Calorie restriction versus increased activity
Aaron_K123
Posts: 7,122 Member
There seems to be a very common theme on this website (and therefore probably in the world at large). Its the belief that weight loss is equivalent to becoming healthy and that the way to weight loss is to eat less. I have to disagree. Sure, I believe in CICO, TDEE, NEAT and measuring as a means of tracking your progress...its not that that I take issue with. Its the idea that the focus seems to be on one side of the coin.
If you want to lose weight then you need to intake less calorically than your TDEE. From reading most posts on this forum you'd think there is one way to do that...eat less. But there are of course two ways of doing that: eat less is one, but being more active is the other.
I have seen very few people seem to take the approach of eating the exact same as they have been but just increasing their activity level. Everyone seems to approach it with these very restrictive diets that cut calories to these extremely low levels often bottoming out at the MFP-limit of 1200 a day.
I know I am not being unique in saying this nor do I think this is some sort of epiphany on my part, I'm arrogant but not that arrogant. I just think it should be said and that it should be said often.
Calorie restriction as an approach is a good way to lose weight, but its really not that good of a way to health nor to maintained weight loss. It tends to decrease your energy level, it tends to weaken you, it tends to lead to muscle loss as well as fat loss. On the other side increasing your activity level while maintaining your comfortable food intake level will still result in weight loss while in addition maintaining your muscle and increasing your energy level, making you actually feel better...not just when you are "finished" after reaching your goal but during the entire experience as well.
So what do I mean by increase activity level...do I mean hitting the gym everyday? Well if that is what you want sure, its anything you want really. It can be just regular walking. To have it be effective you still have to track calories, you still have to watch your TDEE...but increasing your calorie burn as a means of reaching your goal rather than just limiting what you eat is a much more fun, relaxing and healthy approach in my opinion.
I'm sure the common counter to this would be time. Don't have time to increase activity level, only have time to eat less. Here is the thing though, you need to take into account the quality of your time not just the length. If you increase activity sure maybe you lose an hour a day to that activity, but you gain energy throughout your day. You feel better, you feel less tired, you can do more. If your day is so busy you don't have an hour then try at first borrowing that hour by taking it from your sleep, after a while your energy level will increase and you will feel less tired despite having that one hour less a night. Chores might become easier, thus faster, thus more time and soon you'll get that hour back for whatever you want.
It kind of makes me sick when I see everyone approaching losing weight like its carrying a cross, and requires self-flagellation in the form of overly restrictive diets that eliminate certain foods and limit calories to an utterly paltry amount I can't imagine is very fun to do. To those people all I am saying is this. Instead try eating a little more and just going for a walk an hour a day. See how that feels. It won't hurt you.
If you want to lose weight then you need to intake less calorically than your TDEE. From reading most posts on this forum you'd think there is one way to do that...eat less. But there are of course two ways of doing that: eat less is one, but being more active is the other.
I have seen very few people seem to take the approach of eating the exact same as they have been but just increasing their activity level. Everyone seems to approach it with these very restrictive diets that cut calories to these extremely low levels often bottoming out at the MFP-limit of 1200 a day.
I know I am not being unique in saying this nor do I think this is some sort of epiphany on my part, I'm arrogant but not that arrogant. I just think it should be said and that it should be said often.
Calorie restriction as an approach is a good way to lose weight, but its really not that good of a way to health nor to maintained weight loss. It tends to decrease your energy level, it tends to weaken you, it tends to lead to muscle loss as well as fat loss. On the other side increasing your activity level while maintaining your comfortable food intake level will still result in weight loss while in addition maintaining your muscle and increasing your energy level, making you actually feel better...not just when you are "finished" after reaching your goal but during the entire experience as well.
So what do I mean by increase activity level...do I mean hitting the gym everyday? Well if that is what you want sure, its anything you want really. It can be just regular walking. To have it be effective you still have to track calories, you still have to watch your TDEE...but increasing your calorie burn as a means of reaching your goal rather than just limiting what you eat is a much more fun, relaxing and healthy approach in my opinion.
I'm sure the common counter to this would be time. Don't have time to increase activity level, only have time to eat less. Here is the thing though, you need to take into account the quality of your time not just the length. If you increase activity sure maybe you lose an hour a day to that activity, but you gain energy throughout your day. You feel better, you feel less tired, you can do more. If your day is so busy you don't have an hour then try at first borrowing that hour by taking it from your sleep, after a while your energy level will increase and you will feel less tired despite having that one hour less a night. Chores might become easier, thus faster, thus more time and soon you'll get that hour back for whatever you want.
It kind of makes me sick when I see everyone approaching losing weight like its carrying a cross, and requires self-flagellation in the form of overly restrictive diets that eliminate certain foods and limit calories to an utterly paltry amount I can't imagine is very fun to do. To those people all I am saying is this. Instead try eating a little more and just going for a walk an hour a day. See how that feels. It won't hurt you.
19
Replies
-
I think the increasing activity can go the same way as calorie restriction. There are those here who maintain a modest deficit and there are those who go for the overly restrictive diet.
Just like there are those who increase their activity and those who up their activity to unmaintainable levels of cardio just to try to lose weight.
I don't think going to the extremes in either case is good.
I tend to advise people to do levels of activity they can maintain after they hit weight goal. I also encourage modest deficits and a way of eating that can be maintained after hitting goal weight.7 -
I've lost weight by eating my maintenance calories and adding 500 calories of exercise everyday. However judging the exact calories I was burning was too hard and the weight loss was slower than I liked. But for sure there are other way's to lose weight besides cutting calories, especially to ridiculously low numbers...6
-
You can create a deficit with exercise, but for most people it is easier to create a deficit in the CI side. If you only need to lose 10-15 pounds then increasing your exercise might be all you need. But if you are obese then it will be difficult to create a big enough deficit through exercise alone. Ideally one will cut calories in and increase activity, but that isn't always an option for health reasons. Plus some people who are morbidly obese are better off starting with changing their diet and then increasing their exercise and not trying to make all the changes at once.12
-
3dogsrunning wrote: »I think the increasing activity can go the same way as calorie restriction. There are those here who maintain a modest deficit and there are those who go for the overly restrictive diet.
Just like there are those who increase their activity and those who up their activity to unmaintainable levels of cardio just to try to lose weight.
I don't think going to the extremes in either case is good.
I tend to advise people to do levels of activity they can maintain after they hit weight goal. I also encourage modest deficits and a way of eating that can be maintained after hitting goal weight.
I agree 3dogs. But people seem to lean more towards the extremes of eating less than they do the extremes of exercise, at least from what I have seen on here. And I would argue that the moderate activity increase as a means of losing weight is still better for you than the moderate calorie restriction given the benefits of muscle retention and increased fitness.
I assume for most people what they really want is to be healthier and feel better, they just equate that to weight loss and I'm not convinced that is the best way to view it.5 -
The problem with simply increasing activity is that from the reading I have done, it doesn't work as well as a calorie deficit. From what I remember when many people increase their activity with added exercise they often compensate either by decreasing NEAT and/or eating slightly more. Now in terms of NEAT, things like fitbit can help to keep a person's NEAT higher since it encourages movement, and in terms of food consumption, counting calories can keep that in check.
My thought is this. It is far easier to establish a calorie deficit by reducing how much I eat. If I lose weight, even by an increase in activity, I will have to reduce how much I eat in the long term due to a decrease in TDEE from weight loss, so why not start now. My personal preference in approaching that is to figure out my TDEE for my goal weight and eat at that level which means while I am losing weight I am learning to eat at the level I am supposed to eat. Weight loss will not be the fastest, especially as the goal gets closer, but it allows me to develop good habits in terms of eating over a longer period of time than by eating at a larger deficit and then having to go up to maintenance when I get to my goal.7 -
"But if you are obese then it will be difficult to create a big enough deficit through exercise alone."
Really? Because I'd think it would be the opposite. Calorie burn is all about respiration and respiration is all about heart rate. If you are obese it is often much easier to elevate your heart rate than if you are fit. I would think an obese person would have an easier time establishing a caloric deficit through increased activity than a non-obese or fit person would.2 -
I would agree with the sentiment that it is harder to judge your deficit from exercise than it is from eating less. How many calories is 300 less is easier when it is on the side of a box than when you are trying to judge your caloric burn through exercise. It takes more attention, but the payoff is pretty good.1
-
Aaron_K123 wrote: »3dogsrunning wrote: »I think the increasing activity can go the same way as calorie restriction. There are those here who maintain a modest deficit and there are those who go for the overly restrictive diet.
Just like there are those who increase their activity and those who up their activity to unmaintainable levels of cardio just to try to lose weight.
I don't think going to the extremes in either case is good.
I tend to advise people to do levels of activity they can maintain after they hit weight goal. I also encourage modest deficits and a way of eating that can be maintained after hitting goal weight.
I agree 3dogs. But people seem to lean more towards the extremes of eating less than they do the extremes of exercise, at least from what I have seen on here. And I would argue that the moderate activity increase as a means of losing weight is still better for you than the moderate calorie restriction given the benefits of muscle retention and increased fitness.
I assume for most people what they really want is to be healthier and feel better, they just equate that to weight loss and I'm not convinced that is the best way to view it.
I don't disagree but often increased exercise = increased unintentional calorie consumption for a few reasons.
Tracking is still key, ie maintaining a deficit.
I am 100% for adding activity. But I don't think it is always enough.1 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »"But if you are obese then it will be difficult to create a big enough deficit through exercise alone."
Really? Because I'd think it would be the opposite. Calorie burn is all about respiration and respiration is all about heart rate. If you are obese it is often much easier to elevate your heart rate than if you are fit. I would think an obese person would have an easier time establishing a caloric deficit through increased activity than a non-obese or fit person would.
I agree, a 300lb person would burn a *kitten*-ton more calories than i would for walking say, 30-60 minutes a day2 -
3dogsrunning wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »3dogsrunning wrote: »I think the increasing activity can go the same way as calorie restriction. There are those here who maintain a modest deficit and there are those who go for the overly restrictive diet.
Just like there are those who increase their activity and those who up their activity to unmaintainable levels of cardio just to try to lose weight.
I don't think going to the extremes in either case is good.
I tend to advise people to do levels of activity they can maintain after they hit weight goal. I also encourage modest deficits and a way of eating that can be maintained after hitting goal weight.
I agree 3dogs. But people seem to lean more towards the extremes of eating less than they do the extremes of exercise, at least from what I have seen on here. And I would argue that the moderate activity increase as a means of losing weight is still better for you than the moderate calorie restriction given the benefits of muscle retention and increased fitness.
I assume for most people what they really want is to be healthier and feel better, they just equate that to weight loss and I'm not convinced that is the best way to view it.
I don't disagree but often increased exercise = increased unintentional calorie consumption for a few reasons.
Tracking is still key, ie maintaining a deficit.
I am 100% for adding activity. But I don't think it is always enough.
I agree again that it is unlikely to work without consistent and accurate tracking. But then again caloric restriction is also unlikely to work without consistent and accurate tracking.
Keep in mind my argument isn't that it is easier, its that it is better and yet definitely not the focus of this forum which seems dedicated 99% to how to eat less without being sad or how to eat less without eating all the donuts in the box the next day. I can't be the only one who finds that depressing.3 -
Very few people on here recommend intakes of 1200 and restricting foods etc. A lot of people starting out believe that's the only way to do it but quickly learn it's not the only way and probably not the best way for them. The people who are feeling weak and lethargic and tired are too restrictive, and if you have seen any of the "oh I feel like crap since MFP" posts, they are filled with members recommending a reasonable goal and eating to that.
The reason why the majority of people recommend eating less in the CICO equation, is that it's much more doable for the majority of the population. For a large majority of the people here, adding "an hours walk" a day will not tip the scales in their calorie balance.
For me, I can quite happily reduce the amount i'm eating but trying to get that extra hour/s exercise (between my 2-3 jobs I work) is nearly impossible. It's not only easier to fit it into my day, it also requires less physical effort. For someone like me with a strong mental will and a weak physical will, calorie counting was the only way I was going to be able to do it.10 -
Lets put it this way.
If you told me you want to lose weight and I told you sure, you can lose weight but you have to pick one of these two options.
Option 1: Never eat burgers again
Option 2: You can still eat burgers and on top of that you now have motivation to go for long walks around your town, explore it a bit, walk around your local park to meet your goal of weight loss.
How come 99% of people seem to go with option 1. That is the part that confuses me to no end.6 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »Lets put it this way.
If you told me you want to lose weight and I told you sure, you can lose weight but you have to pick one of these two options.
Option 1: Never eat burgers again
Option 2: You can still eat burgers and on top of that you now have motivation to go for long walks around your town, explore it a bit, walk around your local park to meet your goal of weight loss.
How come 99% of people seem to go with option 1. That is the part that confuses me to no end.
If Garmin is to be believed, I can't really do option 2.
I'm a total believer in fuelling my exercise but extra steps just doesn't up it enough for me.
I still eat burgers, but it comes with balancing the rest of my foods and more activity than just taking some extra steps in a day.0 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »Lets put it this way.
If you told me you want to lose weight and I told you sure, you can lose weight but you have to pick one of these two options.
Option 1: Never eat burgers again
Option 2: You can still eat burgers and on top of that you now have motivation to go for long walks around your town, explore it a bit, walk around your local park to meet your goal of weight loss.
How come 99% of people seem to go with option 1. That is the part that confuses me to no end.
I don' think that's the case. I don't think that 99% of people decide to go with option 1. Maybe it's because I don't just stick around in the General Diet area, but also go to the Fitness area, I see a lot of people talking about exercise in conjunction with lowering their calorie intake be it through TDEE or the NEAT way of eating back exercise calories. Where are you getting such a large number of people choosing only to decrease calories?2 -
I guess I didn't think about the obese person burning more calories with less activity. That is true. I just think that starting a new exercise can be intimidating for someone who has never exercised before. I have lost weight before without exercising, but every time I have started exercising and didn't watch my eating I never lost and sometimes even gained weight. This time I lost it by eating at a deficit and I did increase my activity, but most if my deficit came from diet. I didn't stop eating any particular foods though. I eat all the things I always did, just in reasonable portion sizes.1
-
3dogsrunning wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »Lets put it this way.
If you told me you want to lose weight and I told you sure, you can lose weight but you have to pick one of these two options.
Option 1: Never eat burgers again
Option 2: You can still eat burgers and on top of that you now have motivation to go for long walks around your town, explore it a bit, walk around your local park to meet your goal of weight loss.
How come 99% of people seem to go with option 1. That is the part that confuses me to no end.
If Garmin is to be believed, I can't really do option 2.
I'm a total believer in fuelling my exercise but extra steps just doesn't up it enough for me.
I still eat burgers, but it comes with balancing the rest of my foods and more activity than just taking some extra steps in a day.
I don't necessarily believe my fitbit but on the weekend I did a good amount of just walking and at the end of the day my Charge HR stated my TDEE to be 6,420 calories (it puts my BMR around 1800 so my burn from walking was about 4600. Do I believe that is accurate? Not really. But I doubt its off by 4-fold so we are still talking a thousand or more calories burned. I also enjoyed myself quite a bit and on that day ate a Dairy Queen Blizzard, a Jumbo Jack and a 4-entree Panda Express meal in addition to other things of course.
0 -
And then NEVER in your life get sick or injured. Then you'll be gaining again. Sorry to any losers that can't work out due to physical limitations, chronic illness, etc. You're doomed to be fat.10
-
Aaron_K123 wrote: »Lets put it this way.
If you told me you want to lose weight and I told you sure, you can lose weight but you have to pick one of these two options.
Option 1: Never eat burgers again
Option 2: You can still eat burgers and on top of that you now have motivation to go for long walks around your town, explore it a bit, walk around your local park to meet your goal of weight loss.
How come 99% of people seem to go with option 1. That is the part that confuses me to no end.
But this is not a realistic situation. This scenario assumes the person is only over their maintenance level by an amount that can be burnt off by a "long walk"(or whatever exercise) in a reasonable amount of time.
If someone is eating more than they can burn off through exercise in a day, the only option left is to eat less.
I was eating more than I could burn off with the time I have available to exercise. My only option available to me is to eat less. It doesn't take any extra time out of my day.
I still eat burgers, without the long walks around the town. I just don't eat burgers every day, and when I do eat burgers, I don't have 4 of them. It's as simple as that.
Trying to convince someone that the miracle to weightloss is fitting in extra exercise when they are already busy with work/illnesses/kids etc. OR eating more than they can possibly ever hope to burn is just as bad as telling someone they can only eat 600 calories and never ever eat anything "yummy" again. The end result will be the same - "I can't do that".14 -
Harder to judge calorie burn from exercise.
Also, I have limited time (between work and a long commute) to exercise away 600-700 calories a day, as I believe 600-700 calories of exercise would be at least 90mins of something, as you need to factor in that calorie burn even with a HRM is never accurate.
Garmin said I burnt 500 cals in the pool the other night swimming 1200m. That's bull-poo.0 -
And then NEVER in your life get sick or injured. Then you'll be gaining again. Sorry to any losers that can't work out due to physical limitations, chronic illness, etc. You're doomed to be fat.
What person are you imagining that literally cannot increase their activity level? Why do you think it is impossible for them to improve their health through increased activity? I'm not being negative here I am being positive, I am saying you CAN do it...not you CANNOT do it.1 -
"Harder to judge calorie burn from exercise."
That is certainly true. Not impossible though.
"Also, I have limited time (between work and a long commute) to exercise away 600-700 calories a day"
Yeah, that is legitimate. I tried to address that in my original post by suggesting investing in your overall fitness will reap dividends in your energy levels that will compensate for that "lost" time if not give you more time. Time is not just measured in hours, its also measured in activity level and what you can do.
I'm not trying to claim everyone has lots of free time.1 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »And then NEVER in your life get sick or injured. Then you'll be gaining again. Sorry to any losers that can't work out due to physical limitations, chronic illness, etc. You're doomed to be fat.
What person are you imagining that literally cannot increase their activity level? Why do you think it is impossible for them to improve their health through increased activity?
First, the issue is not simply increasing activity, but as someone else mentioned, increasing it enough to take the calorie surplus a person is eating and make it a deficit. Second, there are many people in the morbidly obese categories who have major limitations on activity because of their weight. They need to lose weight initially so they can actually do anything significant including walking without extreme pain.
Having said that, there have been an abundance of studies in this area. Here is an article from Scientific America on this very issue. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/can-you-lose-weight-with-exercise-alone1/
7 -
rileysowner wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »And then NEVER in your life get sick or injured. Then you'll be gaining again. Sorry to any losers that can't work out due to physical limitations, chronic illness, etc. You're doomed to be fat.
What person are you imagining that literally cannot increase their activity level? Why do you think it is impossible for them to improve their health through increased activity?
First, the issue is not simply increasing activity, but as someone else mentioned, increasing it enough to take the calorie surplus a person is eating and make it a deficit. Second, there are many people in the morbidly obese categories who have major limitations on activity because of their weight. They need to lose weight initially so they can actually do anything significant including walking without extreme pain.
Having said that, there have been an abundance of studies in this area. Here is an article from Scientific America on this very issue. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/can-you-lose-weight-with-exercise-alone1/
If I was trying to claim this is a solution for everyone I'd be daft. There is no one-way-fits-all solution to anything let alone weight loss.
That wasn't my point nor did I make that claim anywhere and if I somehow implied that let me say categorically that is not what I meant, My point is that there are TWO SIDES to the coin, TWO ways to approach weight loss but if you come to this forum really only one seems to be represented, and in my opinion it isn't the side that is really best for overall health fitness and well-being for the majority of people.
That was my point.
4 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »rileysowner wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »And then NEVER in your life get sick or injured. Then you'll be gaining again. Sorry to any losers that can't work out due to physical limitations, chronic illness, etc. You're doomed to be fat.
What person are you imagining that literally cannot increase their activity level? Why do you think it is impossible for them to improve their health through increased activity?
First, the issue is not simply increasing activity, but as someone else mentioned, increasing it enough to take the calorie surplus a person is eating and make it a deficit. Second, there are many people in the morbidly obese categories who have major limitations on activity because of their weight. They need to lose weight initially so they can actually do anything significant including walking without extreme pain.
Having said that, there have been an abundance of studies in this area. Here is an article from Scientific America on this very issue. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/can-you-lose-weight-with-exercise-alone1/
If I was trying to claim this is a solution for everyone I'd be daft. There is no one-way-fits-all solution to anything let alone weight loss.
That wasn't my point, my point is that there are TWO SIDES to the coin, TWO ways to approach weight loss but if you come to this forum really only one seems to be represented.
That was my point.
But you are not presenting a fair argument and people are getting defensive, rightly so. In your post you are presenting the two options as:
1) Just walk a little more and it will work wonders for weightloss! No changes to diet required!
2) Restrict to a ridiculous amount, punish yourself and don't eat anything yummy again. This place is full of people encouraging eating nothing.
CICO is an equation - of course you can work on either side of it. But, you have to acknowledge for the majority of people, it is easier and more realistic to work on the CI side.
5 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »Lets put it this way.
If you told me you want to lose weight and I told you sure, you can lose weight but you have to pick one of these two options.
Option 1: Never eat burgers again
Option 2: You can still eat burgers and on top of that you now have motivation to go for long walks around your town, explore it a bit, walk around your local park to meet your goal of weight loss.
How come 99% of people seem to go with option 1. That is the part that confuses me to no end.
But this is not a realistic situation. This scenario assumes the person is only over their maintenance level by an amount that can be burnt off by a "long walk"(or whatever exercise) in a reasonable amount of time.
If someone is eating more than they can burn off through exercise in a day, the only option left is to eat less.
I was eating more than I could burn off with the time I have available to exercise. My only option available to me is to eat less. It doesn't take any extra time out of my day.
I still eat burgers, without the long walks around the town. I just don't eat burgers every day, and when I do eat burgers, I don't have 4 of them. It's as simple as that.
Trying to convince someone that the miracle to weightloss is fitting in extra exercise when they are already busy with work/illnesses/kids etc. OR eating more than they can possibly ever hope to burn is just as bad as telling someone they can only eat 600 calories and never ever eat anything "yummy" again. The end result will be the same - "I can't do that".
I thought that was obvious enough to not need mentioning.
I hope its clear I'm not claiming that if you go for an hour walk you can eat as much as you want. I never said that.
What I said is people who are looking to lose weight on this site's weight-loss forum seem to focus almost entirely on how to eat less and not very much at all on how to be more active.
Stated in that way do you disagree?0 -
Why are people so doom-and-gloom over this. Believe it or not burning an extra few hundred calories a day by walking WILL over time help your health. Is that somehow a contestable statement?
All I am saying is this. Isn't it interesting how the focus of this forum seems almost entirely to be on how to eat less and not on how to be more active considering both ways are valid forms of reaching or at least extending or heading towards the caloric deficit required for weight loss.
1 -
I think this forum focuses mostly on diet, because it's something everyone can do. You might not have time to take an extra walk, you might be disabled or injured, but you have to eat, so just eat differently. Having said that, I think lots of times the advice is - Eat less, move more - increasing your physical activity is often mentioned, and there's an entire Forum for exercise and fitness. I don't agree that it is ignored here.
When I got my Fitbit, I was shocked to learn I was only averaging @ 3000 steps a day. I work a desk job, have a longish commute, and spend a lot of my free time reading our watching TV. I have more than doubled that average, and it's bought me... a couple of hundred extra calories at most. That's not even a half a lb per week. And since increased activity can lead to increased appetite, you have to log your food anyway to make sure you don't just eat back the calories you just burned. I think for a lot of people it is easier to wrap your brain around cutting out a can of soda and that second serving of pasta than it is to work an extra hour or so of activity into their day.
ETA: I also don't see the "regulars" on the forum promote restrictive diets or "self-flagellation". In fact, I see them argue against that time and again.6 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »Lets put it this way.
If you told me you want to lose weight and I told you sure, you can lose weight but you have to pick one of these two options.
Option 1: Never eat burgers again
Option 2: You can still eat burgers and on top of that you now have motivation to go for long walks around your town, explore it a bit, walk around your local park to meet your goal of weight loss.
How come 99% of people seem to go with option 1. That is the part that confuses me to no end.
But this is not a realistic situation. This scenario assumes the person is only over their maintenance level by an amount that can be burnt off by a "long walk"(or whatever exercise) in a reasonable amount of time.
If someone is eating more than they can burn off through exercise in a day, the only option left is to eat less.
I was eating more than I could burn off with the time I have available to exercise. My only option available to me is to eat less. It doesn't take any extra time out of my day.
I still eat burgers, without the long walks around the town. I just don't eat burgers every day, and when I do eat burgers, I don't have 4 of them. It's as simple as that.
Trying to convince someone that the miracle to weightloss is fitting in extra exercise when they are already busy with work/illnesses/kids etc. OR eating more than they can possibly ever hope to burn is just as bad as telling someone they can only eat 600 calories and never ever eat anything "yummy" again. The end result will be the same - "I can't do that".
I thought that was obvious enough to not need mentioning.
I hope its clear I'm not claiming that if you go for an hour walk you can eat as much as you want. I never said that.
What I said is people who are looking to lose weight on this site's weight-loss forum seem to focus almost entirely on how to eat less and not very much at all on how to be more active.
Stated in that way do you disagree?
I definitely agree this place is focused on how to eat less. But one of it's major "attractions" is a calorie counter. It's naturally going to be a big draw here.
You didn't say you could eat as much as you want, but you said they could keep their current eating habits, which for a lot of people here is already "as much as you want". You have good intentions, we can all recognize that. But by not stating the obvious you can become misleading to those who don't know the obvious.2 -
Lets put it another way. Go to the weight loss forum and start clicking through threads. How many threads do you have to click through before you find someone asking how to increase their activity level instead of how to eat less food.
In a balanced approach shouldn't they be pretty equal? Are they pretty equal?2 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »Lets put it this way.
If you told me you want to lose weight and I told you sure, you can lose weight but you have to pick one of these two options.
Option 1: Never eat burgers again
Option 2: You can still eat burgers and on top of that you now have motivation to go for long walks around your town, explore it a bit, walk around your local park to meet your goal of weight loss.
How come 99% of people seem to go with option 1. That is the part that confuses me to no end.
But this is not a realistic situation. This scenario assumes the person is only over their maintenance level by an amount that can be burnt off by a "long walk"(or whatever exercise) in a reasonable amount of time.
If someone is eating more than they can burn off through exercise in a day, the only option left is to eat less.
I was eating more than I could burn off with the time I have available to exercise. My only option available to me is to eat less. It doesn't take any extra time out of my day.
I still eat burgers, without the long walks around the town. I just don't eat burgers every day, and when I do eat burgers, I don't have 4 of them. It's as simple as that.
Trying to convince someone that the miracle to weightloss is fitting in extra exercise when they are already busy with work/illnesses/kids etc. OR eating more than they can possibly ever hope to burn is just as bad as telling someone they can only eat 600 calories and never ever eat anything "yummy" again. The end result will be the same - "I can't do that".
I thought that was obvious enough to not need mentioning.
I hope its clear I'm not claiming that if you go for an hour walk you can eat as much as you want. I never said that.
What I said is people who are looking to lose weight on this site's weight-loss forum seem to focus almost entirely on how to eat less and not very much at all on how to be more active.
Stated in that way do you disagree?
I definitely agree this place is focused on how to eat less. But one of it's major "attractions" is a calorie counter. It's naturally going to be a big draw here.
You didn't say you could eat as much as you want, but you said they could keep their current eating habits, which for a lot of people here is already "as much as you want". You have good intentions, we can all recognize that. But by not stating the obvious you can become misleading to those who don't know the obvious.
Calorie counters are required for either approach though, I don't see how it is more or less important to calorie count if you are reaching your goal by increased activity or decreased consumption or some of both. Two sides of the exact same coin.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.2K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.1K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 420 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.9K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.5K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions