Calorie Counting Vs Exercise
Options
Replies
-
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 -
And this gets flagged, lol.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.
I don't know who felt offended, but there was no hidden insult there. Just pointing out that people were trying to be helpful so the OP wouldn't think it was her(him?).
So, please don't take offense that wasn't stated (or intended), peeps!
-1 -
A calorie is a unit of energy...weight control is all about energy balance. If you consume more energy than your body requires and can be used, then it has to be stored...this stored energy is body fat.
When you consume less energy than your body requires, your body has to dip into energy stores to make up the difference...again, your body fat.
Exercise is not required to lose weight; however, it does make weight loss and weight control in general easier because regular exercise increases your energy requirements...thus you can eat more and achieve the same goals. In the case of dieting, you thus don't have to starve yourself.
You eat a balance of energy and you maintain.
I would also add that there are numerous other health benefits to exercise...in general, it just makes your body work better and keeps everything in balance...which probably makes weight control easier as well.
0 -
Weight loss is due to hormones. If you want to lose weight, ensure that your hormones are efficiently working. Everyone has a different set point for their metabolism. This is based on age, gender, dietary habits, etc. Someone that has been active their entire life, has eaten very well, and is in great shape will probably have a higher set point for their metabolism, allowing them to eat far more calories than someone who has eaten unhealthy their entire lives, is inactive, and just getting started into working out.
This is why two people who are both the same height, weight, and activity levels might also lose at different rates. It all depends on their hormones and the bodies ability to convert food into energy.
I have my clients count their calories as a tool to know how much they are consuming and to make adjustments based on their results or lack thereof. Knowing that everyone has a different metabolic set point, it is beneficial to know at what caloric range of consumption is ideal for the most significant fat loss (not weight loss). This number will also change over time due to the changes in activity level, the increase of hormone production, and dietary changes.
Keeping track of your calories is beneficial to understand when you are over consuming on calories and when you are under consuming. For example, when you under consume on calories, your body will eventually lower the metabolic set point to compensate for a low calorie diet. This is why when following a low calorie diet you might start losing a great deal of weight, but then plateau and it becomes extremely difficult to lose further weight and you body also begins to break down muscle for energy instead of body fat. When you begin to increase your caloric intake again, your set point is lower so now your body sees you are over consuming calories and you will begin storing body fat once more.
The body can certainly increase the metabolic set point by increasing the quality of food ingested and increasing physical activity. So yes, you will need to not only track your calories on a daily basis to find your set point, but also to determine how to improve your metabolic functions through proper nutrition and exercise. Hydration, fiber rich foods, and daily exercise are all key factors to increasing your hormone production to drop body fat.
To simplify this a bit further, if you want to lose weight, you need to eat more, not less...and exercise regularly. Eating more does not mean eating whatever you want, it means eating more fiber and nutrient dense foods that will contribute to the increase of your metabolic set point. One of the most common comments my clients make is that they are "eating so much food and still losing weight". Most of whom are losing around 3-4 pounds or more per week. Not by starving themselves, but by eating more.-1 -
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.
I had a pretty healthy and balanced diet before I started losing weight. I've been a vegetarian for 5 years, and I've never been a picky eater, so I've always eaten plenty of whole foods and veggies and have never been a huge fan of "junk" food. I also led a very sedentary lifestyle.
I ended up approximately 80 pounds overweight that way. It took several years, but it happened. When I joined MFP, the first thing I did was cut my calories. I gradually added in exercise (mostly circuit training 30 minutes a day 4-5 days a week), but nothing crazy. I didn't overhaul my diet, and I still eat all the same foods I enjoyed when I was at my heaviest. Now, I simply eat what I like at a reasonable calorie deficit, and I try to stay moderately active.
I agree that you can lose weight one of three ways - lower your intake, increase your activity level, or a combination of the two - and all of those three ways create a calorie deficit. I can't say whether one method definitely works better than the others because I've always done both. But personally, I certainly wouldn't try to lose weight through activity alone, because creating large calorie burns takes a lot of intensity/time, and it's way too easy for me to out-eat any exercise I might do. Simply cutting calories also wouldn't be optimal for me because eating plenty of food and improving my body composition is just as important to me as achieving a healthy weight.
I think it's important to keep in mind not just which approach will take the weight off, but what will keep it off forever. The sustainability factor can make or break long-term success.
0 -
facts are: everyone's body reacts differently
I have thyroid disease, anemia, sleep apnea, and other health issues, however, this didn't stop me from losing weight.
facts for me:- stopped drinking diet drinks lost 20 pounds in 1.5 months
- started eating healthy lost 20 more pounds in two more months
- started working out along with eating healthy lost an additional 75 pounds less than a year's time
Thus, for me, I needed to combine the nutrition with the exercise to really make a difference.0 -
I've lost 10lbs with zero exercise. Another 10ish to. I became overweight by eating too much, I have lost it by eating less.0
-
Well in each case you consumed fewer calories. Cutting out pop/etc saved you potentially hundreds of calories per day/week depending on your frequency of consumption. "Eating healthy" likely resulted in cutting out a lot of calorie-dense foods, thus you started eating fewer calories without needing to track consumption. And adding in exercise - assuming you ate the same amount as in the 2nd scenario - increased your energy needs, and thus you wound up by default having an even larger deficit.sweetcurlz67 wrote: »facts are: everyone's body reacts differently
I have thyroid disease, anemia, sleep apnea, and other health issues, however, this didn't stop me from losing weight.
facts for me:- stopped drinking diet drinks lost 20 pounds in 1.5 months
- started eating healthy lost 20 more pounds in two more months
- started working out along with eating healthy lost an additional 75 pounds less than a year's time
Thus, for me, I needed to combine the nutrition with the exercise to really make a difference.
So you didn't need to do both, you just needed a calorie deficit. Which you created by utilizing both diet and exercise. Although I do not personally suggest trying to use exercise to make the deficit bigger, only to increase fitness and to increase how much food you can eat while still losing the same amount of weight you would without exercise.
0 -
weightlosstrainer wrote: »Weight loss is due to hormones. If you want to lose weight, ensure that your hormones are efficiently working. Everyone has a different set point for their metabolism. This is based on age, gender, dietary habits, etc. Someone that has been active their entire life, has eaten very well, and is in great shape will probably have a higher set point for their metabolism, allowing them to eat far more calories than someone who has eaten unhealthy their entire lives, is inactive, and just getting started into working out.
This is why two people who are both the same height, weight, and activity levels might also lose at different rates. It all depends on their hormones and the bodies ability to convert food into energy.
I have my clients count their calories as a tool to know how much they are consuming and to make adjustments based on their results or lack thereof. Knowing that everyone has a different metabolic set point, it is beneficial to know at what caloric range of consumption is ideal for the most significant fat loss (not weight loss). This number will also change over time due to the changes in activity level, the increase of hormone production, and dietary changes.
Keeping track of your calories is beneficial to understand when you are over consuming on calories and when you are under consuming. For example, when you under consume on calories, your body will eventually lower the metabolic set point to compensate for a low calorie diet. This is why when following a low calorie diet you might start losing a great deal of weight, but then plateau and it becomes extremely difficult to lose further weight and you body also begins to break down muscle for energy instead of body fat. When you begin to increase your caloric intake again, your set point is lower so now your body sees you are over consuming calories and you will begin storing body fat once more.
The body can certainly increase the metabolic set point by increasing the quality of food ingested and increasing physical activity. So yes, you will need to not only track your calories on a daily basis to find your set point, but also to determine how to improve your metabolic functions through proper nutrition and exercise. Hydration, fiber rich foods, and daily exercise are all key factors to increasing your hormone production to drop body fat.
To simplify this a bit further, if you want to lose weight, you need to eat more, not less...and exercise regularly. Eating more does not mean eating whatever you want, it means eating more fiber and nutrient dense foods that will contribute to the increase of your metabolic set point. One of the most common comments my clients make is that they are "eating so much food and still losing weight". Most of whom are losing around 3-4 pounds or more per week. Not by starving themselves, but by eating more.
Wow what a load of broscience.
0 -
Wow what a load of broscience.
Exactly what do you mean by this? I am going to assume that you either didn't read a single thing that was written, haven't done your own research or made an overall encompassing judgment based on either my photo or your own insecurity. This is actual research, not "broscience". If you disagree with it, why not post your in-depth rebuttal as to why instead of arrogantly and incorrectly labeling something as stupid as "a load of broscience" for whatever the reason you came up with. I do not subscribe to the whole "bro" mentality, in fact, I am far from it...so for someone to make this general and outright incorrect assessment is just asinine and presumptuous.0 -
weightlosstrainer wrote: »
Wow what a load of broscience.
Exactly what do you mean by this? I am going to assume that you either didn't read a single thing that was written, haven't done your own research or made an overall encompassing judgment based on either my photo or your own insecurity. This is actual research, not "broscience". If you disagree with it, why not post your in-depth rebuttal as to why instead of arrogantly and incorrectly labeling something as stupid as "a load of broscience" for whatever the reason you came up with. I do not subscribe to the whole "bro" mentality, in fact, I am far from it...so for someone to make this general and outright incorrect assessment is just asinine and presumptuous.
Fwiw, I agree with you. I find eating more and exercising more helps me to lose weight. I used to have the mindset that I needed to eat 1200 calories to lose. I did lose (how can you not) but not that quickly, then when I increased to 1500, I lost at a faster rate and my body composition seemed to change. I think I needed to eat that bit more to make the strength training I was doing more effective.
I'm losing weight after my third baby, and trying not to fall into the lower calorie mindset again.
I hate it when people dismiss things as 'broscience' just because they don't agree with it!
0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.9K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 399 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 980 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions