What happens if you have good nutrtion and no exercise? Or if you have good nutrition and you're a cardio queen? Or you're one of those people who completely baffle my mind and lift but with weights that wouldn't be challenging to a 4 year old child?
While I agree that nutrtion is king I think you're taking it too far by saying the rest is details. Of course you can't out exercise a bad diet but without a training stimulus you won't build or maintain muscle.
Well, what kind of body are we talking about? Do you want to be the girl on the CF workout of the day photo or do you just want to grow old and be able to pick up your grandkids without being impaired by osteoperosis? I think the vast majority of people are just in the #2 category. For them, walking after work, working in the garden, doing home projects, cleaning all day long after a toddler is good enough. Eat properly and do something active, whatever that is, and you won't waste away, you'll just be normal and healthy.
Yes, I would love for everyone in this world to use a barbell 3x a week but at the end of the day, nutrition is king and the rest is details in this life for the vast majority of people. There's nothing wrong with not doing weight lifting or not going to a gym. Billions of people in this world remain at a normal healthy weight without a commercial gym.
Interesting question. I know somethings for certain:
1. I can not lose weight without HARD training cardio and weights.
2. Training makes me more likely to stick to my diet b/c I don't want my efforts to go to waste.
3. I have been "off" my eating plan b/c of all the dummer FUN but have kept my training program. I have MAINTAINED the same weight by doing this.
Not sure if that is the 80/20 that I have often heard but it really- FOR ME- goes hand and hand... healthy, low cal, low carb eating and lots of CARDIO and weightlifting.
...but at the end of the day, nutrition is king and the rest is details in this life for the vast majority of people.
Good point and I'll agree completely with the additional qualifier of removing the word "vast" from your statement.
As a guy I might be biased because I have seen so many people (myself included) go into a weight room and do the most utterly stupid routine we read about in some magazine that only a genetically gifted bodybuilder could recover from which causes the rest of us to simply make no progress. Think 16 sets of curls - and wonder why we're not getting stronger or bigger.
I'm unable to exercise due to medical reasons, this has been the case for years, and no doubt I have a certain degree of muscle wastage. I'm not aware that I have the power to build muscle while I'm still unable to exercise by changing my diet. However, I do have the option of making sure that I lose at a safe rate so that I don't end up burning muscle as well as fat. Am I right about this, or am I missing something?
I am now in a similar boat as after pushing thru exercising I inevitably ended up sick the next few days or weeks. Unfortunately, my weight loss is now all about calories in-calories out. I do try not to lose weight quickly as I cannot afford to lose too much muscle. i am trying to become more active however so even if I cannot exercise, i have upped my activity level by at least 50% over last year. I know that protein contributes to muscle building and so is important in your diet but I too am unaware just how much it can help you when you cannot exercise
Do you have CFIDS/CFS/ME too? There are a few of us on the board with it, and I'm not sure how many of the fibro folks have it since there's huge overlap and it may even be the same condition.
I didn't even exercise, I just basted a quilt over two days, took a day off, and then was taken to a local clinic for an ultrasound. I kept going for a few days after that and have pretty much been flat out in bed ever since. I'm meant to be meeting my partner's dad and grandparents for the first time in ten days and I really hope I make it.
Er, slight threadjacking there. A GP I saw briefly mentioned that I should be eating a high-protein diet, but he didn't say how much protein and he also showed a complete lack of knowledge about nutrition when it came to giving me advice about how much fat to eat (this is the gallstones guy). Right now I'm just adding in a tablespoon of protein powder to my cereal in the morning, continuing the fun job of trying to keep my fat levels low, and generally trying to eat a nice healthy diet with the right calorie level. Possibly I should be adding more protein, which pretty much means more protein powder since vegan sources of protein are generally high in fat and there are limits to how many lentils I can stand. Everyone here always talks about how protein gives them more energy and keeps them satisfied for longer, but I've never noticed either of those things at all.
Good point and I'll agree completely with the additional qualifier of removing the word "vast" from your statement.
As a guy I might be biased because I have seen so many people (myself included) go into a weight room and do the most utterly stupid routine we read about in some magazine that only a genetically gifted bodybuilder could recover from which causes the rest of us to simply make no progress. Think 16 sets of curls - and wonder why we're not getting stronger or bigger.
Oh dear, I hear you on that one Especially those who don't work out their legs. I used to work with a guy like that, he could bench a good 300lbs (saw it with my own eyes at our work gym) but never worked out his lower body. We called him "Cobra" because of his huge upper body and ridiculous tail
Esofia -- I saw a dietitian in my journey years ago when I began. I may have to see her again as my needs have changed. But since you have medical issues too that the average bear doesn't contend with... a dietitian to help with your specific needs may help you. Later on some kind of physical therapist maybe?
Quote:
Personally I feel that calories are about basic weight loss and shape, and nutrition is about health, how you feel inside.
I feel my shape is determined by my genes. Overweight or slim, I'm wired to be kinda hourglassy. When slim, it's the classic hourglass. When obese? I'm hourglass with a waist from the front and from the side you see the belly.
I think nutrition is about quality AND quantity of food appropriate to the age and stage needs of the person. Calories is how to measure the quantity. They go hand in hand.
How I feel inside -- I know I feel peppy when all things are going well in my diet. But that's also a mental health thing too -- some people's hurdles are in the body image area even though they may THINK their problem is body/diet. Or maybe it is both.
I do know I can't feed a newborn infant the same kinds of food as me. We can say "calories are calories!" but the infant doesn't have a mature digestive system and ought to be on breastmilk, not wine and cheese! Same with an elder person, a kid losing baby teeth, a diabetic, allergic person etc. All different needs to be addressed. There is no one size fits all.
If I eat nothing but twinkies -- the allergies and blood sugar shock would get me long before the bad nutrition deficiencies would get me!
But all nutrition in the world does not change the fact that if the calorie level is not suited to the need of the person, it isn't suited to the need of the person.
I totally believe they are in that order of importance, though I'm not sure I completely agree with the perfentages, at least in my case, just based on my own experiences with weight loss and fitness. But yes, overall, I think nutrition is the most important factor.
Oh dear, I think everyone is missing my point, though I thought I was explaining it clearly! I never for a moment said that nutrition is unimportant. I think it's crucial. But I am querying whether nutrition, as opposed to calorie intake, specifically affects your body shape. I don't think anyone's actually answered that yet.
Astrophe - I saw a dietician the other year, she promptly took me off gluten with no real basis and told me that it would cause me to lose weight, along with combining proteins. Combining proteins was a good tip, but taking me off gluten just made me life needlessly difficult, and I didn't lose a pound because she'd given me no actual weight loss advice. I've fared far better on my own and with the support I've found online, plus I check in with my GP to check this and that. As for physical therapy, I see a physiotherapist every now and again, plus my GP is fairly well up on how to treat this medical condition. They both generally tell me to stop overdoing it! My physio has approved mild stretches for me to do when I'm up to it (rare), but generally says that the activity level involved in just getting around my flat is enough for me at the current stage of my illness. You don't even think about taking up an exercise routine when you're struggling to get washed every day becuse it's too exhausting.
I completely agree that nutrition is the vast majority of the battle when it comes to losing fat. But once you get to a desirable weight, then exercise becomes key to having the shape and strength and endurance you want to stay healthy and attractive.
But I am querying whether nutrition, as opposed to calorie intake, specifically affects your body shape. I don't think anyone's actually answered that yet.
I guess I don't get what you mean by "body shape." Do you mean obesity and weight gain?
Because I need medication, good nutrition and appropriate calorie level to lose weight. I have metabolism barmy. I can eat right, exercise right, and if my hypothyroid med is off, forget it. Nothing doin' -- that's usually the clue to me that I need to in for labs and see if that needs adjusting again. It's happened to me 3 times.
But yes you can overeat on nutritious healthy food and still gain weight. You still overate for your needs.
I never for a moment said that nutrition is unimportant. I think it's crucial. But I am querying whether nutrition, as opposed to calorie intake, specifically affects your body shape. I don't think anyone's actually answered that yet.
If you take into account all the many articles written on nutrition & weight loss, most all of them tout the 40/30/30 (40% carbs/30% protein/30% fat) food intake. It is said to be much more "nutritional" than a low carb/hi-protein diet, or a grapefruit diet, or some cleansing diet, or any other "diet" way of eating.
Does this contribute to body shape? I don't think so. I think body shape is determined by how much fat your body has (or doesn't have) and what kind of exercise you do/don't do. In other words - what we're talking about here is BODY COMPOSITION. A 5'7" female body weighing 130 lbs can be shaped quite differently than a 5'3" female body weighing 105 lbs. OR - here's the kicker! - those two body types can be shaped the same!
Look at it this way: A swimmer's body is much different than a football player's body. A person who lifts weights and does the elliptical machine will have a different body shape than that of a Pilates/Yoga instructor. A person who runs & doesn't lift weights will have a different body composition than one who runs and DOES lift weights. How many before/after pics have you seen that are completely amazing? I mean SO AMAZING that it doesn't even look like the same person?
As has been stated, a person can be fat but healthy, and a person can be what is referred to as "skinny-fat". That is, very thin & LOOKS healthy, but in reality, not healthy at all. Body fat (or lack thereof) is not the do-all/end-all of health. There are so many other factors involved... blood sugar level, cholesterol (good & bad!), heart function, liver function, etc. This is why it's kind of counter-productive to do "the twinkie diet" to lose weight. Because while you may lose weight, you most likely won't be doing the rest of your body any favors.
I'm mainly talking about where the fat deposits are located on the body. People are saying that nutrition, as opposed to calories, makes a difference to body shape, and I can't see how. If person A is eating a 1500 calorie diet that's full of junk, and person B (let's assume they're twins for this purpose, so same height and weight and so forth) is eating a 1500 calorie diet of wholefoods, will they end up losing fat in different body areas, or come to that losing fat at a different pace? Because if that's the case, and can be shown to be universally true in large studies instead of anecdotal data of the "I managed to get off this plateau when I started drinking more water" variety, then that is a radical change to what we know about weight loss. If it isn't true, then nutrition is irrelevant to body shape, it's all about calorie deficit, and nutrition only comes in when we get to health.
I think genetics plays a much larger role than 10%. I have friends who eat fairly healthfully (but still eat some junk/dessert), and don't exercise except for perhaps a daily walk and some incidental exercise like housework and gardening, yet still look pretty much the same as they did when they finished high school. I, OTOH, eat MUCH healthier and exercise MUCH more than I did when I was in high school, and also look about the same as when I finished high school.
I think bodies are made in the genetic makeup of the egg/sperm that becomes the embryo, and in the womb, in the bottle/breast/formula/babyfood, in the kitchen, in the restaurant, in the home, in the school, in the culture, on the couch, in the bed, in the office, in the gym, at the pharmacists, in the doctor's office/hospital...
I think that we try too hard to pin all or most of the "blame" (for all or most people) rather than try to address them all or to work at finding the best solution for the individual.
I think different people have very different sources and proportions of contributing factors. Trying to lay all or most of the blame on any one thing (especially for all or most people) does more harm than good. It makes people look in only one (and sometimes the wrong) direction for answers. For most of my life, I thought that all or most of the blame and credit for weight loss was in the food/calorie count. I believed it so heartily that I didn't look for other sources of the problem, or other ways to address the problem.
I think a multi-dimensional approach is important for everyone - and the encouragement for everyone to experiment to find their own most important factors.
Especially those who don't work out their legs. I used to work with a guy like that, he could bench a good 300lbs (saw it with my own eyes at our work gym) but never worked out his lower body. We called him "Cobra" because of his huge upper body and ridiculous tail 
