Saw Something On The News This Morning About Exercise Being More Important Than Diet
Options
Replies
-
Pinnacle_IAO wrote: »
Diet is more important for general health and wellness, and exercise is more important for physical fitness.bcalvanese wrote: »Saw something on the news this morning about Coca Cola supporting a study that exercise is more important than diet. I can see why they would support such a study because they sell sugary drinks, but it still seems interesting to me because I always felt that exercise is more important.
Just wondering what other people think about this.
When losing weight, becoming physically fit changes the whole way your body functions.
Some just won't get that and are satisfied a shrunken version of their current body.
Whatever, to each his own, but my goals are much higher than mere weight loss.
+10 -
And I found one of the articles in the NYTimes: http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/08/09/coca-cola-funds-scientists-who-shift-blame-for-obesity-away-from-bad-diets/?_r=0bcalvanese wrote: »
::facepalm:: Really? It takes me a 5K run to burn as many calories as are in a 20 ounce bottle of Coke. Can you say "discredited"?
0 -
Pinnacle_IAO wrote: »
The correlation may explained another way.Exercise is for health. How much you eat and whether you are in deficit or not will cause a weight gain or weight loss.
If a person is too lazy and undisciplined to exercise, they're probably too lazy and undisciplined to stick to proper food intake. The excuses for not exercising work just as well when applied to diet.
Excuses are extremely versatile and multifaceted.
It's still CI/CO whether you exercise or not.0 -
-
I've never understood people trying to completely separate exercise and diet as being more or less important than the other for weight loss. You need a deficit. You can get that through, relative to maintenance, exercising more, or eating less. Or you can get that through eating more calories, but exercising in a way that burns even more calories. You can get that through reducing your exercise burns, as long as you reduce your intake even more.
Now, I certainly get people focusing on whichever method works best for them. But the whole "you can't out-exercise a bad diet" thing is kinda nonsense (from a weight loss perspective). You can. Are you likely to? Well, that may depend on how bad you mean by bad. But there's a while lot of eating you can out-exercise if you're willing to say, run 100 miles a week (not that I'd recommend that).0 -
For sure!Pinnacle_IAO wrote: »
The correlation may explained another way.Exercise is for health. How much you eat and whether you are in deficit or not will cause a weight gain or weight loss.
If a person is too lazy and undisciplined to exercise, they're probably too lazy and undisciplined to stick to proper food intake. The excuses for not exercising work just as well when applied to diet.
Excuses are extremely versatile and multifaceted.
It's still CI/CO whether you exercise or not.
The question for some is which method to achieve a deficit results in a better version of who we become?
0 -
Exercise is for health. How much you eat and whether you are in deficit or not will cause a weight gain or weight loss.
Actually exercise is the only way I get to eat a satisfying amount of food while remaining in deficit. Since it helps me stick to a deficit, it does indeed cause weight loss.
I personally hate study after study about weight loss. As if it's a competition between diet and exercise. BOTH. Do both. If I'm sitting at the beach and notice my skin is getting burned, do I turn to scientific studies to determine if I should a) reapply sunscreen or b) get in the shade? No, of course not. I do both, and fast.0 -
For some n=1 stuff, doing C25K has really messed with all my spreadsheets and I've started dropping weight more quickly than I'd like, despite eating over 3000 calories a day. I'm going to have to start eating more pretty quickly or stop C25K.0
-
Exercise is for health. How much you eat and whether you are in deficit or not will cause a weight gain or weight loss.
Actually exercise is the only way I get to eat a satisfying amount of food while remaining in deficit. Since it helps me stick to a deficit, it does indeed cause weight loss.
I personally hate study after study about weight loss. As if it's a competition between diet and exercise. BOTH. Do both. If I'm sitting at the beach and notice my skin is getting burned, do I turn to scientific studies to determine if I should a) reapply sunscreen or b) get in the shade? No, of course not. I do both, and fast.
+10 -
Agreed.I've never understood people trying to completely separate exercise and diet as being more or less important than the other for weight loss. You need a deficit. You can get that through, relative to maintenance, exercising more, or eating less. Or you can get that through eating more calories, but exercising in a way that burns even more calories. You can get that through reducing your exercise burns, as long as you reduce your intake even more.
Now, I certainly get people focusing on whichever method works best for them. But the whole "you can't out-exercise a bad diet" thing is kinda nonsense (from a weight loss perspective). You can. Are you likely to? Well, that may depend on how bad you mean by bad. But there's a while lot of eating you can out-exercise if you're willing to say, run 100 miles a week (not that I'd recommend that).
It's very silly to try to separate the CI from the CO, as if they don't both count.
Weight loss happens in the kitchen, but it happens in the pool, too.
0 -
I've never understood people trying to completely separate exercise and diet as being more or less important than the other for weight loss. You need a deficit. You can get that through, relative to maintenance, exercising more, or eating less. Or you can get that through eating more calories, but exercising in a way that burns even more calories. You can get that through reducing your exercise burns, as long as you reduce your intake even more.
Now, I certainly get people focusing on whichever method works best for them. But the whole "you can't out-exercise a bad diet" thing is kinda nonsense (from a weight loss perspective). You can. Are you likely to? Well, that may depend on how bad you mean by bad. But there's a while lot of eating you can out-exercise if you're willing to say, run 100 miles a week (not that I'd recommend that).
If you eat more calories than you burn, you're going to gain weight. Period. This is what most of us mean when we say that "you can't out-exercise a bad diet." Sure exercise makes the calories out part of the equation easier but the simple fact is, there are very few people who can afford, or are willing to invest, the time necessary to burn enough calories though exercise to counteract their excess intake or even more than that if they want to lose weight.
What you see more often is people who don't understand CICO doing 30 minutes of some exercise DVD, burning ~150-200 calories in the process, and then drinking a quart of Gatorade (230 calories) after. Or then having some treat because they've "earned" it though exercise. They then wonder why they are still gaining weight even though they are exercising.0 -
While weight management is all about diet, I tend to make better food choices when I exercise regularly. Exercise makes me feel good and is the only thing that helps my depression.0
-
Agreed.I've never understood people trying to completely separate exercise and diet as being more or less important than the other for weight loss. You need a deficit. You can get that through, relative to maintenance, exercising more, or eating less. Or you can get that through eating more calories, but exercising in a way that burns even more calories. You can get that through reducing your exercise burns, as long as you reduce your intake even more.
Now, I certainly get people focusing on whichever method works best for them. But the whole "you can't out-exercise a bad diet" thing is kinda nonsense (from a weight loss perspective). You can. Are you likely to? Well, that may depend on how bad you mean by bad. But there's a while lot of eating you can out-exercise if you're willing to say, run 100 miles a week (not that I'd recommend that).
It's very silly to try to separate the CI from the CO, as if they don't both count.
Weight loss happens in the kitchen, but it happens in the pool, too.
Agree.
But I think a better way to put it is...
CI happens in the kitchen, and CO happens in resting calories and in exercise. not just in resting calories.
If you use only one or the other, you will most likely fail.
If you use both, you will most likely succeed.
I am using both, and the reason I put exercise first is because it allows me to eat a variety of foods to insure I am getting all my nutrients FIRST, and allows me to treat myself to a cheesesteak or a slice of pizza or a "Coka-Cola" once and a while. And all the time I save in having to weigh every gram of everything I put in my mouth, I could have walked at a fast pace, rode my bike, or kayaked for an hour.
I feel better
I look better
I am better
And I'm losing weight.0 -
My experience is that I cannot out exercise my "fork lifts". Do the math. How many calories can you realistically burn (even accepting the most optimistic numbers as 100% accurate), given the time you have to devote to your preferred exercise?
Even without taking into consideration the muscle tissue damage which may also be a factor with certain forms of exercise, my experience is that I lost weight better with a diminished but not severely limited number of calories in, and a low-moderate exercise metric.
Your results may vary.0 -
The OP is very vague. You say they are supporting a study. Does that mean there are no results yet? More important for what?
If they are talking weight loss then both are important because each affects one side of the CI<CO equation.
If they are talking general health, then they may be correct.
0 -
Agreed.I've never understood people trying to completely separate exercise and diet as being more or less important than the other for weight loss. You need a deficit. You can get that through, relative to maintenance, exercising more, or eating less. Or you can get that through eating more calories, but exercising in a way that burns even more calories. You can get that through reducing your exercise burns, as long as you reduce your intake even more.
Now, I certainly get people focusing on whichever method works best for them. But the whole "you can't out-exercise a bad diet" thing is kinda nonsense (from a weight loss perspective). You can. Are you likely to? Well, that may depend on how bad you mean by bad. But there's a while lot of eating you can out-exercise if you're willing to say, run 100 miles a week (not that I'd recommend that).
It's very silly to try to separate the CI from the CO, as if they don't both count.
Weight loss happens in the kitchen, but it happens in the pool, too.
Yup, in 2010 I lost 30 pounds in the pool and gym without counting a single calorie or otherwise doing much fussing in the kitchen. I like to eat a certain volume of food which is fine for a Moderately Active activity level but not for a Sedentary activity level.
0 -
I read about this too. They are just paying for this study to try and make it seem like sugary drinks aren't so bad. What else would you do if you had a 14% downfall?0
-
For maintenance, exercise is most definitely more important than diet. During weight loss, it looks a little different because most people find it easier to create a calorie deficit through cutting calories than by exercise.0
-
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »The OP is very vague. You say they are supporting a study. Does that mean there are no results yet? More important for what?
If they are talking weight loss then both are important because each affects one side of the CI<CO equation.
If they are talking general health, then they may be correct.
See http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10230504/eating-less-is-bad-for-business#latest
0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »The OP is very vague. You say they are supporting a study. Does that mean there are no results yet? More important for what?
If they are talking weight loss then both are important because each affects one side of the CI<CO equation.
If they are talking general health, then they may be correct.
It's just something I saw on the news while I was getting my coffee. I don't know any more details than I posted.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 393 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
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 931 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions