Exercise doesn't help you lose weight...say what?
Options
Replies
-
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 -
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.
Truth! That's barely more than 3.5 hours per day. That's not much, especially if you have a family.0 -
Well, I've got to say I'm pretty flabbergasted by the responses but, sadly, not really surprised. As a few have said, it IS a balance between diet and exercise if you want healthy weight loss. And you are absolutely correct in saying, if you are I a calorie deficit, you are going to lose weight, regardless of how that is achieved.
Someone pointed out - erroneously - CICO (calories in, calories out) as an argument against exercise as a necessity for losing weight. The fact is, your own argument is the best, and only, one you need.
If you are in a calories deficit, regardless how you achieve that deficit, you will lose weight. HOWEVER, if you choose to sit in a chair and do nothing and eat a minimal measure of calories, while you may lose weight, you will not be healthy. Conversely, if you eat like a horse but always exercise, burning off more calories than you consume, you may well appear more fit but, depending upon what you are putting in your mouth, you may not be.
But the concept that "weight management is all about diet" is one hundred percent incorrect.
Anytime you try to shortcut or circumvent you health, whether by over-exercising (Yes, you can) or under-eating, you are putting your health and well-being at risk. Almost everyone, I should think, is aware of the reality that a good balanced program of diet and exercise is key to good health. There is no way around it. You can try to avoid exercise and you will lose weight, but be flabby and with weak, un-toned muscle. And you can pretend that, if you don't want to exercise, it's okay just as long as you don't eat too much. But somewhere in-between, there is a median line and a concept alien to both extremes... Fitness, good health, strong mind and body require a combination of moving your body and putting good things into it!
RECAP:
You can lose weight by eating less.
You can lose weight by exercising more.
You can live right and be healthy by doing BOTH - eating less and exercising more. PERIOD. And anyone who tells you otherwise, either hasn't fully thought out the issue, or they are complete fools.1 -
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...
So... Where is your like button?????0 -
lithezebra wrote: »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.
Yes, all of this.
I find that exercising is important to my overall mindset and I do a lot, but I was probably burning the most per week last summer when I was just focusing on being consistently active and riding my bike to commute a lot--lots of activity that I didn't consider intentional exercise, but it make a huge difference in my TDEE and was less prone to being up and down.
I'm so confused on what people are arguing about here. It seems like many are saying the same things but perceive themselves as arguing with others saying the same things.0 -
My body does not know if I ate less calories or if I burned more calories to get the same net result.
This is NOT CORRECT. Your body DOES know HOW the calories were made deficit. Your body knows whether you achieved that deficit by exercise or by diet. The human body knows when it has burned calories through exercise. The adrenal system triggers a response to the exercise. In fact, when you exercise, your body will continue to burn calories even after you have stopped exercising - potentially for as much as up to an hour - while your body 'heals' itself after the exercise. This is how muscle is built/developed.
On the flip side, however, if you simply do not eat as much, it could conceivably cause you to GAIN weight. If the body is not getting enough calories/nourishment, it will begin to slow down its internal processes - your metabolism. Thus, making it more difficult to lose weight. As the body slows, it also begins to horde the nutrients and calories is does take in. This is a holdover from our cave man ancestors. It is a part of the feast or famine mechanism. When times are poor (less food/nutrients/calories) the body will hold onto what meager nutrients it takes in to sustain it until there is more food. Thankfully, the human body knows more than its occupant. Otherwise the species would never have survived.
Furthermore, the higher percentage of fat you have, the harder your body will have to work to get rid of it. Whereas, the higher percentage of muscle you have, the easier it will be to burn fat - i.e. calories.
So, yes, the body DOES, most assuredly, know how its calories are used.1 -
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.
That's fantastic what you're achieving, but I think my point was more in the context of a non-endurance athlete -- someone with significant weight to lose, a job, family, and most of all, someone starting out with horrible eating habits and little or no physical activity. I think you would agree that, from that perspective, emphasizing diet is probably where you want to start.
Put another way, food has a greater "effect size" on your CICO calculation.
0 -
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.
I think the combination is the best since it softens the downsides of both extremes. No need to exercise for hours on end every day + being able to eat more.0 -
Mostly it's diet but from the other hand exercising has way bigger impact than food on how your body will look after losing the weight (lose skin isn't pretty, tone body hell yea!)0
-
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.
That's fantastic what you're achieving, but I think my point was more in the context of a non-endurance athlete -- someone with significant weight to lose, a job, family, and most of all, someone starting out with horrible eating habits and little or no physical activity. I think you would agree that, from that perspective, emphasizing diet is probably where you want to start.
Put another way, food has a greater "effect size" on your CICO calculation.
Like I said ...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.
0 -
I am sorry you had all the medical issues, and congratulations on overcoming them. You gained weight because you took in too many calories. Had you eaten less, you would not have gained. It's science. You did not have to exercise to lose weight.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.
Getting to a "good fitness level" does not ensure that a healthy weight will happen all by itself. You may not have to literally count calories, but you will still have to be aware of portion size and eat less calories than you burn.
What is a glutton, but the way? I'd say that's all in the perception Some people would view my diary and say I'm a glutton, or say that others who eat higher calorie diets are gluttons.
Fitness is very important--I weight lift and run and do other cardio, but I am very well aware it has nil to do with the very basics of weight loss.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.6K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 387 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.2K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 914 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions