Don't Tell Me You Can't Lose Weight With Exercise
Options
Replies
-
PaulaWallaDingDong wrote: »ThatUserNameIsAllReadyTaken wrote: »I have seen it stated here a LOT that exercise has little to do with weight loss. I have always disagreed with that idea as any activity which increases calorie burn will assist in weight loss.
Exercise is always helpful but its effects are limited when it comes to fat loss.
I don't think it's limited - I lost almost 60 lbs just walking every other day over 2 summers. Didn't count calories at all. Went from a size 18 to a size 8 and all I did was walk about 1/2 mile average, every other day. Granted, I'm physically disabled, and walk on crutches, so walking for me is a really strenuous workout. I guess not everyone can lose just by exercise, but there are a lot of people here who claim that you basically don't lose weight from exercise, and it's just not true.
"Limited" is defined as both "restricted in size, amount, or extent" as well as "few, small or short".
As a practical matter, both exercise and diet have limited effects when it comes to fat loss. (Without added exercise, there's no way to consistently consume less than zero calories, even if you could make up that whole deficit from fat loss. (Besides, you'd die.) That's a limit. If one could and did exercise at the maximum sustainable level for 24 hours - which is kinda incompatible with sleep, eating and other functions needed to stay alive, too - one is still going to burn only some number of calories that the best bingers among us could out-eat in 24 hours, I'd wager.)
Yes, that's all silly reductio ad absurdum kind of stuff. But both eating and exercise have limited effects. So what?
Another thing I'm seeing here is the argument from n=1.
OK, so some people can just add exercise to their day, change nothing else, and lose weight. I'm fine with that, totally believe it's true: Simple logic, simple arithmetic. Don't think I've seen anyone on this thread deny that it's possible.
But some of us can add lots of exercise to our day, and not lose weight. I started exercising quite energetically and pretty close to daily around 15 years ago, while obese - hundreds of calories, on a typical day. I didn't intentionally eat more. I just ate ad libitum. I probably would've told you I wasn't eating more. (I wasn't aiming to lose weight. I was having fun with both exercise and food.) Over that time period, I lost no weight. I got smaller - by at least a couple of pants sizes, and proportionately elsewhere - but stayed the same weight. Only quantifying and changing my eating resulted in weight loss, and quite rapid loss, at that (with no notable change in exercise, BTW).
Am I going to argue from my n=1 that that exercise doesn't cause weight loss? Or that because I had to change my eating to lose weight, everyone has to change their eating to lose weight? Or that only eating differently causes weight loss? No, that's silly, too.
(Eye roll.) Love ya, MFP!
6 -
TimothyFish wrote: »SeptemberFeyre wrote: »So zwift is an indoor exercise bicycle?? Not quite sure from your post...
Zwift is a virtual world that you move through by riding on a turbo trainer that is connected to it. They are working on connecting treadmills to it as well, but they haven't said when that feature will be available to the general public.Tiny_Dancer_in_Pink wrote: »Zwift is a good way to train indoors in inclement weather or once night falls early. I've been looking into getting it, but meanwhile, I simply use an indoor trainer and do commercial intervals.
One of the nice things with Zwift is that it connects with Strava. When I do my indoor trainer workouts, I have to manually enter them.
Cyclists know about this stuff ... but if you're not a cyclist, you probably aren't familiar with it all.
As for exercise and weight loss ... of course it works.
Which indoor trainer do you like?
I have a Nashbar fluid trainer which I've had for years.
Unfortunately Zwift won't work with it.
Any trainer is supposed to work. All you need is a speed sensor on the back wheel of the bike and an ANT+ dongle on the computer. Technically, you could just raise the back wheel off the ground with something and it would work, though it wouldn't be much of a workout if you don't have resistance.
I like how you came back to talk about Zwift and not the rest of your OP.13 -
Tiny_Dancer_in_Pink wrote: »Tiny_Dancer_in_Pink wrote: »Zwift is a good way to train indoors in inclement weather or once night falls early. I've been looking into getting it, but meanwhile, I simply use an indoor trainer and do commercial intervals.
One of the nice things with Zwift is that it connects with Strava. When I do my indoor trainer workouts, I have to manually enter them.
Cyclists know about this stuff ... but if you're not a cyclist, you probably aren't familiar with it all.
As for exercise and weight loss ... of course it works.
Which indoor trainer do you like?
I have a Nashbar fluid trainer which I've had for years.
Unfortunately Zwift won't work with it.
Ah, fluid! I don't care about the zwift part. I was looking at trainers and couldn't decide which one would be good. I was thinking a magnetic would be alright too.
I have tried wind trainers (don't know if they still make them ... that was quite a few years ago), magnetic trainers, and fluid trainers.
I didn't like the wind trainers or magnetic trainers, but when I got onto a fluid trainer, that worked for me. I got mine in 2002 or 2003 ... somewhere around there ... and it has been working great ever since. I even packed it up and moved it from Canada to Australia!
The commercial intervals I do are ... I pick a show I like and ride at a moderate pace through the show, then when the commercials come on, I ride as hard as I can through the commercials. When the show comes back on, I ride at a moderate pace again ... and repeat. Makes 30 or 60 minutes go by in no time.
5 -
TimothyFish wrote: »SeptemberFeyre wrote: »So zwift is an indoor exercise bicycle?? Not quite sure from your post...
Zwift is a virtual world that you move through by riding on a turbo trainer that is connected to it. They are working on connecting treadmills to it as well, but they haven't said when that feature will be available to the general public.Tiny_Dancer_in_Pink wrote: »Zwift is a good way to train indoors in inclement weather or once night falls early. I've been looking into getting it, but meanwhile, I simply use an indoor trainer and do commercial intervals.
One of the nice things with Zwift is that it connects with Strava. When I do my indoor trainer workouts, I have to manually enter them.
Cyclists know about this stuff ... but if you're not a cyclist, you probably aren't familiar with it all.
As for exercise and weight loss ... of course it works.
Which indoor trainer do you like?
I have a Nashbar fluid trainer which I've had for years.
Unfortunately Zwift won't work with it.
Any trainer is supposed to work. All you need is a speed sensor on the back wheel of the bike and an ANT+ dongle on the computer. Technically, you could just raise the back wheel off the ground with something and it would work, though it wouldn't be much of a workout if you don't have resistance.
Interesting ... I thought there was more to it than that.0 -
TimothyFish wrote: »SeptemberFeyre wrote: »So zwift is an indoor exercise bicycle?? Not quite sure from your post...
Zwift is a virtual world that you move through by riding on a turbo trainer that is connected to it. They are working on connecting treadmills to it as well, but they haven't said when that feature will be available to the general public.Tiny_Dancer_in_Pink wrote: »Zwift is a good way to train indoors in inclement weather or once night falls early. I've been looking into getting it, but meanwhile, I simply use an indoor trainer and do commercial intervals.
One of the nice things with Zwift is that it connects with Strava. When I do my indoor trainer workouts, I have to manually enter them.
Cyclists know about this stuff ... but if you're not a cyclist, you probably aren't familiar with it all.
As for exercise and weight loss ... of course it works.
Which indoor trainer do you like?
I have a Nashbar fluid trainer which I've had for years.
Unfortunately Zwift won't work with it.
Any trainer is supposed to work. All you need is a speed sensor on the back wheel of the bike and an ANT+ dongle on the computer. Technically, you could just raise the back wheel off the ground with something and it would work, though it wouldn't be much of a workout if you don't have resistance.
I like how you came back to talk about Zwift and not the rest of your OP.
There were 97 posts when I came back to it. I skimmed through them all, but it looked like everyone was doing fine talking amongst themselves. I addressed what I had information about that other people didn't.0 -
TimothyFish wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »SeptemberFeyre wrote: »So zwift is an indoor exercise bicycle?? Not quite sure from your post...
Zwift is a virtual world that you move through by riding on a turbo trainer that is connected to it. They are working on connecting treadmills to it as well, but they haven't said when that feature will be available to the general public.Tiny_Dancer_in_Pink wrote: »Zwift is a good way to train indoors in inclement weather or once night falls early. I've been looking into getting it, but meanwhile, I simply use an indoor trainer and do commercial intervals.
One of the nice things with Zwift is that it connects with Strava. When I do my indoor trainer workouts, I have to manually enter them.
Cyclists know about this stuff ... but if you're not a cyclist, you probably aren't familiar with it all.
As for exercise and weight loss ... of course it works.
Which indoor trainer do you like?
I have a Nashbar fluid trainer which I've had for years.
Unfortunately Zwift won't work with it.
Any trainer is supposed to work. All you need is a speed sensor on the back wheel of the bike and an ANT+ dongle on the computer. Technically, you could just raise the back wheel off the ground with something and it would work, though it wouldn't be much of a workout if you don't have resistance.
I like how you came back to talk about Zwift and not the rest of your OP.
There were 97 posts when I came back to it. I skimmed through them all, but it looked like everyone was doing fine talking amongst themselves. I addressed what I had information about that other people didn't.
And those of us who cycle are interested in the indoor training options, such as Zwift, especially since winter is fast approaching.
I am hoping to start doing a spinning class in April, and will continue with my commercial intervals, but the Zwift option does interest me. A couple of my co-workers use it and like it ... and keep suggesting I get it. ☺0 -
TimothyFish wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »SeptemberFeyre wrote: »So zwift is an indoor exercise bicycle?? Not quite sure from your post...
Zwift is a virtual world that you move through by riding on a turbo trainer that is connected to it. They are working on connecting treadmills to it as well, but they haven't said when that feature will be available to the general public.Tiny_Dancer_in_Pink wrote: »Zwift is a good way to train indoors in inclement weather or once night falls early. I've been looking into getting it, but meanwhile, I simply use an indoor trainer and do commercial intervals.
One of the nice things with Zwift is that it connects with Strava. When I do my indoor trainer workouts, I have to manually enter them.
Cyclists know about this stuff ... but if you're not a cyclist, you probably aren't familiar with it all.
As for exercise and weight loss ... of course it works.
Which indoor trainer do you like?
I have a Nashbar fluid trainer which I've had for years.
Unfortunately Zwift won't work with it.
Any trainer is supposed to work. All you need is a speed sensor on the back wheel of the bike and an ANT+ dongle on the computer. Technically, you could just raise the back wheel off the ground with something and it would work, though it wouldn't be much of a workout if you don't have resistance.
I like how you came back to talk about Zwift and not the rest of your OP.
There were 97 posts when I came back to it. I skimmed through them all, but it looked like everyone was doing fine talking amongst themselves. I addressed what I had information about that other people didn't.
And those of us who cycle are interested in the indoor training options, such as Zwift, especially since winter is fast approaching.
I am hoping to start doing a spinning class in April, and will continue with my commercial intervals, but the Zwift option does interest me. A couple of my co-workers use it and like it ... and keep suggesting I get it. ☺
Prior to it, riding indoors was torture for me. It was all I could do to ride for ten minutes. The social aspect of it is interesting. Even though I haven't participated in the group rides and races, there's something interesting about seeing other riders around you and knowing that somewhere there is someone who is setting on a bike producing the power that drives that avatar forward. I tend to be on there when it is rainy or otherwise unsafe to be outside, but those are days I would've skipped otherwise.0 -
TimothyFish wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »SeptemberFeyre wrote: »So zwift is an indoor exercise bicycle?? Not quite sure from your post...
