Why do people say weight loss is 70-80% diet and 20-30% exercise?
Relaxingmind
Posts: 55 Member
I exercise 2-3 hours a day and according to my fitbit my total burn is around 2500 calories and I consume around 1600 which is around my sedentary tdee. So I'm technically creating a (large) deficit through lots of exercise. So why is weight loss only 20% exercise if that's my main tool for losing weight and creating the deficit?
0
Replies
-
People say that because if you ate one snickers above that, a big chunk of those 2-3 hours of exercise will be wiped out in 30 seconds. For most people it's easier controlling their food intake than doing hours of exercise every day.45
-
MFP groundhog day.
Because weight loss is caused by a calorie deficit, which, while a calorie deficit CAN be created by working out more, more often is created by tracking how much you eat and how much you burn and by eating less than the latter #. So people will say "weight loss happens in the kitchen" and what you said because realistically, it's all about calorie intake versus output. That doesn't preclude exercise, but it can occur completely independent of exercise, hence the phrase.7 -
Relaxingmind wrote: »I exercise 2-3 hours a day and according to my fitbit my total burn is around 2500 calories and I consume around 1600 which is around my sedentary tdee. So I'm technically creating a (large) deficit through lots of exercise. So why is weight loss only 20% exercise if that's my main tool for losing weight and creating the deficit?
You're disregarding the care that goes into only eating 1600 cals/day. If you ate 2500 cals/day, all your exercise wouldn't lose you a pound (though it would prevent you from gaining).
Exercise is a wonderful way to raise your daily calories burned and to get fit, but if you don't watch your calorie intake too, you don't lose weight.10 -
Relaxingmind wrote: »I exercise 2-3 hours a day and according to my fitbit my total burn is around 2500 calories and I consume around 1600 which is around my sedentary tdee. So I'm technically creating a (large) deficit through lots of exercise. So why is weight loss only 20% exercise if that's my main tool for losing weight and creating the deficit?
Because that's not really realistic long term for most people...and you also have to consider injuries, illness, etc...most people aren't going to be able to workout for hours daily...it's a lot more efficient to do a reasonable amount of exercise for your fitness and drop a few hundred calories from your diet.
You also have to consider that you in fact are eating in a deficit...thus diet is the bigger piece...you can do all the exercise in the world but if you're eating to maintenance, you're going to maintain...not lose.8 -
I also create my deficit through activity. It was much easier for me to do that than to reduce what I was currently eating. I enjoy being active and feel better the more active I am. It's all about finding what works for you.
I do think it's important for people to know they can create a deficit and lose without exercise, it just isn't the best way for me.3 -
Relaxingmind wrote: »I exercise 2-3 hours a day and according to my fitbit my total burn is around 2500 calories and I consume around 1600 which is around my sedentary tdee. So I'm technically creating a (large) deficit through lots of exercise. So why is weight loss only 20% exercise if that's my main tool for losing weight and creating the deficit?
Because generally speaking, you can't out-exercise a poor diet. It's a general statement that also has to do with the idea that generally speaking, a body likes to maintain whatever weight it is "used to" and th elss you have to lose, the harder it can be to lose it. ALso, realistically speaking, I doubt you'd e able to keep up 3 hours a day of exercise in perpetuity, so having control of your diet is most of the battle,9 -
How are you validating that calorie burn and are you factoring out your BMR? If you're using MFP to give you those calories keep in mind that they are often vastly overinflated, too.
The simple answer is that most people don't have the kind of time to be doing 2-3 hours of exercise per day nor are they burning a ridiculous amount of calories doing it. The average person exercising to lose weight is spending 30-60 minutes at it and burning calories equal to a few hours of their BMR doing it. Most people find that exercising makes them more hungry, too, so they're going to eat a little more (and if not calorie counting maybe a lot more) than they normally would have. Since the calories they burn are such a small part of their daily calories it's more sensible to eat less than to try to exercise enough to make up the necessary calorie deficit through exercise alone.6 -
She's not burning 2500 cals via exercise. She's increasing her total burn to 2500 cals using exercise (so, burning about 800 cals in 2-3 hours). That doesn't sound particularly unreasonable.4
-
SusanMFindlay wrote: »If you ate 2500 cals/day, all your exercise wouldn't lose you a pound.
Exactly. And caloric deficit is manageable and effective for most.
If someone has a 44 ounce Pepsi every day and they cut it, that is almost a pound worth of caloric deficit each week. Where as to create the same caloric deficit they would need about an hour of exercise each day.
2 -
Fitbit includes BMR and activity so that's 2500 for total day burn not on top
4 -
Relaxingmind wrote: »I exercise 2-3 hours a day and according to my fitbit my total burn is around 2500 calories and I consume around 1600 which is around my sedentary tdee. So I'm technically creating a (large) deficit through lots of exercise. So why is weight loss only 20% exercise if that's my main tool for losing weight and creating the deficit?
My question is, Can you isolate your calorie burn? For example what is your calorie burn for 1 day without doing a 2-3 hours of exercise? Then, just isolate what you burn with exercise. With fitbit, I am not sure you can isolate. You might be able to try to look at fitbit before exercise starts record that calorie reading. You will find just getting up and going to the gymn will produce a calorie burn. Anyway, with that base number for calorie burn, do your 1 set exercise then look at your calorie burn and subtract that number from the base calorie reading. You can do this for each set and then for each exercise and so on. You should find that normal living will/should burn about 2k cals.0 -
SusanMFindlay wrote: »She's not burning 2500 cals via exercise. She's increasing her total burn to 2500 cals using exercise (so, burning about 800 cals in 2-3 hours). That doesn't sound particularly unreasonable.
It's not unreasonable at all...but it's also not very realistic for most people...I work 10-12 hours per day and have a family...I'm good to get in 30-60 minutes most days. Also, you have to consider the long haul...how long before one burns out doing three hours worth of exercise every single day...how long before an injury keeps one sidelined for weeks on end? How about illness...or just life getting hectic and in the way?
And it still comes down to consumption...if she was eating 2500 calories per day (her total burn) then she would maintain regardless of the fact that she was exercising...if you eat to maintenance, you're going to maintain...so the diet is still the biggest factor here.
4 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »SusanMFindlay wrote: »She's not burning 2500 cals via exercise. She's increasing her total burn to 2500 cals using exercise (so, burning about 800 cals in 2-3 hours). That doesn't sound particularly unreasonable.
It's not unreasonable at all...but it's also not very realistic for most people...I work 10-12 hours per day and have a family...I'm good to get in 30-60 minutes most days. Also, you have to consider the long haul...how long before one burns out doing three hours worth of exercise every single day...how long before an injury keeps one sidelined for weeks on end? How about illness...or just life getting hectic and in the way?
And it still comes down to consumption...if she was eating 2500 calories per day (her total burn) then she would maintain regardless of the fact that she was exercising...if you eat to maintenance, you're going to maintain...so the diet is still the biggest factor here.
I agree. I was replying to a post that was implying that the OP was claiming all 2500 cals came from exercise. I obviously should have quoted that post as I don't see it anymore. So, that's why I was pointing out that 2-3 hours could reasonably burn ~800 cals. I wasn't commenting at all on the sustainability of that much exercise.0 -
are you losing fast this way? that sounds like a lot of exercise..not knocking it as if you have the time then do it, just most people do not.0
-
Relaxingmind wrote: »I exercise 2-3 hours a day and according to my fitbit my total burn is around 2500 calories and I consume around 1600 which is around my sedentary tdee. So I'm technically creating a (large) deficit through lots of exercise. So why is weight loss only 20% exercise if that's my main tool for losing weight and creating the deficit?
You could look at it either way. You are creating a deficit both by exercising and by not re-eating those calories.1 -
I try to create a deficit through exercise rather reducing calories. I would however be in big trouble if i got injured or couldn't keep up with my current exercise rate..3
-
Because overuse injuries are a b*tch to rehab.
Jumping from a relatively sedentary lifestyle into a daily exercise routine isn't a great idea. (I'm not saying this is you, OP, but I am saying that this does apply to a lot of MFP users). Rest and recovery is an important part of training, and it's a bad idea to skip that. So most average people are going to have a hard time safely creating enough of a deficit just via exercise.
Even for relatively fit individuals, it's going to be difficult to create a consistent deficit if you're just using exercise. I'm at a healthy BMI, so I unfortunately don't burn as many calories as I'd like to when I exercise. Just ballparking it, I burn about 100 calories per mile when I run. In order to lose 0.5 pounds a week, I'd have to run 2.5 miles per day, and I can't do that every single day without eventually injuring myself. It's so much easier (and safer) to create that deficit primarily via my diet.
3 -
Honestly? You need to get your head around the idea that you're going to have to balance your weight one way or another. This isn't a contest to see whether calorie deficit is achievable preferably by one method over another, this is a long game you'll be playing to manage your weight.
At different times throughout your life moving forward, both exercise and your calorie intake have roles to play in managing your weight. In the end, does it matter which comprises the bigger percent of your efforts? They both play a part.
There will be times you can't exercise and will eat less to compensate. There will be times you want to eat more and thus exercise more. It's all about balance.4 -
Most calorie burn estimates are way overinflated. Very unlikely that you're burning 2500 cals in 2-3 hours. Sorry, but it's true.0
-
Christine_72 wrote: »I try to create a deficit through exercise rather than reducing calories. I would however be in big trouble if i got injured or couldn't keep up with my current exercise rate..
2 -
Ok thanks for explaining it, guys
I get the idea now. As for the possible injury, I think I'll be ok. If not, lowering my intake shouldn't be a problem as my appetite has lowered dramatically since switching to an active lifestyle and my past history which ill mention shortly. It would probably take a while to switch back if I were to go temporarily sedentary from injury. Today I hit the weights with a mix of cardio and was at only 1,200 calories at 10:00pm despite burning around 2,500 according to fitbit. I just now force fed myself around 500 more. Question... Is starvation mode real or a myth? I'm currently under the impression it's real, which is why I often force feed to reach my previous/sedentary TDEE. If it's not real, I'll just stop the force feeding and stick with a 800-1,000 deficit. There was a time in my life 2 years ago where I was anorexic so I'm wondering if that has something to do with my small appetite. I'm trying to build muscle and get lean because I used to be underweight. I'm but somewhat skinny-fat. I've been told that my muscle is underneath the fat and I have to eat at a small-medium deficit so it will go away and my muscle will be visible. Maybe I've been misinformed. Idk... I'm still kinda new to weight lifting. Used to be a complete cardio junky. 0 -
You can't out run a donut.
0 -
theclaw900 wrote: »You can't out run a donut.
Sure you can. That's 200-300 cals. But you can't outrun a 12-pack of donuts!14 -
Its a bunch of crap. It comes down to the person. You can lose weight with just diet or with exercise .. or combo of both.5
-
Realistically, most people don't have three hours a day to devote to exercise. Between full-time jobs, children to care for, home, yard, car, school, errands, and all other adult responsibilities, it is much easier to be mindful of food. I can't imagine where I would come up with three hours and I'm done raising children and don't watch TV.0
-
Relaxingmind wrote: »Ok thanks for explaining it, guys I get the idea now. As for the possible injury, I think I'll be ok. If not, lowering my intake shouldn't be a problem as my appetite has lowered dramatically since switching to an active lifestyle and my past history which ill mention shortly. It would probably take a while to switch back if I were to go temporarily sedentary from injury. Today I hit the weights with a mix of cardio and was at only 1,200 calories at 10:00pm despite burning around 2,500 according to fitbit. I just now force fed myself around 500 more. Question... Is starvation mode real or a myth? I'm currently under the impression it's real, which is why I often force feed to reach my previous/sedentary TDEE. If it's not real, I'll just stop the force feeding and stick with a 800-1,000 deficit. There was a time in my life 2 years ago where I was anorexic so I'm wondering if that has something to do with my small appetite. I'm trying to build muscle and get lean because I used to be underweight. I'm but somewhat skinny-fat. I've been told that my muscle is underneath the fat and I have to eat at a small-medium deficit so it will go away and my muscle will be visible. Maybe I've been misinformed. Idk... I'm still kinda new to weight lifting. Used to be a complete cardio junky.
Starvation mode is a myth.
But 800-1,000 calorie deficit is really large, and you make it sound like you're basically just wanting to stay around your current weight but look leaner. If that's the case, then a huge deficit like that isn't what you're looking for. Big deficits like that are for people who are 50+ pounds over their ideal weight.
If you're not currently over a healthy weight for your height, you don't need to eat a deficit at all. You'd do much better with recomposition -- eating around maintenance while lifting weights. That allows the muscles to grow a bit and become more noticeable, while your body burns off the excess fat. It's a slow process, but the end result gets you that "toned" look most women are going for.1 -
I don't know many people who can exercise 2 to 3 hours a day.
I can't even think of anyone who trains that much. Tour de France riders don't train that much. Marathoners don't train that much. Pro bodybuilders lift for about an hour, maybe longer I'd they are running Test cycles. There has to be recovery time or the body just gets run down.
Being a long time marathoner, I'm amazed anyone can accomplish it without chemical enhancement. I can run 26 miles in that time. But there is no way in hell I could do it every day. I wouldn't even run 10 miles every day.1 -
Relaxingmind wrote: »Ok thanks for explaining it, guys I get the idea now. As for the possible injury, I think I'll be ok. If not, lowering my intake shouldn't be a problem as my appetite has lowered dramatically since switching to an active lifestyle and my past history which ill mention shortly. It would probably take a while to switch back if I were to go temporarily sedentary from injury. Today I hit the weights with a mix of cardio and was at only 1,200 calories at 10:00pm despite burning around 2,500 according to fitbit. I just now force fed myself around 500 more. Question... Is starvation mode real or a myth? I'm currently under the impression it's real, which is why I often force feed to reach my previous/sedentary TDEE. If it's not real, I'll just stop the force feeding and stick with a 800-1,000 deficit. There was a time in my life 2 years ago where I was anorexic so I'm wondering if that has something to do with my small appetite. I'm trying to build muscle and get lean because I used to be underweight. I'm but somewhat skinny-fat. I've been told that my muscle is underneath the fat and I have to eat at a small-medium deficit so it will go away and my muscle will be visible. Maybe I've been misinformed. Idk... I'm still kinda new to weight lifting. Used to be a complete cardio junky.
Wait...
You have a history of anorexia, you're doing 2-3 hours of primarily cardio a day, and some days you need to force-feed yourself to get over 1200 calories. That's not a healthy situation.
Starvation mode is a myth in the way you're talking about it; eating less won't make you magically store fat. However, malnourishment and gradually sliding back into under-eating are very real.
Anorexics and people who have gotten down to low body weights without doing things to protect their muscles (like lifting and eating enough protein) lose muscle and bone density along with the fat they lose. It's possible that you do need to gain back some muscle mass (and you won't see much muscle even after losing more fat if it's not under there), but we don't know if that's the case for you. If it were me, I would eat at maintenance, stop doing the cardio and just lift for 6 months. I'd let my body weight stabilize and work on developing some muscle, and then reevaluate after 6 months.6 -
Relaxingmind wrote: »Ok thanks for explaining it, guys I get the idea now. As for the possible injury, I think I'll be ok. If not, lowering my intake shouldn't be a problem as my appetite has lowered dramatically since switching to an active lifestyle and my past history which ill mention shortly. It would probably take a while to switch back if I were to go temporarily sedentary from injury. Today I hit the weights with a mix of cardio and was at only 1,200 calories at 10:00pm despite burning around 2,500 according to fitbit. I just now force fed myself around 500 more. Question... Is starvation mode real or a myth? I'm currently under the impression it's real, which is why I often force feed to reach my previous/sedentary TDEE. If it's not real, I'll just stop the force feeding and stick with a 800-1,000 deficit. There was a time in my life 2 years ago where I was anorexic so I'm wondering if that has something to do with my small appetite. I'm trying to build muscle and get lean because I used to be underweight. I'm but somewhat skinny-fat. I've been told that my muscle is underneath the fat and I have to eat at a small-medium deficit so it will go away and my muscle will be visible. Maybe I've been misinformed. Idk... I'm still kinda new to weight lifting. Used to be a complete cardio junky.
Wait...
You have a history of anorexia, you're doing 2-3 hours of primarily cardio a day, and some days you need to force-feed yourself to get over 1200 calories. That's not a healthy situation.
Starvation mode is a myth in the way you're talking about it; eating less won't make you magically store fat. However, malnourishment and gradually sliding back into under-eating are very real.
Anorexics and people who have gotten down to low body weights without doing things to protect their muscles (like lifting and eating enough protein) lose muscle and bone density along with the fat they lose. It's possible that you do need to gain back some muscle mass (and you won't see much muscle even after losing more fat if it's not under there), but we don't know if that's the case for you. If it were me, I would eat at maintenance, stop doing the cardio and just lift for 6 months. I'd let my body weight stabilize and work on developing some muscle, and then reevaluate after 6 months.
I agree. This feels like a very slippery slope to me.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 395.4K Introduce Yourself
- 44.1K Getting Started
- 260.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 176.2K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.7K Fitness and Exercise
- 445 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153.2K Motivation and Support
- 8.2K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 4.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 16 News and Announcements
- 1.3K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.9K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions