I've spent 30 years bouncing between 260 and 185 pounds. Every single time I've successfully lost weight it started with exercise. Diet alone has absolutely never worked for me.
I think it's far more important knowing what actions work for an individual to achieve weight loss. Most everyone knows that X calories in and X calories is the end target. Knowing how you can reach that balance is the hard part.
Every time I see some kind of forum about weight loss there are a million people popping in talking about "Putting the fork down" or "Calories In < Calories Out". But this is worthless because in the end, having a solution that a person is capable of doing is far more important than theory.
weight loss = (calories in - calories out)
is a useful approximation but vastly over generalizes. The human body is a complex system with many more inputs. Hormone levels, inflammation etc. all can play a role.
Scientifically true, but in order to successfully pilot the plane, not very helpful. Keeping the plane in air and keeping your body fit requires knowledge of its mechanisms, not just the physical principles of operation.
Of course human bodies are complex and there is no one size fits all. My anecdotal weight loss won’t match with yours. We can provide our experience so others can draw their own ideas and conclusions from our stories.
It wasn’t really an either or situation for me. Both diet and exercise are needed. The way I looked at it is with the simple model of calories in - calories out = weight change. I think there should be some factor that accounts for sedentary or active, but I don’t know where to fit it in. Like any model, it’s not perfect.
You and you’re used below do not reflect the poster I’m responding to.
If calories in exceeds calories out and your level is sedentary, you’re going to gain weight in the form of fat.
If calories in exceeds calories out and you’re lifting weights, you gain muscle probably with some fat. Think of this as bulking.
If calories in are less than calories out, you’re going to lose weight. If you’re active, then it’s going to have an interaction effect where you lose more weight.
Calories in would be quantity times frequency and would come from the sum of solid and liquid calories (calories in = quantity liquid * frequency liquid + quantity solid * frequency solid). We can manipulate quantity by reducing portion size or reducing calorie content through substituting different, healthier choices. This applies to both liquid and solid calories. We can manipulate frequency by fasting, or eliminating things altogether.
Calories out = calories burned * frequency + base metabolic burn rate. Calories burned should be a rate over time. We manipulate the rate by using more strenuous forms of exercise. We manipulate the time by changing the duration of our sessions. We increase the frequency by having more sessions. We increase the base metabolic burn rate by lifting weights and gaining muscle.
You start by figuring out what your baseline is for both calorie intake and exercise expenditure and then make small adjustments to either increase or decrease. You weigh yourself at the same time on the same day once a week. You look to see progress on a weekly basis. If you’re hitting 1-2 pounds loss, you’re on the right track. When you plateau for a couple of weeks, you need to adjust the parameters. The process needs to be followed.
We probably need some sums and indexes in the above model, and we could probably differentiate between something like steady-state (e.g., walking and meals in the normal course of a day) and perturbations (e.g., cheat meals, fasted days, long hikes, running, gym). Again, it’s a model, and weight loss stories are anecdotal, but I think the point is illustrated. Change your diet and change your exercise regimen to lose weight and have body composition changes.
For me anyhow, the fun aspect is critical.