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
-
Well, weight loss or going for a certain body goal in terms of looks or numbers will certainly be a bigger diet component; you have to be a hell of a lot more exact to get a look or specific number in terms of what you take in. Body builders, wrestlers, etc., all eat and portion and maintain very strict diet regiments to get numbers on the scale, or a very specific look to their body. I'd say that for that goal, then yes, diet is a much bigger part.
Now, if your goal is performance, which isn't always quantifiable by strict body measurement numbers, than no, it isn't a majority diet. It can't be, because performance is determined by the amount of work you put in, not simply the food you eat. Your muscles have to be trained, your coordination has to be trained, and exercise and focused physical input is going to often be a much bigger component than the diet. Is diet still important? Certainly. But I used to run long-distance and eat cake and ice cream and pizza and still lost weight and performed where I wanted, because energy is energy.
Personal anecdote, I have to exercise to maintain weight, because diet can be a huge mental issue for me. I don't count calories like I used to, or weight myself more than once a month now, because ultimately, that's how I became hyperfocused and evolved into a person with disordered eating habits. I focus now on the fitness goals, like weight PR, time, etc., because those don't involve a caloric number or a weight on the scale. If I wanted a certain look or weight again, which I don't, I could easily rein in my diet and count calories again.
But that's a slippery slope, and for me, it isn't worth it. So to just maintain where I am or increase my abilities, I simply put in more efforts with exercise, and when I do that, I'm more relaxed, and more often than not, the weight ends up coming off without too much thought. My body type and mentation thrive more on a relaxed diet and vigorous workout regime than strict diet and lax exercise, so there I sit, quite happily.0 -
gataman3000 wrote: »
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.
The foods you eat matter, sure, for all sorts of goals. But how or why does this mean CICO is not for everyone?
Again, there seems to be a misunderstanding that acknowledging that CICO is what governs weight (it's not a diet or way of eating) means not caring about what one eats, and that is false.0 -
Funny thing on here, people will respond to the statements you make and completely overlook any possibility of a deeper understanding. I think you have it figured out. You are way more likely to maintain a healthy weight if your health and wellness plan includes physical activity!
CICO may be the bottom dollar science, but there is more to it. The kind of foods you consume and your daily activity level play a roll in how you lose weight, maintain and gain muscle, and every other aspect of your overall health.
It sounds to me like you aren't trying to call this a diet anymore. Committing to a healthier lifestyle is a much better approach, in my opinion.0 -
amandadunwoody wrote: »It sounds to me like you aren't trying to call this a diet anymore. Committing to a healthier lifestyle is a much better approach, in my opinion.
Who is this directed at? What is "it" referring to?0 -
gataman3000 wrote: »
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.
I'm a little confused as to how that relates? Not that I disagree...0 -
It is an energy equation, nothing more, nothing less...amandadunwoody wrote: »CICO may be the bottom dollar science, but there is more to it.
0 -
Actually it is basically about CICO. Lack of sleep would definitely slow the loss (maybe even to a crawl), but if one is consistently in a calorie deficit, energy balance would in the negative and thereby cause storage to reduce.kingrat2014 wrote: »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.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
0 -
CICO is not a diet...kingrat2014 wrote: »I would not have lost 90 pounds simply following a starvation diet CICO.
1 -
CICO is not a diet...kingrat2014 wrote: »I would not have lost 90 pounds simply following a starvation diet CICO.
Nor is it starvation.0 -
Saying "I don't believe in CICO because there are different ways to lose weight" is like saying "I don't believe in Gravity, because there are so many different kinds of shoes".7
-
Losing weight is all about the CICO.
However, exercise is vital for all the right reasons when it comes to losing weight - endorphin is being released, which helps with the diet/restriction blues; you burn more calories so you can eat more which helps you feel as if you are not on some strict diet; you get to sleep better in the long run; your body gets to change some due to the working out.
So, while it's 100% CICO if we talk about strictly the act of losing weight, it is more about 80/20 when it comes to the psychology of losing weight. And again - that's very personal. I know people who actually see exercise as punishment, so for them it actually has negative impact on their weight loss. For me it's more about 70/30 because I'm somewhat bound to depression, anxiety and insomnia, and working out has always made me feel more confident, stronger, as if I've accomplished a lot more, etc. and these always make me stick to my calories without a problem.
So really, the 80/20 "rule" for me is about the mind game that you have to play in order to succeed.1 -
Losing weight is all about the CICO.
However, exercise is vital for all the right reasons when it comes to losing weight - endorphin is being released, which helps with the diet/restriction blues; you burn more calories so you can eat more which helps you feel as if you are not on some strict diet; you get to sleep better in the long run; your body gets to change some due to the working out.
So, while it's 100% CICO if we talk about strictly the act of losing weight, it is more about 80/20 when it comes to the psychology of losing weight. And again - that's very personal. I know people who actually see exercise as punishment, so for them it actually has negative impact on their weight loss. For me it's more about 70/30 because I'm somewhat bound to depression, anxiety and insomnia, and working out has always made me feel more confident, stronger, as if I've accomplished a lot more, etc. and these always make me stick to my calories without a problem.
So really, the 80/20 "rule" for me is about the mind game that you have to play in order to succeed.
I didn't exercise at all during the weight loss phase and I never got dieting 'blues', but I did alternate day IF, so I actually only 'dieted' every other day, making it very doable for me. I do wonder though, if my weight loss journey would have been different if I had found MFP when I was first starting, and I tried losing the extra weight with a more traditional calorie restricted plan? (instead I stumbled onto a low carb site, which had a group of IF'ers and that's what I got plugged into, didn't discover MFP until after I was in maintenance).
With ADF every other day was a higher calorie day (maintenance levels), so I could see not having that, needing to add exercise in just to get more calories to prevent burnout.0 -
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.
That makes no sense. You are comparing no exercise to extreme exercise but not thinking that exercise burns calories which allows you to eat more, while still having less net calories. You obviously burned more than 200 calories exercising which is why your 1700 calories while being extremely active allowed you to lose weight compared to 1500 calories with no exercise. You probably could have consumed 1000 calories with no exercise and had the same effect in regards to weight loss. Exercise is not necessary to lose weight because your body will burn calories just being alive so you just need to adjust your calories in accordingly to lose, maintain, or gain weight 100% guaranteed.1 -
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.
It was CICO...1 -
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.
It was CICO...
As it always is.
1 -
I do believe this was accurate for the most part when I first started.
Now that I'm pretty fit, I find I can maintain everything around 60/40. I have a lot of muscle now, and I work out 5+ times a week for an hour a time doing high intensity and strength workouts, so I have changed my metabolism.
I also agree genetics play a part in body shape (bone structure, etc) but for the most part a lot of this can be overcome and not to be used as an excuse.0 -
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.
It was CICO...
I don't think she was arguing that it wasn't. I'll try to rephrase her question.
CI = diet, CO = exercise
changes to CI or CO could result in weight loss or weight gain.
CI>CO=weight gain, CI<CO=weight loss
If CI increases
and CO increases
and weight decreases, was the decrease in weight due to the manipulation of CI or CO? It's pretty easy to deduce that in this case the CO manipulation lead to weight loss.
My position is that the 80/20 rule is saying that CI manipulation is easier for most people. Her position is that it depends.
ETA: the bolded part above is in relation to the question posed.
1 -
Actually CO = living.
Just by pure existing you are burning calories... So even if you veg out in bed all day long, you can lose if you control the CI.0 -
Exercise just helps create more deficit. When I think about 80/20 I think of 80% good nutrition and 20% whatever the heck I want LOL2
-
You can exercise all you like, but if you are not eating at a calorie deficit, you are not going to lose weight. I have a number of friends who have trained for marathons or half-marathons who were surprised they didn't lose a pound in spite of all the running. But they also admitted they were ravenous from all the extra exercise and ate much more whole training. So by the time their races came along, they were most likely fitter and healthier than they were before they began training, but no thinner, or lighter.
I have been pretty consistent in my exercise habits over the past several years, but I know that if I am less diligent in monitoring my diet, the pounds will creep on.2 -
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.
It's diet alone as in you can't eat more calories than what you're expending. Doing exercise burns more calories, therefore you can eat more calories and still lose weight. You could lose weight by diet alone, but you probably wouldn't be able to maintain it for long.
Exercise also changes the way your body looks. You could have two people that weigh the same exact thing, but the person who exercises is going to look more fit. There's a difference between being skinny and being fit. The same way there's a difference between being skinny and being healthy.0 -
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 am going to "steal" this quote! I love it because it is exactly the way I feel. The weight is all about food, and the fitness is all about exercise. My goal is to be thin and fit.2 -
If you don't calorie count (even in some informal way), there is absolutely no point in exercising for weight loss.1
-
Weight loss is about eating less calories than you burn. Simple fact.
How you get there is up to you.
You can absolutely lose weight by just limiting your calories without any additional exercise.
Is it healthier for you to exercise? Absolutely, but not necessary for weight loss.
And if you are exercising and losing weight it is because you are eating less calories than you are burning. Fact.
2 -
Well for starters, your Dr. was 100% wrong. Weight loss is 100% diet. You can't out exercise a bad diet no matter how hard you try. If you're talking optimal health, of course diet and exercise are extremely important to optimal health and longevity. There's no question about that and no science can refute that.0
-
100% wrong? That's a bold statement. I know you can lose weight without exercise because it all comes down to CICO but that said, it's like trying to have sex with your clothes on...2
-
beautifulwarrior18 wrote: »Well for starters, your Dr. was 100% wrong. Weight loss is 100% diet. You can't out exercise a bad diet no matter how hard you try. If you're talking optimal health, of course diet and exercise are extremely important to optimal health and longevity. There's no question about that and no science can refute that.
That's like saying "Just chop off your arm for weight loss. One less arm and you'll weigh less; no science can refute that!"
Retaining lean body mass, assuring proper rate of loss, long term hormonal and metabolic function all matter. From a medical point of view, weight loss is also about maintaining or improving health (and fitness) and isn't something that exists in a vacuum.
3 -
beautifulwarrior18 wrote: »Well for starters, your Dr. was 100% wrong. Weight loss is 100% diet. You can't out exercise a bad diet no matter how hard you try. If you're talking optimal health, of course diet and exercise are extremely important to optimal health and longevity. There's no question about that and no science can refute that.
You are wrong. There are several examples given within this thread of people who have "out exercised" a bad diet.1 -
beautifulwarrior18 wrote: »Well for starters, your Dr. was 100% wrong. Weight loss is 100% diet. You can't out exercise a bad diet no matter how hard you try. If you're talking optimal health, of course diet and exercise are extremely important to optimal health and longevity. There's no question about that and no science can refute that.
You are wrong. There are several examples given within this thread of people who have "out exercised" a bad diet.
Right.
As I said upthread, all these efforts to quantify the relative importance as a general rule make no sense to me, as it differs from situation to situation. Of course it's possible to lose weight without exercise (although if you have the option to do otherwise, I don't know why you would), but it is also possible to lose weight without changing how much you eat but exercising more. It's not a great way to do it for most people, since most people who need to lose have out of control eating in some way and aren't in great shape, but there are exceptions.
I lose weight on more calories than my sedentary maintenance, so is that 100% exercise? I wouldn't say so, but you could make an argument for it. It's certainly not 100% diet in any meaningful way, especially since exercise is a huge motivator for me to eat well.1
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 424 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K 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
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions