Saw Something On The News This Morning About Exercise Being More Important Than Diet
Replies
-
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 -
chismmegan wrote: »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?
I think I mentioned this in my original post.
my curiosity is about the study itself, and what other people think about that.0 -
Something to think about: We are very good at losing weight. It doesn't require a study to tell us that if people want to lose weight, they just need to eat less. But the big elephant in the room is that even with us knowing what is required, most people aren't losing weight and many of those who do will not keep it off. If my understanding of this study is correct, they aren't looking at how to lose weight. Instead, they are looking at why people are gaining weight. If they can use Coca-cola's money to find an answer, that's great.
Just simple observation tells us that there are many people who gain weight without increasing the amount they eat. We have no problem saying that people gain weight once they reach adulthood because their bodies are no longer growing. A man in his twenties puts on weight while eating the same number of calories as he did when he was a teenager.0 -
BMR is scarcely different between a 50 year old man and a teenager, let alone a 20-something man and a teenager.TimothyFish wrote: »A man in his twenties puts on weight while eating the same number of calories as he did when he was a teenager.
0 -
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.
So then say that instead of "you can't out-exercise a bad diet" when I, as well as others, certainly do out-exercise what many would consider to be a "bad diet." Any sedentary person who ate what I eat would be eating a "bad diet" relative to their exercise level, and yet I out-exercise it on a consistent basis.
0 -
Long Island Ice Teas!yopeeps025 wrote: »Coca cola should expand their corporation. Only time I drink it is to splash it to top of liquor.
0 -
There are only so many ways to create a calorie deficit, and exercise is definitely a legitimate way to do it. *shrug*0
-
This is pretty much how I feel about Coca Cola and it's new "breakthrough" information
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/to-your-health/wp/2015/08/10/coca-cola-is-funding-obesity-research-with-a-biased-message-nutrition-experts-say/
Also this New York Times article:
http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/08/09/coca-cola-funds-scientists-who-shift-blame-for-obesity-away-from-bad-diets/0 -
kshama2001 wrote: »
I can't help you on your confusion.
It is CI/CO, some people can't exercise for whatever reasons, like injury, sickness or just don't like to exercise. I've had to take some exercise breaks because of surgery, but I still lose weight, because why?? I was in a deficit. Plain and simple.0 -
It gives you a bigger deficit for which you are suppose to eat back on.
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 -
This content has been removed.
-
DeguelloTex wrote: »
BMR is scarcely different between a 50 year old man and a teenager, let alone a 20-something man and a teenager.TimothyFish wrote: »A man in his twenties puts on weight while eating the same number of calories as he did when he was a teenager.
There is a difference of 50 calories per day between a 15 year old and a 25 year old. It is a whole 175 calories per day between a 15 year old and a 50 year old. If a 25 year old ate the same amount as a 15 year old and they both did nothing but sat around on the couch all day, the 25 year old would gain more than five pounds in one year. The 50 year old would gain 18 pounds. So, I'm not sure I want to call it "scarcely different."
However, you make a good point. We often see teenagers eating significant amounts of food without gaining weight. I would think that is more than 50 calories per day more than the adult versions of themselves, yet we see people gain weight after reaching adulthood. If it isn't how much they are growing that makes them thin and it isn't because they are eating less than adults, then it has to be something else. The other thing that is different between thin teenagers and the fat adult version of themselves is that teenagers are involved in sports, band, and other activities, while the fat adults just sit on the sidelines watching their children participate.0 -
It gives you a bigger deficit for which you are suppose to eat back on.
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.
Riiiight, and eating those calories back allows me to eat a satisfying amount. Otherwise, to create a mere 250 calorie deficit at my height (and close to goal), I would currently only be able to eat 1190 calories. No thank you!! So I exercise and eat back an average of 200-300 calories a day. Exercise is crucial in allowing me to eat enough while staying in deficit. I would have quit a long time ago without it!0 -
The studies coming out about maintenance showing nearly complete overlap between significant exercise and long term weigh management are telling.
In theory, not necessary. In practice? Maybe a different story.
Could also just be that the people who successfully maintain also realize that exercise is good for you, apart from the calories it burns.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).
At some point though, the exercise burns you'd have to achieve on a daily basis are just not doable. It's really easy eating 1000 or more over your maintenance. It can be done in the span of a few minutes. To exercise that away takes hours of exercise, and that daily if you're over your maintenance by that much daily.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.
The fact that some people eat more when they exercise and negate the CO really isn't relevant to what can be done. Don't statistics show that the average adult gains 5-10 lbs per year? That's overeating by < 100 calories per day. For those people, it would be very easy to create a deficit through exercise with absolutely no changes in diet.0 -
I thought so too before I realized I wasn't getting anywhere with eating way over my calorie limit while burning almost 1000 calories a day. The saying is so true...you can't outrun a bad diet.
It just isn't realistic or going to happen unless you're an athlete or training for a marathon or just have a fast metabolism which I unfortunately don't have.
While I don't think exercise is more important or less important than proper nutrition, I do believe exercise goes hand in hand with proper nutrition. You can't just eat healthy and expect to have a fit body. You can get lean but you will be lean with little to no muscle mass. And you can't be lean without losing excess fat through proper diet.
Some people think skinny=fit but it doesn't. Skinny=just eating at or under calorie goal
Fit=lean with muscles, its a big difference
If you want both a lean body and a fit body, you have to do both. This has taken me five years to realize but at least I have arrived now lol.
0 -
The only study that interests me is the one of my 40+ years of weight loss experimenting on my body. I have found the following to be true. I can maintain weight with exercise only, but if I want to lose weight restricting caloric intake is essential. As I age, exercise makes eating at a deficit more pleasant and sustainable for the long term. In my 20's, I could lose weight eating a can of soft drink and a snickers bar for dinner, because I didn't have an overwhelming desire to eat anything again until 10 the next morning. In middle age not so much. Conclusion, increased exercise or not, I will not be adding a full sugared soft drinks into my day.0
-
TimothyFish wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
BMR is scarcely different between a 50 year old man and a teenager, let alone a 20-something man and a teenager.TimothyFish wrote: »A man in his twenties puts on weight while eating the same number of calories as he did when he was a teenager.
There is a difference of 50 calories per day between a 15 year old and a 25 year old. It is a whole 175 calories per day between a 15 year old and a 50 year old. If a 25 year old ate the same amount as a 15 year old and they both did nothing but sat around on the couch all day, the 25 year old would gain more than five pounds in one year. The 50 year old would gain 18 pounds. So, I'm not sure I want to call it "scarcely different."
However, you make a good point. We often see teenagers eating significant amounts of food without gaining weight. I would think that is more than 50 calories per day more than the adult versions of themselves, yet we see people gain weight after reaching adulthood. If it isn't how much they are growing that makes them thin and it isn't because they are eating less than adults, then it has to be something else. The other thing that is different between thin teenagers and the fat adult version of themselves is that teenagers are involved in sports, band, and other activities, while the fat adults just sit on the sidelines watching their children participate.
That is an average 15, 25 and 50 year old. The differences in BMR there are mostly due to foreseen LBM losses as you age which may not happen if you're paying attention to that.0 -
Did it specifically say for weigh loss? Or did it perhaps say for maintaining a healthy weight? Could be the company spinning a particular study for their own ends, but the actual conclusion of any study is in the details that often get overlooked in popular reporting.0
-
stevencloser wrote: »The studies coming out about maintenance showing nearly complete overlap between significant exercise and long term weigh management are telling.
In theory, not necessary. In practice? Maybe a different story.
Could also just be that the people who successfully maintain also realize that exercise is good for you, apart from the calories it burns.
You're right, that could be. But if that's the case, I would like to see a study that looks at that. It seems more logical to conclude that exercise encourages successful maintenance than that successful maintenance encourages people to exercise.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
- 232.5K 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