Exercise doesn't help you lose weight...say what?
Replies
-
I am beginning to see why the obesity problem is so bad in the US and other countries, and most diets fail.
It seems to me by reading this and other threads, that most people only use the CI part of CICO, and think that the CO part is less important, and many think that it does not even count for anything.
Maybe it should just be CI.
I am also learning that many people go to one extreme or the other (too much diet or too much exercise), and I think that too much exercise is just as bad as not enough exercise.
The average person is capable of obtaining a good fitness level with an hour of cardio 3 to 4 times a week, and an hour of muscular 3 to 4 times a week. That is 6 to 8 hours a week to keep your body healthy, and it does not have to be extreme either. Once you get to a good fitness level, it takes even less to maintain it.
Once that is done, diet becomes les and less important, because your body is in a state where it can maintain a healthy weight pretty much all by itself as long as you eat a variety of healthy foods, and don't gorge yourself on crap.
So, if you want to use just calories to control your weight, diet IS the most important thing, because it is the ONLY thing.
But, if you want to maintain a healthy body weight without having to constantly count every calorie for eternity, then exercise IS the most important thing, and calories become secondary, because you only have to not gorge yourself.
My way of summing this up is...
CI - bad
CO - bad
CICO - good
All things must have a balance grasshopper...
0 -
Swimming! The fat doesn't hold us fatties back in the pool.stevencloser wrote: »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.
I tired running and I don't know if I have old knees that have suffered too much or if I was just too fat at 170-180 to do it without pain, but I couldn't run. I hope to try again when I'm like 140-145.
Swimming, though, EVERYONE can do. And burn a whole lot of calories! Nothing beats swimming for a great workout. You get cardio and resistance, you stay cool (don't get all hot or sweaty), it's easy on the joints and the fat doesn't hold you back even a little.
Just have to add my plug for swimming each and every time anyone suggests that fat people can't get as good a workout as those who are more fit.
Everyone can swim! And swimming is great exercise!
0 -
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?
Jumping to edge cases is an admission of defeat.
0 -
stevencloser wrote: »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.
This is one of the reasons exercise is so depressing and demoralizing for me, personally. Spend forever just talking myself into going and I get all of 72 calories burned while I'm there.
0 -
bcalvanese wrote: »I am beginning to see why the obesity problem is so bad in the US and other countries, and most diets fail.
It's as bad as the "all calories are equal" nonsense that gets paraded as gospel around here.
People continually getting sidetracked (allow themselves to sidetrack) into failure because a one-liner that is true in some vague theoretical unicorn-like scenario is taken as being meaningful out in the real world.
All calories are not equal, and exercise is extremely important for long term weight management.0 -
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?
Jumping to edge cases is an admission of defeat.
Says you. Lol. Nice try.
Exercise is wonderful and I love it, but I don't excercise to ßuppoty my eating, I eat to fuel my body for exercise. Likewise, if I'm sedentary or chose not to exercise, then I would need to fuel my body accordingly.
And your blanket statement about those who say all calories being created as equal is a red herron.
CICO WISE all calories are created equal, but not all food of same calories are created equal is when it comes to nutrition.0 -
Swimming! The fat doesn't hold us fatties back in the pool.stevencloser wrote: »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.
Inexpert swimmers often don't really burn that many calories swimming, though. I'm a pretty good (steady, been swimming all my life, done triathlons) swimmer, but slow, and I don't burn nearly so many calories in an hour of swimming as an hour of running. This was true even when I was much heavier.
Burning calories isn't all there is when it comes to exercise, though (which ironically is the point I think a lot of the "diet is what matters" people are trying to make, even though IMO you can't separate the significance of CI/CO--it just depends on how an individual wishes to approach it).0 -
bcalvanese wrote: »I am beginning to see why the obesity problem is so bad in the US and other countries, and most diets fail.
It's as bad as the "all calories are equal" nonsense that gets paraded as gospel around here.
Huge leap given that most of the people claiming diet is what matters actually do exercise. (It's not my position; I think exercise matters just as much. However, I'm not going to argue the point by pretending that everyone making it doesn't exercise. Thus, how is it "sidetracking" them?)
Similarly, the people who argue that "a calorie is a calorie" when it comes to weight loss (like me) generally also think diet matters for health and for how sustainable a way of eating is, and try to eat healthy diets, often with serious attention to such things as getting lots of vegetables and adequate (or more than adequate) protein.
So again, how is this "sidetracking" us?
I just try to do others the courtesy of believing that they understand that some diets are healthier and more satisfying than others and that exercise is good for all kinds of reasons.
I agree with you that for most people (including me, not including those unable to exercise for various reasons) exercise is quite important for long-term weight management.0 -
-
Where are these demonstrations, then?
0 -
DeguelloTex wrote: »
Where are these demonstrations, then?
Every time someone posts a minimum protein recommendation.
Believing otherwise requires claiming that choice of calories has no impact on body composition - if you are prepared to make that claim, I'm happy to discuss it with you.
0 -
For people who have never exercised, the effort of even slow swimming is much greater than slow swimming done by people who do it regularly, so they'll burn a little more than I would if I swam at the same speed, because it's harder for them.lemurcat12 wrote: »
Swimming! The fat doesn't hold us fatties back in the pool.stevencloser wrote: »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.
Inexpert swimmers often don't really burn that many calories swimming, though. I'm a pretty good (steady, been swimming all my life, done triathlons) swimmer, but slow, and I don't burn nearly so many calories in an hour of swimming as an hour of running. This was true even when I was much heavier.
Burning calories isn't all there is when it comes to exercise, though (which ironically is the point I think a lot of the "diet is what matters" people are trying to make, even though IMO you can't separate the significance of CI/CO--it just depends on how an individual wishes to approach it).
The only way to burn more running than swimming is to run harder/faster than you swim. Given the same exertion, swimming will burn more calories. At least that's what all the charts give us. It's not like I have personally done the research or taken a class. I'm just going by charts.
Burning calories isn't all there is to exercise. Agreed. I didn't say it was. There are many health benefits as well as burning calories. Especially with swimming! It works all the muscles and it provides resistance.
I am a HUGE fan of swimming for weight loss, especially for people who think they're too fat to get any exercise!!
0 -
DeguelloTex wrote: »
Where are these demonstrations, then?
Every time someone posts a minimum protein recommendation.
Believing otherwise requires claiming that choice of calories has no impact on body composition - if you are prepared to make that claim, I'm happy to discuss it with you.
Macros aren't calories. Macros carry calories. There's minimum recommendations for various health related reasons including body composition, but what you call measurable and meaningful comes out to what, a 10 Calorie difference in your TDEE per pound of lean mass you may have lost or gained as a result of your macro choices?0 -
DeguelloTex wrote: »
Do you have a link to those studies?47Jacqueline wrote: »Traditionally we've been told that it's all about calories in calories out and you don't have to exercise to lose weight, but recently studies have revealed that exercise is more important in the weight loss journey than previously acknowledged.
So, of course, when you eat at a deficit you will lose weight. It turns out that a deficit is a deficit, no matter how you get there.
Also, when people complain they are not losing weight and they're eating at a deficit, it turns out they probably are not. If one is honest about their intake, they will find they actually eat more than they thing. That's why keeping a diary/log of what we eat is so important, as is weighing and measuring accurately.
Movement/activity/exercise/working out can add to a deficit. However, when people count activities of daily living, they tend to also overestimate how much effort it takes to do things. Which is why, again, keeping an accurate measurement of the calories expended is important.
This tendency to underestimate eating and overestimate calorie expenditure is something that must be addressed for ultimate success.
I believe the latest one I read was on this site: https://www.acefitness.org. I'm a member, but I believe their articles are publicly accessible.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?
O really?
Here's the fact, without change. I read OP's post. There were exactly two questions asked, and I'll quote directly:
(1)" ... say what? "
(2) "Your thoughts ? " <== not even a question, despite what the punctuation implies.
Go back and check. We'll wait ...
You're some kinda Special Einstein, aren't you ?
0 -
Define "meaningful impact," then. Changes in body composition have a relatively small impact on BMR or TDEE. Twenty-five pounds of additional muscle would mean you could eat about an extra Double Stuf Oreo per day. How many men, let alone women, do you know who've put on twenty-five pounds of muscle? And, of those, how many consider the calories in one Double Stuf Oreo to make a meaningful impact on the rate of weight loss?DeguelloTex wrote: »
Where are these demonstrations, then?
Every time someone posts a minimum protein recommendation.
Believing otherwise requires claiming that choice of calories has no impact on body composition - if you are prepared to make that claim, I'm happy to discuss it with you.
0 -
SergeantSausage 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?
O really?
Here's the fact, without change. I read OP's post. There were exactly two questions asked, and I'll quote directly:
(1)" ... say what? "
(2) "Your thoughts ? " <== not even a question, despite what the punctuation implies.
Go back and check. We'll wait ...
You're some kinda Special Einstein, aren't you ?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?
Clearly the subject matter is about whether exercise helps or not. Its also contained in the heading of the thread.
If it was asking the question can you lose weight without exercise then the OP would have said so. Go ahead though and answer a question that wasnt asked whilst ignoring the one that was.0 -
Well, I'm not going to search the site for it, but burning, say, an extra net 500 calories a day is non-trivial.47Jacqueline wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
Do you have a link to those studies?47Jacqueline wrote: »Traditionally we've been told that it's all about calories in calories out and you don't have to exercise to lose weight, but recently studies have revealed that exercise is more important in the weight loss journey than previously acknowledged.
So, of course, when you eat at a deficit you will lose weight. It turns out that a deficit is a deficit, no matter how you get there.
Also, when people complain they are not losing weight and they're eating at a deficit, it turns out they probably are not. If one is honest about their intake, they will find they actually eat more than they thing. That's why keeping a diary/log of what we eat is so important, as is weighing and measuring accurately.
Movement/activity/exercise/working out can add to a deficit. However, when people count activities of daily living, they tend to also overestimate how much effort it takes to do things. Which is why, again, keeping an accurate measurement of the calories expended is important.
This tendency to underestimate eating and overestimate calorie expenditure is something that must be addressed for ultimate success.
I believe the latest one I read was on this site: https://www.acefitness.org. I'm a member, but I believe their articles are publicly accessible.
Regardless of exercise, though, it is still all about calories in and calories out. All exercise does is change the calories out side of the equation.
0 -
Well, I'm not going to search the site for it, but burning, say, an extra net 500 calories a day is non-trivial.DeguelloTex wrote: »
I believe the latest one I read was on this site: https://www.acefitness.org. I'm a member, but I believe their articles are publicly accessible.
Regardless of exercise, though, it is still all about calories in and calories out. All exercise does is change the calories out side of the equation.
[/quote]
Absolutely and loads of posts have been made about the deficit being the thing that matters. The fact exercise can contribute to the calories out/ expenditure side shows it does help. Apparently some people are in denial of this.
0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »
Swimming! The fat doesn't hold us fatties back in the pool.stevencloser wrote: »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.
Inexpert swimmers often don't really burn that many calories swimming, though. I'm a pretty good (steady, been swimming all my life, done triathlons) swimmer, but slow, and I don't burn nearly so many calories in an hour of swimming as an hour of running. This was true even when I was much heavier.
Burning calories isn't all there is when it comes to exercise, though (which ironically is the point I think a lot of the "diet is what matters" people are trying to make, even though IMO you can't separate the significance of CI/CO--it just depends on how an individual wishes to approach it).
For people who have never exercised, the effort of even slow swimming is much greater than slow swimming done by people who do it regularly, so they'll burn a little more than I would if I swam at the same speed, because it's harder for them.
People think this is true, but it's generally not. For example, running feels harder if you don't do it much, but that doesn't mean you burn more calories.
Swimming might have some additional calories from inefficiencies/flailing about, but on the whole being an inexpert swimming and feeling like you are working hard because you aren't used to it doesn't mean you actually are burning tons of calories by comparison with people who are better swimmers.The only way to burn more running than swimming is to run harder/faster than you swim. Given the same exertion, swimming will burn more calories. At least that's what all the charts give us. It's not like I have personally done the research or taken a class. I'm just going by charts.
You have to compare based on distance covered in the period, not just perceived exertion. Lots of people who think they are swimming really hard (including essentially all new swimmers) aren't doing more than "light" swimming based on actual distance covered/speed.Burning calories isn't all there is to exercise. Agreed. I didn't say it was.
Yes, on that I thought we were agreeing.0 -
DeguelloTex wrote: »
I believe the latest one I read was on this site: https://www.acefitness.org. I'm a member, but I believe their articles are publicly accessible.
Well, I'm not going to search the site for it, but burning, say, an extra net 500 calories a day is non-trivial.
Okay, I've lost track of the discussion, I guess, but given an accurate calorie count (I agree that there's some evidence that for some foods calories are overstated), how does on burn an extra 500 calories/day based on food choice?
Are you saying the difference in the resulting physique makes such a difference?
For the record, I don't think food choice is irrelevant -- I think it matters when trying to gain muscle and matters IF outside a broadly normal calorie or macro ratio when losing (as there are things you can do that make it easier to lose muscle, but usually that's not the main concern someone who is obese should have about food choice--instead health and sustainability and whatever will help drop the weight the best for that person should be, all else is majoring in the minors and taking the risk of making the person think it's too complicated/hard to bother with).
I also understand there are differences in TEF, but again that won't matter given a normal macro range (and the fact that normally protein shouldn't be too high and carbs and fat will involve the most discretion and largely substitute for each other).0 -
Nope. Food type is preference only and has nothing to do with weight loss. Calories in/calories out does.0 -
Nope. Food type is preference only and has nothing to do with weight loss. Calories in/calories out does.
I completely agree.
When I asked - what do I count to lose weight, fat, calories, carbs, sugar? Always the answer was Calories. The rest are nutrients. Calories are a unit of measure.
0 -
Nope. Food type is preference only and has nothing to do with weight loss. Calories in/calories out does.
I completely agree.
When I asked - what do I count to lose weight, fat, calories, carbs, sugar? Always the answer was Calories. The rest are nutrients. Calories are a unit of measure.
Yep. It seems to me food type provides nutrients that can either help or hinder us when it comes to satiety, energy levels, and meeting macros and micros.0 -
I feel like a celebrity with everyone referring to me as the "OP" haha! Had no idea this thread would spark up this many responses. Some of you folks are really getting into it too. No real need to get nasty with anyone on here, it's just a fun forum for fitness, we're all here for essentially the same goal, to get in better overall shape in some form.
I agree with many of you stating that diet alone is all that is necessary for weight loss. No debate there. I just didn't sit well with the idea of someone stating that exercise does not help you lose weight, because to me it does. Many of you have mentioned the CICO concept. Provided you have the CI side of things in order (not eating excessive amounts of food all week long) and you are aware that a deficit must be present in order to lose weight, I see no reason why exercise would not help you lose weight. For the moment we can ignore all of the awesome health benefits that exercise provides and just focus on the weight loss portion. Exercise increases your calories burned or calories out, thereby helping you to achieve a calorie deficit. However, this is only helpful if you are maintaining a specific level of calories in.
If my TDEE is 3000 calories and I drop to 2500 calories per day and do no additional exercise I should lose around 1lb per week roughly (500cal x 7days = 3500cal per week). If my TDEE is 3000 calories and I drop to 2750 calories per day and burn 250 calories per day extra through regular exercise, I am essentially at the same 2500 calories at the end of the day and would therefore lose the same 1 lb per week. In this particular scenario I fail to see how exercise is not helping me to lose weight? Can I lose weight without exercise? Yes. Can I lose weight with exercise. Yes.
Of course if my TDEE is 3000 calories and I'm eating 3500 calories per day and drop to 3250 calories per day and burn 250 per day through exercise, then I'm right back to 3000 calories and will not gain or lose any weight in theory, so in that case exercise did not help me lose weight.
So I guess it is more dependent on getting your TDEE nailed down and your target deficit nailed down if you really want the exercise to help you lose weight. So "it depends" is a good answer haha!0 -
When I exercise regularly -
Mentally and physically I feel better - I also want to eat better and am less likely to binge on rubbish foods. So whilst the science says exercise does not help - for me it does! Also I enjoy going to the gym and I can see the health benefits as I get older. I don't think it matters what size you are - regular exercise is beneficial!0 -
I believe 80% diet 20% exercise. I exercise 7 days a week and usually burn between 300-700 calories, but I still stick to my deficit and don't eat any extra calories back! I exercise to feel good and it also help's with toning up my body to get rid of the flabby bit's. There are so many people on here that don't think exercise is useful? it's very good for your mind as well as your body. I think everybody should have some kind of exercise each day as long as you stick to your deficit!! Don't agree, don't really care to be honest.0
-
-
0
-
DeguelloTex wrote: »
Where are these demonstrations, then?
Every time someone posts a minimum protein recommendation.
Believing otherwise requires claiming that choice of calories has no impact on body composition - if you are prepared to make that claim, I'm happy to discuss it with you.
The idea the caloric value is the only property of a food is incomplete.
Looking at CICO as if it tells the entire story is incomplete.
Nope. Food type is preference only and has nothing to do with weight loss. Calories in/calories out does.
I completely agree.
When I asked - what do I count to lose weight, fat, calories, carbs, sugar? Always the answer was Calories. The rest are nutrients. Calories are a unit of measure.
Yep. It seems to me food type provides nutrients that can either help or hinder us when it comes to satiety, energy levels, and meeting macros and micros.
The listed elements of nutrients and satiety all matter.
Just look at pre and post workout supplements. They have different nutrient contents.
The body needs calories with a different nutrient content at different times
Not so sure why this basic topic seems like rocket science on MFP.
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
- 175.9K 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