Interesting Article on calorie restriction vs exercise vs Calorie restriction and exercise
Options
Replies
-
GuitarJerry wrote: »I don't stay away from high fat foods.
I do however exercise on a regular basis but I know from past experience that if I rely only on exercise it can backfire...
I believe a similar if not the same study also said they ate breakfast which we know doesn't matter...meal timing is irrelevant.
Meal timing is irrelevant to weight loss, but not to performance.
not sure you can say that either. Lots of people work out fasted.
For example if I eat before a run...stitch in my side so I don't eat anything more than a yogurt and if I am really hungry 1 piece of toast.
As well with lifting lots are early morning pre breakfast lifters..
I highly doubt that runners that race run fasted though.
actually lots do...it's a debate in the running world which is better...
eat and burn gylcogen instead of fat leaving nothing for the last bit or fast run and burn fat first leaving the last bit of glycogen for the end when it's needed.
https://runnersconnect.net/coach-corner/marathon-long-runs-on-an-empty-stomach-or-fully-fueled/
at the end of this article they say its all up to the individual to test it for themselves and see which is best for the individual.
that is about training to improve glycogen storage for when you race. Quote: "The research makes a strong case that occasional long runs in a fasted state will improve glycogen storage and fat utilization, but extended training or multiple long runs in the fasted state will impair performance and does not provide further benefits to fat utilization."1 -
GuitarJerry wrote: »I don't stay away from high fat foods.
I do however exercise on a regular basis but I know from past experience that if I rely only on exercise it can backfire...
I believe a similar if not the same study also said they ate breakfast which we know doesn't matter...meal timing is irrelevant.
Meal timing is irrelevant to weight loss, but not to performance.
not sure you can say that either. Lots of people work out fasted.
For example if I eat before a run...stitch in my side so I don't eat anything more than a yogurt and if I am really hungry 1 piece of toast.
As well with lifting lots are early morning pre breakfast lifters..
I highly doubt that runners that race run fasted though.
actually lots do...it's a debate in the running world which is better...
eat and burn gylcogen instead of fat leaving nothing for the last bit or fast run and burn fat first leaving the last bit of glycogen for the end when it's needed.
https://runnersconnect.net/coach-corner/marathon-long-runs-on-an-empty-stomach-or-fully-fueled/
at the end of this article they say its all up to the individual to test it for themselves and see which is best for the individual.
that is about training to improve glycogen storage for when you race. Quote: "The research makes a strong case that occasional long runs in a fasted state will improve glycogen storage and fat utilization, but extended training or multiple long runs in the fasted state will impair performance and does not provide further benefits to fat utilization."
Yes I got that part but my point is people do race fasted.
People run fasted
People lift fasted (I prefer this to seeing them spew lunch)
People exercise fasted and do just as well as those who exercise post meal...
ETA: but to be frank this has nothing to do with the original OP and the fact it went down this path boggles my mind.0 -
RosieRose7673 wrote: »GuitarJerry wrote: »The biggest mistake I see the majority of people make is the gross over exaggeration of the effect of exercise. People at work, for instance, will say, "I was on the elliptical for one hour today", then proceed to pig out.
I suppose if someone ate exactly the same, and just added exercise, it would have some effect. But, I haven't been able to do anything that way. I have to both, control food intake and exercise.
I agree with this! Over exaggerating exercise burn is big. I used to work at a restaurant (for years) that had huge desserts with extremely high calorie counts, not too mention HUGE portions for entrees. The LOWEST calorie count dessert was ~600 calories. Generally speaking, average was about ~1500 calories, with some that were almost 2000! The entrees, well, those were worse. You MAY be able to figure out where I worked from the huge calories and portions I'm talking about alone!
Anyways, I'd hear people say all the time "oh! I made it to the gym today! Ran a few miles on the treadmill!" And then proceed to down an entire entree and an entire cheesecake. Well, there goes 4000 calories right there, excluding drinks!
Haha yeah it's what I did when I was trying to lose weight 12 years ago. Went to the gym, burned 200 calories, then I was so hungry I'd stop by Burger King on the way back. Awesome. It's actually why I didn't exercise the first 2 weeks when I joined MFP.. wanted to make sure I got the diet part right first.
But now, yeah. It's interesting actually because if you follow Scooby, my TDEE now is at least 200 higher than when I was obese. Activity really makes a huge difference.2 -
As a three year maintainer and one who doesn't log, I pretty much agree with this...even the "they stay away from high fatty foods"...I don't interpret that to mean a low fat diet or avoiding dietary fat altogether...I interpret that to mean they stay away from things like pizza, deep fried foods, overuse of cooking oil, fattier cuts of meat, etc as a matter of their diet at large. I do eat those things, but they aren't a substantive part of my diet...those are the kinds of things I eat every so often, not on a daily basis and thus they are negligible to my diet as a whole. I get my fat by way of nuts, avocados, and good cooking oils mostly and I would describe my diet as relatively lean. IMO, weight maintenance would be pretty difficult if I was eating pizza and whatnot day in and day out.
As exercise relates to weight management, I'd say for me it acts like a buffer and gives me a little more latitude and makes it more difficult to overeat. That said, one of the worst things I ever did while trying to lose weight was training for a sprint triathlon (which I ultimately didn't get to participate in). I found weight loss and calorie restriction with that kind of intensive training to be difficult because 1) I was hungry all of the time and 2) the calorie restriction interfered with my recovery. I had the most success losing weight simply managing a reasonable calorie restriction with light to moderate physical activity for 30-45 minutes most days. Intense training requires intense feeding IMO.7 -
I'm trying hard ,just don't try to eat sugar products0
-
I read this earlier today and it irritated me. While technically correct, they used twisted statistics to support the article. In the works of late-great Mark Twain: "There are lies, damned lies, and then there's statistics."
Let me summarize the article in one sentence. Eating is easier than exercise.
Example of the dumbness of the article:
>>>When I trail ride my bike as hard as I can for an hour - I might burn 800 to 1000 calories.
>>>When I get done with that ride and I sit down and eat a mess of well deserved smoked chicken wings, dunked in ranch dressing, all washed down with a icy cold IPA - I just ate 1,000 calories in 15 minutes and never even worked up a sweat.
2 -
not sure you can say that either. Lots of people work out fasted.
For example if I eat before a run...stitch in my side so I don't eat anything more than a yogurt and if I am really hungry 1 piece of toast.
Same! Even if I eat a protein bar a few hours before, it can still mess with me. I prefer to run fasted when my schedule allows.Calories out = exercise.
Calories out = all our daily activity like breathing, sitting upright, standing, walking to the photocopier, making lunch, going for a walk at lunch, going cycling or to the gym after work, throwing the ball around with the kids at the park, taking the stairs etc. etc. etc. ...
It's just that some of us do more of it than others do.
Yeah. For me it's 100% obvious that I'd gain weight back if I didn't exercise and try to stay active, because it lets me eat more... 300-400 extra calories a day is not negligible if your sedentary TDEE is 1600.
Let's be real, I'd bet that a majority of the people on this forum, me included, are here because they like eating (and high calorie foods). So being able to eat more without gaining weight really matters.
Plus you can't eat while exercising, so there's that.
I agree. I exercise so I can eat a bit more as I lose weight, and I know people maintaining who do the same. My sedentary TDEE will be about the same as yours when I get to goal weight. I plan on ramping up my running between now and then, both so I can eat more and because I enjoy it. As you said, it helps I can't eat while I run (I suppose technically I could, but I don't think my stomach would like it). Also running for me serves as a pretty effective temporary appetite suppressant. If I wait too long I'll be super hungry later, but exercise in the short term both takes up time I'm not eating or thinking about eating, and right after I'm usually not hungry either. So I can have food post-run with an eye to nutrition not based on what my hungry brain wants.
I think the helpful thing about exercising while losing weight is that it's a concrete goal that you can see progress in. Obviously it can be a problem when someone posts (there are usually a few a week) about how they are working out x days a week and still not losing weight...but for me, instead of just focusing 100% on my calorie goal and panicking whether it's high or low, I also have fitness goals that I can succeed in and will make me stronger even if they aren't a huge contributor to weight loss.
0 -
Very interesting! I usually eat 50% of my exercise calories back but I guess I need to stop. Maybe I should quit logging it too so it won't throw off my "If every day were like today you would be __ in 5 weeks."0
-
foxygirl14 wrote: »Very interesting! I usually eat 50% of my exercise calories back but I guess I need to stop. Maybe I should quit logging it too so it won't throw off my "If every day were like today you would be __ in 5 weeks."
Why?0 -
True confession before I begin. I only skimmed this thread and the article that prompted the dialogue.
When I began my weight loss journey, I was part of a Skype group where others were on similar missions. I observed a couple of them posting their activities. At times, it seemed a little absurd and neither were making profound progress, according to them. I sensed an error in their logic when they would congratulate themselves and state how much more food they could eat after exercising.
There was a television commercial for some machine that inspired me to take action, finally. The person said, "All I had to do was get up and walk."
I was also aware that my eating habits were sloppy and unhealthy. I would only eat one HUGE meal a day, and 80% of the time it was from a fast food restaurant. It annoyed me that I couldn't put on any clothing that I brought with me when I moved out here and dressed mainly in frumpy sweatsuits or other items with elastic waistbands. But, as I analyzed my self-disgust, I could only blame myself because I honestly knew better.
I didn't buy a machine, but the advice from that TV commercial hit home. I live in an area where weather permits getting out for a walk nearly every day. (I'm a fair weather gal.) I had no excuses so I began to walk. At first, making a round trip of a half-mile at a pace of about 20 minutes per mile. Every walk was a chore because every return trip is uphill. Over time, as I dropped pounds and gained strength, that changed.
For me, it has always been a pretty simple algorithm. You are what you eat, so to speak, and moderation and balance are key.
When I hit my wall of disgust and shame, I joined Weight Watchers. Their "point system" helped me learn how much and what to eat. Their recipes were good too. I began taking vitamins and got back to drinking 2 - 4 liters of water each day.
After 12 months of conscious attention, I obtained my weight loss goal of 70 lbs. My BMI dropped from 33 to a very healthy 22. I've maintained those stats for over 6 months now and feel certain that I will continue to maintain them, as long as I keep tracking my food portions, eating healthy, and walking several days a week. I'm committed now and I'll stick with what is working because I like the way I feel now.
For the record, I never gave up Blue Cheese Dressing or chocolate.
I'm far from hardcore. I enjoy my walks and most of them are around my home, taking about 45 minutes away from my desk each day. But, the desire to walk has opened up a new pass time of hiking. I live near oceans, deserts and mountains. I've covered parts of the Pacific Crest Trail, walked up to the top of peaks, and seen a lot of very beautiful country. And, I've captured some gorgeous photographs too.
So, the moral to my story is that the main benefit of getting more active to me is to feel better. I like being able to slip on a pair of jeans without breaking a sweat. (smile) I'm 64-years old and people ask if my daughter, who is 46, is my sister. When I took my grandson hiking, he had trouble keeping up with me. All these things are gratifying.
11 -
While I agree with this article and find it very interesting I think there is something to be said about the importance of how excersize makes you FEEL. I dropped a quick 10lbs on MFP (I only had 30 to drop) with eating at a deficit and excersize. And I instantly felt great. I kinda stalled there, struggling to drop under 140. These past two weeks while away for work I dropped that additional 5lbs I've been dying to, but without excersize, just eating at a deficit, and guess what it doesn't feel great. I don't feel great. Due to my lack of excersize these past two weeks I feel sluggish, and honestly, less motivated to eat healthy. Excersize does more for me than just aid me on my weight loss journey. It's very much mental as well. So while I do agree that excersize isn't "needed" per se in order to lose weight, it does make me feel *healthier*. And I'd take *healthy* over *skinny* any day!2
-
foxygirl14 wrote: »Very interesting! I usually eat 50% of my exercise calories back but I guess I need to stop. Maybe I should quit logging it too so it won't throw off my "If every day were like today you would be __ in 5 weeks."
Why?
Because of the last paragraph summarizing the article:
"If you embark on a weight-loss journey that involves both adding exercise and cutting calories, Montclair's Diana Thomas warned not to count those calories burned in physical activity toward extra eating.
'Pretend you didn't exercise at all,' she said. 'You will most likely compensate anyway so think of exercising just for health improvement but not for weight loss.'"0 -
I generally agree with the article. I lost over 70lbs just by cutting back calories. People couldn't believe it. They asked how much I had to work out. I said, "I did it all and never left my couch." Now, perhaps I wasn't overweight any longer, but I might not have been "healthy". I'm now losing again. I've started walking every day and generally trying to be more active. I'm doing this to feel better. It might help my weight loss a bit, but that's not why I decided to get off the couch.2
-
foxygirl14 wrote: »foxygirl14 wrote: »Very interesting! I usually eat 50% of my exercise calories back but I guess I need to stop. Maybe I should quit logging it too so it won't throw off my "If every day were like today you would be __ in 5 weeks."
Why?
Because of the last paragraph summarizing the article:
"If you embark on a weight-loss journey that involves both adding exercise and cutting calories, Montclair's Diana Thomas warned not to count those calories burned in physical activity toward extra eating.
'Pretend you didn't exercise at all,' she said. 'You will most likely compensate anyway so think of exercising just for health improvement but not for weight loss.'"
When I was losing weight, my base calories were about 1,260 and I was running 40-90 minutes a day. I also walked to and from work a few days a week (4 miles round trip). If I had pretended that I wasn't exercising, I think I would have made myself ill -- or at least miserable.0 -
In my own experience, I've seen better and lasting results when I watch what I eat. I mean, I look at it this way, I'm creating a 300-500 deficit every day just by cutting portions and being mindful. An hour at the gym might not even come close to that depending on the exercise. Don't get me wrong, I want to build muscle too and exercise will do that for me, but losing body fat? Diet for sure.1
-
foxygirl14 wrote: »foxygirl14 wrote: »Very interesting! I usually eat 50% of my exercise calories back but I guess I need to stop. Maybe I should quit logging it too so it won't throw off my "If every day were like today you would be __ in 5 weeks."
Why?
Because of the last paragraph summarizing the article:
"If you embark on a weight-loss journey that involves both adding exercise and cutting calories, Montclair's Diana Thomas warned not to count those calories burned in physical activity toward extra eating.
'Pretend you didn't exercise at all,' she said. 'You will most likely compensate anyway so think of exercising just for health improvement but not for weight loss.'"
The article is not necessarily assuming that you're using a disciplined calorie-counting approach, because not everyone does that. You're using MFP, which - when used as designed - is a disciplined calorie-counting approach. MFP's calculations assume you eat back your exercise, or at least a substantial fraction of it.
In the quote, she's talking about a scenario where you're just kinda cutting back, plus working out in ways you think of as hard workouts, then thinking you can eat way more than you actually burned, because most people under-guess food calories, and over-guess exercise calories.
So, if you're following the MFP approach, and counting exercise & food calories in a disciplined way, eat back your exercise, or you're under-fueling yourself.4 -
foxygirl14 wrote: »foxygirl14 wrote: »Very interesting! I usually eat 50% of my exercise calories back but I guess I need to stop. Maybe I should quit logging it too so it won't throw off my "If every day were like today you would be __ in 5 weeks."
Why?
Because of the last paragraph summarizing the article:
"If you embark on a weight-loss journey that involves both adding exercise and cutting calories, Montclair's Diana Thomas warned not to count those calories burned in physical activity toward extra eating.
'Pretend you didn't exercise at all,' she said. 'You will most likely compensate anyway so think of exercising just for health improvement but not for weight loss.'"
For the NEAT Method which is what MFP uses it is built to eat them back...
But that being said...
Exercise isn't for weight loss it's for health and fitness and is not required for weight loss...
I eat mine back and it hasn't hampered me at all...when I was first losing...then at maintenance now for the 10lbs of holiday/vacation/business trip weight.0 -
foxygirl14 wrote: »foxygirl14 wrote: »Very interesting! I usually eat 50% of my exercise calories back but I guess I need to stop. Maybe I should quit logging it too so it won't throw off my "If every day were like today you would be __ in 5 weeks."
Why?
Because of the last paragraph summarizing the article:
"If you embark on a weight-loss journey that involves both adding exercise and cutting calories, Montclair's Diana Thomas warned not to count those calories burned in physical activity toward extra eating.
'Pretend you didn't exercise at all,' she said. 'You will most likely compensate anyway so think of exercising just for health improvement but not for weight loss.'"
The article is not assuming you're using a tool like MFP which gives you a calorie target based on ZERO exercise and thus your calorie target doesn't include any estimate of the requisite calories to fuel that activity. MFP is designed so that you account for exercise after the fact...it's also important to fuel your fitness. My calorie goal when I used MFP was 1800 to lose 1 Lb per week without any exercise...I go ride for 30 miles and burn up about 1,000 calories and I don't eat anything to account for that, I end up really only providing my body with 800 calories which isn't enough to remotely support basic functions.
You need to understand the tool you're using and how to put these kinds of articles and whatnot into proper context.1 -
foxygirl14 wrote: »foxygirl14 wrote: »Very interesting! I usually eat 50% of my exercise calories back but I guess I need to stop. Maybe I should quit logging it too so it won't throw off my "If every day were like today you would be __ in 5 weeks."
Why?
Because of the last paragraph summarizing the article:
"If you embark on a weight-loss journey that involves both adding exercise and cutting calories, Montclair's Diana Thomas warned not to count those calories burned in physical activity toward extra eating.
'Pretend you didn't exercise at all,' she said. 'You will most likely compensate anyway so think of exercising just for health improvement but not for weight loss.'"
Sorry but ... if I'm on a 5 or 6 hour bicycle ride, I need to eat at least some of my calories back or there's this rather horrible thing called "bonking" ... and not in the UK sense of the word.
If I've just gone for a 30 min walk, however, I might not eat those calories back.
0 -
foxygirl14 wrote: »foxygirl14 wrote: »Very interesting! I usually eat 50% of my exercise calories back but I guess I need to stop. Maybe I should quit logging it too so it won't throw off my "If every day were like today you would be __ in 5 weeks."
Why?
Because of the last paragraph summarizing the article:
"If you embark on a weight-loss journey that involves both adding exercise and cutting calories, Montclair's Diana Thomas warned not to count those calories burned in physical activity toward extra eating.
'Pretend you didn't exercise at all,' she said. 'You will most likely compensate anyway so think of exercising just for health improvement but not for weight loss.'"
Sorry but ... if I'm on a 5 or 6 hour bicycle ride, I need to eat at least some of my calories back or there's this rather horrible thing called "bonking" ... and not in the UK sense of the word.
If I've just gone for a 30 min walk, however, I might not eat those calories back.
This is true - I work in an office full of distance athletes, and nutrition is a big deal, they eat little packets of honey and stuff during a long run, because once your muscles run out of fuel you will just fall over. But doing a 6 hour workout is very unusual, in terms of the general population, even fit people. Most of us can afford to work out and not eat it back while losing weight, and I never eat before exercising in the morning, can do up to an hour and feel vigorous and healthy if I eat a good supper the night before, so there is plenty floating around in there to fund a workout even 10 hours after I eat.
Bonking in the UK sense of the word, now that I could do for 6 hours. If I had time.
1
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 393 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 938 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions