Is exercise necessary?

I think the issue is you think exercise has to mean a jog on the treadmill. Find something you enjoy doing that gets you up and moving even if it's just a quick lunchtime walk or taking a dance class. It's good for your body and it will help with weight loss as it increases your daily burn.

The more muscle mass one has the higher their metabolic activity will be. Therefore it is highly recommended to exercise as well as clean up your diet. Yes a caloric deficit will help weight loss however these calories need to be "good" calories (meaning fuel for your body not just food for the sake of eating). As for your treadmill problem. Try incline walking at as high as incline your treadmill will go. Walk about 3-4 KMPH (1.5-2.5 MPH) and try to keep your heart rate around 60% of your VO2 max (look up a generic chart for your age). This will promote fat loss, since loosing "weight" means muscle as well, this will help target fat primarily.

MeanderingMammal wrote: »

999tigger wrote: »

Having just read the thread again, some of you have some crazy views.

It is the forum of woo after all Thought this was in GD&WL, sorry

Carbs don't count if you eat them under a full moon, standing on one leg whilst in an easterly wind. Westerlies will double the calorie count though...

Ahh, that's what I've been doing wrong... I wish you would have told me this sooner lol

Is exercise necessary for weight loss? No.

Is it good for a better body comp? Yes.

Is it good for making you stronger/faster/more powerful/have greater endurance/more flexible*? Yes.

*delete as applicable according to exercise regime/training programme.

I say it depends on your goals.

Many years ago I lost 25 lbs. without exercise for an event. I was just a slightly smaller, but flabbier version of my old self. At that time all I cared about was the weight on the scale, so yes that worked for me.

This time around I wanted a tighter, fitter body with good physical fitness so I incorporated exercise (speed walking, lifting, workout videos...nothing extreme).

The scale would often stall even though I was losing fat and inches.

Although it was very frustrating, I decided to hide the scale for a while and continue to monitor my eating and exercise consistently. I did eventually reach my goal which was a dress size/measurement range not a scale weight.

Good luck!

Edited to add...I ended up gained that 25 lbs. back and then some. Exercise helps me a great deal with maintaining.

lonerockz wrote: »

MeanderingMammal wrote: »

lonerockz wrote: »

Right now I do 70-80 minute work outs that have a 750-1000 calorie burn 5 times a week. I stay around 1800 calories intake. That's a 6-8000 calorie weekly deficit. About the 2lbs a week rate. BUT I lose about 1.25 lbs a week.

That's almost certainly a result of overestimating the calorie expenditure.

1000 calories is a ten mile run or thereabouts. Possibly 9 miles for you, but not radically different.

I use a heart rate monitor that does calorie estimation. I can't run (bad knees), so it's hard to say how many miles it is. But part of my routine is 10 minutes on the Stairmaster and it reports 0.9 miles, and 20 minutes on the elliptical and it reports about 2.2 miles. So yeah 70-80 minutes should be about 9-10 miles running equivalent. Here is today's track:

@lonerockz hrm with a chest strap are fine for steady state cardio but otherwise eh...not so much. I see weights in there..HRM is no good for that...at all.

lonerockz wrote: »

I use a heart rate monitor that does calorie estimation. I can't run (bad knees), so it's hard to say how many miles it is. But part of my routine is 10 minutes on the Stairmaster and it reports 0.9 miles, and 20 minutes on the elliptical and it reports about 2.2 miles. So yeah 70-80 minutes should be about 9-10 miles running equivalent.

So of your 80 minutes about 25 are activities where heart rate has any meaningful relationship with calorie expenditure.

From minute 10 to minute 60 your heart rate has no relationship with your calorie expenditure. Note that between minute 55 and minute 60 you were stationary, so burning nothing more than your BMR.

gizmosmom02 wrote: »

I sort of know the answer to this question. Weight loss is all about a calorie deficit, therefore exercise isn't absolutely necessary, but it does help with toning and increases the calorie deficit. That's the theory.

Has anyone lost weight without exercising? I ask because every time I try to jog on my treadmill I am so sore the next day I can barely walk. Not kidding. Also, exercise makes me more hungry. I need to lose 50 lbs.
Thanks for your advice.

No, exercise is not necessary to lose weight. A calorie deficit is necessary to lose weight.

However, exercise is good for your health and it increases the total amount you burn, affording you an opportunity to eat more while still creating the calorie deficit necessary to lose weight.

Any activity is better than no activity. You do not need to jog on your treadmill. You can walk. Even if you only start off walking five minutes at a time, that is five minutes better spent than sitting on your bottom.

Get off your bottom. It's good for you.

As far as I am concerned walking is boring and doesn't burn enough calories to make it worth while. Swimming is more fun, doesn't hurt and burns more per hour unless your power walking. And you do not have to be a good swimmer in a pool to get the benefit. You can just tread water briskly, (look on youtube). At 250 lbs your going to burn an amazing amount of calories in one hour. It will speed up your weight loss and make you feel great.
Good luck, stick with it, your worth it!