Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
Food 80% Exercise 10% Sleep 10%
Vis77
Posts: 8 Member
Food Vs. Exercise what is it? if food why does everyone say will get active? I know its both but food is not given its importance IMHO.
Hello I have lost 80 pounds last 3 years. When talking a ways back at Doctors office they said 80% of your loss will be food I said really? Why is it then so much, so many excuses, so many hurdles because of exercise? I work out at least 6 days a week now. BUT For the physiological benefits and yes it helps with like 250 calories a day. A helping hand. But the key that my doctor has stated over and over is calories, and yes many helping hands, like exercise, sleep, mental state, types of foods, meds if needed. ,Prayer, banging your head against the wall, fasting, yes I know that I have lost 80 pounds, and yes 10000 steps a day helps speed things up. But I grow tired of when someone is fat, the first thing said is well he's not active. Hello? 80% food? This app has it right IMHO subtract 200-500 cals a day from your holding calories. (add exercise as plus calories). Mayo clinic also says the same and at the beginning I followed what they say. Target losing one pound a week OR you may find yourself with a lot of non retracting flab if you got 50 pounds or more to lose or even less per age. At the most I would say two pounds per week (and yes I lost 15 one month halfway in). In conclusion I will add if you go very slow it may help with the OUTRAGOUS resend rate of more than 80% in other words it requires a whole lifestyle change, not an end, a new lifestyle.
Hello I have lost 80 pounds last 3 years. When talking a ways back at Doctors office they said 80% of your loss will be food I said really? Why is it then so much, so many excuses, so many hurdles because of exercise? I work out at least 6 days a week now. BUT For the physiological benefits and yes it helps with like 250 calories a day. A helping hand. But the key that my doctor has stated over and over is calories, and yes many helping hands, like exercise, sleep, mental state, types of foods, meds if needed. ,Prayer, banging your head against the wall, fasting, yes I know that I have lost 80 pounds, and yes 10000 steps a day helps speed things up. But I grow tired of when someone is fat, the first thing said is well he's not active. Hello? 80% food? This app has it right IMHO subtract 200-500 cals a day from your holding calories. (add exercise as plus calories). Mayo clinic also says the same and at the beginning I followed what they say. Target losing one pound a week OR you may find yourself with a lot of non retracting flab if you got 50 pounds or more to lose or even less per age. At the most I would say two pounds per week (and yes I lost 15 one month halfway in). In conclusion I will add if you go very slow it may help with the OUTRAGOUS resend rate of more than 80% in other words it requires a whole lifestyle change, not an end, a new lifestyle.
8
Replies
-
Yes food vs exersise will rephrase0
-
Empirically, I tend to agree. Pre-MFP days, when my wife and I were using something along the lines of Weight Watchers Points Plus, I lost the bulk of the 50 pounds going from 270+ to 220-225 by simply paying attention to what I ate. I think it was only the last 10 pounds or so that came off because I started exercising.
Food is leveraged. You can do a lot of good or a lot of damage in a short time.
Exercise takes time. While I can burn close to 1000 cal/hour on my bicycle riding long distances at 18-20mph, I cannot sustain that.
I could probably eat 1000 calories/hour all day long if I put my mind to it. (Probably came close to eating half hat much some days NOT putting my mind to it!)
So I really do think that the cornerstone to weight management is what you put in your body. That drives the rest of the train.
Even if you have physical issues, most people can change what they eat. So even if you cannot walk, you can change what you eat. Even if you cannot jog, or ride a bike or use the elliptical or swim, or lift weights you can still change your eating habits.
So I wholeheartedly agree that it's mostly diet.
I'm not sure I could quantify it, but I did tell someone just today that the 29 pounds I've lost in the past 75 or so days is 80% what I have been eating and 20% exercise.
Why? Because I was already exercising and still got back up to 265 pounds. So if vigorous exercise was the key, then how did I gain 40-45# while working out 4-6 days most weeks?
Because I ate crap food.8 -
I think of it as nutrition is for weight/fat loss. Exercise is for muscle tone and cardiovascular health. You can be thin and still be out of shape. If you want to look and feel toned, you usually need exercise. Lots of people lose significant amounts of weight through nutrition only, and they might be happy with just that.10
-
Yep, food intake is the big thing, not exercise. Exercise is helpful for me when I need to feel like effort and progress are a function of sweat and discomfort. Just don't eat so much and drink more water. Good sense advice has turned into a multi-billion dollar per year industry.2
-
I've dropped 80lbs this year, and it started with the fork. I've increased my movement rate, but I still don't 'exercise'. Now that I'm concerning myself with fitness I'm looking to start working out, however without that initial weight loss I wouldn't be where I'm at.3
-
I think it depends on where you are in life. When I was younger, I was underweight and ate crap, but because I was so active, it balanced itself out. When I was 20, I lived on KFC, but I was also working, attending college, walking to my classes because I didn’t have a car and lived 20 minutes from my campus. Fast forward to my 40’s now with kids, eating their leftover plate scraps and watching too much Netflix, I saw the that some of my clothes were getting tight. I started with my eating because that’s something I could control instead of saying, I can get in a hours worth of exercise. I admit, I got lazy. Now, I see it as a balance. I care about both elements because my body has changed over the years. I can accept that
3 -
Personally, I don't much accept the question. It's a multi-dimensional problem space, it's individual, there are lots of issues. Trying to assign percentages to it seems particularly contorted.
For me, as someone who was very active (training as a masters athlete) but obese, it was all about the food. I didn't change my activity level (exercise or daily life), didn't much change what I ate, mostly just ate less. But I've seen people here who were maintaining an overweight body size, and lost weight by eating the same way, in the same amounts, but adding activity (either exercise or changes in daily routine or a combination).
We humans seem always to want to boil things down to some simple rule. Most useful things don't boil down to a simple rule. It's not a binary switch you can flip, or even a slider where you can set it at X% exercise and Y% eating. It's more like you have a whole set of knobs and levers you can tweak in many different combinations to get an equivalent result.
That said, if someone is severely obese, and can sustain a large calorie deficit for a while, it's easier to get that deficit (as a practical matter) mainly by reducing food, as that's less time-consuming, among other things.
But, to answer one of your questions: If it's food, why does everyone get active?
* To eat more while losing at the same rate
* To retain more muscle while losing, thus minimize adaptive thermogenesis
* To be healthier, not just thinner
* Because it's fun, and it gets easier when one is lighter to have that particular kind of fun
* Etc.
9 -
It's an equation:
Caloric Intake (food ingested) - Caloric Output (exercise) = Weight gain/maintenance/loss
For the majority of my life my determining variable was exercise. I was burning more than I ate and even though it seemed like I was eating massive amounts of food I was burning it all off and had trouble gaining. At 30 I suffered an injury and stopped working out - also transitioning from a high active military career to a position in academia which required no physical effort.
This is why calorie counting is so effective as a monitoring tool. It allows the variability to focus on intake or output. For the majority the focus will likely be on intake as it is much easier to not eat as it is to exercise. The best course is to utilize both - be aware of diet and planned purposeful exercise.3 -
Personally, I don't much accept the question. It's a multi-dimensional problem space, it's individual, there are lots of issues. Trying to assign percentages to it seems particularly contorted.
For me, as someone who was very active (training as a masters athlete) but obese, it was all about the food. I didn't change my activity level (exercise or daily life), didn't much change what I ate, mostly just ate less. But I've seen people here who were maintaining an overweight body size, and lost weight by eating the same way, in the same amounts, but adding activity (either exercise or changes in daily routine or a combination).
We humans seem always to want to boil things down to some simple rule. Most useful things don't boil down to a simple rule. It's not a binary switch you can flip, or even a slider where you can set it at X% exercise and Y% eating. It's more like you have a whole set of knobs and levers you can tweak in many different combinations to get an equivalent result.
That said, if someone is severely obese, and can sustain a large calorie deficit for a while, it's easier to get that deficit (as a practical matter) mainly by reducing food, as that's less time-consuming, among other things.
But, to answer one of your questions: If it's food, why does everyone get active?
* To eat more while losing at the same rate
* To retain more muscle while losing, thus minimize adaptive thermogenesis
* To be healthier, not just thinner
* Because it's fun, and it gets easier when one is lighter to have that particular kind of fun
* Etc.
So much of this.
Which is why my baseline advice to most folks is
1. Take 2 weeks and log everything you do. As far as possible, don't change anything.
Then, Pick one or two things and change them. More activity, less food, different food. But first set your baseline.4 -
For me, I didn't really take the percentages as gospel or scientific. More along the lines of the 80-20 rule. You'll spend 80% of your effort on 20% of your clients, or something like that.Personally, I don't much accept the question. It's a multi-dimensional problem space, it's individual, there are lots of issues. Trying to assign percentages to it seems particularly contorted.
For me, as someone who was very active (training as a masters athlete) but obese, it was all about the food. I didn't change my activity level (exercise or daily life), didn't much change what I ate, mostly just ate less. But I've seen people here who were maintaining an overweight body size, and lost weight by eating the same way, in the same amounts, but adding activity (either exercise or changes in daily routine or a combination).
We humans seem always to want to boil things down to some simple rule. Most useful things don't boil down to a simple rule. It's not a binary switch you can flip, or even a slider where you can set it at X% exercise and Y% eating. It's more like you have a whole set of knobs and levers you can tweak in many different combinations to get an equivalent result.
We like simple (not necessarily easy) rules. As I said, it seems food has a bigger lever. Small changes in diet can result in big changes in outcome. As others have said, you don't have to do any work to burn calories you don't eat.
I view it not unlike a spending problem. Most people (not all) don't have an income problem, but a spending problem. So if they mismanage 30K/year, if you give them 300k, they will mismanage that.
Same with eating. If they are gaining weight while sedentary, you could double their daily calorie burn and if they don't address paying attention to what they eat, they can still put on fat. (I'm not talking about body builders who are bulking up here.)
So, I think weight loss largely hinges on paying attention to what you eat. Also, for those who cannot do much in terms of more activity, most can eat less without doing harm.
No special training or clothing or gear is needed to eat less. Maybe an app and a food scale and basic elementary school math skills.
That said, if someone is severely obese, and can sustain a large calorie deficit for a while, it's easier to get that deficit (as a practical matter) mainly by reducing food, as that's less time-consuming, among other things.
But, to answer one of your questions: If it's food, why does everyone get active?
* To eat more while losing at the same rate
* To retain more muscle while losing, thus minimize adaptive thermogenesis
* To be healthier, not just thinner
* Because it's fun, and it gets easier when one is lighter to have that particular kind of fun
* Etc.
Someone also mentioned to simply log what you are doing before changing anything. While I see the value in that and am not saying no, I'm also going to guess that there mere fact someone is logging will change behavior. Now you have to think about what you are about to eat. (Or spend as this is also the advice given to people trying to get a handle on their finances, log everything spent.)
So looking at the activity can change the activity.
Not that that is bad, just be aware that when we actually pay attention to what we are doing, we may begin to self-regulate better than when we were mindless munching chips and salsa while watching "This is Us."3 -
Personally, I don't much accept the question. It's a multi-dimensional problem space, it's individual, there are lots of issues. Trying to assign percentages to it seems particularly contorted.
For me, as someone who was very active (training as a masters athlete) but obese, it was all about the food. I didn't change my activity level (exercise or daily life), didn't much change what I ate, mostly just ate less. But I've seen people here who were maintaining an overweight body size, and lost weight by eating the same way, in the same amounts, but adding activity (either exercise or changes in daily routine or a combination).
We humans seem always to want to boil things down to some simple rule. Most useful things don't boil down to a simple rule. It's not a binary switch you can flip, or even a slider where you can set it at X% exercise and Y% eating. It's more like you have a whole set of knobs and levers you can tweak in many different combinations to get an equivalent result.
That said, if someone is severely obese, and can sustain a large calorie deficit for a while, it's easier to get that deficit (as a practical matter) mainly by reducing food, as that's less time-consuming, among other things.
But, to answer one of your questions: If it's food, why does everyone get active?
* To eat more while losing at the same rate
* To retain more muscle while losing, thus minimize adaptive thermogenesis
* To be healthier, not just thinner
* Because it's fun, and it gets easier when one is lighter to have that particular kind of fun
* Etc.
Yep, I'm one of those people who eats about the same amount regardless of exercise and am at a healthy weight or overweight depending on how active I am or am not.1 -
tbright1965 wrote: »
For me, I didn't really take the percentages as gospel or scientific. More along the lines of the 80-20 rule. You'll spend 80% of your effort on 20% of your clients, or something like that.Personally, I don't much accept the question. It's a multi-dimensional problem space, it's individual, there are lots of issues. Trying to assign percentages to it seems particularly contorted.
<snipped by responder>
I actually got involved with a thread here awhile back where people actually seemed to be arguing things like "70% food, 30% exercise" vs. "50% exercise, 50% food" and so on.
Yup, arguing about quantifications of subjective experience . . . Jeesh.
Didn't want to see a rerun! I think I'm maybe just still a little bruised from that past experience, therefore reactively twitchy.
1 -
I think it’s a silly argument to have. For calorie counters anyway. We all know it’s about energy consumption vs expenditure so whether a calorie deficit comes from reducing how much you eat or increasing how much you burn, it’s the same thing. What’s the purpose in arguing what percent of your weight loss came from food/exercise?4
-
tbright1965 wrote: »
For me, I didn't really take the percentages as gospel or scientific. More along the lines of the 80-20 rule. You'll spend 80% of your effort on 20% of your clients, or something like that.Personally, I don't much accept the question. It's a multi-dimensional problem space, it's individual, there are lots of issues. Trying to assign percentages to it seems particularly contorted.
<snipped by responder>
I actually got involved with a thread here awhile back where people actually seemed to be arguing things like "70% food, 30% exercise" vs. "50% exercise, 50% food" and so on.
Yup, arguing about quantifications of subjective experience . . . Jeesh.
Didn't want to see a rerun! I think I'm maybe just still a little bruised from that past experience, therefore reactively twitchy.
A similar discussion ended up with my one and only "ignore" utilized. The poster became angered beyond all reason because I (at that time) was maintaining my deficit through ~60% exercise and ~40% diet.2 -
tbright1965 wrote: »
For me, I didn't really take the percentages as gospel or scientific. More along the lines of the 80-20 rule. You'll spend 80% of your effort on 20% of your clients, or something like that.Personally, I don't much accept the question. It's a multi-dimensional problem space, it's individual, there are lots of issues. Trying to assign percentages to it seems particularly contorted.
<snipped by responder>
I actually got involved with a thread here awhile back where people actually seemed to be arguing things like "70% food, 30% exercise" vs. "50% exercise, 50% food" and so on.
Yup, arguing about quantifications of subjective experience . . . Jeesh.
Didn't want to see a rerun! I think I'm maybe just still a little bruised from that past experience, therefore reactively twitchy.
A similar discussion ended up with my one and only "ignore" utilized. The poster became angered beyond all reason because I (at that time) was maintaining my deficit through ~60% exercise and ~40% diet.
Exactly! I think people who don't understand the meaning behind "losing weight is x% diet and y% exercise" also don't understand the meaning of energy balance. In general, people will be more compliant abstaining from eating(cutting back on an activity(eating) they're already doing) as opposed to pushing themselves to add an activity (exercise) into their routine. They misinterpret it to mean that somehow, calories burned exercising, even when counted accurately, somehow don't result in the same amount of weight loss as creating the same deficit with food.0 -
I hate the whole losing weight is X% this and Y% that, because it depends on the person (and also what you make the starting point).
It's about a calorie deficit, but there are numerous different ways to create a calorie deficit, and I don't actually find that adding an activity is harder than eating less (although I think doing both is often the ideal for me, and that doing one makes the other easier for me personally). I think the reason "I'm just going to work out more" is often a failure is that the person doing it has nothing in place to make sure calories don't increase (or is of a fitness level where the amount of exercise added is minimal and it feels tedious).
Also, I do tend to take percentages literally, so when someone insists it's always 80% diet or some such I start doing math.
I would agree with the advice to understand how much you are eating and moving and then make whatever changes seem to work for you (while being aware of both sides of the equation).1 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »I hate the whole losing weight is X% this and Y% that, because it depends on the person (and also what you make the starting point).
It's about a calorie deficit, but there are numerous different ways to create a calorie deficit, and I don't actually find that adding an activity is harder than eating less (although I think doing both is often the ideal for me, and that doing one makes the other easier for me personally). I think the reason "I'm just going to work out more" is often a failure is that the person doing it has nothing in place to make sure calories don't increase (or is of a fitness level where the amount of exercise added is minimal and it feels tedious).
Also, I do tend to take percentages literally, so when someone insists it's always 80% diet or some such I start doing math.
I would agree with the advice to understand how much you are eating and moving and then make whatever changes seem to work for you (while being aware of both sides of the equation).
Yeah. I don't like an argument about percentages of something when it's not at all clear what they're numerically percentages of. Call me literal, I don't care. Yeah, I get that it could be a sort of metaphorical generality . . . but I think it can't be a metaphor (at least not a sensible one), when people start arguing "80/20" - "no, 60/40" - "but sleep, so 50/40/10" - "no, 100% this".
The only logical concrete interpretation I can think of for the 80%/20% is saying that if you (generic you) have an estimated 500 calorie deficit, you are getting 400 calories of it by eating less, and 100 calories of it from exercise (just to throw some arbitrary numbers out). But in previous threads on the subject, it's obvious from context that that isn't how some of the people arguing about it mean it, since they throw in observations about the psychology of weight loss, or social factors, or somesuch thing. (Let alone that many people's deficit probably involves a burn increase or intake change from a starting point of overeating, not maintenance, so weird math).
Just my opinion: Arguing details (beyond metaphor) about quantifications of unmeasurable things is simply unclear thinking.
Also, weight loss is a system with lots of moving parts that are interdependent - the stuff that people sometimes claim makes CICO invalid (but doesn't), like fatigue reducing CO because of excessive calorie restriction or excessive exercise. Even if there were things you could quantify in percentages, factors like this would make them crazy imprecise. Why bother?
3 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »I hate the whole losing weight is X% this and Y% that, because it depends on the person (and also what you make the starting point).
It's about a calorie deficit, but there are numerous different ways to create a calorie deficit, and I don't actually find that adding an activity is harder than eating less (although I think doing both is often the ideal for me, and that doing one makes the other easier for me personally). I think the reason "I'm just going to work out more" is often a failure is that the person doing it has nothing in place to make sure calories don't increase (or is of a fitness level where the amount of exercise added is minimal and it feels tedious).
Also, I do tend to take percentages literally, so when someone insists it's always 80% diet or some such I start doing math.
I would agree with the advice to understand how much you are eating and moving and then make whatever changes seem to work for you (while being aware of both sides of the equation).
Yeah. I don't like an argument about percentages of something when it's not at all clear what they're numerically percentages of. Call me literal, I don't care. Yeah, I get that it could be a sort of metaphorical generality . . . but I think it can't be a metaphor (at least not a sensible one), when people start arguing "80/20" - "no, 60/40" - "but sleep, so 50/40/10" - "no, 100% this".
The only logical concrete interpretation I can think of for the 80%/20% is saying that if you (generic you) have an estimated 500 calorie deficit, you are getting 400 calories of it by eating less, and 100 calories of it from exercise (just to throw some arbitrary numbers out). But in previous threads on the subject, it's obvious from context that that isn't how some of the people arguing about it mean it, since they throw in observations about the psychology of weight loss, or social factors, or somesuch thing. (Let alone that many people's deficit probably involves a burn increase or intake change from a starting point of overeating, not maintenance, so weird math).
Just my opinion: Arguing details (beyond metaphor) about quantifications of unmeasurable things is simply unclear thinking.
Also, weight loss is a system with lots of moving parts that are interdependent - the stuff that people sometimes claim makes CICO invalid (but doesn't), like fatigue reducing CO because of excessive calorie restriction or excessive exercise. Even if there were things you could quantify in percentages, factors like this would make them crazy imprecise. Why bother?
More than just an opinion me thinks.
Whenever I see this unreasonable focus on irrelevant details I just think "You're not ready".2 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »I hate the whole losing weight is X% this and Y% that, because it depends on the person (and also what you make the starting point).
It's about a calorie deficit, but there are numerous different ways to create a calorie deficit, and I don't actually find that adding an activity is harder than eating less (although I think doing both is often the ideal for me, and that doing one makes the other easier for me personally). I think the reason "I'm just going to work out more" is often a failure is that the person doing it has nothing in place to make sure calories don't increase (or is of a fitness level where the amount of exercise added is minimal and it feels tedious).
Also, I do tend to take percentages literally, so when someone insists it's always 80% diet or some such I start doing math.
I would agree with the advice to understand how much you are eating and moving and then make whatever changes seem to work for you (while being aware of both sides of the equation).
Yeah. I don't like an argument about percentages of something when it's not at all clear what they're numerically percentages of. Call me literal, I don't care. Yeah, I get that it could be a sort of metaphorical generality . . . but I think it can't be a metaphor (at least not a sensible one), when people start arguing "80/20" - "no, 60/40" - "but sleep, so 50/40/10" - "no, 100% this".
The only logical concrete interpretation I can think of for the 80%/20% is saying that if you (generic you) have an estimated 500 calorie deficit, you are getting 400 calories of it by eating less, and 100 calories of it from exercise (just to throw some arbitrary numbers out). But in previous threads on the subject, it's obvious from context that that isn't how some of the people arguing about it mean it, since they throw in observations about the psychology of weight loss, or social factors, or somesuch thing. (Let alone that many people's deficit probably involves a burn increase or intake change from a starting point of overeating, not maintenance, so weird math).
Just my opinion: Arguing details (beyond metaphor) about quantifications of unmeasurable things is simply unclear thinking.
Also, weight loss is a system with lots of moving parts that are interdependent - the stuff that people sometimes claim makes CICO invalid (but doesn't), like fatigue reducing CO because of excessive calorie restriction or excessive exercise. Even if there were things you could quantify in percentages, factors like this would make them crazy imprecise. Why bother?
The only way to frame it that makes any sense is that weight loss is 100% due to caloric deficit. How one gets there differs (sometimes vastly) from person to person. Some do it with zero exercise, some work their butts off and burn tons of calories in their workouts, with many shades of gray between the extremes. It's not feasible to quantify what percentage of what is which, nor is it worth wasting brainpower over.6 -
It's easier for me to eat less than to attempt to burn 1,000 calories in exercise every day.1
-
It's easier for me to eat less than to attempt to burn 1,000 calories in exercise every day.
But, it isn't an either/or issue. I find it easier to burn 500 cals and eat 500 cals less than to do either option you present. I think that's where the idea of percentages doesn't really apply.
But the standard meaning of the 80/20 rule is more about the 80% being easy. So, outside of calorie counting, I've used it to say that 80% of my customers take 20% of my time handling them, but the other 20% take 80% of my time.
I guess in context of health or weight loss, it's that you can do 80% of your plan with minimal effort and the last 20% takes a lot more work. So, in context to 1000 calorie deficit, you can get to 800 fairly easy but getting that last 200 calorie deficit is where the real work comes in.
This makes sense in my head if I'm not making it clear here.1 -
For me as someone who has never been very active and has a lot of weight to lose, the more activity I get, the more liveable a weight loss program is and the longer I can stick to it. I had a period the,last month or so where I haven't lost a whole bunch but I'm going to exercise more starting today and eat less so should make continued progress. I have lost 60 lbs from my highest weight.3
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »I hate the whole losing weight is X% this and Y% that, because it depends on the person (and also what you make the starting point).
It's about a calorie deficit, but there are numerous different ways to create a calorie deficit, and I don't actually find that adding an activity is harder than eating less (although I think doing both is often the ideal for me, and that doing one makes the other easier for me personally). I think the reason "I'm just going to work out more" is often a failure is that the person doing it has nothing in place to make sure calories don't increase (or is of a fitness level where the amount of exercise added is minimal and it feels tedious).
Also, I do tend to take percentages literally, so when someone insists it's always 80% diet or some such I start doing math.
I would agree with the advice to understand how much you are eating and moving and then make whatever changes seem to work for you (while being aware of both sides of the equation).
I totally agree about adding activity not being harder than eating less and I am not an active person!. If I burn 1000 calories a day through activity that is a little more food on my plate even if I don't eat them all. I like to eat and going against that desire and aiming for 2 lbs a week loss at 1450 calories just isn't sustainable but with the added activity calories it is because I can eat around 2000 calories and that's sustainable for me!1 -
All I know is that I lost over 80 lbs just by restricting calories and cutting carbs & sugar2
-
I attribute my weight gain to becomming more sedentary but not changing my calorie intake and lack of sleep.
Excess calories for my activity level is why I gained.
Sleep was a big factor for me in how much I ate. When I was getting 4 hours of sleep or sometimes less I ate more to try to get more energy. I didn't have regular meal times. I did not move as much- like less than 3,000 steps. With 7-8 hours of sleep it is much easier to stick to the right number of calories and move more like 8,000+ steps. I really think sleep should be higher in your list of things that help with weight control.
It is not necessarily that food is always the most important factor. The balance of calories in and calories out is what is important. I think percentages of what factor is most important for weight management are going to vary by person and goals.
Throwing out 80% this or 10 % that doesn't really help an individual so much.
Food in general is important. A lot of us enjoy food beyond needing it for survival. It is part of how we celebrate or mourn. It is part of our culture. It can be a status symbol to eat or drink certain things. We talk about food. We take pictures of food. We work to put food on the table. Food is a huge industry. Of course when we talk about weight we look at food as most important.
I think it is easiest to lose weight by altering the calorie in side of the equation for almost everyone which is why food seems the biggest factor. Some people can not change their activity level significantly due to their excess weight or health condition but they can change how much they eat. The food you put in your body is something most people have a great deal of control over.
Exercise might be of higher importance for some people. If you are not overweight and don't have much to lose increasing your calorie out may seem easy and attractive. You might see increasing your activity as more of a social/fun thing or a challenge. You might exercise for reasons other than your weight like mood management. You might do a sport and manage your weight so you can do your sport better.
I think a lot of people change both their calorie intake and calorie burn to manage weight because being more active is a part of being healthier and you get more calories. If you have been given a calorie goal of 1200 calories you probably want more calories but can't get taller or younger. For people who want a particular body look exercise is probably a pretty important part of their plan.
I think many people are not getting enough sleep. It is something that contributes a lot to our overall health but is easier to short ourselves on. I think many would benefit in prioritizing sleep more than hitting the gym. http://healthysleep.med.harvard.edu/need-sleep/whats-in-it-for-you/health
For me I know that I am moving more but will not exercise consistantly. I do not rely on exercise burning a lot of calories. I exercise for stress management and health benefits more than weight management reasons. I try to get enough sleep for my overall health not just weight management. I track my calorie intake. The exact percentage of everything I do each day that contributes to weight loss does not really matter to me as long as the everything moves me toward my personal health goals.
2 -
I have exercised a ton over the 10 years I have been attempting to lose weight. Through binge eating, through not caring about my calories at all, through my thyroid quitting, migraines almost blinding me 3-4days a week, health issues with my parents, and my in-laws, working too many hours, etc. The exercise has never been the issue. I was running 40miles a week at one point, I can move more weight at the gym than many of the men I see go in there, and I love a high intensity Insanity workout. I bounce my workouts around a lot. I like variety. Right now it is weights and hiking.
But I do it mostly for the mental benefits. It is a huge mental relief to just move. Lifts my mild depression, clears my head, allows me some time to think about just me or hash through a problem. I have been 210lbs and 145lbs in these 10years. And everything in between. I lose weight when my calories are counted and checked. End of story. And when I get little sleep and not enough water as well that is a hard thing to do, so of course moderating all those small factors as well is a help.0 -
ashlaura581 wrote: »All I know is that I lost over 80 lbs just by restricting calories and cutting carbs & sugar
A friend of a friend lost 40 pounds hiking the PCT this year, and eating as much as physically possible.1 -
Not exercising worse for your health than smoking, diabetes and heart disease, study reveals
https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/19/health/study-not-exercising-worse-than-smoking/index.html3 -
NorthCascades wrote: »Not exercising worse for your health than smoking, diabetes and heart disease, study reveals
https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/19/health/study-not-exercising-worse-than-smoking/index.html
Pretty much in line with the sitting is the new smoking stuff.3
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 427 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K 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
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions