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
-
Weight loss is in stages, the first 90% mental, 8% diet and 2% exercise. Without the right mindset, motivation and willingness to put the effort in you cannot do the rest. People fail because they have not or do not work to maintain the right mindset.1
-
It seems to me that no matter what you do, whether it be adding in exercise and eating the same, or just eating less you are losing weight, because you are eating less than you are buring so you it still comes down to diet no matter what. Everyone's activity level is different and they only way they are going to lose weight is by eating less calories than they are burning.1
-
It seems to me that no matter what you do, whether it be adding in exercise and eating the same, or just eating less you are losing weight, because you are eating less than you are buring so you it still comes down to diet no matter what. Everyone's activity level is different and they only way they are going to lose weight is by eating less calories than they are burning.
This is why I can't wrap my head around the concept of "net" calories...If I tell MFP I'm sedentary and it gives me (e.g.) 1500 cals/day, and I eat those plus 500 cals/day in exercise cals, I'm "netting" 1500/day. But if I set my activity at active and it gives me 2000 cals and I just eat those without separately tracking activity, I'm "netting" 2000 per day. But I eat and burn the same number in both cases. Shouldn't your "net" calories really be eaten minus burned? So you need a negative net (whether from eating less or moving more) to lose weight.0 -
LisaMarieSwain wrote: »"I tell my students that we control our body weight by what we put in our mouth and we control our fitness through exercise," Gibala said.
I pulled this quote from a link in an article posted on MFP. It got me thinking; by diet alone (restricting calories according to loseit app guidelines), I lost over 50 pounds a couple years ago. And here I am, 70 pounds over weight, and understanding I made a wrong turn somewhere.
I had a doctor once tell me that weight loss was 80% diet and 20% exercise. I am beginning to question that. Perhaps the actual physical weight loss, measurable on the scale is affected proportionately to those percentages, but without exercise, the physical appearance changes (and there are some extraordinary benefits to losing weight for sake of your health) but internally, you aren't improving.
I know that the less you weigh (down to your healthy weight) puts less strain on your body. I'm talking about the changes that come from body chemistry as you begin to and continue to exercise.
I'm beginning to think that exercise; regular, daily activity, is key to long term results; to life changing habits being formed, and becoming accustomed to and desiring the chemical releases that happen to you during and after a workout.
Does anyone have any research to back this up, or similar experiences that support (or dispute) this?
Physical activity is key to health, it is not key to losing weight. You will have benefits from exercise when overweight, same as weight loss will help improve health even when sedentary.
That's my experience, for sure. I was very active for a dozen years, while remaining fat (i.e., roughly the same weight).
There were a number of health benefits from being active, plus fitness benefits. There's been research suggesting that regular exercise reduces likelihood of breast cancer metastasis irrespective of body weight (I'm a stage III BC survivor). I got stronger in ways that were useful to me in daily life, and my endurance improved. I got smaller - lost a couple of sizes. My mood & psychological well-being improved, and stress level decreased.
But I still had some weight-related/eating-related health problems, including high cholesterol, and borderline blood pressure. Losing weight has seemingly resolved those.Traveler120 wrote: »snowflake930 wrote: »Traveler120 wrote: »I'm always amused by the 80% diet/20% exercise rule that's always regurgitated everywhere you look. It may be true for someone who was overeating and has to cut back, but it's different for someone who's not overeating but creates a deficit from exercise rather than reducing intake.
At 152 lbs, i was maintaining on ~1500 calories, while sedentary. A year ago, I started exercising A LOT - elliptical, spinning, swimming, hiking, cycling etc. I've been eating ~1700 calories and I've lost 34 lbs, down to 118 lbs.
So was it diet or exercise? I didn't eat less, in fact, I ate more. I'd say it was 100% exercise and 0% diet in terms of where I derived the calorie deficit that resulted in weight loss. And now in maintenance, since I want to continue eating about 1700 calories, I continue to exercise but since I don't need a deficit any more, I don't have to exercise as much as I did when losing.
You say you are exercising A LOT, so you are burning A LOT more calories, so you can eat more and still lose weight. Eating 1500 and maintaining @ 152 while sedentary vs: eating 1700 and losing and exercising A LOT would indicate that you are burning more than 200 extra calories, so you should be losing weight. You are eating less calories than you are burning. Now you are at maintenance, eating the same amount of calories 1700, exercising less. Nothing amusing, just CICO, eating less calories than you burn to lose, eating the same amount of calories to maintain and exercising less, and it is not 100% because of exercise it is CICO.
You clearly missed my point. Nobody is disputing CICO. The question is, is weightloss necessarily 80% diet and 20% exercise as 'everyone' says?
Some, like @readergirl3 above, say they lost weight without exercise, that's 100% diet and 0% exercise.
In my case, I continued eating the same and slightly more than I did at the beginning, but put all the effort in the CO part of CICO. So for me, yes, it was 0% diet and 100% exercise.
@Traveler120, I think (hope) your original point is that the relative importance of exercise vs. eating is individual, depending (in part?) on starting point. You & I are nearly exact opposites. I was already very active, especially for someone my age (60), but stayed fat until I changed my eating patterns. (It was easy to out-eat some few hundreds/thousands of exercise calories in a week.)
To lose weight, I didn't much change my exercise level. So, for me weight loss was 100% diet, and 0% exercise, if you want to look at it that way.
In the larger context of OP's topic, I want to underscore one obvious further point, too: Good diet means not just the right calorie level, but also solid nutrition.
My bottom line opinion: If I want to be healthy, exercise can't save me from a bad way of eating; and good eating can't save me from seriously inadequate activity levels. For best (health) results, I need both.0 -
I play basketball 2-3 times per week for about an hour and a half each time, with friends I have known for at least 10 years. Basketball is what motivates me to do almost everything I do health-wise, whether that be eating at a moderate calorie deficit, going to the gym to lift weights, or focusing on other ways to be healthy, like getting enough sleep.
I believe we have different tools to help us. Yes, CICO determines whether or not you will lose weight, and I would be much happier gaining muscle and losing inches than losing ANY weight. I do both; I don't have to choose.
Getting healthy is much more complicated than CICO. The CICO obsession (and droning on and on about it) seems a little bit cult-ish to me and is definitely NOT for everyone (as THE only rule to follow).0 -
I've never seen anyone claim that calorie balance (CICO) is all that matters for health.0
-
Who claims otherwise?Getting healthy is much more complicated than CICO.
CICO is not for everyone? How is that possible? It is an energy equation, no more no less...The CICO obsession (and droning on and on about it) seems a little bit cult-ish to me and is definitely NOT for everyone (as THE only rule to follow).0 -
For me this is true. I do better with diet and exercise as I have less time to eat if I am otherwise busy. And if I am hungrier I have a good deficit so there's space to eat more and still lose.0
-
Who claims otherwise?Getting healthy is much more complicated than CICO.
CICO is not for everyone? How is that possible? It is an energy equation, no more no less...The CICO obsession (and droning on and on about it) seems a little bit cult-ish to me and is definitely NOT for everyone (as THE only rule to follow).
So many people get CICO mixed up with dieting or a way of eating, I can only assume. I wouldn't call myself a cicophant per se, but yeah Eat less calories than you burn and you will lose weight, it's how one chooses to get there which is the not so simple part of the equation.0 -
Who claims otherwise?Getting healthy is much more complicated than CICO.
CICO is not for everyone? How is that possible? It is an energy equation, no more no less...The CICO obsession (and droning on and on about it) seems a little bit cult-ish to me and is definitely NOT for everyone (as THE only rule to follow).
Because the foods you eat matter as well as staying inside of your calorie window.1 -
Well, weight loss or going for a certain body goal in terms of looks or numbers will certainly be a bigger diet component; you have to be a hell of a lot more exact to get a look or specific number in terms of what you take in. Body builders, wrestlers, etc., all eat and portion and maintain very strict diet regiments to get numbers on the scale, or a very specific look to their body. I'd say that for that goal, then yes, diet is a much bigger part.
Now, if your goal is performance, which isn't always quantifiable by strict body measurement numbers, than no, it isn't a majority diet. It can't be, because performance is determined by the amount of work you put in, not simply the food you eat. Your muscles have to be trained, your coordination has to be trained, and exercise and focused physical input is going to often be a much bigger component than the diet. Is diet still important? Certainly. But I used to run long-distance and eat cake and ice cream and pizza and still lost weight and performed where I wanted, because energy is energy.
Personal anecdote, I have to exercise to maintain weight, because diet can be a huge mental issue for me. I don't count calories like I used to, or weight myself more than once a month now, because ultimately, that's how I became hyperfocused and evolved into a person with disordered eating habits. I focus now on the fitness goals, like weight PR, time, etc., because those don't involve a caloric number or a weight on the scale. If I wanted a certain look or weight again, which I don't, I could easily rein in my diet and count calories again.
But that's a slippery slope, and for me, it isn't worth it. So to just maintain where I am or increase my abilities, I simply put in more efforts with exercise, and when I do that, I'm more relaxed, and more often than not, the weight ends up coming off without too much thought. My body type and mentation thrive more on a relaxed diet and vigorous workout regime than strict diet and lax exercise, so there I sit, quite happily.0 -
gataman3000 wrote: »
Who claims otherwise?Getting healthy is much more complicated than CICO.
CICO is not for everyone? How is that possible? It is an energy equation, no more no less...The CICO obsession (and droning on and on about it) seems a little bit cult-ish to me and is definitely NOT for everyone (as THE only rule to follow).
Because the foods you eat matter as well as staying inside of your calorie window.
The foods you eat matter, sure, for all sorts of goals. But how or why does this mean CICO is not for everyone?
Again, there seems to be a misunderstanding that acknowledging that CICO is what governs weight (it's not a diet or way of eating) means not caring about what one eats, and that is false.0 -
Funny thing on here, people will respond to the statements you make and completely overlook any possibility of a deeper understanding. I think you have it figured out. You are way more likely to maintain a healthy weight if your health and wellness plan includes physical activity!
CICO may be the bottom dollar science, but there is more to it. The kind of foods you consume and your daily activity level play a roll in how you lose weight, maintain and gain muscle, and every other aspect of your overall health.
It sounds to me like you aren't trying to call this a diet anymore. Committing to a healthier lifestyle is a much better approach, in my opinion.0 -
amandadunwoody wrote: »It sounds to me like you aren't trying to call this a diet anymore. Committing to a healthier lifestyle is a much better approach, in my opinion.
Who is this directed at? What is "it" referring to?0 -
gataman3000 wrote: »
Who claims otherwise?Getting healthy is much more complicated than CICO.
CICO is not for everyone? How is that possible? It is an energy equation, no more no less...The CICO obsession (and droning on and on about it) seems a little bit cult-ish to me and is definitely NOT for everyone (as THE only rule to follow).
Because the foods you eat matter as well as staying inside of your calorie window.
I'm a little confused as to how that relates? Not that I disagree...0 -
It is an energy equation, nothing more, nothing less...amandadunwoody wrote: »CICO may be the bottom dollar science, but there is more to it.
0 -
Actually it is basically about CICO. Lack of sleep would definitely slow the loss (maybe even to a crawl), but if one is consistently in a calorie deficit, energy balance would in the negative and thereby cause storage to reduce.kingrat2014 wrote: »Weight loss is NOT simply calories. As I understand and work on, weight loss is like a three leg stool. Leg 1 can be diet, leg 2 would be exercise, and leg 3 would be sleep. I would not have lost 90 pounds simply following a starvation diet CICO. I have able to keep this loss off by paying attention to diet, exercise, sleep and reducing stress.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
0 -
CICO is not a diet...kingrat2014 wrote: »I would not have lost 90 pounds simply following a starvation diet CICO.
1 -
CICO is not a diet...kingrat2014 wrote: »I would not have lost 90 pounds simply following a starvation diet CICO.
Nor is it starvation.0 -
Saying "I don't believe in CICO because there are different ways to lose weight" is like saying "I don't believe in Gravity, because there are so many different kinds of shoes".7
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