Dieting vs. exercising?
Replies
-
I lost a bunch of weight without doing any more than walking my dog 2x a day. But when I do exercise hard I get more motivated and feel pretty great. It does have benefits.0
-
Bit of both. Cut 200/300 calories. Move 30 minutes more! easy.0
-
The problem I have with that is it rarely works.....I was obese. Not morbidly obese, but obese by definition. And telling an obese person to just keep eating whatever they want, "but just eat less" is a recipe for disaster. Until I actually made healthy changes to my diet, I'd drop a few lbs, then gain it back and a few more. I'm sorry if I offended everyone, but I stand by my statement.....not all foods are equal. Have a good evening!
Your weight kept going up and down because you didn't consistently maintain a calorie deficit. It has nothing to do with the type of food you were eating...12 -
Yes it's true and yes you need to exercise if you want to continue to lose weight and tone.
Why would you come here and spread misinformation? There's little point in purporting the 'starvation mode' myth...
OP - as everyone else is saying, starvation mode as you're thinking of it doesn't exist, and you don't need to exercise to lose the weight.
If you want to start looking more toned then adding in body weight exercises can help you on your way.8 -
And nobody said all foods are equal in terms of nutrition - great for you to stand by that but nobody was standing against it
In answer to OP's question, which was not about nutritional values of food - yes it is possible to loseweight without exercise.
If you eat less than you burn,you lose weight.
Obviously if you burn more via exercise,you can then eat more ( and get a fitter body)6 -
In principle, one can lose weight through a calorie deficit alone.
In reality, there is evidence that suggests that incurring the same deficit via a combination of diet and exercise is a little more effective than through diet alone.
And there is more evidence that exercise is very important for long-term weight loss.
The role of diet (I.e. Calorie deficit) is emphasized because it is the most important factor. However, in reality, I we need to be cautious about being too dismissive about the important role that exercise plays.6 -
kittycatboss wrote: »I've heard that if you reduce your caloric intake, your body goes into starvation mode (something like that) so you end up gaining weight instead of losing weight. Does anyone know if this is true? Do you have to exercise in order to lose weight?
Exercise isn't necessary for weight loss but it is essential for weight loss.
If you reduce your calorie intake by the amount MFP recommends there is no reason to be concerned about starvation, but it doesn't work the way you think.0 -
The problem I have with that is it rarely works.....I was obese. Not morbidly obese, but obese by definition. And telling an obese person to just keep eating whatever they want, "but just eat less" is a recipe for disaster. Until I actually made healthy changes to my diet, I'd drop a few lbs, then gain it back and a few more. I'm sorry if I offended everyone, but I stand by my statement.....not all foods are equal. Have a good evening!
I rarely see people telling someone who is morbidly obese, or even just overweight, to just eat the same thing only less of it. What often does happen is an OP says "can I eat a cookie and still lose weight?" and posters say, "yes! you don't have to give up the foods you love. As long as you're in a calorie deficit you will lose weight". That is all true. And it is not the same as saying to eat the exact same diet only less of it, although presumably that would work. What most people advocate, and what most sensible people would figure out, is that eating a balanced diet that provides adequate nutrition in the form of macro and micro nutrients, that is within a calorie deficit, allows room for some treats in moderation. And no one makes the claim that all foods are equal from a nutrition perspective. But that doesn't change the fact that a calorie is a unit of measurement and the energy derived from calories is all the same regardless of the foods that are eaten.
Just because you misunderstood and/or misapplied the advice that a calorie deficit is required for weight loss does not make it incorrect, bad or dangerous advice.8 -
CICO is not everything, and it's dangerous to tell people that. I said it in other posts, if that were the case, I'd just eat three big macs a day and everything would be wonderful. What you put into your body does matter.
You'd need more fiber, some calcium and a multivitamin to live on that for any length of time, but a Big Mac in and of itself isn't exactly evil. Three of them a a day would be 1620 calories, 75g of protein, 29g of fat. 45g carbohydrate and 3g dietary fiber.
Vitamin wise, you'd do better on the Quarter Pounder with Cheese than the Big Mac.
Obviously eating only one thing repeatedly rather than a varied diet is not the best plan for anyone's health, but McDonald's can exist in a nutritionally complete diet if that's what someone wants.6 -
kittycatboss wrote: »I've heard that if you reduce your caloric intake, your body goes into starvation mode (something like that) so you end up gaining weight instead of losing weight. Does anyone know if this is true? Do you have to exercise in order to lose weight?
OP, sorry your thread got derailed
You don't have to exercise to lose weight but many people find its much easier if they do. And obviously exercise is good for you in other ways.
Starvation mode isn't a thing. It is possible if you eat at an aggressive deficit for a long period of time you can lower your BMR, but even that won't cause you to gain weight it would just make it harder to lose.
So don't over restrict and move when you can, and you'll be fine!
I'd just like to agree and add to this by saying, if your calorie deficit is too large like she said it's going to slow your metabolism, the old calories you were able to eat to maintain or even lose weight, will cause you now to gain weight. If you continually lower your calories/increase calorie burn as you hit plateau's, you will continue to lose weight, but your metabolism slows down and when it comes time to maintain once you hit your goal, it can be that much more difficult if your deficit is too large.
Also, I do agree that CICO is the most important part, but in his defense, its really not cut and dry. Yes, if you eat junk food all day (and I know that's not what you guys were proposing), you will lose weight, no doubt, you will also lose muscle and unless you have a fair amount of weight to lose, you will not lose as much fat as you were probably expecting. You body becomes extremely less efficient when it is not properly fueled. You can eat more food if your protein intake is higher, you can eat more food if your hormones are in check, you can eat more food if you exercise more, you can eat more food if you are getting all of the micronutrients. No one ever knows how many calories they are really expending, so to say that to just ensure that you are in a calorie deficit is difficult because you never really know how your body is operating.2 -
CICO is not everything, and it's dangerous to tell people that. I said it in other posts, if that were the case, I'd just eat three big macs a day and everything would be wonderful. What you put into your body does matter.
If that put you in a calorie deficit, you'd lose weight.
Weight loss, fat loss and health are different things.1 -
heiliskrimsli wrote: »CICO is not everything, and it's dangerous to tell people that. I said it in other posts, if that were the case, I'd just eat three big macs a day and everything would be wonderful. What you put into your body does matter.
You'd need more fiber, some calcium and a multivitamin to live on that for any length of time, but a Big Mac in and of itself isn't exactly evil. Three of them a a day would be 1620 calories, 75g of protein, 29g of fat. 45g carbohydrate and 3g dietary fiber.
Vitamin wise, you'd do better on the Quarter Pounder with Cheese than the Big Mac.
Obviously eating only one thing repeatedly rather than a varied diet is not the best plan for anyone's health, but McDonald's can exist in a nutritionally complete diet if that's what someone wants.
Honestly vitamin wise, you'd do best with a Whopper w/ cheese. But yeah, certainly not the worst thing to eat... as long as you're not overeating.
1 -
livingleanlivingclean wrote: »
Because their bodies are eating themselves to stay alive...0 -
CICO is not everything, and it's dangerous to tell people that. I said it in other posts, if that were the case, I'd just eat three big macs a day and everything would be wonderful. What you put into your body does matter.
I lost 50lbs while still eating a typical SAD diet (fast food several times a week, all sorts of processed 'diet' foods etc). Not only did I lose the extra weight, but I improved every single health marker my doctor used-including normalizing a pre-diabetic glucose number. The only thing I did to make all of that happen was to reduce my calorie intake and hit the correct calorie deficit for my weight loss goals. Oh, I didn't exercise at all during my weight loss phase either.
Many times if someone is overweight just losing the weight will improve their health. When someone is just starting out and is overwhelmed and scared, learning how weight loss actually works (CICO), will meet them where they're at and help them to become healthier with weight loss. After someone has gotten further along into the process and is more comfortable with what they're doing, then they can start getting into the details of nutrition etc.
eta: as far as a diet of only Big Macs- you may be interested in watching the documentary Fat Head
7 -
-
stanmann571 wrote: »heiliskrimsli wrote: »CICO is not everything, and it's dangerous to tell people that. I said it in other posts, if that were the case, I'd just eat three big macs a day and everything would be wonderful. What you put into your body does matter.
You'd need more fiber, some calcium and a multivitamin to live on that for any length of time, but a Big Mac in and of itself isn't exactly evil. Three of them a a day would be 1620 calories, 75g of protein, 29g of fat. 45g carbohydrate and 3g dietary fiber.
Vitamin wise, you'd do better on the Quarter Pounder with Cheese than the Big Mac.
Obviously eating only one thing repeatedly rather than a varied diet is not the best plan for anyone's health, but McDonald's can exist in a nutritionally complete diet if that's what someone wants.
Honestly vitamin wise, you'd do best with a Whopper w/ cheese. But yeah, certainly not the worst thing to eat... as long as you're not overeating.
That's down to the Whopper having tomatoes and lettuce, though. Makes it more comparable to the Big N Tasty.
Either way, there's no inherent reason that a Burger King or McDonald's burger is nutritionally worse than the same ingredients prepared another way: as in a steak salad with cheese and a roll.4 -
The problem I have with that is it rarely works.....I was obese. Not morbidly obese, but obese by definition. And telling an obese person to just keep eating whatever they want, "but just eat less" is a recipe for disaster. Until I actually made healthy changes to my diet, I'd drop a few lbs, then gain it back and a few more. I'm sorry if I offended everyone, but I stand by my statement.....not all foods are equal. Have a good evening!
I lost the extra weight and improved all my health markers while continuing to eat whatever I wanted, just in the appropriate calorie amounts. This was a good starting point for me-it met me where I was at and it didn't demand a bunch of drastic changes that would have led to frustration and failure.
I'm now 4 years into successfully maintaining a bmi of around a 20, still see excellent health markers from my doctor (I go in twice a year for blood work), I'm the only one in my family who's maintained weight loss and the only one who's reversed the progression of pre-diabetes. I'm also a participant of the NWCR and my information is being used in some of their research projects.
CICO was a great starting point for me and it gave me the foundation I needed to get started. How I eat now is much different than how I ate during my weight loss phase 5 years ago, but I needed to start where I did, in order to be where I'm at today.5 -
TimothyFish wrote: »kittycatboss wrote: »I've heard that if you reduce your caloric intake, your body goes into starvation mode (something like that) so you end up gaining weight instead of losing weight. Does anyone know if this is true? Do you have to exercise in order to lose weight?
Exercise isn't necessary for weight loss but it is essential for weight loss.
If you reduce your calorie intake by the amount MFP recommends there is no reason to be concerned about starvation, but it doesn't work the way you think.
can you clarify?2 -
You can lose weight purely by dieting, by why would you just want to do it one dimensionally? Exercising is good for your cardiovascular system, will burn calories, and will result in a better body composition.
2 -
Well, my problem with "eat what you want within your calorie limit" is that these foods don't satiate me. Say I don't exercise and have 1500 calories to play with. That's one pint of Häagen-Dazs Chocolate Peanut Butter with 60 calories leftover. That won't get me through the day.
2 -
kittycatboss wrote: »I've heard that if you reduce your caloric intake, your body goes into starvation mode (something like that) so you end up gaining weight instead of losing weight. Does anyone know if this is true? Do you have to exercise in order to lose weight?
Trying to get back to the OP
"Starvation mode" is a very extreme situation, even anorexic people don't even get closer to REAL starvation mode. There is a broscience "Starvation mode" that should realy be defined as "stupid excuse for eating more and not to recognize it".
Strictly speaking, exercise is not needed, but always recommended for two main reasons:
- Calories burned and properly counted can be eaten back. This helps a lot in a deficit
- When losing weight, you loose fat AND muscle. Exercise helps in reducing muscle loss.
0 -
kittycatboss wrote: »I've heard that if you reduce your caloric intake, your body goes into starvation mode (something like that) so you end up gaining weight instead of losing weight. Does anyone know if this is true?
No, it's not true.Do you have to exercise in order to lose weight?
You do not have to, but I'd strongly recommend it as good for health and fitness.2 -
kittycatboss wrote: »I've heard that if you reduce your caloric intake, your body goes into starvation mode (something like that) so you end up gaining weight instead of losing weight. Does anyone know if this is true? Do you have to exercise in order to lose weight?
Trying to get back to the OP
"Starvation mode" is a very extreme situation, even anorexic people don't even get closer to REAL starvation mode. There is a broscience "Starvation mode" that should realy be defined as "stupid excuse for eating more and not to recognize it".
Strictly speaking, exercise is not needed, but always recommended for two main reasons:
- Calories burned and properly counted can be eaten back. This helps a lot in a deficit
- When losing weight, you loose fat AND muscle. Exercise helps in reducing muscle loss.
If you eat 1500 calories and have a 500 calorie deficit and do no exercise at all, are you saying that you will be hungrier than if you exercise to burn 300 calories and then eat 1800 thus having the same deficit?
0 -
The problem I have with that is it rarely works.....I was obese. Not morbidly obese, but obese by definition. And telling an obese person to just keep eating whatever they want, "but just eat less" is a recipe for disaster. Until I actually made healthy changes to my diet, I'd drop a few lbs, then gain it back and a few more. I'm sorry if I offended everyone, but I stand by my statement.....not all foods are equal. Have a good evening!
I was obese, not morbid, exactly like you. Even in my case I was in the threshold (one or two kilos below morbid). I basically kept eating what I ate before but in less quantities. For instance 4 ice-creams a week, at least one fast-food meal per week (honestly, a little more )
26 kilos later (around one kilo lost every 10 days) I can say that worked. And the good news is that I do not miss any treats ... because I never stopped them.6 -
CICO is not everything, and it's dangerous to tell people that.
Why is it dangerous? Are you assuming they would act unreasonably and not care about nutrition. Understanding how weight loss works should not cause someone to eat a poor diet unless they for some reason want to (which is not my business, although I wouldn't recommend it).I said it in other posts, if that were the case, I'd just eat three big macs a day...
Why on earth would you do this? First of all, why would anyone want to eat just three big macs a day (I don't even like big macs). Second, what a boring diet. Third, why wouldn't you naturally care about nutrition?3 -
kittycatboss wrote: »I've heard that if you reduce your caloric intake, your body goes into starvation mode (something like that) so you end up gaining weight instead of losing weight. Does anyone know if this is true? Do you have to exercise in order to lose weight?
I think may of us have heard that and believed it. It's proven false though, as many here have already discussed.
I'll go ahead and add my own anecdotal evidence to the discussion, I started MFP for the calorie tracking a few years ago, but it wasn't until last year I got serious about it. I went from weighing between 314 and 325 to weighing 274 at my last weigh in a few weeks ago, all by using CICO, tracking my calories, and having a little self control by applying economics to the worth of sweets and junk, calorie cost vs satiation and such. I've weaned myself mostly off of soda, don't drink as much milk as I used to and try to drink water mostly, even when i go out to eat.
I try to come in a bit under the daily caloric suggestion from MFP during the week to help me lose a little more than 2lbs. a week, and to bank up for any splurging I may do when going out with friends on the weekend. I don't do much exercise though for a bit I was going on walks and probably should get back into it as cardio is good, but I can't stand weight lifting, etc., so I don't. Eventually I will need to and I'll have to find a way to make it fun, or at least tolerable, but for now I am happy with the results I am seeing by watching my caloric intake.
As a by-product, I *do* eat better in general, mainly because you can eat a ton of veggies for little caloric gain and using the calorie tracker makes you aware of how pumped full of salt and carbs and other unnecessary *kitten* a lot of pre-made food is. I still eat plenty of meat and sweets, which I love, but in moderation. Keeps me happy, unlike a lot of the various diets out there would.2 -
One thread I read a poster went so far as to tell someone they could eat absolutely anything they wanted, just don't go over calories, and everything will be just fine.
I do not believe this. Please link.
If what you really mean is that they said you can lose weight on absolutely anything, of course that is true, but it is always said in the context that of course eating a balanced diet is important for other reasons (like nutrition and satiety).
I always find it odd that people assume that someone would take this advice and CHOOSE to eat a nutrient poor diet. I think it says more about that person than anyone else -- do they secretly think that if there were not bad consequences they would survive on only junk food? I think that's a weird thing to want to do or assume that others will want to do it. I eat lots of vegetables and other nutrient dense foods because I enjoy them and want to eat them and, of course, because I care about nutrition. That I know I could lose eating only Twinkies (yuck) doesn't affect that. So I'd say, look in the mirror.5 -
heiliskrimsli wrote: »kittycatboss wrote: »I've heard that if you reduce your caloric intake, your body goes into starvation mode (something like that) so you end up gaining weight instead of losing weight. Does anyone know if this is true? Do you have to exercise in order to lose weight?
Trying to get back to the OP
"Starvation mode" is a very extreme situation, even anorexic people don't even get closer to REAL starvation mode. There is a broscience "Starvation mode" that should realy be defined as "stupid excuse for eating more and not to recognize it".
Strictly speaking, exercise is not needed, but always recommended for two main reasons:
- Calories burned and properly counted can be eaten back. This helps a lot in a deficit
- When losing weight, you loose fat AND muscle. Exercise helps in reducing muscle loss.
If you eat 1500 calories and have a 500 calorie deficit and do no exercise at all, are you saying that you will be hungrier than if you exercise to burn 300 calories and then eat 1800 thus having the same deficit?
Yes, even if that sound weird. It's more psychological and has to do with portion size.1 -
heiliskrimsli wrote: »kittycatboss wrote: »I've heard that if you reduce your caloric intake, your body goes into starvation mode (something like that) so you end up gaining weight instead of losing weight. Does anyone know if this is true? Do you have to exercise in order to lose weight?
Trying to get back to the OP
"Starvation mode" is a very extreme situation, even anorexic people don't even get closer to REAL starvation mode. There is a broscience "Starvation mode" that should realy be defined as "stupid excuse for eating more and not to recognize it".
Strictly speaking, exercise is not needed, but always recommended for two main reasons:
- Calories burned and properly counted can be eaten back. This helps a lot in a deficit
- When losing weight, you loose fat AND muscle. Exercise helps in reducing muscle loss.
If you eat 1500 calories and have a 500 calorie deficit and do no exercise at all, are you saying that you will be hungrier than if you exercise to burn 300 calories and then eat 1800 thus having the same deficit?
Yes, even if that sound weird. It's more psychological and has to do with portion size.
Interesting. I have not found this to be the case for myself. I wonder if it is because I tend to eat one small meal and one large one.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions