Exercise and weight loss
Options
Replies
-
Chunkahlunkah wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »Exercise does not induce weight loss...if it did, people trying to maintain their weight who exercise/train on the regular would simply wither away.
Weight loss is all about the right CICO balance, absolutely.
I think it's misleading though to say exercise doesn't induce weight loss. ? If CO increases and CI holds steady, then there's going to be weight loss. The people you mention are increasing their CI to compensate, so no weight loss.
I mean, you could say calorie restriction doesn't induce weight loss with the same reasoning. If you take an active person and reduce their CI but also reduce their CO proportionally, then they too aren't going to lose weight.
The relationship between the two is what matters, and changes to either end *can* cause weight loss/gain.
I don't think it's misleading at all...there are literally thousands of people I see here everyday and in my gym at home that think just because they're exercising that they should lose weight...no change...they are under the impression that the exercise itself should be melting the fat off and don't understand that it comes down to the calories they are taking in.
Exercise is for fitness and has the added benefit of a bit more energy expenditure...but again, it does not induce weight loss in and of itself, and that's what a lot of people think. Just go to about any gym and you will see it...just look at posts here about how they're exercising, but nothing is happening....these people are under the impression that the exercise in and of itself should be causing weight loss...they don't understand the energy balance...they think exercise is "magic"3 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »Chunkahlunkah wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »Exercise does not induce weight loss...if it did, people trying to maintain their weight who exercise/train on the regular would simply wither away.
Weight loss is all about the right CICO balance, absolutely.
I think it's misleading though to say exercise doesn't induce weight loss. ? If CO increases and CI holds steady, then there's going to be weight loss. The people you mention are increasing their CI to compensate, so no weight loss.
I mean, you could say calorie restriction doesn't induce weight loss with the same reasoning. If you take an active person and reduce their CI but also reduce their CO proportionally, then they too aren't going to lose weight.
The relationship between the two is what matters, and changes to either end *can* cause weight loss/gain.
I don't think it's misleading at all...there are literally thousands of people I see here everyday and in my gym at home that think just because they're exercising that they should lose weight...no change...they are under the impression that the exercise itself should be melting the fat off and don't understand that it comes down to the calories they are taking in.
Exercise is for fitness and has the added benefit of a bit more energy expenditure...but again, it does not induce weight loss in and of itself, and that's what a lot of people think. Just go to about any gym and you will see it...just look at posts here about how they're exercising, but nothing is happening....these people are under the impression that the exercise in and of itself should be causing weight loss...they don't understand the energy balance...they think exercise is "magic"
Well yes, their belief that exercise necessarily drops weight
is of course ignorant and wrong. CI must be less than CO. But exercise can and does induce weight loss when accurately manipulating that variable in the equation.
The "bit more energy expenditure" of exercise can be the difference between being fit and overweight. A consistent surplus/deficit of a few hundred calories is no small thing for the body.1 -
Chunkahlunkah wrote: »Tacklewasher wrote: »If I had to put numbers to this, I'd say it's 80% diet and 20% exercise.
This ubiquitous statement is such a pet peeve of mine.
So, FOR ME, I get 1600 calories from my NEAT less 1000 (losing 2 lb per week). I want to eat 2000 so I need 400 exercise calories per day.
Hey. 80/20
1 -
Tacklewasher wrote: »Chunkahlunkah wrote: »Tacklewasher wrote: »If I had to put numbers to this, I'd say it's 80% diet and 20% exercise.
This ubiquitous statement is such a pet peeve of mine.
So, FOR ME, I get 1600 calories from my NEAT less 1000 (losing 2 lb per week). I want to eat 2000 so I need 400 exercise calories per day.
Hey. 80/20
Well that worked out neatly lol. I can read your 80/20 w/o cringing, thank you.
The thing though is it's not a constant. Even for you. That ratio is created in part by the rate of loss you chose. If you chose to lose weight at 1 lb/week instead, for example, you'd only need a 500 calorie deficit from your starting point of 2600 cal/day. Since you're comfortable eating only 2000 cal a day, weight loss could be 100/0 for you. Or since you're ok with 400 calories burned a day, it could instead be just 100 calories dieted, so 20/80.
What I have in mind when I talk about balancing the equation is TDEE. As an adult, I've had a relatively fixed calorie level that I intuitively eat. It's about 1700 cal a day, give or take 100. (I'm a short female.) If I eat that amount and am sedentary, the TDEE charts predict my weight is 160 pounds, which makes me obese. If I eat that weight and am lightly active, the TDEE charts predict my weight in the 110's, which gives me a normal BMI. That's a huge difference in weight from holding calories constant and merely doing (or not doing) a very reasonable amount of activity.
Most of my life I've been in the 110s. I've had a few dips into overweight, and all were due to a drop in my activity level to sedentary. So for me, my forays into overweight territory were 100% due to a lack of activity. I could eat less when I'm sedentary, but my body doesn't intuitively do so when my activity drops. Rather than restricting what I eat (which isn't an excessive number of calories to begin with), it makes more sense for me to be the weight I want by balancing my calorie level with light activity.
Everyone's different, but there are enough people who can easily make a significant difference in their weight by increasing their activity to a reasonable amount, that 80/20 claims drive me bonkers.
Except for yours, Tacklewasher. 0 -
Look_Its_Kriss wrote: »Chunkahlunkah wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »Chunkahlunkah wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »Exercise does not induce weight loss...if it did, people trying to maintain their weight who exercise/train on the regular would simply wither away.
Weight loss is all about the right CICO balance, absolutely.
I think it's misleading though to say exercise doesn't induce weight loss. ? If CO increases and CI holds steady, then there's going to be weight loss. The people you mention are increasing their CI to compensate, so no weight loss.
I mean, you could say calorie restriction doesn't induce weight loss with the same reasoning. If you take an active person and reduce their CI but also reduce their CO proportionally, then they too aren't going to lose weight.
The relationship between the two is what matters, and changes to either end *can* cause weight loss/gain.
I don't think it's misleading at all...there are literally thousands of people I see here everyday and in my gym at home that think just because they're exercising that they should lose weight...no change...they are under the impression that the exercise itself should be melting the fat off and don't understand that it comes down to the calories they are taking in.
Exercise is for fitness and has the added benefit of a bit more energy expenditure...but again, it does not induce weight loss in and of itself, and that's what a lot of people think. Just go to about any gym and you will see it...just look at posts here about how they're exercising, but nothing is happening....these people are under the impression that the exercise in and of itself should be causing weight loss...they don't understand the energy balance...they think exercise is "magic"
Well yes, their belief that exercise necessarily drops weight is of course ignorant and wrong. CI must be less than CO. But exercise can and does induce weight loss when accurately manipulating that variable in the equation.
The "bit more energy expenditure" of exercise can be the difference between being fit and overweight. A consistent surplus/deficit of a few hundred calories is no small thing for the body.
I definitely understand what you are saying and i agree, you can create a bigger deficit then what MFP gives you with excersize, of course.. for someone my size though, a bigger deficit isn't ideal simply because my 5 pounds left to lose, if i took on a bigger deficit i am leaving myself open to nutrient deficiencies so at this point my deficit is purely the one MFP gives me with a 250 calorie reduction under maintenance and the couple hours i spend in the gym, is simply for fitness and cardiovascular health, as i need to eat myself back to a proper calorie goal.
Oh no, sorry, I probably wasn't clear. I don't mean create a bigger deficit, just create one at all. For ex, if MFP says to lose 0.5lb/week a woman needs to eat 1500 calories a day, then what they're saying is she's currently averaging 1750. So that woman could keep eating 1750 and just add in 250 calories worth of exercise. When she adds the exercise into her diary, MFP bumps her weight loss calories up to 1750.
For someone who's currently sedentary and not eating that many cals to begin with, it could likely be easier to add in the totally absent exercise than drop cals. It depends on where the person is starting.
That's awesome that you're down to 5 pounds to lose!
0 -
Chunkahlunkah wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »Chunkahlunkah wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »Exercise does not induce weight loss...if it did, people trying to maintain their weight who exercise/train on the regular would simply wither away.
Weight loss is all about the right CICO balance, absolutely.
I think it's misleading though to say exercise doesn't induce weight loss. ? If CO increases and CI holds steady, then there's going to be weight loss. The people you mention are increasing their CI to compensate, so no weight loss.
I mean, you could say calorie restriction doesn't induce weight loss with the same reasoning. If you take an active person and reduce their CI but also reduce their CO proportionally, then they too aren't going to lose weight.
The relationship between the two is what matters, and changes to either end *can* cause weight loss/gain.
I don't think it's misleading at all...there are literally thousands of people I see here everyday and in my gym at home that think just because they're exercising that they should lose weight...no change...they are under the impression that the exercise itself should be melting the fat off and don't understand that it comes down to the calories they are taking in.
Exercise is for fitness and has the added benefit of a bit more energy expenditure...but again, it does not induce weight loss in and of itself, and that's what a lot of people think. Just go to about any gym and you will see it...just look at posts here about how they're exercising, but nothing is happening....these people are under the impression that the exercise in and of itself should be causing weight loss...they don't understand the energy balance...they think exercise is "magic"
Well yes, their belief that exercise necessarily drops weight is of course ignorant and wrong. CI must be less than CO. But exercise can and does induce weight loss when accurately manipulating that variable in the equation.
The "bit more energy expenditure" of exercise can be the difference between being fit and overweight. A consistent surplus/deficit of a few hundred calories is no small thing for the body.
But look at the OP...the question is how many times do I need to workout to lose weight? There is quantifiable answer to that...2x...5x...7 days per week...doesn't really matter unless there is a deficit. I could tell her 5x per week, and that would be irrelevant without controlling calories...judging by the question I'm working under the assumption that the OP believes that exercise is was induces weight loss without understanding the an energy deficiency, regardless of how it comes about is what induces weight loss.
This comes up in the maintenance thread all of the time too..."going to maintenance, how much should I exercise?" Why should exercise be any different in maintenance...a lot of people so closely equate exercise with weight loss that they stop exercising altogether in maintenance...because they think it's just for weight loss.2 -
I think both perspectives on exercise can be correct, depending on how you look at it.
Yes, it's equal in the sense that someone who eats 500cal less will lose weight at the same rate as if they exercised 500cal more.
But diet is more important in the sense that it's a hell of a lot easier to eat 500 calories than to burn it through exercise.
Today I wanted home made cookies. So I cycled for half an hour and walked for an hour. That hour and a half of hard labour bought me three cookies. Three. They did not take very long to eat!2 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »Chunkahlunkah wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »Chunkahlunkah wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »Exercise does not induce weight loss...if it did, people trying to maintain their weight who exercise/train on the regular would simply wither away.
Weight loss is all about the right CICO balance, absolutely.
I think it's misleading though to say exercise doesn't induce weight loss. ? If CO increases and CI holds steady, then there's going to be weight loss. The people you mention are increasing their CI to compensate, so no weight loss.
I mean, you could say calorie restriction doesn't induce weight loss with the same reasoning. If you take an active person and reduce their CI but also reduce their CO proportionally, then they too aren't going to lose weight.
The relationship between the two is what matters, and changes to either end *can* cause weight loss/gain.
I don't think it's misleading at all...there are literally thousands of people I see here everyday and in my gym at home that think just because they're exercising that they should lose weight...no change...they are under the impression that the exercise itself should be melting the fat off and don't understand that it comes down to the calories they are taking in.
Exercise is for fitness and has the added benefit of a bit more energy expenditure...but again, it does not induce weight loss in and of itself, and that's what a lot of people think. Just go to about any gym and you will see it...just look at posts here about how they're exercising, but nothing is happening....these people are under the impression that the exercise in and of itself should be causing weight loss...they don't understand the energy balance...they think exercise is "magic"
Well yes, their belief that exercise necessarily drops weight is of course ignorant and wrong. CI must be less than CO. But exercise can and does induce weight loss when accurately manipulating that variable in the equation.
The "bit more energy expenditure" of exercise can be the difference between being fit and overweight. A consistent surplus/deficit of a few hundred calories is no small thing for the body.
But look at the OP...the question is how many times do I need to workout to lose weight? There is quantifiable answer to that...2x...5x...7 days per week...doesn't really matter unless there is a deficit. I could tell her 5x per week, and that would be irrelevant without controlling calories...judging by the question I'm working under the assumption that the OP believes that exercise is was induces weight loss without understanding the an energy deficiency, regardless of how it comes about is what induces weight loss.
This comes up in the maintenance thread all of the time too..."going to maintenance, how much should I exercise?" Why should exercise be any different in maintenance...a lot of people so closely equate exercise with weight loss that they stop exercising altogether in maintenance...because they think it's just for weight loss.
Well you've been around these here parts far longer than I have, and I trust your take on what you witness. But to me, those comments indicate a lack of grasping CICO, so education needed on the concept. But I wouldn't want to teach those people that exercise/CO doesn't have a big impact on weight or that it's just for fitness. It can make a huge difference in weight loss and maintenance. It depends on the individual and what their CI and CO currently look like.
0 -
Wow thank you all for taking the time to respond to my post1
-
It's been a real eye opener, I'm currently 5/6 stone overweight , I've always been a big girl but fell pregnant and never shifted the weight. My own fault!0
-
Any tips / advice, words of wisdom greatly appreciated. I do HIIT training x 3 a week and MFP says to have 1360 calories0
-
TimothyFish wrote: »Exercise isn't required and yet I seriously doubt that I could have lost weight if I hadn't incorporated it into my routine. There were days when I was so hungry I could think of little else. I would reach the end of my set calorie goal and I wanted more. But after going for an hour long bicycle ride I had more calories. And yes, there were times I ate every last one of them. I still exercise and I enjoy it more now than when I was overweight. But now, it isn't that I have to exercise to stay within my goal, but because I do exercise I can get by with the occasional piece of cake after dinner or a donut that someone brings in to work even though I've already had breakfast. I can't eat just anything and everything, but I have more flexibility.
I agree with this.
Technically exercise is not needed to lose weight. But earning those extra calories makes losing weight a hell of a lot easier.0 -
I did practically 0 exercise for my first 50 pounds. Now i only walk (admittedly alot), And do occasional weight lifting at work.
Definatly dont need to exercise, But i find the extra steps letting me eat more delicious and worth it.
Plus bonus now my legs are pretty toned and sexy XD Never expected that as a short pasty white girl with stupid fat thighs XD Exercise is for stuff like that, Food and calories are for weight loss1 -
Chunkahlunkah wrote: »
Well you've been around these here parts far longer than I have, and I trust your take on what you witness. But to me, those comments indicate a lack of grasping CICO, so education needed on the concept. But I wouldn't want to teach those people that exercise/CO doesn't have a big impact on weight or that it's just for fitness. It can make a huge difference in weight loss and maintenance. It depends on the individual and what their CI and CO currently look like.
"Can" being the operative word here.
All the exercise in the world won't make a bit of difference vis-a-vis weight loss if a person eats more than they burn. We see this all the time in the forums. People come here with the belief that all they have to do is exercise and they'll lose weight. They then post about how frustrated they are that they're not losing any weight. And 99 times out of a 100, they reveal to us that they're not paying attention to their intake.
Conversely, it's entirely possible to lose weight simply by controlling intake. We see this quite often in the forums as well. Thousands of people here have lost a considerable amount of weight without adding any exercise to their diet plan.
This is why we say CI is more important than CO. It's also why dieting tropes like "Weight loss is 80%, 20% exercise," and "You can't outrun a bad diet" exist. Because broadly speaking, they're true.1 -
Any tips / advice, words of wisdom greatly appreciated. I do HIIT training x 3 a week and MFP says to have 1360 calories
Hi Feefee - You could just go straight to following what MFP prescribes for you. So that would mean getting as accurate a reading as you can on how many calories you burn during HIIT, entering them into your diary on those days, and eating 1360 + calories burned. Since it's hard to get a totally accurate reading on how much is burned, some people only eat back a %age of what was burned, like half for example. In theory though, this system is based on accurately eating back what was burned.
1360 sounds like a low calorie level for the amount of weight you're looking to lose. Did you pick to lose at a pace of 2 pounds a week? If you pick a lower pace, like 1 pound a week, you'll get more daily calories to eat.
So that's the gist of MFP.
To get the big picture about weight management though, I'd rec learning about TDEE (if you don't know about it yet). There are different calculators, but I've found this site very accurate for myself. https://mytdee.com/
There, you can estimate what calorie level you were likely consuming at your starting weight. To do this, enter in that weight, plus your activity level when at it (i.e., pre-HIIT). The calorie level it gives you to "maintain" is theoretically what you were consuming.
You could then check out what calorie level it would take to maintain your goal weight at the same activity level.
So now you'll have an idea of what calorie level it takes to sustain your goal weight and how far off you were. From there, you can assess how *you* can best construct your goal weight's calories. You may want to just cut calories, you may want to do that and add in exercise. Imagine how you'll want to live long term. If you weren't off by much, just 200 calories or so, that surplus can easily be made up with exercise (so long as you'll stick with it!). Most people are probably off by more than that though, so need to cut calories too.0 -
CafeRacer808 wrote: »Chunkahlunkah wrote: »
Well you've been around these here parts far longer than I have, and I trust your take on what you witness. But to me, those comments indicate a lack of grasping CICO, so education needed on the concept. But I wouldn't want to teach those people that exercise/CO doesn't have a big impact on weight or that it's just for fitness. It can make a huge difference in weight loss and maintenance. It depends on the individual and what their CI and CO currently look like.
"Can" being the operative word here.
All the exercise in the world won't make a bit of difference vis-a-vis weight loss if a person eats more than they burn. We see this all the time in the forums. People come here with the belief that all they have to do is exercise and they'll lose weight. They then post about how frustrated they are that they're not losing any weight. And 99 times out of a 100, they reveal to us that they're not paying attention to their intake.
Conversely, it's entirely possible to lose weight simply by controlling intake. We see this quite often in the forums as well. Thousands of people here have lost a considerable amount of weight without adding any exercise to their diet plan.
This is why we say CI is more important than CO. It's also why dieting tropes like "Weight loss is 80%, 20% exercise," and "You can't outrun a bad diet" exist. Because broadly speaking, they're true.
I can only imagine how tedious it must be repeatedly encountering that level of ignorance!
They're clearly wrong that they don't need to keep their CI at whichever point results in weight loss with their CO. That's a given.
And for people who are consuming a very large number of calories, they'll have to reduce that. No healthy weight will allow them to consume that b/c the CO to compensate would be unreasonable for the average person to sustain (if not impossible!).
But activity level can make a substantial difference for some people and is why blanket statements about WL being 80% diet aren't helpful for everyone.
Example, me. Eating the same number of calories: 1722
If sedentary, I'd be 157 pounds. Obese at my height.
If lightly active, I'd be 115 pounds. Healthy weight at my height.
That's a huge difference from activity level alone and holding CI constant.
Now, I could instead achieve that lower weight by eating on average 1500 cals a day when sedentar. But I know from experience that the level I intuivitely eat is in the 1700s. That's held steady for me as an adult. Instead of setting myself up for a lifetime of watching and restricting what I eat, for me it makes more sense to just not be a lazy *kitten*.
I'm not a special snowflake. A reasonable increase in activity while holding cals steady could help others too, could make the difference between a healthy weight and an overweight one.0 -
Any tips / advice, words of wisdom greatly appreciated. I do HIIT training x 3 a week and MFP says to have 1360 calories
Just remember it's 1360 PLUS exercise calories. That's the beauty of exercise (at least one of the benefits, anyway) - you get to eat more calories if you exercise!
ETA: Just make sure you don't overestimate your exercise calories. Some people just eat back a certain percentage like 50% or 75%. I usually eat most of mine back, and that works for me.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.7K 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
- 395 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
- 959 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions