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.
Replies
-
I don't think "80% diet/ 20% exercise" is ever presented as some kind of a mathematical law. It's just a cliche to say that if you want to lose weight, it's easier to put most of your focus on diet. It doesn't mean that you can't lose weight with just dieting or just exercising, just that for most people it's best to get your diet in line first.0
-
It's about eating less than you burn BUT for some people, like me, weight loss would not be achievable without activity. There's absolutely no way that I'd be able to stick to 1400 calories, which would be my goal if I didn't exercise... Just NOT happening.
So it's definitely not as easy as '100% diet'. Getting 20% extra calories from activity seems reasonable, so 80% diet/20% exercise sounds about right to me.
I was the opposite-I had no issues not having exercise calories added to my calorie allotment. However, I did alternate day IF for my weight loss phase-where I rotated between maintenance calorie days (starting at around 2,000 and then going down as I lost weight), and then very low calorie 'fasting' days (under 500 calories). So I only 'dieted' every other day, and the every other, higher calorie days were enough for me to not feel deprived/restricted. In fact there were 'up' days (the maintenance level days), where I had to force myself to eat more calories, just to hit the higher number (IF is really odd lol).
I'm in maintenance now and I've recently started doing calorie 'rolling,' and I'm currently eating a little under calories during the week/higher calories Friday-Sunday. This is a newer thing for me, but it's working really well and I'm not feeling the need to add exercise, to get more calories. It's interesting how we're all so different/different things work for each of us
0 -
Traveler120 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »It's a diet but dieting implies deficit in my opinion. I realize the technical definition though, yes.
Either way, the constant is true, a calorie deficit is required. You get there with diet or exercise...i.e. Chicken / egg. However loosely it fits, you get the gist.
That is my point and that the two are components of a deficit or surplus and therefore cannot be exclusive of it at the same time. In other words, comparing exercise to a deficit is like an oxymoron.
I don't think the poster you quoted above meant to suggest that exercise wasn't part of the deficit. I thought you were basically saying the same thing.
I still think the 80/20 thing makes no sense. It's just something people say to mean that most people (especially those who have become overweight) cannot totally ignore what they are eating and increase exercise and expect to lose.
Yeah, I know we're getting into semantics here (my fault). My interpretation is slightly different in that I think it is meant to be applied to the specific goal of weight loss as opposed to general population. It is saying that generally speaking most of your weight loss results caloric deficit will come from diet and a smaller portion will come from exercise.
That's what makes no sense to me. I think it's all about context.
If a fat marathoner is running 10 hrs a week and is not losing weight, they're clearly eating too much. They need to "diet" as in eat less, in order to create sufficient deficit for fat loss, while maintaining the same level of exercise as before.
For a sedentary person, who's eating a reasonable amount of food, say 1700 calories for a woman, doesn't want to go on a starvation diet of 1200, but wants to lose the same amount as the fat marathoner above, the best option would be to simply start exercising enough to create the necessary deficit.
The difference is the same. Diet (as in eating less) or exercise will be equally effective. It just depends on where someone is starting at, as well as personal preferences.
@Traveler120 That is true to a certain extent. A 500 calorie deficit will yield the same weight loss whether it has been brought about by restricting calories or increasing expenditure. However, there are practical considerations such as time and physical ability which leads to the generalization that it is easier to lose via restriction than it is to lose through exercise.
How long does it take to burn 500 calories? How long does it take to refrain from eating 500 calories? Would it be easier for your fat marathoner to fit another 7 hours of running in a week or simply reduce his intake by 600 calories a day? I agree that there are people who have no problem dedicating time and effort to physical activity and that there are circumstances in which this generalization doesn't fit. I think those circumstances grow more unlikely the more overweight the individual is.0 -
redo0
-
These two statements confuse me.blues4miles wrote: »Weight loss is 100% diet.
If it is 100% diet, how do you account for Lemur's story? If I am maintaining on my current diet, and I start running for 2 hours a day, won't I lose weight, and won't 100% of that weight loss be due to exercise?
By that same logic, how many calories you restrict is immaterial if you are not in a deficit. If I normally burn 500 calories on my nightly run while maintaining, and I stop doing that, won't my weight increase, considering that my intake remains constant?blues4miles wrote: »How much you exercise is immaterial if you are not in a deficit.
0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »
actually, if you went for a run, you'd be able to have the shake. The goal is the deficit.NorthCascades wrote: »I think the gist of the 80/20 statement is to say that it is much easier to create a deficit with diet than it is with exercise. One of my doctors once explained it to me this way, concerning my bad habit to have a chocolate milkshake almost daily:
"You can have a 600 calorie shake, but you will have to run for about an hour in order to burn it off. Now tell me, which is harder for you, not getting the shake or running for an hour?" Being obese at the time, I knew there was no way I would be running for an hour, so I chose not to drink the shakes.
If you gave forced upon me a choice - I can go for a run, or I can have a shake, but not both - I'd do the run and give up the shake. I value the endorphin buzz more than the sugar. Maybe if it was a savory dish I'd have a harder time choosing...
Think about it another way:
Many people here on MFP needing to lose a lot of weight choose the most aggressive goal available; 2 pounds per week or a deficit of 1000 calories a day. For those who make such a choice, how many would find it easier to burn 1000 calories every day through exercise?
I just addressed almost exactly this question. I found 50/50 the most sensible and appealing approach.
I wonder how many of those with that goal burn an extra 500 calories per day 7 days a week.
0 -
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'm beginning to think that exercise; regular, daily activity, is key to long term results; to life changing habits being formed...
I don't know about the doctor's ratio, but I do believe that health requires eating intelligently and exercising regularly. Personally, for me, the key is always cutting the junk out of my diet and eating so as to meet my nutritional requirements. I exercise to create the remaining deficit. But I have never been one to starve myself, nor really to struggle with my weight with that approach.
I did sports growing up and through college and somewhat afterwards, as well, including lightweight women's crew. Prevailing approach among our crew was, "can't make weight? Go run. Still can't make weight? Go run some more." We didn't diet because that would weaken us and make us less able to perform. So then, and now, I use exercise and sensible, balanced eating to maintain my weight. And I find that as long as I'm working out consistently, weight simply doesn't become a factor.
I'll confess to some degree of Christmas chunk after the holidays, but come Jan. 1 it has to go, and does. I burn it off, while at the same time simply giving up the holiday goodies. But I don't cut calories because that messes me up.
So I think it's about the long game. People diet and lose weight, but then quit doing what they did to lose the weight in the first place. But's that's part of the problem with dieting -- it really isn't sustainable. Better, IMHO, is to stop doing the things that cause weight gain (and other forms of unhealth) and start doing the things that help stave it off. And do both, forever. And understand that it is a forever thing, which is why the emphasis on lifestyle. A healthy lifestyle (or as you put it, "life changing habits) is sustainable -- just do the right things. A diet, is not. And your body will thank you.
My .02.0 -
NorthCascades wrote: »actually, if you went for a run, you'd be able to have the shake. The goal is the deficit.
I understand about the math and I think your doctor had a pretty clever way of explaining it to you in a way that hit home. Leave the choice in your hands, just make the "cost" clear, and for most people it's an obvious decision.
Not disagreeing with that at all. I'm just sharing my personal perspective, because we're all different in our motivations and what we find easy/hard. I really like the way a hard workout makes me feel, it's my natural stress relief after a bad day at work or a tough commute. It also gets me out of the house because I get cabin fever really bad and if I don't get out regularly I'll fall into a depression. So, if I had to choose for some reason, I'd take the run and give up the shake, even though in reality it's not a one or the other choice, it's more like a both or none.
Ultimately, I'm agreeing with you that this "80/20 rule" is not a hard and fast scientific law about how all people must lose weight, that what works for one person isn't necessarily going to work for everybody, we're all motivated differently.
Agreed, and I think the OP hit on some of those points. There are definitely other benefits of working out and increasing your physical activity. Some are intangibles like better focus, but there are others that I've avoided like changing body composition which could actually increase CO beyond the time spent in the workout.
I think most of us are on the same page. I'm just relaying my understanding of the "rule" and reasons why it probably came about.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »It's a diet but dieting implies deficit in my opinion. I realize the technical definition though, yes.
Either way, the constant is true, a calorie deficit is required. You get there with diet or exercise...i.e. Chicken / egg. However loosely it fits, you get the gist.
That is my point and that the two are components of a deficit or surplus and therefore cannot be exclusive of it at the same time. In other words, comparing exercise to a deficit is like an oxymoron.
I don't think the poster you quoted above meant to suggest that exercise wasn't part of the deficit. I thought you were basically saying the same thing.
I still think the 80/20 thing makes no sense. It's just something people say to mean that most people (especially those who have become overweight) cannot totally ignore what they are eating and increase exercise and expect to lose.
Yeah, I know we're getting into semantics here (my fault). My interpretation is slightly different in that I think it is meant to be applied to the specific goal of weight loss as opposed to general population. It is saying that generally speaking most of your weight loss results caloric deficit will come from diet and a smaller portion will come from exercise.
But--and I admit this IS getting into semantics and is in good humor--I don't think that's true. For me it's always been a lot about exercise, since I've only gained weight from becoming inactive.
For example, let's say I want to lose more weight enough to actually create a calorie deficit.
My sedentary TDEE is 1550. To lose I'd likely eat between 1600-1800, however, over my sedentary TDEE, and create a calorie deficit with exercise. So that looks like I'm doing 100% from exercise.
Except that of course I'm currently exercising at that level (or close), so what I actually do is cut calories from the amount I'm currently eating at maintenance. So then is it 100% from calorie cutting, if I don't change my exercise?
I think so if I follow you correctly. Are you saying that you have a baseline of intake and activity at which you are maintaining and that if you deviate from that baseline via calorie restriction; Is your weightloss 100% from the calorie restriction?When I actually DID decide to get back in shape my intention and goal was to cut calories by about 500 and exercise on average for about 500 calories/day more than I had been (this could include walking too). Of course it took me some time to work up to that level, but I did. So that seems like it was 50/50 exercise and calorie cutting.
So does that indicate some greater degree of difficulty than cutting the calories? I guess not, but I can see how someone higher on the spectrum with more fat reserves could find it easier to cut calories and even more difficult to increase activity to that level.Mentally, I find it much easier to eat well (and fewer calories) when I am focused on fitness and exercise (training) goals, so again that to me feels like a contribution of about 50% or at least a non-quantifiable both are extremely important to me. This is going to vary person to person.
Of course, I cannot completely not think about food and lose, even at my most active, and I could lose without any exercise if I had to. So that suggests a different percentage, although not a quantifiable one, again.
Yeah, again, I think the numbers are not meant to be actual quantities, but more of a generalization which doesn't quite fit for you.
0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »
actually, if you went for a run, you'd be able to have the shake. The goal is the deficit.NorthCascades wrote: »I think the gist of the 80/20 statement is to say that it is much easier to create a deficit with diet than it is with exercise. One of my doctors once explained it to me this way, concerning my bad habit to have a chocolate milkshake almost daily:
"You can have a 600 calorie shake, but you will have to run for about an hour in order to burn it off. Now tell me, which is harder for you, not getting the shake or running for an hour?" Being obese at the time, I knew there was no way I would be running for an hour, so I chose not to drink the shakes.
If you gave forced upon me a choice - I can go for a run, or I can have a shake, but not both - I'd do the run and give up the shake. I value the endorphin buzz more than the sugar. Maybe if it was a savory dish I'd have a harder time choosing...
Think about it another way:
Many people here on MFP needing to lose a lot of weight choose the most aggressive goal available; 2 pounds per week or a deficit of 1000 calories a day. For those who make such a choice, how many would find it easier to burn 1000 calories every day through exercise?
I just addressed almost exactly this question. I found 50/50 the most sensible and appealing approach.
I wonder how many of those with that goal burn an extra 500 calories per day 7 days a week.
I do 99% of the time.2 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »It's a diet but dieting implies deficit in my opinion. I realize the technical definition though, yes.
Either way, the constant is true, a calorie deficit is required. You get there with diet or exercise...i.e. Chicken / egg. However loosely it fits, you get the gist.
That is my point and that the two are components of a deficit or surplus and therefore cannot be exclusive of it at the same time. In other words, comparing exercise to a deficit is like an oxymoron.
I don't think the poster you quoted above meant to suggest that exercise wasn't part of the deficit. I thought you were basically saying the same thing.
I still think the 80/20 thing makes no sense. It's just something people say to mean that most people (especially those who have become overweight) cannot totally ignore what they are eating and increase exercise and expect to lose.
Yeah, I know we're getting into semantics here (my fault). My interpretation is slightly different in that I think it is meant to be applied to the specific goal of weight loss as opposed to general population. It is saying that generally speaking most of your weight loss results caloric deficit will come from diet and a smaller portion will come from exercise.
But--and I admit this IS getting into semantics and is in good humor--I don't think that's true. For me it's always been a lot about exercise, since I've only gained weight from becoming inactive.
For example, let's say I want to lose more weight enough to actually create a calorie deficit.
My sedentary TDEE is 1550. To lose I'd likely eat between 1600-1800, however, over my sedentary TDEE, and create a calorie deficit with exercise. So that looks like I'm doing 100% from exercise.
Except that of course I'm currently exercising at that level (or close), so what I actually do is cut calories from the amount I'm currently eating at maintenance. So then is it 100% from calorie cutting, if I don't change my exercise?
I think so if I follow you correctly. Are you saying that you have a baseline of intake and activity at which you are maintaining and that if you deviate from that baseline via calorie restriction; Is your weightloss 100% from the calorie restriction?
Exactly. As part of my prior weightloss efforts let's say I worked up to 500 cal/day on average (or 3500 cal per week of exercise). I'm following a really demanding tri training program, so I think this is conservative. I'm basically maintaining eating what I want and not logging. So if I cut 500 calories (guessing I'm at 1700 if I do), does that mean I am losing 100% based on calorie cutting even though I'm still eating OVER my TDEE if sedentary?
Wrinkle on this is how I gained is I abruptly became sedentary from a very active (similar to now) lifestyle due to depression and related issues. So I was maintaining on about 2200 and then I gained (fast) on about 2200.When I actually DID decide to get back in shape my intention and goal was to cut calories by about 500 and exercise on average for about 500 calories/day more than I had been (this could include walking too). Of course it took me some time to work up to that level, but I did. So that seems like it was 50/50 exercise and calorie cutting.
So does that indicate some greater degree of difficulty than cutting the calories? I guess not, but I can see how someone higher on the spectrum with more fat reserves could find it easier to cut calories and even more difficult to increase activity to that level.[/quote]
On the short term, yeah. I found it really easy to eat 1200 (I was accidently eating 900) on the short term, but don't think I could have kept that up. I was also out of shape, so needed to increase exercise gradually--I wasn't ready to go run 3 miles when I started. I had a history of being active and walked a decent amount even when fat, but I was really fat.Mentally, I find it much easier to eat well (and fewer calories) when I am focused on fitness and exercise (training) goals, so again that to me feels like a contribution of about 50% or at least a non-quantifiable both are extremely important to me. This is going to vary person to person.
Of course, I cannot completely not think about food and lose, even at my most active, and I could lose without any exercise if I had to. So that suggests a different percentage, although not a quantifiable one, again.
Yeah, again, I think the numbers are not meant to be actual quantities, but more of a generalization which doesn't quite fit for you.
[/quote]
Agreed. And I know I have a hypertechnical way of looking at word usage which makes sense to me and yet seems weird to some others and thus the processed and clean wars. This is probably similar.0 -
Weight loss may 100% energy balance but it certainly isn't 100% diet. People significantly underestimate the effects of exercise.
Exercise goes well beyond the actual energy use (calorie burn) to modify the body - mitochondria, liver enzymes, glucagon efficiencies, cortisol, etc... all influence long term metabolic function.2 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »Weight loss may 100% energy balance but it certainly isn't 100% diet. People significantly underestimate the effects of exercise.
Exercise goes well beyond the actual energy use (calorie burn) to modify the body - mitochondria, liver enzymes, glucagon efficiencies, cortisol, etc... all influence long term metabolic function.
yeah, and also short term, considering for instance how quickly exercise improves insulin sensitivity0 -
Didn't I already explain that in the case of the fat marathoner who's already sufficiently active, that their best option is to focus 100% on diet, while maintaining activity level? Whereas for an INACTIVE person who's unable or unwilling to reduce intake, or simply prefers not to, then their best option is to focus 100% on increasing exercise for their deficit. Those are just 2 extreme examples to illustrate or dispel the idea that 'dieting/eating less' is more important or more effective than 'exercising more' for weightloss. Because, it depends.Traveler120 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »It's a diet but dieting implies deficit in my opinion. I realize the technical definition though, yes.
Either way, the constant is true, a calorie deficit is required. You get there with diet or exercise...i.e. Chicken / egg. However loosely it fits, you get the gist.
That is my point and that the two are components of a deficit or surplus and therefore cannot be exclusive of it at the same time. In other words, comparing exercise to a deficit is like an oxymoron.
I don't think the poster you quoted above meant to suggest that exercise wasn't part of the deficit. I thought you were basically saying the same thing.
I still think the 80/20 thing makes no sense. It's just something people say to mean that most people (especially those who have become overweight) cannot totally ignore what they are eating and increase exercise and expect to lose.
Yeah, I know we're getting into semantics here (my fault). My interpretation is slightly different in that I think it is meant to be applied to the specific goal of weight loss as opposed to general population. It is saying that generally speaking most of your weight loss results caloric deficit will come from diet and a smaller portion will come from exercise.
That's what makes no sense to me. I think it's all about context.
If a fat marathoner is running 10 hrs a week and is not losing weight, they're clearly eating too much. They need to "diet" as in eat less, in order to create sufficient deficit for fat loss, while maintaining the same level of exercise as before.
For a sedentary person, who's eating a reasonable amount of food, say 1700 calories for a woman, doesn't want to go on a starvation diet of 1200, but wants to lose the same amount as the fat marathoner above, the best option would be to simply start exercising enough to create the necessary deficit.
The difference is the same. Diet (as in eating less) or exercise will be equally effective. It just depends on where someone is starting at, as well as personal preferences.
How long does it take to burn 500 calories? How long does it take to refrain from eating 500 calories? Would it be easier for your fat marathoner to fit another 7 hours of running in a week or simply reduce his intake by 600 calories a day?
2 -
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...
This...........I'm the same way. It's exercise that keeps me on the path to a healthy weight and other healthy habits. Sure, I could maintain if I couldn't exercise, but would I be happy about it........NO.0 -
I think of it in terms of energy balance, like fuel and fire.
Let's say your body requires 1200 calories of energy just existing. If you want to be sedentary, you therefore must not go over 1200 calories, or else you will get fat. Fine. Be a sloth, stay a sloth. Burn nothing. But you better not eat much, and I hope you never encounter anything that stresses your body.
If you are crazy active, maybe your body is burning 3000 calories per day. Bonfire! Because you are burning tons more calories, you NEED extra food to keep the fire burning. You are a hummingbird. Must. find. more. sugar. Zip around.
Or, you can be somewhere in the middle and eat 1800 calories and exercise moderately. If you eat a little too much, you can easily burn it off with a little extra exercise. Unexpected marathon? Great - today you get to pig out.
So to me, for weight loss, what you eat is just as important as how much you move.
However, I also believe that exercise is important for long-term health and weight maintenance. Muscles and flexibility are good things for us humans who are designed to move around. Muscles help you to burn more fuel, even being sedentary. Cardiovascular health only comes with exercise. Count longevity towards long-term success. Exercise doesn't get the credit it deserves.
As far as heredity goes, I don't believe in it much when it comes to obesity, other than in the sense of learned behavior. The foods that your parents and your grandparents chose to eat (and how that food was prepared and how much is consumed) is probably going to rub off on you.0 -
I think when people start exercising they also tend to eat better. Any weight loss is though to be from the exercise but it's actually from diet.0
-
Traveler120 wrote: »
Didn't I already explain that in the case of the fat marathoner who's already sufficiently active, that their best option is to focus 100% on diet, while maintaining activity level? Whereas for an INACTIVE person who's unable or unwilling to reduce intake, or simply prefers not to, then their best option is to focus 100% on increasing exercise for their deficit. Those are just 2 extreme examples to illustrate or dispel the idea that 'dieting/eating less' is more important or more effective than 'exercising more' for weightloss. Because, it depends.Traveler120 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »It's a diet but dieting implies deficit in my opinion. I realize the technical definition though, yes.
Either way, the constant is true, a calorie deficit is required. You get there with diet or exercise...i.e. Chicken / egg. However loosely it fits, you get the gist.
That is my point and that the two are components of a deficit or surplus and therefore cannot be exclusive of it at the same time. In other words, comparing exercise to a deficit is like an oxymoron.
I don't think the poster you quoted above meant to suggest that exercise wasn't part of the deficit. I thought you were basically saying the same thing.
I still think the 80/20 thing makes no sense. It's just something people say to mean that most people (especially those who have become overweight) cannot totally ignore what they are eating and increase exercise and expect to lose.
Yeah, I know we're getting into semantics here (my fault). My interpretation is slightly different in that I think it is meant to be applied to the specific goal of weight loss as opposed to general population. It is saying that generally speaking most of your weight loss results caloric deficit will come from diet and a smaller portion will come from exercise.
That's what makes no sense to me. I think it's all about context.
If a fat marathoner is running 10 hrs a week and is not losing weight, they're clearly eating too much. They need to "diet" as in eat less, in order to create sufficient deficit for fat loss, while maintaining the same level of exercise as before.
For a sedentary person, who's eating a reasonable amount of food, say 1700 calories for a woman, doesn't want to go on a starvation diet of 1200, but wants to lose the same amount as the fat marathoner above, the best option would be to simply start exercising enough to create the necessary deficit.
The difference is the same. Diet (as in eating less) or exercise will be equally effective. It just depends on where someone is starting at, as well as personal preferences.
How long does it take to burn 500 calories? How long does it take to refrain from eating 500 calories? Would it be easier for your fat marathoner to fit another 7 hours of running in a week or simply reduce his intake by 600 calories a day?
I'm not sure that you can dispel a generalizing statement such as this by exemplifying extremes. Yes, it depends, but that can be said for a great many of things for which generalizations are commonly understood. Is a very low calorie diet safe? It depends.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
If your at a caloric deficit your going to lose weight regardless of exercise! Yes adding exercise in to a routine will most definitely aid in the speed weight/fat loss..but at the end of the day its just an aid and what matters most is how much of a deficit your in! For people saying its all about exercise.. that is absolutely wrong...have you heard the quote you cant out train a bad diet...1
-
Weight loss is in stages, the first 90% mental, 8% diet and 2% exercise. Without the right mindset, motivation and willingness to put the effort in you cannot do the rest. People fail because they have not or do not work to maintain the right mindset.1
-
It seems to me that no matter what you do, whether it be adding in exercise and eating the same, or just eating less you are losing weight, because you are eating less than you are buring so you it still comes down to diet no matter what. Everyone's activity level is different and they only way they are going to lose weight is by eating less calories than they are burning.1
-
It seems to me that no matter what you do, whether it be adding in exercise and eating the same, or just eating less you are losing weight, because you are eating less than you are buring so you it still comes down to diet no matter what. Everyone's activity level is different and they only way they are going to lose weight is by eating less calories than they are burning.
This is why I can't wrap my head around the concept of "net" calories...If I tell MFP I'm sedentary and it gives me (e.g.) 1500 cals/day, and I eat those plus 500 cals/day in exercise cals, I'm "netting" 1500/day. But if I set my activity at active and it gives me 2000 cals and I just eat those without separately tracking activity, I'm "netting" 2000 per day. But I eat and burn the same number in both cases. Shouldn't your "net" calories really be eaten minus burned? So you need a negative net (whether from eating less or moving more) to lose weight.0 -
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.
That's my experience, for sure. I was very active for a dozen years, while remaining fat (i.e., roughly the same weight).
There were a number of health benefits from being active, plus fitness benefits. There's been research suggesting that regular exercise reduces likelihood of breast cancer metastasis irrespective of body weight (I'm a stage III BC survivor). I got stronger in ways that were useful to me in daily life, and my endurance improved. I got smaller - lost a couple of sizes. My mood & psychological well-being improved, and stress level decreased.
But I still had some weight-related/eating-related health problems, including high cholesterol, and borderline blood pressure. Losing weight has seemingly resolved those.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.
@Traveler120, I think (hope) your original point is that the relative importance of exercise vs. eating is individual, depending (in part?) on starting point. You & I are nearly exact opposites. I was already very active, especially for someone my age (60), but stayed fat until I changed my eating patterns. (It was easy to out-eat some few hundreds/thousands of exercise calories in a week.)
To lose weight, I didn't much change my exercise level. So, for me weight loss was 100% diet, and 0% exercise, if you want to look at it that way.
In the larger context of OP's topic, I want to underscore one obvious further point, too: Good diet means not just the right calorie level, but also solid nutrition.
My bottom line opinion: If I want to be healthy, exercise can't save me from a bad way of eating; and good eating can't save me from seriously inadequate activity levels. For best (health) results, I need both.0 -
I play basketball 2-3 times per week for about an hour and a half each time, with friends I have known for at least 10 years. Basketball is what motivates me to do almost everything I do health-wise, whether that be eating at a moderate calorie deficit, going to the gym to lift weights, or focusing on other ways to be healthy, like getting enough sleep.
I believe we have different tools to help us. Yes, CICO determines whether or not you will lose weight, and I would be much happier gaining muscle and losing inches than losing ANY weight. I do both; I don't have to choose.
Getting healthy is much more complicated than CICO. The CICO obsession (and droning on and on about it) seems a little bit cult-ish to me and is definitely NOT for everyone (as THE only rule to follow).0 -
I've never seen anyone claim that calorie balance (CICO) is all that matters for health.0
-
Who claims otherwise?Getting healthy is much more complicated than CICO.
CICO is not for everyone? How is that possible? It is an energy equation, no more no less...The CICO obsession (and droning on and on about it) seems a little bit cult-ish to me and is definitely NOT for everyone (as THE only rule to follow).0 -
For me this is true. I do better with diet and exercise as I have less time to eat if I am otherwise busy. And if I am hungrier I have a good deficit so there's space to eat more and still lose.0
-
Who claims otherwise?Getting healthy is much more complicated than CICO.
CICO is not for everyone? How is that possible? It is an energy equation, no more no less...The CICO obsession (and droning on and on about it) seems a little bit cult-ish to me and is definitely NOT for everyone (as THE only rule to follow).
So many people get CICO mixed up with dieting or a way of eating, I can only assume. I wouldn't call myself a cicophant per se, but yeah Eat less calories than you burn and you will lose weight, it's how one chooses to get there which is the not so simple part of the equation.0 -
Who claims otherwise?Getting healthy is much more complicated than CICO.
CICO is not for everyone? How is that possible? It is an energy equation, no more no less...The CICO obsession (and droning on and on about it) seems a little bit cult-ish to me and is definitely NOT for everyone (as THE only rule to follow).
Because the foods you eat matter as well as staying inside of your calorie window.1
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions