Exercise doesn't help you lose weight...say what?
Replies
-
Sitting on your butt is part of CO. Exercise is part of CO.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.
McCindy is right. I sat on my butt for the last week because of sore feet, stayed in a calorie deficit for the week, weighed myself today and I am down 3 lbs. Sitting on my butt and CICO is working for me!! lol
All weight matters are part of CICO. People gain weight with CICO. They maintain with CICO.
CICO is not a weight loss strategy. It's just the very basic concept that calories are related to weight.
Did I word it wrong for you? I was in a calorie deficit for the week and did not exercise. Better? wow...lol
I'm sorry if it came off as snippy. I didn't mean it that way and should've put in a smiley or something, as it could be read as snippy.
There is a great deal of confusion around here about what CICO is and isn't. Many people get confused, thinking it's a weight loss strategy. I was just pointing out what CICO is and, again, am sorry if it seemed snippy.
Congrats on your loss! 0 -
What? LOL!
It's not about what happens to the calories. It's about exercise being 100% not necessary to lose weight. If it were necessary, then people who can't exercise would never lose weight.
If I want to lose weight, I need to eat less food. If already exercise, which makes my TDEE higher, then I still need to eat less not exercise more.
If I want to lose weight, I need to eat less food. If I don't exercise, which makes my TDEE lower, I just need to eat less food, not start exercising.
By the same token eating less may be 100% unnecessary for weight loss if you can create a deficit through exercise alone.0 -
I agree that it comes down to diet. For a long time, I always thought it was exercise... so I would workout a ton and lose weight. I never really paid that much attention to food, calorie wise. But eventually, I would stop working out as much b/c I got burnt out... Inevitably, I would put back on the weight. I would get so sad to think that I would have to keep working out at the intense level I was at to lose or maintain my weight (b/c honestly, it's not my favorite thing to do).
Only when I got on MFP and understood about also monitoring your calories and using THAT as the main focus, have I lost weight and kept it off. I feel less anxiety about working out and actually am finding exercise that I enjoy - not JUST for the calorie burn.0 -
I'm sorry if it came off as snippy. I didn't mean it that way and should've put in a smiley or something, as it could be read as snippy.
There is a great deal of confusion around here about what CICO is and isn't. Many people get confused, thinking it's a weight loss strategy. I was just pointing out what CICO is and, again, am sorry if it seemed snippy.
Congrats on your loss![/quote]
No worries. I understand. Thank you and congrats on your success also.
0 -
"zamphir66 wrote: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.
So the moral of the story is, you can outrun a bad diet, but it requires ~30 hours a week.
1 -
What? LOL!
It's not about what happens to the calories. It's about exercise being 100% not necessary to lose weight. If it were necessary, then people who can't exercise would never lose weight.
If I want to lose weight, I need to eat less food. If already exercise, which makes my TDEE higher, then I still need to eat less not exercise more.
If I want to lose weight, I need to eat less food. If I don't exercise, which makes my TDEE lower, I just need to eat less food, not start exercising.
Ridiculous. that was never the question asked by the OP. Everyone knows you cna lose weight without exercise, but the question was whether exercise was helpful in losing weight. Did you even read the OP?0 -
I started boxing and running after a hiatus after my weight gain.
I didn't lose any weight initially because I was guzzling a lot of calories.0 -
The "science" requires having the burn part as well as the intake. You really cannot separate one from the other, especially if you're relying on calorie counting to tell you how much to eat. Exercise has a direct effect on the burn part of the math there.
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.
No, nobody needs to exercise to lose weight.
Yes, exercise helps.
0 -
What? LOL!
It's not about what happens to the calories. It's about exercise being 100% not necessary to lose weight. If it were necessary, then people who can't exercise would never lose weight.
If I want to lose weight, I need to eat less food. If already exercise, which makes my TDEE higher, then I still need to eat less not exercise more.
If I want to lose weight, I need to eat less food. If I don't exercise, which makes my TDEE lower, I just need to eat less food, not start exercising.
Ridiculous. that was never the question asked by the OP. Everyone knows you cna lose weight without exercise, but the question was whether exercise was helpful in losing weight. Did you even read the OP?
Yes I did
My share is not ridiculous, and it is in line with the path the conversation has taken (read prior comments). If you (you in the general sense, not you personally) don't learn how to create a calorie deficit through food first, then how will you keep the weight off if you find yourself unable to exercise?
My uncle started running five miles five days a week without changing his diet and lost weight due to that good old fashioned calorie deficit. He overate just as he always did, he just ran it off. Well, guess what, since he did not learn how to manage his food first, as soon as life got busy and he decreased his exercise he started gaining weight, then soon he stopped running altogether and gained all his weight plus more back.
I'm pretty sure you're going to say, "Ah, ha, that's it! He gained his weight back because he stopped exercising! "
The answer is no. He gained weight back because he did not learn how to manage his overeating so that he could lose or maintain whether or not he exercised.0 -
What? LOL!
It's not about what happens to the calories. It's about exercise being 100% not necessary to lose weight. If it were necessary, then people who can't exercise would never lose weight.
If I want to lose weight, I need to eat less food. If already exercise, which makes my TDEE higher, then I still need to eat less not exercise more.
If I want to lose weight, I need to eat less food. If I don't exercise, which makes my TDEE lower, I just need to eat less food, not start exercising.
Ridiculous. that was never the question asked by the OP. Everyone knows you cna lose weight without exercise, but the question was whether exercise was helpful in losing weight. Did you even read the OP?
Yes I did
My share is not ridiculous, and it is in line with the path the conversation has taken (read prior comments). If you (you in the general sense, not you personally) don't learn how to create a calorie deficit through food first, then how will you keep the weight off if you find yourself unable to exercise?
My uncle started running five miles five days a week without changing his diet and lost weight due to that good old fashioned calorie deficit. He overate just as he always did, he just ran it off. Well, guess what, since he did not learn how to manage his food first, as soon as life got busy and he decreased his exercise he started gaining weight, then soon he stopped running altogether and gained all his weight plus more back.
I'm pretty sure you're going to say, "Ah, ha, that's it! He gained his weight back because he stopped exercising! "
The answer is no. He gained weight back because he did not learn how to manage his overeating so that he could lose or maintain whether or not he exercised.
The answer is both - he reduced his calorie output and did not reduce his caloric intake. You can't dismiss a data point to suit your preconceived notion.0 -
What? LOL!
It's not about what happens to the calories. It's about exercise being 100% not necessary to lose weight. If it were necessary, then people who can't exercise would never lose weight.
If I want to lose weight, I need to eat less food. If already exercise, which makes my TDEE higher, then I still need to eat less not exercise more.
If I want to lose weight, I need to eat less food. If I don't exercise, which makes my TDEE lower, I just need to eat less food, not start exercising.
Ridiculous. that was never the question asked by the OP. Everyone knows you cna lose weight without exercise, but the question was whether exercise was helpful in losing weight. Did you even read the OP?
Yes I did
My share is not ridiculous, and it is in line with the path the conversation has taken (read prior comments). If you (you in the general sense, not you personally) don't learn how to create a calorie deficit through food first, then how will you keep the weight off if you find yourself unable to exercise?
My uncle started running five miles five days a week without changing his diet and lost weight due to that good old fashioned calorie deficit. He overate just as he always did, he just ran it off. Well, guess what, since he did not learn how to manage his food first, as soon as life got busy and he decreased his exercise he started gaining weight, then soon he stopped running altogether and gained all his weight plus more back.
I'm pretty sure you're going to say, "Ah, ha, that's it! He gained his weight back because he stopped exercising! "
The answer is no. He gained weight back because he did not learn how to manage his overeating so that he could lose or maintain whether or not he exercised.
The answer is both - he reduced his calorie output and did not reduce his caloric intake. You can't dismiss a data point to suit your preconceived notion.
Ignoring? Preconceived notion? Right.
Weight management happens in the kitchen. Once you have the food issue under control, you can reach your goals whether or not you choose to exercise.2 -
[/quotemetcastillon wrote: »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.
This woman knows what she is talking about. Yeah your friends are retarded because that answer is "YES....exercise does HELP you lose weight". How can it not if you burn 3000 calories from exercise in a week. Plus if you do not exercise your body will not really look that great (Especially for men) once the weight is off. But I do tend to agree that its an 80% diet/ 20% exercise split.0 -
samhennings wrote: »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!
I'm trying to say the same thing but in a different way, but I suck at trying to explain stuff...
I understand that it all come down to calories in/out, and there are two ways to deal with weight control. Either eat less, or exercise more.
Dieting alone without exercising- poor fitness level
- may not be getting enough nutrients due to not being able to eat a wide variety of foods
- harder to maintain certain levels (cholesterol, sugar, and probably others)
- have more time to sit around and think about food
- increased stress levels
- less chance of long term success without constantly being on a diet
- probably a lot of other things
- Good fitness level
- able to get enough nutrients
- easier to maintain certain levels (cholesterol, sugar, and probably others)
- have less time to sit around and think about food
- decreased stress levels
- more chance of long term success because you can pretty much eat what you want (just don't be a glutton)
- probably a lot of other things
So yes, it all comes down to calories in/out, but I think fitness level makes the dieting part way less important. Don't get me wrong. you should always watch what you eat, but if you are at a good fitness level, your body is much more efficient at burning calories which makes weight control pretty much take care of itself as long as you're not gorging on junk food all the time.
This is why I think fitness level is more important, but I also think diet is important. If you are a person who choses "not" to exercise, then diet is more important because it becomes the only factor.
Concerning the kayaking, don't you have a lake near you?
I have a park with a lake within driving distance, and that is where I go.0 -
What? LOL!
It's not about what happens to the calories. It's about exercise being 100% not necessary to lose weight. If it were necessary, then people who can't exercise would never lose weight.
If I want to lose weight, I need to eat less food. If already exercise, which makes my TDEE higher, then I still need to eat less not exercise more.
If I want to lose weight, I need to eat less food. If I don't exercise, which makes my TDEE lower, I just need to eat less food, not start exercising.
Ridiculous. that was never the question asked by the OP. Everyone knows you cna lose weight without exercise, but the question was whether exercise was helpful in losing weight. Did you even read the OP?
Yes I did
My share is not ridiculous, and it is in line with the path the conversation has taken (read prior comments). If you (you in the general sense, not you personally) don't learn how to create a calorie deficit through food first, then how will you keep the weight off if you find yourself unable to exercise?
My uncle started running five miles five days a week without changing his diet and lost weight due to that good old fashioned calorie deficit. He overate just as he always did, he just ran it off. Well, guess what, since he did not learn how to manage his food first, as soon as life got busy and he decreased his exercise he started gaining weight, then soon he stopped running altogether and gained all his weight plus more back.
I'm pretty sure you're going to say, "Ah, ha, that's it! He gained his weight back because he stopped exercising! "
The answer is no. He gained weight back because he did not learn how to manage his overeating so that he could lose or maintain whether or not he exercised.
The answer is both - he reduced his calorie output and did not reduce his caloric intake. You can't dismiss a data point to suit your preconceived notion.
Ignoring? Preconceived notion? Right.
Weight management happens in the kitchen. Once you have the food issue under control, you can reach your goals whether or not you choose to exercise.
So you're ignoring the CO side of the equation?
0 -
bcalvanese wrote: »I understand that it all come down to calories in/out, and there are two ways to deal with weight control. Either eat less, or exercise more.
Dieting alone without exercising- poor fitness level
- may not be getting enough nutrients due to not being able to eat a wide variety of foods
- harder to maintain certain levels (cholesterol, sugar, and probably others)
- have more time to sit around and think about food
- increased stress levels
- less chance of long term success without constantly being on a diet
- probably a lot of other things
- Good fitness level
- able to get enough nutrients
- easier to maintain certain levels (cholesterol, sugar, and probably others)
- have less time to sit around and think about food
- decreased stress levels
- more chance of long term success because you can pretty much eat what you want (just don't be a glutton)
- probably a lot of other things
So yes, it all comes down to calories in/out, but I think fitness level makes the dieting part way less important. Don't get me wrong. you should always watch what you eat, but if you are at a good fitness level, your body is much more efficient at burning calories which makes weight control pretty much take care of itself as long as you're not gorging on junk food all the time.
This is why I think fitness level is more important, but I also think diet is important. If you are a person who choses "not" to exercise, then diet is more important because it becomes the only factor.
Very good analysis!
0 -
Indeed. How much exercise do you think it takes the average person to burn a legit 500 calories a day in exercise, every day?Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
What? LOL!
It's not about what happens to the calories. It's about exercise being 100% not necessary to lose weight. If it were necessary, then people who can't exercise would never lose weight.
If I want to lose weight, I need to eat less food. If already exercise, which makes my TDEE higher, then I still need to eat less not exercise more.
If I want to lose weight, I need to eat less food. If I don't exercise, which makes my TDEE lower, I just need to eat less food, not start exercising.
By the same token eating less may be 100% unnecessary for weight loss if you can create a deficit through exercise alone.
0 -
I think exercise has zero bearing on losing weight. While it may be a contributing factor because it makes you feel good so you make better food choices are more likely to stick to your calorie goals, etc.
Ever seen an overweight person in a coma being fed intravenously? They are fed their needed calories for their height and some other factors. That person is doing subzero exercise and they lose weight. I've watched it happen.0 -
I think exercise has zero bearing on losing weight. While it may be a contributing factor because it makes you feel good so you make better food choices are more likely to stick to your calorie goals, etc.
Ever seen an overweight person in a coma being fed intravenously? They are fed their needed calories for their height and some other factors. That person is doing subzero exercise and they lose weight. I've watched it happen.
By your own description it has bearing on losing weight.
The OP's question is Does exercise play a factor. No one is suggesting that you can't lose weight without exercise, but there is no question that it is part of the CICO equation.0 -
When I was able to exercise 15-20 hours/week, I never had to limit food. I ate what I wanted, and if I dropped any weight, I ate more calorie dense versions of what I wanted (extra cheese on my pizza? Yes, please!).
When I got my demanding job, My exercise time cut in half. I had to learn to eat a bit less. That was not as much fun as eating everything in sight, but it was doable, and I got the hang of it fairly quickly.
When I got an injury that wouldn't heal, I had to turn to solely calorie counting. I found that the most difficult and restrictive. I did finally learn some exercises I could do around the injury, but exercise is still only a tiny part of the equation, and calorie counting remains the key component of my maintenance or loss, as needed.
The fact is, all variations work. I found the first the easiest and most fun; someone else might find calorie counting to be easier. I don't think saying I prefer one over the other means that I am somehow requiring someone else to have that same preference or that I am implying their preference is wrong. As long as we all agree that CICO is the determining factor (and it appears we do), arguing about which balance between exercise and diet, if any, is best is about as fruitful as trying to convince a die-hard chocolate ice cream fan that vanilla is better.
Certain health goals or looks may require a certain balance, granted, but if we're simply talking about weight loss, then they all work just fine.0 -
I think exercise has zero bearing on losing weight. While it may be a contributing factor because it makes you feel good so you make better food choices are more likely to stick to your calorie goals, etc.
Ever seen an overweight person in a coma being fed intravenously? They are fed their needed calories for their height and some other factors. That person is doing subzero exercise and they lose weight. I've watched it happen.
So what happens to the calories you burn in the first instance? Do you understand CICO?0 -
I think exercise has zero bearing on losing weight. While it may be a contributing factor because it makes you feel good so you make better food choices are more likely to stick to your calorie goals, etc.
Ever seen an overweight person in a coma being fed intravenously? They are fed their needed calories for their height and some other factors. That person is doing subzero exercise and they lose weight. I've watched it happen.
So what happens to the calories you burn in the first instance? Do you understand CICO?
Yes of course I understand CICO. What goes out has to exceed what goes in. HOW it goes out isn't a factor. Exercise may accelerate weight loss by increasing CO, or add to them so the CI can increase, but exercise isn't necessary.
In the first instance someone overweight burns 300 extra calories from exercise. They eat 1500 calories a day.
Second person is overweight, in a coma and receives 1500 liquid calories a day.
The first person will loose weight faster then the second person, but if the second person 1500 calories is a deficit, they will lose weight given enough time.
Do YOU understand CICO?
0 -
I think exercise has zero bearing on losing weight. While it may be a contributing factor because it makes you feel good so you make better food choices are more likely to stick to your calorie goals, etc.
Ever seen an overweight person in a coma being fed intravenously? They are fed their needed calories for their height and some other factors. That person is doing subzero exercise and they lose weight. I've watched it happen.
So what happens to the calories you burn in the first instance? Do you understand CICO?
Yes of course I understand CICO. What goes out has to exceed what goes in. HOW it goes out isn't a factor. Exercise may accelerate weight loss by increasing CO, or add to them so the CI can increase, but exercise isn't necessary.
In the first instance someone overweight burns 300 extra calories from exercise. They eat 1500 calories a day.
Second person is overweight, in a coma and receives 1500 liquid calories a day.
The first person will loose weight faster then the second person, but if the second person 1500 calories is a deficit, they will lose weight given enough time.
Do YOU understand CICO?
Did you bother to read what the OP was asking and the purpose of this thread?
Did you see that he was asking does exercise help with weight loss?
He wasnt asking can you lose weight without exercise. Perhaps if you bothered to read what the thread was about, then you wouldnt waste your time answering a question that was never asked. You are funny.0 -
Diet is only the most important thing if a person is using only diet to lose weight. If a person chooses to lose weight by increasing their fitness level (the recommended method), then diet becomes secondary.
A fit body will process & maintain itself far better then an unfit body.
I don't know any doctor that would recommend just dieting to lose weight unless the person had a physical reason not to exercise.0 -
If you blow a typical workout, you might be off 200 ... maybe 300 calories.
If you blow a days diet, you could be off 1,000 ... 2000 ... 3000 or more calories.
Exercise, in the big picture, is mostly irrelevant for most folks.
Your friend is mostly right.0 -
Some folks having trouble with reading comprehension, some having trouble with math, and some having trouble with both.0
-
SergeantSausage wrote: »If you blow a typical workout, you might be off 200 ... maybe 300 calories.
If you blow a days diet, you could be off 1,000 ... 2000 ... 3000 or more calories.
Exercise, in the big picture, is mostly irrelevant for most folks.
Your friend is mostly right.
Thats not the question being asked though. Changing the facts to suit your answer is lame. Its the OPs thread and they are asking the question. Have you bothered to read what the OP asked and read the responses or did you just jump in?
0 -
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?
You are right, exercise does help. But it doesn't really do much unless you eat less that 1500 or so calories per day. You can't burn that much through exercise, and so diet plays a much bigger role in weight loss. Granted you should exercise too, but the effect is minimal compared to diet.
0 -
SergeantSausage wrote: »If you blow a typical workout, you might be off 200 ... maybe 300 calories.
If you blow a days diet, you could be off 1,000 ... 2000 ... 3000 or more calories.
Exercise, in the big picture, is mostly irrelevant for most folks.
Your friend is mostly right.
Thats not the question being asked though. Changing the facts to suit your answer is lame. Its the OPs thread and they are asking the question. Have you bothered to read what the OP asked and read the responses or did you just jump in?
The question was "Your thoughts?". That leaves a lot of room for things to talk about, including what he said.0 -
BTW. my thoughts are, the ones who really need to lose weight won't be burning enough calories during their workouts to make it matter much, just because their physical capacities aren't there yet where they would have the endurance necessary, so for them, exercise doesn't help all that much. Not 0% though.
And on the other hand, the ones able to burn enough calories from exercise alone to create a significant deficit on a daily basis don't need to lose weight and usually exercise because they like it, not to create a deficit.0 -
stevencloser wrote: »SergeantSausage wrote: »If you blow a typical workout, you might be off 200 ... maybe 300 calories.
If you blow a days diet, you could be off 1,000 ... 2000 ... 3000 or more calories.
Exercise, in the big picture, is mostly irrelevant for most folks.
Your friend is mostly right.
Thats not the question being asked though. Changing the facts to suit your answer is lame. Its the OPs thread and they are asking the question. Have you bothered to read what the OP asked and read the responses or did you just jump in?
The question was "Your thoughts?". That leaves a lot of room for things to talk about, including what he said.
The basis of the Op was does it or does it not HELP, it wasnt is it essential or not.
Disagree with you on the other point, plenty of people burn significant calories just by walking or swimming consistently. It can be used to give them extra calories to eat or add to the deficit. Significant is a bit subjective, but 250, 500 a day isnt anything to be sniffed at. I found it highly helpful from the start. Thast not to say it doesnt start with food moderation, but saying it doesnt help all that much is pretty flawed becayse it depends how much an individual does or doesnt do. If you do benefit from burned calories, then you have to do quite a lot and its easier to not eat 500 calories than burn 500, but thats a different subject.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions