Exercise doesn't help you lose weight...say what?
Replies
-
bcalvanese wrote: »bcalvanese wrote: »It's amazing to see how many people think exercise is not that important. I don't know one person (not athletes or body builders) who is at a good fitness level that has any kind of weight control issue.
And this is a "MyFitnessPal" forum, not "MyCaloriePal"...
I have been using exercise as my primary method of losing the weight because lack of exercise over decades is what made me gain all the weight. Sure I watch what I eat more, and have learned a little more about nutrition. I have always liked vegetables, fruits, and foods that are good for me, but I also like a cheesesteak or a couple slices of pizza once in a while.
I'm going to be the person who uses fitness to control my weight, and once I get fit and get to a healthy weight, I'm going to be the person who doesn't have a weight control issue anymore.
JMO.
No, eating too many calories over decades is what made you gain weight. Exercise might have helped you create a calorie deficit, but the calorie deficit is what made you lose the weight.
Double no, going from being at a very good fitness level to a very poor fitness level, and exercising to absolutely no exercise after a car accident and decades of sitting on my butt due to a career change is what made me gain the weight. I never changed my diet at all.
How could you possibly know what caused me to gain weight?
Because there is only one way to gain weight. CICO.0 -
chrisdomico wrote: »bcalvanese wrote: »chrisdomico wrote: »I hurt my back the first week of July and couldn't do any exercise for several days. That whole week, I stayed to my diet of 1500 calories a day and still lost weight. When my back was better and I started exercising every day again (eating about 1800 a day but burning off about 300), my rate of weight loss pretty much continued.
In my experience, people who tell you "exercise doesn't matter" are usually the people who constantly make excuses about why they don't exercise. The flaw in all these "studies" about how exercise doesn't matter is that they all seem to ignore the fact that it's human nature to think we can eat more and still lose weight if we just simply exercise once every day or two. And it blows my mind sometimes when I hear what some people consider to be exercise. Walking a mile on your lunch break every day is barely going to get your heart rate up enough to matter.
Are you kidding?
I walk 3 miles at lunch at a 3.5 to 4mph pace, and get my heart rate well up into the cardio zone. But then again I'm a 57 year old out of shape guy...
I think you kind of missed my point, but I didn't communicate that part of it very well. I was kind of just referring to the people who will eat a 2,000+ calorie lunch or dinner and then think a walk around the block "burns it off". How many times do you see someone eat that much and then say "Well, better take my after dinner walk and burn that all off!" And then in 15 minutes they're back, haven't even broken a sweat, and are probably now hungry for dessert.
Not judging anyone--I just think this is what we tend to do as human beings. If you're consciously walking for fitness and keeping a brisk pace, 3 miles certainly isn't anything to sneeze at. When my back starts acting up, I'd much rather walk my 2 1/2 mile loop around my neighborhood than do nothing at all.
Ahhhh. Got it, and totally agree.
I am very surprised at how many people are so focused on calories, and don't want to even hear anything about fitness level.0 -
bcalvanese wrote: »chrisdomico wrote: »bcalvanese wrote: »chrisdomico wrote: »I hurt my back the first week of July and couldn't do any exercise for several days. That whole week, I stayed to my diet of 1500 calories a day and still lost weight. When my back was better and I started exercising every day again (eating about 1800 a day but burning off about 300), my rate of weight loss pretty much continued.
In my experience, people who tell you "exercise doesn't matter" are usually the people who constantly make excuses about why they don't exercise. The flaw in all these "studies" about how exercise doesn't matter is that they all seem to ignore the fact that it's human nature to think we can eat more and still lose weight if we just simply exercise once every day or two. And it blows my mind sometimes when I hear what some people consider to be exercise. Walking a mile on your lunch break every day is barely going to get your heart rate up enough to matter.
Are you kidding?
I walk 3 miles at lunch at a 3.5 to 4mph pace, and get my heart rate well up into the cardio zone. But then again I'm a 57 year old out of shape guy...
I think you kind of missed my point, but I didn't communicate that part of it very well. I was kind of just referring to the people who will eat a 2,000+ calorie lunch or dinner and then think a walk around the block "burns it off". How many times do you see someone eat that much and then say "Well, better take my after dinner walk and burn that all off!" And then in 15 minutes they're back, haven't even broken a sweat, and are probably now hungry for dessert.
Not judging anyone--I just think this is what we tend to do as human beings. If you're consciously walking for fitness and keeping a brisk pace, 3 miles certainly isn't anything to sneeze at. When my back starts acting up, I'd much rather walk my 2 1/2 mile loop around my neighborhood than do nothing at all.
Ahhhh. Got it, and totally agree.
I am very surprised at how many people are so focused on calories, and don't want to even hear anything about fitness level.
Fitness is important, but not to losing weight. Think about all the people who cannot exercise who have lost weight and maintain.0 -
bcalvanese wrote: »chrisdomico wrote: »bcalvanese wrote: »chrisdomico wrote: »I hurt my back the first week of July and couldn't do any exercise for several days. That whole week, I stayed to my diet of 1500 calories a day and still lost weight. When my back was better and I started exercising every day again (eating about 1800 a day but burning off about 300), my rate of weight loss pretty much continued.
In my experience, people who tell you "exercise doesn't matter" are usually the people who constantly make excuses about why they don't exercise. The flaw in all these "studies" about how exercise doesn't matter is that they all seem to ignore the fact that it's human nature to think we can eat more and still lose weight if we just simply exercise once every day or two. And it blows my mind sometimes when I hear what some people consider to be exercise. Walking a mile on your lunch break every day is barely going to get your heart rate up enough to matter.
Are you kidding?
I walk 3 miles at lunch at a 3.5 to 4mph pace, and get my heart rate well up into the cardio zone. But then again I'm a 57 year old out of shape guy...
I think you kind of missed my point, but I didn't communicate that part of it very well. I was kind of just referring to the people who will eat a 2,000+ calorie lunch or dinner and then think a walk around the block "burns it off". How many times do you see someone eat that much and then say "Well, better take my after dinner walk and burn that all off!" And then in 15 minutes they're back, haven't even broken a sweat, and are probably now hungry for dessert.
Not judging anyone--I just think this is what we tend to do as human beings. If you're consciously walking for fitness and keeping a brisk pace, 3 miles certainly isn't anything to sneeze at. When my back starts acting up, I'd much rather walk my 2 1/2 mile loop around my neighborhood than do nothing at all.
Ahhhh. Got it, and totally agree.
I am very surprised at how many people are so focused on calories, and don't want to even hear anything about fitness level.
Fitness is important, but not to losing weight. Think about all the people who cannot exercise who have lost weight and maintain.
Exactly this. I have had times when I could not exercise at all, and had to maintain my weight using calorie maintenance alone. I did. When I am able, I do my workouts, because it's very important to me, but I have to accept that there are times in my life when I can not do it. I refuse to allow my disabilities to stop me from maintaining my weight. I don't have to, because I am perfectly capable of doing so through calorie maintenance.0 -
Fitness is important, but not to losing weight. Think about all the people who cannot exercise who have lost weight and maintain.
What people are arguing is that fitness CAN'T help you lose weight, which is complete bull. If I eat 1500 calories a day, I'll lose weight. If I eat 1800 calories a day and burn 300 on my bike, I still ate 1500 net calories that day. If I reward myself for working out by eating a peanut buster parfait, I'm going to gain weight.0 -
chrisdomico wrote: »
Fitness is important, but not to losing weight. Think about all the people who cannot exercise who have lost weight and maintain.
What people are arguing is that fitness CAN'T help you lose weight, which is complete bull. If I eat 1500 calories a day, I'll lose weight. If I eat 1800 calories a day and burn 300 on my bike, I still ate 1500 net calories that day. If I reward myself for working out by eating a peanut buster parfait, I'm going to gain weight.
Nobody said it can't help you lose weight. What people said is that you can lose weight without it.0 -
chrisdomico wrote: »
Fitness is important, but not to losing weight. Think about all the people who cannot exercise who have lost weight and maintain.
What people are arguing is that fitness CAN'T help you lose weight, which is complete bull. If I eat 1500 calories a day, I'll lose weight. If I eat 1800 calories a day and burn 300 on my bike, I still ate 1500 net calories that day. If I reward myself for working out by eating a peanut buster parfait, I'm going to gain weight.
Well, you won't gain weight if that wonderful gooey delicious peanut butter parfait fits into your calorie goal for losing weight.0 -
chrisdomico wrote: »
Fitness is important, but not to losing weight. Think about all the people who cannot exercise who have lost weight and maintain.
What people are arguing is that fitness CAN'T help you lose weight, which is complete bull. If I eat 1500 calories a day, I'll lose weight. If I eat 1800 calories a day and burn 300 on my bike, I still ate 1500 net calories that day. If I reward myself for working out by eating a peanut buster parfait, I'm going to gain weight.
Well, you won't gain weight if that wonderful gooey delicious peanut butter parfait fits into your calorie goal for losing weight.
Agree. I just think people don't understand that.0 -
bcalvanese wrote: »It's amazing to see how many people think exercise is not that important. I don't know one person (not athletes or body builders) who is at a good fitness level that has any kind of weight control issue.
And this is a "MyFitnessPal" forum, not "MyCaloriePal"...
I have been using exercise as my primary method of losing the weight because lack of exercise over decades is what made me gain all the weight. Sure I watch what I eat more, and have learned a little more about nutrition. I have always liked vegetables, fruits, and foods that are good for me, but I also like a cheesesteak or a couple slices of pizza once in a while.
I'm going to be the person who uses fitness to control my weight, and once I get fit and get to a healthy weight, I'm going to be the person who doesn't have a weight control issue anymore.
JMO.
No, eating too many calories over decades is what made you gain weight. Exercise might have helped you create a calorie deficit, but the calorie deficit is what made you lose the weight.
I agree with this.
I love exercise. I weight lift, I run 2-4 times a week, I do the elliptical cross trainer too. I love to go on long walks sometimes too. In fact, I have always loved to exercise, even when I was fat.
I weight lifted, ran, and walked and gained 33 pounds over a 3-5 year period because I ate too much, not because I exercised too little.
Exercise is for fitness, and there is no doubt that when you exercise you generally have room to eat more calories. But, the bottom line is if you don't know how much you are eating, it's easy to get out of hand in the food area and put weight on even when exercising.
Weight gain is all about eating too many calories in general, whether or not you exercise, it's not about exercising more so you lost weight or don't gain weight.
Ok, so you know how I gained the weight too.
Let me try to explain.
I was in good shape and always maintained a healthy weight without the need to count calories.
I got in a car accident and could not exercise for a year due to internal injuries. (did not change my diet)
Got lazy and never started exercising again. (I gained weight)
I made a career change from a very physical job to sitting at a desk all day. (still did not change my diet)
Got lazier and still no exercise. (I gained more weight)
Had to get clearances (heart and lungs) for surgery to remove part of my colon (diverticulitis), and was told I had COPD and an enlarged area at the bottom of my heart and could have had a mini heart attack at some point. Also have blood clotting issues (from sitting on my fat butt for decades and getting no exercise)
Recovered from the surgery (went back to the same diet)
Got an activity tracker (key word being "activity"), and set it to lose 1 pound a week.
Started walking (watched what I ate a little, but basically the same diet).
Started walking more, got a bike and started biking. (basically the same diet).
Started walking and biking more. got a kayak and started kayaking. (still same diet).
Have been losing a pound a week (32 pounds so far with another 43 to go). (same diet)
Now I burn so many calories that I can't even eat them all without resorting to gluttony.
I feel so much better, and can ride my bike 10 miles at a cardio pace, and that is pretty darn good for someone who is supposed to have COPD.
I know its all about calories in calories out, and you can twist it that way if you want to, but I attribute my weight loss to 90% increasing my fitness level, and 10% diet.
And once I get to a good fitness level, a healthy weight will happen all by itself, and I wont have to sit there and count calories, and log stuff. I'll just have to stay in shape and not be a glutton.
Plain and simple just like it was back when I was in good shape.
0 -
Here's how I look at it: I can go on a strenuous, hour-long bike ride and burn maybe 500-600 calories. Cool. I can then get home and cancel all of that out in three minutes just by eating two donuts. Or maybe I eat half a dozen and cancel out three days' worth of exercise.
That's how I interpret "you can't outrun a bad diet."0 -
This content has been removed.
-
My mum has lost 95lbs in just over a year with diet alone; due to heart surgery, she is only just starting to begin gently aquasizing and biking. While exercise can help (ie. building muscle to burn more calories while at rest), 100% diet does work with attaining just about any amount of weight loss.0
-
Here's how I look at it: I can go on a strenuous, hour-long bike ride and burn maybe 500-600 calories. Cool. I can then get home and cancel all of that out in three minutes just by eating two donuts. Or maybe I eat half a dozen and cancel out three days' worth of exercise.
That's how I interpret "you can't outrun a bad diet."
But now start cycling 3-4 hours a day during the week ... and double that on weekends. Plus other exercise as well. For example, I had to walk 2 km each time I got groceries.
Sure, you can eat half a dozen donuts one day, and you might break even ... but now you've got to do that everyday just to maintain your weight + twice that on weekends.
Personally, when I was cycling that much, I got sick of eating. It became a chore ... but every time I would slack off, I'd lose weight. I was constantly fighting to keep from being underweight. I would usually try to start a season at the high end of normal, and by the end of a season I was underweight.
In order to use the "exercise only" option of the three weightloss options ... (to recap, that's "exercise only", "diet only", or "combination of exercise and diet") ... you've really got to exercise a lot. An hour a day probably isn't going to do it. From my experience, it has to be a minimum of 90 minutes a day, 7 days a week (10.5 hours a week) ... and preferably a lot more.0 -
Personally, when I was cycling that much, I got sick of eating. It became a chore ... but every time I would slack off, I'd lose weight. I was constantly fighting to keep from being underweight. I would usually try to start a season at the high end of normal, and by the end of a season I was underweight.
We've gotten to the point where people think a half hour walk or 20 minutes on a elliptical are meaningful exercise.
You're fighting the good fight, but it's a losing battle.
0 -
Personally, when I was cycling that much, I got sick of eating. It became a chore ... but every time I would slack off, I'd lose weight. I was constantly fighting to keep from being underweight. I would usually try to start a season at the high end of normal, and by the end of a season I was underweight.
We've gotten to the point where people think a half hour walk or 20 minutes on a elliptical are meaningful exercise.
You're fighting the good fight, but it's a losing battle.
Yeah, even now that I'm on the "combination of exercise and diet" option ... that would be a rest day for me.
Most days, I aim for a minimum of 1 hour but, come spring, I hope to increase that. And by summer I'm hoping to have built up my fitness level + lost a little bit more weight so that I'm in shape to participate in more events again. I'm also hoping to be much closer to the "exercise only" side of the equation ... so that I don't have to be as concerned about my diet. So that I can knock back a cauliflower and cheese pie + piece of carrot cake mid-ride and not worry about it.
0 -
Personally, when I was cycling that much, I got sick of eating. It became a chore ... but every time I would slack off, I'd lose weight. I was constantly fighting to keep from being underweight. I would usually try to start a season at the high end of normal, and by the end of a season I was underweight.
We've gotten to the point where people think a half hour walk or 20 minutes on a elliptical are meaningful exercise.
You're fighting the good fight, but it's a losing battle.
Yeah, even now that I'm on the "combination of exercise and diet" option ... that would be a rest day for me.
Most days, I aim for a minimum of 1 hour but, come spring, I hope to increase that. And by summer I'm hoping to have built up my fitness level + lost a little bit more weight so that I'm in shape to participate in more events again. I'm also hoping to be much closer to the "exercise only" side of the equation ... so that I don't have to be as concerned about my diet. So that I can knock back a cauliflower and cheese pie + piece of carrot cake mid-ride and not worry about it.
:drinker:
I'm back to where a rest day is a 5k run first thing in the morning.
It's GOOD to be back!
0 -
Personally, when I was cycling that much, I got sick of eating. It became a chore ... but every time I would slack off, I'd lose weight. I was constantly fighting to keep from being underweight. I would usually try to start a season at the high end of normal, and by the end of a season I was underweight.
We've gotten to the point where people think a half hour walk or 20 minutes on a elliptical are meaningful exercise.
You're fighting the good fight, but it's a losing battle.
Yeah, even now that I'm on the "combination of exercise and diet" option ... that would be a rest day for me.
Most days, I aim for a minimum of 1 hour but, come spring, I hope to increase that. And by summer I'm hoping to have built up my fitness level + lost a little bit more weight so that I'm in shape to participate in more events again. I'm also hoping to be much closer to the "exercise only" side of the equation ... so that I don't have to be as concerned about my diet. So that I can knock back a cauliflower and cheese pie + piece of carrot cake mid-ride and not worry about it.
:drinker:
I'm back to where a rest day is a 5k run first thing in the morning.
It's GOOD to be back!
That's great! :drinker:
It's been a few years for me and I've missed it all so much. But I cycled a century (100 miles in one day) last month while on holiday in Canada, and for the first time in a long time I felt strong all the way through, and like I could go longer.
It IS good to be back!!
0 -
Here's how I look at it: I can go on a strenuous, hour-long bike ride and burn maybe 500-600 calories. Cool. I can then get home and cancel all of that out in three minutes just by eating two donuts. Or maybe I eat half a dozen and cancel out three days' worth of exercise.
That's how I interpret "you can't outrun a bad diet."
But now start cycling 3-4 hours a day during the week ... and double that on weekends. Plus other exercise as well. For example, I had to walk 2 km each time I got groceries.
Sure, you can eat half a dozen donuts one day, and you might break even ... but now you've got to do that everyday just to maintain your weight + twice that on weekends.
Personally, when I was cycling that much, I got sick of eating. It became a chore ... but every time I would slack off, I'd lose weight. I was constantly fighting to keep from being underweight. I would usually try to start a season at the high end of normal, and by the end of a season I was underweight.
In order to use the "exercise only" option of the three weightloss options ... (to recap, that's "exercise only", "diet only", or "combination of exercise and diet") ... you've really got to exercise a lot. An hour a day probably isn't going to do it. From my experience, it has to be a minimum of 90 minutes a day, 7 days a week (10.5 hours a week) ... and preferably a lot more.
I usually don't say that but... ain't nobody got time for that. Biking 3-4 hours daily during the week and up to 8 on the weekend because you don't want to eat a bit less instead?0 -
professionalHobbyist wrote: »
Exercise is the CO part of CICO.
Exercise can be part of the CO part but RMR is usually the biggest. You can lose weight sipping cream in a hot tub.0 -
chrisdomico wrote: »
Fitness is important, but not to losing weight. Think about all the people who cannot exercise who have lost weight and maintain.
What people are arguing is that fitness CAN'T help you lose weight, which is complete bull. If I eat 1500 calories a day, I'll lose weight. If I eat 1800 calories a day and burn 300 on my bike, I still ate 1500 net calories that day. If I reward myself for working out by eating a peanut buster parfait, I'm going to gain weight.
Nobody said it can't help you lose weight. What people said is that you can lose weight without it.
The whole point of the thread i.e what the OP was asking concerned whether exercise can help you lose weight.
It was not as you state about not being able to lose weight without it.
0 -
LyndseyLovesToLift wrote: »A person that eats 1600 calories per day and doesn't exercise will lose the same amount of weight as a person that eats 2000 calories and burns 400 calories per day, without fail, from exercise.
That is only necessarily true for a brief moment. As soon as any weight is lost, it starts becoming un-true, based on the type of exercise and the choice of calories, because body composition is changing, and it is not only possible, but quite common for that 1600 to result in a smaller deficit than the 2000 + 400 exercising.
Think....skinny fat.
Exercise has more effect on weight loss than just letting you eat back a few calories...
This all depends on the type of exercise, though. A cardio queen will still be skinny fat.
Are you sure about that? The thing is I personally know quite a few runners, cyclists and triathletes who do little to no resistance training and they are far from "skinny fat". Admittedly, they do not have the look of a fitness model which seems so fashionable nowadays but that's a different conversation.
Putting aside genetics if there is a danger of "skinny fat" it is more excessive calorie deficits and lack of protein and excessive amounts of cardio - not simply doing lots of "cardio".1 -
bcalvanese wrote: »bcalvanese wrote: »It's amazing to see how many people think exercise is not that important. I don't know one person (not athletes or body builders) who is at a good fitness level that has any kind of weight control issue.
And this is a "MyFitnessPal" forum, not "MyCaloriePal"...
I have been using exercise as my primary method of losing the weight because lack of exercise over decades is what made me gain all the weight. Sure I watch what I eat more, and have learned a little more about nutrition. I have always liked vegetables, fruits, and foods that are good for me, but I also like a cheesesteak or a couple slices of pizza once in a while.
I'm going to be the person who uses fitness to control my weight, and once I get fit and get to a healthy weight, I'm going to be the person who doesn't have a weight control issue anymore.
JMO.
No, eating too many calories over decades is what made you gain weight. Exercise might have helped you create a calorie deficit, but the calorie deficit is what made you lose the weight.
I agree with this.
I love exercise. I weight lift, I run 2-4 times a week, I do the elliptical cross trainer too. I love to go on long walks sometimes too. In fact, I have always loved to exercise, even when I was fat.
I weight lifted, ran, and walked and gained 33 pounds over a 3-5 year period because I ate too much, not because I exercised too little.
Exercise is for fitness, and there is no doubt that when you exercise you generally have room to eat more calories. But, the bottom line is if you don't know how much you are eating, it's easy to get out of hand in the food area and put weight on even when exercising.
Weight gain is all about eating too many calories in general, whether or not you exercise, it's not about exercising more so you lost weight or don't gain weight.
Ok, so you know how I gained the weight too.
Let me try to explain.
I was in good shape and always maintained a healthy weight without the need to count calories.
I got in a car accident and could not exercise for a year due to internal injuries. (did not change my diet)
Got lazy and never started exercising again. (I gained weight)
I made a career change from a very physical job to sitting at a desk all day. (still did not change my diet)
Got lazier and still no exercise. (I gained more weight)
Had to get clearances (heart and lungs) for surgery to remove part of my colon (diverticulitis), and was told I had COPD and an enlarged area at the bottom of my heart and could have had a mini heart attack at some point. Also have blood clotting issues (from sitting on my fat butt for decades and getting no exercise)
Recovered from the surgery (went back to the same diet)
Got an activity tracker (key word being "activity"), and set it to lose 1 pound a week.
Started walking (watched what I ate a little, but basically the same diet).
Started walking more, got a bike and started biking. (basically the same diet).
Started walking and biking more. got a kayak and started kayaking. (still same diet).
Have been losing a pound a week (32 pounds so far with another 43 to go). (same diet)
Now I burn so many calories that I can't even eat them all without resorting to gluttony.
I feel so much better, and can ride my bike 10 miles at a cardio pace, and that is pretty darn good for someone who is supposed to have COPD.
I know its all about calories in calories out, and you can twist it that way if you want to, but I attribute my weight loss to 90% increasing my fitness level, and 10% diet.
And once I get to a good fitness level, a healthy weight will happen all by itself, and I wont have to sit there and count calories, and log stuff. I'll just have to stay in shape and not be a glutton.
Plain and simple just like it was back when I was in good shape.
This reads to me as though your normal diet is above maintenance levels. However, because you were so active your additional calorie burn brought it down to maintenance.
When you stopped being active, you started putting weight on because your standard eating habits were (always) in a surplus.
Unsurprisingly, when you got more and more active again you pulled it down to a defecit.
This is CICO. Some people get the "calories out" as high as possible to be in a defecit, others watch the "calories in" for the same result. It all amounts to the same thing in the end.
As an aside, Im very jealous on the Kayaking! Its something Ive always wanted to do but where I live just doesnt have the opportunities. And well done on the weight loss, thats fantastic progress!0 -
stevencloser wrote: »Here's how I look at it: I can go on a strenuous, hour-long bike ride and burn maybe 500-600 calories. Cool. I can then get home and cancel all of that out in three minutes just by eating two donuts. Or maybe I eat half a dozen and cancel out three days' worth of exercise.
That's how I interpret "you can't outrun a bad diet."
But now start cycling 3-4 hours a day during the week ... and double that on weekends. Plus other exercise as well. For example, I had to walk 2 km each time I got groceries.
Sure, you can eat half a dozen donuts one day, and you might break even ... but now you've got to do that everyday just to maintain your weight + twice that on weekends.
Personally, when I was cycling that much, I got sick of eating. It became a chore ... but every time I would slack off, I'd lose weight. I was constantly fighting to keep from being underweight. I would usually try to start a season at the high end of normal, and by the end of a season I was underweight.
In order to use the "exercise only" option of the three weightloss options ... (to recap, that's "exercise only", "diet only", or "combination of exercise and diet") ... you've really got to exercise a lot. An hour a day probably isn't going to do it. From my experience, it has to be a minimum of 90 minutes a day, 7 days a week (10.5 hours a week) ... and preferably a lot more.
I usually don't say that but... ain't nobody got time for that. Biking 3-4 hours daily during the week and up to 8 on the weekend because you don't want to eat a bit less instead?
No ... not because I didn't want to eat a bit less ..........
Because I was training for cycling events.
I wasn't overweight and I wasn't overly concerned about my weight. My only small concerns were eating enough to keep the weight on, because losing weight is a side effect of that much exercise.
And I had time for it ... while working full-time and taking night classes.
Think about it.
There are 168 hours in a week.
Subtract 50 for work = 118
Subtract 30 for exercise = 88
Subtract 58 for sleep = 30
Subtract 5 for night classes = 25 hours for ... whatever else.
0 -
Weight loss is derived from creating a calorie deficit.
If mere weight loss is the goal, just eat less. No need to ever exercise.
I want more than than mere weight loss.
For optimal health and fitness, eat well AND exercise.
My goal is to be the best version of myself, and that means clean eating and hard, smart exercise.
You must answer for yourself.0 -
It's the energy deficit that causes you to lose weight. In practical terms, some people find it easier to diet or exercise their way into a deficit. I'm better at doing it with both, but I'm starting to think that activity level matters even more, for me, than the time I spend exercising. I've over trained in the past, and I'm getting used to the idea that I can't just exercise more, and harder, to balance my TDEE.0
-
LyndseyLovesToLift wrote: »A person that eats 1600 calories per day and doesn't exercise will lose the same amount of weight as a person that eats 2000 calories and burns 400 calories per day, without fail, from exercise.
That is only necessarily true for a brief moment. As soon as any weight is lost, it starts becoming un-true, based on the type of exercise and the choice of calories, because body composition is changing, and it is not only possible, but quite common for that 1600 to result in a smaller deficit than the 2000 + 400 exercising.
Think....skinny fat.
Exercise has more effect on weight loss than just letting you eat back a few calories...
This all depends on the type of exercise, though. A cardio queen will still be skinny fat.
Are you sure about that? The thing is I personally know quite a few runners, cyclists and triathletes who do little to no resistance training and they are far from "skinny fat". Admittedly, they do not have the look of a fitness model which seems so fashionable nowadays but that's a different conversation.
Putting aside genetics if there is a danger of "skinny fat" it is more excessive calorie deficits and lack of protein and excessive amounts of cardio - not simply doing lots of "cardio".
Yep, this exactly.1 -
chrisdomico wrote: »
Fitness is important, but not to losing weight. Think about all the people who cannot exercise who have lost weight and maintain.
What people are arguing is that fitness CAN'T help you lose weight, which is complete bull. If I eat 1500 calories a day, I'll lose weight. If I eat 1800 calories a day and burn 300 on my bike, I still ate 1500 net calories that day. If I reward myself for working out by eating a peanut buster parfait, I'm going to gain weight.
Nobody said it can't help you lose weight. What people said is that you can lose weight without it.
But the thread was about whether exercise could help with weight loss, not whether exercise was necessary for weight loss.0 -
25 hours per week free time left isn't that much if you also subtract things like getting groceries, household chores, cooking and eating etc.stevencloser wrote: »Here's how I look at it: I can go on a strenuous, hour-long bike ride and burn maybe 500-600 calories. Cool. I can then get home and cancel all of that out in three minutes just by eating two donuts. Or maybe I eat half a dozen and cancel out three days' worth of exercise.
That's how I interpret "you can't outrun a bad diet."
But now start cycling 3-4 hours a day during the week ... and double that on weekends. Plus other exercise as well. For example, I had to walk 2 km each time I got groceries.
Sure, you can eat half a dozen donuts one day, and you might break even ... but now you've got to do that everyday just to maintain your weight + twice that on weekends.
Personally, when I was cycling that much, I got sick of eating. It became a chore ... but every time I would slack off, I'd lose weight. I was constantly fighting to keep from being underweight. I would usually try to start a season at the high end of normal, and by the end of a season I was underweight.
In order to use the "exercise only" option of the three weightloss options ... (to recap, that's "exercise only", "diet only", or "combination of exercise and diet") ... you've really got to exercise a lot. An hour a day probably isn't going to do it. From my experience, it has to be a minimum of 90 minutes a day, 7 days a week (10.5 hours a week) ... and preferably a lot more.
I usually don't say that but... ain't nobody got time for that. Biking 3-4 hours daily during the week and up to 8 on the weekend because you don't want to eat a bit less instead?
No ... not because I didn't want to eat a bit less ..........
Because I was training for cycling events.
I wasn't overweight and I wasn't overly concerned about my weight. My only small concerns were eating enough to keep the weight on, because losing weight is a side effect of that much exercise.
And I had time for it ... while working full-time and taking night classes.
Think about it.
There are 168 hours in a week.
Subtract 50 for work = 118
Subtract 30 for exercise = 88
Subtract 58 for sleep = 30
Subtract 5 for night classes = 25 hours for ... whatever else.
1 -
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?
IMO< the key words here is "does not HELP you lose weight". Of course it HELPS, it is apart of CO.
Is it a must- no. Can it help- yes. As long as you are in a calories deficit.
n'1 ... I never had to think about my diet, ate-stayed busy(moving around) no added exercise. Mainly raising a family. When kids grew up left home, I ate the same, but I was not moving around (no added exercise) as much. I did not have 3 extra people to care for, less movement. The pounds snuck up on me over 5 years. (30pds).
Being more active has HELPED me lose the weight. esp. when your calorie goal is 1200. JMO0 -
stevencloser wrote: »
25 hours per week free time left isn't that much if you also subtract things like getting groceries, household chores, cooking and eating etc.stevencloser wrote: »Here's how I look at it: I can go on a strenuous, hour-long bike ride and burn maybe 500-600 calories. Cool. I can then get home and cancel all of that out in three minutes just by eating two donuts. Or maybe I eat half a dozen and cancel out three days' worth of exercise.
That's how I interpret "you can't outrun a bad diet."
But now start cycling 3-4 hours a day during the week ... and double that on weekends. Plus other exercise as well. For example, I had to walk 2 km each time I got groceries.
Sure, you can eat half a dozen donuts one day, and you might break even ... but now you've got to do that everyday just to maintain your weight + twice that on weekends.
Personally, when I was cycling that much, I got sick of eating. It became a chore ... but every time I would slack off, I'd lose weight. I was constantly fighting to keep from being underweight. I would usually try to start a season at the high end of normal, and by the end of a season I was underweight.
In order to use the "exercise only" option of the three weightloss options ... (to recap, that's "exercise only", "diet only", or "combination of exercise and diet") ... you've really got to exercise a lot. An hour a day probably isn't going to do it. From my experience, it has to be a minimum of 90 minutes a day, 7 days a week (10.5 hours a week) ... and preferably a lot more.
I usually don't say that but... ain't nobody got time for that. Biking 3-4 hours daily during the week and up to 8 on the weekend because you don't want to eat a bit less instead?
No ... not because I didn't want to eat a bit less ..........
Because I was training for cycling events.
I wasn't overweight and I wasn't overly concerned about my weight. My only small concerns were eating enough to keep the weight on, because losing weight is a side effect of that much exercise.
And I had time for it ... while working full-time and taking night classes.
Think about it.
There are 168 hours in a week.
Subtract 50 for work = 118
Subtract 30 for exercise = 88
Subtract 58 for sleep = 30
Subtract 5 for night classes = 25 hours for ... whatever else.
There wasn't much of that going on.
That much exercise isn't for everyone ... and in fact, it's not recommended to do that all year for years on end. You build up in the spring, go full on over the summer, and ease back in autumn. Then change sports for the winter to avoid burnout.
But nevertheless, it is possible to lose weight on the "exercise only" side of the spectrum.
And I look at the whole thing like a spectrum ...
Exercise Only ~~~~~~~~~~ Combination of Exercise and Diet ~~~~~~~~~~ Diet Only
Each of us has chosen a point on that spectrum that works for us at a certain point in time.
Right now, I'm pretty much right in the middle, but I'd like to work my way a little more toward the Exercise Only end come summer.
1
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.9K Introduce Yourself
- 43.9K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 429 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153.1K Motivation and Support
- 8.1K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 15 News and Announcements
- 1.2K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions