Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
80% diet, 20% exercise.
LisaMarieSwain
Posts: 9 Member
"I tell my students that we control our body weight by what we put in our mouth and we control our fitness through exercise," Gibala said.
I pulled this quote from a link in an article posted on MFP. It got me thinking; by diet alone (restricting calories according to loseit app guidelines), I lost over 50 pounds a couple years ago. And here I am, 70 pounds over weight, and understanding I made a wrong turn somewhere.
I had a doctor once tell me that weight loss was 80% diet and 20% exercise. I am beginning to question that. Perhaps the actual physical weight loss, measurable on the scale is affected proportionately to those percentages, but without exercise, the physical appearance changes (and there are some extraordinary benefits to losing weight for sake of your health) but internally, you aren't improving.
I know that the less you weigh (down to your healthy weight) puts less strain on your body. I'm talking about the changes that come from body chemistry as you begin to and continue to exercise.
I'm beginning to think that exercise; regular, daily activity, is key to long term results; to life changing habits being formed, and becoming accustomed to and desiring the chemical releases that happen to you during and after a workout.
Does anyone have any research to back this up, or similar experiences that support (or dispute) this?
I pulled this quote from a link in an article posted on MFP. It got me thinking; by diet alone (restricting calories according to loseit app guidelines), I lost over 50 pounds a couple years ago. And here I am, 70 pounds over weight, and understanding I made a wrong turn somewhere.
I had a doctor once tell me that weight loss was 80% diet and 20% exercise. I am beginning to question that. Perhaps the actual physical weight loss, measurable on the scale is affected proportionately to those percentages, but without exercise, the physical appearance changes (and there are some extraordinary benefits to losing weight for sake of your health) but internally, you aren't improving.
I know that the less you weigh (down to your healthy weight) puts less strain on your body. I'm talking about the changes that come from body chemistry as you begin to and continue to exercise.
I'm beginning to think that exercise; regular, daily activity, is key to long term results; to life changing habits being formed, and becoming accustomed to and desiring the chemical releases that happen to you during and after a workout.
Does anyone have any research to back this up, or similar experiences that support (or dispute) this?
3
Replies
-
Weight loss is 100% calorie balance. Take in less than is used by the body, regardless of exercise.
Exercise has many benefits, but weight loss is about energy balance. Full stop.14 -
Weight management is 100% about balancing energy consumption and expenditure. Exercise has numerous health benefits...and yes, exercise is going to change how you look and your overall composition...it also makes weight management easier in that you are expending more energy...but it isn't necessary to weight management.
That said, I've been in maintenance for going on three years this week and regular exercise is a pretty key component to that in that it makes it more difficult to over eat...it's certainly not impossible to overeat, but I have a lot more latitude than if I didn't exercise. If I didn't exercise, I'd just have to eat quite a bit less to maintain...which would be sucky.
If you look at most people who maintain a healthy weight, they tend to maintain a healthy lifestyle in general...they tend to eat relatively well and they tend to get regular exercise and are often just more active in general.
It's too easy to overeat when you're sedentary.11 -
Physically, like others have said, it's energy balance, and exercise can play a major role in that or almost none.
Mentally, it probably depends on the person. It's very important to me (I seem to maintain my weight easily when active). So I hate things like that 80/20 -- makes no sense and is basically meaningless. I tend to see losing weight as part of an effort to be as fit and healthy as I can be, too, and for me exercise is an essential part of that. That said, if I couldn't exercise it is nice to know that I can maintain weight simply by adjusting my intake.3 -
cmriverside wrote: »Weight loss is 100% calorie balance. Take in less than is used by the body, regardless of exercise.
Exercise has many benefits, but weight loss is about energy balance. Full stop.
This^
For me maintenance = exercise. I've always been able to take the weight off.....exercise or not. Losing weight is a temporary state. Maintenance is a lifetime.
I have concluded that I need to get my butt off the couch or I will always be fat. I don't want to be on a diet forever. So adding exercise gives me a little wiggle room.5 -
LisaMarieSwain wrote: »"I'm beginning to think that exercise; regular, daily activity, is key to long term results; to life changing habits being formed, and becoming accustomed to and desiring the chemical releases that happen to you during and after a workout.
Does anyone have any research to back this up, or similar experiences that support (or dispute) this?
I know exercise is key for me. I'd rather be overweight than eat as little as I'd be able without exercise.
If your question is purely about weight control then obviously weight can be gained or lost without exercise. But activity level does play a part in weight control. You may actually lose fewer pounds with regular exercise since you'll likely retain more muscle.2 -
I have heard weight loss is 80% eating at calorie deficit, 10% exercise, 10% heredity.
And the fact is, eating more calories than you burn results in weight gain, whether or not you exercise.
Moving more, is beneficial to your body, but you still have to eat less calories than you burn to lose weight, calories burned vs calories eaten, has to be equal to maintain, and you will gain weight if you eat more calories than your body burns.1 -
I appreciate all of the feedback. I just like thinking of this as a new way of life; I'm never going back to couch sitting!2
-
Weight loss is NOT simply calories. As I understand and work on, weight loss is like a three leg stool. Leg 1 can be diet, leg 2 would be exercise, and leg 3 would be sleep. I would not have lost 90 pounds simply following a starvation diet CICO. I have able to keep this loss off by paying attention to diet, exercise, sleep and reducing stress.11
-
I'm always amused by the 80% diet/20% exercise rule that's always regurgitated everywhere you look. It may be true for someone who was overeating and has to cut back, but it's different for someone who's not overeating but creates a deficit from exercise rather than reducing intake.
At 152 lbs, i was maintaining on ~1500 calories, while sedentary. A year ago, I started exercising A LOT - elliptical, spinning, swimming, hiking, cycling etc. I've been eating ~1700 calories and I've lost 34 lbs, down to 118 lbs.
So was it diet or exercise? I didn't eat less, in fact, I ate more. I'd say it was 100% exercise and 0% diet in terms of where I derived the calorie deficit that resulted in weight loss. And now in maintenance, since I want to continue eating about 1700 calories, I continue to exercise but since I don't need a deficit any more, I don't have to exercise as much as I did when losing.9 -
Traveler120 wrote: »I'm always amused by the 80% diet/20% exercise rule that's always regurgitated everywhere you look. It may be true for someone who was overeating and has to cut back, but it's different for someone who's not overeating but creates a deficit from exercise rather than reducing intake.
At 152 lbs, i was maintaining on ~1500 calories, while sedentary. A year ago, I started exercising A LOT - elliptical, spinning, swimming, hiking, cycling etc. I've been eating ~1700 calories and I've lost 34 lbs, down to 118 lbs.
So was it diet or exercise? I didn't eat less, in fact, I ate more. I'd say it was 100% exercise and 0% diet in terms of where I derived the calorie deficit that resulted in weight loss. And now in maintenance, since I want to continue eating about 1700 calories, I continue to exercise but since I don't need a deficit any more, I don't have to exercise as much as I did when losing.
You say you are exercising A LOT, so you are burning A LOT more calories, so you can eat more and still lose weight. Eating 1500 and maintaining @ 152 while sedentary vs: eating 1700 and losing and exercising A LOT would indicate that you are burning more than 200 extra calories, so you should be losing weight. You are eating less calories than you are burning. Now you are at maintenance, eating the same amount of calories 1700, exercising less. Nothing amusing, just CICO, eating less calories than you burn to lose, eating the same amount of calories to maintain and exercising less, and it is not 100% because of exercise it is CICO.
3 -
psychologically I think the exercise component is important. When I exercise, I feel inclined to be healthy in other aspects of my life, it makes my body feel more energised and keep me away from stuffing myself. On a day when I don't keep active, I tend to eat too much - the weekend was a case in point. I drove everywhere, I ate too much, I drank too much wine.
Yesterday I rediscovered the joy of walking into the city for a class, then feeling energised I walked home again rather than take the bus. I chose not to eat too much and fill my stomach BECAUSE I had that feeling of being energised. I think the concept of weightloss alone by diet is terrifyingly boring. I care far more about getting fitter so I can do more things, than a figure on a scale, and the weightloss is just a by-product brought on by my more active lifestyle. I doubt you can separate the two, and I imagine that those who succeed long-term, are those who do both.
5 -
LisaMarieSwain wrote: »"I tell my students that we control our body weight by what we put in our mouth and we control our fitness through exercise," Gibala said.
I pulled this quote from a link in an article posted on MFP. It got me thinking; by diet alone (restricting calories according to loseit app guidelines), I lost over 50 pounds a couple years ago. And here I am, 70 pounds over weight, and understanding I made a wrong turn somewhere.
I had a doctor once tell me that weight loss was 80% diet and 20% exercise. I am beginning to question that. Perhaps the actual physical weight loss, measurable on the scale is affected proportionately to those percentages, but without exercise, the physical appearance changes (and there are some extraordinary benefits to losing weight for sake of your health) but internally, you aren't improving.
I know that the less you weigh (down to your healthy weight) puts less strain on your body. I'm talking about the changes that come from body chemistry as you begin to and continue to exercise.
I'm beginning to think that exercise; regular, daily activity, is key to long term results; to life changing habits being formed, and becoming accustomed to and desiring the chemical releases that happen to you during and after a workout.
Does anyone have any research to back this up, or similar experiences that support (or dispute) this?
Physical activity is key to health, it is not key to losing weight. You will have benefits from exercise when overweight, same as weight loss will help improve health even when sedentary.
0 -
snowflake930 wrote: »Traveler120 wrote: »I'm always amused by the 80% diet/20% exercise rule that's always regurgitated everywhere you look. It may be true for someone who was overeating and has to cut back, but it's different for someone who's not overeating but creates a deficit from exercise rather than reducing intake.
At 152 lbs, i was maintaining on ~1500 calories, while sedentary. A year ago, I started exercising A LOT - elliptical, spinning, swimming, hiking, cycling etc. I've been eating ~1700 calories and I've lost 34 lbs, down to 118 lbs.
So was it diet or exercise? I didn't eat less, in fact, I ate more. I'd say it was 100% exercise and 0% diet in terms of where I derived the calorie deficit that resulted in weight loss. And now in maintenance, since I want to continue eating about 1700 calories, I continue to exercise but since I don't need a deficit any more, I don't have to exercise as much as I did when losing.
You say you are exercising A LOT, so you are burning A LOT more calories, so you can eat more and still lose weight. Eating 1500 and maintaining @ 152 while sedentary vs: eating 1700 and losing and exercising A LOT would indicate that you are burning more than 200 extra calories, so you should be losing weight. You are eating less calories than you are burning. Now you are at maintenance, eating the same amount of calories 1700, exercising less. Nothing amusing, just CICO, eating less calories than you burn to lose, eating the same amount of calories to maintain and exercising less, and it is not 100% because of exercise it is CICO.
Pardon my ignorance, but what is CICO?0 -
LisaMarieSwain wrote: »snowflake930 wrote: »Traveler120 wrote: »I'm always amused by the 80% diet/20% exercise rule that's always regurgitated everywhere you look. It may be true for someone who was overeating and has to cut back, but it's different for someone who's not overeating but creates a deficit from exercise rather than reducing intake.
At 152 lbs, i was maintaining on ~1500 calories, while sedentary. A year ago, I started exercising A LOT - elliptical, spinning, swimming, hiking, cycling etc. I've been eating ~1700 calories and I've lost 34 lbs, down to 118 lbs.
So was it diet or exercise? I didn't eat less, in fact, I ate more. I'd say it was 100% exercise and 0% diet in terms of where I derived the calorie deficit that resulted in weight loss. And now in maintenance, since I want to continue eating about 1700 calories, I continue to exercise but since I don't need a deficit any more, I don't have to exercise as much as I did when losing.
You say you are exercising A LOT, so you are burning A LOT more calories, so you can eat more and still lose weight. Eating 1500 and maintaining @ 152 while sedentary vs: eating 1700 and losing and exercising A LOT would indicate that you are burning more than 200 extra calories, so you should be losing weight. You are eating less calories than you are burning. Now you are at maintenance, eating the same amount of calories 1700, exercising less. Nothing amusing, just CICO, eating less calories than you burn to lose, eating the same amount of calories to maintain and exercising less, and it is not 100% because of exercise it is CICO.
Pardon my ignorance, but what is CICO?
Calories in, calories out
1 -
@GBrady43068 thank you for clarifying! That post makes more sense now.
Now to my next question ... Is there an accurate formula that can be used to determine how many actual calories you are burning? (I've heard that Fitbit and similar trackers are an average, but what if I wanted to dial it in?)0 -
LisaMarieSwain wrote: »I'm beginning to think that exercise; regular, daily activity, is key to long term results; to life changing habits being formed, and becoming accustomed to and desiring the chemical releases that happen to you during and after a workout.
It is for me, without question. I won't speak for others though.
The periods of my life where I haven't had regular exercise in my life (either due to work commitments, laziness or both) correlate with periods of flabbiness, low mood, irritability and general lack of my usual kickassedness.
Exercise drives my health in a way that diet cannot match as it creates a self reinforcing circle of good behaviours which diet alone cannot hope to achieve.
Exercise is the best medicine for me. Always has been...
10 -
snowflake930 wrote: »Traveler120 wrote: »I'm always amused by the 80% diet/20% exercise rule that's always regurgitated everywhere you look. It may be true for someone who was overeating and has to cut back, but it's different for someone who's not overeating but creates a deficit from exercise rather than reducing intake.
At 152 lbs, i was maintaining on ~1500 calories, while sedentary. A year ago, I started exercising A LOT - elliptical, spinning, swimming, hiking, cycling etc. I've been eating ~1700 calories and I've lost 34 lbs, down to 118 lbs.
So was it diet or exercise? I didn't eat less, in fact, I ate more. I'd say it was 100% exercise and 0% diet in terms of where I derived the calorie deficit that resulted in weight loss. And now in maintenance, since I want to continue eating about 1700 calories, I continue to exercise but since I don't need a deficit any more, I don't have to exercise as much as I did when losing.
You say you are exercising A LOT, so you are burning A LOT more calories, so you can eat more and still lose weight. Eating 1500 and maintaining @ 152 while sedentary vs: eating 1700 and losing and exercising A LOT would indicate that you are burning more than 200 extra calories, so you should be losing weight. You are eating less calories than you are burning. Now you are at maintenance, eating the same amount of calories 1700, exercising less. Nothing amusing, just CICO, eating less calories than you burn to lose, eating the same amount of calories to maintain and exercising less, and it is not 100% because of exercise it is CICO.
^that. If you were burning more from exercise, you probably created a bigger deficit when you were just eating to maintain. You may have burned 300 cals per day and it put you at an additional 100 cal deficit. I've lost weight at 1,200 calories and 1,700. The difference was how hard I was working in the gym.
2 -
@msf74 I love the idea of exercise as medicine! And I really hope it be able to replace my medication at some point (under Doctor supervision of course).
I also like the idea of exercise being the driving force behind health, creating a cycle of healthy habits than "diet alone can not hope to achieve".
Very insightful and encouraging, I appreciate it!1 -
LisaMarieSwain wrote: »"I tell my students that we control our body weigmoht by what we put in our mouth and we control our fitness through exercise," Gibala said.
I pulled this quote from a link in an article posted on MFP. It got me thinking; by diet alone (restricting calories according to loseit app guidelines), I lost over 50 pounds a couple years ago. And here I am, 70 pounds over weight, and understanding I made a wrong turn somewhere.
I had a doctor once tell me that weight loss was 80% diet and 20% exercise. I am beginning to question that. Perhaps the actual physical weight loss, measurable on the scale is affected proportionately to those percentages, but without exercise, the physical appearance changes (and there are some extraordinary benefits to losing weight for sake of your health) but internally, you aren't improving.
I know that the less you weigh (down to your healthy weight) puts less strain on your body. I'm talking about the changes that come from body chemistry as you begin to and continue to exercise.
I'm beginning to think that exercise; regular, daily activity, is key to long term results; to life changing habits being formed, and becoming accustomed to and desiring the chemical releases that happen to you during and after a workout.
Does anyone have any research to back this up, or similar experiences that support (or dispute) this?
I'll be the odd one out here-lost the extra weight with zero exercise and now 3 years into maintenance with no exercise regiment. For me it's been 100% diet /calorie intake, 0% exercise. And I'm in excellent health by all the markers my doctor goes by, even without regular exercise. My blood panels improved and are now good across the board (used to have higher glucose numbers, those have now stabilized into the 80s), blood pressure improved and is now good, I have no health issues, take no medication etc etc.4 -
People tend to overestimate their calorie burn during exercise. Losing weight is mostly about food control and nutrition. The exercise has other benefits for your health so it is only good stuff (cardiovascular health, cholesterol levels, blood pressure, etc). However, too many people try to exercise off the weight (I ate a donut so I'll do ten extra minutes today) and it doesn't work that way. I've been successful with calorie control and walking/bike riding. That's all I've done for exercise and I'm down 78lbs. I'd guesstimate it being more like 90%/10%. Just my humble opinion.2
-
cwolfman13 wrote: »Weight management is 100% about balancing energy consumption and expenditure. Exercise has numerous health benefits...and yes, exercise is going to change how you look and your overall composition...it also makes weight management easier in that you are expending more energy...but it isn't necessary to weight management.
That said, I've been in maintenance for going on three years this week and regular exercise is a pretty key component to that in that it makes it more difficult to over eat...it's certainly not impossible to overeat, but I have a lot more latitude than if I didn't exercise. If I didn't exercise, I'd just have to eat quite a bit less to maintain...which would be sucky.
If you look at most people who maintain a healthy weight, they tend to maintain a healthy lifestyle in general...they tend to eat relatively well and they tend to get regular exercise and are often just more active in general.
It's too easy to overeat when you're sedentary.
^^^100%0 -
LisaMarieSwain wrote: »@GBrady43068 thank you for clarifying! That post makes more sense now.
Now to my next question ... Is there an accurate formula that can be used to determine how many actual calories you are burning? (I've heard that Fitbit and similar trackers are an average, but what if I wanted to dial it in?)
No one formula will be a catch all.
FitBits and the like are good estimates because they start with your height, weight, gender and age. Then they also track movement via (1 or more): pedometer, altimeter, and/or heart rate monitor. But these are still estimates because they lack information re: muscle mass %, hormonal issues, exertion levels during activities, and more.
More exact calorie burns could be found in a laboratory. But the good news is, using a device (pick the one best suited for your activities) day in and day out allows you to gauge the accuracy for your activity, your exercise. You learn to dial in thru repeated use of your device. There are thousands of "maintainers" who use trackers as helpers.0 -
snowflake930 wrote: »Traveler120 wrote: »I'm always amused by the 80% diet/20% exercise rule that's always regurgitated everywhere you look. It may be true for someone who was overeating and has to cut back, but it's different for someone who's not overeating but creates a deficit from exercise rather than reducing intake.
At 152 lbs, i was maintaining on ~1500 calories, while sedentary. A year ago, I started exercising A LOT - elliptical, spinning, swimming, hiking, cycling etc. I've been eating ~1700 calories and I've lost 34 lbs, down to 118 lbs.
So was it diet or exercise? I didn't eat less, in fact, I ate more. I'd say it was 100% exercise and 0% diet in terms of where I derived the calorie deficit that resulted in weight loss. And now in maintenance, since I want to continue eating about 1700 calories, I continue to exercise but since I don't need a deficit any more, I don't have to exercise as much as I did when losing.
You say you are exercising A LOT, so you are burning A LOT more calories, so you can eat more and still lose weight. Eating 1500 and maintaining @ 152 while sedentary vs: eating 1700 and losing and exercising A LOT would indicate that you are burning more than 200 extra calories, so you should be losing weight. You are eating less calories than you are burning. Now you are at maintenance, eating the same amount of calories 1700, exercising less. Nothing amusing, just CICO, eating less calories than you burn to lose, eating the same amount of calories to maintain and exercising less, and it is not 100% because of exercise it is CICO.
You clearly missed my point. Nobody is disputing CICO. The question is, is weightloss necessarily 80% diet and 20% exercise as 'everyone' says?
Some, like @readergirl3 above, say they lost weight without exercise, that's 100% diet and 0% exercise.
In my case, I continued eating the same and slightly more than I did at the beginning, but put all the effort in the CO part of CICO. So for me, yes, it was 0% diet and 100% exercise.
1 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »That said, I've been in maintenance for going on three years this week and regular exercise is a pretty key component to that in that it makes it more difficult to over eat...it's certainly not impossible to overeat, but I have a lot more latitude than if I didn't exercise. If I didn't exercise, I'd just have to eat quite a bit less to maintain...which would be sucky.
If you look at most people who maintain a healthy weight, they tend to maintain a healthy lifestyle in general...they tend to eat relatively well and they tend to get regular exercise and are often just more active in general.
It's too easy to overeat when you're sedentary.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »I know exercise is key for me. I'd rather be overweight than eat as little as I'd be able without exercise.
If your question is purely about weight control then obviously weight can be gained or lost without exercise. But activity level does play a part in weight control. You may actually lose fewer pounds with regular exercise since you'll likely retain more muscle.Traveler120 wrote: »I'm always amused by the 80% diet/20% exercise rule that's always regurgitated everywhere you look. It may be true for someone who was overeating and has to cut back, but it's different for someone who's not overeating but creates a deficit from exercise rather than reducing intake.
At 152 lbs, i was maintaining on ~1500 calories, while sedentary. A year ago, I started exercising A LOT - elliptical, spinning, swimming, hiking, cycling etc. I've been eating ~1700 calories and I've lost 34 lbs, down to 118 lbs.
So was it diet or exercise? I didn't eat less, in fact, I ate more. I'd say it was 100% exercise and 0% diet in terms of where I derived the calorie deficit that resulted in weight loss. And now in maintenance, since I want to continue eating about 1700 calories, I continue to exercise but since I don't need a deficit any more, I don't have to exercise as much as I did when losing.girlinahat wrote: »psychologically I think the exercise component is important. When I exercise, I feel inclined to be healthy in other aspects of my life, it makes my body feel more energised and keep me away from stuffing myself. On a day when I don't keep active, I tend to eat too much - the weekend was a case in point. I drove everywhere, I ate too much, I drank too much wine.
Yesterday I rediscovered the joy of walking into the city for a class, then feeling energised I walked home again rather than take the bus. I chose not to eat too much and fill my stomach BECAUSE I had that feeling of being energised. I think the concept of weightloss alone by diet is terrifyingly boring. I care far more about getting fitter so I can do more things, than a figure on a scale, and the weightloss is just a by-product brought on by my more active lifestyle. I doubt you can separate the two, and I imagine that those who succeed long-term, are those who do both.
All of this.
I would never eat below my BMR consistently, day in day out for months at a time. It's too restrictive and not sustainable. I'll go out and burn 800 kCal a day though. Last night I ran a 5k, tonight it's hill repeats on the bike, every day I spend my lunch hour walking, hike or long bike ride on weekend days, etc. These things make my body feel good, which motivates me to make better food choices. Hell, it has me craving healthier food to fuel the exercise. And it gets me out of the house.
Exercise is part of CICO. It doesn't have to be for everybody but if anybody ever tells you "exercise doesn't count as calories out," stop listening to anything they have to say.3 -
LisaMarieSwain wrote: »Now to my next question ... Is there an accurate formula that can be used to determine how many actual calories you are burning?
kCal = 1.1 to 1.3 times kilo-Jules of work done.
kCal per hour = 1.1 to 1.3 times (3,600 times your current output in watts)
You need a power meter to measure the amount of work you're doing and the rate at which you're doing it. Power meters are a reliable technology on a bike, and in the experimental stages for running. Some gym machines can measure your power output too. If the PM is reliable this will get you within 5 % of the truth.1 -
Traveler120 wrote: »snowflake930 wrote: »Traveler120 wrote: »I'm always amused by the 80% diet/20% exercise rule that's always regurgitated everywhere you look. It may be true for someone who was overeating and has to cut back, but it's different for someone who's not overeating but creates a deficit from exercise rather than reducing intake.
At 152 lbs, i was maintaining on ~1500 calories, while sedentary. A year ago, I started exercising A LOT - elliptical, spinning, swimming, hiking, cycling etc. I've been eating ~1700 calories and I've lost 34 lbs, down to 118 lbs.
So was it diet or exercise? I didn't eat less, in fact, I ate more. I'd say it was 100% exercise and 0% diet in terms of where I derived the calorie deficit that resulted in weight loss. And now in maintenance, since I want to continue eating about 1700 calories, I continue to exercise but since I don't need a deficit any more, I don't have to exercise as much as I did when losing.
You say you are exercising A LOT, so you are burning A LOT more calories, so you can eat more and still lose weight. Eating 1500 and maintaining @ 152 while sedentary vs: eating 1700 and losing and exercising A LOT would indicate that you are burning more than 200 extra calories, so you should be losing weight. You are eating less calories than you are burning. Now you are at maintenance, eating the same amount of calories 1700, exercising less. Nothing amusing, just CICO, eating less calories than you burn to lose, eating the same amount of calories to maintain and exercising less, and it is not 100% because of exercise it is CICO.
You clearly missed my point. Nobody is disputing CICO. The question is, is weightloss necessarily 80% diet and 20% exercise as 'everyone' says?
Some, like @readergirl3 above, say they lost weight without exercise, that's 100% diet and 0% exercise.
In my case, I continued eating the same and slightly more than I did at the beginning, but put all the effort in the CO part of CICO. So for me, yes, it was 0% diet and 100% exercise.
You claimed you are/were exercising A LOT, @ 1700 calories. If so, you are definitely burning more than the additional 200 calories more that you are eating. You are not losing by exercise alone.
I am well aware of losing weight without exercising. I lost over 100# before I began to even walk more than I had to. 0% exercise, but you have to be dead to not be burning calories.
You are missing my point. You absolutely can not lose weight without eating less calories than your body is burning, no matter if you exercise or not.
I am maintaining a 160# weight loss at 1600 calories and going to the gym every day. If I go over that 1600 calories, I begin to gain. I have been maintaining for over 2 years so I do know what works for me. I do agree that it is not 80/20 for everyone, as with everything related to weight loss, gain, or maintaining, it is individual, but the 80/20 figure is a good estimate for most people. People that are very physically fit (tri-athletes) have told me it is probably an even higher figure 90/10.
0 -
ReaderGirl3 wrote: »
I'll be the odd one out here-lost the extra weight with zero exercise and now 3 years into maintenance with no exercise regiment. For me it's been 100% diet /calorie intake, 0% exercise. And I'm in excellent health by all the markers my doctor goes by, even without regular exercise. My blood panels improved and are now good across the board (used to have higher glucose numbers, those have now stabilized into the 80s), blood pressure improved and is now good, I have no health issues, take no medication etc etc.
Can I ask if you mean that it is simply your diet that is leading to your good health? Do you think that part of this is also genetics? I lost 90lbs and have maintained it for 4 years with diet and exercise both. Now, I do take medication for high blood pressure. But neither my doctor nor I can figure out why this is so. I eat very well and exercise 6 days a week and am in the healthy weight range. So do you think that in your case your genetics give you an advantage where you can achieve this without exercise? Without exercise, I'd be a blob! I'm not trying to be obnoxious...I'm interested in what you think.
1 -
For the love of all that is good, 80-20 is the Pareto Principal:
"The 80/20 Rule means that in anything a few (20 percent) are vital and many(80 percent) are trivial. In Pareto's case it meant 20 percent of the people owned 80 percent of the wealth. In Juran's initial work he identified 20 percent of the defects causing 80 percent of the problems. Project Managers know that 20 percent of the work (the first 10 percent and the last 10 percent) consume 80 percent of your time and resources. You can apply the 80/20 Rule to almost anything, from the science of management to the physical world."
http://management.about.com/cs/generalmanagement/a/Pareto081202.htm
All it's saying is more of weight loss/gain is due to diet vs movement. It might be 80%, might be 90% or 70%.4 -
snowflake930 wrote: »Traveler120 wrote: »snowflake930 wrote: »Traveler120 wrote: »I'm always amused by the 80% diet/20% exercise rule that's always regurgitated everywhere you look. It may be true for someone who was overeating and has to cut back, but it's different for someone who's not overeating but creates a deficit from exercise rather than reducing intake.
At 152 lbs, i was maintaining on ~1500 calories, while sedentary. A year ago, I started exercising A LOT - elliptical, spinning, swimming, hiking, cycling etc. I've been eating ~1700 calories and I've lost 34 lbs, down to 118 lbs.
So was it diet or exercise? I didn't eat less, in fact, I ate more. I'd say it was 100% exercise and 0% diet in terms of where I derived the calorie deficit that resulted in weight loss. And now in maintenance, since I want to continue eating about 1700 calories, I continue to exercise but since I don't need a deficit any more, I don't have to exercise as much as I did when losing.
You say you are exercising A LOT, so you are burning A LOT more calories, so you can eat more and still lose weight. Eating 1500 and maintaining @ 152 while sedentary vs: eating 1700 and losing and exercising A LOT would indicate that you are burning more than 200 extra calories, so you should be losing weight. You are eating less calories than you are burning. Now you are at maintenance, eating the same amount of calories 1700, exercising less. Nothing amusing, just CICO, eating less calories than you burn to lose, eating the same amount of calories to maintain and exercising less, and it is not 100% because of exercise it is CICO.
You clearly missed my point. Nobody is disputing CICO. The question is, is weightloss necessarily 80% diet and 20% exercise as 'everyone' says?
Some, like @readergirl3 above, say they lost weight without exercise, that's 100% diet and 0% exercise.
In my case, I continued eating the same and slightly more than I did at the beginning, but put all the effort in the CO part of CICO. So for me, yes, it was 0% diet and 100% exercise.
You are missing my point. You absolutely can not lose weight without eating less calories than your body is burning, no matter if you exercise or not.
Once again, you don't seem to understand what we're debating here. The debate here is not about how cico works, you're 'preaching to the choir'. We all understand it.
The debate is about the 80/20 rule, which suggests that food intake is substantially more important than how much you exercise if you are trying to lose weight. And I'm saying, no, not necessarily.
For SOME, like me, how much I exercise is substantially more important. Why? Because compared to the STARTING POINT, I did NOT alter my intake by lowering it. I put all my weight loss efforts on my exercise. IF I had continued being sedentary or maybe started walking a bit and instead just focused on reducing my intake, then in that case, it would have been 80/20. Instead, what I did was 0/100. I don't know why you're struggling with this simple explanation.6 -
ReaderGirl3 wrote: »
I'll be the odd one out here-lost the extra weight with zero exercise and now 3 years into maintenance with no exercise regiment. For me it's been 100% diet /calorie intake, 0% exercise. And I'm in excellent health by all the markers my doctor goes by, even without regular exercise. My blood panels improved and are now good across the board (used to have higher glucose numbers, those have now stabilized into the 80s), blood pressure improved and is now good, I have no health issues, take no medication etc etc.
Can I ask if you mean that it is simply your diet that is leading to your good health? Do you think that part of this is also genetics? I lost 90lbs and have maintained it for 4 years with diet and exercise both. Now, I do take medication for high blood pressure. But neither my doctor nor I can figure out why this is so. I eat very well and exercise 6 days a week and am in the healthy weight range. So do you think that in your case your genetics give you an advantage where you can achieve this without exercise? Without exercise, I'd be a blob! I'm not trying to be obnoxious...I'm interested in what you think.
My family tree is full of type 2 diabetes, as well as a host of other health issues. It's also full of obese and overweight people. My doctor told me I was genetically predisposed towards Type 2 but here I am today, with normal glucose numbers. That's compared to in 2012 when I was flirting with prediabetes. After I lost around 50lbs my glucose number stabilized into the 80s, where they've stayed since 2013.
I do think genetics can play a big part for some people, but I honestly don't know how they factor in for me?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