Zwift is a virtual world that you move through by riding on a turbo trainer that is connected to it. They are working on connecting treadmills to it as well, but they haven't said when that feature will be available to the general public.Tiny_Dancer_in_Pink wrote: »Zwift is a good way to train indoors in inclement weather or once night falls early. I've been looking into getting it, but meanwhile, I simply use an indoor trainer and do commercial intervals.
One of the nice things with Zwift is that it connects with Strava. When I do my indoor trainer workouts, I have to manually enter them.
Cyclists know about this stuff ... but if you're not a cyclist, you probably aren't familiar with it all.
As for exercise and weight loss ... of course it works.
Which indoor trainer do you like?
I have a Nashbar fluid trainer which I've had for years.
Unfortunately Zwift won't work with it.
Any trainer is supposed to work. All you need is a speed sensor on the back wheel of the bike and an ANT+ dongle on the computer. Technically, you could just raise the back wheel off the ground with something and it would work, though it wouldn't be much of a workout if you don't have resistance.
I like how you came back to talk about Zwift and not the rest of your OP.
There were 97 posts when I came back to it. I skimmed through them all, but it looked like everyone was doing fine talking amongst themselves. I addressed what I had information about that other people didn't.
And those of us who cycle are interested in the indoor training options, such as Zwift, especially since winter is fast approaching.
I am hoping to start doing a spinning class in April, and will continue with my commercial intervals, but the Zwift option does interest me. A couple of my co-workers use it and like it ... and keep suggesting I get it. ☺
Prior to it, riding indoors was torture for me. It was all I could do to ride for ten minutes. The social aspect of it is interesting. Even though I haven't participated in the group rides and races, there's something interesting about seeing other riders around you and knowing that somewhere there is someone who is setting on a bike producing the power that drives that avatar forward. I tend to be on there when it is rainy or otherwise unsafe to be outside, but those are days I would've skipped otherwise.
That's what my coworkers say too ... one of them has gotten to know some of the people he "rides" with and they challenge each other to races and things, and do interval training together and so on. He speaks several different languages and has gotten to know people in all sorts of different countries. That aspect kind of interests me. 1 -
TimothyFish wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »SeptemberFeyre wrote: »So zwift is an indoor exercise bicycle?? Not quite sure from your post...
Zwift is a virtual world that you move through by riding on a turbo trainer that is connected to it. They are working on connecting treadmills to it as well, but they haven't said when that feature will be available to the general public.Tiny_Dancer_in_Pink wrote: »Zwift is a good way to train indoors in inclement weather or once night falls early. I've been looking into getting it, but meanwhile, I simply use an indoor trainer and do commercial intervals.
One of the nice things with Zwift is that it connects with Strava. When I do my indoor trainer workouts, I have to manually enter them.
Cyclists know about this stuff ... but if you're not a cyclist, you probably aren't familiar with it all.
As for exercise and weight loss ... of course it works.
Which indoor trainer do you like?
I have a Nashbar fluid trainer which I've had for years.
Unfortunately Zwift won't work with it.
Any trainer is supposed to work. All you need is a speed sensor on the back wheel of the bike and an ANT+ dongle on the computer. Technically, you could just raise the back wheel off the ground with something and it would work, though it wouldn't be much of a workout if you don't have resistance.
I like how you came back to talk about Zwift and not the rest of your OP.
There were 97 posts when I came back to it. I skimmed through them all, but it looked like everyone was doing fine talking amongst themselves. I addressed what I had information about that other people didn't.
So you were just dropping a bomb and leaving.
Would be interesting to read your responses to people and how only exercise makes you lose weight, iirc you don't track your food intake at all.6 -
I am of the belief that how I eat is more important than exercise. There are people with physical limitations that can't exercise and still lose weight by watching the food they eat. I lost weight about ten years ago with rarely any exercise. I did eventually incorporate more exercise in to my days but at first I was losing just fine by weighing my foods and watching what I ate.0
-
Exercise didn't play much (if any) role in me losing weight. So yes, it's totally possible to lose weight without it. Exercise can make it easier, though. If you're burning off extra calories, you don't have to limit your intake quite as much. However, you should still be watching what you eat so you don't end up eating back too much. But exercise isn't necessary for weight loss. I know some people have trouble exercising due to health issues (not just weight), so adding a full exercise routine is daunting and can be harmful if not done correctly. But exercise is important for so many other reasons that if you can add it, you should, even if you add just a little at a time.
Exercise alone probably won't make you lose weight. But if you track your calories with it, then yes, it can absolutely help.2 -
I really need to do both to keep up my weight loss. I still have 26 lbs to go to get to my goal weight, losing steadily at 1.5 lbs per week. I eat no snacks and 1200-1400 calories per day of a Mediterranean style plan. My fitness band records 11000- 15000 steps per day and I do resistance 3 days a week. I'm also 57 years old, female, hypothyroid (treated). So it's not one or the other for me.1
-
Tiny_Dancer_in_Pink wrote: »Tiny_Dancer_in_Pink wrote: »Zwift is a good way to train indoors in inclement weather or once night falls early. I've been looking into getting it, but meanwhile, I simply use an indoor trainer and do commercial intervals.
One of the nice things with Zwift is that it connects with Strava. When I do my indoor trainer workouts, I have to manually enter them.
Cyclists know about this stuff ... but if you're not a cyclist, you probably aren't familiar with it all.
As for exercise and weight loss ... of course it works.
Which indoor trainer do you like?
I have a Nashbar fluid trainer which I've had for years.
Unfortunately Zwift won't work with it.
Ah, fluid! I don't care about the zwift part. I was looking at trainers and couldn't decide which one would be good. I was thinking a magnetic would be alright too.
I have tried wind trainers (don't know if they still make them ... that was quite a few years ago), magnetic trainers, and fluid trainers.
I didn't like the wind trainers or magnetic trainers, but when I got onto a fluid trainer, that worked for me. I got mine in 2002 or 2003 ... somewhere around there ... and it has been working great ever since. I even packed it up and moved it from Canada to Australia!
The commercial intervals I do are ... I pick a show I like and ride at a moderate pace through the show, then when the commercials come on, I ride as hard as I can through the commercials. When the show comes back on, I ride at a moderate pace again ... and repeat. Makes 30 or 60 minutes go by in no time.
So I have a cheap stationary bike with magnetic resistance I quite like it. I've never been an avid cycler but my husband is so trying to up my endurance, so we can go out together when the weather is nicer. What I've been doing is using a (free) couch to 10k app. Cycling moderately on the 'walk' portions and cycling hard on the 'run' portions. The upshot of this is, I'm getting steady progress, improving weekly, and I can watch Netflix at the same time.
ETA: I started losing weight when I addressed what I ate. When I got better at that I realised that when I exercise more, I'm more cheerful and gives me a bit more of a buffer. For me it's been about diet and exercise is for heath mostly.1 -
"Weight loss is 80% diet" or any similar construct, even one without numbers in it ("weight loss takes place in the kitchen") - similarly not meaningful in a concrete way.
The only way "basic math" applies sensibly in this kind of argument is if someone says "I created 30% of my 1000 calorie deficit with exercise, and 70% by eating below my NEAT".
JMO. Carry on.
So, MFP gives me ~1600 calories and I add ~400 from exercise for a total of ~2000 consumed. Can I say it's 80% diet and 20% exercise?
1 -
Would be interesting to read your responses to people and how only exercise makes you lose weight, iirc you don't track your food intake at all.
It can be done. My husband has lost 30 pounds since last summer. He does not track his food. He is indirectly affected by the fact that I calorie count (which means that we don't eat as many calorie dense foods at meals as we used to), but he still snacks on whatever he wants whenever he wants, and he still gets bigger portions than me. The big difference? He has a desk job so he was, at most, lightly active. Then we got FitBits and he started making a concerted effort to get to 10,000 steps/day by adding walks at lunch, etc. Then we got a BowFlex and he's started using that too.
I'm pretty sure that the main point of this thread (other than discussing indoor cycling apps) was not to say that people must exercise to lose weight - but to say that they *can* exercise to lose weight. Which is true. Yet anytime anyone tries to talk about it, we get a chorus of "but you don't *have* to exercise to lose weight".
We already have a million "you don't need to exercise to lose weight" threads. Why can't we have one "it's possible to create your deficit through exercise" one?3 -
ThatUserNameIsAllReadyTaken wrote: »PaulaWallaDingDong wrote: »ThatUserNameIsAllReadyTaken wrote: »PaulaWallaDingDong wrote: »ThatUserNameIsAllReadyTaken wrote: »PaulaWallaDingDong wrote: »ThatUserNameIsAllReadyTaken wrote: »PaulaWallaDingDong wrote: »ThatUserNameIsAllReadyTaken wrote: »I have seen it stated here a LOT that exercise has little to do with weight loss. I have always disagreed with that idea as any activity which increases calorie burn will assist in weight loss.
Exercise is always helpful but its effects are limited when it comes to fat loss.
I would love to see some further reading on this! Please mention me by name when you post the link!
What reading? It's basic stuff. If you keep the same diet and add exercise, you will lose via increased TDEE until you reach equilibrium. At that point, if you still need to lose more, you'd either have to increase TDEE again or decrease your calorie intake. That's the whole CICO thing people blather on about on these boards.
So this is basic knowledge we are all programmed with upon birth or does it just magically come to us in a dream? You are rambling about TDEE etc... the fact remains. You have brought nothing to back up your claim. You are telling me that the effect exercise has on fat loss is limited. I am waiting for some explanatory and reliable source that brought you to the conclusion that the effect exercise has on fat loss is limited. I once weighed 200 lbs. The ONLY thing I did was walk on a daily basis and I lost 70 lbs. I did not change my diet, I did not increase my exercise etc... I went from sedentary to not. That is all. I do not believe the effect that exercise has on fat loss is "limited".
I was eating 2500 to 3000 calories a day at 250 lbs and gaining. In order to get to a healthy weight without changing my diet, I would have had to add 1000 to 1500 calories a day in exercise, just to hit the top of the healthy BMI range. Since my goal isn't to be the fattest I can be without a doctor giving me crap about it, adding that insane amount of exercise a) would not have gotten me to my goal, and b) would not have been sustainable to even get to that max weight in the first place, making the whole thing a moot point. That is where the usefulness of exercise in weight loss is limited. Nobody ever said it isnt useful at all, but its limit is based on your calorie intake vs. your (increased) TDEE and how it compares to your goals.
You would lose to an extent. The OP (which is who I was addressing in the first place) mentions losing with out changing his diet and only after adding exercise. In your case no you would not lose down to a healthy range without cutting calories but you would lose something. WHICH WAS MY POINT. (and I never said you could still eat like a moose and not lose weight.) I said you could lose with the addition of exercise. How MUCH is individual. Obviously if you are eating that much there is a window of loss and then you would have to change, BUT THAT IS NOT WHAT THE OP IS TALKING ABOUT. So if you need to start your own thread to argue about your very different argument you are welcome to do it instead of trying to hijack this one.
The point is, the OP was taking other people's words about the effectiveness of exercise in losing weight without changing diet and spinning it to mean you CAN'T lose weight just by adding exercise, and countering that false intent with his own experience. It's not derailing. It's addressing the intent of the OP.
Hence...amyrebeccah wrote: »
You CAN LOSE WEIGHT USING EXERCISE. You don't have to believe it or like it. Obviously not every thing applies to every one across the board in a strict and exact way. ANY person who increases their calorie burn will lose weight in some amount. That is what I am talking about and you are arguing that it is not possible.
This is absolutely wrong. No matter how much you increase your calorie burn, you can easily out eat it. Athletes do this all the time. I have done it. You can burn ridiculous amounts of calories and still gain weight by eating a surplus of calories.
Right in the end it still comes down to diet, you have to eat less than you burn. You can burn an extra 1500 calories by jazzercising but if you eat an extra 1600 it doesn't matter.
In the end the OP lost weight because he kept his diet the same when he increased his burn. He says it's unintentional, but since he knew he was going to burn more calories because of his workout and left his diet the same as when he was maintaining weight, he intentionally created a deficit. Deficit means weight loss.
2 -
SusanMFindlay wrote: »Would be interesting to read your responses to people and how only exercise makes you lose weight, iirc you don't track your food intake at all.
It can be done. My husband has lost 30 pounds since last summer. He does not track his food. He is indirectly affected by the fact that I calorie count (which means that we don't eat as many calorie dense foods at meals as we used to), but he still snacks on whatever he wants whenever he wants, and he still gets bigger portions than me. The big difference? He has a desk job so he was, at most, lightly active. Then we got FitBits and he started making a concerted effort to get to 10,000 steps/day by adding walks at lunch, etc. Then we got a BowFlex and he's started using that too.
I'm pretty sure that the main point of this thread (other than discussing indoor cycling apps) was not to say that people must exercise to lose weight - but to say that they *can* exercise to lose weight. Which is true. Yet anytime anyone tries to talk about it, we get a chorus of "but you don't *have* to exercise to lose weight".
We already have a million "you don't need to exercise to lose weight" threads. Why can't we have an "it's possible to create your deficit through exercise" one?
You can exercise to burn more calories, and use your diet to stay in a deficit, maintain, or gain weight because of that.0 -
This thread is driving me nuts, because to be honest, I'm pretty sure it was started to incite the arguement that's currently happening, but I digress.
I think the point is this :
Person A is an overweight individual who starts doing cardio exercise X number of times per week. They start losing weight because by exercising, they have created a deficit in their calories. They don't change what they are eating, but they still lose weight. Person A is LUCKY, because they just happened to exercise enough and burn enough calories that it offset their eating, which is an unknown number.
Person B is an overweight individual who starts calorie counting daily and they start losing weight because they too have created a deficit in their calories. Person B changes what they are eating and also chooses to exercise to create a larger deficit and have more calories they can consume.
Person B has a calculated number and predicted weight loss and doesn't have to rely on luck to lose weight.
Can you lose weight by using exercise to create a deficit and never count calories? Of course. The point is, counting calories ensures that you're. It accidentally eating way too much to support the amount of exercise you're doing. It's not a guessing game that way and you can eliminate a lot of the "I started working out like crazy and I'm not losing any weight!" threads because the answer will always be that the person's intake is too high to be countered by that exercise.2 -
SusanMFindlay wrote: »Would be interesting to read your responses to people and how only exercise makes you lose weight, iirc you don't track your food intake at all.
It can be done. My husband has lost 30 pounds since last summer. He does not track his food. He is indirectly affected by the fact that I calorie count (which means that we don't eat as many calorie dense foods at meals as we used to), but he still snacks on whatever he wants whenever he wants, and he still gets bigger portions than me. The big difference? He has a desk job so he was, at most, lightly active. Then we got FitBits and he started making a concerted effort to get to 10,000 steps/day by adding walks at lunch, etc. Then we got a BowFlex and he's started using that too.
I'm pretty sure that the main point of this thread (other than discussing indoor cycling apps) was not to say that people must exercise to lose weight - but to say that they *can* exercise to lose weight. Which is true. Yet anytime anyone tries to talk about it, we get a chorus of "but you don't *have* to exercise to lose weight".
We already have a million "you don't need to exercise to lose weight" threads. Why can't we have one "it's possible to create your deficit through exercise" one?
I read the thread to be "you people who claim exercise has nothing to do with losing weight are wrong." The problem with that is that no one claims exercise has nothing to do with losing weight. Everyone seems to agree (of course) that it's one way to increase calories out (whether one counts or not) and therefore can be part of how you create a deficit if you do, in fact, create a deficit.
