Diet vs. exercise
Options
Replies
-
RossiCristina wrote: »First time I've ever posted on here (looooong time lurker - it's amazing how much this forum keeps me going!) but this is the first time I feel I could chip in a little...
I've done a mixture of both with various results.. Last year I followed MFP religiously but I was in the gym EVERY day for month - my boyfriend was a PT at the time and so I did all his spin classes as well as walking there to and from home (2miles each way) and did a multitude of lifting.
After 3/4mths of this I was exhausted and permanently hungry. I'd gone from 69.5kg to 66.9kg and had deficits of calories that were extremely unhealthy. I then relaxed on food, gym etc - still going to the gym but I'd lost my zest for logging and ended up putting on the weight and then some up to 70.3kg... so 5 weeks ago I decided to relax my gym approach and instead focus on my diet using MFP and again weighing everything to nth degree.
For the first time in years I wasn't doing 10 spin classes a week and huge amounts of cardio and instead I'd walk to the gym after work and then do some lifting with my boyfriend for around 60-90mins 3/4 times a week. In those 5 weeks I've gone down to 65.6kg and down a dress size.
This was a huge shock to me as I was obsessively weighing everything last year when I was going hell for leather at the gym and didn't have the same results. In these last 5 weeks I've also been able to have some chocolate each day, a few takeaways and still enjoy food! My target is 62kg but to see the results of not going crazy at the gym appear more swiftly has changed my outlook on it all.
I appreciate it's completely personal but I would say not to beat yourself up if you aren't going to the gym or exercising constantly - you'd be surprised what you can achieve with diet alone :-)
That's brilliant!! Well done to you!
A few people have said that weight training is better than cardio. I mainly use an exercise bike around 4 times a week but started with weights over the weekend too.
Not necessarily better, just different.
Cardio typically burns more calories, and improves cardiovascular fitness. Strength training makes you stronger, and can improve body composition. They're both good, they both help appearance, they both potentially help weight loss.
Agree, but irt body composition it depends on what you are going for. If you want a runners look, cardio will get you there faster than lifting.1 -
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?
You lose weight when you are in a calorie deficit...exercise may or may not help you create a calorie deficit.
I exercise regularly...I'm losing weight at the moment because I'm eating a calorie deficit...I do the same exercise when I'm in maintenance and I maintain because I'm eating a balance of energy to maintain.
I tend to think in terms of diet...namely because my exercise doesn't really change whether I'm maintaining or losing...it stays pretty consistent...so it's me cutting calories out of my diet.
In regards to the importance of exercise for me to lose weight...well, I find it easier to eat 2300 - 2500 calories per day and lose 1 Lb per week with regular exercise vs eating 1900 calories per day to lose 1 Lb per week without exercise.1 -
I think we are all arguing semantics at this point. I think it's just easier to control your diet than it is to burn 500 calories through exercise. I can just skip breakfast and my deficit for the day is done vs running a 5K every single day. Neither is better, one is just more conveniently controlled by the individual. Both are great ideally (which is what I do)2
-
Also if you DON"T control your diet you can do far more damage eating than you can undo with exercise.2
-
I go by "you cant out run a bad diet" - so for me diet is the constant and exercise is the variable. Make your peace with one or the other- or both. For me its easier to eat less regularly than it is to exercise regularly- and will be different from the next person. Personal preference is simply that. Personal.4
-
Ultimately, diet is going to be the deciding factor.
However, I know for me, trying to lose weight just on diet, rather than including exercise, leaves me feeling ravenous most of the time. Some good, solid workouts and I can eat enough to be satisfied, and have available calories to eat some of the foods I enjoy on occasion even if they're not "healthy." On just diet, those meals wouldn't fit into a day, even if I plan ahead....
The more fit I am, the more likely I am to be more active outside of the gym too. I'm more likely to want to use my standing desk and do leg raises or pick a lunch spot that gives me a 20 minute walk to go get my food, I'm more likely to take the stairs than the elevator, etc. All of those little activities add up over time!4 -
mrsnattybulking wrote: »I think we are all arguing semantics at this point. I think it's just easier to control your diet than it is to burn 500 calories through exercise. I can just skip breakfast and my deficit for the day is done vs running a 5K every single day. Neither is better, one is just more conveniently controlled by the individual. Both are great ideally (which is what I do)
I think it's easier to exercise to burn , create a deficit of, 500 calories than cut back 500 calories!8 -
HoneyBadger155 wrote: »Ultimately, diet is going to be the deciding factor.
However, I know for me, trying to lose weight just on diet, rather than including exercise, leaves me feeling ravenous most of the time. Some good, solid workouts and I can eat enough to be satisfied, and have available calories to eat some of the foods I enjoy on occasion even if they're not "healthy." On just diet, those meals wouldn't fit into a day, even if I plan ahead....
The more fit I am, the more likely I am to be more active outside of the gym too. I'm more likely to want to use my standing desk and do leg raises or pick a lunch spot that gives me a 20 minute walk to go get my food, I'm more likely to take the stairs than the elevator, etc. All of those little activities add up over time!
I agree totally. I feel so ravenous and lightheaded eating the same calorie deficit of I am not exercising.0 -
marissafit06 wrote: »RossiCristina wrote: »First time I've ever posted on here (looooong time lurker - it's amazing how much this forum keeps me going!) but this is the first time I feel I could chip in a little...
I've done a mixture of both with various results.. Last year I followed MFP religiously but I was in the gym EVERY day for month - my boyfriend was a PT at the time and so I did all his spin classes as well as walking there to and from home (2miles each way) and did a multitude of lifting.
After 3/4mths of this I was exhausted and permanently hungry. I'd gone from 69.5kg to 66.9kg and had deficits of calories that were extremely unhealthy. I then relaxed on food, gym etc - still going to the gym but I'd lost my zest for logging and ended up putting on the weight and then some up to 70.3kg... so 5 weeks ago I decided to relax my gym approach and instead focus on my diet using MFP and again weighing everything to nth degree.
For the first time in years I wasn't doing 10 spin classes a week and huge amounts of cardio and instead I'd walk to the gym after work and then do some lifting with my boyfriend for around 60-90mins 3/4 times a week. In those 5 weeks I've gone down to 65.6kg and down a dress size.
This was a huge shock to me as I was obsessively weighing everything last year when I was going hell for leather at the gym and didn't have the same results. In these last 5 weeks I've also been able to have some chocolate each day, a few takeaways and still enjoy food! My target is 62kg but to see the results of not going crazy at the gym appear more swiftly has changed my outlook on it all.
I appreciate it's completely personal but I would say not to beat yourself up if you aren't going to the gym or exercising constantly - you'd be surprised what you can achieve with diet alone :-)
That's brilliant!! Well done to you!
A few people have said that weight training is better than cardio. I mainly use an exercise bike around 4 times a week but started with weights over the weekend too.
Not necessarily better, just different.
Cardio typically burns more calories, and improves cardiovascular fitness. Strength training makes you stronger, and can improve body composition. They're both good, they both help appearance, they both potentially help weight loss.
Agree, but irt body composition it depends on what you are going for. If you want a runners look, cardio will get you there faster than lifting.
Yeah, and different "cardio" has different effects . . . beyond the cardiovascular. If you want to be one-note about your activities, a runner's look is not a swimmer's look is not a cyclist's look is not a rower's look is not a triathlete's look.
And some people go for "healthy" or "fit", not any kind of look at all.
But - more importantly - the original question was about weight loss.
Alongside eating, both "cardio" (whatever the heck that is - I hate the term, actually) and strength training are helpful for weight loss. My original remark had to do with the (small, but long-term meaningful) effect of increased muscularity (body comp) on weight management.
As an aside, I personally I don't much care about my "look". I also weight train desultorily, at best. Others are welcome to their own priorities, and I'll cheer for anyone's (healthy) goal.
None of that changes the fact that both cardio and strength training are good for weight loss, among other benefits, IMO.4 -
You've lost weight more easily because the exercise has created more of a calorie deficit.0
-
You absolutely have to keep your calories in a deficit to lose weight, exercise can help make that easier. You might be able to lose a pound a week at 1,200 calories a day with no exercise... or lose a pound a week at 1,500 calories a day if you burn 300 calories exercising. It gives you more room for diet error if you're exercising because the balancing point is higher.
The counter argument is if the exercise you're doing makes you super hungry. I would say if a certain exercise makes you ravenous just try a different exercise (or exercising at a different intensity).1 -
There are people who can't exercise or be very active. Eating LESS calories than they burn is more important. You DON'T need to exercise to lose weight.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?
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
3 -
You need a calorie deficit, however you get it does not matter. Calories in vs calories out.
However, if you are usually very inactive your calorie requirements will be lower, and you may not be able to have the amount of food you would normally enjoy. So in that scenario, taking up exercise might be easier as you can eat the same amount of food you were maintaining on before, and create a deficit via exercise. It's personal preference.
Lots of people still exercise regularly regardless (like myself) and maintain their weight or gain if they don't track their intake. Obviously the amount they're eating is at least equal to what they're burning off. So in those scenarios exercise isn't cutting it. It's still super important for so many reasons, but isn't going to exclusively help you lose weight. Therefore those people if they wanted to lose weight would either have to up the intensity or frequency of the exercise, or create a deficit via food.0 -
WillingtoLose1001984 wrote: »mrsnattybulking wrote: »I think we are all arguing semantics at this point. I think it's just easier to control your diet than it is to burn 500 calories through exercise. I can just skip breakfast and my deficit for the day is done vs running a 5K every single day. Neither is better, one is just more conveniently controlled by the individual. Both are great ideally (which is what I do)
I think it's easier to exercise to burn , create a deficit of, 500 calories than cut back 500 calories!
It takes a lot of work to burn 500 calories.3 -
Exercise definitely helps me to maintain a calorie deficit while having something to eat which I would otherwise struggle to fit into my calorie allowance. At the beginning of weight loss I didn't formally exercise at all, but have gradually increased it, and although I find it fairly routine, I would certainly recommend it as a complement to calorie control. Good luck.1
-
There are people who can't exercise or be very active. Eating LESS calories than they burn is more important. You DON'T need to exercise to lose weight.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?
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
I don't disagree. But there are people who don't NEED to eat less to lose weight - they can simply exercise a bit more.
The bottom line is that a calorie deficit is all that's required to lose weight. How you get there doesn't matter, and it can be very individual. Making blanket statements aren't always helpful without appropriate context.3 -
stevencloser wrote: »WillingtoLose1001984 wrote: »mrsnattybulking wrote: »I think we are all arguing semantics at this point. I think it's just easier to control your diet than it is to burn 500 calories through exercise. I can just skip breakfast and my deficit for the day is done vs running a 5K every single day. Neither is better, one is just more conveniently controlled by the individual. Both are great ideally (which is what I do)
I think it's easier to exercise to burn , create a deficit of, 500 calories than cut back 500 calories!
It takes a lot of work to burn 500 calories.
It takes a lot of discipline to cut 500 cals from a diet.5 -
WillingtoLose1001984 wrote: »missysippy930 wrote: »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.
I feel super hungry eating to lose 2 lbs a week when I am not exercising. I am able to eat above my bmr when i exercise and dont feel as hungry and weak. I dont like when people discourage exercisr because it can make dieting so much more doable especially when you are big and need a big deficit.
I am not discouraging exercise, I am all for it. All I am saying is in order to lose weight, you need to consume less calories than you burn. That is a fact.
Exercise is an essential part of being healthier, but you do not need to exercise to lose weight.1 -
*speaking as a fat girl - who has never lost weight
I've just started, and I'm trying to do this the best way possible so I've scoured the internet lol. From what I read, exersise changes the way your body burns the calories. Strength training seems especially important becuase when you build muscle, it burns fat in a different way that helps you see results.
For me, its about being healthier, and I know I need some cardio for my heart health. Add to that the many blogs and sites that stress the importance of strength training, and my routine is pretty gym heavy. I still have to stick to my caloric goals though - and on days that I don't excersise it is much harder.
So yeah - that is all just book knowledge - not from experience! I am down 7 lbs in 2 weeks though! 5
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
- 925 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions