move less and eat less

pcastagner

It has taken me a year to figure out, and I'd be a jerk if I didn't share.

Trying to lose weight? Working out more than 3 times a week? There is your problem.


Take a look around at posts from people "doing everything right and not losing". What do almost all of them have in common? Crazy exercise regimen.


Losing weight is a destructive process. By definition. While you are tearing down the body you have now, don't think of training as anything but a way to reduce the damage from this process. Eat less, move less. Find a distraction that isn't going to prolong your weight loss. Working out is not a good one!

SezxyStef

hmmm...really...define crazy workout regime.

I workout 5x a week...eat the food and I am still losing.

Working out is for health...deficet is for losing weight.

And what about these people who are "eating" 1200 calories and walking or circuit training???? you still gonna stand by that statement?????

pcastagner

hmmm...really...define crazy workout regime.

I workout 5x a week...eat the food and I am still losing.

Working out is for health...deficet is for losing weight.

And what about these people who are "eating" 1200 calories and walking or circuit training???? you still gonna stand by that statement?????

reduce the exercise and your cals and you will lose faster, and reduce the overall time you spend in a catabolic state, with the associated problems including a depressed immune system.


Yes, exercise is for building fitness. You might get more fit as you lose. But you'll get way better results if you always back up your "building" with building materials.


During weight loss, it's much better to think of exercise as a way to mitigate the damage from not giving your body enough material to maintain its own mass.




You can argue with me all you want. I'm sharing because I learned by doing both approaches and comparing the differences. Have you bothered to check your theories against reality, or do you only bother once you hit a wall?



I understand that exercise is an awesome distraction. I'm not sure I was ready to take this advice a year ago. But if you are wondering right now how this could go smoother and faster, it's time.

pkw58

I love "Working out is for health"... this is so true! I am using that as my mantra as I enter my third full year (on maintenance) and striving for increasing my energy level. I don't do the traditional 1 to 2 hour workout every day, I get the 10,000 steps and do 10-30 minutes of yoga or barre3 daily.

To lose, move more and eat less. To maintain,keep moving and and slowly add back calories... need to gain, keep moving and slowly add back calories.

pcastagner

I love "Working out is for health"... this is so true! I am using that as my mantra as I enter my third full year (on maintenance) and striving for increasing my energy level. I don't do the traditional 1 to 2 hour workout every day, I get the 10,000 steps and do 10-30 minutes of yoga or barre3 daily.

To lose, move more and eat less. To maintain,keep moving and and slowly add back calories... need to gain, keep moving and slowly add back calories.

you are on maintenance cals, so not sure how that contributes in any way to the conversation. being on maintenance cals is the perfect time to focus on building your fitness.

being on a deficit is the time to mitigate the damage because the eventual benefits are worth it. but make no mistake, weight loss is a destructive and stressful process for your body. Up to a certain point, training helps mitigate the damage. After that, it only contributes to slowing you down and inflammatory response.


You know those crazy statements we always disregard from pros that an extra day of rest is better than an extra day of training? IT'S ACTUALLY TRUE.

Iwishyouwell

I'm not sure about the soundness of your theory, but I do know that I tend to lose without much exercise, but I'm a regular, avid exerciser while in maintenance.

But that has more to do with the fact that I prefer faster weight loss, make deep deficits, and prefer to take it easy while the deep deficits do the cutting.

Incidentally, for those wondering, I always come out of periods of intense cutting just as strong as when I went in, if not stronger.

pickletkd

The reason you lose more weight while dieting and no exercise is that you consume muscle mass. Going the gym and doing resistance training prevents that and muscle is more dense then fat so while losing more fat you wont lose as many pounds as it is being replaced with muscle.

SezxyStef

hmmm...really...define crazy workout regime.

I workout 5x a week...eat the food and I am still losing.

Working out is for health...deficet is for losing weight.

And what about these people who are "eating" 1200 calories and walking or circuit training???? you still gonna stand by that statement?????

reduce the exercise and your cals and you will lose faster, and reduce the overall time you spend in a catabolic state, with the associated problems including a depressed immune system.


Yes, exercise is for building fitness. You might get more fit as you lose. But you'll get way better results if you always back up your "building" with building materials.


During weight loss, it's much better to think of exercise as a way to mitigate the damage from not giving your body enough material to maintain its own mass.




You can argue with me all you want. I'm sharing because I learned by doing both approaches and comparing the differences. Have you bothered to check your theories against reality, or do you only bother once you hit a wall?



