Very nice speech.....I'm a toastmaster as well.

I agree that in the end it's diet that's important. My friend has lost the same 8 lbs over and over and while he kills himself at the gym I've lost almost 50 lbs mostly with changing my diet and on average probably exercising 1-2 times a week. I do like exercising and think it's great for your heart but for weight loss it's not the biggest factor IMO.

Well said! I have decreased my exercise this past month (so I decreased my calories a bit as well) and I've still managed to lose almost 4 pounds in 22 days while not really doing a ton of cardio. I work with a bunch of women who always ask me what I'm doing to lose weight and I tell them it's just calories in versus calories out and (while I enjoy working out) I don't follow a routine schedule. But then they go work out for three hours a day and complain that they aren't losing weight while they are still eating the same things...um, did you hear what I said, ladies?!?!

Beach Patrol - I bow down to your masterful use of emoticons. (How did you do that will power dust thingie?)

If I had time for a fourth myth it would have been "starvation mode" because frankly the body can only slow the metabolism down so much.

Weight loss is often confused with fat loss - if one lowers calories too much especially if you're exercising a lot - can result in a lot of water being retained. Thus - increasing calories a bit can woosh the water and people draw their own faulty conclusions about what just happened.

If I were to give a longer speech on weight loss tips I would talk about diet breaks. Very important for most people in my opinion. Some people can put their nose down and just grind it all out but most people (like me) just don't have that kind of will power.

Heh, I love it when people bow to me

The "will power dust" is one of many in the emoticon smilies list. It's near the bottom, before you get into the "birthday" emoticons, etc.

"kickbutt" is my favorite:

And thanks for the answer to my questful question.

I replied to a poaster on line on MSNBC awhile back regarding this same issue. He said he could eat whatever he wanted and never gained weight because he exercised. I said to him that weight loss was more of an 80/10/10approach (nuturition/exercise/genetics). My one proof? How many heavy people do you see on the stairmater, treadmill, elliptical who pound at it for 60 minutes, 5X a week, but never lose a pound?

I agree that calorie intake is the most important part of a diet, not the type of food you eat, but let us not forget that vitamin and mineral deficiencies can bring us to an early grave too as well as cause us various trouble on the way there.
As in most things Ballance is the key. Excersize, healthy food and calorie control all together can be a magic combination and in my humble opinion the best one.
I know heavier people actually have to do very little to lose a lot in the beginning, but to stay lean for a long healthy life demands more than just eating 2000 calories of junk every day.

I don't think he is saying exercise is unnecessary. He is saying that it is unnecessary for weight loss.

I should exercise to keep my heart healthy or for stamina/endurance, but it has been proven time and again that resistance training is the most effective addition to a diet plan for the purpose of raising metabolism and ensuring that weight loss comes from fat instead of muscle, but even that has a minimal effect compared to the importance of diet for weight loss, and that is another subject anyway.

However, I have to wonder at what point movement of some kind becomes a factor. When does movement become "exercise"? If I am lying on the couch all day with an injury for months or years, that will certainly effect my metabolism-not because I am missing out on my cardio, but because I am just moving less. And that would certainly effect weight loss.

Great post, John. I agree completely. I exercise moderately (5-6 times per week, a mix of cardio and strength training) and while the exercise has improved my mood, energy, overall health, and the way I look and feel, I firmly believe that strict adherence to my calorie limit is responsible for my success with weight loss. It's interesting... I hear many of the myths you mentioned regularly from co-workers and a few friends. Now that they know I'm working to lose weight (it's obvious now that I've lost enough to make a visual difference), they're full of such advice as they're all smaller than I am. At this point, I've given up on trying to convince them that it doesn't matter what time of day I eat, how many times per day I eat, what time of day I exercise, whether I run or just walk, etc., as my statements about calories in vs. calories out sound no different than the "facts" they're so sure of. But it doesn't matter what they believe; eventually my weight loss will speak for itself.


Ah, but your thread in the Weight Loss Support forum would indicate that it's about choices, not willpower. Which I firmly believe.

For some people, the best weight loss plan may be one that allows them a break when the pressure of consistently eating well, or within a calorie limit, or on a specific plan, builds beyond their tolerance. And that makes complete sense. But for more than a few, I think, the consistency and routine they develop is important for maintaining focus and committment, and a diet break might be detrimental. I agree in general with the article you linked that flexibility in one's diet is beneficial and not being miserable is critical, but I think that many people accomplish that without a "diet break". I'm not miserable at all with my diet, because I allow myself lots of flexibility - I eat meals out once or twice per week, I use pre-prepared foods (even if that's usually just pre-chopped veggies or pre-cooked chicken) to save time, I have ice cream and feel no guilt, and I do it all while staying on plan (read: within my calorie limit). I've created a plan for myself that is comfortable and sustainable, and thus I don't feel any need for a break - though it's always possible I might at some point. In sum though, I think this is one of those (many) things that is different for everyone when it comes to weight loss, rather than a universal (or near-universal) truth, and I think it falls more under the category of "the best diet is the one that you can live with and follow", whether that plan involves breaks or not.

Yes - agreed. COMPLETELY.

Also, while I think you understand it well, I want to point out to others what a break in one's diet means and does't mean. A diet break doesn' t mean you go back to the method of eating that got you fat in the first place, or and end to counting calories, or anything else related to that.

It means brining your calories back to maintience levels to restore hormonal levels and psychologically taking a break from the reduction in calories.

Excellent speech. So many people put off dieting because they think there's no point unless they start a gruelling exercise programme at the same time, and they don't want to do that so they don't diet either.

I very much hope that it's possible to lose weight without exercise because I'm at the level of disability where merely having a shower is a challenging form of exercise! I have been feeling better lately, either because of the diet or perhaps the slight change in supplements and meds, and trying to keep up with 2 min a day gentle exercise biking. Yesterday I got uppity and went for a 15 min walk in the sunshine, and today I hurt all over and have to stay in bed, but hopefully in a day or so I'll recover and soon be able to get back to my very cautious exercise regime. I've only been dieting for five or six weeks, and bought the scales a week ago, but I've definitely lost some weight (even with a new belt, I'm having problems with trousers getting too lose) and in the week that I've been measuring, I've lost a pound. Of course, not being able to exercise properly is one of the reasons I put on weight in the first place, but drifting into unsuitable eating habits was a lot of it as well.

I love the post! I started weight loss 6 weeks ago but I only started exercise a week ago. There were two factors in that decision. For one I knew that I needed to stick on plan and not fail. I felt that if I tried to do both diet and exercise commitments at the same time I would crumble and fail thus making me want to give up. This is just me knowing me, not a rule for everyone.

The second reason is that to help keep me motivated I wanted to see the biggest number losses the first few weeks when I went through all my cravings and withdraws. Exercising (at least with my body) slows that process for me. I knew that exercise and weight loss are separate functions and serve very different processes in my body.

I wanted to start my exercise for two reasons health and looks. Exercise gives me endurance and tones my body. I want to have nice lines, not just smaller blob lines like I have now. I want a tone tummy not a thin but flabby tummy. The weight loss gets rid of my fat, the exercise makes my body look good. Both very different jobs.

My losses are slower now that I'm exercising but I know muscle weighs more then fat and I'm watching my body shape nicely in front of the mirror so the scale can go blow raspberries at someone else!

Yeah, I've lost almost 130 lbs with little to no exercise. I've had serious back issues since right around when I started losing weight, and I have to be very careful with the type and amount of exercise I engage in. I wish I could exercise more (for health and vanity reasons), but I think I'm living proof that you can lose massive amounts of weight (and see a huge improvement in things like cholesterol levels) without exercise. When anyone asks me for weight loss advice (especially people who are obese/morbidly obese), I tell them to focus on the food before worrying about exercise. If they find themselves wanting to exercise, then they should go for it, but to not let lack or ability/motivation to exercise affect what they're doing diet-wise.

I think I have one little nit picky thing on all of this.

You tell us that it's calories in versus calories out. And, it is!!!!!

But, it seems interesting that you consider the effort to consume less calories as a valid mode of weight loss, but you do not consider just burning more as a valid mode of weight loss. I feel like 3FC is starting to take the opinion that exercise just doesn't matter at all for weight loss and only for fitness.

In reality, you can eat the exact amount of calories needed for maintenance every day if you wanted. You could then do cardio for 90 minutes each day. You would lose weight because you are now burning more, leaving you with a calorie deficit.

Or on your plan, you could burn a static amount of calories each day, but lower your caloric intake. You would lose weight.

So, in reality, you could eat a little less and move a little more making less sacrifice on each end. Or, you could sacrifice on both ends (keeping stamina in mind) and move your weight loss along a little faster.

Exercise helps your heart, increases your strength, gives you more energy, lowers your cholesterol, helps you sleep, improves your mood AND HELPS YOU LOSE WEIGHT. It would be a grave mistake to separate the two like I see SO many people doing these days. You need both. And, both go hand in hand for weight loss.

For all of the psychological reasons as to why people eat more because they work out, many others eat more healthfully because they are working out and don't want to sabotage all of that hard work. I happen to be one of those people.

Think of it this way - I could write a speech that watching your caloric intake is not necessary for weight loss at all!! I could then say, if you ran for four hours a day you would lose weight. And, honestly, we would. We just don't naturally consume enough calories daily. You're right, eventually your body could adapt to that, but I'd stake a lot of things on the fact that it wouldn't adapt to the point where you'd be OVERWEIGHT. If you're running four hours a day you will just not eat enough calories every single day to make you overweight. And the general premise would be assuming you don't start consuming MORE calories. Because your premise assumes you don't go into a vegetative state of complete inactivity with no calorie burning once you start lowering your calories. Right?? Because, what if I wanted to lose 10 lbs. According to your speech I would just eat less calories and create the deficit and hit it. So, I decrease my daily caloric intake from my maintenance level by 100. BUT, let's say I ALSO stopped playing roller hockey every night. Oh.... my bad, I'm gaining weight now! See? Either method (calorie restriction vs. calorie burning) works on its own assuming the other half is static.

I think it's valid to point out you don't need to workout to the point of near death every single day if your only goal is weight loss, just as its a valid point to say you don't need to struggle through each day by eating only 600 calories. But, I think it is a mistake - a big one - to say that only calorie intake is necessary for weight loss. Because someone else could validly argue that ONLY exercise is necessary for weight loss. And, for you maybe the exercise version is just WAY more effort, but for someone with serious food addictions and a love for movement, maybe calorie restriction is WAY more effort.

Like you already agreed, though, people should do what's best for them! I'm just saying they are both equally necessary or unnecessary depending on how you want to play it.

One more thing, slightly related.

Ask yourself WHY you want to lose weight. Nine times out of ten exercise is NECESSARY to that end.

"I want to lose weight to be healthy."

Exercise is necessary.

"I want to lose weight for purely vanity reasons."

Exercise is necessary. (A fit body is WAY sexier than a flabby untoned one.)

For anyone out there on a crusade to lose weight, the exercise is going to go hand in hand with them anyway.

For the record, I think it's a great speech. I simply would have rathered picking on a different diet myth point than one that could be misunderstood or taken as an excuse to not exercise.