diet v exercise

I was trying the high5 ones because they are the sponsor of the marathon I'm preparing for, so it made sense, plus I bought a massive box at special promotional discount so I could persevere (sip them more slowly maybe? they go down ok but suddenly come up about a mile later!) have been having random other gastric crises on and off so it's not just them

am gradually trying to do almost all of my runs, even the longer ones, in a fasted state as this is supposed to condition your body to use stray bits of fat instead - do you think that's true? (question is to all experts here!)

I think it depends what you're used to, I generally have my last meal at midnight then hit the gym at 2pm the following day for 45 minutes of weights an hour of cardio and an hours walking to get there and back.

Frequent eating is overrated IMO, I seem to run better on empty

Mitchy - what gels have you tried? I know that some people find them really unsettling on your stomach, so it is worth giving a few different brands a go until you find one that suits.

Yes, I didn't phrase that very clearly. What I meant is that the body (depending on various personal factors) stores enough glycogen to sustain about an hour's worth of vigorous activity. After an hour - 90 mins or so, your energy levels will be depleted to the extent that you will not be able to maintain the same intensity of exercise without needing to take on more fuel. You won't be running on empty, but you won't be at full power either.

The point I was trying to make is that if you are exercising for an hour or less at a time you don't need any additional fuel/calories/energy supplements/cake.

(that's in a fasted state)

I think it's not much more though, maybe 90 minutes or so? The most I can run without feeling like I'm going to die is about 2 and a half hours, 2 is really nice but I feel like I need fuel from then. I just haven't worked out what yet. Not spewy gels that's for sure.

Glycogen is stored in the liver and the muscles, the amount stored varies, very active people will store more-it's one of the ways the body adapts to exercise.

I'm pretty sure most people store more than an hours worth of glycogen!

My Spin instructor has went from teaching 14 classes per week to just 4 (now has a full time job that isn't fitness-related) and still ate the same. She's put on half a stone in a month!

It is possible to lose weight through exercise alone. I have lost maybe 1 ½ stone of fat in the last couple of years (I weigh one stone less than I did to start with but have gained a significant amount of muscle, so I reckon I have converted at least half a stone of fat into muscle).

However:

1. I eat healthily anyway. Very little processed food and lots of fresh vegetables. The only thing I changed was to drop my portion size, as this was what had caused me to put on the excess weight.

2. I was not hugely over weight to start with. I have gone from a size 12 back down to a trim size 10.

3. The weight has come off slowly over about 2 years. I dropped half a stone in about 6 months this year when I intensified my training.

4. I do a lot of exercise. I have been training for triathlon this year, so cycling for 7-9 hours per week (including commuting to work), running for 1 to 1 ½ hrs, and swimming for 1 to 1 ½ hrs.

5. Because I have been burning around 6,000 - 8,000 extra calories a week, I do take on more than 2,000 per day, either by simply eating more, or by using energy supplements. It is not possible to train hard for 9+ hours per week without providing your body with extra fuel. This includes using energy supplements that are high in readily accessible sugars and carbohydrates.

So what I think this shows for you is that yes, it is possible to lose weight whilst eating a diet high in sugar and processed carbohydrate (whether in the form of cake and convenience food, or in the form of energy supplements) but you have to do a serious amount of exercise to counter it. The simplest and easiest way to lose weight is to look at your diet first: to eat healthy, non-processed, low GI foods in reasonable proportions. Doing exercise will get your metabolism working faster, and will motivate you to eat healthier, but will not on its own counter eating badly.

To go into the science of it a little more (and I have to say my knowledge is fairly rudimentary so I am happy to be corrected by anyone more knowledgeable), is that your body stores reserves of energy in the form of glycogen in your liver. This provides enough readily-accessible energy for around about an hour's worth of vigorous activity. If you do just an hour's exercise and then stop, you will need to replenish those stores of energy. It is really quite hard work for the body to break down fat to replenish those stores, and it finds it much easier to replenish them from the food you eat. If the next meal that you eat contains plenty of sugars and readily accessible processed carbohydrates, then the body finds it easy to replenish its energy stores. It has to work much harder (and therefore actually use energy/calories) to break down complex carbohydrates and proteins, and harder still to break down body fat.

If you are only exercising 2-3 times a week, burning maybe 300-400 calories a time, and you are eating a sugary diet high in processed carbohydrate, then your body will replenish its energy stores almost exclusively from your diet and won't start breaking down your body fat at all.

Good point Fascicle and interesting article thanks, apparently sitting down for more than 2.5 hours per day is especially associated with obesity.

I would urge the OP and any other interested parties to think of the importance of movement, rather than just exercise. There seems to be a growing awareness of NEAT (non-exercise activity thermogenesis) - incidental movement that is not the result of planned exercise.

The difference between calorific expenditure of a sedentary person and a person who moves around a lot can potentially result in 100s (or even 1000s) of calories per day. Lifestyle changes in affluent countries have vastly reduced the need for incidental movement (e.g. labour saving appliances and the popularity of screen based entertainment) and some desk based occupations mean that people have the opportunity to sit still for long periods.

Here's an article on NEAT:
atvb.ahajournals.org/content/26/4/729.full

Having said all that, I think planned exercise is a wonderful thing, greater than the sum of its parts. Regular exercise has so many benefits in addition to calories expended, including mental health benefits which might have a positive impact on eating habits.

OP are you still there? Dieting exclusively worked for me. Last year I lost 3 stones on diet alone. I didn't cut out any food groups, nor did I make much effort to eat more healthily. I simply ate less (portion control with the help of MyFitnessPal). I took up exercise this year but I don't do it to lose weight (I still use diet for this - in my case 5:2); I do it for pleasure, to feel terrific, to give me more energy, to build muscle and get more toned.

I know !! I think that theory about longevity/calories is correct in respect of fasting regularly for short periods (5:2 or 16:8 for example) - not to be confused with long term low calorie dieting which is a different thing and definitely not good for anyone.

in response to 'you can't out-train a bad diet' I would say that you cant diet away the atrophy of your musculo-skeletal system caused by a sedentary lifestyle

I've heard that being underweight is bad for you, I've also heard that calorie restriction may increase lifespan, if being slightly overweight is good for you does the extra body weight need to be lean tissue or fat?

it's all everso ing Sleep!

Hi Suzanne - based on all the exercise/fitness websites and magazines that I read, I think you would probably get what sparkly said - you can't out-train a bad diet - and the 80/20 split is oft quoted. I also agree about the 'dials' though, great analogy and everyone is different.

Having said that, if its a straight choice between the two, I would always tell someone to exercise rather than diet, the health benefits are probably greater, with the possible exception of people who are obese/morbidly obese. There are actually some studies that show that for longevity it is better to be slightly overweight, if you are fit and slightly overweight - entirely possible, then even better .

I don't think there's anything scientific about the twenty/eighty formula, ask the same question on a fitness or strength training based forum and the response would be very different!

I find it is easier to eat well if I exercise. If I sit around my mentality about food gets a bit lazy, so while the science might be 80% diet 20% exercise, it is much easier to commit to the clean diet if you are treating your body to healthy exercise as well.

Now if only I could do all of the above.

I think most people will be able to be slim without exercising (ie just by eating carefully) but if you want an athletic or muscular physique, if you want to be 'in shape' you will probably need to exercise, and include some strength training.

Afaik most people tend to become increasingly insulin resistant as they age, so even staying slim just by careful eating becomes harder as you get older.

I see your point Sparkly, but then again it depends what you mean by bad diet. ..exactly how bad?

My idea of a bad diet might be someone else's fairly good diet.

Whilst there is an upper limit to how sedentary a person can be there is (almost) no upper limit to how bad a diet can be.

You can't out train a bad diet...

I always think it is like money. You can earn more or spend less but if you do both the results will be quicker.

I agree with the 80% diet 20% exercise

I'm struggling to reconcile this with my own experience but I suppose it might depend on what your starting point is?

If your diet is very offtrack and you have alot of fat to lose after years of overeating then I suppose it would seem as if 80% of the lifstyle adjustment needed would be in the area of diet.

or are people referring to the amount of effort required....in as much as they find it takes much more willpower and/or planning to keep their diet on track?

I think it depends entirely on how you judge success. Do you want to drop a dress size or hit a particular weight? Exercise will help with the first, and food/diet will help more with the second.

I agree with the
80% diet
20% exercise.