I understand that exercise is an awesome distraction. I'm not sure I was ready to take this advice a year ago. But if you are wondering right now how this could go smoother and faster, it's time.

You didn't answer the question..does this apply to those who are "eating" 1200 calories too?

It depends on what you want...

do you want the scale number to be low....and that's it...eat at a deficet don't worry about exercise.

do you care how long it takes?

do you have different goals such as BF% or measurments?

IMHO exercise esp the stuff I do stops the loss of LBM because I don't care about the number on the scale...lifting heavy makes you strong.

I don't do exercise to lose weight...I do exercise to get strong, feel good and get healthy.

I eat at a deficet to lose weight.

And it is that simple for anyone


and yes I am waiting on the folks to come in and say not for me...I am that special snowflake who requires unicorn glitter farts to lose weight.

pcastagner

I'm not sure about the soundness of your theory, but I do know that I tend to lose without much exercise, but I'm a regular, avid exerciser while in maintenance.

But that has more to do with the fact that I prefer faster weight loss, make deep deficits, and prefer to take it easy while the deep deficits do the cutting.

Incidentally, for those wondering, I always come out of periods of intense cutting just as strong as when I went in, if not stronger.

yeah, I've noticed EXACTLY the same thing. Then I noticed something else. I kinda always suspected I was working out too much before, but I did not have the mental fortitude to work out less. Essentially, I used training as a distraction. Fine if you need it to get through this, but understand that it is slowing you down.

pcastagner

hmmm...really...define crazy workout regime.

I workout 5x a week...eat the food and I am still losing.

Working out is for health...deficet is for losing weight.

And what about these people who are "eating" 1200 calories and walking or circuit training???? you still gonna stand by that statement?????

reduce the exercise and your cals and you will lose faster, and reduce the overall time you spend in a catabolic state, with the associated problems including a depressed immune system.


Yes, exercise is for building fitness. You might get more fit as you lose. But you'll get way better results if you always back up your "building" with building materials.


During weight loss, it's much better to think of exercise as a way to mitigate the damage from not giving your body enough material to maintain its own mass.




You can argue with me all you want. I'm sharing because I learned by doing both approaches and comparing the differences. Have you bothered to check your theories against reality, or do you only bother once you hit a wall?



I understand that exercise is an awesome distraction. I'm not sure I was ready to take this advice a year ago. But if you are wondering right now how this could go smoother and faster, it's time.

You didn't answer the question..does this apply to those who are "eating" 1200 calories too?

It depends on what you want...

do you want the scale number to be low....and that's it...eat at a deficet don't worry about exercise.

do you care how long it takes?

do you have different goals such as BF% or measurments?

IMHO exercise esp the stuff I do stops the loss of LBM because I don't care about the number on the scale...lifting heavy makes you strong.

I don't do exercise to lose weight...I do exercise to get strong, feel good and get healthy.

I eat at a deficet to lose weight.

And it is that simple for anyone


and yes I am waiting on the folks to come in and say not for me...I am that special snowflake who requires unicorn glitter farts to lose weight.

yes it does. maybe. If 1200 calories is too steep or not depends on how the numbers work for you. Whatever your deficit, the steeper it is the more rest you need.


but yeah. resting more allows you to take a steeper deficit, and working a muscle group just once a week is enough to stave off muscle loss, and in most cases you can continue to make strength gains (actually resulting from better coordination).

pcastagner

The reason you lose more weight while dieting and no exercise is that you consume muscle mass. Going the gym and doing resistance training prevents that and muscle is more dense then fat so while losing more fat you wont lose as many pounds as it is being replaced with muscle.

sorry you didn't understand the premise of the post.

it's eat less, move LESS. not eat less, become a sloth. It's aimed at people wondering why they hit a wall, not sedentary folks or those who just started, who are going to lose weight pretty much no matter what. FYI, this gets harder once you are lean, and you get sharper or you stop progressing. I just wish I could have been smart enough to take the expert advice to rest more, focus on the deficit, and train to prevent muscle loss back when I got started. Live and learn...

Your best bet on low cals and just 3 workouts a week is going to be a strength program focused on compound lifts.

kgeyser

Meh. I'm working out 6 days a week. I do a combination of cardio, resistance training, and yoga. Improves my cardiovascular health, musculoskeletal system, endurance, and flexibility. I'm helping to preserve lean body mass and improving my overall health while losing weight consistently. It works for me, I can do it with the resources I have available to me, and I'm happy with the results.

pcastagner

Meh. I'm working out 6 days a week. I do a combination of cardio, resistance training, and yoga. Improves my cardiovascular health, musculoskeletal system, endurance, and flexibility. I'm helping to preserve lean body mass and improving my overall health while losing weight consistently. It works for me, I can do it with the resources I have available to me, and I'm happy with the results.

Do you have any actual evidence that you need 6 days a week to prevent muscle loss, that working out less would not preserve even more muscle, or anything else positive to contribute to the discussion?

All I see is "neat, but I'm too stubborn to even consider I could be doing this better".



SCIENCE tells us that activating a muscle group once a week is what prevents the muscle loss. Where on earth did you get the idea that doing any more than is going to prevent even more loss?

How are you building your skeletal health in a deficit, and don't you think you might build a better skeleton if you spent more time training while at maintenance or at a surplus (good old 2nd law of thermodynamics)

Why do you not think you would be better off getting the weight down, then increasing exercise AND food at the same time, so that your body has the materials it needs to make these adaptations?



The time you spend in a deficit and the severity of that deficit is the risk you take for the eventual chance to build something better. What I see a lot of is a reverse sweet spot, with the subject in a deficit too steep to be gentle, for too long, while simultaneously overtraining. Then a whole lot of surprise when, after a time, the program stops working. If this is you: eat less, move less.

maybe I shoulda said eat more, rest more, but I wanted to play on the old eat more move more thing.

lthames0810

OP, I kinda agree with you, if I understand you correctly.

You need fuel for vigorous workouts, especially cardio. You're not providing it when you eat at a large deficit, especially if you are eating low carb. Maybe turning a decent deficit into a huge deficit isn't good for your health and not good for your athletic goals. If I want to train for a 100 mile bicyling event, I can't be eating at a deficit. I'll get sick, for sure. I can either lose weight fast and don't train hard, or lose weight very slowly and train. I don't do much lifting (simply because I hate it) but maybe lifting is a different case.

kgeyser

Meh. I'm working out 6 days a week. I do a combination of cardio, resistance training, and yoga. Improves my cardiovascular health, musculoskeletal system, endurance, and flexibility. I'm helping to preserve lean body mass and improving my overall health while losing weight consistently. It works for me, I can do it with the resources I have available to me, and I'm happy with the results.

Do you have any actual evidence that you need 6 days a week to prevent muscle loss, that working out less would not preserve even more muscle, or anything else positive to contribute to the discussion?

All I see is "neat, but I'm too stubborn to even consider I could be doing this better".



SCIENCE tells us that activating a muscle group once a week is what prevents the muscle loss. Where on earth did you get the idea that doing any more than is going to prevent even more loss?

How are you building your skeletal health in a deficit, and don't you think you might build a better skeleton if you spent more time training while at maintenance or at a surplus (good old 2nd law of thermodynamics)

Why do you not think you would be better off getting the weight down, then increasing exercise AND food at the same time, so that your body has the materials it needs to make these adaptations?



The time you spend in a deficit and the severity of that deficit is the risk you take for the eventual chance to build something better. What I see a lot of is a reverse sweet spot, with the subject in a deficit too steep to be gentle, for too long, while simultaneously overtraining. Then a whole lot of surprise when, after a time, the program stops working. If this is you: eat less, move less.

maybe I shoulda said eat more, rest more, but I wanted to play on the old eat more move more thing.

Wow, lot of assumptions there, don't you think? I said I work out six days a week doing a combination of those things. I never said what each day of my workout was, did I? But there you go calling me stubborn and lecturing me about SCIENCE and the best way to do things when you don't even know what it is I'm doing or how long I've been doing it.

So to reiterate my previous statement: Meh.

sijomial

It has taken me a year to figure out, and I'd be a jerk if I didn't share.

Trying to lose weight? Working out more than 3 times a week? There is your problem.

Take a look around at posts from people "doing everything right and not losing". What do almost all of them have in common? Crazy exercise regimen.

Losing weight is a destructive process. By definition. While you are tearing down the body you have now, don't think of training as anything but a way to reduce the damage from this process. Eat less, move less. Find a distraction that isn't going to prolong your weight loss. Working out is not a good one!

Sorry but that's the opposite of my experience. I lost my excess weight while training six times a week, 3 x cardio/sports/cycling, 3 x weights training.
And far from being destructive I saw nothing but an upward trend in strength, fitness and body composition. I was burning my excess energy stores not destroying my muscle mass.
What is destructive is a huge calorie deficit, poor nutrition and trying to maintain a heavy exercise routine - it isn't the exercise on its own that's the problem.

pcastagner

Meh. I'm working out 6 days a week. I do a combination of cardio, resistance training, and yoga. Improves my cardiovascular health, musculoskeletal system, endurance, and flexibility. I'm helping to preserve lean body mass and improving my overall health while losing weight consistently. It works for me, I can do it with the resources I have available to me, and I'm happy with the results.

Do you have any actual evidence that you need 6 days a week to prevent muscle loss, that working out less would not preserve even more muscle, or anything else positive to contribute to the discussion?

All I see is "neat, but I'm too stubborn to even consider I could be doing this better".



SCIENCE tells us that activating a muscle group once a week is what prevents the muscle loss. Where on earth did you get the idea that doing any more than is going to prevent even more loss?

How are you building your skeletal health in a deficit, and don't you think you might build a better skeleton if you spent more time training while at maintenance or at a surplus (good old 2nd law of thermodynamics)

Why do you not think you would be better off getting the weight down, then increasing exercise AND food at the same time, so that your body has the materials it needs to make these adaptations?



The time you spend in a deficit and the severity of that deficit is the risk you take for the eventual chance to build something better. What I see a lot of is a reverse sweet spot, with the subject in a deficit too steep to be gentle, for too long, while simultaneously overtraining. Then a whole lot of surprise when, after a time, the program stops working. If this is you: eat less, move less.

maybe I shoulda said eat more, rest more, but I wanted to play on the old eat more move more thing.

Wow, lot of assumptions there, don't you think? I said I work out six days a week doing a combination of those things. I never said what each day of my workout was, did I? But there you go calling me stubborn and lecturing me about SCIENCE and the best way to do things when you don't even know what it is I'm doing or how long I've been doing it.

So to reiterate my previous statement: Meh.

It's almost like I made the intellectual leap of assuming you were contradicting what I said.

I guess I'm just crazy like that.

pcastagner

It has taken me a year to figure out, and I'd be a jerk if I didn't share.

Trying to lose weight? Working out more than 3 times a week? There is your problem.

Take a look around at posts from people "doing everything right and not losing". What do almost all of them have in common? Crazy exercise regimen.

Losing weight is a destructive process. By definition. While you are tearing down the body you have now, don't think of training as anything but a way to reduce the damage from this process. Eat less, move less. Find a distraction that isn't going to prolong your weight loss. Working out is not a good one!

Sorry but that's the opposite of my experience. I lost my excess weight while training six times a week, 3 x cardio/sports/cycling, 3 x weights training.
And far from being destructive I saw nothing but an upward trend in strength, fitness and body composition. I was burning my excess energy stores not destroying my muscle mass.
What is destructive is a huge calorie deficit, poor nutrition and trying to maintain a heavy exercise routine - it isn't the exercise on its own that's the problem.

the fact that weight loss is a destructive process and has medical risks is well documented, scientific fact. sorry.


nowhere here do I say you can't lose weight working out 6 days a week. I'm talking about doing something BETTER.

SideSteel

SCIENCE tells us that activating a muscle group once a week is what prevents the muscle loss.

I think this is heavily context dependent, but do you have a resource on the above?

Cranquistador

:indifferent:

sijomial

It has taken me a year to figure out, and I'd be a jerk if I didn't share.

Trying to lose weight? Working out more than 3 times a week? There is your problem.

Take a look around at posts from people "doing everything right and not losing". What do almost all of them have in common? Crazy exercise regimen.

Losing weight is a destructive process. By definition. While you are tearing down the body you have now, don't think of training as anything but a way to reduce the damage from this process. Eat less, move less. Find a distraction that isn't going to prolong your weight loss. Working out is not a good one!

Sorry but that's the opposite of my experience. I lost my excess weight while training six times a week, 3 x cardio/sports/cycling, 3 x weights training.
And far from being destructive I saw nothing but an upward trend in strength, fitness and body composition. I was burning my excess energy stores not destroying my muscle mass.
What is destructive is a huge calorie deficit, poor nutrition and trying to maintain a heavy exercise routine - it isn't the exercise on its own that's the problem.

the fact that weight loss is a destructive process and has medical risks is well documented, scientific fact. sorry.


nowhere here do I say you can't lose weight working out 6 days a week. I'm talking about doing something BETTER.

Tell me what exactly I have destroyed by getting from an unhealthy body fat percentage to healthy, from weak to strong and from aerobically fit to very aerobically fit.
You are making sweeping generalisations.