Diet vs. exercise

Options
I know that the general consensus is that diet is more important when trying to lose weight, however, I have found that since exercising 4 times a week the lbs are dropping off at a much higher speed. I don't know if this is because of the exercise (increasing cal deficit) or because I am being more conscious about my diet because of the exercise...

What's everybody else's views/experiences? Is diet more important than exercise or is exercise equally important in terms of losing weight?
«1345

Replies

  • ZRunner5Lulaica
    ZRunner5Lulaica Posts: 168 Member
    Options
    Diet is more important for me and my other half. Exercise is something that I want to fit in, but have a lot of trouble finding time for. And hubby is waiting to drop a few more pounds before he gets back to riding. So diet is something we can control more in our lives with the little amount of time we have after other life obligations.
  • rianneonamission
    rianneonamission Posts: 854 Member
    Options
    Sure, exercise helps. The more you move the more calories you get to eat. As long as you keep it in a deficit then great. My guess is that, thanks to the exercise, your deficit is greater than you intended it to be. I take it you do a fair bit of weight/resistance training?

    Helful article from The Telegraph showing the difference between cardio versus weights
  • jjpptt2
    jjpptt2 Posts: 5,650 Member
    Options
    I think there's probably merit to both.

    Exercise definitely increases the total calories you burn throughout the day, which can increase your deficit (or at least make it easier to maintain a deficit)... but it can also make you more engaged, more cognizant in general of what you're doing and, as a result, keep you on track with what you should be doing.

    Ultimately, which is more "important" is going to be very individual.
  • Bry_Fitness70
    Bry_Fitness70 Posts: 2,480 Member
    Options
    You will lose more weight by dieting (if you could only do either dieting or exercising), but what sort of body do you want? If you want to have a favorable body composition, strength, cardio health, bone density, etc., then strength training and cardio should be built into your overall fitness regimen.
  • inertiastrength
    inertiastrength Posts: 2,343 Member
    Options
    jjpptt2 wrote: »
    *sigh*


    Are you more apt to grow your savings account if you have a well paying job, or if you're disciplined with your spending?

    Love this analogy.
  • missysippy930
    missysippy930 Posts: 2,577 Member
    Options
    jjpptt2 wrote: »
    *sigh*

    You don't have to EAT in a calorie deficit to lose weight. You have to END UP in a calorie deficit to lose weight. Yes, most people will have better success long term if they focus on diet than if they focus on exercise. But it doesn't have to be (and probably should be) an either/or scenario.


    Are you more apt to grow your savings account if you have a well paying job, or if you're disciplined with your spending? It depends how well paying your job is and how disciplined you are with your spending... but both is probably the best answer, right?

    What is the difference?
    In the end, it is eating less calories than you burn for weight loss.
  • CaliMomTeach
    CaliMomTeach Posts: 745 Member
    Options
    I think that exercise makes me feel good and motivates me to eat more healthy foods and less empty calories. I also notice that there are many overweight people exercising in the gym. I think that counting on exercise to lose weight sets some of us up for failure. When I was younger, I thought that exercise alone led to weight loss. Now, I am aware of how long it would take me to burn of that Cheesecake Factory desert on the elliptical, or that 30 minutes is like a candy bar or an individual bag of chips (not even for some). I also see exercise right now as a way to eat some more calories as I am eating 1200 calories a day right now. Not sure if my understanding is fully correct, but that is how I see it. I thought that taking Body Pump class would make my body more muscular, but I guess that can't really happen when eating at a deficit. Oh well, I am going to continue because it makes me feel healthy, strong, and motivated.
  • jjpptt2
    jjpptt2 Posts: 5,650 Member
    Options
    jjpptt2 wrote: »
    *sigh*

    You don't have to EAT in a calorie deficit to lose weight. You have to END UP in a calorie deficit to lose weight. Yes, most people will have better success long term if they focus on diet than if they focus on exercise. But it doesn't have to be (and probably should be) an either/or scenario.


    Are you more apt to grow your savings account if you have a well paying job, or if you're disciplined with your spending? It depends how well paying your job is and how disciplined you are with your spending... but both is probably the best answer, right?

    What is the difference?
    In the end, it is eating less calories than you burn for weight loss.

    Is it eating more cals than you burn, or burning more cals than you eat?
  • jjpptt2
    jjpptt2 Posts: 5,650 Member
    Options
    Anyone doing IF here? I'm considering it but it's a little daunting... :) supposedly it's the best of both worlds.

    It's not. Do a search - there are a ton of IF threads. Probably a couple right on the first page of threads in the Getting Started and/or General Health, Diet and Fitness forums.
  • therjh
    therjh Posts: 13 Member
    Options
    ap1972 wrote: »
    Added benefit of exercise is that it will increase your metabolism as well so you will burn more calories throughout the day as well as what you burnt exercising.

    Ahhh! Didn't realise that!
  • tess5036
    tess5036 Posts: 942 Member
    Options
    It's simple: CICO, bit there are two sides to the equation, through watching what you eat you manage the calories in, and through every you can increase the calories out. However, it's easier to manage calories in, as that is under your direct control. The calories out may be used to create or increase a deficit, bit it's harder that way, firstly it takes more exercise than most people realise to burn calories, also it is hard to measure the level of calories burned even with heart monitors as they will be estimates (plus as you do more and your body gets used to it, it will learn how to work more efficiently, burning fewer calories). Ideally, both are good :)
  • AnvilHead
    AnvilHead Posts: 18,344 Member
    Options
    jjpptt2 wrote: »
    *sigh*

    You don't have to EAT in a calorie deficit to lose weight. You have to END UP in a calorie deficit to lose weight. Yes, most people will have better success long term if they focus on diet than if they focus on exercise. But it doesn't have to be (and probably should be) an either/or scenario.


    Are you more apt to grow your savings account if you have a well paying job, or if you're disciplined with your spending? It depends how well paying your job is and how disciplined you are with your spending... but both is probably the best answer, right?

    What is the difference?
    In the end, it is eating less calories than you burn for weight loss.

    The most significant difference in results will be in terms of body composition/aesthetics, if strength training is part of the exercise regimen.