Is it true that you don't need to exercise to lose weight?
miinanov
Posts: 37 Member
How many of you guys lost weight just by eating within your calories? Would exercising plus dieting be a faster way to lose weight
(I'm currently maintaining my weight)
(I'm currently maintaining my weight)
1
Replies
-
No you don't have to exercise to lose weight. I think it's easier to lose weight if you exercise, and exercise is important for good health. But all you need to lose weight is a calorie deficit. So to lose a lb a week, you can eat 500 calories less per day, you could eat 400 calories less and exercise off 100 calories per day, etc.
Edited to add: I am short, so not as many calories to work with in the first place, so I needed extra calories from exercise. And it just made me feel good anyway
5 -
Short answer, no. If you excersice and have a deficit then yes you would lose faster. You don't necessarily need to excersice to lose weight as long as your in a defecit.1
-
Necessary? No...but it's way, way easier.6
-
So like if I burn off 500 calories, can I eat back those 500 calories burned right after?2
-
I look at it this way. I'm 250 lbs trying to lose 2 lbs per week. So when I put that into MFP, it says I can eat 1550 calories per day (so my NEAT is 2550). Now, I could do that, or I could set things up so I only lose 1 lb per week and eat 2050 per day, or I can leave it at the 2 lb per week, exercise ~ 500 calories a day and eat 2000.
I prefer to eat 2000 than 1500. I want to lose 2 lbs per week. So exercise makes up the difference.
But no, it isn't necessary.0 -
-
So like if I burn off 500 calories, can I eat back those 500 calories burned right after?
As others said, it depends on how accurate the 500 is.
I'll, again, use myself as an example. I have a Garmin VivoActive that I use to estimate my calorie burn beyond sedentary (so this mean both activity and exercise). I've compared it to a chest strap for calorie burn on the treadmill and it has always been pretty close. But I only ate back about 75% of what it said for calorie burn. I also lost more than the expected 2 lb per week. Now, it could be that I under estimated my food intake by 250 cals per day (I've lost ~ 2.5 lbs per week this year) or that my watch was actually bang on and I needed to eat them all back (plus some other noise in the counting). I'm taking what my watch says to be true, but only because time, my deficit etc. has shown me that it's pretty close.
So, until you can say to yourself that the way you are getting at the 500 cals is accurate, stick with eating back 50-75% of them.0 -
I am short, only 5 ft so I am eating at 1200. When I exercise it helps me cause I can eat about half of those calories back and do not have to be stuck eating 1200. Just be careful on how many calories you are estimating you are burning. I have a Garmin Vivosmart watch and I think its pretty close but I eat only 50 to 70 percent back and I lose more than I am aiming for so far by doing this and NOT feeling like I am starving.0
-
I am short, only 5 ft so I am eating at 1200. When I exercise it helps me cause I can eat about half of those calories back and do not have to be stuck eating 1200. Just be careful on how many calories you are estimating you are burning. I have a Garmin Vivosmart watch and I think its pretty close but I eat only 50 to 70 percent back and I lose more than I am aiming for so far by doing this and NOT feeling like I am starving.
So, this tells you that your Garmin is giving you good numbers. That's important to remember for maintenance - so that you actually eat back all (or 90% of) your exercise calories when you're trying to maintain.
I'll assume for now that you're only losing slightly faster than predicted and that I therefore don't need to caution you about the consequences of losing weight too fast.0 -
So, this tells you that your Garmin is giving you good numbers. That's important to remember for maintenance - so that you actually eat back all (or 90% of) your exercise calories when you're trying to maintain.
I'll assume for now that you're only losing slightly faster than predicted and that I therefore don't need to caution you about the consequences of losing weight too fast.[/quote]
yeah, its not much faster. Maybe .2 lbs per 10 or 12 days or so.1 -
You don't need exercise to create a calorie deficit to lose weight but it does mean you can eat a bit more food in a day. (although beware of this as it will also make you feel more hungry)
Also - strength training such as weight lifting or calisthenics will increase your BMR and make you burn more calories (not a huge amount but it will make a difference) It will also stop you losing muscle mass along with the fat which would lower your BMR and it is this that is the main cause of unbreakable plateaus and gaining weight back when coming off of your calorie control for people that eat too little while dieting.
And.... dont forget that exercise will increase your endorphins etc and just make you feel good about your weight loss journey. I find that I'm just as pleased about my increasing fitness levels as I am the scale going down - there's nothing like a new personal best in weightlifting or a faster time on a bike ride or a run etc.1 -
Exercise will lose inches quicker1
-
In the sense of "I didn't exercise this week, so I won't lose weight" no, exercise isn't needed. But in the sense that it makes you healthier as you lose weight and that it allows you to eat a lot more while you are losing weight, yes, it is needed.0
-
I lost my first ten pounds on diet alone.
I exercise to get stronger and healthier.1 -
NavajoGirl85 wrote: »Short answer, no. If you excersice and have a deficit then yes you would lose faster. You don't necessarily need to excersice to lose weight as long as your in a defecit.
This is 100% right0 -
I lost 10 pounds in 2 months due to diet only. I mean I lift weights, but I don't consider that to be fat loss exercise.
Weight loss is 95% diet.0 -
You don't lose "faster". You lose the more if INITIALLY the deficit is higher. That eventually evens itself out though.NavajoGirl85 wrote: »Short answer, no. If you excersice and have a deficit then yes you would lose faster. You don't necessarily need to excersice to lose weight as long as your in a defecit.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
0 -
The only thing required for weight loss is a calorie deficit. It is that simple--kinda, but not lifting while being in a deficit for an extended period of time increases your risk of putting on body fat in the long term, according to a recent research paper. So if you want to prevent fat gain for when you increase calories again, skipping out on weightlifting is not going to do you any favors. If you are not into lifting heavy, it doesn't really matter. Research finds no difference when volume is equated for.https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/280788211
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 387 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
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 901 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.2K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions