80% food intake VS 20% exercise

Since I'm eating better and exercising more, I can't tell 80/20. But, I get a mental treat from the exercise that I don't get from just eating lighter.

Healthy eating has little to do with it when you're talking strictly about weight loss. Weight loss comes from a calorie deficit so really it's like 100%/0% food/exercise.

Calorie deficit: weight loss
Macros: health
Exercise: cardiovascular health/fitness

ETA: You aren't maintaining/gaining BECAUSE you're not exercising, it's because you're eating at maintenance or at a surplus. The extra calorie expenditure from exercising is creating the deficit leading to weight loss.

^^^^ This.

Exercise helps diet merely because it increases how much you burn daily.
To lose weight you just have to eat less than you burn.

So your eating level to lose fat with exercise may be high enough to adhere to regularly, compared to how low it might be without the exercise.

Then the right kind of exercise can help retain muscle mass - again helping you to burn more than if you lost it.

I have a desk job and I am over 50, so exercise is important so that I can eat more and still lose weight. Otherwise my calorie limit is pretty low . . .

I did about 5 months (when I was more active on here a year ago) of eating under my caloric intake and being somewhat close to my Macros and yet I still didn't lose any weight.. once I start exercising really hard I would.

Be dead on with your macros every day.

If your calorie count was wrong - which it obviously was - you won't lose weight.

So you had an eating goal given by MFP that already was less than it estimated you'd burn, and you decided to eat even less than that amount to make a bigger deficit.

That also may have been your problem - bigger is not better.
If that was the case - why not just stop eating until the weight is gone?

I think what OP is getting at is effort. It's a simple deficit, but you can eat 500 calories in 30 seconds (that's what one donut?) and burning that off will take an hour of running. Maintaining a deficit throughout the day takes a lot of effort, it's easy to go over and once you do it may be hard to recover. It might seem difficult but exercise is a short amount of time compared to the rest of the day.

I did about 5 months (when I was more active on here a year ago) of eating under my caloric intake and being somewhat close to my Macros and yet I still didn't lose any weight.. once I start exercising really hard I would.

Be dead on with your macros every day.

If your calorie count was wrong - which it obviously was - you won't lose weight.

So you had an eating goal given by MFP that already was less than it estimated you'd burn, and you decided to eat even less than that amount to make a bigger deficit.

That also may have been your problem - bigger is not better.
If that was the case - why not just stop eating until the weight is gone?

I didn't get my calorie count from MFP, I went through several sites and did calculations from those, which also included my Macro intake, and I was within minus 50/100 below my intake, still I didn't get any progress.

Sites where you picked your expected weekly activity level including exercise?
Did you use one that went by days a week of exercise?
Is 6 days of walking 30 min each time the same as 3 days of running 2 hrs each time? How would that end up in the TDEE levels, 2 days and 6 days?
Did you use one that went by hours a week of exercise?
Is 1 hr of walking the same as 1 hr of running as 1 hr of lifting?

Did you actually do the amount of exercise you claimed you would do, or more or less?

Just as people screw up using MFP as a tool because they are sure they know how this tool works, those other sites as tools can be misused too.
Either overestimating calorie burn so eating more than you should.
Or vastly underestimating since it only talks about exercise and not increased daily non-exercise time.

And if your aren't logging your food by weight, not measurements - you could make a problem much worse than it was going to be.

And you said eating under your caloric intake - which on the surface doesn't make sense as a phrase because the amount you eat is caloric intake you can't eat under it, so I was trying to discern what you actually meant by it.

How much deficit did you select? So that's good only adding 50-100 to it, though 100 on a high deficit could be much worse.

Try the spreadsheet on my profile page for best estimates of everything related to burning level and reasonable eating goal.
Stay on Simple Setup and Progress tab only and read the instructions. All stats you've used before, and measurements you should have.
Let's you very easily see what happens when you do and don't exercise a certain amount.

Weight loss is 100% food intake... if you want to look like a smaller version of what you currenty look like. Exercise becomes important if you want to change/improve your body shape while you are losing.

Weight loss is 100% food intake... if you want to look like a smaller version of what you currenty look like. Exercise becomes important if you want to change/improve your body shape while you are losing.

Wellll...not exactly. Ultimately, it IS "calories in, calories out" but there are many factors that influence the "calories out" part of the equation. Having lots of lean body mass (males and younger people of both genders generally have more) greatly influences the rate at which you burn calories--even while you are sleeping! "Simple" carbohydrates (read sugar and starch) are immediately available to the gut and raise blood sugar levels further and faster than more "complex" carbohydrates--thus driving the high insulin that causes the high blood glucose to be stored (and guess where it gets stored) rather than burned. Which means that you will get hungry in a short while and want to load up on some more simple carbs. And the cycle continues. There are many other hormones that influence fat storage, fat burning and hunger, such as adiponectin (which relies on adequate levels of serum magnesium) leptin (and almost all obese women are leptin-resistant), and estrogen (high estrogen makes the female body "prefer" to metabolize lean body mass over body fat). Calorie deficits that are too high make the body "think" that it is starving and it cuts calorie burning accordingly. A body that is "starving" (as in a very low calorie diet) will actually cannibalize muscle at an increased rate over body fat because maintaining muscle is very "expensive" as opposed to maintaining body fat. Eating at a small deficit is very difficult to judge but exercise makes the difference because it does two things 1) it gives you a higher "expense account"--it gives you a bit more "wiggle room" on the calories and 2) it helps to maintain lean body mass (in addition to burning calories at an increased rate while exercising). I would hate to try to lose body fat without exercise. I've tried it before and IT DOES NOT WORK in the longer term--and after all, what is the point of losing body fat if you are just going to pile it back on when you go to "normal" eating? Without exercise, you will not maintain. All it takes is a miscalculation of 100 calories to put on 50 pounds in five years. And that 100 calories is very difficult to judge unless you are very anal about weighing every morsel. In addition, that assumes that everything remains exactly the same and the body is constantly changing.

Weight loss is 100% food intake... if you want to look like a smaller version of what you currenty look like. Exercise becomes important if you want to change/improve your body shape while you are losing.

Wellll...not exactly. Ultimately, it IS "calories in, calories out" but there are many factors that influence the "calories out" part of the equation. Having lots of lean body mass (males and younger people of both genders generally have more) greatly influences the rate at which you burn calories--even while you are sleeping! "Simple" carbohydrates (read sugar and starch) are immediately available to the gut and raise blood sugar levels further and faster than more "complex" carbohydrates--thus driving the high insulin that causes the high blood glucose to be stored (and guess where it gets stored) rather than burned. Which means that you will get hungry in a short while and want to load up on some more simple carbs. And the cycle continues. There are many other hormones that influence fat storage, fat burning and hunger, such as adiponectin (which relies on adequate levels of serum magnesium) leptin (and almost all obese women are leptin-resistant), and estrogen (high estrogen makes the female body "prefer" to metabolize lean body mass over body fat). Calorie deficits that are too high make the body "think" that it is starving and it cuts calorie burning accordingly. A body that is "starving" (as in a very low calorie diet) will actually cannibalize muscle at an increased rate over body fat because maintaining muscle is very "expensive" as opposed to maintaining body fat. Eating at a small deficit is very difficult to judge but exercise makes the difference because it does two things 1) it gives you a higher "expense account"--it gives you a bit more "wiggle room" on the calories and 2) it helps to maintain lean body mass (in addition to burning calories at an increased rate while exercising). I would hate to try to lose body fat without exercise. I've tried it before and IT DOES NOT WORK in the longer term--and after all, what is the point of losing body fat if you are just going to pile it back on when you go to "normal" eating? Without exercise, you will not maintain. All it takes is a miscalculation of 100 calories to put on 50 pounds in five years. And that 100 calories is very difficult to judge unless you are very anal about weighing every morsel. In addition, that assumes that everything remains exactly the same and the body is constantly changing.

Yes exactly...

note* please use paragraphs next time.

Weight loss is 100% food intake... if you want to look like a smaller version of what you currenty look like. Exercise becomes important if you want to change/improve your body shape while you are losing.

Wellll...not exactly. Ultimately, it IS "calories in, calories out" but there are many factors that influence the "calories out" part of the equation. Having lots of lean body mass (males and younger people of both genders generally have more) greatly influences the rate at which you burn calories--even while you are sleeping! "Simple" carbohydrates (read sugar and starch) are immediately available to the gut and raise blood sugar levels further and faster than more "complex" carbohydrates--thus driving the high insulin that causes the high blood glucose to be stored (and guess where it gets stored) rather than burned. Which means that you will get hungry in a short while and want to load up on some more simple carbs. And the cycle continues. There are many other hormones that influence fat storage, fat burning and hunger, such as adiponectin (which relies on adequate levels of serum magnesium) leptin (and almost all obese women are leptin-resistant), and estrogen (high estrogen makes the female body "prefer" to metabolize lean body mass over body fat). Calorie deficits that are too high make the body "think" that it is starving and it cuts calorie burning accordingly. A body that is "starving" (as in a very low calorie diet) will actually cannibalize muscle at an increased rate over body fat because maintaining muscle is very "expensive" as opposed to maintaining body fat. Eating at a small deficit is very difficult to judge but exercise makes the difference because it does two things 1) it gives you a higher "expense account"--it gives you a bit more "wiggle room" on the calories and 2) it helps to maintain lean body mass (in addition to burning calories at an increased rate while exercising). I would hate to try to lose body fat without exercise. I've tried it before and IT DOES NOT WORK in the longer term--and after all, what is the point of losing body fat if you are just going to pile it back on when you go to "normal" eating? Without exercise, you will not maintain. All it takes is a miscalculation of 100 calories to put on 50 pounds in five years. And that 100 calories is very difficult to judge unless you are very anal about weighing every morsel. In addition, that assumes that everything remains exactly the same and the body is constantly changing.

Yes exactly...

note* please use paragraphs next time.

I see what you did and it was obnoxious (and against the rules of this site to pick at someones literary style). As I said before I was rudely addressed--it is ultimately "calories in-calories out" . BUT there are many things that influence calories out and exercise is a very important part of that influence.

oh what did I do ?

Disagree with you? okay I still disagree...weight loss is 100% intake...regardless of how our bodies metabolize those calories. Marcro nutritional health and exercise is for cardio/bone/muscle health.

As for attacking someone's literary style is not against ToS, nor did I attack but rather made a valid suggestion for all others who may consider reading some of your future posts as that one was very difficult to get through.

a) Do not attack, mock, or otherwise insult others. You can respectfully disagree with the message or topic, but you cannot attack the messenger. This includes attacks against the user’s spelling or command of written English, or belittling a user for posting a duplicate topic.