If you've heard "70% diet, 30% training".....

Lol... I agree. It has become such a silly cliche.

So, if I wanted to run a marathon and my diet was perfect but I didn't do much training, I would be at least 70% prepared for it? Uh, don't think so. :noway:

It's about creating a fluid system instead of compartmentalizing everything.

Um, I think the 70/30 arguement is about losing weight, not running a marathon.....

Agree with you that it is 50/50 as it is about health aswell as weight loss,

However when people are talking about 70/30 it is in regards to loosing weight rather than bulking/training/fitness.

If you listened to everything put on an internet forum about weight loss / bulking / fitness etc you'd never do anything, every 'theory' gets contradicted by another one, every theory gets re-bunked as being 'internet gossip' and rubbish, etc etc...

Find what works for you and do it, otherwise you'll spend all your time working out whats best rather than doing something!

I agree people shouldn't just worry about losing weight but also about improving their overall health, and that cannot truly be done just by eating less. (Maybe in some severe cases of obesity, but exercising regularly can improve a person's health so much, there's no reason not to include it.) People who only worry about losing weight and not exercising are typically people who are uneducated on the benefits of exercise; people who think if they work out or train hard they will turn into some kind of bulky muscle monsters, or who simply don't want to put the effort into it.

But it is so worthwhile to exercise as well as eat healthier. It shouldn't be all about appearance or fitting into a certain size...

I think the quote is mostly for weightloss. If I cleaned up my diet and stayed a little above my BMR, I'm going to lose weight whether I exercise or not. That's just a fact and that's how I lost my first 5 pounds. (not water weight) It took me a month, but I focused on eating better and actually eating 2200 calories a day and I lost weight. Working out just increases the food I can eat to still be at a deficit.

Hi,

I'm new to myfitnesspal and my main goal is to lose weight. I train Mon-Fri and work quite hard. Mon, Wed and Fri kettle bell session, Tues & Thursday cardio mainly stationary bike/cross trainer, simply because I am currently experiencing problem with my achillies hence I can't do much impact training.

I have for the passed two weeks been inputting my food and exercise and I keep getting a message that I need to increase my calories, due to the amount of calories I'm burning off during my training. How does this work? According to my food v exercise I'm under around 700/800 calories a day and this will have an impact on my metabolism, what should I be eating to assist me in my weight loss?

Cheers

Steve

I thought it was 100% diet, and then you just needed to train enough to burn off the calories you consumed in alcohol.

I always took it to be related to weight loss, not training as an athlete. If we are talking about athletic training, I'd say it's 90% training and 10% diet.

That doesn't make much sense, then why when I was playing football did our nutritionist ride our *kitten* so much? You can't put it into % when you are talking about athletic training. You just have to buckle down and give 100% to both. No compromise.

Lol... I agree. It has become such a silly cliche.

So, if I wanted to run a marathon and my diet was perfect but I didn't do much training, I would be at least 70% prepared for it? Uh, don't think so. :noway:

It's about creating a fluid system instead of compartmentalizing everything.

WEIGHTLOSS is said to be 80% diet, 20% exercise... (i have never heard 70/30 before)

thats not the same thing as traning for a marathon, is it?!

My point was it is meaningless whether it is for a marathon or just losing weight. And I've heard people tell me similar cliches for sports, weight lifting, running, etc. How about this: So I can lose weight without doing any exercise, therefore diet is 100%.

80-20?
70-30?
90-10?

What difference does it make? This is a dumb thread about a dumb, simplistic saying.

Excuse me, the Miley show is being shown again.

Hope I didn't miss the repeat of her twerk

I aways heard it as 60% diet, 30% fitness, 10% genetics to lose weight. *shrugs*

100% Diet

I always took it to be related to weight loss, not training as an athlete. If we are talking about athletic training, I'd say it's 90% training and 10% diet.

That doesn't make much sense, then why when I was playing football did our nutritionist ride our *kitten* so much? You can't put it into % when you are talking about athletic training. You just have to buckle down and give 100% to both. No compromise.

When I was playing sports, I ate whatever I felt like eating. Our high school didn't have a nutritionist. You can be the star of the team without watching your diet at all.

I think we are talking different levels. High School years are a bit different then your college and later years.

You can't out exercise a bad diet. I have had times where I have worked out intensely for 2 to three hours a day and eaten crap, therefore gained weight. Then there have been times where I have eaten 400 calories a day for a month and lost a LOT of weight without exercising at all! (size 10 to a size 4, to be exact). Weight loss is definitely more about the diet.