Nutritionist told me exercise doesn’t help you lose weight

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s 80% true. You simply cannot run off burgers, beers, and pizza. Just to burn off a burger you’re gonna have to runs out 5-6 miles at a sub 9:30 min/mile pace. And we haven’t even counted your calories yet for the beers and dessert you had with it.


The biggest battle for losing weight occurs in the kitchen.

You can, but at the point you are able to be at the level of endurance activity that eating hamburgers and drinking beer regularly wouldn’t be a problem, you won’t want to because it will kill your training. And you wouldn’t be a middle aged woman anyhow.

Except for pretty much every professional athlete and D1 athlete lives off of hamburgers, wings, chipotle, and beer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Muscle does NOT WEIGH MORE THAN FAT. This is such wrong and outdated thinking. Muscle is more dense than fat, meaning 1 lb of muscle takes up less space than 1 lb of fat meaning someone who is 150 lbs but has lots of muscle will *weigh the same* but look better and leaner than someone who is also 150 lbs but with very little muscle and a high body fat percentage. They will not weigh less.

No sh!t, doofus. This is what “muscle weighs more than fat” means. If I had two equal buckets and I filled one to the brim with muscle and one with fat, which would weigh more?

In that case the correct terminology is that muscle is more dense than fat.

But a pound of muscle weights the same as a pound of fat and a pound of feathers.

But a bucket of muscles weights more than a bucket of fat.

[Anonymous]

Weight watchers gives you more points if you workout so your trainer sound ignorant.

Also if I eat 1200 calories and you eat 1200 calories we will not be the same size/weight. So much more goes into it than calories.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s 80% true. You simply cannot run off burgers, beers, and pizza. Just to burn off a burger you’re gonna have to runs out 5-6 miles at a sub 9:30 min/mile pace. And we haven’t even counted your calories yet for the beers and dessert you had with it.


The biggest battle for losing weight occurs in the kitchen.

You can, but at the point you are able to be at the level of endurance activity that eating hamburgers and drinking beer regularly wouldn’t be a problem, you won’t want to because it will kill your training. And you wouldn’t be a middle aged woman anyhow.

Except for pretty much every professional athlete and D1 athlete lives off of hamburgers, wings, chipotle, and beer.

LOLwut? No serious and successful D1 or professional lives off that. Maybe chipotle. Either way, it’s clear you 1) don’t know any of these people, and 2) aren’t engaged in any of these high level sports that require training anyways, even as an age grouper.

Do yourself a favor and find any one of a number of podcasts concerning the pro bike peloton, what they are eating, and the overall consumption of alcohol. Sometimes, yes. Pogacar had a single beer the night before a stage win recently. Frequently, no. How much do you think those guys are drinking? Basically zero now. That’s modern sports nutrition.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Muscle does NOT WEIGH MORE THAN FAT. This is such wrong and outdated thinking. Muscle is more dense than fat, meaning 1 lb of muscle takes up less space than 1 lb of fat meaning someone who is 150 lbs but has lots of muscle will *weigh the same* but look better and leaner than someone who is also 150 lbs but with very little muscle and a high body fat percentage. They will not weigh less.

No sh!t, doofus. This is what “muscle weighs more than fat” means. If I had two equal buckets and I filled one to the brim with muscle and one with fat, which would weigh more?

In that case the correct terminology is that muscle is more dense than fat.

But a pound of muscle weights the same as a pound of fat and a pound of feathers.

But a bucket of muscles weights more than a bucket of fat.

You guys need to chill - everyone knows what both of you mean. A muscular dude can weigh the same as a fat dude as a skinny dude with really dense bones as a normal size dude with huge organs.

You guys should have a drink over how relevant BMI is.

[Anonymous]

I’ll be 50 next year and my diet is pretty lean. If I do not exercise I will weigh 130 pounds, when I do, I weigh 122. I have to exercise pretty hard and consistently to maintain the lower weight.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s 80% true. You simply cannot run off burgers, beers, and pizza. Just to burn off a burger you’re gonna have to runs out 5-6 miles at a sub 9:30 min/mile pace. And we haven’t even counted your calories yet for the beers and dessert you had with it.


The biggest battle for losing weight occurs in the kitchen.

You can, but at the point you are able to be at the level of endurance activity that eating hamburgers and drinking beer regularly wouldn’t be a problem, you won’t want to because it will kill your training. And you wouldn’t be a middle aged woman anyhow.

Except for pretty much every professional athlete and D1 athlete lives off of hamburgers, wings, chipotle, and beer.

LOLwut? No serious and successful D1 or professional lives off that. Maybe chipotle. Either way, it’s clear you 1) don’t know any of these people, and 2) aren’t engaged in any of these high level sports that require training anyways, even as an age grouper.

Do yourself a favor and find any one of a number of podcasts concerning the pro bike peloton, what they are eating, and the overall consumption of alcohol. Sometimes, yes. Pogacar had a single beer the night before a stage win recently. Frequently, no. How much do you think those guys are drinking? Basically zero now. That’s modern sports nutrition.

No one cares about your biking podcasts but everyone hates bikers.

[Anonymous]

I find this to be true, with the caveat that exercise helps quite a bit if you don't eat back the calories. I'm 5'4" and a few years ago lost 18 lbs (from 130 down to ~112) by counting calories really carefully. I walk 8k-10k steps daily as part of my general lifestyle, but that didn't matter until I started limiting to 1200 calories. And when I did, the weight came off very predictably. To date, whenever I find my weight is up a few pounds, a few weeks of 1200 gets me back to where I need to be.

I also have since taken up running, and when I'm regularly running 4-5x/week, I can basically eat whatever I like without any weight fluctuations (within reason, not like, a double cheeseburger and fries daily). The main issue I think is that running (or any form of high-impact cardio exercise that would help you lose weight) tends to make you hungry and if you're eating back the calories you burned off then it's a net zero. And worse if you're eating back more calories, which can happen pretty easily if you're not counting.

[Anonymous]

If through diet and exercise you lose a pound of fat but put on a pound of muscle, you will have increased you metabolism as you body will burn more calories to maintain that muscle. So but doing both diet and exercise you will lose weight the fastest.
Drink lots of water to fight hunger. Get up and move around to take you mind off of food, eat a huge salad.
Also it is possible to outrun a bad diet, but that level of exercise is higher and takes longer than most can do or have the time to do

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Went to a nutritionist this week and she told that exercise doesn’t help lose weight. She said it’s all about limiting the calorie intake of food. True? Not true? What’s your experience? Btw, I’m only trying to lose a few pounds - through diet and exercise.

I think you misheard the nutritionist. At least I hope you did, because if that's what they said you need to run away. What they probably said was that exercise alone, without a balanced intake of quality food, won't help you lose weight. The cliche line (that is 100% true) is that you can't outwork a bad diet. Weight loss is simple math; you lose weight when you burn more calories than you take in. Full stop. If you are eating 4000 calories a day of crap then working out and burning 500 isn't going to solve your problem. In a choice between not consuming 2000 calories of ice cream and potato chips, and eating those things but working out for an hour, the former is easily the better choice.

This isn't an "experience" or opinion question.

[Anonymous]

Abs are made on the kitchen. You can’t out train a bad diet. Exercise is important but unless you’re going from sedentary to briskly walking 6-10 miles a day, what you eat will have more impact.