This is flat out false and easily disproven by science. Of course it helps.

Equally true is what many have said about how it’s impossible to “outexercise” a crap diet and that it is generally far easier to lose weight/cut calories by focusing on diet and what goes in rather than exercise and what burns off. And that it is also easy to eat back calories from a workout if it increases hunger.

But again, I don’t understand why people take extreme positions like it is black and white, and completely write off exercise for weight loss. It’s demonstrably false. Anything that involves movement and burning calories will help to at least some extent. How much, and the amount of time/effort involved compared to focusing on diet to cut calories, is the real issue.

Anonymous wrote:So true. My 6 ft 2" husband switched to a 1200 calorie diet, and dropped 80 pounds and kept it off. This was before semaglutides became a thing, but that's why Ozempic and all those drugs work--they make people less hungry and they eat less and the weight melts off. Of course exercise is important to keep you healthy and happy, but it takes about 1 hours of walking to burn off 1 slice of cake (350 calories).

Yeah, and it's hard to avoid anything at Costco because everything is over 500 calories

So true. My 6 ft 2" husband switched to a 1200 calorie diet, and dropped 80 pounds and kept it off. This was before semaglutides became a thing, but that's why Ozempic and all those drugs work--they make people less hungry and they eat less and the weight melts off. Of course exercise is important to keep you healthy and happy, but it takes about 1 hours of walking to burn off 1 slice of cake (350 calories).

It's true. I have always been active, ate well and was 20lbs overweight until I started semaglutide. During that time on it, I have not exercised due to extreme work demands (sedantary work, very long days). I am thinner than I have been in 20 years.

Not sleeping well, stress, feeling fatigued… these are all things that trigger me to eat unhealthy food. Exercise helps control those triggers.

Without fail, I eat better all day if I exercise in the morning.

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.

This is very true for me. I exercise every day for stress release. If I need to lose weight I need to be hungry 80% of the time.

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.

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.

Anonymous wrote:This is dumb.

You can lose weight either way. But most people will find it easier to cut enough calories to lose weight than to exercise enough to lose weight. And that’s because when you exercise you get hungry, and you say, “I exercised so I deserve to eat.” It’s also because not eating 100 calories take 3 seconds but exercising away 100 calories takes an hour.

This. Despite what people say, it's "calories in, calories out" that matters. When trying to shed weight through exercise, most people grossly underestimate their calories in when eating, and grossly overestimate their calories out when exercising. Many people have no idea about portion size, or how long you will feel satisfied with a meal full of protein and fiber vs. a similar calorie meal of most simple carbs.

If you are only trying to lose a few pounds, I wouldn't focus on weight loss "through diet and exercise". I would look to make some life changes by increasing activity, including strength training, and I would make some diet tweaks by cutting out/reducing alcohol and sugar, making sure my meals are balanced, and keeping an eye on my portions. I'm 52 and lost 10 pounds last year when I started drinking water instead of juice, finally said goodbye to alcohol because of migraines, and started walking 1 -2 miles a few times a week. I also stopped having "just a bite" of a lot of my teens' junk food, because it wasn't just a bite. It was calories adding up throughout the day. I wasn't even really trying to lose weight (I was average weight to begin with), I just finally added up how much juice (in spritzers) I was drinking every day and realized it was a ton of sugar. I quickly dropped a few pounds and that got the ball rolling on my interest to make a few other changes.

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.

This is dumb.

You can lose weight either way. But most people will find it easier to cut enough calories to lose weight than to exercise enough to lose weight. And that’s because when you exercise you get hungry, and you say, “I exercised so I deserve to eat.” It’s also because not eating 100 calories take 3 seconds but exercising away 100 calories takes an hour.

Anonymous wrote:Of course she’ll overstate food intake because she’s a nutritionist. What do you think a personal trainer would say?

It’s genetics, calories, exercise.

A good trainer would tell you it is diet and know enough about diet to counsel you because you can exercise and build muscle all you want but you will never see that muscle with a layer of fat.

OP nutritionist is right. Exercise for health, diet for fat loss.

I gained weight when I exercised all the time because I needed carbs as fuel .

I cut carbs for an month and lost weight without exercising but by fasting and zero sugar /low carb

. Exercise is a scam. All you need to do is walk. You don’t need to stress your body with cardio and lifting

It’s true you can’t outrun a “bad diet” but it’s also true that exercise is crucial for your body and health and that it also burns calories. Exercise is also an emotional mental health stabilizer. And if you’re getting feel good boosts from movement you may (like me) be less likely to seek out food for those boosts.

I’ve lost 80 lbs - and can’t imagine not exercising. Track your food. Track your exercise.

What feels true to you?

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?