Don't Tell Me You Can't Lose Weight With Exercise

janejellyroll

Larissa_NY wrote: »

AnnPT77 wrote: »

Larissa_NY wrote: »

Alatariel75 wrote: »

TimothyFish wrote: »

I've been losing weight lately. It isn't intentional. I've been maintaining my weight for a couple of years now, but over the past few weeks I've noticed a slow but steady decline in my weight. 208 was my goal, then it slipped to 205, which seemed fine, but then it slipped to 204 and this week it is 203. I haven't been counting my food calories, but rather I've been following my normal habits. Bacon and eggs and a banana for breakfast. Whatever Aramark is serving on the "Home" line at work. Something light for supper. And various snacks to round out rest. The thing that has changed is my exercise. I've never really liked riding my bicycle inside, but because of Zwift I don't mind it so much. That means that I have fewer off days for rain or darkness or because I don't want to mess with traffic. It also means that I have more 1,000 calorie workouts. There are no stop signs on Zwift, so I'm putting in more effort during the same amount of time that I put in outside. Burning more calories while eating about the same amount translates in to weight loss.

Um, yeah? I didn't think that was controversial. If someone is eating at maintenance then significantly ups their exercise, and doesn't change their eating of course they will lose weight.

You would not think so, would you? And yet I've seen multiple people on here, in response to someone saying something like "It's 80% diet and 20% exercise," posting "No! It's 100% diet!" Apparently those people have discovered food logging and fallen into some sort of singularity where basic math doesn't exist.

This is the kind of confusion that arises when people try to quantify an abstraction (or certain other types of complex mental constructs). It's an example of fuzzy thinking.

I could say that "human beauty is 65% symmetrical facial features" and we could argue about it all day, because the starting proposition is gobbledygook, nonsense, meaningless in any concrete sense.

"Weight loss is 80% diet" or any similar construct, even one without numbers in it ("weight loss takes place in the kitchen") - similarly not meaningful in a concrete way.

The only way "basic math" applies sensibly in this kind of argument is if someone says "I created 30% of my 1000 calorie deficit with exercise, and 70% by eating below my NEAT".

JMO. Carry on.

Here is some basic math, since the concept seems unclear.

If the equation that produces weight loss is CI<CO, then if you start out at CI=CO, you can achieve weight loss by either adding to CO (CO=CO+100) or subtracting from CI (CI=CI-100). The only way that variability in the degree to which CI is less than CO can be "100% diet" is if CO never varies in its value and the ONLY variable changing value is CI. Since I doubt that even the "OMG 100% diet!" people actually believe that their number of calories out never ever varies regardless of whether they're lounging on the couch all day or running a marathon, they have failed at the very basic law of mathematics that says "Adding a positive number to another positive number makes a bigger number."

I think people who say that it is "100% diet" mean that it is "100% about matching your calorie intake to your activity." Whether or not I run a marathon or sit on the couch, my weight gain/loss is going to be completely dependent on how I match my intake to my calorie burns.

Nobody is failing basic math, they're just realizing that there is no level of exercise/activity that will automatically result in weight loss. In that sense, it is 100% about our diets, even if we use exercise to help burn more calories than we otherwise would.

NorthCascades

TimothyFish wrote: »

I've been losing weight lately. It isn't intentional. I've been maintaining my weight for a couple of years now, but over the past few weeks I've noticed a slow but steady decline in my weight. 208 was my goal, then it slipped to 205, which seemed fine, but then it slipped to 204 and this week it is 203. I haven't been counting my food calories, but rather I've been following my normal habits. Bacon and eggs and a banana for breakfast. Whatever Aramark is serving on the "Home" line at work. Something light for supper. And various snacks to round out rest. The thing that has changed is my exercise. I've never really liked riding my bicycle inside, but because of Zwift I don't mind it so much. That means that I have fewer off days for rain or darkness or because I don't want to mess with traffic. It also means that I have more 1,000 calorie workouts. There are no stop signs on Zwift, so I'm putting in more effort during the same amount of time that I put in outside. Burning more calories while eating about the same amount translates in to weight loss.

Wow, some bozo flagged this.

AnvilHead

janejellyroll wrote: »

Larissa_NY wrote: »

AnnPT77 wrote: »

Larissa_NY wrote: »

Alatariel75 wrote: »

TimothyFish wrote: »

I've been losing weight lately. It isn't intentional. I've been maintaining my weight for a couple of years now, but over the past few weeks I've noticed a slow but steady decline in my weight. 208 was my goal, then it slipped to 205, which seemed fine, but then it slipped to 204 and this week it is 203. I haven't been counting my food calories, but rather I've been following my normal habits. Bacon and eggs and a banana for breakfast. Whatever Aramark is serving on the "Home" line at work. Something light for supper. And various snacks to round out rest. The thing that has changed is my exercise. I've never really liked riding my bicycle inside, but because of Zwift I don't mind it so much. That means that I have fewer off days for rain or darkness or because I don't want to mess with traffic. It also means that I have more 1,000 calorie workouts. There are no stop signs on Zwift, so I'm putting in more effort during the same amount of time that I put in outside. Burning more calories while eating about the same amount translates in to weight loss.

Um, yeah? I didn't think that was controversial. If someone is eating at maintenance then significantly ups their exercise, and doesn't change their eating of course they will lose weight.

You would not think so, would you? And yet I've seen multiple people on here, in response to someone saying something like "It's 80% diet and 20% exercise," posting "No! It's 100% diet!" Apparently those people have discovered food logging and fallen into some sort of singularity where basic math doesn't exist.

This is the kind of confusion that arises when people try to quantify an abstraction (or certain other types of complex mental constructs). It's an example of fuzzy thinking.

I could say that "human beauty is 65% symmetrical facial features" and we could argue about it all day, because the starting proposition is gobbledygook, nonsense, meaningless in any concrete sense.

"Weight loss is 80% diet" or any similar construct, even one without numbers in it ("weight loss takes place in the kitchen") - similarly not meaningful in a concrete way.

The only way "basic math" applies sensibly in this kind of argument is if someone says "I created 30% of my 1000 calorie deficit with exercise, and 70% by eating below my NEAT".

JMO. Carry on.

Here is some basic math, since the concept seems unclear.

If the equation that produces weight loss is CI<CO, then if you start out at CI=CO, you can achieve weight loss by either adding to CO (CO=CO+100) or subtracting from CI (CI=CI-100). The only way that variability in the degree to which CI is less than CO can be "100% diet" is if CO never varies in its value and the ONLY variable changing value is CI. Since I doubt that even the "OMG 100% diet!" people actually believe that their number of calories out never ever varies regardless of whether they're lounging on the couch all day or running a marathon, they have failed at the very basic law of mathematics that says "Adding a positive number to another positive number makes a bigger number."

I think people who say that it is "100% diet" mean that it is "100% about matching your calorie intake to your activity." Whether or not I run a marathon or sit on the couch, my weight gain/loss is going to be completely dependent on how I match my intake to my calorie burns.

Nobody is failing basic math, they're just realizing that there is no level of exercise/activity that will automatically result in weight loss. In that sense, it is 100% about our diets, even if we use exercise to help burn more calories than we otherwise would.

I think the attempts to quantify what percent of it is diet and what percent is exercise are useless and silly. There's no way to even begin to adequately measure or study it because it's an abstract concept right from the start. It's not even 100% diet for somebody who doesn't exercise, because NEAT factors into the equation and two hypothetical people of hypothetically identical stats and caloric intakes could have very different results based upon their NEAT.

As you said in the first paragraph above, it is 100% about CI<CO - by whatever means one attains that. All of these things will result in weight loss:

1) Eating at a caloric surplus and doing enough exercise to offset the surplus and create a caloric deficit.
2) Eating at maintenance and doing enough exercise to create a caloric deficit.
3) Eating at a deficit and not exercising, or exercising to increase the caloric deficit.

For those keeping score at home, the common denominator in each of those scenarios is that a caloric deficit is created.

In any of those cases, whether one is tracking/logging calories or even consciously eating to a certain level is irrelevant. The body knows how many calories are coming in whether your mind is aware of it or not, and it will respond accordingly. Setting a calorie goal and accurately tracking/logging are means to gather data points and facilitate the end result so you're not flailing around in the dark trying to figure out whether you're getting it right or not.

The OP said he's been losing weight and it wasn't intentional. He's been eating at maintenance for a couple of years, and the weight loss coincided with him increasing his exercise while making no changes to his diet/caloric intake. No surprise there whatsoever - he's eating at maintenance and creating a caloric deficit through exercise. The "CI" portion of the equation remained the same, but the "CO" portion was increased. Which turns the equation from CI=CO (maintenance) to CI<CO (weight loss). Anybody with the most rudimentary knowledge of energy balance would understand why he's suddenly losing weight.

So can you lose weight by exercising? The answer is "it depends". The exercise is only one part of the picture, and without additional context the answer may as well be "a potato".

middlehaitch

@Anvil_Head the answer is always 42 h.

Machka9

MaybeLed wrote: »

Machka9 wrote: »

Tiny_Dancer_in_Pink wrote: »

Machka9 wrote: »

Tiny_Dancer_in_Pink wrote: »

Machka9 wrote: »

Zwift is a good way to train indoors in inclement weather or once night falls early. I've been looking into getting it, but meanwhile, I simply use an indoor trainer and do commercial intervals.

One of the nice things with Zwift is that it connects with Strava. When I do my indoor trainer workouts, I have to manually enter them.

Cyclists know about this stuff ... but if you're not a cyclist, you probably aren't familiar with it all.



As for exercise and weight loss ... of course it works.

Which indoor trainer do you like?

I have a Nashbar fluid trainer which I've had for years.

Unfortunately Zwift won't work with it.

Ah, fluid! I don't care about the zwift part. I was looking at trainers and couldn't decide which one would be good. I was thinking a magnetic would be alright too.

I have tried wind trainers (don't know if they still make them ... that was quite a few years ago), magnetic trainers, and fluid trainers.

I didn't like the wind trainers or magnetic trainers, but when I got onto a fluid trainer, that worked for me. I got mine in 2002 or 2003 ... somewhere around there ... and it has been working great ever since. I even packed it up and moved it from Canada to Australia!

The commercial intervals I do are ... I pick a show I like and ride at a moderate pace through the show, then when the commercials come on, I ride as hard as I can through the commercials. When the show comes back on, I ride at a moderate pace again ... and repeat. Makes 30 or 60 minutes go by in no time.

So I have a cheap stationary bike with magnetic resistance I quite like it. I've never been an avid cycler but my husband is so trying to up my endurance, so we can go out together when the weather is nicer. What I've been doing is using a (free) couch to 10k app. Cycling moderately on the 'walk' portions and cycling hard on the 'run' portions. The upshot of this is, I'm getting steady progress, improving weekly, and I can watch Netflix at the same time.

ETA: I started losing weight when I addressed what I ate. When I got better at that I realised that when I exercise more, I'm more cheerful and gives me a bit more of a buffer. For me it's been about diet and exercise is for heath mostly.

Sounds good!

Cycling indoors like that can definitely make a difference.

Way back when I started cycling more seriously, I put the bicycle away at the first sign of winter, and then got it out again in spring. And started all over again from scratch.

After a couple years of that, I started using a stationary bike at the gym during the winter, then got a decent one for home, then got my fluid trainer ... and I could start riding outside in spring and actually feel pretty good!

Where I live now, I can cycle outside year round, but come winter, it's dark, and there's usually a cold wind blowing, and often rain ... so it's just more pleasant to ride inside.