Dieting vs Exercise

[Clinton1]

I'm sure on a forum such as this it would be like preaching to the choir but I often see discussions on other forums relating to weight loss. Inevitably most suggestions revolve around diet. Now, let me state up front, that I fully understand the benefits of healthy eating and how it can improve your overall health but I still think (know?) exercise is the way to go. Perhaps I should add "for me at least". I also realise I have never been overweight to start with so it might be easier for me to hop on a bike or run than a 150kg person.

 

I used to exercise regularly whether running, surfing, hiking and the like but in the last few years, with kids, I have got a bit slack and I have noted my clothes becoming a little tighter. I then started riding quite a lot in November last year. My diet has not changed and I still eat what I want, when I want. Recently I have realised that most of my baggies are now being pulled in as tight as I can pull them and they still threaten to fall down.

 

I often think that dieting is taken as the easy route, and the one that is easier to cheat on, which is why so many wanting to lose weight choose it over the exercise route.

 

Just an opinion I felt liek sharing.

[Cav']

Dieting < Excercise.

[Christie]

Both in combination.

[Wayne68]

*sigh* this is also a topic discussed to the end................especially in my house!

 

I have a very simple solution...............eat less/healthier and exercise more. Results guaranteed...............

 

I have only lost about 7 kg since the beginning of the year when I got onto a bike for the 1st time in forever,,,,,but prefer to lose it slow and keep it off. :clap:

[kosmonooit]

Depends ... I am very active yet those extra k's wont budge. Must be my passion for pastries.

[arendoog]

If you exercise hard enough you can eat anything like Hoosein Bolt eating kentucky nuggets before breaking the world 100m record .Very good article in Ride mag couple of months back about the effect of carbohidrates and stage racing .Burning fat deposits only starts after 50min of intens exercise on day one .Day 2 it starts earlier ,like 30min.So if you can train 90 min per day you will lose weight .If you only train an hour you get fit but battle to shed that fat around your hips ,then diet is more important. After a stage race i still lose weight for the following week bacause yor body is now in survival fat burning mode although i eat like a horse

Edited June 30, 2012 by arendoog

[arendoog]

I'm sure on a forum such as this it would be like preaching to the choir but I often see discussions on other forums relating to weight loss. Inevitably most suggestions revolve around diet. Now, let me state up front, that I fully understand the benefits of healthy eating and how it can improve your overall health but I still think (know?) exercise is the way to go. Perhaps I should add "for me at least". I also realise I have never been overweight to start with so it might be easier for me to hop on a bike or run than a 150kg person.

 

I used to exercise regularly whether running, surfing, hiking and the like but in the last few years, with kids, I have got a bit slack and I have noted my clothes becoming a little tighter. I then started riding quite a lot in November last year. My diet has not changed and I still eat what I want, when I want. Recently I have realised that most of my baggies are now being pulled in as tight as I can pull them and they still threaten to fall down.

 

I often think that dieting is taken as the easy route, and the one that is easier to cheat on, which is why so many wanting to lose weight choose it over the exercise route.

 

Just an opinion I felt liek sharing.

Your exercise intensity and time have increased because you are fitter = burning fat .Simple really

[petatodd]

Exercise cannot overcome a bad diet, if you eat badly and excessively you will not lose as much weight as you will if you follow a moderate intake with the same amount of exercise. FACT.

 

Then it's the type of exercise you do. Slow and steady for longer periods burns more fat than intense and short. FACT. Short and intense tends to burn muscle.

[M L]

You can't only diet, or only exercise. It has to be a combination of the two and it's a lifestyle, not a one week or year thing. Diet can also be misunderstood by most people, in my opinion it's not about eating a hand full of carrots a day but rather about eating healthier in general but still spoiling yourself when you want to.

 

The strictness of your diet and amount of exercise should however be on par with how much and how quick you want to lose weight.

 

A diet makes out about 60% of your ideal body, exercise 30% and your mind 10%.

[LOOK695]

If I don't eat correct, then I don't loose weight, even when training hard. So yes, your diet is important to weight loss.

[MTB_Roadie]

I can basically use myself here as proof, I used to eat the normal everyday stuff, last year November i decided I want to cycle serious, I got a coach, got my diet sorted....I lost about 17kg since, I did not lose any muscle! I currently weigh in at 79kg's, and I am still on my diet. The more I cycle the more I eat, but I eat the right foods, also drink a lot of water (1.5-2L a day)

 

So to your question, I would say diet and exercise is a combination, however even if you don't exercise by still eating the healthy food you should be losing fat. I am mainly on a high protein diet, and so far it is paying off

[Clinton1]

I have only lost about 7 kg since the beginning of the year when I got onto a bike for the 1st time in forever,,,,,but prefer to lose it slow and keep it off. :clap:

 

I think that is a big part of it. Most diets are hardly sustainable for eternity but once the exercise bug bites it is something you are likely to continue. It is for this reason that I still feel that exercise is the more important criteria for weight loss.

 

If you exercise hard enough you can eat anything like Hoosein Bolt eating kentucky nuggets before breaking the world 100m record .Very good article in Ride mag couple of months back about the effect of carbohidrates and stage racing .Burning fat deposits only starts after 50min of intens exercise on day one .Day 2 it starts earlier ,like 30min.So if you can train 90 min per day you will lose weight .If you only train an hour you get fit but battle to shed that fat around your hips ,then diet is more important. After a stage race i still lose weight for the following week bacause yor body is now in survival fat burning mode although i eat like a horse

 

You have probably pointed out a big problem. When I used to go to the gym I would see folks on the bikes pedalling sedately while reading the newspaper or a novel. They would not raise the slightest sweat. I don't doubt that many of them would moan to others about how they have been going to gym for months and they have not lost a single kilogram.

 

I will add, for those who have an argumentative streak like me, that those 30 minutes of slow pedalling are better than nothing but don't expect major results.

 

 

Exercise cannot overcome a bad diet, if you eat badly and excessively you will not lose as much weight as you will if you follow a moderate intake with the same amount of exercise. FACT.

 

You have pretty much agreed with what I said although it comes across as if you do not agree. I still put exercise higher on the weightloss hierarchy than dieting. Most people already eat what they eat, if they continue to do so but add in some strenuous exercise they should see results. Of course, they do run the risk of then eating more to compensate for what has been burned off. But in my experience just the change in lifestyle alone results in you changing your eating habits. Instead of grabbig a pie before a cycle (I can think of nothing worse) I'd rather grab a carrot and an apple.

 

Then it's the type of exercise you do. Slow and steady for longer periods burns more fat than intense and short. FACT. Short and intense tends to burn muscle.

 

I have always found this a little controversial. It is often mentioned in heart rate zone exercise programs. Exercise at 65% for an hour and you burn fat. Exercise at 85% for an hour and you don't burn as much. Seems to make little sense to me.

[Clinton1]

You can't only diet, or only exercise. It has to be a combination of the two and it's a lifestyle, not a one week or year thing. Diet can also be misunderstood by most people, in my opinion it's not about eating a hand full of carrots a day but rather about eating healthier in general but still spoiling yourself when you want to.

 

The strictness of your diet and amount of exercise should however be on par with how much and how quick you want to lose weight.

 

A diet makes out about 60% of your ideal body, exercise 30% and your mind 10%.

 

I think we need to differentiate between two definitions of diet here. What you are referring to is a lifestyle diet change. When others refer to diet they often talk about not eating XY and Z for a period of time in order to lose weight. The latter is NEVER a long term solution in my opinion.

 

Fully disagree with your percentages. If anything it is way too much of a generalisation. As stated in my personal case I can continue to eat what I always have but add in some exercise and I will lose weight. Yes, I agree we all differ which is why I suppose sweeping generalisations hardly ever work.

[M L]

I think we need to differentiate between two definitions of diet here. What you are referring to is a lifestyle diet change. When others refer to diet they often talk about not eating XY and Z for a period of time in order to lose weight. The latter is NEVER a long term solution in my opinion.

 

Fully disagree with your percentages. If anything it is way too much of a generalisation. As stated in my personal case I can continue to eat what I always have but add in some exercise and I will lose weight. Yes, I agree we all differ which is why I suppose sweeping generalisations hardly ever work.

"A diet makes out about 60% of your ideal body, exercise 30% and your mind 10%."

 

I also eat what I want and don't lose weight. But I don't look like a mens health cover guy. If you want to reach a specific goal in terms of a body or performance wise, you are very much bound to those percentages. Mind actually makes up a far bigger percentage. I am not talking about a fat percentage of 12% or something mediocre here.

 

For me eating what I want is ok. I am not a professional athlete or body builder, but if anyone wants to be or are one you will know that a diet is the most important aspect of staying at or reaching that goal.

[petatodd]

You are right, I agree. Same diet with more exercise will lead to a bit of weight loss. However, to get really lean and tight you need both.

 

I have always found this a little controversial. It is often mentioned in heart rate zone exercise programs. Exercise at 65% for an hour and you burn fat. Exercise at 85% for an hour and you don't burn as much. Seems to make little sense to me.

The reason for this is that you strain your heart more at 85% than at 65% so the body goes to the easiest source of energy which is the protein stored in muscle. Recovery is then about rebuilding muscle. You can go for hours and hours at 65% but a shorter time at 85%. Weight loss doesn't come from intensive work. Fitness and strength comes from intensive work.

 

Fat and glucose are the body's two main energy sources. Stored carbohydrate called glycogen is quickly used up, then goes the fat stores. Weight loss comes when your body has used up the glycogen and starts converting fat into glucose. Put too much strain on the heart and it goes straight for the protein stored in your muscles.

 

That's why eating carbs during exercise when trying to get your weight down is not needed. Drink water and eat nothing during low intensity work outs (below 78%).

 

Teach the body to use it's fat stores through prolonged exercise at lower intensities and you build endurance which then enables you to build strength.

 

Carmichael reckons each hour exercise below 78% requires an hour recovery, every hour over 80% requires 8 hours recovery (unless you on EPO)

[Clinton1]

Referring to professional body builders is just changing the discussion altogether. I am referring to "normal" people.

 

To me it really is simple. Put in more calories than you burn off and you will gain weight. Burn off more calories than you put in (through exercise) or put in less calories to start with (through diet) and you will lose weight. I just think some people are too quick to take the latter option as it is easy to tell people you are dieting but not so easy to pull the wool over their eyes when it comes to exercise. You actually need to be out there doing it.

 

After some comments made I did some reading online and I quite liked this:

 

 

I do not entirely concur here with the other opinions. Simplified to the most basic level, 1lbs of fat requires a calorie deficit of about 4000kcals. Again, at the most basic level, it is not really that important how you achieve that calorie deficit, but that you achieve it. You can either reduce calorie intake (through diet), or calorie expenditure (through training), or a combination of both.

 

The main advantage of dieting is that it does not require any physical effort, i.e. it is simple and safe, especially for the very unfit. Also, a focus on diet does increase nutritional awareness, making it less likely to overshoot on the calories (which often happens if you only exercise: you just eat a little more...) if combined with exercise. Those who focus only on training but ignore their diet often end up as "fat but fit" types, and it has been shown that the positive effects of physical fitness achieved through exercise do not offset the health risks from obesity if not also accompanied by weight loss.

 

The main advantage of exercise is the added cardiovascular benefit as compared to diet, especially with weight lifting for the maintenance of FFM, and that studies show that people who lose fat with exercise are much more likely to maintain their weight loss than those who only use a diet. Also, regular exercise contributes to an overall feeling of well being, not achieved by diet alone. Also, important is the type of exercise - without muscle sparing measures, there is a certain risk of FFM loss accompanying the fat loss, resulting in a transformation from "fat" to "skinny fat", which is not what most people want.

 

Psychologically, a diet is often seen as a temporary thing, whereas exercise is more readily accepted as a long-term lifestyle change.

 

We all agree that a mix of both is ideal but too many (and again I am unlikely to be referring to many people who hang out on a cycling forum) people think a three week diet is going to help them with their weight issues. A lifestyle change is necessary. And increasing your exercise (or actually starting to do some!) is a great way to facilitate this lifestyle change.