If I do regular 20 minutes exercise and diet, how fast can I loose weight

FitAgainBy55 wrote: »

freda78 wrote: »

Exercise is good, all helps and all that, but most people simply cannot do the sort of exercise that makes a significant difference to their weight.

Be it time limitations or fitness limitations.

@freda78 I actually believe MOST people can but many chose not to put the work in. Those of us who have learned the benefit of exercise in maintaining and losing weight don't mind putting the work in.

When I first started losing weight for the first time 10 years ago I only worked out 15 minutes per day. I alternated between lifting one day and walking on a treadmill the next day. My treadmill walks weren't even 1 mile. I wasn't fit enough to run and my HR was very high just walking. As I got stronger and more fit I increased a little each week. The 'do a little more every week' approach led me to running a 3:32 Marathon within 2 years of only being able to walk 15 minutes on a treadmill.

My workouts are an average of 1 hour per day right now and average ~600 calories. As I said in an earlier post, walking is fine but it's one of the most inefficient methods of exercise in terms of calories per hour. An hour walk for me burns about 270 calories for me -- that's still good for .5 lb per week weight loss. I walk to relax, not as part of exercise -- it's just not an efficient use of my time when there are other higher impact exercises. But, like I said earlier, when all I could do was walk -- I walked -- until I could run.

Any able bodied person could eventually build up to this but it does take work. I prefer this approach because I can eat over 2000 calories per day and still lose 1.5 lbs per week.

I agree with you on the math: Exercising creates a bigger calorie budget, and as long as the overall deficit is reasonable, a person can think of the exercise as increasing their deficit, or letting them eat more food. Without some kind of obsession or anxiety (etc.) in the picture, either view is "right". Worrying about the distinction is like trying to figure out which water droplets from a pitcher made it into the cup I'm drinking. Just doesn't matter. (We account for the exercise calories differently in MFP, which makes people think of them as special. They're not.)

I think we're all a little biased by our own experiences, though. For you, increasing exercise was an important part of your personal formula for health improvement (and that's great). For me, exercise had virtually no impact on what I did to accomplish needed weight loss, and weight loss was the essential goal for me. I didn't want to or need to increase exercise, and am still doing roughly the same amount I was doing for years, including for about a decade before 2015 when I lost weight. (My routine generally exceeds common recommendations for health, volume-wise, to be clear.)

Exercise is a great thing, calorie-appropriate nutritious diet is a great thing, and they work together to accomplish a greater synergistic whole.

Like you, I don't think 500 calories of exercise is out of reach for women, in the abstract, though different people have different constraints to consider.

One factor is size. Men tend to be bigger on average (drives up calorie budget), have higher muscularity as a percent of that bodyweight on average (drives up calorie budget a bit per pound of bodyweight). It's a fairly small difference, as you observe in your running example, but it's meaningful. Further, that calorie difference is more meaningful as a percentage of TDEE to someone who's smaller. Over, an hour of 12-minute miles, that's 48 calories. The USDA says the average man burns 400-600 calories more daily than the average woman, so 48, though still small, is more meaningful.

Another factor is power. Now, I'd be the last person to say that women can't be powerful, but if you look at differences in power in the population at large, those implications are meaningful, too. Men on average can develop more power, which permits higher per-minute calorie burn in certain types of exercise. Biking is an example: Men on average produce higher watts, statistics suggest higher watts per pound, too . . . and watts per time period equate to calories burned per time period. It takes the average woman longer to burn the same number of calories as the average man, for many activities. Even you noted that the average woman runs slower, and that equates to more time to burn equal calories, even at the same body size.

On the time side, it's still statistically true, at least in the US, that the average woman spends more time on household and child care responsibilities than the average man, and many have similarly time-demanding outside jobs. Those aren't universals, but they are factors.

So, yeah, 500 calories of exercise is achievable for women in theory and practice (I've been hitting that some days recently, as a woman, and not a very big one). It is a question of personal priorities, yes. But whether the numbers work out is pretty individual, and realistically it's a bit more of a challenge for the *average* woman.

As an aside, it's not that I'm "willing to put the work in". I'm not, probably, though it would be more virtuous if I were, probably. I'm willing to do fun stuff that coincidentally burns calories, and I'm lucky to have the time to do it without dropping important responsibilities. I'm grateful for both.

In context of the OP, much of this is academic, though: If the OP wants to exercise 20 minutes daily, which IMO is a good place to start if currently sedentary as she says, she's not going to be burning 500 exercise calories daily right away, probably never in just 20 minutes, and not really soon (IMO) in any non-punitive exercise scenario. Took you a while to get to 500 calories, took me a while to get there, too.

For her, now, the key thing is getting calorie intake a bit below calorie output (whether she counts the calories or not), and starting on the path to happy, healthy exercise.

I often hear/see "exercise is for health" and not necessary for weight loss-but why do we need to separate the two? Losing weight to get to a healthy weight range is good for our health, and so is exercise--so why make it two distinct things? Also, I think if we took the word "exercise" out of it and just put in "make efforts to be more active" may sound less intimidating. We've all heard these strategies before: park far away, take the stairs, etc.--but all those little things really do add up!

I personally think that was part of my problem in viewing both eating healthier/less and exercise--it was really just so I could look better in clothes and swimsuits and fit into smaller sizes. There's nothing wrong with that, but I had to find a bigger, overarching goal for me to be successful.

An exercise routine has usually been a pretty easy thing for me to maintain. If I didn't like an activity or got bored with it, I'd find something new. I think the fact that it almost always made me feel better afterwards (a more immediate reward) was probably the main reason why I stuck with it. With eating better/less--the reward is not usually so immediate.

I also used to think that if I got my formal exercise in, I could be lazy the rest of the day. Nope--doesn't work that way. I've made a conscious effort over the past few years to just be more active throughout my day. Having a reliable fitness tracker really helps with that, as I can see what all those little moves do. I also know that with me, the law of inertia applies: objects in motion tend to stay in motion; objects at rest tend to stay at rest. The more I sit, the more I don't want to get up and move.

FitAgainBy55 wrote: »

@AnnPT77 before I reply, first let me say I always enjoy reading your posts. They are well thought out, well organized and I appreciate your perspective. I don't disagree with anything you said but I do want to highlight some of the stats.

Second, I want to be clear ... I respect anyone's decision of how they create their deficit. Everyone's situation is unique. I enjoy exercise. It's stress relief for me AND it helps me lose weight fast. Others hate exercise and I always say 'Never do anything to lose weight that you aren't willing to continue doing after you reach your goal.'

My objection is to others telling the OP that exercise doesn't matter in weight loss. Does it have to ? No. Can it ? Of course. A calorie burned is equal to one not eaten. This is one of my triggers and I've seen it a lot here and on other weight loss/fitness boards.

AnnPT77 wrote: »

Further, that calorie difference is more meaningful as a percentage of TDEE to someone who's smaller. Over, an hour of 12-minute miles, that's 48 calories. The USDA says the average man burns 400-600 calories more daily than the average woman, so 48, though still small, is more meaningful.

The average (United States) male is 5'9" 197 lbs whereas female is 5'4" 170 lbs. For a 40 year old, here are the calorie burn differences:


Overall there isn't that big of a difference in exercise calories burned once you adjust for BMR.

For comparison, due to my size and age, I'm actually closer to the average 40 year old female than the 40 year old male in terms of BMR. In fact, after adjusting for BMR, the average women burns more calories from exercise than I do My BMR is only 119 calories higher than the average 40 year old female.



BTW, I think there is some 'power' bias in my stats above, which you have pointed out and I agree with. For example, my exercise calories show my workouts burn fewer calories (when adjusted for BMR) than the average women even though the average moderate exercise TDEE is actually higher after adjusting for BMR. My assumption is this difference is in the power assumption -- whereas in my example I guess it assumes equal power. I tried to adjust for this by lowering MY power. My average runs are @ 10 minutes per mile and I log my circuit training as vigorous vs the examples above are moderate.

I don't disagree with that, in any major factual way. It's more the implications, in this context. (I'll explain, ideally at less length than I usually do 🙄).

In my PP, the one you're commenting on, I tried to repeatedly say "small but meaningful". I agree with your numbers in this post, but I still think the differences are "small but meaningful". I won't knowingly slip back and forth between averages and individuals, because I think that's a disservice to discussion. On average, the differences between men and women are small but meaningful, and their average social context gives them additional meaning.

The bigger point I was trying to make about context (in a smaller part of my post 😉) is that for the OP, in the current context, most of this doesn't matter. It's a side trip.

Most of us tend to assume other people think of things the same way we do, and they don't. OP didn't give much indication of her whole thought process, more that she planned to eat in a more healthy way (however she defines that), and do what she sees as moderate exercise, and that she hopes to lose weight in a certain general time. It doesn't really matter whether she thinks of exercise as increasing her deficit, or as a way to eat more, or part of a larger plan to be healthier.

As long as a deficit exists, and is reasonable (not riskily large, not so small as to be near-nonexistent), that can work. What is not clear from the OP is whether she's understood the centrality of that deficit to her main expressed goal.

Doing 20 minutes of exercise is a good thing, if the current amount is less than that. It isn't going to burn 500 calories, so the math, let alone gender math, is kind of beside the point. Twenty minutes of super-calorie-efficient exercise that a beginner can do regularly without accumulating excess fatigue (at OP's current size), is probably going to amount to, hmm, 150 calories, plus or minus 50? (I'm OP's height, was near her weight (mid-180s), while training regularly. I think 150 is generous, though conceivable, unless someone is believing crazy-high numbers from an optimistically-calibrated machine, or thinking a heart rate monitor estimates HIIT accurately, or something like that.)

I think OP's making good plans, heading in a good direction, has decent odds of success, especially if she has or will take on board the idea that she needs to get her calorie intake around 500 calories below her expenditure (whether by calorie counting or other means). Most of the rest of this discussion is just academic, though admittedly fun.

The point is to try to help OP, I think?

P.S. I didn't click "disagree" on your post, though I see someone did.

freda78 wrote: »

FitAgainBy55 wrote: »

missysippy930 wrote: »

A year is very doable if you are at a calorie deficit. Exercise is great for overall health, but not necessary for weight loss. Calorie deficit is how weight is lost.

As you said, a calorie deficit is how you lose weight. Exercise can help create that deficit, so it's not just for health. My sedentary TDEE is around 2100 but my actual TDEE is closer to 2700. That difference alone is good for over 1 lb per week weight loss.

Exercise is good, all helps and all that, but most people simply cannot do the sort of exercise that makes a significant difference to their weight.

Be it time limitations or fitness limitations.

When I was obese walking was a challenge!

I now do an hour and a half a day, only possible because I have lost 45% of my body weight and because being retired I have the time to spend. I am just about to go out for my 5 mile walk, which takes exactly 90 minutes but if I factor in the getting ready and the recovery - it takes 2 hours out of my day.

There is no way I could have done that every day when I worked and even now on my regular day of visiting my mother I am doing this at 9pm at night. Luckily I live in safe area so have no issue being out at that time of night but I also use the option of steps at home instead if the weather is not up to it. Steps is boring and I struggle to get through the 90 minutes, but I do do it, but I much prefer the walking.

Just saying, that while for sure some people can run or do really hard workouts and good for them, brilliant, but for everyone else - what matters for weight is what happens in the kitchen.

As said, weight loss is in the kitchen, but there are many people who have families, full time jobs and get 2 hours of exercise/activity a day.

Speakeasy76 wrote: »

I often hear/see "exercise is for health" and not necessary for weight loss-but why do we need to separate the two? Losing weight to get to a healthy weight range is good for our health, and so is exercise--so why make it two distinct things? Also, I think if we took the word "exercise" out of it and just put in "make efforts to be more active" may sound less intimidating. We've all heard these strategies before: park far away, take the stairs, etc.--but all those little things really do add up!

Yes, this!

FitAgainBy55 wrote: »

It's not off at all -- because net (not including BMR) running calories are based on your weight.

And the stress on your body and the difficulty of hitting a particular speed (even a slower one) is going to vary by fitness level (including body fat percentage) and BMI.

The bigger point is that running a daily 10K isn't all that realistic if we are talking the average person, and certainly not if we are talking about someone new to exercise. You didn't originally bring up the daily 10K, I understand, but you did seem to argue that it was reasonable, and that it would be no harder for a woman to burn 500 cals than a man. IMO, assuming both are similarly fit (and including in that a similar BMI and/or body fat percentage), and that they are both average height, then no, it is harder for the woman to burn similar cals through running.

Ultimately this doesn't really matter, it's a detour that doesn't affect the real question, which is whether women also could burn a significant amount of their daily deficit through increased activity (including but not limited to exercise). However, it is IMO inaccurate, and why you got misunderstood -- you didn't start by saying you ramped up; you started by saying you burned 2800 cals instead of 2300 cals due to exercise as if OP too could just decide to do that. For someone with 1500 maintenance cals, it might seem like you are saying they could just decide to increase cals by 1/3 with exercise and you then seemed to dig in by claiming it was no big thing even if we were talking a 10K per day.

Like I said, I actually think you and I are mostly in agreement, but I am trying to explain how this discussion got kind of off track, and it was when someone said adding 500 cals to maintenance for a woman was a daily 10K (it doesn't have to be) and you doubled down and suggested it was no harder for a woman than a man (assuming average size, same fitness, I'd assume) to burn the same cals, and I think that is neither a necessary point to make nor accurate. I'd bet I'd have to work a lot harder than you to burn 2800 cals. Does that matter? No, because I can also add significant cals from exercise, even though my starting and ending TDEEs are still lower than yours, but it doesn't seem surprising that that beginning led to lots of pushback.

You can safely lose 50 - 70 pounds in a year by restricting your calories IN by a couple hundred per day. Controlling the calories in will be the major factor, but exercise helps in other ways, and it may mean you can eat just a tiny bit more because of the burn because it will increase your calories out. Our bodies are meant to move, so the exercise will help with things like mood and sleep. Try and find something you enjoy doing so that you'll keep doing it and possible build up to longer sessions. I like walking, hiking, biking and swimming so that's what I do most of the time. I'm no expert, not a body builder or runner, but I am losing 1 to 1.5 pounds per week following a simple plan. Everyone wants to lose the weight fast, fast, fast but the truth is it is better and more sustainable to lose it slowly plus you'll have a greater chance of keeping it off if you do.