I feel the opposite on this one. Exercise > diet. Diet is important, yes. But nothing to me trumps exercise in terms of bettering health and appearance.
I wasn't all that consistent about my exercise while losing weight, but I was about my diet. Ask most anyone, they'll agree. Diet is 75% of it.
Well, I look at it this way... Which gets you healthier? Exercise. Which brings your appearances / physical attraction to its peak? Exercise. You can't run a marathon or race a 400m by just paying attention to your diet. You can on just exercise (and not paying attention to diet). You can't look like this: link link On just diet. You can on just exercise.
With that said, a restrictive diet is easier than working out (not more beneficial!) because it doesn't require serious amounts of motivation and focus. Luckily, we don't have to choose either or in the world. But I still retain that if we did, I'd rather the world had serious training regimes over complex diet plans.
worrying about looking like that falls under the fine tuning part I mentioned. someone asking about weight loss probably is nowhere near at that point yet and if they don't have their nutrition straight no amount of exercise will shed the pounds. she's not asking about looking toned. she's asking about weight loss. meaning most likely she's overweight. exercise won't change that when you're still living off coke and fast food.
How not? 1,200 calories a day = little nutrition, and that's what it takes to lose weight through diet.. a deficit. It is much more NUTRITIOUS to be a pig and eat 2,500 calories a day and instead burn fat through working out. Exercise is the most viable form of weight loss. You get more micronutrients typically, because you're eating more. You build muscle and still create a calorie deficit. There is no logical argument that 1,200-1,400 diets are better than working out other than convenience.
One burns fat, builds muscle AND allows for more micronutrients.. the other starves the body of nutrition, burns fat, breaks down muscle. Health-wise, it is not the better choice. Unless you're mentally or physically incapable of exercise.
No amount of exercise can make up for eating unhealthy foods in a high calorie surplus if your goal is weight loss. This has been proven time and time again.
Yeah, we all know calorie intake - calorie output = weight lost or gained. But decreasing intake isn't the only way (and certainly not the healthiest). You can always increase output (which is exercising). I've met plenty of runners in my time, many of them pay no attention to their diet yet retain an athletic look. Olympic athletes eat fast food all the time. And eat 8,000-12,000 calories a day. Yet, how does their disastrous diet allow for them to have strong health bodies and six packs?
So yes, exercise can make up for eating subjectively "unhealthy" foods AND can turn a calorie surplus into a deficit quite easily. A consistent diet will never be on par with a consistent training regime-- if we had to make a choice.
At the athlete level you are right. But an obese or legitimately overweight person is not an athlete and is not capable of the activity levels that would allow them to lose weight while eating a high calorie diet. And it is in all likelihood that they are a long way off from that point. I see where you're coming from. You are not looking at this weight loss question from the perspective of someone who is seriously overweight, obese, and out of shape.
That's the thing. The way I see it, anyone legitimately asking about weight loss is a far cry from that level, and trying to say that a person who is in serious need of losing weight for health reasons can employ the same dietary and exercise practices as someone already at th athlete level just won't work. Also, when I said diet was important I wasn't just talking about calories. I was talking about what they were eating.
Obese people can workout. No, they can't run 1:59:59 marathons. But they can put in 1-2 hours of cardio at an equal intensity (70% max heart rate). Our appetites haven't increased over the generations. Genetically we're extremely similar to 40 years ago when obesity wasn't such a concern. The difference is the luxury. We're not hungrier all the sudden. We're smarter (more machines) and thus physically lazier. I have never heard of a fat cross country runner with 1+ years of experience.
Yet I have seen plenty of families with multiple sizes, despite all having similar diets-- the difference? Activity levels. Although most kids eat what their parents buy.. they're not as similar hobby wise.Working out everyday is the single best thing for weight loss. Physically healthier, physically more attractive. 1200-1400 calories a day? How can that even be considered better than working out? It's malnutrition. It's taking one extreme to combat another extreme. A choice of two evils
At what point did I say 1200-1400so calories a day? At what point did I say to starve yourself? You are guessing a lot by the fact that I'm advocating nutrition. I did not at any point specify a number. Anyway I stand by what I said and I have the experience to prove it. A person who is obese and out of shape to the point where they struggle just to go up a flight of stairs can not start an exercise regimen without changing their diet around from what got them fat in the first place.
No amount of exercise can make up for the adverse effects that a steady diet of boxed powdered macaroni and cheese, soda, ramen, fast food, pizza, chips, and candy will have on your health. And if you honestly think that a person who is that fat can actually handle an exercise regimen regimen that burns 1000+ calories a day without killing themselves you've never been there yourself. I was at 335 lbs. And short of going for walks there was nothing I could do at that weight that wouldn't wreck
My joints as far as activity went without committing to 2+ hours a day on an elliptical or exercise bike at a gym. And that is not realistic. Fat people are not elite athletes. Ignoring this fact when prescribing diet and exercise advice can cause serious harm.
You were fat, I've never been fat. It's a mute point. I'm fit, you're still unfit. Doesn't prove anything when it comes to knowing what is healthy.Again! I'm not saying do a marathon. You need to understand that what it takes to get a 70% max heart rate varies from person to person, but is achievable to maintain for an hour by most anyone. Secondly, what amount of calories WOULD you recommend then? to burn fat.Because you most definitely need a deficit.
Because if you want to burn say 5lbs of weight through diet (and remember this is weight, not exclusive to fat) in a month.. you need a deficit of 583 calories per a day. So with that in mind, how many calories would you eat daily?
The amount of calories needed to burn fat varies from person to person. When I talk about nutrition I'm not talking so much about calories as I am what the calories come from. Eating 3000 calories a day from McDonald's is not the same thing as eating 3000 calories a day of fresh produce, lean meats, and whole grains.
I myself don't monitor my caloric intake because I have a rough estimate and that's all I need. What I do monitor is whether or not the foods I eat themselves, the sources of those calories, are nutritious foods. An apple and some string cheese instead of a small bag of Doritos, for instance. And I do believe that it is more important to keep above your minimum than to go over your maximum.
"So yes, exercise can make up for eating subjectively "unhealthy"... wrong. You can be under an ideally healthy weight, and still eat too much sodium and have high blood pressure. I have a NASM perosnal training ceritication. Look into it, any well established health association will tell you that 60-70 percent of results will be from nutrition.It's veyr simple. Law of thermodynamics. To lose weight you need to expend more cals then you take in.
Why would you only go about it one way? In what world does it seem like a good idea to eat like sh*t and exercise and think it's ok? I don't know who you are to deem another person whom you don't know as "unfit". You sir, are a complete buffoon and need to educate yourself before dishing out advice that sucks ass. Your body is a machine, if you want a machine to work well, you must feedit good food with good macros andgood nutritional content. Try putting pump gas in a nascar and see what happen
You're insight is so incredibly narrow minded and blatantly ignorant. Just because 2 siblings live together, it doesn't mean their diets are nessisarily the same, and even though they are siblings their genetics cna be different. My brother puts on weight easily, while I'm eating 5-6k cals a day bulking up and stay under 10% body fat. Diet is 60-70 percent of results. Educate yourself.
When it comes to weight loss, both are basically equally important. Deficits are needed in order to lose weight, but that combined with exercise is what helps drop fat stores faster. You can use the example of Olympic athletes eating junk, but they're exceptions. Why? They're training way differently than the average joe in the gym. That example is invalid. There are exceptions to the rule, but they're genetically gifted. Everyone else needs to stick to exercise + proper diet of whole foods.
Olympic athletes do not eat fast food. They get sponsorships from fast food places and do advertising for the money so people think they do. It's not the calories that are the problem, they burn them off. But think about it. Do you think an athlete eating fast food will be on the same level as an athlete eating whole natural foods with MUCH more nutritional content? Day to do athletes out won't make much of a difference. Those guys are on a while other level. You don't get to be the best eating
Big macs. It just doesn't work like that.
Joshua if you're weren't such a bigot, you'd notice I didn't at any time suggest to exercise only and have no diet. I merely entertained the question of which is better diet vs exercise, because Weapon took the stance of "be strict about your nutrition and exercise won't matter". But you are too "narrow minded and blatantly ignorant" to read the conversation and realize that neither of us say that one is completely unimportant, but rather we argued which is more important.
Candlewax, same thing. Please don't stalk my questions and say I'm wrong without logically backing your opinion and thoroughly reading mine first. Moving on, the mention of Olympic athletes was to debunk the theory of "unhealthy" foods. Calorie dense foods are not unhealthy. They only serve a different purpose. And sorry Joshua, but many Olympic athletes frequently eat McDonald's to meet their calorie requirements. Bill Rodgers is a great example of an "unhealthy" eating athlete.
With that said, my point which you clearly missed and did not even touch on one bit was.. Weight gain/loss depends on the calorie equation. There are two ways to decrease weight through the calorie equation and that's burn more, or consume less. Weapon took the stance that consuming less was healthiest (diet). I took the stance that burning more was healthiest (exercise). Again, you have to understand this is theoretical diet vs exercise. We both understand everyone should have both.
Scroll Down to Read Other Opinions
Dehydration is extremely temporary weight loss. Wrestlers dehydrate themselves through sweat suits and saunas to drop up to 20lbs before a weigh in... they gain ALL that weight back withing 48 hours. It's not really the best advice you can give someone to shred fat.
hm yeah your right
You need to stop giving advice in this area.
lol you don't know what your sayin ;P lost 77 pounds
Dehydration is not a permanent form of weight loss. Sweat suits do little to increase calorie burning (in fact they'll hinder the intensity and length of your workout). They only help to drop water weight, which will be gained completely back within 24-48 hours and that is only useful for making weigh-ins.
this actually works in reality, but whatever..
She's since gone Anonymous, but in case you were wondering, this terrible piece of advice was contributed by 99PROBLEMS. link and for proof, I managed to get a screenshot. link Don't go expecting to see her again. You can pretty much guarantee she'll be anonymous from here on out. Especially if she realizes she's about to say something window licking, pants on head retarded.
omg chill. don't you have something better to do? omg -_- sick peoplei just told her what I see everyday at my school
Yeah, and it is a stupid f***ing idea.
just tried to help. and you need to chill. that was way too awkward... :S
99PROBLEMS and the black mask sitting in a tree, K-I-S-S-I-N-G, first comes love then comes marriage then comes baby in a baby carriage! That's not it! That's not all! The baby's drinking alcohol! :D
heh heh heh. Bueno~
Speaking of weight gain, you're full of sh?t