Diet v exercise

[growlerisnotaporkpie]

ok we all know both are important, but i'm reading lots on 'if you don't diet your won't lose weight'
I know it would make it far quicker to do both but if you exercise more than you did surely you will lose weight or maintain if you increase both.
I'm thinking calories in verses calories burnt, so obviously you need to burn more than you take in to have a positive effect, my question is 'why am i seeing so many articles/comments suggesting Diet first, exercise 2nd and optional, am I missing something?

Supposedly changing and reducing the calories in your diet will contribute 80% of your weight loss and exercise 20%. You can't out exercise a bad diet. So if you were to do one or the other, diet change would be more beneficial, but doing both will get the best results

I think because it's easier to cut out, say 200 calories out of your diet, than to burn up that extra 200 calories through exercise. So it's purely for losing weight, diet would take priority over exercise for getting quick results. But for general health, it would probably be better to do the exercise even if you then cancelled out the calories burned by eating the equivalent extra,

Because the equation calories in and calories out is just made up and does;t work in real life. It is a shame because it sounds so lovely and just pure and beautiful, but calories are not all the same.

It's probably because some people find exercise makes them hungrier but it doesn't matter how you create the deficit: add extra activity and eat the same, cut down intake but maintain your normal activity or do a bit of each - reduce food and increase exercise, you will lose weight. It's just depends which approach works best for any given individual.

that's my thoughts and honestly think it is confusing for anyone at the moment.

Obviously, diet and exercise together is best, but the fact is that there are many skinny people who don't exercise regularly ( me, for example) so exercise isn't crucial to staying slim although it has other health benefits ( I must try to do more). Whereas I doubt there are many regular over-eaters who stay slim, regardless of how much exercise they do ( apart from professional sportsmen and women who are in full time training maybe).

I think the issue behind this is that most people overestimate the calories they burn through exercise. I do a fairly vigorous walk (incl uphill) and it burns off only around 250 cals working it out on the website walk, jog, run.
Apps will do the same for you.

So if I do that daily PLUS reducing food by 250 cals daily I'd need to do that for 7 days to lose a pound.

You don't have to exercise to lose weight, but building muscle means you use more energy even sitting still. You also need to do exercise to be fit (cardio fit) so being skinny doesn't equal being fit.

Most people unless they are working out seriously, don't do enough exercise to lose weight.

Eating less will make you lose weight. Exercising will make you fitter, stronger, more flexible or whatever.

Can you explain why calories in calories out "doesn't work", Firie?

Yes I too would like to know how calories in/out doesn't work. I know this simple regime may not encourage the healthiest diet but is it not just basic biology?

As other posters have said, exercise in itself does not burn as many calories as most of us think, and it is very easy to "reward" ourselves with extra food after exercising.

However, I think exercise can be very useful towards weight loss in many ways, e.g.

• high intensity interval training will raise your metabolic rate for many hours, meaning you will burn more calories per hour after you have exercised as well as during the exercise
• exercise can be a motivator: "I don't want to undo the good work I did by exercising earlier by eating that slice of cake"
• exercising outdoors can boost mental well-being, so may help avoid comfort-eating
• in the longer-term, building muscles will increase your metabolic rate.

When I decided to shed some excess weight a couple of years ago, I used a combination of healthy eating and exercise and found they supported each other: when I was tempted to slack off in exercising, I reminded myself that I'd been sticking to healthy eating and didn't want to undo that; when I was tempted to eat 'badly' I reminded myself that I'd worked hard exercising and didn't want to undermine that effort.

yeah, the amount of calories one uses in exercise is pretty galling (less than we think). It depends on your sex, current weight & how hard you work. But overall much less than the guidelines suggest (which I think are written for big men killing themselves with the effort).

I got annoyed with Chris Boardman saying that road racing cyclists use 1000 kcal/hr that's only at peak output which even they can't maintain for many hours every day. DH is a keen cyclist who kills himself in time trial efforts he's a local legend on strava--, we can see even he's not burning calories at that rate.

Exercise is so incredibly good for one's health, though. Forget the weight loss worries. Just think about what is good for your health in every other way. And it feels good if you get endorphin highs. Even my lazy teenager has finally learnt that.

Can you explain why calories in calories out "doesn't work", Firie?

Out body is not a bank account, put in , put out and you have a balance. The calories system measures an energy process based on heat to make it very very simple, so how much of Y food to produce this energy and how much heat/energy the body produces while doing an activity, measured through the carbon dioxide we breathe out.
Problem is , our body doesn't process calories, it processes fat, protein and sugar. It is actually a very complex chemical reaction which involves many enzymes and many organs. If you eat 200 calories worth of (1) lollies, sweets and (2) a grilled chicken breast, these two food will be used in a very different way. Excess sugar will be transform by the pancreas in fat. Breaking down proteins takes the body more, so you burn calories to digest them.

Another point is that there is a big misunderstanding about the calories burnt by exercise. By sitting in my bottom and MNetting I am right now burning about 180 calories per hour (so slightly more than sitting and doing nothing which is circa 160). If I were walking , I would be burning 300 calories, but that's only 120 more than doing nothing (120 calories is an apple) . Not 300 more.

Many studies, including harvard university, have pointed how this calorie in and calorie out means nothing and is detrimental to the medical weight loss advice generally offered. Look at the Olympian. While training , there are on a 10.000 (or 12.000 calories if you are Michael Phelps) per day diet and training 8 hours a day. Intense swimming is roughly 800 calories per hour, so 6400 calories per day, which still gives an excess of almost 6000 calories, versus the energy used , then of course there is the standard energy used to just live and exist, but there is an imbalance and our athletes should actually become heavier. But they don't . The body create muscles, repair cells, ... . Many persons training for marathons have a normal weight or are overweight yet they "burn" thousands of calories per day.

Exercice is good for your health, it will give you muscle but if you want to lose weight, the answer is in your pantry and fridge.

slightly more than sitting and doing nothing which is circa 160

160 x 24 = 3840

I don't think anyone burns 3840 kcal/day just sitting & doing nothing. The numbers aren't right. Should you halve them, maybe? 80 kcal / hr for sitting around might be ok for many.

Even Michael Phelps doesn't train by intensely exercising for 8 hrs a day. That would be counterproductive. Athletes do smart training. I suppose the Ride Across America guys must burn 10,000+ kcal a day. But they can only do that for up to 10 days or so.

Jesus thiefeerie not even a bit of what you said is true. Look up "ultracrepidarian"