Exercise doesn't help you lose weight...say what?

Options
145791031

Replies

  • 999tigger
    999tigger Posts: 5,235 Member
    Options
    mccindy72 wrote: »
    it blows my mind that so many people are so blind as to believe that exercise is an absolute must for weight loss. Again, a disabled person does not have to exercise to lose weight. A calorie deficit alone is enough to achieve that goal. Maintaining a calorie goal at maintenance level will be enough to maintain weight without gaining weight back.
    It's incredibly arrogant for able-bodied people to continue to argue that everyone must exercise to lose and maintain weight loss. Anyone doing so discounts the struggle of everyone who lives in a less than able state who continues to also work to live at a healthy weight.

    Its not what the OP was saying or asking.
    I cant see that other posters were saying it either.
    I cant see what you are getting irate about care to point out which posters have said this? I didnt see it.
  • JessicaLSpinder
    JessicaLSpinder Posts: 14 Member
    Options
    I look at losing weight as 80% diet and 20% exercise. Sure, you can only focus on what you eat, and you'll lose weight, but it might not give you the results you want. Same thing if you only focus on exercise. I believe it takes a healthy combination of the two working together.

    What she said!

  • Unrated57
    Unrated57 Posts: 7 Member
    Options
    It all comes down to individuality. Nobody is exactly the same and what works for one, may not work for the other. I know, cheesy and cliché...
  • FitnessTim
    FitnessTim Posts: 234 Member
    Options
    mccindy72 wrote: »
    it blows my mind that so many people are so blind as to believe that exercise is an absolute must for weight loss. Again, a disabled person does not have to exercise to lose weight. A calorie deficit alone is enough to achieve that goal. Maintaining a calorie goal at maintenance level will be enough to maintain weight without gaining weight back.
    It's incredibly arrogant for able-bodied people to continue to argue that everyone must exercise to lose and maintain weight loss. Anyone doing so discounts the struggle of everyone who lives in a less than able state who continues to also work to live at a healthy weight.

    There are many levels of disability. There are paraplegics who can hit the gym harder than most able-bodied persons. In some cases a disability may contribute to weight loss or weight gain.

    My father is considered disabled. He has difficulty walking and on his best day can barely hobble around using a cane. About a year ago he got one of those powered scooters and his weight increased and general fitness level declined dramatically. All the medical professionals working with him say the same thing. He needs to get more exercise regardless of his handicap. He is currently in a hospital recovering from major surgery and the nurse are doing everything they can to get him moving again within his ability.

    Yes a person can lose weight without exercise. For anyone who can exercise, it would be best to do so. How much it actually contributes to weight loss is definitely not clear but there is no doubt that it helps to some degree.
  • VeryKatie
    VeryKatie Posts: 5,931 Member
    Options
    I think she was trying to say the same thing as you actually. It doesn't help if your eating habit are still terrible. Therefore, you can exercise all you want but it won't help (I guess it would help slow your weight gain though!). I think she's saying that without eating better, the exercise won't help weight. Exercise is more about health. But I kind of think that's the same thing you mean when you say "80/20 while in a deficit". The conditions of your argument differ slightly if that makes sense. She said 100% diet when not assuming additional exercise will put you in a deficit and you say 80% when you assume the additional exercise will put you in a deficit. Which means your starting assumptions are different. Don't know if that makes sense... but it does to me!
  • Need2Exerc1se
    Need2Exerc1se Posts: 13,576 Member
    edited July 2015
    Options
    cdahl383 wrote: »
    Got into a discussion with some friends the other day regarding diet and exercise and losing weight, etc. One of my friends said that exercise does not help you lose weight, it's 100% diet. I disagreed and said that whether you take in less calories (diet) or burn more calories (exercise), if you're in a deficit you'll lose weight, therefore exercise does in fact help you lose weight. She disagreed with me still.

    Your thoughts?

    I'm on your side because I know it helps me. With exercise you get to eat more and still lose. THAT is helpful.

    Necessary? No. Helpful? H*ll yeah!!
  • SLLRunner
    SLLRunner Posts: 12,943 Member
    Options
    Machka9 wrote: »
    SLLRunner wrote: »
    Weight loss happens in the kitchen, fitness happens in the gym. I love to exercise , but I don't need it to lose weight, I just need a calorie deficit.

    And of course, exercise can help provide that calorie deficit. :)

    Coreect, but it is not necessary. ;)
  • Faithful_Chosen
    Faithful_Chosen Posts: 401 Member
    Options
    bcalvanese wrote: »
    I have to disagree and say that fitness is just as (if not more) important than diet. I know I will be attacked for this, but I just cannot agree.

    Fitness is key to weight control. If a person is at a good fitness level, they would have to literally be a glutton to become over weight. In addition, the more over weight a person is, the lower their fitness level.

    Let the attacks begin... :)

    Not attacking, but it's incorrect. Say I go all out and mountain bike trails for four hours. That will burn me about 2150 calories (and I'd be dead, but that's besides the point. I would also burn 1350 just by being my awesome self. So, I have an awesome 3500 calories to burn that day! And my maintenance is at about 2000, so make that 5500! Wow, awesome!

    Now, I go home and I am starving! I already had a big breakfast to give me a bit of fuel to burn (eggs, bacon, some veggies, etc for about 600 cal) and I grazed on trail mix while out biking (700). While cooking myself up some baked potatoes and sausages (1000), I demolish a bag of crisps because I am starving (1200). I go out for McDonald's in the evening and gorge because I am still hungry! 2000 calories. Some ice-cream, a nice beer or two, some chocolate, yum! 500 cal. So, math done, I am over maintenance and although I worked out like crazy and I will feel awesome for doing it (and thus justified in binging), I would still gain--especially if I did this every day. You can't out exercise a bad diet. Period.
  • Machka9
    Machka9 Posts: 24,860 Member
    Options
    msf74 wrote: »
    I don't think this is a controversial topic really.

    To lose weight you need to create a calorie deficit / negative energy balance. You can do so by:
    • diet alone
    • exercise alone
    • a combination of diet and exercise

    Many people choose a combination of diet and exercise because it doesn't entail the greater time commitment of the exercise only approach or the greater reduction in food intake than the diet alone approach. However they can all be successful.

    Absolutely!!

    And I have successfully lost weight all three ways. :)

    Personally, I like "exercise alone" or "a combination of diet and exercise" best ... because I do like to eat a decent quantity of food. I get hungry. And including exercise allows me to eat more than just "diet alone". :) I also really enjoy exercise. :grin:

    But others may prefer another choice.

  • MermaidBex
    MermaidBex Posts: 49 Member
    Options
    To lose weight, you have to consume less calories than you burn in a single day. Even a pro like Jillian Michaels has said that. It's just that simple. I think muscle, on the other hand, is built by tough exercising every single day. Just like professional athletes, we need to track both.
  • SLLRunner
    SLLRunner Posts: 12,943 Member
    Options
    999tigger wrote: »
    SLLRunner wrote: »
    Weight loss happens in the kitchen, fitness happens in the gym. I love to exercise , but I don't need it to lose weight, I just need a calorie deficit.

    Weight loss happens wherever you are able to create a calorific deficit. I really dislike the above saying SLL because it blurrs the issue, whilst pretending to be clear. All things being equal 500 calories not eaten is going to be the same as 500 calories burned in the gym.

    Tiger, you are missing the point. The original conversation is about exercise being essential to losing weigh, not about whether exercise creates a deficit. Exercise is not requires to lose weight.
  • kshama2001
    kshama2001 Posts: 27,897 Member
    Options
    Kalikel wrote: »
    You just cannot separate activity and intake. They both have an effect on weight loss. You cannot say, "Only the intake counts. It's doesn't matter how many calories you burn." It matters. They both matter.

    You can lose weight without exercise. Of course you can. But when you exercise, you burn more calories and that makes a difference. The kind of exercise matters, too. All kinds are good, but some burn more calories than others. If you spend 30 minutes swimming, you're going to burn more calories than if you spent that 30 minutes walking.

    People always say, "Weight loss happens in the kitchen," but it happens in the pool, too. :)

    Ya, I once lost 30# in the pool without counting a single calorie.

  • Need2Exerc1se
    Need2Exerc1se Posts: 13,576 Member
    Options
    SLLRunner wrote: »
    999tigger wrote: »
    SLLRunner wrote: »
    Weight loss happens in the kitchen, fitness happens in the gym. I love to exercise , but I don't need it to lose weight, I just need a calorie deficit.

    Weight loss happens wherever you are able to create a calorific deficit. I really dislike the above saying SLL because it blurrs the issue, whilst pretending to be clear. All things being equal 500 calories not eaten is going to be the same as 500 calories burned in the gym.

    Tiger, you are missing the point. The original conversation is about exercise being essential to losing weigh, not about whether exercise creates a deficit. Exercise is not requires to lose weight.

    I think you are mistaken. The OP says "helps with weight loss" not "essential for weight loss"
  • kshama2001
    kshama2001 Posts: 27,897 Member
    Options
    SLLRunner wrote: »
    999tigger wrote: »
    SLLRunner wrote: »
    Weight loss happens in the kitchen, fitness happens in the gym. I love to exercise , but I don't need it to lose weight, I just need a calorie deficit.

