I am trying to understand if it is really more about what I eat than how much I move.


Come on and give me your opinons on this. I am ready for it all.

I truly think it's what you eat that counts the most. Exercise certainly has it's benefits and you'll want to do it to keep everything in good working condition/toned though for your overall health.

So yeah I believe in the 80/20 ratio

I guess my main concern is, do I need to be doing 1.5 hours of exercise 5 days a week to lose weight if I am keeping within my caloric goals?

agreed. I lost 70 lbs without exercise before. (fad diet, augh, gained it all back) but still, I lost it in 4 months with absolutely NO exercise. now I exercise and eat right and it's coming off much slower but a better chance it will stay off too!

well they said in some study recently that women* who exercised 90 mins a day had better health and took off more weight than people who didn't. But I kind of wonder if people who are exercising that much are prolly more conscious about what they are eating too? Who knows.

I dont work, I'm sedentary basically so I try and exercise 2 hours a day 6 days a week just because I know I NEED IT since I don't lead a very active lifestyle.

I think it depends on your starting point on adjusting your diet and how active your baseline is. For me, my eating habits were pretty darn good so not a lot of room to cut enough calories to get a healthy deficit going. My non-exercise activity level is one step above bed rest. Slightly kidding but not by much, my job is programming phone systems from my home. I don't even burn calories getting ready for work in the morning (roll out of bed 5 mins before start time, sit at computer in my jammies).

So for me at the starting point I was, I'd say balance was the opposite. I could only improve my diet @20% so ramping up my exercise seems to be the major factor in my weight loss.

I definitely think it is at least 80/20. I could be exercising 5 hours a day - but if I'm not closely guarding my caloric intake, I'd gain weight. Calories. Calories. Calories. There really is only so much exercise can burn. Calorie restriction is therefore required. Unless of course we're running marathons daily. now THEY burn LOADS of calories.

Well if you're already doing this and then you should STOP, if you wanted to continue losing/maintaining at the same rate, you'd have to cut back on your calories.

If I were eating like I did prior to making the lifestyle change, my current exercise program wouldn't make much of a difference, but since I do eat a controlled amount (& it's not large) it makes a difference. Burning 300 calories or whatever the amount is that I burn, doesn't shave a very high percentage off of say 4000 calories (what I was doing before or more, who the heck knows), but it sure as heck makes a difference off of the 1200-1500 I consume now. If I weren't exercising, it would mean I'd have to eat that much less to stay that way, and I'm not willing to do that. Plus - I LOVE my muscles. I got used to them. I want to keep them. And I feel fit and fabulous and LOVE that I do physical activity.

But another way to look at it is, if I skip a workout, I won't gain weight. But if I have one *off* meal, I will.

I like exercising, I don't mind it..for the most part. I really can not stay focused enough to do more than 30 minutes at a time which is why I usually do 3 30 min sessions a day for 5 days a week. I was just curious if I stick to an average of 1400-1500 calories a day if I could cut it down to either 2 30 min sessions or 3 20 minute sessions and lose weight at a healthy rate. I always stay so confused, sorry :|

Onderchic - Have you looked at HIIT training? You can burn more calories in less time. I really think you should only exercise over an hour per day if you like it

I don't like the whole 80/20 thing because it makes it sound like exercise is not important. Now it's true, I could exercise all day long and not lose a single pound if I don't eat right. However, eating right alone is not enough for me. I have to to both. If I don't exercise my weight loss is usually under 1 lb per week

Onederchic, I did EXACTLY this in the months that I was losing. I couldn't stand exercising for long periods of a time. So, yup, I broke it down into 3 - 30 minute sessions.

If you want to experiment with lessening your exercise and see what kind of results you get, then by all means do so. Track accurately for a couple of weeks and watch the data. As you get closer to goal, you may want to/have to increase the exercise again to keep on creating that all important calorie deficit.

I think it varies for everyone, obviously diet is very important. But the times I have been successful with weight loss in a non-E.D. way was at camp. Where I would SCARF down food like non other and lots of carb foods and I lost 20 lbs because of all the movement I was doing. And here in France I have lost almost 10 lbs even though I have been eating pastries and chocolate and wine: it is a half mile walk to my tram at least plus jogging.

So for me, without exercise I can't lose weight. But I can't lose weight by pigging out. I put it at 50/50 for me.

Thanks so much for the response, peachy and I hope you're having a wonderful time

Thanks, I am! I think there should be a big Paris party...

One way to look at the equation is to think about what elite athletes....

Even high level athletes who exercise six or seven hours a day watch what they eat and are careful not to eat too much junk food lest they put on weight.

I have friends who are triatheletes and they also don't eat huge amounts of food.