Calorie Counting Vs Exercise
MystifiedFluff
Posts: 50 Member
I have seen plenty of posts touting one or the other and some stating a balance of both is the best way to lose weight, but is there a go to answer for those starting out? Not that I saw back in January when I started. I have a theory that how one gained the weight directly impacts which method works best and would love people to share their results whether to prove or disprove my theory. Just keep it civil and as scientific as possible. You're welcome to your opinion, but I'm looking for cold hard facts, not flaring tempers 
My personal results seem to support my theory, but I'd like more data to see if I'm right thus giving those looking for a place to start some help. I gained twice, once as a teen due to poor diet and inactivity, then and again due to pregnancy followed by post-partum depression. The first time, I switched to a healthier diet and started being more active (lots of walking and cycling mainly though I think college art history books should be counted as strength training!). I lost about 2 pounds every month. This time, my diet is already healthy, so I have tried each of the above methods and the results are interesting. I base everything by month since weekly fluctuations can be pretty large.
With just calorie counting I only lost 0.2 - 0.8 pounds in a month. With just a focus on exercise (though I still tracked what I ate, just didn't care what the numbers were), I lost 3 - 6 pounds in a month. When I tried combining both, I lost 2.8 pounds in a month. I'm doing another month of combined to verify the results, but it seems pretty solid so far.
So, my theory holds up (for now). Inactive-only needs exercise for best results, mixed-cause needs a mixed 'cure'. So by that logic, calorie-cause should need calorie-counting primarily.
Share your 'causes' and 'cures'. Let's help everyone start their weight loss journeys right (especially with the holidays approaching)!
My personal results seem to support my theory, but I'd like more data to see if I'm right thus giving those looking for a place to start some help. I gained twice, once as a teen due to poor diet and inactivity, then and again due to pregnancy followed by post-partum depression. The first time, I switched to a healthier diet and started being more active (lots of walking and cycling mainly though I think college art history books should be counted as strength training!). I lost about 2 pounds every month. This time, my diet is already healthy, so I have tried each of the above methods and the results are interesting. I base everything by month since weekly fluctuations can be pretty large.
With just calorie counting I only lost 0.2 - 0.8 pounds in a month. With just a focus on exercise (though I still tracked what I ate, just didn't care what the numbers were), I lost 3 - 6 pounds in a month. When I tried combining both, I lost 2.8 pounds in a month. I'm doing another month of combined to verify the results, but it seems pretty solid so far.
So, my theory holds up (for now). Inactive-only needs exercise for best results, mixed-cause needs a mixed 'cure'. So by that logic, calorie-cause should need calorie-counting primarily.
Share your 'causes' and 'cures'. Let's help everyone start their weight loss journeys right (especially with the holidays approaching)!
0
Replies
-
get your diet right, only then should you start exercising.0
-
weight loss = eating fewer calories than you burn. So you clearly were eating fewer calories than you were burning when exercising than in the other 2 methods.
You cannot serve as your own control group, either.
Exercise is for fitness and body composition, it really should not be used to lose weight.0 -
I had a physical issue that mixed a very low metabolism with a craving for carbs due to fatigue. Constipation, dizziness and trouble breathing were problems, too. I packed on the pounds. A little surgery and a pill changed all that and the weight started falling off.
I lose much, much more when I exercise. So, I do that. It makes me feel better, too, so bonus there.
0 -
Caloric deficit gives you the weight loss. Exercise helps that deficit and helps tighten everything up.-1
-
Weight loss is as simple as burning more calories than you consume. The best way to lose weight depends on what works for you. It should also be based on your goals.0
-
I see most people aren't actually reading the post... sigh.
Thank you @Kalikel for actually bothering to read that I'm looking for facts not opinions. I did not consider the medical cause, a valid one too.0 -
I lose a lot more when I exercise, especially when I use weights. Although I don't think I've ever tried to lose weight through diet alone.
My weight gain in recent years has been due to pregnancy....I have a 5 year old, 3 year old and 6 month old. I've lost all the weight in between each one.
I'm very active generally as well as exercising at the gym, and I'm pretty good with my diet, so I don't really know if I could lose weight if I focused less on one of those. I'm not really willing to try!0 -
@DawnieB1977 - I'm not asking you to try, do what works for you. Thank you for sharing!0
-
MystifiedFluff wrote: »I see most people aren't actually reading the post... sigh.
Thank you @Kalikel for actually bothering to read that I'm looking for facts not opinions. I did not consider the medical cause, a valid one too.
Cause of weight gain: eating too many calories
"Cure" of weight gain: Eat at a caloric deficit.
So.. these are facts. The likely fact is that you probably, as said above, ate the fewest calories while burning the most calories when you solely used exercise to lose weight.
Also not sure how Kalikel's post is fact. She's sharing her anecdotal experience, which is basically what everyone else just did. Although many of us also gave the fact that it's cals in < cals out.0 -
My weight loss seems to slow down when I exercise but my shape changes dramatically (whilst still counting). I am sure this has to do with changing body composition but as I am quite numbers driven it is frustrating. Interesting theory though.0
-
My exercise is pretty consistent at about 4-5 days a week. I didn't really focus to much on my diet and maintained for so long thinking in my head that I would lose, cause I workout a lot. Not the case. Not until I focused on my calorie intake did I see the weight drop. Now I love food and I have an issue with being too comfortable with myself, so I have my good weeks and bad weeks.
Basically I have noticed that I only lose the weight when I am eating in a caloric deficit. If I am working out, then I am allowing myself a larger calorie allowance while still maintaining my deficit.0 -
You could construct an experiment to test your idea, but it's not what you've done so far. To do so, you'd probably first want to find out what your actual TDEE is sans exercise. You'd do that by initially guessing, and then tweaking your (very accurately measured and logged) food intake so that you're maintaining over time.
You could then add in a consistent exercise routine to see what impact that had over 4-6 weeks. You'd have an idea about how many calories you burn based on what you lose. Then you'd stop exercising and reduce your intake based on those numbers.
0 -
for me, weight loss is 80% diet. I went through a time where I was exercising harder than I had ever done before, yet still didn't lose weight. Not that there weren't some awesome benefits to serious, hard exercise: I stopped gaining weight, I did get stronger, I did feel better, and mentally I gained more confidence, but I didn't lose weight. That only comes - again, for me - when I log food and keep my calories under control. I have lost weight before by just counting calories, but when I hit my "goal weight" I felt weak and flabby. This time, I'm going about it with exercise and diet. Even though I'm still fluffy, I already feel better about my body than I have in years. The weight isn't coming off easier or faster, but I'm stronger and happier, and that is worth getting up at 4:45 am to hit the gym.
- Good luck!0 -
I gained weight the first time as a result of becoming much less active (crazy job and my own inability to deal with stress), probably some decrease in metabolism (it started in my late 20s), and especially the fact that my job had no time off but perks that included constant extremely rich restaurant food (I managed to drink too much too when I did have time off).
I lost by cutting out most of the restaurant food, getting obsessive about cooking myself from whole foods, eating lots of vegetables (I didn't track calories but I was careful about portions), and--especially--getting really active again. I started doing triathlons.
I gained the second time because I went through some stuff and just stopped exercise, and then kind of compensated for not drinking anymore by eating lots of rich food, and then when I got into a really busy and stressful time at work and no longer had my exercise or booze outlets I started stress eating.
I lost when I finally decided I was stable enough in not drinking that I could dump the bad habits I'd been compensating with and got back to eating healthy (and counting calories). I was out of shape enough that I didn't do more than light exercise at first but getting back into shape was my major priority and I upped the exercise as soon as I could.
I think fixing my eating has been the main thing that actually caused weight loss, but for me that's always intimately connected to a focus on getting fit more generally and I always seem to eat better when I'm exercising a lot without it being a struggle and when I stop exercising my eating falls back into bad habits too (largely lots of indulgent meals at local restaurants).
That said, I know just exercising wouldn't work for me, as I actually gained a bit of weight some years ago when I trained for a marathon.0 -
You could construct an experiment to test your idea, but it's not what you've done so far. To do so, you'd probably first want to find out what your actual TDEE is sans exercise. You'd do that by initially guessing, and then tweaking your (very accurately measured and logged) food intake so that you're maintaining over time.
You could then add in a consistent exercise routine to see what impact that had over 4-6 weeks. You'd have an idea about how many calories you burn based on what you lose. Then you'd stop exercising and reduce your intake based on those numbers.
Actually, I have pages and pages of spreadsheet data since January calculating everything I have eaten (accurately measured and logged), done (whether lawn mowing or treadmill), weekly BMR intake levels, calories burned, net calories burned, sleep data, mood, and yes I know my TDEE sans exercise levels thank you very much! You are quite wrong about my experiment. I have 2-3 months for each method which I started when my weight plateaued and solid logs as well as a fitness tracker to help track activity levels. The data I have is solid, otherwise I would not be looking for additional data from others.0 -
Realistically you can't out exercise a bad diet but with that being said, you definitely don't have to go on crazy restrictive diets either.
It also depends on how much you have to lose. If you only have 10 - 25lbs ish to lose then you have very little margin for error but if you have more to loose - 80 in my case - you can play a little more with it until you closer to your target and then it really starts to matter. I have been losing on my current diet which I am pretty good with: 80% clean eating, 20% dirty. I do 20% dirty because if I only eat clean I feel like I will go crazy and I don't want to do an unhealthy way of dropping, I want to work out, eat right and feel amazing like I do right now every step of the way.
I believe if you're careful with what you eat and exercise, you can lose but if you're especially conscious and realize what's going into your body, plan what to eat and work out effectively you definitely can achieve optimal results.0 -
Personal opinion, based on me, is that each person has to find their own path. At the bottom of it all, how much you consume vs. how much you burn (aggregate, over time) is the key to whether you gain, maintain, or lose. But your lifestyle, tendencies, etc. will dictate what you need to focus on.
I was not a fit kid, though I was skinny. I was not sedentary - walked to school and/or the bus stop. Had an after school job. Had chores like stacking wood, etc. But I wasn't intentionally involved in anything 'active'. So then I went to college and was even less active. Had kids & started a desk job. I was a picky eater, lots of fast food and fried food. Eventually my choices caught up to me. What's different now? I think about my food choices. I still go for fast & easy (busy life, don't we all know what that's about!?!) but I don't make choices blindly. And now I choose to be active, set active goals. Otherwise I'd only burn 1600-1700 total per day and would have to keep my calories LOW. Or I'd gain.
I have lost (some) weight in the past with calorie counting and making an effort to 'exercise'. But I'd fall off the exercise path, and then stop tracking. Maybe I felt like if I wasn't doing both - why bother? Just trying to psychoanalyze a past self. Now I don't focus on 'exercise' but on activity. Not a real difference, but somehow its made it more manageable in my mind. I still have weak areas, and its a work in progress. But I made it to my goal weight. And not my initial goal of 150 - but a final goal of under 130. That goal I'd never even considered as possible before. And now my goals are not based on weight.0 -
MystifiedFluff wrote: »@DawnieB1977 - I'm not asking you to try, do what works for you. Thank you for sharing!
Lol I know that! I was just saying that I'll never know because it's not something I'd try. I feel lost if I don't exercise!0 -
MystifiedFluff wrote: »You could construct an experiment to test your idea, but it's not what you've done so far. To do so, you'd probably first want to find out what your actual TDEE is sans exercise. You'd do that by initially guessing, and then tweaking your (very accurately measured and logged) food intake so that you're maintaining over time.
You could then add in a consistent exercise routine to see what impact that had over 4-6 weeks. You'd have an idea about how many calories you burn based on what you lose. Then you'd stop exercising and reduce your intake based on those numbers.
Actually, I have pages and pages of spreadsheet data since January calculating everything I have eaten (accurately measured and logged), done (whether lawn mowing or treadmill), weekly BMR intake levels, calories burned, net calories burned, sleep data, mood, and yes I know my TDEE sans exercise levels thank you very much! You are quite wrong about my experiment. I have 2-3 months for each method which I started when my weight plateaued and solid logs as well as a fitness tracker to help track activity levels. The data I have is solid, otherwise I would not be looking for additional data from others.
You think that you accurately logged mowing the lawn? If so, your data is nowhere near as solid as you claim.0 -
StaciMarie1974 wrote: »But your lifestyle, tendencies, etc. will dictate what you need to focus on.
Precisely my point! I want to know if those who gained a certain way have better luck losing it a certain way. Yet many people are just spouting off the same old 'calories in < calories out' which IS true, but not as clear cut as they think. You can make that 'deficit' in three ways: lower in numbers, higher out numbers, or a combination. But if you are just starting out, that can seem confusing. Where does one start? I'm trying to see if there's a pattern so that a person can look at their lifestyle, say based on the 'cause' of the weight gain, what they should perhaps focus on first in order to maximize weight loss.0 -
It is not rocket science. To lose weight, you have to eat at less calories than your body burns. Exercising burns more calories than being sedentary, but you do not have to exercise to lose weight. I lost 90# before I even began to walk more. You can exercise all day long, but if you eat more than you burn you will not lose weight, and may even gain weight. We all are different. Your records should give you the information you need for yourself.0
-
I couldn't lose weight until I started exercising. However I needed to eat less too. I needed both to do it. But when I was just eating less, it didn't work. I needed something to rev up my metabolism. Without exercising I have the tendency to let it creep back on too.0
-
MystifiedFluff wrote: »StaciMarie1974 wrote: »But your lifestyle, tendencies, etc. will dictate what you need to focus on.
Precisely my point! I want to know if those who gained a certain way have better luck losing it a certain way. Yet many people are just spouting off the same old 'calories in < calories out' which IS true, but not as clear cut as they think. You can make that 'deficit' in three ways: lower in numbers, higher out numbers, or a combination. But if you are just starting out, that can seem confusing. Where does one start? I'm trying to see if there's a pattern so that a person can look at their lifestyle, say based on the 'cause' of the weight gain, what they should perhaps focus on first in order to maximize weight loss.
I eat below TDEE but attempt to keep it above BMR. I stopped bothering to log any form of exercise currently because I do precious little intentionally. Some walking and lifting weights, but nothing big. I'm 22 pounds down as of today. That calorie deficit thing, you know.0 -
The cause is consuming too many calories than is needed to maintain. They should focus on consuming fewer calories than they burn to lose weight.MystifiedFluff wrote: »StaciMarie1974 wrote: »But your lifestyle, tendencies, etc. will dictate what you need to focus on.
Precisely my point! I want to know if those who gained a certain way have better luck losing it a certain way. Yet many people are just spouting off the same old 'calories in < calories out' which IS true, but not as clear cut as they think. You can make that 'deficit' in three ways: lower in numbers, higher out numbers, or a combination. But if you are just starting out, that can seem confusing. Where does one start? I'm trying to see if there's a pattern so that a person can look at their lifestyle, say based on the 'cause' of the weight gain, what they should perhaps focus on first in order to maximize weight loss.
1) Burn 2500 calories without exercise: eat 2000 calories and lose weight.
2) Burn 2500 calories without exercise: eat 2500 calories and exercise (probably way too much) to burn an average of 3000 calories.
3) Burn 2800 calories with a normal amount of consistent exercise: eat 2240 calories and lose weight.
Each instance is the same caloric deficit (20%) and should yield about the same rate of weight loss.0 -
The cause is consuming too many calories than is needed to maintain. They should focus on consuming fewer calories than they burn to lose weight.
1) Burn 2500 calories without exercise: eat 2000 calories and lose weight.
2) Burn 2500 calories without exercise: eat 2500 calories and exercise (probably way too much) to burn an average of 3000 calories.
3) Burn 2800 calories with a normal amount of consistent exercise: eat 2240 calories and lose weight.
Each instance is the same caloric deficit (20%) and should yield about the same rate of weight loss.
Ah, but I'm talking more about looking at the gaps in lifestyle than exact calories, but you aren't far off what I mean. Based on my theory, if someone who eats healthy, but is sedentary should look to activity and exercise as the most effective weight loss option before cutting a few calories out of an already good diet. A person who is inhaling donuts left and right, but is active daily (let's say a waitress at a coffee shop that has unlimited free donuts for employees to keep it simple and fun) might want to consider the calories in said donut before hopping onto a treadmill. I'm looking at it as what is the highest delta - is there a bigger difference between current diet and healthy diet or current activity/exercise and what is considered active (aka the 10K steps daily or 30+ mins exercise recommendation we always hear about) and if focusing on that higher delta results in higher losses.
0 -
OP, it happens a lot here - people ask others what they do and the responses tell the OP what he/she should do. People think you want to know what you should do. Even when the OP is very specific about asking others what they do, it still happens.
It's not that people are trying to be rude or unhelpful. They're trying to help. They just don't read things for literal meaning. -1 -
It's much easier for most people to make a bigger impact through diet. Most people can cut 500 calories, for example, from their intake without a huge amount of sacrifice, but it's more difficult than most people think to burn off an additional 500 calories through exercise. A lot of it depends on the person's initial intake -- they may or may not have 500 calories worth of wiggle room -- but I'd guess that most people starting out on MFP could start just with diet (based on their pre-MFP intake).0
-
weight loss = eating fewer calories than you burn. So you clearly were eating fewer calories than you were burning when exercising than in the other 2 methods.
You cannot serve as your own control group, either.
Exercise is for fitness and body composition, it really should not be used to lose weight.
People say this but my TDEE without exercise is about 1600. I would have to eat very little and would lose at a ridiculously slow pace.0 -
MystifiedFluff wrote: »The cause is consuming too many calories than is needed to maintain. They should focus on consuming fewer calories than they burn to lose weight.
1) Burn 2500 calories without exercise: eat 2000 calories and lose weight.
2) Burn 2500 calories without exercise: eat 2500 calories and exercise (probably way too much) to burn an average of 3000 calories.
3) Burn 2800 calories with a normal amount of consistent exercise: eat 2240 calories and lose weight.
Each instance is the same caloric deficit (20%) and should yield about the same rate of weight loss.
Ah, but I'm talking more about looking at the gaps in lifestyle than exact calories, but you aren't far off what I mean. Based on my theory, if someone who eats healthy, but is sedentary should look to activity and exercise as the most effective weight loss option before cutting a few calories out of an already good diet. A person who is inhaling donuts left and right, but is active daily (let's say a waitress at a coffee shop that has unlimited free donuts for employees to keep it simple and fun) might want to consider the calories in said donut before hopping onto a treadmill. I'm looking at it as what is the highest delta - is there a bigger difference between current diet and healthy diet or current activity/exercise and what is considered active (aka the 10K steps daily or 30+ mins exercise recommendation we always hear about) and if focusing on that higher delta results in higher losses.
The most effective weight loss option, regardless of activity level and choice of diet, is to just eat less than is burned.
I eat junk food all the time. I only lift weights 3 times a week for ~45 mins max as my only source of activity outside of general life activity, which is not that high.
eating healthy can lead to gaining weight because it's all about calories.
I also do not exercise to "earn" or burn off food, though. I make my choices knowingly, because I track macros/calories and have a general idea of how much I need to eat to maintain, so I can reduce my intake according to my activity level.
So regardless of food type, someone will lose more weight if they have a larger deficit, which unfortunately many people here take to extremes by not eating enough AND exercising too much. Which is probably how you lost more weihgt when you just tracked exercise - it's how I lost weight 4 years ago as well.0 -
weight loss = eating fewer calories than you burn. So you clearly were eating fewer calories than you were burning when exercising than in the other 2 methods.
You cannot serve as your own control group, either.
Exercise is for fitness and body composition, it really should not be used to lose weight.
People say this but my TDEE without exercise is about 1600. I would have to eat very little and would lose at a ridiculously slow pace.
You would still be able to do it. Because you are exercising, it simply increases your TDEE. So lets say you need to eat 1280 to lose ~1lb/week. If you start exercising and burn on average 1900 calories a day, you can now eat 1520 to lose at the same rate. So you aren't losing because you are exercising, you are losing because you're eating less than you burn on average.The mistake many people make is that they now burn 1900 but they still decide to eat 1280, creating too large of a deficit and likely will not stick it out.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions