Is Dieting or Exercise More Effective for Burning Fat?

[Pengwuino]

I saw somewhere today that the best way to burn fat (as opposed to carbs) is dieting and weight lifting. Is this true? Or is walking and dieting better? i was also wondering, people always go around saying you could burn 100 or 200 calories doing whatever... and you see people eating like, 800 calorie burgers... does this mean that simply cutting out that burger would be like walking 4 hours a day (assuming you lose 100 or 200 calories per hour walking). Whenever i see numbers thrown about, it constantly seems like dieting alone would outdo any excercise one could normally do. I remember seeing somewhat of an explanation... something to the effect of dieting along hurts your muscle mass and that lifting weights allows you to compensate for that. So what's the scoop? Whats the low-down? Does Dr. Phil know it all? Why is the sun yellow? Am i a cute penguin?

 

[somasimple]

Pengwuino,

There are calories that make you fat and others that do not!
Just try to discard the first category.

Eating 15000 calories of salad will not make you a fat guy! (but a gas guy ;) )

 

[Evo]

I saw somewhere today that the best way to burn fat (as opposed to carbs) is dieting and weight lifting. Is this true? Or is walking and dieting better? i was also wondering, people always go around saying you could burn 100 or 200 calories doing whatever... and you see people eating like, 800 calorie burgers... does this mean that simply cutting out that burger would be like walking 4 hours a day (assuming you lose 100 or 200 calories per hour walking). Whenever i see numbers thrown about, it constantly seems like dieting alone would outdo any excercise one could normally do. I remember seeing somewhat of an explanation... something to the effect of dieting along hurts your muscle mass and that lifting weights allows you to compensate for that. So what's the scoop? Whats the low-down? Does Dr. Phil know it all? Why is the sun yellow? Am i a cute penguin?

When you diet, you just cut back on calories. When you exercise, not only do you burn calories "during" the activity, you will continue to burn calories at an elevated level for a short while after you stop. Weight lifting is not a good calorie burning "exercise", although it can firm up and increase muscle mass, which of course will help you burn calories more efficiently. For fat and weight loss, aerobic exercise is the best. Exercising specific areas of the body will also help reshape those areas creating a more sculpted look, dieting alone can result in being thin and flabby/shapeless.

somasimple, I'm surprised you'd say that. Anytime you eat more calories than you burn, the excess calories will be stored as fat. I don't have time (I'm at work) to go into the differences of how the body handles fat calories as opposed to non-fat calories right now. Of course digesting food burns calories, are you saying that the body would burn more calories digesting the lettuce than the calories in the lettuce? I believe high fiber, low calorie vegetables like celery fall into that category. Of course, no one should be eating nothing but celery.

 

[Ronnin]

Pengwuino,

There are calories that make you fat and others that do not!
Just try to discard the first category.

Eating 15000 calories of salad will not make you a fat guy! (but a gas guy ;) )

That is just like saying 1 ton of feathers is lighter than 1 ton of bricks. A calorie is a calorie, no matter what the source. Certain foods will yeild more calories per gram versus others. The only way to loose weight is to decrease your calorie intake to slightly less than what the body needs. Drasticly reducing calorie intake isn't a solution either because it will force your body into a starvation response and it will hold on to as much fat as it can. Weight training does help to offset the effect of your body burning muscle(its preferred source vs. fat) but some cardio should be implemented to raise you "idle" caloric needs as well as burn off calories while your doing it. Also, fat doesn't require energy to maintain, but muscle does does, so for every pound of fat you trade for muscle the more energy you expend just doing nothing (so you can eat more and not gain)

 

[quasi426]

Things to think about.

Weight training increases muscle mass. The more muscle you have the more calories you burn doing anything i.e. sleeping, running, thinking. This is because it one you weigh more and must do more work for a given activity, also muscle itself must be maintained which costs calories, lastly muscles burn sugar and therefore the more of this burning machinery you have the more you will burn. Gaining healthy amounts of muscle (and I'm not talking about becoming a body builder) will take 6 months or so. So this is an investment for your life. If you compare calorie burning from cardiovascular excercise such as running to calorie burning from weight lifting, cardio will always get you more calories burned. But in the long run weight lifting will.

Also you should do ALL of the FOLLOWING:
strength training, cardiovascular training,STRETCHING, diet, sleep. These are some of the ingredients of what our bodies require no matter what the artificial demands society makes on us.

 

[turbo]

If you want to take care of your body, you should consider weight-training with a cardio warm-up. I encourage you to engage in a rowing exercise before every heavy weight session. Rowing involves the stretching of major muscle groups and stretching is key to avoiding injury. Cycling, running, or stair-climbing is OK, but rowing is tops in my book. If you're doing it right, you should expect weight GAINS in the early weeks as muscle replaces fat, but your friends will say "have you lost weight?" as your total bulk reduces and your muscular definition improves.

 

[Evo]

A pound of fat on the body takes up more space on the body than a pound of muscle, that is why you can have two people with the same height and weight with one looking fat and one looking fit.

That is why you can lose inches without losing weight.

 

[Moonbear]

Weight lifting is not a good calorie burning "exercise", although it can firm up and increase muscle mass, which of course will help you burn calories more efficiently.

You actually can burn a good number of calories doing weight lifting; it depends on the type of routine you choose. One advantage to weight lifting for those who are out of shape and are just starting to get back into shape is that you can start out really slow. With aerobic exercise, which you will eventually want to work into your exercise routine, it's either aerobic or it isn't, and if you're really out of shape, it's pretty discouraging to sign up for a "beginner" class and discover you can only keep up for about 5 min. With weight lifting, you might not be able to lift much more than an empty bar at first, but you can at least manage to do that for a half hour or hour, so it feels worth the trip to the gym. Weight lifting really seems to appeal to the scientific types too. I have friends who failed over and over again trying to lose weight with aerobic classes, or cycling, or stairmasters, etc., but finally stuck with the exercise program when they started weight lifting. The fun of it is that you can track your progress. Just bring along a notebook and keep a journal of how many reps you do of what weight, and within a few weeks, you can look back at how many additional pounds and reps you're lifting from when you started, and feel like you've really made progress, unlike the aerobics class where you're still tripping over your own two feet and still can't make it all the way to the end of the class without needing a break, and are certain everyone is staring at how uncoordinated you are.

While the ultimate goal of any fitness program is to develop strength (i.e., weight lifting or resistance training), flexibility (stretching), and cardiovascular fitness (aerobic exercise), when just starting out, anything that's exercise that you can keep doing is better than nothing.

And, since the example was actually comparing weight lifting to walking, not weight lifting to aerobic exercise, yeah, you probably burn a lot more calories weight lifting. I know I used to be able to work up quite a sweat while weight lifting, but walking depends a lot on the pace you set. A lot of people who start out with walking as exercise don't realize you really have to walk fast to burn many calories. Their liesurely stroll around the block at lunchtime really won't do much.

 

[somasimple]

Evo,

You are just thinking that calories are just calories and interchangeable. No.
If you eat sugar, you transform it in fat. If you eat salad, you make gas and have very little/no component to transform in fat.

BTW, making exercice when you're fat, maintain your weight since muscles are obliged to work with your weight.

 

[Math Is Hard]

You are just thinking that calories are just calories and interchangeable. No.
If you eat sugar, you transform it in fat. If you eat salad, you make gas and have very little/no component to transform in fat.

Really? I thought the liver would convert excess calories to triglycerides no matter what the source. Of course, you'd probably have to eat A TON of salad to overeat it!

 

[Moonbear]

I encourage you to engage in a rowing exercise before every heavy weight session. Rowing involves the stretching of major muscle groups and stretching is key to avoiding injury.

If you do that (not necessarily YOU turbo, but anyone else taking your suggestion who hasn't done rowing as an exercise before), have one of the trainers at the gym show you the proper technique for rowing exercise. A lot of people do it wrong, and lose out on the full benefits of the exercise. You should roll your shoulders back first to work the shoulder and back muscles, then keep control as you lean back and push with your legs. Be careful not to lock your knees at the full extension, or you'll wind up with knee injuries over time, and you're not really making the mucles do the work if your knees are locked anyway (with any weight lifting, be careful not to lock your knees or elbows). Then, reverse the motion, again, maintaining slow control the whole way, and you'll really work your abs too. Too many people just throw their weight into it to pull back fast and let the weights just pull them forward again, and are more likely to injure their back than get any useful exercise out of it.

 

[Moonbear]

Really? I thought the liver would convert excess calories to triglycerides no matter what the source. Of course, you'd probably have to eat A TON of salad to overeat it!

They have to be digestible calories. If it's fiber/undigestible, it's just going to pass right back out of your digestive system without being absorbed.

 

[Math Is Hard]

They have to be digestible calories. If it's fiber/undigestible, it's just going to pass right back out of your digestive system without being absorbed.

What about potatoes and beans? How digestible are they? Can I eat them all day long without having to worry about ever going over my recommended caloric intake? ('cause I do love them potatoes and beans! )

 

[somasimple]

Math Is Hard
potatoes and beans are sugars. So, many chance they go directly in the fat tissues.

 

[Evo]

Chart on calories burned.

http://www.nutristrategy.com/activitylist3.htm

 

[Math Is Hard]

I think you guys are missing my point. If you eat too many (digestable)calories, the body is going to store the excess as fat. It doesn't matter whether the calories come from carbohydrates, proteins, or fats. What I am objecting to is the idea of "different kinds of calories". Lettuce does not have "different" calories than steak - it has less of them. It also contains a lot of fiber and water, so you can fill up on a lot of bulk but still not consume a lot of calories.

I am only saying this because I see a lot of people who are convinced that if they don't eat any fat they won't get fat, so they chow down all day long on fat-free cookies and snacks. And guess what? They're overweight. They don't understand that the carbohydrates they are taking in can be converted to fat. Then there's the Atkins crowd and their carb-o-phobia running in the opposite direction. In general, I think people are really confused about nutrition. Who can blame them?

Consider this article from Web MD:
http://onhealth.webmd.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=61980

Most people surveyed also did not know or did not believe the adage, "a calorie is a calorie is a calorie."

Less than a third agreed with the statement, "Calories in general are what cause weight gain." And many believed that calories from specific types of foods, like fats and carbohydrates, were more likely to cause weight gain than calories from other types of foods.

 

[Evo]

Evo,

You are just thinking that calories are just calories and interchangeable. No.

If you had read the second sentence of my post you would have seen this.

I don't have time (I'm at work) to go into the differences of how the body handles fat calories as opposed to non-fat calories right now.

You really should read more than one sentence.

 

[somasimple]

Sorry Evo,

I leapt to fast, once more.

 

[zoobyshoe]

I'd like to know about other vegetables like celery that cause you to burn more calories in digesting them than you receive from them. Zoobies like to munch stuff.

Also: anyone know more about green tea's apparent increase in calorie burning?

http://www.nexuspub.com/health/2000/hmar008.htm

 

[selfAdjoint]

Also: anyone know more about green tea's apparent increase in calorie burning?

I read about that and was drinking green tea for calorie burning for a while; I don't much like the taste of it. I take my weight daily and for fun keep some statistics on my diet and weight change, and I couldn't verify any effect one way or another from the green tea. So since I wasn't getting any benefit, I quit.

 

[Moonbear]

I'd like to know about other vegetables like celery that cause you to burn more calories in digesting them than you receive from them. Zoobies like to munch stuff.

That's about the only one. And it's not really the digestion, but the chewing that burns the extra calories. Celery is just not a very calorie dense food, and much of it is undigestible fiber.

Also: anyone know more about green tea's apparent increase in calorie burning?

http://www.nexuspub.com/health/2000/hmar008.htm

It's hard to know. There are a lot of health claims about green tea, most promoted by those trying to sell it. Some may hold up, some may not. Too few have been tested using proper scientific methods.

SelfAdjoint, this gets off-topic, but I don't know how many different varieties of green tea you've tried. This might also get at questions of health benefits related to green tea as well, but there are a lot of different varieties of green tea, Chinese blends and Japanese blends, and they all taste quite different. I just got a sampler of some Japanese blends. I've had two types of green tea in the past. One actually had a hint of coffee flavor in my opinion, which I liked, another tasted somewhat like I'd imagine grass clippings would taste like, which I didn't like. Of the ones I have now, I've only tried one so far, and did not like it at all...it tasted somewhat like seaweed...the stuff they wrap sushi rolls in. Very salty or fishy. I definitely did not like that one. I have yet to try the others, but am going to brew up a small pot of one of them now. I wonder if it might cause difficulty replicating studies on the effects of green teas if they can't narrow down the specific compound that's effective, if something is effective. In other words, it might not just be green teas in general, but a compound specific to a particular variety that has one or another effect.

 

[zoobyshoe]

I read about that and was drinking green tea for calorie burning for a while; I don't much like the taste of it. I take my weight daily and for fun keep some statistics on my diet and weight change, and I couldn't verify any effect one way or another from the green tea. So since I wasn't getting any benefit, I quit.

Hmmm. That's OK. I just dusted off my bike today and that's a proven calorie burner.

That's about the only one. And it's not really the digestion, but the chewing that burns the extra calories. Celery is just not a very calorie dense food, and much of it is undigestible fiber.

On this subject, a guy told me the other night that chewing many things for a long time can convert them to sugars in your mouth by the disgestive action of saliva. He said some foods will actually start to taste sweeter the longer you chew them (can't remember what he specifically mentioned).

If that's the case, do these foods also become sugars later in the digestion process if you don't super-chew them? In which situation do you end up with fewer calories on board, chewing a lot or not chewing much?

 

[Moonbear]

On this subject, a guy told me the other night that chewing many things for a long time can convert them to sugars in your mouth by the disgestive action of saliva. He said some foods will actually start to taste sweeter the longer you chew them (can't remember what he specifically mentioned).

If that's the case, do these foods also become sugars later in the digestion process if you don't super-chew them? In which situation do you end up with fewer calories on board, chewing a lot or not chewing much?

The saliva just starts the digestion process. I don't think it'll make any difference overall. Way back in junior high school science class, we tested that idea that starch will be broken down by saliva. We worked in teams, and one member of each team had to chew up matzo (very starchy) for different amounts of time then spit it back out (there are probably laws against this now...we didn't worry so much about bodily fluids back then), and then we mixed it with iodine to determine if it still had starch (iodine turns blue when it contacts starch). It eventually stops turning blue, or only very little turns...but that required an awfully long time chewing...I still remember, the kid who we made chew it the longest time was Jeremy...sweet guy who made a lot of faces during that class. :rofl: You might lose weight if you chewed every bite that long, because it would take you all day to eat just one meal. I think it was 10 or 15 minutes of chewing...but then again, it was a LONG time ago.

 

[zoobyshoe]

You might lose weight if you chewed every bite that long, because it would take you all day to eat just one meal.

I had a grandfather who ate like this. At Thanksgiving and Christmas he and my grandmother put everyone in torment because she insisted no one could have desert till everyone had finished the main course, and he, in turn, insisted on chewing every bite he took 100 times. For what it's worth, he was quite skinny.

 

[JasonRox]

The reason why weight lifting is probably recommended because weight lifting will start to boost your metabolism. The best way to lose calories is by doing Cardio, Weight Lifting, and Dieting.

Also note, dieting does NOT mean cut back on calories. People always think this when that's not true for the most part. I meet lots of people eating the right amount of calories, but just the wrong ones. You want to eat healthier. It's not very hard to eat healthy. Just look at the U.S. Health Guide (Triangle/Pyramid) and that's a great step in the right direction. After that, do some readings and learn to improve even more.

 

[JasonRox]

I think you guys are missing my point. If you eat too many (digestable)calories, the body is going to store the excess as fat.

This is wrong.

For someone with a slow metabolism, this is true. For someone with a high metabolism, it is false.

When I trained, I ate 2.5 times more than my recommended amount of calories. So, my recommended was like 2000 calories and I was eating 4500 calories a day. All healthy except the ice cream. Believe it or not, I lost fat.

I increased my metabolism to a high-level where I can eat anything I wanted without worries to gaining weight (but of course I wasn't too stupid to do that).

A large person can not do this because their metabolism is really slow. Your body does not want to burn calories and decides to store it as fat. But for a fast metabolism person, it never stores anything as fat unless it is absolutely necessary otherwise it burns it. Someone with a fast metabolism has to eat consistently throughout the day because the body demands it. This why the body does not store the calories. Because you are eating 6-7 times a day (little snacks and meals) your body does not feel the need to preserve any calories because the next meal is coming up in just 2 hours or so. With larger people though, they tend to eat less times per day, but larger meals. So the body is not certain on when the next meal is, so it stores it. Or larger people on a "diet" (the most common cut back on calories diet) eat less frequently with less calories as the regular large guy is actually SLOWING HIS/HER METABOLISM EVEN MORE! So when this person goes on a binge one day, everything is STORED AS FAT because the body can't rely on eating enough.

Anyways, I'm done my talking.

Just see a personal trainer or a nutritinist/dietician before starting anything. Most people actually go in the WRONG direction because they think it's simple common sense to diet. Be careful on which trainers/nutritinists/dieticians you see too because some of them will risk your body just so you see results quickly and so it is easier to keep you as a client and suck your money away.

Well, the stuff I said above can be wrong but I don't think so. I didn't go into detail because I don't know any details and that's why I stopped and can't say it's completely true.

Note: I should be a Certified Personal Trainer by the end of this year. I have a lot of studying to do. Although getting the certification isn't too difficuld, I just want to be a quality trainer who trains his clients safely and efficiently.

Cheers.

 

[Math Is Hard]

If you eat too many (digestable)calories, the body is going to store the excess as fat.

This is wrong.

For someone with a slow metabolism, this is true. For someone with a high metabolism, it is false.

I disagree. Even a person with a fast metabolism could consume too many calories. He/she would just have to consume many more calories to be in excess.

My friend has a naturally fast metabolism. She hated being stick-thin so she increased her caloric intake. Result: she put on some weight. She put on some FAT, which was what she wanted because she wanted some boobs and hips. She took in more calories per day than her body could use up - and voila!

 

[JasonRox]

I disagree. Even a person with a fast metabolism could consume too many calories. He/she would just have to consume many more calories to be in excess.

My friend has a naturally fast metabolism. She hated being stick-thin so she increased her caloric intake. Result: she put on some weight. She put on some FAT, which was what she wanted because she wanted some boobs and hips. She took in more calories per day than her body could use up - and voila!

Naturally fast, and that's the problem.

She slowed it down by eating improperly and not exercising.

Note: Like I said, I used up more calories than my body could use up but because I was doing it properly my metabolism went even faster. At one point I actually had to have a snack next to my bed because I'd always wake up hungry even after eating 4500 calories a day!

Note: You can still eat too many calories, but too many people obsess about eating 200 calories over. That's just pathetic.

 

[Math Is Hard]

Naturally fast, and that's the problem.

She slowed it down by eating improperly and not exercising.

And the net result was that she consumed more calories than she could burn and she gained weight. The excess calories were stored as fat.

 

[Evo]

And the net result was that she consumed more calories than she could burn and she gained weight. The excess calories were stored as fat.

Yes, any time you eat more calories than you burn, they will get stored as fat.

JasonRox, you obviously weren't eating calories in excess of what you were burning. I know of no magic where excess calories just disappear. If you are burning a high rate of calories due to your level of excersize and metabolism, it may have seemed to you like no matter how much you ate, you could not gain weight, however if you reached a point where you started eating more than you burned, you would start gaining weight, unless you have a rare disorder, but you would more than likely know it. I can't remember the name of the disorder, I haven't read about it in several years. I'm really surprised that you plan to be a personal trainer, yet you don't understand what MIH said. That's pretty basic.

Also, eating 200 calories per day more than you burn may seem like nothing to you, but that's 6,000 excess calories per month, in one year, that meager 200 calories adds up to a weight gain of over 20 pounds. I agree though that people shouldn't obsess if they go over one day, just as long as they don't go over consistently.

 

[JasonRox]

And the net result was that she consumed more calories than she could burn and she gained weight. The excess calories were stored as fat.

Also, how can you say it's from eating?

How do we not know that this was going to occur anyways? And it's just a coincidence that it happened on her dieting time.

During high school, I ate fast food about 10 times a week and never gained a pound! I work at the school cafetaria and Burger King. Naturally fast metabolism and I ate more than I should have. I wasn't active either. I did this for 11 months exact. (I worked at Burger King for 11 months.)

 

[JasonRox]

Yes, any time you eat more calories than you burn, they will get stored as fat.

JasonRox, you obviously weren't eating calories in excess of what you were burning. I know of no magic where excess calories just disappear. If you are burning a high rate of calories due to your level of excersize and metabolism, it may have seemed to you like no matter how much you ate, you could not gain weight, however if you reached a point where you started eating more than you burned, you would start gaining weight, unless you have a rare disorder, but you would more than likely know it. I can't remember the name of the disorder, I haven't read about it in several years. I'm really surprised that you plan to be a personal trainer, yet you don't understand what MIH said. That's pretty basic.

Also, eating 200 calories per day more than you burn may seem like nothing to you, but that's 6,000 excess calories per month, in one year, that meager 200 calories adds up to a weight gain of over 20 pounds. I agree though that people shouldn't obsess if they go over one day, just as long as they don't go over consistently.

Yes, eating more causes you to gain. But faster metabolism burn more calories during rest periods.

If I weight 150 pounds and I have a fast metabolism, and another is the same weight and completely identical but now has a slow metabolism, the doctor will recommend us both to eat 2000 calories a day. Unfortunately, I can eat 2500 and be fine, but the other can not. My "maximum" is much higher than perceived.

So, yeah my body was still burning the calories no doubt.

Note: Naturally, I wouldn't go against what the doctor says, but the doctor will let you know to learn your about your own body. That way you learn what's best for you.

Note: Personal Trainers do not deal with diets.

 

[Math Is Hard]

Also, how can you say it's from eating?

Because she increased her caloric intake but didn't change her activity level.

How do we not know that this was going to occur anyways? And it's just a coincidence that it happened on her dieting time.

When she doesn't keep her calories up, her weight goes down. This is an ongoing situation with her.

During high school, I ate fast food about 10 times a week and never gained a pound! I work at the school cafetaria and Burger King. Naturally fast metabolism and I ate more than I should have. I wasn't active either. I did this for 11 months exact. (I worked at Burger King for 11 months.)

Then you weren't eating "more than you should have". (Whether you were eating "what you should have" nutritionally, that's a whole different story.) But strictly in terms of caloric intake, your body was burning up all the calories you were consuming, so you weren't overeating.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Also, fat doesn't require energy to maintain, but muscle does does, so for every pound of fat you trade for muscle the more energy you expend just doing nothing (so you can eat more and not gain)

Weight training increases muscle mass. The more muscle you have the more calories you burn doing anything i.e. sleeping, running, thinking. This is because it one you weigh more and must do more work for a given activity, also muscle itself must be maintained which costs calories, lastly muscles burn sugar and therefore the more of this burning machinery you have the more you will burn.

These seem to be the explanation for Jason's Magic Fast Metabolism. Having more muscle burns more calories in and of itself.

 

[Azael]

During high school, I ate fast food about 10 times a week and never gained a pound! I work at the school cafetaria and Burger King. Naturally fast metabolism and I ate more than I should have. I wasn't active either. I did this for 11 months exact. (I worked at Burger King for 11 months.)

I knew a guy back in my hometown that was exactly like this and could not gain weight. He wanted to gain weight however and me and another friend feelt like playing a prank on him(this was a couple of years ago and teens sure are dickheads hehe).

So we told him that besides he's regular meals he should add 2 or 3 shakes each day that that contains 40grams of olive oil, 60grams of wheyprotein and 100grams of dextrose. Thats 1000kcal in every shake and a gross amount of high gi carbs along with lots of fat:rofl:

Sure enough the insulin spikes in addition to the fat made him gain (not quite all muscle though) :tongue: