losing weight is 80 percent diet 20 percent exercise that's what they say so yeah you can lose weight just focusing on your eating habits if you aren't that overweight your not going to have loose skin anyways.

Plus if you exercise you increase your appetite so it takes longer and is harder to lose weight in my opinion. I think it's best to really concentrate on your eating and just do light workouts like take a walk lift some light weights just do fun things like swimming get outside more have fun but don't overdo the exercise whenever I do I end up starving and then giving into eating bad and undo all the weight I lost when I was just taking it easy and eating good. I'd say lose the weight first then after if you want really defined muscles get more hard into the weight lifting and things.

Yeah you may loose a little muscle while you diet but ... you can gain muscle back so no biggie

with that said its good to do some light workouts and build a little muscle though because the more muscle you have the more calories you burn at rest so I try to do light weights at least or just floor exercises like sit ups pushups but dont go too hard take it easy.

Originally Posted by going2bskinny:
Plus if you exercise you increase your appetite so it takes longer and is harder to lose weight in my opinion. I think it's best to really concentrate on your eating and just do light workouts like take a walk lift some light weights just do fun things like swimming get outside more have fun but don't overdo the exercise whenever I do I end up starving and then giving into eating bad and undo all the weight I lost when I was just taking it easy and eating good. I'd say lose the weight first then after if you want really defined muscles get more hard into the weight lifting and things.

Yeah you may loose a little muscle while you diet but ... you can gain muscle back so no biggie

I'm sorry but this is horrible advice. You should lift while losing because you've already built the muscle; lifting will make sure you'll keep it.

Gaining muscle is difficult, especially for women.

Keep muscle, diet off the fat—isn't that what most of us want anyway?

Originally Posted by going2bskinny:

Yeah you may loose a little muscle while you diet but ... you can gain muscle back so no biggie.

Well, it can be quite a biggie, if the muscle you lose is heart muscle.

One of the ways in which vlcd's (very low-calorie diets) can be dangerous is through heart damage. And you don't get to choose which muscle you lose, so getting adequate protein and preventing muscle loss through at least moderate activity is extremely important.

Yes, exercise can slow weight loss, but sacrificing exercise to lose weight faster is like shaving your head and cutting off your ears so you can swim faster... it might work, but it causes more damage than it solves.

For some bizarre reason, we as a culture have decided that speed and quantity of weight loss is more important than health (and often even more important than beauty, because it's the number we're looking at, not even how we look in the mirror).

You can sacrifice exercise, but it will be at the expense of your health. You don't have to run a marathon every day, but if you're going to choose one health improvement, especially if you're not morbidly obese, you might fare better sacrificing weight loss and spending the time on exercise, because there's more and more research coming out that suggests that eating fruits and vegetables and exercising regularly may actually be more important than the exact number on the scale.

If you're just trying to fit into a certain dress size, diet-only may work for you, but if you want to look AND feel good, then exercise, rest/sleep, stress-management, and the nutrients in your food (not just the calorie count) are all important. You don't have to take on all the changes at once, but if you focus on only one thing, there's a very good chance to be causing as many problems as you're fixing.

In my experience, I lost weight faster when drastically cut calories and didn't incorporate exercise, but I also burned out faster. I would end up feeling so exhausted and fatigued that I couldn't sustain further weight loss or even attempt maintenance (and when you're exhausted, the last thing you feel like doing is adding exercise).

"This time," I've not been worried about the pace so much as incorporating healthy changes that were in my best interest in the long run. I'm not losing as fast, but I'm feeling healthier and happier than I ever have in my life.

In the past I often sacrificed health for speed and would think "I can worry about being healthy AFTER I get thin." The problem is that with speed-focused weight loss, I never made it to "thin," because of the health-impacts. I'd feel rotten and have zero energy (and often didn't even realize I was feeling rotten, because it came on so gradually).

Exercise and muscle-building hinders in the short-term, but helps in the long term. Sometimes the "short cut" ends up being the longer, harder journey in the long-run.

In pioneer days, many people died taking "the short cut" over, rather than around lakes and mountains, because the distance was shorter and (if everything went perfectly) took less time, but when it didn't go perfectly, the short-cut delayed or killed them.

I've never incorporated exercise in previous attempts the way I am doing it now (I often was more active and exercised harder than I am now, but I wasn't as diligent about including exercise and working at increasing strength and endurance). I always looked at exercise in terms of calories burned, not in terms of overall health, the effrects of exercise on strength, endurance, immunity-building, stress-management, restful sleep...

You can look at the big picture, or you can focus only on speed. If you don't have much weight to lose, it might even be safe to focus only on speed (so long as you start focusing on health sooner rather than later), but in the long-run speed means very little.

If I hadn't thought speed was the most important factor, maybe I could have gotten all my weight off in middle school instead of doing so in middle-age. I've never lost nearly this much weight before, and have never kept it off so long, and I think focusing on overall health instead of just the speed and the number, has made all the difference.

I lost my first 40 lbs without doing anything but walking not even RUNNING!
haha
I worked my diet first. I figured if anything goes wrong (like somehow I have no time to workout or something) I can always watch my diet, so I worked on incorporating healthy habits. I'm far from perfect but much better eating wise than where I was before!

My mom always loses weight without exercising. She's lost the same 40-70 pounds since her 30s. She has horrible muscle mass and even when she has weighed 20 pounds less than me, she's 1 inch taller, she's 2-4 sizes bigger. So yeah she's 120 pounds but a size 14-16 of fluff.

I don't think being healthy or thin should be based on the scale alone. I also do not like the "oh I have muscle" and really refuse to use a scale. Fat calipers, measuring tapes, and scales IMO should ALL be used to assess. And I dunno I gain muscle really easy for a chick, but it's not SO easy to regain muscle in my experience that it's worth deconditioning.

It is certainly possible. I lost 18 lbs in 4 weeks by eating right and walking everywhere. Once my weight loss slows, I will probably start hitting the gym. Exercise is so healthy and beneficial.

Originally Posted by Mer du Japon:
It is certainly possible. I lost 18 lbs in 4 weeks by eating right and walking everywhere. Once my weight loss slows, I will probably start hitting the gym. Exercise is so healthy and beneficial.

"walking everywhere" IS EXERCISE. The perception that exercise is something that can only be done at the gym, using some kind of special equipment, and must entail heavy lifting and/or heavy sweating, just isn't true.

"Moving more," even if it's barely just a little more, IS EXERCISE. If you only count heavy-sweating, I've lost all 105 lbs without exercise. My first "exercise" was moving my arms and legs in bed, and getting up to take my plate to the kitchen rather than asking my husband to do it (because I was virtually an invalid when I started).

Once I was able to move around more, I started wearing a pedometer, and tried to beat the previous day's step-count (even if only by a few steps).

I think the idea that exercise has to be 45 minutes of heavy sweating, at least four times a week (or whatever other criteria we believe makes some activity "count" as exercise) has kept a lot of people from doing any unnecessary movement at all, because it doesn't "count" unless it's x, y, or z.

It ALL counts. Doing more, even just a little more (unless you're extremely active already) is exercise and it counts.

I remember back when almost nothing counted on the charts they published for calories burned. You never got credit for heavy sweating while doing housework. LOL! I got a resentment. I think those old charts were discouraging.

Originally Posted by kaplods:
Well, it can be quite a biggie, if the muscle you lose is heart muscle.

One of the ways in which vlcd's (very low-calorie diets) can be dangerous is through heart damage. And you don't get to choose which muscle you lose, so getting adequate protein and preventing muscle loss through at least moderate activity is extremely important.

Yes, exercise can slow weight loss, but sacrificing exercise to lose weight faster is like shaving your head and cutting off your ears so you can swim faster... it might work, but it causes more damage than it solves.

For some bizarre reason, we as a culture have decided that speed and quantity of weight loss is more important than health (and often even more important than beauty, because it's the number we're looking at, not even how we look in the mirror).

You can sacrifice exercise, but it will be at the expense of your health. You don't have to run a marathon every day, but if you're going to choose one health improvement, especially if you're not morbidly obese, you might fare better sacrificing weight loss and spending the time on exercise, because there's more and more research coming out that suggests that eating fruits and vegetables and exercising regularly may actually be more important than the exact number on the scale.

If you're just trying to fit into a certain dress size, diet-only may work for you, but if you want to look AND feel good, then exercise, rest/sleep, stress-management, and the nutrients in your food (not just the calorie count) are all important. You don't have to take on all the changes at once, but if you focus on only one thing, there's a very good chance to be causing as many problems as you're fixing.

In my experience, I lost weight faster when drastically cut calories and didn't incorporate exercise, but I also burned out faster. I would end up feeling so exhausted and fatigued that I couldn't sustain further weight loss or even attempt maintenance (and when you're exhausted, the last thing you feel like doing is adding exercise).

"This time," I've not been worried about the pace so much as incorporating healthy changes that were in my best interest in the long run. I'm not losing as fast, but I'm feeling healthier and happier than I ever have in my life.

In the past I often sacrificed health for speed and would think "I can worry about being healthy AFTER I get thin." The problem is that with speed-focused weight loss, I never made it to "thin," because of the health-impacts. I'd feel rotten and have zero energy (and often didn't even realize I was feeling rotten, because it came on so gradually).

Exercise and muscle-building hinders in the short-term, but helps in the long term. Sometimes the "short cut" ends up being the longer, harder journey in the long-run.

In pioneer days, many people died taking "the short cut" over, rather than around lakes and mountains, because the distance was shorter and (if everything went perfectly) took less time, but when it didn't go perfectly, the short-cut delayed or killed them.

I've never incorporated exercise in previous attempts the way I am doing it now (I often was more active and exercised harder than I am now, but I wasn't as diligent about including exercise and working at increasing strength and endurance). I always looked at exercise in terms of calories burned, not in terms of overall health, the effrects of exercise on strength, endurance, immunity-building, stress-management, restful sleep...

You can look at the big picture, or you can focus only on speed. If you don't have much weight to lose, it might even be safe to focus only on speed (so long as you start focusing on health sooner rather than later), but in the long-run speed means very little.

If I hadn't thought speed was the most important factor, maybe I could have gotten all my weight off in middle school instead of doing so in middle-age. I've never lost nearly this much weight before, and have never kept it off so long, and I think focusing on overall health instead of just the speed and the number, has made all the difference.

oh aaaaaah didnt know u could lose heart muscle thats scary thanks for the info. i still do moderate exercise i just dont go really hard and really long cuz when i do i tend to get really hungry but yeah nvm then lol thanks guys

I started my diet 6/17. I was exercising very little to none in the beginning and increased it gradually. But even when I was sticking to plan religiously I was losing tiny amounts at a time. My metabolism was moving like molasses. But then I joined the Y the end of July. And I have increased my workouts to about 3 hrs a day/ 6 days a wk. And I've lost more since then than I did in double that time without exercise. As for being hungrier from exercise, I have found the opposite. It makes me less hungry. And I'm much less likely to make poor choices after putting in all that sweat time. Everyone has to do what they think is right for them. When and if this quits working for me, I'll reeveluate then. Until that time I am enjoying myself, feel better than I ever have, and am losing at a much quicker pace.

I lost 50lbs in just over 3 months without exercising. I was on Ideal Protein and although it was a good way to jump start my weight loss I decided to drop the program and start exercising. I have to admit I feel a lot better now that I have started working out.

Originally Posted by kaplods:
"walking everywhere" IS EXERCISE. The perception that exercise is something that can only be done at the gym, using some kind of special equipment, and must entail heavy lifting and/or heavy sweating, just isn't true.

"Moving more," even if it's barely just a little more, IS EXERCISE. If you only count heavy-sweating, I've lost all 105 lbs without exercise. My first "exercise" was moving my arms and legs in bed, and getting up to take my plate to the kitchen rather than asking my husband to do it (because I was virtually an invalid when I started).

Once I was able to move around more, I started wearing a pedometer, and tried to beat the previous day's step-count (even if only by a few steps).

I think the idea that exercise has to be 45 minutes of heavy sweating, at least four times a week (or whatever other criteria we believe makes some activity "count" as exercise) has kept a lot of people from doing any unnecessary movement at all, because it doesn't "count" unless it's x, y, or z.

It ALL counts. Doing more, even just a little more (unless you're extremely active already) is exercise and it counts.

Okay. I suppose I should clarify. For ME it is not what I consider exercise. I have walked 20 minutes each way to work daily for years, long before trying to loose weight. For ME I consider exercise to be hitting the gym. For ME I consider breaking a sweat as exercise.

Thanks for the links Expunge. I especially love the second one which shows how much thinner you can look after lifting heavy weights even when you're 10-15 pounds heavier. I've been lifting heavy weights so the scale hasn't budged much but I like the progress I'm "seeing" in my body.

Exercise is the most important things to do and to make habit of. Of course so is eating right, but you can't improve your cardiovascular fitness just by eating right.

Dont ever give it up.. weight loss is nice and all but health comes first.

"Exercise is actually terrible for weight loss" :?: My avatar shows otherwise. That's terrible advice. If you don't want to exercise that's fine but don't make up false information to validate not wanting to work out.

It's one thing to lose 30-100p without exercise but losing the last 7-10p is extremely difficult. I guess it all depends on the person's goal weight and how healthy/fit you want to be in the end. Diet without exercise will never get me to where I want to go.