I've increased exercise without eating less a couple of times. Once I had unstructured eating habits that were leading to me being overweight without me understanding why. I didn't think I ate that much, but decided to increase exercise. It didn't do anything (I am sure I ate more). Another time I'd lost some weight and been watching (not tracking) what I ate, and had a stable weight but was stuck about 5 lbs above where I wanted to be -- I decided to train for a tri (I'd been exercising, but less), and lost about 10 lbs.
On the other hand, I once had a stable weight, not tracking or structured, decided to train for a marathon, and gained. This is pretty common.
Point is not anti exercise or claiming that you can't lose just through exercise, but that eating needs to be stable and you need to have a way of making sure it stays stable. This is one reason adding walking into a day (not on a treadmill, typically) is often good -- people don't really perceive it as a reason to eat more as often. (It's probably less helpful if one is already reasonably active.)
That someone who's been watching their weight and has a structured way of eating can lose by adding more exercise is not surprising or anything people argue against. But when people say just focusing on exercise for someone starting out and quite overweight is typically not enough, they are right. I don't know why that would be seen as anti exercise.
(For the record I lose on more than my sedentary maintenance, so of course I agree it's possible to create a deficit through exercise.)1 -
Larissa_NY wrote: »Alatariel75 wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »I've been losing weight lately. It isn't intentional. I've been maintaining my weight for a couple of years now, but over the past few weeks I've noticed a slow but steady decline in my weight. 208 was my goal, then it slipped to 205, which seemed fine, but then it slipped to 204 and this week it is 203. I haven't been counting my food calories, but rather I've been following my normal habits. Bacon and eggs and a banana for breakfast. Whatever Aramark is serving on the "Home" line at work. Something light for supper. And various snacks to round out rest. The thing that has changed is my exercise. I've never really liked riding my bicycle inside, but because of Zwift I don't mind it so much. That means that I have fewer off days for rain or darkness or because I don't want to mess with traffic. It also means that I have more 1,000 calorie workouts. There are no stop signs on Zwift, so I'm putting in more effort during the same amount of time that I put in outside. Burning more calories while eating about the same amount translates in to weight loss.
Um, yeah? I didn't think that was controversial. If someone is eating at maintenance then significantly ups their exercise, and doesn't change their eating of course they will lose weight.
You would not think so, would you? And yet I've seen multiple people on here, in response to someone saying something like "It's 80% diet and 20% exercise," posting "No! It's 100% diet!" Apparently those people have discovered food logging and fallen into some sort of singularity where basic math doesn't exist.
This is the kind of confusion that arises when people try to quantify an abstraction (or certain other types of complex mental constructs). It's an example of fuzzy thinking.
I could say that "human beauty is 65% symmetrical facial features" and we could argue about it all day, because the starting proposition is gobbledygook, nonsense, meaningless in any concrete sense.
"Weight loss is 80% diet" or any similar construct, even one without numbers in it ("weight loss takes place in the kitchen") - similarly not meaningful in a concrete way.
The only way "basic math" applies sensibly in this kind of argument is if someone says "I created 30% of my 1000 calorie deficit with exercise, and 70% by eating below my NEAT".
JMO. Carry on.
Here is some basic math, since the concept seems unclear.
If the equation that produces weight loss is CI<CO, then if you start out at CI=CO, you can achieve weight loss by either adding to CO (CO=CO+100) or subtracting from CI (CI=CI-100). The only way that variability in the degree to which CI is less than CO can be "100% diet" is if CO never varies in its value and the ONLY variable changing value is CI. Since I doubt that even the "OMG 100% diet!" people actually believe that their number of calories out never ever varies regardless of whether they're lounging on the couch all day or running a marathon, they have failed at the very basic law of mathematics that says "Adding a positive number to another positive number makes a bigger number."
1
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.5K 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
- 391 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
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 924 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions