Physical activity burns calories already consumed. Dieting reduces calories consumed. Both are useful and both together are more effective than either one alone. There’s just no argument here.
It’s a lifestyle change, that includes eating more healthy and regular exercise.
I remember reading in a few places that you would have to climb 20 flights of stairs to burn off the calories in one slice of bread. So why not skip the piece of bread instead and call it a day.
Exercise will get you in shape and make you healthier. It will burn a few calories and will add muscle that will burn off a few more calories while at rest. But, if you want to lose weight, you’ll have to lay off the twinkies and Old Milwaukee.
Since there doesn’t seem to be a question expressed in the OP, let’s move it to MPSIMS.
samclem, moderator
A major problem for many people is that to lose weight, they go on an extreme diet, one that they can’t maintain for the long term. So they lose weight, then gain it all back again, repeatedly, discouragingly.
With exercise, you can find things that you can willingly do for the rest of your life. Some examples:
- park your car at the far end of the parking lot, rather than cruising around looking for the closest spot. (There’s always open spots there, and you’ll usually be alone, with nobody nearby to put dings in your car.)
- use the stairs rather than waiting for an elevator when it’s only a floor or two you are traveling.
- park your car, then walk around the house to go in the other door. (Also lets you keep an eye on your house & grounds).
fat loss is more due to diet for most people than is due to exercise.
exercise does help greatly and can be the factor in long term health. being healthy without it is unlikely.
I have to agree. I’m as sedentary as they get, and when I finally decided it was time to lose weight and keep it off, it was all diet.
I hear of more and more people having luck losing weight by cutting out sugar and carbs (from processed flour).
What I take away from the article is that, all things being equal, cutting sugar and carbs from your diet will lead to more weight loss than will an increase in exercise.
I know from my own experience that increased exercise tends to lead to increased eating. Basically, I workout, get hungry, then feel like I can eat a bit extra since I worked out and burned calories.
Also, from my own experience, cutting out sugars is easy and feels good. That means no more yogurt in the morning (sugar) and no more sub sandwich for lunch (giant roll of white bread). Something as simple as that seems to keep my energy level more constant through the day, instead of the lethargic dips I would get midmorning and early afternoon.
And speaking as one who used to do a lot of bicycling, I’d bet that 80% of your weight loss was from the portion control. When I was going on 30-40 mile rides every weekend, it didn’t move the needle with respect to weight. But watching what I eat does.
That isn’t to say you shouldn’t exercise; of course you should. For one thing, exercise will turn some of your weight from fat into muscle, which is a good thing. And stronger muscles and better cardiovascular fitness will make a lot of routine tasks a lot easier, and the normal day-to-day stuff won’t wear you out so much.
So by all means exercise; just don’t expect it to be your route to weight loss unless you do one hell of a lot of it. It’s your route to fitness, and that’s enough reason to exercise.
Maybe. I wasn’t trying to lose weight through exercise; it was and is all about blood glucose control.
Congrats!
I’ve lost 50 pounds in a year with far less exercise (I stretch, walk a little, do some training with hand weights, and occasionally ride my bike).
All I’ve done is make a few minor diet changes. (Also, if I go out to eat, I can have *half *of anything I like because portion sizes are so huge.)
I think if you’re seriously overweight, you can get far more out of making only dietary changes than if you’re 20# overweight. Make sense?
Not controversial. If you want to lose weight, it is much easier to control food intake than to exercise the weight off.
However, that is of course only part of the story: merely losing weight is not the same thing as being healthy overall.
If you want to be healthy you must do both - moderate exercise and moderation in food intake.
“Fatness comes from the kitchen,
Fitness comes from the gym”
- My friend who is a nutritionist.
This is shorthand for “shrinks fat cells and increases muscle cells…”, right? 
For the last several months, I’ve been incapacitated by an injured Achilles tendon and a heel spur. Mere walking at home is very painful. I’ve been eating normally, and have neither gained nor lost any weight. This is the first time I’ve gone without any exercise, not even walking, and it confirms my suspicion that exercise has little, if any, effect on weight loss. But I must add that my general health has noticeably deteriorated due to being sedentary.
I don’t think this is true for the vast majority of people. Obese people can lose fat and gain muscle at the same time, but not for long. For most of us, losing weight necessarily entails losing both muscle and fat, and gaining weight necessarily entails gaining both muscle and fat. Strength training will make the ratio more favorable (losing more fat while slowing the muscle loss, or gaining mostly muscle while minimizing fat gain), but the fact remains that you can’t gain weight without gaining some fat, and you can’t lose weight without losing some muscle mass. Especially if all you’re doing is long slow cardio.
Which is partly why the article in the OP is misleading. If you stay on the couch while restricting your diet, you might lose weight but at best you’ll end up “skinny-fat”, which is healthier than obesity but not as healthy as being overweight with more muscle mass. Not only in the sense of lower mortality, but in the sense of better quality of life.
The weight on the scale is of little importance; capability is. If you’re so fat you can’t walk up a flight of stairs, you need to lose weight. But if you’re perfectly capable of lifting large children, climbing steep hills and running a few miles, then the fact that you’d like your butt to be a little smaller isn’t much of a health concern, it’s just vanity. Don’t worry so much about it.
Even if exercise burned no calories, it would still help me with weight management. I am much, much more likely to eat well if I’m exercising. I eat better foods and proper portions. When I’m not working out, I’m much more likely to eat crap and lots of it. And it’s not because I’m trying to eat for my training or anything. When I’m exercising, I genuinely prefer eating healthier foods.
And even if exercise didn’t help at all with weight management, there are so many physiological benefits that it’s still worth it.
That’s because it’s a news intro linking to an article in a medical journal. For the academic apparatus, you’d need to go there:
http://bjsm.bmj.com/content/early/2015/04/23/bjsports-2015-094911
That’s an editorial. Which, admittedly, the BBC acknowledges. But it’s hardly a scientific paper.
It might be time to drop this skepticism bomb here. It’s only tangentially relevant to this discussion, but it’s worth keeping in mind anytime you read an article on exercise and/or fitness.
Mark Rippetoe is a bodybuilder. and is selling something. It doesn’t automatically negate what he says, but if you’re going to call out the BBC as non-scientific, I don’t know that citing Mark Rippetoe is any better.