Weight loss prespective

Texas_Don

What's more efficient of a deficit (I know whats healthier). 100 calories cut out of diet or burn 100 calories by exercise.

jjpptt2

I'm making some assumptions and simplifications to the conversation, but that said... the 100 cals of exercise. But only by fractions of a percentage point.

Adherence/consistency will have a FAAAR greater impact that this minute difference.

AnvilHead

"Efficient"? 100 calories cut out of diet. It takes time and effort to burn 100 calories in exercise - it takes no time or effort to not eat 100 calories.

jjpptt2

AnvilHead wrote: »

"Efficient"? 100 calories cut out of diet. It takes time and effort to burn 100 calories in exercise - it takes no time or effort to not eat 100 calories.

I didn't think about the time required to exercise as part of the efficiency conversation...

But I disagree that it takes no effort to not eat. Maybe not physical effort, but for some it can take significant mental effort. I think which is easier (eating less or exercising more) can/will vary person to person.

seska422

Efficient? Defined as "achieving maximum productivity with minimum wasted effort or expense" or "preventing the wasteful use of a particular resource", not eating the calories is going to be more efficient.

Faster? Easier? Simpler? Not eating the calories. It takes zero time and no money to not eat the calories.

What works best for you? That's up to you. This isn't an either-or situation. You can make a deficit entirely from cutting calories, entirely from exercise, or any combo thereof.

iWishMyNameWasRebel

The old saying "you can't out-train a bad diet" will always ring true. The most efficient is both. Keep your calories under control and also exercise to improve overall fitness. As far as insisting on one or the other, and assuming it was only going to be that 100 calories, I'd choose to burn 100 calories through strength training. Why? Because I'd be building muscle that burns even more calories (eventually) just to exist.

kimny72

Texas_Don wrote: »

What's more efficient of a deficit (I know whats healthier). 100 calories cut out of diet or burn 100 calories by exercise.

As with most things in life, it kind of depends on context.
Assuming "efficient" meaning easier/faster:

Are you already eating at a lower calorie level you can barely pull off? 100 cals exercise will be more efficient.
Are you eating at a surplus right now? 100 cals diet will be more efficient.
Do you have a tough time getting yourself to workout? 100 cals diet will be more efficient.
Are you going out for dinner with a friend? 100 cals exercise will be more efficient.
Are you an active guy who still drinks a beer or two every night? 100 cals diet will be more efficient.
Are you a 5' tall woman trying to lose vanity lbs? 100 cals exercise will be more efficient.

In general, it is far more efficient to take a smaller serving of dinner than to spend 100 cals worth of time working out. I think people tend to overestimate the calories they burn off through exercise. And few people are eating such an austere, bare-bones diet that there isn't some extra fluff somewhere to cut out. But generalities are often useless when looking at individual human beings.

I'd suggest your "(I know whats healthier)" is also subject to context!

Texas_Don

Wow, thank y'all for the responses. I was curious, some of the things pondered while working out

Texas_Don

I'm still fine-tuning and figuring what my body works best at. None of this ever mattered in my twenties. As the body changes, sure make all the difference I'm trying to find a happy medium of eating and exercise. I have friends a 100 calorie cut can make all the difference.

cwolfman13

I've been more or less in maintenance for 5 years. I have exercised regularly during that time. I usually put on a little weight over the winter when I tend to move a little less. Given the exercise I already do, it's much more efficient for me to eat less to lose the winter fluff than to pile on more exercise that I don't have time for anyway.

sgt1372

Texas_Don wrote: »

What's more efficient of a deficit (I know whats healthier). 100 calories cut out of diet or burn 100 calories by exercise.

If your goal is only weight loss, just cutting (not eating) 100 cals of food is the most "efficient" way to increase your deficit by that amount.

However, it you want to lose weight while also acting in a way that will more likely help to improve your health/fitness and increase the likelihood of tapping your stored fat for energy (thereby reducing your overall BF%) but also increasing the likelihood of maintaining (and possibly increasing) your existing LBM, then exercising to burn 100 cals probably would be better

I prefer doing the latter.

HoneyBadger302

For me, the exercise. Not because of the 100 calories, but because of the other side effects. As my fitness has increased, I've noticed:

-I have more desire to eat "healthy" foods over things like refined carbs.
-My overall energy levels have increased. This means that I'm far more likely to do more moving in general, and when I am doing something (as an example, going on a moto ride) I'm more likely to have that turn into a workout than it did before.
-Even though I never fell into the "unhealthy" category at my dr's (in terms of things like BP, BS, cholesterol, etc) my numbers have actually improved a LOT in less than 6 months. Those are all good things.
-My outlook is improved. Being fit helps me feel more "able" and more capable, and I have improved self confidence.
-Rather than fighting myself to avoid something I enjoy, I can fit in some of those "treats" and not feel guilty or end up berating myself for it, because, well, I've made room in my diet because of exercise.

tbright1965

iWishMyNameWasRebel wrote: »

The old saying "you can't out-train a bad diet" will always ring true. The most efficient is both. Keep your calories under control and also exercise to improve overall fitness. As far as insisting on one or the other, and assuming it was only going to be that 100 calories, I'd choose to burn 100 calories through strength training. Why? Because I'd be building muscle that burns even more calories (eventually) just to exist.

This is true. I've heard it several ways.

Can't outrun|outwork bad habits.
Can't outrun your fork.

And so on.

Overall, it's a holistic approach. However, some people find too many immediate changes unsustainable. So I'd suggest starting with food side of things and make sure you are really getting accurate measurements of what you are eating.

Some suggest exercise first, some food first. Eventually, it will be both. I say food because if you are putting crap fuel in your body, it's hard to expect it to perform.

I'm not saying Calories In < Calories Out don't work. What I'm saying is if you are getting calories, but not enough nutrition because you are eating crap, CI < CO will be hard to maintain.

If you are not properly fueled, I think it can cause disappointment when you start to workout.

Just my $0.02, use what works and bin the rest.

LivingtheLeanDream

I've done the moving more to eat more and still lose/ maintain which is fine but exhausting lol....imo it's easier aiming for moderate exercise and eating a bit less. ( and my joints are happier )