Weight loss only by diet/calories control?

shyrina25

I did. lost 60 pounds just by watching what I eat.

heybales

Weight loss is all about calorie deficit. Exercise has absolutely nothing to do with it.

Exercise = fitness

Diet = weight loss

Two different concepts that are completely mutually exclusive. You can lose weight without changing your fitness level, and you can change your fitness level without losing weight.

Couldn't you argue that exercise could be considered part of the calories in calories out equation as a means of calories out? I'm not suggesting that it needs to be. I wouldn't argue that you can't lose weight without exercising. It just seemed weird to see someone saying that weight loss is about calorie deficit and exercise has nothing to do with creating a calorie deficit when it certainly can--even if it doesn't have to. Perhaps it was just a phrasing issue for me.

While it may seem like you could avg 500 cal deficit everyday by exercising a good 3500 cal's a week and therefore the same 1lb weight loss, the fact is the majority of that cal burn is going to be carbs, unless you walk slow and long, in which case I'd argue that is just more daily activity really.

Anyway, ones would find they don't really lose 1lb a week the numbers would seem to indicate.

Because, of that 500 cal burn, 350 is probably carbs. Your next day's eating will put those carbs right back again.
150 cal's was probably fat.

The other issue, you are now exercising and putting a load on your body. As it improves, either LBM or by storing more glucose, you'll actually gain that weight, water weight, but still weight.

And then finally, what has been found many times, is that while exercise may indeed increase metabolism during the workout, and some exercise post workout for decent periods of time, people also tend to slow down their other daily activity because of having worked out.

So you burned 500, but time later is now spent on the couch watching TV because of being slightly tired, instead of say moving around and picking up or doing something else. So missed out on 100-200 cal of burn that might have occurred, and actually mostly fat burn at that.

The other reason doesn't have as much bearing on MFP where people can log their foods. But other studies have shown with only an exercise change, people left to their own devices end up eating the deficit created right back again because they are hungry. So in that case, body is at least still improving, but no deficit.

So that is why it can be said exercise is NOT for weight loss. Loss being the keyword there.
Diet is better.

You can do it through workouts totally though, and on MFP watch the food intake to confirm you really created a deficit - but actual LOSS will be slower than diet alone with no exercise.

butterflylover527

I've heard of people doing this. I'm kind of laying off the exercise a tad until I lose more weight cause then it will be easier to do

fanakar

I knew someone that lost 300 pounds by diet alone. But they started at 700 pounds.

EvanKeel

Weight loss is all about calorie deficit. Exercise has absolutely nothing to do with it.

Exercise = fitness

Diet = weight loss

Two different concepts that are completely mutually exclusive. You can lose weight without changing your fitness level, and you can change your fitness level without losing weight.

Couldn't you argue that exercise could be considered part of the calories in calories out equation as a means of calories out? I'm not suggesting that it needs to be. I wouldn't argue that you can't lose weight without exercising. It just seemed weird to see someone saying that weight loss is about calorie deficit and exercise has nothing to do with creating a calorie deficit when it certainly can--even if it doesn't have to. Perhaps it was just a phrasing issue for me.

While it may seem like you could avg 500 cal deficit everyday by exercising a good 3500 cal's a week and therefore the same 1lb weight loss, the fact is the majority of that cal burn is going to be carbs, unless you walk slow and long, in which case I'd argue that is just more daily activity really.

Anyway, ones would find they don't really lose 1lb a week the numbers would seem to indicate.

Because, of that 500 cal burn, 350 is probably carbs. Your next day's eating will put those carbs right back again.
150 cal's was probably fat.

The other issue, you are now exercising and putting a load on your body. As it improves, either LBM or by storing more glucose, you'll actually gain that weight, water weight, but still weight.

And then finally, what has been found many times, is that while exercise may indeed increase metabolism during the workout, and some exercise post workout for decent periods of time, people also tend to slow down their other daily activity because of having worked out.

So you burned 500, but time later is now spent on the couch watching TV because of being slightly tired, instead of say moving around and picking up or doing something else. So missed out on 100-200 cal of burn that might have occurred, and actually mostly fat burn at that.

The other reason doesn't have as much bearing on MFP where people can log their foods. But other studies have shown with only an exercise change, people left to their own devices end up eating the deficit created right back again because they are hungry. So in that case, body is at least still improving, but no deficit.

So that is why it can be said exercise is NOT for weight loss. Loss being the keyword there.
Diet is better.

You can do it through workouts totally though, and on MFP watch the food intake to confirm you really created a deficit - but actual LOSS will be slower than diet alone with no exercise.

I'm not sure you can argue against exercise as means of weight loss by suggesting that there's a significant difference in the type of exercise and how it relates to type of calories burned, and then go on to say that the exercise will increase weight due to water retention, etc. On one hand you're saying fat loss (by extension fat gain) would be significant, and on the other hand, you're suggesting that water gain (or loss for that matter) is also significant.

So should I ignore the scale or not?

Are we going to change the terms of the conversation specifically to fat loss and body composition? If that's the case, are you saying that exercising would result in a slower fat loss than just dieting alone? I've seen other posts where people suggest that the body composition changes that happen through only diet (perhaps even high protein diets) is less preferable to those composition changes that include exercise.

LuckyLeprechaun

While it may seem like you could avg 500 cal deficit everyday by exercising a good 3500 cal's a week and therefore the same 1lb weight loss, the fact is the majority of that cal burn is going to be carbs, unless you walk slow and long, in which case I'd argue that is just more daily activity really.

Anyway, ones would find they don't really lose 1lb a week the numbers would seem to indicate.

Because, of that 500 cal burn, 350 is probably carbs. Your next day's eating will put those carbs right back again.
150 cal's was probably fat.

Good story, bro.

Unfortunately its not accurate at all, but......ya, good story.

SomeoneSomeplace

My guess is you will end what they call "skinny fat" The weight I've lost thus far (15 pounds) has all been from diet because I couldn't exercise due to an injury. However in the past I've been around 8-10 pounds heavier than I am now (which for a girl my size build is actually a lot more then you might think) BUT I was actually in better shape THEN when I was playing sports and such. I was all muscle. I had barely any body fat and I looked better. Now I find myself weighing less but with more body fat. Personally the number on the scale doesn't matter as much to me as how my body looks. To get that sexy toned look you absolutely have to work out. Diet alone isn't enough. And I've found dieting it's really easy just to get stuck at a weight. I think it's really important to do at least some cardio 2 or 3 times a week. If you don't like the gym maybe do tennis or soccer or softball...anything that gets you moving.

Shannafo

I'm at 59.8 lbs down and until this past Friday I did not exercise. I've started now as it doesn't hurt as much since I'm not as heavy. So I'd say yes it can be done. I stick to 1200 calories a day.

juwan24

The biggest thing people have to realize is that exercise takes energy, so if someone is on a 1200 calorie budget with no exercise and then start exercising, the scale is going to slow down. From what I've done and tracked it seems best to up the intake somewhere around half of what you're burning off to keep the energy high enough to keep on it.

I had a 12 week contest at work and thought it'd be cool to run a spreadsheet based on the exercise/food I logged (loseit) and what my body "burns" on it's own everyday. At the end of 12 weeks I had a calorie deficit of 121,646 (34.76 pounds) and had actually lost 30 pounds(105,000) during the 12 weeks. So a difference of 16,646 over 84 days or 198.167 per day. Which I'd almost guarantee is less since food calorie # or calories burned during exercise aren't "exact" numbers. I was pretty impressed that it was so close to accurate.

Long story short it shows that all the calories you "burn" whether it's from exercise or not eating it will result in weight loss if you drink enough water and do it correctly. (ie. you can't eat 1000 calories a day and expect to really lose any weight as your body will shut down)

ZipperJJ

Those of you who are saying you have to wait until you lose weight to start exercising, don't sell yourself short. I worked out 3-5 days a week at 330 lbs for a year and a half before I started losing weight by eating differently. From 330-280 I am working out 5 days a week. Walking, swimming, weights, elliptical.

Even if you've had a sextuple bypass and have knees made of sand you can still move around. There are infinite levels of exercise. From sitting in a chair waving your hands around to walking in a pool to shuffling down the driveway and back again.

And, the bigger you are the more calories you'll burn and the more weight you'll lift just by doing simple movement.

It's NEVER too "early" to start exercising. Never. If you're bad off, ask your doctor what you can do, to be safe. Your doctor is not going to say "do nothing"!!

And if you're afraid of people judging you while you're out exercising, then don't go out to exercise. Do something at home. But let me tell you that nobody is judging you other than to say "Good job, fat person!" Trust me. I am that fat person.

heybales

While it may seem like you could avg 500 cal deficit everyday by exercising a good 3500 cal's a week and therefore the same 1lb weight loss, the fact is the majority of that cal burn is going to be carbs, unless you walk slow and long, in which case I'd argue that is just more daily activity really.

Anyway, ones would find they don't really lose 1lb a week the numbers would seem to indicate.

Because, of that 500 cal burn, 350 is probably carbs. Your next day's eating will put those carbs right back again.
150 cal's was probably fat.

Good story, bro.

Unfortunately its not accurate at all, but......ya, good story.

Which part isn't accurate - that through merely breathing you burn a ratio of carbs and fat for energy, and as level of intensity goes up you are burning more carbs than fat, until finally reaching anaerobic state where you are burning carbs only?
That's not accurate?

Or you don't agree with my ratio choice there of a calorie burn during exercise?
I already said walking was more like daily activity in that it's mainly fat burning, and then moved on to this pretend workout that burns 500 calories.
I merely selected 70% carb burn as the top of the aerobic zone would probably cause for most folks, except trained athletes.
And actually, for the total workout, it really takes about 30 min for the body to slip into that better fat burning ratio, it's actually higher carb burn for 30 min.

Or you don't agree that your next few meals will restore those glucose stores that you used up?
Shoot, 500 cal will be mainly supplied by liver before muscle glucose stores are used, well, depending on exercising in fasted state or just eating high carb or such.
Don't agree that you can replenish those stores?

Or you don't agree that even if the math says you'll lose 1lb of fat a week by burning 500 daily more than you take in, that's not really what you would see?

heybales

I'm not sure you can argue against exercise as means of weight loss by suggesting that there's a significant difference in the type of exercise and how it relates to type of calories burned, and then go on to say that the exercise will increase weight due to water retention, etc. On one hand you're saying fat loss (by extension fat gain) would be significant, and on the other hand, you're suggesting that water gain (or loss for that matter) is also significant.

So should I ignore the scale or not?

Are we going to change the terms of the conversation specifically to fat loss and body composition? If that's the case, are you saying that exercising would result in a slower fat loss than just dieting alone? I've seen other posts where people suggest that the body composition changes that happen through only diet (perhaps even high protein diets) is less preferable to those composition changes that include exercise.

You can lose weight with exercise, just slower, and depending on where you are in journey, you could see no scale movement but lose plenty of inches for some time.

I was speaking specifically to the idea of losing weight, merely weight. And adding water weight prevents that. And while not true weight one should be concerned with, people are.

But in the long run it is better, as you mentioned, retaining muscle by exercising. But you usually only lose that muscle if too aggressive a deficit. Eat sensibly in the first place, not a problem.

It's just too many think exercise is only way to lose weight, where really it leads to situations of no weight lost, but fat still can be, and body does get better. But too many are focused on weight.

momof2osaurus

I lost 90 lbs on Nutrisystem a few years ago without exercise. It's possible to lose it, but I don't know if it's possible to maintain it.

deedlit90

I lost about 50lbs with no exercise by counting calories, and have managed to keep the bulk of that weight off for 5 years now. But I am sooooooo fed up with it! I keep putting about 10lbs back on, then being strict with myself (keeping to only about 1200 calories a day which is impossible for me at the weekends!) and getting them off again. I find doing this is fine for a shirt period, then I get really hungry and end up eating loads which is not healthy.

So I am now properly starting exercise. I did the whole of the 30 Day Shred in Feb and could fit into my ‘skinny’ jeans, even though I was about 6lbs heavier than the last time I had put them on! I am not perfect at exercise and I am re-doing the 30DS (as didn’t do much exercise for the last 2 months) and about to start doing C25k because I have realised that it’s inches I want to lose, not weight. I can’t believe how much I can eat and still be getting thinner.

Not to mention the fact I am getting much healthier, feeling stronger, feeling much happier! So yes, it’s possible just to diet and lose weight, but in my opinion it’s too restrictive, boring, and won’t help you get healthy!

caraiselite

i lost 40 pounds once i cut out carbs, just eating healthy veggies and protein (around 900 cals a day). i was at target weight, but still looked flabby. would have needed exercise to look good still!

Amellej

I think it is possible to lose weight with out dieting, I have lost 10lbs so far in 3 weeks just counting calories, I have 69lbs to lose which feels like a life time away!

snowbike

People who used diet alone will lose around 30% muscle.
Those who use cardio and diet will lose around 22% muscle.

Those who diet, do cardio and resistance work will lose only 3% of muscle.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10487375

The real problem is you will be thin and weak and struggle to keep at maintenance. If you do put the weight back on the fat will return much faster than the muscle (if at all) so you can very quickly end up back at the same size, but much weaker.

umer76

The thing is, its not that I am very lazy (only true to some extent) but I had posted this question because I have pain in my Achilles tendons (both feet). I cannot do extra walk or jogging. I am taking pain killers for nearly a year. Doctors here have not recommended me even to the physio therapy yet. This is why I am stuck. It is quite painful if I dont take medicine. Is it possible to do only upper body workouts as an alternative? How do you warm up if you dont jog or use treadmills?

heybales

People who used diet alone will lose around 30% muscle.
Those who use cardio and diet will lose around 22% muscle.

Those who diet, do cardio and resistance work will lose only 3% of muscle.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10487375

The real problem is you will be thin and weak and struggle to keep at maintenance. If you do put the weight back on the fat will return much faster than the muscle (if at all) so you can very quickly end up back at the same size, but much weaker.

Totally depends on the deficit.
Find a study where they didn't drop to 800 cal, or 1200, or 1500 off TDEE, or other extreme deficit compared to previous eating level or TDEE, and you'll find where they don't burn off the muscle they use everyday.
Most studies is on extreme deficits, not many on reasonable ones with slow weight loss - but they don't show the muscle loss these others do.

Of course, if you are overweight, likely the only muscle you have with any strength is the muscle you use everyday anyway, so kinda moot point. You are really continuing to use that muscle everyday then.

But a lot of obese people, even with 50% BF, can have a current LBM too great for their goal weight, and I mean goal weight that is realistic. 230 lb woman for instance with 50% BF, not unheard of at all, has LBM of 115 lbs. Well, if reasonable goal weight of 140 lbs for her height was obtained with that LBM, she'd be at 18% BF, which is probably not realistic at all, besides being in the wrong places anyway.

Who needs big huge calves carrying around an extra 90 lbs for instance, when you no longer have that weight to carry. So what if you burn it off.

heybales

The thing is, its not that I am very lazy (only true to some extent) but I had posted this question because I have pain in my Achilles tendons (both feet). I cannot do extra walk or jogging. I am taking pain killers for nearly a year. Doctors here have not recommended me even to the physio therapy yet. This is why I am stuck. It is quite painful if I dont take medicine. Is it possible to do only upper body workouts as an alternative? How do you warm up if you dont jog or use treadmills?

Very realistic of you, and as many have suggested, you can lose a good deal first and then start introducing exercise.

But with problems like that, attempt it first, you may have bad enough ankles, knees, achilles, ect, that you ruin your body and can't even do more later.

Now that would bite.

While the upper body muscles aren't as big and won't burn as many calories, something is more than nothing.
For instance, even lower body, does just doing squats cause pain actually? Just body weight squats.
Upper body swing the arms around like swimming, then do upper/lower back and chest and shoulder exercises, those are biggest muscles there.

Here, pick a muscle, see the simple dumbbell exercises that can be done, and proper form.

http://www.exrx.net/Lists/WtFemale.html