exercising without diet for weight loss

The prob just dieting and not exercising, is you'll have to continually eat less and less to get a weight loss. Boost the metabolism through exercise to burn more.

Love this article. It explains why you can't just exercise a bad diet.

http://blackgirlsguidetoweightloss.com/work-it-out/why-you-cant-just-burn-those-cookies-off/

The big point I made earlier was that the OP would lose weight, but should make sure tracking calories and exercise is a big part of it! Tracking is the real eye opener!

It wasn't for me. I lost most of my weight before joining MFP or tracking anything. Just through exercise. When I joined and started tracking, my diet was right where MFP said it should be.

drgndancer mentioned this earlier, but it is really the key to the whole thing and IMO everything else on here is either a big distraction or doesn't fully explain why:

If you add exercise and truly don't change your diet or your base level of activity during the day, you can lose weight. However, you must still track what you eat and what you do because of your body's auto-regulation. Two things start to happen on a subconcious level:

1. Your appetite will subtly increase and you won't notice that you are eating those extra calories every day unless you are tracking it - exercise will "work up an appetite" as the old saying goes.

2. Your base level of movement may decrease subtly, maybe you sit for longer periods rather than walking around, or you fidget less, etc. Your body starts to conserve energy - exercise will make you tired, go to bed earlier, etc. (Yes you can get a hormonal energy boost like with a runner's high, etc. but this is a short term release. Also over the long term getting "in shape" in general can result in your body getting more efficient and you feel like you have more energy due to a lowered BMR from carrying less weight around, having a lower resting heart rate, etc., but these are both separate from the discussion here.)

The same thing as #2 happens to many people who cut calories but do not add in any exercise, they simply move less during the day without realizing it and their weight loss stalls and they don't know why.

This is why tools like MFP are so important. They allow us to really track what's going on and not let our bodies "trick" our minds.

I hope this helps.

Actually. I have had no choice but to diet without exercise. I tore my ACL in my left knee and still managed to lose 11 pounds so far. I think it would be easier to lose weight with some exercise. I think it would help drive away hunger pangs. Now have to have knee surgery and wonder when I can start exercising :P

As the song goes, it ain't never gonna, never gonna, never gonna happen. I can run 40+ miles a week and gain weight. You say you will eat 2000, or 2500, but if you don't watch it, it's crazy easy to eat waaaay over that. Esp if you're working out a ton, which makes you killer hungry. Doing both is so much easier.

The requirement for weight loss is an energy deficit. Whether or not you reduce your food intake, or increase your activity, or a combination of both --- as long as you create a prolonged energy deficit you will lose weight over time.

Tracking food is also not a necessity. It's a good idea for accuracy purposes but it's not a requirement.

I love how some people in this thread have turned this into false dilemma. "OP doesn't want to 'diet' therefore OP must eat exclusively junk food".

http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/nutrition/excluding-the-middle.html


And whether or not you can successfully create an energy deficit without changes to diet is something you will have to find out on your own.

If I focus mainly on exercise but don't change diet too much can I lose body fat? For example, if you eat 2500 calories a day and you need 2000 a day to maintain, and burn 1000 calories at the gym every day, wouldn't that still be a 500 deficit and you'd lose a pound a week? I want to work on diet too but I just want to know if I would be wasting my time exercising so much if it wouldn't do anything.

You are describing a calorie restricted diet.

Just want to throw a spanner in the whole deficit idea, I am consistently in deficit, should be losing 1lb a week and am not, not starving myself either, I am not saying that if I exercised more it would be different, but people are individual and what works for one won't always work for everyone.

Then quite simply you weren't at a deficit. Biochemistry and physics can't be ignored. Energy has to come from somewhere. If you are eating less energy than you are using, your body will pull energy from its reserves. Ideally fat cells, though if you eat at sufficient deficit and/or don't exercise enough then it will pull from muscle also. This is the only possibility. You literally cannot maintain an energy deficit and not lose weight, it's impossible. The energy to breathe, maintain heart function, think and perform daily activities HAS to come from somewhere.

There are several possible reasons that you are not maintaining a deficit despite what you believe. You may be underestimating what you consume. This can be caused by snacking that you don't record, underestimating serving size, or guessing wrong about equivalence of items to things in the database. You may be overestimating your exercise calories. There are items in the exercise database of MFP that simply make no sense. I've seen things like light yard work being worth hundreds of calories per hour. You may (though this is nowhere near as common as people seem to think) have a drug side effect or medical issue that causes your BMR to lower than it would normally be for a person of your size and physical condition.

Whatever the reason, if you are not losing weight you are not eating at a deficit. Period. The first law of thermodynamics cannot be ignored.

Just want to throw a spanner in the whole deficit idea, I am consistently in deficit, should be losing 1lb a week and am not, not starving myself either, I am not saying that if I exercised more it would be different, but people are individual and what works for one won't always work for everyone.

Then quite simply you weren't at a deficit. Biochemistry and physics can't be ignored. Energy has to come from somewhere. If you are eating less energy than you are using, your body will pull energy from its reserves. Ideally fat cells, though if you eat at sufficient deficit and/or don't exercise enough then it will pull from muscle also. This is the only possibility. You literally cannot maintain an energy deficit and not lose weight, it's impossible. The energy to breathe, maintain heart function, think and perform daily activities HAS to come from somewhere.

There are several possible reasons that you are not maintaining a deficit despite what you believe. You may be underestimating what you consume. This can be caused by snacking that you don't record, underestimating serving size, or guessing wrong about equivalence of items to things in the database. You may be overestimating your exercise calories. There are items in the exercise database of MFP that simply make no sense. I've seen things like light yard work being worth hundreds of calories per hour. You may (though this is nowhere near as common as people seem to think) have a drug side effect or medical issue that causes your BMR to lower than it would normally be for a person of your size and physical condition.

Whatever the reason, if you are not losing weight you are not eating at a deficit. Period. The first law of thermodynamics cannot be ignored.

Quite frankly I am at a deficit and I am losing weight but not at the supposed 1lb a week mark Could there be underlying medical reasons? Perhaps. Those are things that I am working with with my doctor. HENCE the reason why I said everyone is an individual and what works for one does not work for all.

You are not losing at a predicted pace because calorie intake and output, as well as your predicted TDEE, are all estimates. Not to mention TDEE is a moving target to begin with.

Indeed!

Too many people just takes what MFP says as gospel, when it's a massive guestimate.

I do plan, when I've lost a bit again to go back to a 'maintenance' where I use my motoactv and MFP to VERY accurately track everything I do.
Hopefully from this I should get an idea that for the average exercise I do and average food I eat - say I maintain when have a figure burnt of 2680 calories and calories in of 2430 calories, so I know I have to apply -250 to the figures I have to maintain.
Of course, there's still many factors on that, but it would give me a much better starting point at least.

I think a combination of diet and exercise is always the best option for healthy weight loss.

I can personally tell you that I lost almost 30 pounds by exercising and eating absolute garbage on a daily basis. When I say exercise, I mean 4 hrs/day for 5 or 6 days. When I say eat garbage, I mean fast food every if not every other day.
To be honest, I didn't feel that unhealthy, although I have no idea what was going on inside my body.

On the flip side, I can also tell you once I stopped exercising, I put all the weight back on. Healthy meal or not.
Now, eating healthily and exercising moderately, I feel better than ever, even though weight loss is slow.

Everyone's body is different, so no one can really say what will or will not work for you. But if your goal is to not only lose weight, but keep it off while also living a healthier lifestyle, I say diet and exercise is the best way to go.

you can't exercise your way out of a bad diet. period.

It is possible, bad diet can me so many things. Maybe you can't, but to think what you experience is the same for everyone is a bit ignorant.

Our diet is THE whole ball game. You can do far less, look and feel much better with less effort in the gym and more in the kitchen. Truth.

Emile Jarreau,aka, Mr. Fat Loss

It depends what 'ball game' you are playing .
The game I play, I want to be physically fit for too!