Is it really 80% diet?
 

I ask because today was a "need to get work done on the computer" day. I am wearing my little gizmo that tells me how many calories I'm burning and it isn't purrrrty. It's 8:30 pm and I've taken 2750 steps today and burned just und 1600 calories. I've eaten 1650 calories today. I will basically have a maintenance day at eating 1650.

I ate the same yesterday, but I walked more and I worked out. I ate about 1600 calories and burned 2300. My eating remains constant -1500 to 1600 but it's only when I consistently excise that I drop weight, trying to eat lower than 1500 is too hard for me - I feel famished in the winter time if I drop below that (spring and summer I can).

So while watching my calories is helping me, it's the exeercise calories that helping me lose. Seems 50/50 to me.

Of course, it bugs me that eating so little (and it doesn't take much to get to 1650 calories!) means maintaining!

I think the reason so many people say it's 80% diet is because a lot of people when they exercise will decide they can up their calories WAY more than what they actually burned. So trainers like Jillian will say, "You can outeat any exercise program" because some people do and they try and warn people up front that they will have to remain diligent about their diet.

I agree- I just think its so much easier to eat calories than to burn them off. I think a lot of people think that of they exercise, they can eat whatever they want.. It takes 20 minutes to burn 200 calories- you can eat 200 calories in 60 seconds if you wanted... If you were to go out and eat at a fancy restauraunt- you could eat upwards of 1,000 calories- how long would it take to burn that off? I think people just tend to overestimate how much they truly burn off.

Hmm. I've always heard that weightloss really is more of what you (don't) eat, and exercise really is to be fit, like as in "yes it is 80% diet"...But here's my opinion on it. I think that's because many people over estimate what they are doing or burning when they work out. How many people (I just talked to one recently that did this) say they started going to the gym, and haven't lost or then actually gained. Then come to find out they were at the gym for about 30 minutes 3-4 x a week, and strolling on the treadmill, lifting a 2 lbs weight a few times THEN saying I can have some cookies because I workout now That's where I think the idea that its 80% diet come from.

You can lose weight only with dieting. You can't lose weight only with exercising.

It's easy to eat a 250 calories subway cookie in 15 seconds and it's hard to walk during two hours to burn 250 calories.

Personnally, I feel better when I eat more and exercise more, but I don't lose more weight than if I eat a bit less and don't exercise, and the last one is easier for me especially in winter.

But I am not dieting. This is the way I will eat the rest of my life. 1500 to 1600 calories. My "diet" is the exercise off more calories than I eat. I don't eat back my exercise calories. Maybe when I am maintaining I will eat those back... So my diet now is excising the pounds off. When I don't exercise. I don't lose.

Melissa, I've been at this for a few years, and am just beginning to tiptoe into the exercise arena. I do believe diet is 80% of the SCALE results, but once you reach a certain point, it's not just about the scale. Food is a way of life, and is a path to slimness. It seems exercise is more of a place of strength and shape and INNER peace, and depending on where you are in your journey is where it falls in priority. Yet another thing that has to be balanced!

Based on the type of diet you've become accustomed to ... you're right for two reasons.

1) If you don't get a certain number of calories you're going to feel it. (NEAT is decreased)

2) I've also said you say that exercise energizes you and does not ignite your appetite. (NEAT is increased and you don't feel the need to compensate with additional calories)

That said - others might have the opposite effect in one or both of these areas.

My net calories are always consistent (meaning I eat back my exercise calories so at the end of the day my net is 1400-1500) but I find that whenever I add exercise into my routine, I lose weight a lot faster even though my net calories are the same. I think it really depends on your body and paying attention to not overeating your exercise calories.

I think food trumps exercise! :) Abs are made in the kitchen not the gym. :hun: Finding a good balance of both diet & exercise is very important for living a healthy lifestyle. With a healthy diet, my body gets the nutrients it needs to stay strong and perform well which lowers my risk for numerous health issues. Exercise is very important for my overall health & it ups my metabolism & weight lifting helps to preserve the muscles I have which tends to waste away during weightloss and aging.

As my siggy states eating right + exercise + weightlifting = looking good naked! :)
So, yeah I think a combo of all 3 of the above is key to ME keeping the poundage at bay.
Of course I am NOT a perfect eater, I eat healthy 80% of the time & 20% of the time I let my hair down & eat whatever I want! :D

Those who just diet & not exercise are more than likely to become skinny fat.

I do think that exercise can have a big effect on weight loss/maintenance under certain circumstances:

People who are not counting calories and who start exercising may not realize it if they increase their food consumption to the point that it cancels out exercise. For example, let's say I am on a loose plan on which I just "cut down my portions" and/or "try to eat healthier" but am not actually counting calories. I start walking 30 minutes a day, burning approx. 200 calories or so. Perhaps I'm a bit hungrier once I start, so I eat an extra couple of pieces of fruit (e.g., an apple & a cup of grapes). Those are healthy snacks that would fit into my loose plan, but adding them or their equivalent every day would almost cancel out any exercise I'm doing.

But the fact that you ARE counting calories means that you might get more benefit from exercise because you're aware of how much you are eating and are not eating more to compensate for that extra activity. In that case, I definitely believe that exercise can have a significant effect on weight loss. In fact, I really believe that one main reason I can eat approx. 2200 calories a day even though I'm short and almost in my mid-40s is that I do so much activity (usually 2 hours a day). I guarantee you that I burn at least 400 calories a day in activity, so if I stopped doing that, I would have to cut my calories to 1800 or so.

re:
 

My question is, did you exercise throughout your weight loss or is it a more recent addition?

I've also thought that people who start at higher weights (myself included) will have their metabolisms completely screwed up by the time they are at goal, regardless of whether or not they are exercising.

Hopefully you won't have to maintain at 1600 forever and over time as your body gets used to its new self that will change. Think about it though, the average daily recommended calories for women is 2000. That's only 400 cals more.


.

<<I've also thought that people who start at higher weights (myself included) will have their metabolisms completely screwed up by the time they are at goal, regardless of whether or not they are exercising. >>

Not true at all. (It may be true for a few people, but even in those cases the suppressed metabolism eventually bounces back.) It's also self-defeating thinking. In the absence of reliable evidence to the contrary, I choose to believe what my experience and observations have shown me: people who eat moderately are able to maintain their weight, whether they started out fat or thin.

Freelance

re:
 

I certainly hope you're right freelance. It scares me to no end. :)

I, too, hope this is true, freelance. But I have read evidence to the contrary. For instance, there's this story from NPR: http://www.npr.org/2012/01/03/144627...ork-against-us

I'm not saying I believe it yet, but it does suggest that dieting damages the metabolism somehow. I can't attest to it or deny it because during the periods of my life where I've been fat and have just eaten randomly, I never counted how many calories I was consuming (although when I started losing weight last June, I did estimate that I probably had been eating about 3000-3500 a day---or more)