Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
80% diet, 20% exercise.
Options
Replies
-
Pretty much.
What the easiest way to create the deficit is depends on the person. And probably varies even for that person over time.1 -
Is this not basically the chicken or the egg debate only on weight loss terms? Lol
Not really, I guess my point might be better brought out by rephrasing the statement:
"You can lose weight with a calorie deficit without dieting, but you cannot lose weight by dieting and no calorie deficit."
2 -
Is this not basically the chicken or the egg debate only on weight loss terms? Lol
Not really, I guess my point might be better brought out by rephrasing the statement:
"You can lose weight with a calorie deficit without dieting, but you cannot lose weight by dieting and no calorie deficit."
Then it would be maintenance and not dieting?0 -
if one is on say a low carb diet is that not a diet?Is this not basically the chicken or the egg debate only on weight loss terms? Lol
Not really, I guess my point might be better brought out by rephrasing the statement:
"You can lose weight with a calorie deficit without dieting, but you cannot lose weight by dieting and no calorie deficit."
Then it would be maintenance and not dieting?
0 -
It's a diet but dieting implies deficit in my opinion. I realize the technical definition though, yes.
Either way, the constant is true, a calorie deficit is required. You get there with diet or exercise...i.e. Chicken / egg. However loosely it fits, you get the gist.1 -
It's a diet but dieting implies deficit in my opinion. I realize the technical definition though, yes.
Either way, the constant is true, a calorie deficit is required. You get there with diet or exercise...i.e. Chicken / egg. However loosely it fits, you get the gist.
That is my point and that the two are components of a deficit or surplus and therefore cannot be exclusive of it at the same time. In other words, comparing exercise to a deficit is like an oxymoron.0 -
It's a diet but dieting implies deficit in my opinion. I realize the technical definition though, yes.
Either way, the constant is true, a calorie deficit is required. You get there with diet or exercise...i.e. Chicken / egg. However loosely it fits, you get the gist.
That is my point and that the two are components of a deficit or surplus and therefore cannot be exclusive of it at the same time. In other words, comparing exercise to a deficit is like an oxymoron.
I don't think the poster you quoted above meant to suggest that exercise wasn't part of the deficit. I thought you were basically saying the same thing.
I still think the 80/20 thing makes no sense. It's just something people say to mean that most people (especially those who have become overweight) cannot totally ignore what they are eating and increase exercise and expect to lose.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »It's a diet but dieting implies deficit in my opinion. I realize the technical definition though, yes.
Either way, the constant is true, a calorie deficit is required. You get there with diet or exercise...i.e. Chicken / egg. However loosely it fits, you get the gist.
That is my point and that the two are components of a deficit or surplus and therefore cannot be exclusive of it at the same time. In other words, comparing exercise to a deficit is like an oxymoron.
I don't think the poster you quoted above meant to suggest that exercise wasn't part of the deficit. I thought you were basically saying the same thing.
I still think the 80/20 thing makes no sense. It's just something people say to mean that most people (especially those who have become overweight) cannot totally ignore what they are eating and increase exercise and expect to lose.
Yeah, I know we're getting into semantics here (my fault). My interpretation is slightly different in that I think it is meant to be applied to the specific goal of weight loss as opposed to general population. It is saying that generally speaking most of your weight loss results caloric deficit will come from diet and a smaller portion will come from exercise.0 -
Honestly, I feel like everyone wants to "blame" weight loss struggles on physical issues ("what is the best exercise to burn fat?" / "Are my calories too low am I in 'starvation mode' oh noes?" / "am I eating too many carbs?" / "am I getting not enough protein?" / "should I eat a lchf diet to lose the most weight?" / "halp I can't stop eating after 7pm won't that all turn to fat?") but personally I think all that stuff is majoring in the minors. As many many people have said, bottom line you just need to burn fewer calories than you take in.
BUT there are a lot of things we can tweak about our diet and exercise that help our mental game. Personally, I find that exercise helped me lose more weight over a long period of time because in a number of ways it helped me stay on the path over a long period of time. For one thing, exercising allowed me to eat more calories while still losing weight at a reasonable pace. So since I was depriving myself less, I was way less tempted to give up. A lot of people feel like exercise also helps with mood, and being grouchy is a great way to end up eating more than you really want too, so that's another way exercise can help with your mental weight loss game. And the same is true really of a lot of that physical stuff: balancing your macros and your meal timing in a way that makes your body feel better and stronger and more satisfied gives you that much less temptation to give up and can help you be more successful losing and managing your weight over the long run.5 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »It's a diet but dieting implies deficit in my opinion. I realize the technical definition though, yes.
Either way, the constant is true, a calorie deficit is required. You get there with diet or exercise...i.e. Chicken / egg. However loosely it fits, you get the gist.
That is my point and that the two are components of a deficit or surplus and therefore cannot be exclusive of it at the same time. In other words, comparing exercise to a deficit is like an oxymoron.
I don't think the poster you quoted above meant to suggest that exercise wasn't part of the deficit. I thought you were basically saying the same thing.
I still think the 80/20 thing makes no sense. It's just something people say to mean that most people (especially those who have become overweight) cannot totally ignore what they are eating and increase exercise and expect to lose.
Yeah, I know we're getting into semantics here (my fault). My interpretation is slightly different in that I think it is meant to be applied to the specific goal of weight loss as opposed to general population. It is saying that generally speaking most of your weight loss results caloric deficit will come from diet and a smaller portion will come from exercise.
That's what makes no sense to me. I think it's all about context.
If a fat marathoner is running 10 hrs a week and is not losing weight, they're clearly eating too much. They need to "diet" as in eat less, in order to create sufficient deficit for fat loss, while maintaining the same level of exercise as before.
For a sedentary person, who's eating a reasonable amount of food, say 1700 calories for a woman, doesn't want to go on a starvation diet of 1200, but wants to lose the same amount as the fat marathoner above, the best option would be to simply start exercising enough to create the necessary deficit.
The difference is the same. Diet (as in eating less) or exercise will be equally effective. It just depends on where someone is starting at, as well as personal preferences.0 -
Honestly, I feel like everyone wants to "blame" weight loss struggles on physical issues ("what is the best exercise to burn fat?" / "Are my calories too low am I in 'starvation mode' oh noes?" / "am I eating too many carbs?" / "am I getting not enough protein?" / "should I eat a lchf diet to lose the most weight?" / "halp I can't stop eating after 7pm won't that all turn to fat?") but personally I think all that stuff is majoring in the minors. As many many people have said, bottom line you just need to burn fewer calories than you take in.
BUT there are a lot of things we can tweak about our diet and exercise that help our mental game. Personally, I find that exercise helped me lose more weight over a long period of time because in a number of ways it helped me stay on the path over a long period of time. For one thing, exercising allowed me to eat more calories while still losing weight at a reasonable pace. So since I was depriving myself less, I was way less tempted to give up. A lot of people feel like exercise also helps with mood, and being grouchy is a great way to end up eating more than you really want too, so that's another way exercise can help with your mental weight loss game. And the same is true really of a lot of that physical stuff: balancing your macros and your meal timing in a way that makes your body feel better and stronger and more satisfied gives you that much less temptation to give up and can help you be more successful losing and managing your weight over the long run.
"...you just need to burn fewer more calories than you take in."
FTFY
0 -
I agree in theory... I also know that exercise alone, when done vigorously enough (I'm playing devil's advocate here!), 10-12 hours a week, can bring in immense changes in the body. Imagine if we did what actors/actresses do... Work out with a trainer 1 hour in the morning, 1 hour in the evening (with increased intensity and always challenging your body), 6 days a week, plus a run/yoga/hike session here and there... You could eat the same and I think that over time, your body composition would change a lot. You'd have a lot more muscle on you, which would take care of efficiently burning everything you put in your mouth. That, in turn, over weeks / months, would make you a lot leaner with much less body fat.
0 -
I think the gist of the 80/20 statement is to say that it is much easier to create a deficit with diet than it is with exercise. One of my doctors once explained it to me this way, concerning my bad habit to have a chocolate milkshake almost daily:
"You can have a 600 calorie shake, but you will have to run for about an hour in order to burn it off. Now tell me, which is harder for you, not getting the shake or running for an hour?" Being obese at the time, I knew there was no way I would be running for an hour, so I chose not to drink the shakes.
If you gave forced upon me a choice - I can go for a run, or I can have a shake, but not both - I'd do the run and give up the shake. I value the endorphin buzz more than the sugar. Maybe if it was a savory dish I'd have a harder time choosing...
0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »It's a diet but dieting implies deficit in my opinion. I realize the technical definition though, yes.
Either way, the constant is true, a calorie deficit is required. You get there with diet or exercise...i.e. Chicken / egg. However loosely it fits, you get the gist.
That is my point and that the two are components of a deficit or surplus and therefore cannot be exclusive of it at the same time. In other words, comparing exercise to a deficit is like an oxymoron.
I don't think the poster you quoted above meant to suggest that exercise wasn't part of the deficit. I thought you were basically saying the same thing.
I still think the 80/20 thing makes no sense. It's just something people say to mean that most people (especially those who have become overweight) cannot totally ignore what they are eating and increase exercise and expect to lose.
Yeah, I know we're getting into semantics here (my fault). My interpretation is slightly different in that I think it is meant to be applied to the specific goal of weight loss as opposed to general population. It is saying that generally speaking most of your weight loss results caloric deficit will come from diet and a smaller portion will come from exercise.
But--and I admit this IS getting into semantics and is in good humor--I don't think that's true. For me it's always been a lot about exercise, since I've only gained weight from becoming inactive.
For example, let's say I want to lose more weight enough to actually create a calorie deficit.
My sedentary TDEE is 1550. To lose I'd likely eat between 1600-1800, however, over my sedentary TDEE, and create a calorie deficit with exercise. So that looks like I'm doing 100% from exercise.
Except that of course I'm currently exercising at that level (or close), so what I actually do is cut calories from the amount I'm currently eating at maintenance. So then is it 100% from calorie cutting, if I don't change my exercise?
When I actually DID decide to get back in shape my intention and goal was to cut calories by about 500 and exercise on average for about 500 calories/day more than I had been (this could include walking too). Of course it took me some time to work up to that level, but I did. So that seems like it was 50/50 exercise and calorie cutting.
Mentally, I find it much easier to eat well (and fewer calories) when I am focused on fitness and exercise (training) goals, so again that to me feels like a contribution of about 50% or at least a non-quantifiable both are extremely important to me. This is going to vary person to person.
Of course, I cannot completely not think about food and lose, even at my most active, and I could lose without any exercise if I had to. So that suggests a different percentage, although not a quantifiable one, again.0 -
Honestly, I feel like everyone wants to "blame" weight loss struggles on physical issues ("what is the best exercise to burn fat?" / "Are my calories too low am I in 'starvation mode' oh noes?" / "am I eating too many carbs?" / "am I getting not enough protein?" / "should I eat a lchf diet to lose the most weight?" / "halp I can't stop eating after 7pm won't that all turn to fat?") but personally I think all that stuff is majoring in the minors. As many many people have said, bottom line you just need to burn fewer calories than you take in.
BUT there are a lot of things we can tweak about our diet and exercise that help our mental game. Personally, I find that exercise helped me lose more weight over a long period of time because in a number of ways it helped me stay on the path over a long period of time. For one thing, exercising allowed me to eat more calories while still losing weight at a reasonable pace. So since I was depriving myself less, I was way less tempted to give up. A lot of people feel like exercise also helps with mood, and being grouchy is a great way to end up eating more than you really want too, so that's another way exercise can help with your mental weight loss game. And the same is true really of a lot of that physical stuff: balancing your macros and your meal timing in a way that makes your body feel better and stronger and more satisfied gives you that much less temptation to give up and can help you be more successful losing and managing your weight over the long run.
Great points -- this rings true to my experience too.0 -
actually, if you went for a run, you'd be able to have the shake. The goal is the deficit.NorthCascades wrote: »I think the gist of the 80/20 statement is to say that it is much easier to create a deficit with diet than it is with exercise. One of my doctors once explained it to me this way, concerning my bad habit to have a chocolate milkshake almost daily:
"You can have a 600 calorie shake, but you will have to run for about an hour in order to burn it off. Now tell me, which is harder for you, not getting the shake or running for an hour?" Being obese at the time, I knew there was no way I would be running for an hour, so I chose not to drink the shakes.
If you gave forced upon me a choice - I can go for a run, or I can have a shake, but not both - I'd do the run and give up the shake. I value the endorphin buzz more than the sugar. Maybe if it was a savory dish I'd have a harder time choosing...
Think about it another way:
Many people here on MFP needing to lose a lot of weight choose the most aggressive goal available; 2 pounds per week or a deficit of 1000 calories a day. For those who make such a choice, how many would find it easier to burn 1000 calories every day through exercise?
0 -
actually, if you went for a run, you'd be able to have the shake. The goal is the deficit.NorthCascades wrote: »I think the gist of the 80/20 statement is to say that it is much easier to create a deficit with diet than it is with exercise. One of my doctors once explained it to me this way, concerning my bad habit to have a chocolate milkshake almost daily:
"You can have a 600 calorie shake, but you will have to run for about an hour in order to burn it off. Now tell me, which is harder for you, not getting the shake or running for an hour?" Being obese at the time, I knew there was no way I would be running for an hour, so I chose not to drink the shakes.
If you gave forced upon me a choice - I can go for a run, or I can have a shake, but not both - I'd do the run and give up the shake. I value the endorphin buzz more than the sugar. Maybe if it was a savory dish I'd have a harder time choosing...
Think about it another way:
Many people here on MFP needing to lose a lot of weight choose the most aggressive goal available; 2 pounds per week or a deficit of 1000 calories a day. For those who make such a choice, how many would find it easier to burn 1000 calories every day through exercise?
I just addressed almost exactly this question. I found 50/50 the most sensible and appealing approach.0 -
Weight loss is 100% diet.
How much you exercise is immaterial if you are not in a deficit.
But that doesn't mean exercise isn't critical to physical health, mental health, and possibly even adherence to sticking to a calorie deficit.0 -
actually, if you went for a run, you'd be able to have the shake. The goal is the deficit.
I understand about the math and I think your doctor had a pretty clever way of explaining it to you in a way that hit home. Leave the choice in your hands, just make the "cost" clear, and for most people it's an obvious decision.
Not disagreeing with that at all. I'm just sharing my personal perspective, because we're all different in our motivations and what we find easy/hard. I really like the way a hard workout makes me feel, it's my natural stress relief after a bad day at work or a tough commute. It also gets me out of the house because I get cabin fever really bad and if I don't get out regularly I'll fall into a depression. So, if I had to choose for some reason, I'd take the run and give up the shake, even though in reality it's not a one or the other choice, it's more like a both or none.
Ultimately, I'm agreeing with you that this "80/20 rule" is not a hard and fast scientific law about how all people must lose weight, that what works for one person isn't necessarily going to work for everybody, we're all motivated differently.0 -
It's about eating less than you burn BUT for some people, like me, weight loss would not be achievable without activity. There's absolutely no way that I'd be able to stick to 1400 calories, which would be my goal if I didn't exercise... Just NOT happening.
So it's definitely not as easy as '100% diet'. Getting 20% extra calories from activity seems reasonable, so 80% diet/20% exercise sounds about right to me.2
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K 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
- 96.2K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 916 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions