Yes, Virginia, Exercise Matters for Weight Loss
Replies
-
JeffseekingV wrote: »JeffseekingV wrote: »JeffseekingV wrote: »JeffseekingV wrote: »JeffseekingV wrote: »JeffseekingV wrote: »JeffseekingV wrote: »JeffseekingV wrote: »Look at the thread title. It plainly states exercise is necessary for weight loss. Don't tell us it isn't necessary, we know this.
No, it really doesn't.....It says it matters...and it does. Seriously, can you not read? Those two things aren't equivalent. Wow.
So what if it says "matters"? It's the same point. It neither matters or is necessary.
First, the two words "matters" and "necessary" aren't the same in this or any other context. Second, exercise does matter. Whether or not you exercise is a factor in determining your energy out. Activity level matters and should not be ignored. It's a true statement and does not conflict with the content of his post.
If you're assuming that the title is actually saying that exercise is required for weight loss, then you're inferring too much.
I'm saying exercise does NOT have to matter for weight loss. Nor is it NECESSARY. Just depends how you manage your calories. Whether your calorie deficit is less calories via exercising or not.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but that isn't your call to make for anyone who isn't you. Everyone changes their lives in a different way and from a difference perspective. Your generalities don't work for everyone, hence they are not general enough.
Nor does a title like "exercise MATTERS for weight loss" Nothing like starting out with a generality to get things going right? It's not HIS call either. So what is your point?
I actually ACCOUNTED for both situations. Calorie deficits can be dealt with TWO ways, not just one. In one situation exercise DOESN'T MATTER. In the other, it DOES MATTER. You mean to tell me that wouldn't work for everyone?
As I've said, exercise matters. That could mean a lack of exercise or an abundance. It sounds like you're just being intentionally obtuse at this point with regard to semantics. Words matter.
Exercise always matters. In every situation it's something that needs to be accounted for. It may not be preferable or necessary for all situations.
When he says "exercise matters" he CLEARLY means PEFORMING exercise matters as it pertains to the calories it burns. Please don't try to twist his meaning in order to have a debate.
...
I'm not twisting anything. You seem to think that the title either states or directly implies that increasing activity level (performing exercise) is necessary for weight loss. The title neither states nor implies that.
It clearly does. Why? Because the title exactly says so. There's no implication needed. the body of the post verifies it.
"Hey look kids, there's big ben, and there's parliament" -Kudos if you catch the reference.
The title doesn't say that because the words "matters" and "required" or "necessary" don't mean the same thing. The content of the article is specific to the poster himself; he states so. I can't really speak to the author's intent, but it seems clear that the use of the word "matters" instead of "required" in the title becomes essential then...or else you'd have a legit point about him stating that exercise is required for everyone. But that's not what's happening.
It matters to HIM. But the title doesn't imply is a self examination of his specific method. He's trying to extrapolate HIS example to others.
If not, then clearly the post would have made more sense in the "success" portion of this forum and not a section discussing general weight loss.
If he thought exercise DIDN'T matter, then why put "EXERCISE MATTERS" in the title?
Because exercise (its dearth or presence) does matter whether or not someone feels that it's required for their own personal success. That would be why.
If you feel that the title is somehow magically more "correct" if it read "Yes, Virginia, Exercise Matters for Weight Loss-for my personal experience" then I'd say you're just picky for no good reason. As it is, there's no conflict between the content and the title.
No. He says "exercise matters for losing weight" Which as a stand alone statement is incorrect. There is quite a bit of conflict inbetween title and fact because they are in direct conflict with each other.
I guess if you want to ignore what words mean in a fit of linguistic solipsism, sure. I can see where you're coming from.
0 -
JeffseekingV wrote: »There are many ways of skinning a cat. Not just the way the OP suggested.
I explicitly said that.
Thanks for agreeing. :drinker:
You did. but we are discussing the long term method of achieving this. Your way doesn't equal THE way or the only way or the right way. It's ONE of many ways. Nor is a long term calorie deficit desirable (for reasons explained)0 -
JeffseekingV wrote: »JeffseekingV wrote: »JeffseekingV wrote: »JeffseekingV wrote: »I never said "suck it up and eat less" Why would you come to that conclusion when I just suggesting eating MORE volume but less calories. It's actually eating MORE.
I do have issues. Or I wouldn't be here right? There are many ways of skinning a cat. Not just the way the OP suggested.
Umm..fascinatingly, the OP never suggested that his way was the only way. The title doesn't even imply it. It's just his experience.
As far as volume goes, I find that it doesn't matter. At all. Energy density matters.
The "suck it up" comment wasn't necessarily directed at you, but I can see why it would seem so. Frequently, that seems to be the attitude of people who just reduce satiety down to light switch we can turn on or off.
If you need XX amount of energy calories, you have choices. One confined in a very small package or one confined in a much larger package.
You never defined satiety. If feel full, I'll tend to be satiated. If you lack the self control to manage your calories then sure, you either gain weight or have to burn calories somehow.
And that right there is the problem. You casually throw that out as if people should just put some more quarters in the self-control slot in their heads. Sometimes it's a combination of knowing what our limits are an working around them. And there's no shame in that. At all.
What's the difference in the issues of self control in between not eating and having to gut it out and burn more calories?
To you, I'm guessing nothing. It's a matter of personal preference, and that's a big deal when we're talking about changing someone's behavior.
Both are variations of self control. Not to me but pretty much to everyone. Both are behavior related.
In a sense, that's true. And some people will have a much easier time "controlling" one than the other.
0 -
JeffseekingV wrote: »Your way doesn't equal THE way or the only way or the right way. It's ONE of many ways.
I said that, too.
Thanks for further agreeing with me! :drinker:
0 -
JeffseekingV wrote: »JeffseekingV wrote: »JeffseekingV wrote: »JeffseekingV wrote: »JeffseekingV wrote: »JeffseekingV wrote: »JeffseekingV wrote: »JeffseekingV wrote: »Look at the thread title. It plainly states exercise is necessary for weight loss. Don't tell us it isn't necessary, we know this.
No, it really doesn't.....It says it matters...and it does. Seriously, can you not read? Those two things aren't equivalent. Wow.
So what if it says "matters"? It's the same point. It neither matters or is necessary.
First, the two words "matters" and "necessary" aren't the same in this or any other context. Second, exercise does matter. Whether or not you exercise is a factor in determining your energy out. Activity level matters and should not be ignored. It's a true statement and does not conflict with the content of his post.
If you're assuming that the title is actually saying that exercise is required for weight loss, then you're inferring too much.
I'm saying exercise does NOT have to matter for weight loss. Nor is it NECESSARY. Just depends how you manage your calories. Whether your calorie deficit is less calories via exercising or not.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but that isn't your call to make for anyone who isn't you. Everyone changes their lives in a different way and from a difference perspective. Your generalities don't work for everyone, hence they are not general enough.
Nor does a title like "exercise MATTERS for weight loss" Nothing like starting out with a generality to get things going right? It's not HIS call either. So what is your point?
I actually ACCOUNTED for both situations. Calorie deficits can be dealt with TWO ways, not just one. In one situation exercise DOESN'T MATTER. In the other, it DOES MATTER. You mean to tell me that wouldn't work for everyone?
As I've said, exercise matters. That could mean a lack of exercise or an abundance. It sounds like you're just being intentionally obtuse at this point with regard to semantics. Words matter.
Exercise always matters. In every situation it's something that needs to be accounted for. It may not be preferable or necessary for all situations.
When he says "exercise matters" he CLEARLY means PEFORMING exercise matters as it pertains to the calories it burns. Please don't try to twist his meaning in order to have a debate.
...
I'm not twisting anything. You seem to think that the title either states or directly implies that increasing activity level (performing exercise) is necessary for weight loss. The title neither states nor implies that.
It clearly does. Why? Because the title exactly says so. There's no implication needed. the body of the post verifies it.
"Hey look kids, there's big ben, and there's parliament" -Kudos if you catch the reference.
The title doesn't say that because the words "matters" and "required" or "necessary" don't mean the same thing. The content of the article is specific to the poster himself; he states so. I can't really speak to the author's intent, but it seems clear that the use of the word "matters" instead of "required" in the title becomes essential then...or else you'd have a legit point about him stating that exercise is required for everyone. But that's not what's happening.
It matters to HIM. But the title doesn't imply is a self examination of his specific method. He's trying to extrapolate HIS example to others.
If not, then clearly the post would have made more sense in the "success" portion of this forum and not a section discussing general weight loss.
If he thought exercise DIDN'T matter, then why put "EXERCISE MATTERS" in the title?
Because exercise (its dearth or presence) does matter whether or not someone feels that it's required for their own personal success. That would be why.
If you feel that the title is somehow magically more "correct" if it read "Yes, Virginia, Exercise Matters for Weight Loss-for my personal experience" then I'd say you're just picky for no good reason. As it is, there's no conflict between the content and the title.
No. He says "exercise matters for losing weight" Which as a stand alone statement is incorrect. There is quite a bit of conflict inbetween title and fact because they are in direct conflict with each other.
I guess if you want to ignore what words mean in a fit of linguistic solipsism, sure. I can see where you're coming from.
And now you're experienced first hand why I tried forestalling the pedantic nonsense right from the OP.
There is nothing you can say on MFP - nothing - that won't attract that crowd.
Never change, MFP! :drinker:
(Except please add an ignore button!)
0 -
this is the silliest thread... a bunch of people agreeing with each other.0
-
JeffseekingV wrote: »JeffseekingV wrote: »JeffseekingV wrote: »JeffseekingV wrote: »I never said "suck it up and eat less" Why would you come to that conclusion when I just suggesting eating MORE volume but less calories. It's actually eating MORE.
I do have issues. Or I wouldn't be here right? There are many ways of skinning a cat. Not just the way the OP suggested.
Umm..fascinatingly, the OP never suggested that his way was the only way. The title doesn't even imply it. It's just his experience.
As far as volume goes, I find that it doesn't matter. At all. Energy density matters.
The "suck it up" comment wasn't necessarily directed at you, but I can see why it would seem so. Frequently, that seems to be the attitude of people who just reduce satiety down to light switch we can turn on or off.
If you need XX amount of energy calories, you have choices. One confined in a very small package or one confined in a much larger package.
You never defined satiety. If feel full, I'll tend to be satiated. If you lack the self control to manage your calories then sure, you either gain weight or have to burn calories somehow.
And that right there is the problem. You casually throw that out as if people should just put some more quarters in the self-control slot in their heads. Sometimes it's a combination of knowing what our limits are an working around them. And there's no shame in that. At all.
What's the difference in the issues of self control in between not eating and having to gut it out and burn more calories?
To you, I'm guessing nothing. It's a matter of personal preference, and that's a big deal when we're talking about changing someone's behavior.
Both are variations of self control. Not to me but pretty much to everyone. Both are behavior related.
In a sense, that's true. And some people will have a much easier time "controlling" one than the other.
What? How do you come to the conclusion that one behavior is more easily controlled than the other?0 -
JeffseekingV wrote: »Your way doesn't equal THE way or the only way or the right way. It's ONE of many ways.
I said that, too.
Thanks for further agreeing with me! :drinker:
Thanks for verifying everything I've said that lead up to that statement!0 -
Nice post Mr Knight .. I honestly now do not worry about anything now. I just eat healthy (except for right now .. as I am trying to gain and am eating ice cream to get that fat level up. But this will be a short and very temporary phase). It is working ... I am able to see slight increases in fat level and will maintain once I get to a a level I like. Then .. going to Slowly lose some of that fat .. and then maintain forever with lots of exercise thrown in.0
-
girlviernes wrote: »this is the silliest thread... a bunch of people agreeing with each other.
You should have seen a thread from last year - I can't remember which one. A number of people were "arguing," but saying the same thing, just in different words. And they were all telling each other that the others were explicitly wrong, then stating (again, in different words) exactly what the poster they were disagreeing with stated. It was mind boggling.0 -
JeffseekingV wrote: »JeffseekingV wrote: »JeffseekingV wrote: »JeffseekingV wrote: »JeffseekingV wrote: »I never said "suck it up and eat less" Why would you come to that conclusion when I just suggesting eating MORE volume but less calories. It's actually eating MORE.
I do have issues. Or I wouldn't be here right? There are many ways of skinning a cat. Not just the way the OP suggested.
Umm..fascinatingly, the OP never suggested that his way was the only way. The title doesn't even imply it. It's just his experience.
As far as volume goes, I find that it doesn't matter. At all. Energy density matters.
The "suck it up" comment wasn't necessarily directed at you, but I can see why it would seem so. Frequently, that seems to be the attitude of people who just reduce satiety down to light switch we can turn on or off.
If you need XX amount of energy calories, you have choices. One confined in a very small package or one confined in a much larger package.
You never defined satiety. If feel full, I'll tend to be satiated. If you lack the self control to manage your calories then sure, you either gain weight or have to burn calories somehow.
And that right there is the problem. You casually throw that out as if people should just put some more quarters in the self-control slot in their heads. Sometimes it's a combination of knowing what our limits are an working around them. And there's no shame in that. At all.
What's the difference in the issues of self control in between not eating and having to gut it out and burn more calories?
To you, I'm guessing nothing. It's a matter of personal preference, and that's a big deal when we're talking about changing someone's behavior.
Both are variations of self control. Not to me but pretty much to everyone. Both are behavior related.
In a sense, that's true. And some people will have a much easier time "controlling" one than the other.
What? How do you come to the conclusion that one behavior is more easily controlled than the other?
A. I'm human
B. I find one much easier to control than the other
From that I conclude at least some humans find one much easier to control than the other.
And the obvious inference from there is that a meaningful percentage of other humans find the same thing.0 -
Interesting OP. For me, it works that way. The days I don't go to the pool, I have just under 1500 cals. Those are my hardest days. The days I exercise I get 2000 cals, and this allows me to relax---I can do it easily. When I began MFP 2 yrs ago with 25 lbs to lose, my goal was easy to hit, exercise or not. Now that I have 12-15 lbs to go, it's getting harder especially on non-exercise days. And yes, I tried eating "volume" more veggies, but it doesn't satisfy for very long. Same with more protien. So, for me excercise is key to weight loss. Stats: 60 yrs old, 5' 11, 167 lbs--76 kilos, female. Best.
0 -
Mr. Knight, I have noticed the same thing. If I eat more calories and exercise I feel much more satiated and comfortable then if I eat less and don't. There's a certain # (the # I would have to eat to lose weight without exercise)... If I eat that for very long I become miserable. And have an adherence problem.
So basically, if I eat 300 calories more, and exercise off 300 calories, I'm not as hungry. It makes a big difference (it matters!
) 0 -
-
1. My lightly-active TDEE is 2900-ish, confirmed by maintaining maintenance
2. I can do 1600 cal/day (ish) for a max of ~2 weeks before I binge
3. I can do 2000 cal/day (ish) for a max of ~3 weeks before I binge
4. I can do 2700 cal/day (ish) more or less indefinitely (longest streak is 4 months without a binge, and that was holiday-induced)
What does binge mean in this context? Are these planned bacchanals or are you saying that if you eat ~1600 calories a day, you lose positive control over your diet on average once every two weeks?0 -
1. My lightly-active TDEE is 2900-ish, confirmed by maintaining maintenance
2. I can do 1600 cal/day (ish) for a max of ~2 weeks before I binge
3. I can do 2000 cal/day (ish) for a max of ~3 weeks before I binge
4. I can do 2700 cal/day (ish) more or less indefinitely (longest streak is 4 months without a binge, and that was holiday-induced)
What does binge mean in this context? Are these planned bacchanals or are you saying that if you eat ~1600 calories a day, you lose positive control over your diet on average once every two weeks?
I'm using it in the "unintended overconsumption of calories" sense.
Not ED, and not planned.
Like a "damn, I'm hungry!" raid on the pantry or run through the drive thru.
0 -
JeffseekingV wrote: »Mr. Knight, I have noticed the same thing. If I eat more calories and exercise I feel much more satiated and comfortable then if I eat less and don't. There's a certain # (the # I would have to eat to lose weight without exercise)... If I eat that for very long I become miserable. And have an adherence problem.
So basically, if I eat 300 calories more, and exercise off 300 calories, I'm not as hungry. It makes a big difference (it matters!)
Actually swimming makes me very hungry
Swimming makes me so hungry! Lol
Honestly, I exercise for overall fitness rather than weight loss. In fact, until recently I kinda felt that I lose weight faster without, as I have a few times in the past going very low calorie (due to depression or other circumstance, not diet). I thought if I exercised too much it would just make me hungrier. But since I'm doing this slowly and methodically, I have been noticing lately there's a certain range I really need to hit to be comfortable (and afford treats!). Whether I exercise or not. I suspect this is true for a lot of people that would otherwise need to go pretty low to lose weight.
0 -
girlviernes wrote: »this is the silliest thread... a bunch of people agreeing with each other.
You should have seen a thread from last year - I can't remember which one. A number of people were "arguing," but saying the same thing, just in different words. And they were all telling each other that the others were explicitly wrong, then stating (again, in different words) exactly what the poster they were disagreeing with stated. It was mind boggling.
The MFP wormhole
0 -
One time I lost like 30lbs with very little exercise (like I'd get on the elliptical machine once a month). The end.0
-
Its almost as if no one read the whole OP, like they only read the title. You have to be trying to trump up an argument on this one. My experience is similar to the op. I can more readily adhere to a calorie deficit if I use exercise to raise my tdee and consume more food. It aint rocket surgery, works for some, not for others......just like the OP said in the OP. Can we please all just go find a sugar is evil thread and leave this one alone?0
-
prattiger65 wrote: »Its almost as if no one read the whole OP, like they only read the title. You have to be trying to trump up an argument on this one. My experience is similar to the op. I can more readily adhere to a calorie deficit if I use exercise to raise my tdee and consume more food. It aint rocket surgery, works for some, not for others......just like the OP said in the OP. Can we please all just go find a sugar is evil thread and leave this one alone?
You mean we're supposed to read the posts too? That's too much work.0 -
I do kegals for my va... Oh, Viginia. My bad.0
-
I now have three years worth of experience and data to draw on. I also have almost the same amount of data for my partner, who is a PhD biomedical researcher, so as extensive as my data is, hers is even more impressive. From this I make the following observations...
1. My lightly-active TDEE is 2900-ish, confirmed by maintaining maintenance
2. I can do 1600 cal/day (ish) for a max of ~2 weeks before I binge
3. I can do 2000 cal/day (ish) for a max of ~3 weeks before I binge
4. I can do 2700 cal/day (ish) more or less indefinitely (longest streak is 4 months without a binge, and that was holiday-induced)
Now here's the interesting bit. That 2700 calorie "indefinitely" level is fairly constant for a wide variety of activity levels. It works from 3 walks a week right up to 3 runs + a couple of cycles + 2x swimming a week. That's a range of (average) deficits from <200 (ie, basically nothing) up to a deficit of about 600 calories/day.
When activity burn goes above that, I need to compensate. So, for example, at 3000 calories/day I was able to maintain a TDEE of about 3600 cal/day.
The numbers for my partner are different, of course, due to gender/size differences. But the same pattern exists there - there's a "comfortable" level of eating that supports significant deficits IF those deficits are created primarily through exercise rather than through a significant drop in calories.
I'm not going to claim this pattern holds for everyone. I was a high level athlete into and past college, competing at a semi-professional (ie minor league) level. I love playing sports, so it's quite possible I'm predisposed to this kind of "set point". I accept that others may not be - in fact, evolutionary processes being what they are, I suspect others won't be.
NOTE 1: Those who know me here know I'm extremely conservative/correct on exercise burns, compared to what most people are logging for similar activity. I must have hundreds of posts correcting other people's burn claims. So to compare my burn numbers to typical MFPers numbers, double mine.
NOTE 2: I've been on MFP long enough to know there are a bunch of pedantic fight-pickers, so let me say this explicitly: weight loss was 100% determined by caloric deficit. What is under discussion here is the method of creating a long term caloric deficit.
Thanks for an awesome post with real world data/results.
0 -
girlviernes wrote: »this is the silliest thread... a bunch of people agreeing with each other.
LOL0 -
FWIW my experience is similar, but without the binge (I have about a year and a half of detailed data and experience).
I am generally pretty sedentary except for lifting, and I really have to force myself to do cardio (not something I particularly enjoy). I don't binge, but after some weeks at a steep deficit, I can sense myself getting cranky and out of sorts, and need to have a couple of days at or close to maintenance.
However, when a steep deficit is created in large part by exercise burns, I don't seem to suffer the same challenges and can go for extended periods at that deficit.
Exercise is very helpful to me in maintaining a solid deficit. As OP noted, it's not necessary for losing fat; but I find it helpful in doing so at a more aggressive deficit for longer periods than without the exercise but with the same deficit through limiting CI alone.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.3K 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
- 424 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