    Weight loss happens wherever you are able to create a calorific deficit. I really dislike the above saying SLL because it blurrs the issue, whilst pretending to be clear. All things being equal 500 calories not eaten is going to be the same as 500 calories burned in the gym.

    Tiger, you are missing the point. The original conversation is about exercise being essential to losing weigh, not about whether exercise creates a deficit. Exercise is not requires to lose weight.

    I think only one poster took the position that exercise was essential. The OP posited that it was helpful.
    cdahl383 wrote: »
    Got into a discussion with some friends the other day regarding diet and exercise and losing weight, etc. One of my friends said that exercise does not help you lose weight, it's 100% diet. I disagreed and said that whether you take in less calories (diet) or burn more calories (exercise), if you're in a deficit you'll lose weight, therefore exercise does in fact help you lose weight. She disagreed with me still.

    Your thoughts?
  • shortntall1
    shortntall1 Posts: 333 Member
    Options
    I lost my first 40lbs without exercising.
  • kshama2001
    kshama2001 Posts: 27,897 Member
    Options
    If you were maintaining your weight eating at a certain calorie level for low activity and then increased your activity without increasing your calorie intake then you would of course over time lose weight. Exercise has been important for me otherwise I'd have lost way slower.

    Yes, along the same lines, I think I like to eat a certain amount of food per day. This was fine when I had active jobs, such as being a full time yoga teacher, a machine operator, or doing classified activity in the jungles of Okinawa. But I can't eat the way I want when I have a desk job, unless I ramp up the activity outside of work.

  • pmm3437
    pmm3437 Posts: 529 Member
    Options
    It all depends on the definitions you choose for each of the terms.

    For most ppl, using the common nomenclature ( ie diet implies deficit ), what you put in is easier to control, and orders of magnitude more important than exercise calories. This is because you can eat a donut ( for example ) in 5 mins, and ruin the caloric benefit of that hour of jogging.

    It is possible to lose weight going to either extreme to produce your caloric deficit. It is more common to use a combination of both, since there are additional benefits to exercising beyond burning calories, and it is much easier to control your CICO balance on the CI side of the equation, unless you can devote large amounts of time to exercise.

    80/20 is a general ratio I have heard in many places, and it is as good an estimate as any.

    Saying "exercise does not help" is a false statement.
  • 999tigger
    999tigger Posts: 5,235 Member
    Options
    SLLRunner wrote: »
    999tigger wrote: »
    SLLRunner wrote: »
    Weight loss happens in the kitchen, fitness happens in the gym. I love to exercise , but I don't need it to lose weight, I just need a calorie deficit.

    Weight loss happens wherever you are able to create a calorific deficit. I really dislike the above saying SLL because it blurrs the issue, whilst pretending to be clear. All things being equal 500 calories not eaten is going to be the same as 500 calories burned in the gym.

    Tiger, you are missing the point. The original conversation is about exercise being essential to losing weigh, not about whether exercise creates a deficit. Exercise is not requires to lose weight.

    Thanks but the OP says
    Got into a discussion with some friends the other day regarding diet and exercise and losing weight, etc. One of my friends said that exercise
    does not help
    you lose weight, it's 100% diet. I disagreed and said that whether you take in less calories (diet) or burn more calories (exercise), if you're in a deficit you'll lose weight, therefore exercise does in fact help you lose weight. She disagreed with me still.

    Your thoughts?

    The OP as above debates the question does exercise help or is it irrelevant to weight loss. It burns calories it helps to create a potential deficit. I have already saud ist not essential and that you cna lose by moderating consumption alone, but the OP never made a claim that was the case.
  • Need2Exerc1se
    Need2Exerc1se Posts: 13,576 Member
    Options
    mccindy72 wrote: »
    it blows my mind that so many people are so blind as to believe that exercise is an absolute must for weight loss. Again, a disabled person does not have to exercise to lose weight. A calorie deficit alone is enough to achieve that goal. Maintaining a calorie goal at maintenance level will be enough to maintain weight without gaining weight back.
    It's incredibly arrogant for able-bodied people to continue to argue that everyone must exercise to lose and maintain weight loss. Anyone doing so discounts the struggle of everyone who lives in a less than able state who continues to also work to live at a healthy weight.

    What does being blind have to do with believing anything about weight loss?

    If you go back and read the OP and most of the replies, there are not "so many people" saying that. Chill. You're getting them in a wad over nothing.
  • 7lenny7
    7lenny7 Posts: 3,490 Member
    Options
    Is it safe to assume that those of you who claim that exercise is not helpful in losing weight don't bother tracking exercise when figuring out your daily deficit? If you claim that and do track calories burned through exercise, there's a bit of an an incongruity.