -
TimothyFish wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
BMR is scarcely different between a 50 year old man and a teenager, let alone a 20-something man and a teenager.TimothyFish wrote: »A man in his twenties puts on weight while eating the same number of calories as he did when he was a teenager.
There is a difference of 50 calories per day between a 15 year old and a 25 year old. It is a whole 175 calories per day between a 15 year old and a 50 year old.
I've only seen numbers that high when not corrected for Fat Free Mass. When corrected for FFM, the BMRs are nearly identical, from every study I've read.
0 -
TimothyFish wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »The studies coming out about maintenance showing nearly complete overlap between significant exercise and long term weigh management are telling.
In theory, not necessary. In practice? Maybe a different story.
Could also just be that the people who successfully maintain also realize that exercise is good for you, apart from the calories it burns.
You're right, that could be. But if that's the case, I would like to see a study that looks at that. It seems more logical to conclude that exercise encourages successful maintenance than that successful maintenance encourages people to exercise.
I can only speak for myself, but I do only exercise for the body composition aspect, not to burn extra calories. It's an awful lot of work creating a deficit from exercise when instead I can just eat less.
So, you're saying you don't know what would happen if you didn't exercise. And keep in mind that in maintenance you don't "create a deficit."TimothyFish wrote: »For maintenance, exercise is most definitely more important than diet. During weight loss, it looks a little different because most people find it easier to create a calorie deficit through cutting calories than by exercise.
No, no. Maintenance is still all about CICO. I can work out sometimes, and do whenever I can, but there are times when I cannot. Those times, I still maintain my weight the same way I do when I can work out. I weigh my food, and log it, and stick to my calorie goals. It's just an adjustment when I do work out to eat back the exercise calories.
No one is saying that it isn't about the balance between calories in and calories out. But the evidence seems to point to it being easier to eat the proper amount when one exercises. What causes it isn't clear. That's why there needs to be a study. Some people think our bodies try to burn the same number of calories whether we are fat or thin, so to burn that many calories you either need to carry extra weight or you need to exercise. Obviously, if you take a few days off from exercising and reduce your intake during that time, you won't gain weight. But most people don't watch their calories that closely. Their eating habits will be about the same whether they are physically active or not. Part of this is due to what they see other people eating. If a person eats the same amount as other people they know, the person who exercises will naturally maintain weight while the person who doesn't will gain weight.
If I didn't exercise, my TDEE would go down by something like 100 calories or so, tops. I wouldn't suddenly gain back all the weight I'd lost, not even long term. Cause you know, I keep track of my intake for that reason.0 -
yopeeps025 wrote: »
\Need2Exerc1se wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
BMR is scarcely different between a 50 year old man and a teenager, let alone a 20-something man and a teenager.TimothyFish wrote: »A man in his twenties puts on weight while eating the same number of calories as he did when he was a teenager.
There is a difference of 50 calories per day between a 15 year old and a 25 year old. It is a whole 175 calories per day between a 15 year old and a 50 year old. If a 25 year old ate the same amount as a 15 year old and they both did nothing but sat around on the couch all day, the 25 year old would gain more than five pounds in one year. The 50 year old would gain 18 pounds. So, I'm not sure I want to call it "scarcely different."
However, you make a good point. We often see teenagers eating significant amounts of food without gaining weight. I would think that is more than 50 calories per day more than the adult versions of themselves, yet we see people gain weight after reaching adulthood. If it isn't how much they are growing that makes them thin and it isn't because they are eating less than adults, then it has to be something else. The other thing that is different between thin teenagers and the fat adult version of themselves is that teenagers are involved in sports, band, and other activities, while the fat adults just sit on the sidelines watching their children participate.
That is an average 15, 25 and 50 year old. The differences in BMR there are mostly due to foreseen LBM losses as you age which may not happen if you're paying attention to that.
This is true, but if you want to maintain LBM as you age you MUST exercise. There really isn't any other way to do it.
You mean weight train that really doesn't burn a lot of calories?
Not just. Think of your entire skeletal structure as being an organ - cardio helps in ways resistance training can't (and vice versa, of course).
To keep optimum fitness as you age, you need both.
0 -
bcalvanese wrote: »Saw something on the news this morning about Coca Cola supporting a study that exercise is more important for weight loss than diet. I can see why they would support such a study because they sell sugary drinks, but it still seems interesting to me because I always felt that exercise is more important.
Just wondering what other people think about this.
A lame attempt on Coca-Cola's part to seem health-oriented while still trying to get people to consume their product. People can lose weight without exercise. (I'm not saying that is ideal, just that what Coke says is not entirely true and they should leave that stuff to the scientists)0 -
bcalvanese wrote: »Saw something on the news this morning about Coca Cola supporting a study that exercise is more important for weight loss than diet. I can see why they would support such a study because they sell sugary drinks, but it still seems interesting to me because I always felt that exercise is more important.
Just wondering what other people think about this.
I cycle 60 - 80 miles per week on average...more when I'm training...I also lift 2-3x per week and I get in a 5K or two pretty much every week. On top of that I walk my dog most evenings, but at least 4-5 days per week. I also do some hiking and enjoy a little swimming in the summer.
I have lost weight, maintained my weight, and gained weight doing all of those things. Yes, exercise can most definitely help you maintain your weight and can aid in weight loss namely in that it increases your calorie requirements so you don't have to starve to lose weight...but you ultimately cannot out exercise your diet. If you over eat for your level of activity, you will gain weight.
I actually put on weight while training for a century ride due to my training always left me hungry no matter how much I ate and I also wanted to make sure I was getting proper recovery...I was at one point putting in about 130 miles per week...and yeah...I gained weight.0 -
I've never understood people trying to completely separate exercise and diet as being more or less important than the other for weight loss. You need a deficit. You can get that through, relative to maintenance, exercising more, or eating less. Or you can get that through eating more calories, but exercising in a way that burns even more calories. You can get that through reducing your exercise burns, as long as you reduce your intake even more.
Now, I certainly get people focusing on whichever method works best for them. But the whole "you can't out-exercise a bad diet" thing is kinda nonsense (from a weight loss perspective). You can. Are you likely to? Well, that may depend on how bad you mean by bad. But there's a while lot of eating you can out-exercise if you're willing to say, run 100 miles a week (not that I'd recommend that).
people say that to emphasize the fact that simply working out doesn't mean you just get to eat...look around the gym at all the people doing the right thing fitness wise...but their body's never change...they haven't figured out the diet part yet.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.8K Introduce Yourself
- 43.9K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153.1K Motivation and Support
- 8.1K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 15 News and Announcements
- 1.2K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions