The whole 'you don't need to exercise to lose weight' phrase really confuses me.

Apologies if this is the wrong place to post, but I really wanted to 'vocalise' this.

I get that you don't need to exercise to lose weight, but I feel the strong reaction against exercise for weight loss is because some people may have thought they can go for 3 x 30 min runs a week and still eat what they want and have not lost weight. Fair enough, that probably wouldn't ever work. However, it's a dangerous rhetoric because I always find that after a week with more than average (for me) exercise, I ALWAYS have a great result on the scales.

For instance I may go for a 4 hour ride on a weekend day, and 3 x 5 mile runs during the week, and boom, great result on the scales. Another week, I may be busy or hit with a bout of lethargy, and only manage one run. Boom, a weight gain.

I am fully understanding of the fundamentals of CICO (calories in vs calories out); so eating the same both weeks will result in different outcomes depending on the calories I expend on the higher than average exercise week, hence why I feel the phrasing around exercise not being effective for weightless maybe needs to be toned down somewhat.

Essentially if you're ultra disciplined in at least one area, you will do well. Be that exercise, you maybe don't need to eat as well and as consistently as if you don't exercise. Myself, I tend to eat OK. I try to eat more good things, rather than fewer bad things, but exercise is for sure the thing that tips me into weightloss.

I'm not posting this here because I see a lot of this rhetoric, just figure some on this community may see the same things I do, or be able to challenge me on my views expressed here. :)

submitted by /u/gametheweapon
[link] [comments]

from loseit - Lose the Fat https://ift.tt/Y6tjFUA