Diet vs. exercise
therjh
Posts: 13 Member
I know that the general consensus is that diet is more important when trying to lose weight, however, I have found that since exercising 4 times a week the lbs are dropping off at a much higher speed. I don't know if this is because of the exercise (increasing cal deficit) or because I am being more conscious about my diet because of the exercise...
What's everybody else's views/experiences? Is diet more important than exercise or is exercise equally important in terms of losing weight?
What's everybody else's views/experiences? Is diet more important than exercise or is exercise equally important in terms of losing weight?
2
Replies
-
You lose weight with a calorie deficit, you can create that deficit by changing your diet, or exercising enough that you are burning more than you were previously eating. You can do both if that helps you stay on track, but just don't exercise too much and under fuel your body, you'll do more harm than good in the long run.9
-
Diet is more important for me and my other half. Exercise is something that I want to fit in, but have a lot of trouble finding time for. And hubby is waiting to drop a few more pounds before he gets back to riding. So diet is something we can control more in our lives with the little amount of time we have after other life obligations.2
-
Sure, exercise helps. The more you move the more calories you get to eat. As long as you keep it in a deficit then great. My guess is that, thanks to the exercise, your deficit is greater than you intended it to be. I take it you do a fair bit of weight/resistance training?
Helful article from The Telegraph showing the difference between cardio versus weights0 -
I think there's probably merit to both.
Exercise definitely increases the total calories you burn throughout the day, which can increase your deficit (or at least make it easier to maintain a deficit)... but it can also make you more engaged, more cognizant in general of what you're doing and, as a result, keep you on track with what you should be doing.
Ultimately, which is more "important" is going to be very individual.2 -
You will lose more weight by dieting (if you could only do either dieting or exercising), but what sort of body do you want? If you want to have a favorable body composition, strength, cardio health, bone density, etc., then strength training and cardio should be built into your overall fitness regimen.2
-
There are LOTS and LOTS of people everyday in the gym that exercise and see no body fat loss. And that's cause they don't EAT in a calorie deficit.
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
17 -
There are LOTS and LOTS of people everyday in the gym that exercise and see no body fat loss. And that's cause they don't EAT in a calorie deficit.
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
^Exactly this
You can exercise, but unless you are at a calorie deficit, you will not lose weight.
And you can even gain weight. Been there, done that. Went to the gym every day for 2 years and I gained 10 pounds over that time.6 -
Diet is always #1. That being said, when I was 240lbs and cutting on 2200+ calories it was easy to be okay with "just diet" but now that I'm 155; do you know what my calories would be if I didn't exercise? You don't want to trust me lol I STILL cut on 2K and it's thanks to exercise. It's just more humane and therefore sustainable.10
-
*sigh*
You don't have to EAT in a calorie deficit to lose weight. You have to END UP in a calorie deficit to lose weight. Yes, most people will have better success long term if they focus on diet than if they focus on exercise. But it doesn't have to be (and probably should be) an either/or scenario.
Are you more apt to grow your savings account if you have a well paying job, or if you're disciplined with your spending? It depends how well paying your job is and how disciplined you are with your spending... but both is probably the best answer, right?18 -
-
*sigh*
You don't have to EAT in a calorie deficit to lose weight. You have to END UP in a calorie deficit to lose weight. Yes, most people will have better success long term if they focus on diet than if they focus on exercise. But it doesn't have to be (and probably should be) an either/or scenario.
Are you more apt to grow your savings account if you have a well paying job, or if you're disciplined with your spending? It depends how well paying your job is and how disciplined you are with your spending... but both is probably the best answer, right?
What is the difference?
In the end, it is eating less calories than you burn for weight loss.0 -
I think that exercise makes me feel good and motivates me to eat more healthy foods and less empty calories. I also notice that there are many overweight people exercising in the gym. I think that counting on exercise to lose weight sets some of us up for failure. When I was younger, I thought that exercise alone led to weight loss. Now, I am aware of how long it would take me to burn of that Cheesecake Factory desert on the elliptical, or that 30 minutes is like a candy bar or an individual bag of chips (not even for some). I also see exercise right now as a way to eat some more calories as I am eating 1200 calories a day right now. Not sure if my understanding is fully correct, but that is how I see it. I thought that taking Body Pump class would make my body more muscular, but I guess that can't really happen when eating at a deficit. Oh well, I am going to continue because it makes me feel healthy, strong, and motivated.3
-
missysippy930 wrote: »*sigh*
You don't have to EAT in a calorie deficit to lose weight. You have to END UP in a calorie deficit to lose weight. Yes, most people will have better success long term if they focus on diet than if they focus on exercise. But it doesn't have to be (and probably should be) an either/or scenario.
Are you more apt to grow your savings account if you have a well paying job, or if you're disciplined with your spending? It depends how well paying your job is and how disciplined you are with your spending... but both is probably the best answer, right?
What is the difference?
In the end, it is eating less calories than you burn for weight loss.
Is it eating more cals than you burn, or burning more cals than you eat?2 -
Added benefit of exercise is that it will increase your metabolism as well so you will burn more calories throughout the day as well as what you burnt exercising.12
-
Anyone doing IF here? I'm considering it but it's a little daunting...
supposedly it's the best of both worlds. 5 -
debbievelle wrote: »Anyone doing IF here? I'm considering it but it's a little daunting... supposedly it's the best of both worlds.
It's not. Do a search - there are a ton of IF threads. Probably a couple right on the first page of threads in the Getting Started and/or General Health, Diet and Fitness forums.2 -
Added benefit of exercise is that it will increase your metabolism as well so you will burn more calories throughout the day as well as what you burnt exercising.
While technically true, the increase is so small it's not really worth factoring in.
13 -
It's simple: CICO, bit there are two sides to the equation, through watching what you eat you manage the calories in, and through every you can increase the calories out. However, it's easier to manage calories in, as that is under your direct control. The calories out may be used to create or increase a deficit, bit it's harder that way, firstly it takes more exercise than most people realise to burn calories, also it is hard to measure the level of calories burned even with heart monitors as they will be estimates (plus as you do more and your body gets used to it, it will learn how to work more efficiently, burning fewer calories). Ideally, both are good 4
-
missysippy930 wrote: »*sigh*
You don't have to EAT in a calorie deficit to lose weight. You have to END UP in a calorie deficit to lose weight. Yes, most people will have better success long term if they focus on diet than if they focus on exercise. But it doesn't have to be (and probably should be) an either/or scenario.
Are you more apt to grow your savings account if you have a well paying job, or if you're disciplined with your spending? It depends how well paying your job is and how disciplined you are with your spending... but both is probably the best answer, right?
What is the difference?
In the end, it is eating less calories than you burn for weight loss.
The most significant difference in results will be in terms of body composition/aesthetics, if strength training is part of the exercise regimen.2 -
missysippy930 wrote: »*sigh*
You don't have to EAT in a calorie deficit to lose weight. You have to END UP in a calorie deficit to lose weight. Yes, most people will have better success long term if they focus on diet than if they focus on exercise. But it doesn't have to be (and probably should be) an either/or scenario.
Are you more apt to grow your savings account if you have a well paying job, or if you're disciplined with your spending? It depends how well paying your job is and how disciplined you are with your spending... but both is probably the best answer, right?
What is the difference?
In the end, it is eating less calories than you burn for weight loss.
Is it eating more cals than you burn, or burning more cals than you eat?
semantics, it is the same thing. no difference.2 -
missysippy930 wrote: »missysippy930 wrote: »*sigh*
You don't have to EAT in a calorie deficit to lose weight. You have to END UP in a calorie deficit to lose weight. Yes, most people will have better success long term if they focus on diet than if they focus on exercise. But it doesn't have to be (and probably should be) an either/or scenario.
Are you more apt to grow your savings account if you have a well paying job, or if you're disciplined with your spending? It depends how well paying your job is and how disciplined you are with your spending... but both is probably the best answer, right?
What is the difference?
In the end, it is eating less calories than you burn for weight loss.
Is it eating more cals than you burn, or burning more cals than you eat?
semantics, it is the same thing. no difference.
Agree and disagree.
It is semantics, but semantics do matter.1 -
It's simple: CICO, bit there are two sides to the equation, through watching what you eat you manage the calories in, and through every you can increase the calories out. However, it's easier to manage calories in, as that is under your direct control. The calories out may be used to create or increase a deficit, bit it's harder that way, firstly it takes more exercise than most people realise to burn calories, also it is hard to measure the level of calories burned even with heart monitors as they will be estimates (plus as you do more and your body gets used to it, it will learn how to work more efficiently, burning fewer calories). Ideally, both are good
Why the woo?1 -
There is no versus on these two points. They work in tandem together to great effect, or you do one or the other. The only way "diet" works against (hence, versus) exercise is if the diet consists of too much food that you don't need.0
-
jasondjulian wrote: »There is no versus on these two points. They work in tandem together to great effect, or you do one or the other. The only way "diet" works against (hence, versus) exercise is if the diet consists of too much food that you don't need.
I had not stated one verses the other, I had said there are two sides to the equation, calories in and calories out.i had not said, or implied, diet works against exercise.0 -
jasondjulian wrote: »There is no versus on these two points. They work in tandem together to great effect, or you do one or the other. The only way "diet" works against (hence, versus) exercise is if the diet consists of too much food that you don't need.
I had not stated one verses the other, I had said there are two sides to the equation, calories in and calories out.i had not said, or implied, diet works against exercise.
I don't think that comment was in response to you - I think it was a general response to OP's question. I suspect you got woo'd because someone doesn't know what the woo button is for.4 -
It's simple: CICO, bit there are two sides to the equation, through watching what you eat you manage the calories in, and through every you can increase the calories out. However, it's easier to manage calories in, as that is under your direct control. The calories out may be used to create or increase a deficit, bit it's harder that way, firstly it takes more exercise than most people realise to burn calories, also it is hard to measure the level of calories burned even with heart monitors as they will be estimates (plus as you do more and your body gets used to it, it will learn how to work more efficiently, burning fewer calories). Ideally, both are good
Why the woo?
I didn't woo you, but the change in calorie burn from increased efficiency/adaptation is pretty trivial. The change in HRM calorie estimate can be more significant as fitness/conditioning improves and the same work causes less stress, but the same work at the same body size burns about the same number of calories. Heart rate is a proxy for calorie burn, not a measurement of it.
Or somebody thought "woo" was positive.
Edited: Originally typed "estimate" where I meant "measurement" . . . bad brain thingie2 -
jasondjulian wrote: »There is no versus on these two points. They work in tandem together to great effect, or you do one or the other. The only way "diet" works against (hence, versus) exercise is if the diet consists of too much food that you don't need.
Totally agree! I mean versus in regards to others' personal preferences0 -
It's simple: CICO, bit there are two sides to the equation, through watching what you eat you manage the calories in, and through every you can increase the calories out. However, it's easier to manage calories in, as that is under your direct control. The calories out may be used to create or increase a deficit, bit it's harder that way, firstly it takes more exercise than most people realise to burn calories, also it is hard to measure the level of calories burned even with heart monitors as they will be estimates (plus as you do more and your body gets used to it, it will learn how to work more efficiently, burning fewer calories). Ideally, both are good
Why the woo?
I didn't woo you, but the change in calorie burn from increased efficiency/adaptation is pretty trivial. The change in HRM calorie estimate can be more significant as fitness/conditioning improves and the same work causes less stress, but the same work at the same body size burns about the same number of calories. Heart rate is a proxy for calorie burn, not an estimate of it.
Or somebody thought "woo" was positive.
I didn't "woo" either... but can I just ask, what does it actually mean!? I'm guessing it's negative!? 0 -
I lost my first 50lbs without meaningful exercise. Now? I still CAN lose if I don't, but it's much harder. I find that when I work out in the morning, especially, I'm more inclined to make better choices during the day and feel better overall.1
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions