What's more effective?
lydiajgrove
Posts: 1 Member
What's more effective? 164 votes
Diet
94%
155 votes
Excersize
5%
9 votes
1
Replies
-
DietThere is a saying “ Weight loss happens in the kitchen. Fitness happens in the gym.” and it holds true for me.12
-
Both, if you want real results you need both. Yes, you can lose some weight by eating different/less, but the results will be much slower than if you would incorporate even 30min a day of exercise. On the flip side, if you keep your same eating habits (if your weight stays consistent) and hit the gym, again the results will by much slower. I'm also a big fan if intermediate fasting. Not everyday, as you may cause your body to go into starvation mode and stop losing weight, but alternating it and keep your body guessing.
I once lost 136.2 pounds in 542 days (.35 pounds per day), then over the next few years gained it all back, and now on round two and have lost 36 pounds in 34 days (but this pace will start slowing down as I've lost the easy weight).5 -
Of course both are important. For me key to starting to lose weight adn keep it off is to make the diet changes.3
-
Both are important but you will likely increase the benefit of exercise by eating well and for good health0
-
DaleSummers78 wrote: »Both, if you want real results you need both. Yes, you can lose some weight by eating different/less, but the results will be much slower than if you would incorporate even 30min a day of exercise. On the flip side, if you keep your same eating habits (if your weight stays consistent) and hit the gym, again the results will by much slower. I'm also a big fan if intermediate fasting. Not everyday, as you may cause your body to go into starvation mode and stop losing weight, but alternating it and keep your body guessing.
I once lost 136.2 pounds in 542 days (.35 pounds per day), then over the next few years gained it all back, and now on round two and have lost 36 pounds in 34 days (but this pace will start slowing down as I've lost the easy weight).
First bolded comment - nope... the amount of your deficit is what determines how fast you lose the weight - however you create that deficit. Some people find it easier to create the deficit strictly thru diet, some people find it easier to create the deficit thru exercise or thru some combination of the two. But however the deficit is created, bottom line is the deficit causes the weight loss.
Second bolded comment - starvation mode where the body stops burning calories and saves all the calories that you eat is a common dieting myth that does not happen in real life. There is such a thing as adaptive thermogenesis where as you lose weight it takes fewer calories to support your smaller body, but there is NEVER a case where a living body will stop burning calories and save all those calories for a future date - if the body stops burning calories, the body ceases to live.
17 -
It depends on what your goal is.
If it's weight management - lose, gain or maintain - most people get more bang for their buck by focusing primarily on eating. Exercising can let you eat a bit more while achieving the same weight management goal within the same time horizon, but I can eat back the calories from an intense hour of exercise in less than 5 minutes. Calorie balance rules when it comes to weight management. (Eat above calorie needs to gain, below needs to lose, very near to maintain.)
If your goal is fitness improvement, then exercise is the big deal. A nutritious, calorie-appropriate diet is a strong supporting player, but the exercise tends to matter more.
If you goal is health, then both.
I didn't vote, because I'm an active person in long-term weight maintenance (7+ years now) after major weight loss, so I'd go with both, and you didn't offer that option . . . even though "both" is probably the best choice, objectively, for a variety of reasons.
3 -
DietDaleSummers78 wrote: »Both, if you want real results you need both. Yes, you can lose some weight by eating different/less, but the results will be much slower than if you would incorporate even 30min a day of exercise. On the flip side, if you keep your same eating habits (if your weight stays consistent) and hit the gym, again the results will by much slower. I'm also a big fan if intermediate fasting. Not everyday, as you may cause your body to go into starvation mode and stop losing weight, but alternating it and keep your body guessing.
I once lost 136.2 pounds in 542 days (.35 pounds per day), then over the next few years gained it all back, and now on round two and have lost 36 pounds in 34 days (but this pace will start slowing down as I've lost the easy weight).
First bolded comment - nope... the amount of your deficit is what determines how fast you lose the weight - however you create that deficit. Some people find it easier to create the deficit strictly thru diet, some people find it easier to create the deficit thru exercise or thru some combination of the two. But however the deficit is created, bottom line is the deficit causes the weight loss.
Second bolded comment - starvation mode where the body stops burning calories and saves all the calories that you eat is a common dieting myth that does not happen in real life. There is such a thing as adaptive thermogenesis where as you lose weight it takes fewer calories to support your smaller body, but there is NEVER a case where a living body will stop burning calories and save all those calories for a future date - if the body stops burning calories, the body ceases to live.
Body will not cease burning calories, the body will start shutting certain functions to conserve the energy it is getting. This is mainly in drastic circumstances. It is more about what you eat than the calories you take in, at least in my personal weight lose journal. I lost over 60lbs, never went to the gym and still had a calorie in take of 2k plus. IF was a big help, but mainly what your diet is. Eat 2k calories of chicken and broccoli will have you looking different than 2k calories of doughnuts...LOL1 -
I always have to start with the exercise. It helps manage the stress, I generally do better and feel better.
Which is then reflected in the choices I make and how else I take care of myself.
Then I am eating to fuel fun stuff that makes me feel good, so it's a positive choice. Rather than not eating the nice stuff my brain demands because I feel bad about tight trousers, which feels negative.
I know that's not the factual answer, but I find it easier to work with my nature rather than against it. Brains can be weird.3 -
DietExercise is great for fitness and taking off the initial weight, diet is great too!
But consider the amount of exercising and dieting you will have to do to maintain your final weight/fitness.
As with the Calories In/Calories Out mantra, be sure you are going to able to commit the amount of exercise and diet management to maintain your goal weight.0 -
DaleSummers78 wrote: »Both, if you want real results you need both. Yes, you can lose some weight by eating different/less, but the results will be much slower than if you would incorporate even 30min a day of exercise. On the flip side, if you keep your same eating habits (if your weight stays consistent) and hit the gym, again the results will by much slower. I'm also a big fan if intermediate fasting. Not everyday, as you may cause your body to go into starvation mode and stop losing weight, but alternating it and keep your body guessing.
I once lost 136.2 pounds in 542 days (.35 pounds per day), then over the next few years gained it all back, and now on round two and have lost 36 pounds in 34 days (but this pace will start slowing down as I've lost the easy weight).
First bolded comment - nope... the amount of your deficit is what determines how fast you lose the weight - however you create that deficit. Some people find it easier to create the deficit strictly thru diet, some people find it easier to create the deficit thru exercise or thru some combination of the two. But however the deficit is created, bottom line is the deficit causes the weight loss.
Second bolded comment - starvation mode where the body stops burning calories and saves all the calories that you eat is a common dieting myth that does not happen in real life. There is such a thing as adaptive thermogenesis where as you lose weight it takes fewer calories to support your smaller body, but there is NEVER a case where a living body will stop burning calories and save all those calories for a future date - if the body stops burning calories, the body ceases to live.
Body will not cease burning calories, the body will start shutting certain functions to conserve the energy it is getting. This is mainly in drastic circumstances. It is more about what you eat than the calories you take in, at least in my personal weight lose journal. I lost over 60lbs, never went to the gym and still had a calorie in take of 2k plus. IF was a big help, but mainly what your diet is. Eat 2k calories of chicken and broccoli will have you looking different than 2k calories of doughnuts...LOL
Nah, you'll still gain weight eating 2000 calories of chicken and brocoli if your body only requires 1500.
11 -
DietCalories choices matter most in weight loss. Food choices will help you feel more or less full; you can eat way more volume of most vegetables and fruits than donuts for a lot less calories. Of course, you can eat all junk and still lose weight if you are in a caloric deficit but you won't be doing your blood glucose or cholesterol any favors. Moderation is key.
Exercise is so important for physical and mental health. And, it can help increase the caloric deficit but you are burning a lot less than you think and your body maxes out on how many calories it will burn in a day so overexercising will have negative effects. Look up peer researched articles that have the data and explanations. You will also see some physical differences as your muscles become stonger and you reduce body fat.1 -
Calories choices matter most in weight loss. Food choices will help you feel more or less full; you can eat way more volume of most vegetables and fruits than donuts for a lot less calories. Of course, you can eat all junk and still lose weight if you are in a caloric deficit but you won't be doing your blood glucose or cholesterol any favors. Moderation is key.
Exercise is so important for physical and mental health. And, it can help increase the caloric deficit but you are burning a lot less than you think and your body maxes out on how many calories it will burn in a day so overexercising will have negative effects. Look up peer researched articles that have the data and explanations. You will also see some physical differences as your muscles become stonger and you reduce body fat.
Is one of those negative effects death because you can't really not burn calories if you're still breathing.
1 -
Calories choices matter most in weight loss. Food choices will help you feel more or less full; you can eat way more volume of most vegetables and fruits than donuts for a lot less calories. Of course, you can eat all junk and still lose weight if you are in a caloric deficit but you won't be doing your blood glucose or cholesterol any favors. Moderation is key.
Exercise is so important for physical and mental health. And, it can help increase the caloric deficit but you are burning a lot less than you think and your body maxes out on how many calories it will burn in a day so overexercising will have negative effects. Look up peer researched articles that have the data and explanations. You will also see some physical differences as your muscles become stonger and you reduce body fat.
Is one of those negative effects death because you can't really not burn calories if you're still breathing.
To be fair, there is some research suggesting that at the population level, people doing more exercise don't have as much higher a TDEE as one might expect compared to people who exercise less. Presumably there's some self-reporting bias in that, and probably some "work out too hard, rest more" kind of thing.
I think it's wrong to assume that will always be equally true at n=1. My TDEE is higher than others' of my age, it seems, and I know others for whom that's also true.
Over-exercising can have negative effects, as the PP said. The "you are burning less than you think" part is pretty questionable, though. Pretty sure PP doesn't know what I or OP think.
1 -
DietCalories choices matter most in weight loss. Food choices will help you feel more or less full; you can eat way more volume of most vegetables and fruits than donuts for a lot less calories. Of course, you can eat all junk and still lose weight if you are in a caloric deficit but you won't be doing your blood glucose or cholesterol any favors. Moderation is key.
Exercise is so important for physical and mental health. And, it can help increase the caloric deficit but you are burning a lot less than you think and your body maxes out on how many calories it will burn in a day so overexercising will have negative effects. Look up peer researched articles that have the data and explanations. You will also see some physical differences as your muscles become stonger and you reduce body fat.
Is one of those negative effects death because you can't really not burn calories if you're still breathing.
I meant exercise calories. there is a point of diminishing returns. Recent studies have shown that more and more physical activity in a day doesn't necessarily mean you will continue to boost the calorie burn for the day. It is self-preservation. Otherwise we could burn off excess fat very easily by just doing lots of exercise which isn't the case.1 -
DietCalories choices matter most in weight loss. Food choices will help you feel more or less full; you can eat way more volume of most vegetables and fruits than donuts for a lot less calories. Of course, you can eat all junk and still lose weight if you are in a caloric deficit but you won't be doing your blood glucose or
To be fair, there is some research suggesting that at the population level, people doing more exercise don't have as much higher a TDEE as one might expect compared to people who exercise less. Presumably there's some self-reporting bias in that, and probably some "work out too hard, rest more" kind of thing.
I think it's wrong to assume that will always be equally true at n=1. My TDEE is higher than others' of my age, it seems, and I know others for whom that's also true.
Over-exercising can have negative effects, as the PP said. The "you are burning less than you think" part is pretty questionable, though. Pretty sure PP doesn't know what I or OP think.
Many people vastly overestimate the amount of calories a workout burns. And as you get fitter and smaller, the same workout will burn less. And many underestimate how many they eat which is why tracking is so useful. This is coming form a longtime exercise lover who has lifted heavy elong before all the Gymshark ads. Believe me, I wish exercise were the counterbalance to my sweet tooth. After reading the research myself, I had to finally admit it is true. The good news is that I have always had excellent blood and overall health results even when I am up the 25lbs or at my comfortable goal weight which I attribute to a consistent fitness routine over the past 20 years.0 -
Many people vastly overestimate the amount of calories a workout burns. And as you get fitter and smaller, the same workout will burn less. And many underestimate how many they eat which is why tracking is so useful. This is coming form a longtime exercise lover who has lifted heavy elong before all the Gymshark ads. Believe me, I wish exercise were the counterbalance to my sweet tooth. After reading the research myself, I had to finally admit it is true. The good news is that I have always had excellent blood and overall health results even when I am up the 25lbs or at my comfortable goal weight which I attribute to a consistent fitness routine over the past 20 years.Calories choices matter most in weight loss. Food choices will help you feel more or less full; you can eat way more volume of most vegetables and fruits than donuts for a lot less calories. Of course, you can eat all junk and still lose weight if you are in a caloric deficit but you won't be doing your blood glucose or
To be fair, there is some research suggesting that at the population level, people doing more exercise don't have as much higher a TDEE as one might expect compared to people who exercise less. Presumably there's some self-reporting bias in that, and probably some "work out too hard, rest more" kind of thing.
I think it's wrong to assume that will always be equally true at n=1. My TDEE is higher than others' of my age, it seems, and I know others for whom that's also true.
Over-exercising can have negative effects, as the PP said. The "you are burning less than you think" part is pretty questionable, though. Pretty sure PP doesn't know what I or OP think.
As we get smaller, yes, we burn fewer calories at the same intensity/duration doing the types of exercise in which bodyweight is a major contributor to the amount of work. Fitness increase per se, no, not so much.
Most of the calorie burn from exercise is about the amount of work performed, in the physics sense of "work". A very fit person and a non-fit person of the same body size will burn about the same number of calories walking/jogging/running the same distance at the same pace on the same course.
The main difference is that it will feel much harder to the non-fit person, and their heart will beat faster. The perception of easy/difficulty cuts to the heart of what "fitness" means: The same work feels easier as fitness increases. The fit person's heart pumps more blood (so more oxygen) per beat, doesn't need to beat as fast to deliver the oxygen needed to consume the required fuel (calories) for the work being done. It's the oxygen consumption that correlates pretty well with calorie burn during aerobic exercise like walking/jogging/running, the heartbeats are just a proxy, and not necessarily a great one.
That "feels easier" thing makes people believe they're burning fewer calories doing the same exercise at the same intensity (and body size) as they get fitter. The heart rate thing makes some exercise trackers/heart rate monitors estimate that the person is burning few calories as they get fitter because heart rate is slower. It ain't necessarily so.
(There are exercise modalities where trained efficiency is a bigger factor in performance, but it doesn't necessarily mean the untrained person burns more calories, or fewer - it depends. Run/jog/walk is a narrower band of efficiency than some.)
Yes, there is research comparing people in the developed world vs. the Hadza and finding similar average TDEEs. Yes, there is large-scale research showing less TDEE difference than you'd expect between active and less-active people. (Look at that latter carefully, there tends to be self-reporting in the longer term studies, and that's notoriously inaccurate. Most people overestimate/overstate their exercise in self-report research, and understate their caloric intake.)
No one - that I saw - has said here that exercise can counterbalance a sweet tooth, necessarily. But it certainly can trigger higher calorie requirements in an individual. Why does a national team (Olympic) athlete in a sport like cross-country skiing, swimming, distance running, rowing or other endurance CV sport require many times the number of daily calories of a regular recreational athlete of the same size? They're fitter - you're implying that they'd burn fewer calories than expected, maybe not much more than a regular active person. That's not the observed result. They need many more calories because they do much more work.
Like you, I've been active for over 20 years now. I've also been logging calories quite carefully for nearly 8 years. Somehow, mysteriously, I burn hundreds of calories more daily than relatively less active women in my demographic. Maybe it has something to do with the hundreds of exercise calories I've logged most days? I'm thinking it does.
The thing is, it's super easy to eat that much more, too. If I work pretty hard, I can burn 400-500 calories in an hour. I can demolish those calories in food form in just a few minutes. It's like one slice of decent pizza, maybe . . . and even without eating that pizza slice, it's easy for those calories to creep in via a little butter here, a little cheese there, some extra oil in frying, a bit extra blue cheese dressing on the salad, some peanut butter or a handful of mixed nuts . . . !
I ate enough for 12+ years while training hard that I maintained a bodyweight around the overweight/class 1 obese borderline. Now I've been slim for 7+ years. The calories I burn in the same exercise - the things I've done for around 20 years - have only changed to the extent that my body size influences the work. When I ate fewer calories - fewer by enough - I lost weight.
You're right about lifting, though: Not a great calorie burner, vs. some other options. Worth doing for other reasons, though.
3 -
@irism099 LOL ok. You just made it sound so final. "You burned 2,000 calories today! No more calories for you!"
@AnnPT77 Oh how I've lived burning less exercise calories than I thought. The year of eating at maintenance when I thought I was in a lb a week deficit. The newer fitbits were lying liars who lie. (on me)
0 -
@irism099 LOL ok. You just made it sound so final. "You burned 2,000 calories today! No more calories for you!"
@AnnPT77 Oh how I've lived burning less exercise calories than I thought. The year of eating at maintenance when I thought I was in a lb a week deficit. The newer fitbits were lying liars who lie. (on me)
Yeah, they can overstate calorie burn, no question. OTOH, my Garmin - good model that others here report as working well for them - consistently believes I burn several hundred calories daily (say 400-600) fewer than I consistently eat . . . and have eaten for a literal few years now in maintenance, while weight behaves as I'd expect from my intake and history of weight management results. For me, MFP underestimates by roughly the same amount as my Garmin.
Honestly, I don't know whether Garmin's underestimating exercise calories (less likely in my case to be the big deal) or underestimating base calorie needs (more likely to account for most of the discrepancy, I believe, in my case). Do you have enough data to know that it's exercise calories that are off for you, vs. base calories (BMR + activity factor)? (Asking that question implies no assumption that you don't have sound data-based reasons for your conclusion! It's purely a question.)
Any of these estimates can be under or over. Statistics suggest that they can be usefully close enough for a fair lot of people, even if they aren't for you or me. That's statistics for ya!
0 -
this is an open ended question that I can't answer without knowing the goal. Do you want to lose weight? OR do you want to get fit? Both are important, but which one to stress depends on the end goal.1
-
I can't vote, because both have the same degree of importance. We need them both equally.0
-
DietNot all calories are created equal. Sugar and Carbs effect the body differently than protein. Just like different fuels burn differently...some burn completely others burn and leave residue. Yes both are important but you are able to lose weight without exercise, you can exercise and still gain weight (not from muscle, but from fat) depending on what you are eating.1
-
ExcersizeI voted exercise. Why? Because I have experienced weight loss using both methods independent of each other and lost weight faster with exercise alone. Maybe that's just me though. Howsomever, both is the best.0
-
ExcersizeI voted exercise.. because when i exercise.. i also eat right and i lose weight and maintain. So, it is the combination of both. However, as soon as i stop exercising; .. it creeps back on. It works for me. and i think ultimately one has to learn their own behaviors and choose and or balance the two.
t1 -
Dear Little Bird, which is more effective, your left wing or your right wing?2
-
Effective for what? Weight loss comes down to energy balance, so one could lose it just on eating less alone with no exercise, but they lose muscle and strength along with it.
You can exercise while eating at a calorie deficit and keep what muscle you have along with getting fitter. But if you overeat, you won't lose weight regardless of how much exercise you do.
So it really depends on what you're trying to achieve. In my business it's ALWAYS a combination of both.
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 -
IMO, they aren't really mutually exclusive...diet and exercise are homogeneous. Where losing weight is concerned, diet is probably going to be the most important factor because cutting out 500 calories per day in food is more doable and sustainable than achieving a 500 calorie deficit daily with exercise when you consider rest and recovery as well as susceptibility to injury and time constraints. That said, regular exercise and/or being generally active gives a nice assist and being regularly active has massive health benefits that go well beyond weight management.
Personally, I find losing weight much easier if I'm regularly active...it gives me wiggle room for error as well as some room for indulgence. Eating well also makes me feel good physically and when I feel good physically I'm more apt to be more active. When I'm more active I also tend to eat better in general and crave nourishment and healthful foods. It's very much a symbiotic relationship for me.
I don't really "workout" per-sei all that much...the only thing I do that I really consider a "workout" is hit the weight room 3x per week. Other than that I pretty much actively recreate...I walk my dog, I hike, I ride my bike, I do some mountain biking and trail riding, some kayaking in the summer, skiing in the winter, etc. Mostly I just eat well most of the time and engage in some kind of physical activity daily and I don't find those things to be mutually exclusive, but rather both are important to overall health and well-being as well as weight management.0 -
Depends. exercise is more important if your goal is fitness related. If your goal is weight-related (gain or loss), then diet is more effective.
2 -
Depends. exercise is more important if your goal is fitness related. If your goal is weight-related (gain or loss), then diet is more effective.
Or if your goal is to stay alive? Here, I'd pick diet. But then if I were being chased by a tiger, I'd pick exercise.
What kind of question asks which is better without asking about for what or at what?
Which is better? A fork or a spoon?
Of course, it depends.
But in addition to "it depends," "why pick?" A fork and spoon (and knife) are rather customarily used. Diet and exercise are rather customarily used.
Use both for what they're good at.1 -
DietYou can't out-exercise a bad diet. In terms of physical and mental overall health, both are important. Which takes precedence depends on your end goal: lose weight and tone up or tone up and lose a little weight. imho0
-
DietDiet so far.😊0
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
- 426 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
Do you Love MyFitnessPal? Have you crushed a goal or improved your life through better nutrition using MyFitnessPal?
Share your success and inspire others. Leave us a review on Apple Or Google Play stores!
Share your success and inspire others. Leave us a review on Apple Or Google Play stores!