Study: Exercise is more critical than diet to maintain weight loss
Replies
-
My take from this study is that the correlation between physical activity and weight maintenance most likely does not mean " physical activity means successful weight maintenance". But more likely that the people who are more motivated to lead a healthier lifestyle and maintain their weight are more likely to be more active.
This is kind of what I assume as well. Perhaps people who start and stick to "active" hobbies or to a workout schedule are incorporating good habits all over the place. You could extrapolate that out to all sorts of behaviors or habits that both make you more likely to be active AND make you more likely to eat correctly.
I'd add that just because some people who successfully maintain weight loss don't exercise doesn't mean the idea is flawed. It says exercise is more critical, not that it's absolutely necessary in all cases.
Perhaps the more fair conclusion is "activity level is generally a better indicator of weight loss maintenance than diet"?
Honestly I dont know if that's much better. Are people who are more active more likely to succeed at maintenance? Sure. If the focus on diet was the same. But there is nothing saying that maintenance requires more physical activity. Its so much easier to eat a cinnamon bun than it is to burn off the 200-500 calories it entails.
Physical activity can be used as an indicator of a higher probability of success for maintenance, but diet is still king in that aspect as well by a fair margin. Are people who are successful at maintenance with diet more likely to be more active? Probably, but its definitely not a requisite.0 -
For me personally, I do find exercise to be the most important factor. So if I am trying to maintain, even if I am gaining or losing at times, that's not even important for me (provided it's within limits and not be a bulk or cut), but my lifting has to be in place in order for me to be successful. Plus I tend to make better choices (ie. higher protein, more vegetables) when I am exercising regularly.0
-
I find it true. I have lost and gained weight my entire life. The last year and a half my fitness routine has grown significantly. I was always busy, multiple jobs including those with manual labor but I would go back up to or near starting weight. You cannot out exercise a bad diet either. I have changed my eating as well as my activity. I think every individual would get a slightly different result or testify to a different outcome.0
-
Not sure I'd consider this a study, more of a parallel between the two things that are true stereotypical. In general, yes those who are more physically active are likely to be at a lower weight than someone who isn't. The reason isn't really super scientific or speaks to some magic exercise pill, its more to do with the fact that if you enjoy doing physical exercise, things such as mountain climbing, running, skiing, etc. you're more likely to worry about being in good health which includes weight because it lets you enjoy these things more. I'd say it has more to do with the love of being able to perform the activity at a level that is fun than anything else. Just my two cents though. I know without exercise I'd have trouble making my daily calorie limit because I love food. So being active allows me to eat extra and still be in a deficit.0
-
Been maintaining going on 6 years this month. Regular exercise is pretty crucial to my weight maintenance. My exercise always dips in the winter and I put on 8-10 Lbs every winter and take it off in the spring. When I'm exercising regularly, I maintain easily and don't even really have to think about it. I like food, and I like beer...regular exercise gives me a nice buffer for those things.2
-
My take from this study is that the correlation between physical activity and weight maintenance most likely does not mean " physical activity means successful weight maintenance". But more likely that the people who are more motivated to lead a healthier lifestyle and maintain their weight are more likely to be more active.
This is kind of what I assume as well. Perhaps people who start and stick to "active" hobbies or to a workout schedule are incorporating good habits all over the place. You could extrapolate that out to all sorts of behaviors or habits that both make you more likely to be active AND make you more likely to eat correctly.
I'd add that just because some people who successfully maintain weight loss don't exercise doesn't mean the idea is flawed. It says exercise is more critical, not that it's absolutely necessary in all cases.
Perhaps the more fair conclusion is "activity level is generally a better indicator of weight loss maintenance than diet"?
Honestly I dont know if that's much better. Are people who are more active more likely to succeed at maintenance? Sure. If the focus on diet was the same. But there is nothing saying that maintenance requires more physical activity. Its so much easier to eat a cinnamon bun than it is to burn off the 200-500 calories it entails.
Physical activity can be used as an indicator of a higher probability of success for maintenance, but diet is still king in that aspect as well by a fair margin. Are people who are successful at maintenance with diet more likely to be more active? Probably, but its definitely not a requisite.
But indicator doesn't mean "cause of" and certainly doesn't mean "requisite", it just points to strong correlation asking for more study into why. Nobody's saying you have to be more active to be successful. For some reason, this research suggests that a large percentage of people who successfully maintain are active. Is the activity the reason, or is it another "symptom" of whatever makes those people successful? It's like the indicator light on your dashboard telling you it's time for an oil change. It's not a guarantee you are about to run dry of oil and ruin your car, but it's indicating you might be running out of time. It might also be a computer malfunction.
I would add that for me, diet was the key to LOSING weight. Increasing my activity level has been enormously important to maintenance for me. I'm not sure I could've avoided regain without it. I am by no means saying it's a requirement for everyone, mind you.
I think it's important to accurately interpret the language in scientific research and conclusions. Some posters seem to be reading this as "You can't maintain weight loss without exercise" and that isn't at all what it's saying.4 -
I'm not sure how to look at this, in personal terms. I was very active for a decade, while obese, before losing weight (by changing intake), and am now similarly active in year 3 of maintenance.
I think it's unusual (though not unheard of, obviously) for obese people to be very active. It's not terribly unusual for people who want to lose weight to add exercise in the weight-loss mix. It's probably (?) not that unusual for formerly obese people to discover how good it feels to be fitter, during that whole process, and stick with some level of exercise; and to find exercise simply more doable at a lighter body weight, besides.
So, through that lens, what to conclude from the data is a little murky to me.My quick read of the above link sees that weight control people have a TDEE of about 300 above the never obese and spend about 180 more on exercise.... where's the other 120?
In reading the study, the answer is that the authors discriminated between TDEE (Total Daily Energy Expenditure) and PAEE (Physical Activity Energy Expenditure). The 300 refers to TDEE, while the 180 refers to PAEE. In looking at the data, it appears that the weight-loss group also has about 120 kcal/d higher REE than the never-overweight group.
Does that fly in the face of the "Biggest Loser Study" adaptive thermogenesis (so-called "metabolic damage") hand-wringing?
After dissecting the BL studies, I have issues with many of these so called studies. One of my biggest grievances with the BL study was that most of the participants were in a caloric deficit when their rmr was taken. The second was their rmr was lower, but Kevin halls planner nearly nailed their tdee on the mark. Uhhh?? What? Makes no sense. The biggest gripe I have with these correlational study's, such as this one, is that they depend on self reported data. We know human reported data is never accurate. Metabolic ward studies carry the most weight to me.
*edit* also wanted to add that some of the od the issues could also be they used 2 different equations, one at the end of show vs one at time of study, to establish rmr.cwolfman13 wrote: »Been maintaining going on 6 years this month. Regular exercise is pretty crucial to my weight maintenance. My exercise always dips in the winter and I put on 8-10 Lbs every winter and take it off in the spring. When I'm exercising regularly, I maintain easily and don't even really have to think about it. I like food, and I like beer...regular exercise gives me a nice buffer for those things.
How is the knee wolf?1 -
psychod787 wrote: »I'm not sure how to look at this, in personal terms. I was very active for a decade, while obese, before losing weight (by changing intake), and am now similarly active in year 3 of maintenance.
I think it's unusual (though not unheard of, obviously) for obese people to be very active. It's not terribly unusual for people who want to lose weight to add exercise in the weight-loss mix. It's probably (?) not that unusual for formerly obese people to discover how good it feels to be fitter, during that whole process, and stick with some level of exercise; and to find exercise simply more doable at a lighter body weight, besides.
So, through that lens, what to conclude from the data is a little murky to me.My quick read of the above link sees that weight control people have a TDEE of about 300 above the never obese and spend about 180 more on exercise.... where's the other 120?
In reading the study, the answer is that the authors discriminated between TDEE (Total Daily Energy Expenditure) and PAEE (Physical Activity Energy Expenditure). The 300 refers to TDEE, while the 180 refers to PAEE. In looking at the data, it appears that the weight-loss group also has about 120 kcal/d higher REE than the never-overweight group.
Does that fly in the face of the "Biggest Loser Study" adaptive thermogenesis (so-called "metabolic damage") hand-wringing?
After dissecting the BL studies, I have issues with many of these so called studies. One of my biggest grievances with the BL study was that most of the participants were in a caloric deficit when their rmr was taken. The second was their rmr was lower, but Kevin halls planner nearly nailed their tdee on the mark. Uhhh?? What? Makes no sense. The biggest gripe I have with these correlational study's, such as this one, is that they depend on self reported data. We know human reported data is never accurate. Metabolic ward studies carry the most weight to me.
*edit* also wanted to add that some of the od the issues could also be they used 2 different equations, one at the end of show vs one at time of study, to establish rmr.cwolfman13 wrote: »Been maintaining going on 6 years this month. Regular exercise is pretty crucial to my weight maintenance. My exercise always dips in the winter and I put on 8-10 Lbs every winter and take it off in the spring. When I'm exercising regularly, I maintain easily and don't even really have to think about it. I like food, and I like beer...regular exercise gives me a nice buffer for those things.
How is the knee wolf?
It's ok. I can ride no problem. I can't squat in the gym yet...really wobbly and unstable, but I can leg press no problem.2 -
I am familiar with the NWCR as I have paperwork to submit to become a member...just need to get before and after Pics done.
The NWCR mentions a lot of things that people who maintain weight loss do vs those who don't maintain.
For example most people in the registry eat breakfast....does that means it's critical...no but it's a good indicator it helps.
As for exercise...yes it helps.
for maintaining...not necessarily losing.
for weight loss it is all about diet and it's important to understand you don't need exercise to lose and/or maintain weight as at some point you might not want to or be able to exercise...then what?
but typically what happens is if you lose weight using 95% diet chances are you end up more active anyway and understand you can eat more that way but par down eating if you aren't exercising otherwise you aren't going to maintain.
TL;DR
if you are a long term maintainer you understand that exercise can help a lot but isn't critical...2 -
My take from this study is that the correlation between physical activity and weight maintenance most likely does not mean " physical activity means successful weight maintenance". But more likely that the people who are more motivated to lead a healthier lifestyle and maintain their weight are more likely to be more active.
This is kind of what I assume as well. Perhaps people who start and stick to "active" hobbies or to a workout schedule are incorporating good habits all over the place. You could extrapolate that out to all sorts of behaviors or habits that both make you more likely to be active AND make you more likely to eat correctly.
I'd add that just because some people who successfully maintain weight loss don't exercise doesn't mean the idea is flawed. It says exercise is more critical, not that it's absolutely necessary in all cases.
Perhaps the more fair conclusion is "activity level is generally a better indicator of weight loss maintenance than diet"?
Honestly I dont know if that's much better. Are people who are more active more likely to succeed at maintenance? Sure. If the focus on diet was the same. But there is nothing saying that maintenance requires more physical activity. Its so much easier to eat a cinnamon bun than it is to burn off the 200-500 calories it entails.
Physical activity can be used as an indicator of a higher probability of success for maintenance, but diet is still king in that aspect as well by a fair margin. Are people who are successful at maintenance with diet more likely to be more active? Probably, but its definitely not a requisite.
But indicator doesn't mean "cause of" and certainly doesn't mean "requisite", it just points to strong correlation asking for more study into why. Nobody's saying you have to be more active to be successful. For some reason, this research suggests that a large percentage of people who successfully maintain are active. Is the activity the reason, or is it another "symptom" of whatever makes those people successful? It's like the indicator light on your dashboard telling you it's time for an oil change. It's not a guarantee you are about to run dry of oil and ruin your car, but it's indicating you might be running out of time. It might also be a computer malfunction.
I would add that for me, diet was the key to LOSING weight. Increasing my activity level has been enormously important to maintenance for me. I'm not sure I could've avoided regain without it. I am by no means saying it's a requirement for everyone, mind you.
I think it's important to accurately interpret the language in scientific research and conclusions. Some posters seem to be reading this as "You can't maintain weight loss without exercise" and that isn't at all what it's saying.My take from this study is that the correlation between physical activity and weight maintenance most likely does not mean " physical activity means successful weight maintenance". But more likely that the people who are more motivated to lead a healthier lifestyle and maintain their weight are more likely to be more active.
This is kind of what I assume as well. Perhaps people who start and stick to "active" hobbies or to a workout schedule are incorporating good habits all over the place. You could extrapolate that out to all sorts of behaviors or habits that both make you more likely to be active AND make you more likely to eat correctly.
I'd add that just because some people who successfully maintain weight loss don't exercise doesn't mean the idea is flawed. It says exercise is more critical, not that it's absolutely necessary in all cases.
Perhaps the more fair conclusion is "activity level is generally a better indicator of weight loss maintenance than diet"?
Honestly I dont know if that's much better. Are people who are more active more likely to succeed at maintenance? Sure. If the focus on diet was the same. But there is nothing saying that maintenance requires more physical activity. Its so much easier to eat a cinnamon bun than it is to burn off the 200-500 calories it entails.
Physical activity can be used as an indicator of a higher probability of success for maintenance, but diet is still king in that aspect as well by a fair margin. Are people who are successful at maintenance with diet more likely to be more active? Probably, but its definitely not a requisite.
But indicator doesn't mean "cause of" and certainly doesn't mean "requisite", it just points to strong correlation asking for more study into why. Nobody's saying you have to be more active to be successful. For some reason, this research suggests that a large percentage of people who successfully maintain are active. Is the activity the reason, or is it another "symptom" of whatever makes those people successful? It's like the indicator light on your dashboard telling you it's time for an oil change. It's not a guarantee you are about to run dry of oil and ruin your car, but it's indicating you might be running out of time. It might also be a computer malfunction.
I would add that for me, diet was the key to LOSING weight. Increasing my activity level has been enormously important to maintenance for me. I'm not sure I could've avoided regain without it. I am by no means saying it's a requirement for everyone, mind you.
I think it's important to accurately interpret the language in scientific research and conclusions. Some posters seem to be reading this as "You can't maintain weight loss without exercise" and that isn't at all what it's saying.
I do agree with everything you said. I'm thinking that we are arguing the same point. Do you think I am incorrect in saying that physical activity may not be the "best" indicator of successful maintenance? Not to say it's not helpful for someone to succeed or not a good indicator or not an indicator at all. The best indicator would be a persons average net caloric level (surplus/deficit/equillibrum) including said physical activity? basically just to clear up the title of the topic.
What do you think is the reason exercise was key for you? Generally curious.
Sorry, Not sure why it quoted twice... pain to fix on phone...
0 -
My take from this study is that the correlation between physical activity and weight maintenance most likely does not mean " physical activity means successful weight maintenance". But more likely that the people who are more motivated to lead a healthier lifestyle and maintain their weight are more likely to be more active.
This is kind of what I assume as well. Perhaps people who start and stick to "active" hobbies or to a workout schedule are incorporating good habits all over the place. You could extrapolate that out to all sorts of behaviors or habits that both make you more likely to be active AND make you more likely to eat correctly.
I'd add that just because some people who successfully maintain weight loss don't exercise doesn't mean the idea is flawed. It says exercise is more critical, not that it's absolutely necessary in all cases.
Perhaps the more fair conclusion is "activity level is generally a better indicator of weight loss maintenance than diet"?
I also wonder if the study's location influenced the results. I work at the medical school this came out of and we're based in the Denver metro area. Our overall population tends to be more active than in a lot of places and we absolutely use the "lifestyle factor" as a recruiting point for both students and faculty.
The article said that recruitment was done through emails, flyers and reaching out to Denver based participants in the NWLR. My guess is that emails were sent mainly to various campus list-servs and potentially clients of the various weight loss courses developed at the wellness center over the last few years. Flyers are posted at various locations on campus, but the most common location for these study announcement is a big board near the doors at the wellness center. The wellness center holds our campus gym, so even for obese participants, you'd likely to find people more active than what might be typical. Obviously sorting participants into sample pools can mitigate some of this between participant groups, but just the same I wonder if the results would look the same if the study had been based in, I don't know...Cleveland or something.
Of course, it also appears that the primary funding for the study was a training grant, so the scope would naturally be somewhat limited. This does actually look like a good source of pilot data for larger proposals down the line.4 -
My take from this study is that the correlation between physical activity and weight maintenance most likely does not mean " physical activity means successful weight maintenance". But more likely that the people who are more motivated to lead a healthier lifestyle and maintain their weight are more likely to be more active.
This is kind of what I assume as well. Perhaps people who start and stick to "active" hobbies or to a workout schedule are incorporating good habits all over the place. You could extrapolate that out to all sorts of behaviors or habits that both make you more likely to be active AND make you more likely to eat correctly.
I'd add that just because some people who successfully maintain weight loss don't exercise doesn't mean the idea is flawed. It says exercise is more critical, not that it's absolutely necessary in all cases.
Perhaps the more fair conclusion is "activity level is generally a better indicator of weight loss maintenance than diet"?
Honestly I dont know if that's much better. Are people who are more active more likely to succeed at maintenance? Sure. If the focus on diet was the same. But there is nothing saying that maintenance requires more physical activity. Its so much easier to eat a cinnamon bun than it is to burn off the 200-500 calories it entails.
Physical activity can be used as an indicator of a higher probability of success for maintenance, but diet is still king in that aspect as well by a fair margin. Are people who are successful at maintenance with diet more likely to be more active? Probably, but its definitely not a requisite.
But indicator doesn't mean "cause of" and certainly doesn't mean "requisite", it just points to strong correlation asking for more study into why. Nobody's saying you have to be more active to be successful. For some reason, this research suggests that a large percentage of people who successfully maintain are active. Is the activity the reason, or is it another "symptom" of whatever makes those people successful? It's like the indicator light on your dashboard telling you it's time for an oil change. It's not a guarantee you are about to run dry of oil and ruin your car, but it's indicating you might be running out of time. It might also be a computer malfunction.
I would add that for me, diet was the key to LOSING weight. Increasing my activity level has been enormously important to maintenance for me. I'm not sure I could've avoided regain without it. I am by no means saying it's a requirement for everyone, mind you.
I think it's important to accurately interpret the language in scientific research and conclusions. Some posters seem to be reading this as "You can't maintain weight loss without exercise" and that isn't at all what it's saying.My take from this study is that the correlation between physical activity and weight maintenance most likely does not mean " physical activity means successful weight maintenance". But more likely that the people who are more motivated to lead a healthier lifestyle and maintain their weight are more likely to be more active.
This is kind of what I assume as well. Perhaps people who start and stick to "active" hobbies or to a workout schedule are incorporating good habits all over the place. You could extrapolate that out to all sorts of behaviors or habits that both make you more likely to be active AND make you more likely to eat correctly.
I'd add that just because some people who successfully maintain weight loss don't exercise doesn't mean the idea is flawed. It says exercise is more critical, not that it's absolutely necessary in all cases.
Perhaps the more fair conclusion is "activity level is generally a better indicator of weight loss maintenance than diet"?
Honestly I dont know if that's much better. Are people who are more active more likely to succeed at maintenance? Sure. If the focus on diet was the same. But there is nothing saying that maintenance requires more physical activity. Its so much easier to eat a cinnamon bun than it is to burn off the 200-500 calories it entails.
Physical activity can be used as an indicator of a higher probability of success for maintenance, but diet is still king in that aspect as well by a fair margin. Are people who are successful at maintenance with diet more likely to be more active? Probably, but its definitely not a requisite.
But indicator doesn't mean "cause of" and certainly doesn't mean "requisite", it just points to strong correlation asking for more study into why. Nobody's saying you have to be more active to be successful. For some reason, this research suggests that a large percentage of people who successfully maintain are active. Is the activity the reason, or is it another "symptom" of whatever makes those people successful? It's like the indicator light on your dashboard telling you it's time for an oil change. It's not a guarantee you are about to run dry of oil and ruin your car, but it's indicating you might be running out of time. It might also be a computer malfunction.
I would add that for me, diet was the key to LOSING weight. Increasing my activity level has been enormously important to maintenance for me. I'm not sure I could've avoided regain without it. I am by no means saying it's a requirement for everyone, mind you.
I think it's important to accurately interpret the language in scientific research and conclusions. Some posters seem to be reading this as "You can't maintain weight loss without exercise" and that isn't at all what it's saying.
I do agree with everything you said. I'm thinking that we are arguing the same point. Do you think I am incorrect in saying that physical activity may not be the "best" indicator of successful maintenance? Not to say it's not helpful for someone to succeed or not a good indicator or not an indicator at all. The best indicator would be a persons average net caloric level (surplus/deficit/equillibrum) including said physical activity? basically just to clear up the title of the topic.
What do you think is the reason exercise was key for you? Generally curious.
Sorry, Not sure why it quoted twice... pain to fix on phone...
I mean, I really don't know. The study suggests exercise is more important to maintenance, and I really haven't looked at any other data. I would bet diet is more important to losing/gaining, activity level is more important to maintenance, but that is just a gut instinct, no proof whatsoever!
As far as why increased activity was important to me... I think there were a bunch of reasons, not sure how much sense this makes though
- I spent most of my life trying to "be good" with my diet, and was always mildly struggling with eating to keep my weight down. Maybe because I'm a smallish woman, I needed to get my TDEE up or I would always need to focus more than I'm comfortable with on my eating. It's just way more natural for me to find a balance at a higher TDEE, 1800cals instead of 1600. (I'm hoping one day to get my TDEE as close to 2000 as possible!) Once the obvious goal of weight loss was off the table, I believe I would have ended up right back in that "mild struggle zone".
- I was simply not happy with how I looked at a lower weight by just dieting. Becoming more fit (and I still have a ways to go but I can actually see it happening now) has made me happier with the visual results.
- I feel healthier and more energetic now that I'm more active. It makes it easier for me to make good choices with my food. There were many times "before" where I would just not care about my diet at all for weeks at a time because I felt like a lump of fatigue and what the heck difference would it make anyway? Hasn't happened this time (so far) and I'm crediting that to activity level.
I guess the short version is it is more enjoyable for me to exercise off calories and eat them rather than restrict my calories more, and exercising makes me look better and feel better. Maybe it's a state of mind thing. Maybe "activity" supplied the attainable goals that weight loss on the scale used to supply.2 -
Hey wait a second: we are drifting (I think).
There are at least a few of questions on the table:
Is the title of the post a fair reflection of the conclusions of the research paper? Do they really conclude that exercise/activity is THE most important thing for maintenance and how did they determine that?
IF they did, is that determination--that exercise is the most important component of maintenance--a believable conclusion based on their research. How about caloric balance? Lack of binging? Lack of over-drinking? Not being subject to mental illness (f.e. depression)? All of these also make maintenance easier, right?
And
Do we all think that exercise/activity is very very important and plays a role and helps with successful maintenance?
I will agree with the last bit. It certainly reflects my own experience. It definitely helps. Not necessarily cut throat exercise. But just being more active.3 -
Hey wait a second: we are drifting (I think).
There are at least a few of questions on the table:
Is the title of the post a fair reflection of the conclusions of the research paper? Do they really conclude that exercise/activity is THE most important thing for maintenance and how did they determine that?
IF they did, is that determination--that exercise is the most important component of maintenance--a believable conclusion based on their research. How about caloric balance? Lack of binging? Lack of over-drinking? Not being subject to mental illness (f.e. depression)? All of these also make maintenance easier, right?
And
Do we all think that exercise/activity is very very important and plays a role and helps with successful maintenance?
I will agree with the last bit. It certainly reflects my own experience. It definitely helps. Not necessarily cut throat exercise. But just being more active.
It's a minority report for sure, and I don't know many other people who were long-term (decade plus) active and simultaneously staying literally obese . . . but coming from that minority, I have mixed feelings about your "do we all?" proposition.
It's good to eat more rather than less (because I like food). When able to eat more, it's easier to have sound nutrition and still add treats. Being active/fit is a blessing in itself. So exercise helps, in those ways, I guess. But I could have all of those things when fat, too - and did. (Equally good health, not so much . . . .).
The last month or so, I've been on exercise hiatus because of physical problems. I suppose maybe it makes maintenance like maybe 3% harder, but mostly because of the potential for boredom eating or mood problems. Tiny difference, though. But most of the difficulties with maintenance per se don't change, for me.
To me, activity level just kind of sits alongside maintenance. It isn't all wound in with it. Not working out is a problem in itself, and would've been one even if I were not trying to maintain a reduced weight.
I think the overwhelming majority of people here on MFP were not very active when overweight or obese, just going from what I read. That maybe makes us think about it differently, on average. I don't know. And I don't want to speak for others.0 -
Hey wait a second: we are drifting (I think).
There are at least a few of questions on the table:
Is the title of the post a fair reflection of the conclusions of the research paper? Do they really conclude that exercise/activity is THE most important thing for maintenance and how did they determine that?
IF they did, is that determination--that exercise is the most important component of maintenance--a believable conclusion based on their research. How about caloric balance? Lack of binging? Lack of over-drinking? Not being subject to mental illness (f.e. depression)? All of these also make maintenance easier, right?
And
Do we all think that exercise/activity is very very important and plays a role and helps with successful maintenance?
I will agree with the last bit. It certainly reflects my own experience. It definitely helps. Not necessarily cut throat exercise. But just being more active.
Hard to differentiate formal exercise and increases in NEAT. I know you walk your dog. Well, you have to do that. If you just happen to walk a little farther, is that formal exercise? How should I quantify my weight lifting? Formal activitie, but not a large calorie burner. How about my cleaning the house and working on clearing property. Sure, I could get a rumba or pay someone to clear it. Though, i look at it all as formal exercise.0 -
Neither the study not I differentiated (in the above posts) between NEAT and exercise activity...
As to Ann, I said it helps, but I disagree that it is the most important thing. I don't think you can argue against the fact that the large population that was less active before thinks it helps them!
Look, my personal experience mirrors in part the study: I certainly eat more and am more active than *most* people I know directly.
But does that prove that increased calories out is what is most important? Why not the awareness and desire that you have to balance things?0 -
I assume the study results are actually showing that increased activity and successful weight maintenance are both symptoms of whatever actually did make these people successful, it just wasn't translated that way. Which I think makes sense - whatever lifestyle shift or personality change or improved thought process or whatever that made these people successful at weight loss also made many of them noticeably more active.
Perhaps it's easier to quantify increased activity as opposed to correct calories in, or consistent CICO balance, so that's what jumped out to the researchers.
Having said that, it really does make sense to me that maintenance is easier for more active people (and I mean people whose lifestyle becomes more active, not people who are forcing themselves to work out to burn calories), but that is solely from personal experience, and honestly I can't even prove my n=1, just the feelz
1
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.3K 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
- 422 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
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions