Ahhh, you are basing our very brief discussion (via PM) on generalities too much. You should know by now that there is a lot more behind much of what I say on here.
First, I should say this:
I don't EVER advocate weight loss without the goal of physique improvement. Why?
1. Looking good tends to do good things for people in general.
2. More importantly, a strong body is a healthy body. Strong in the sense of muscular and endurance capacity. The human system of physiology was meant to be used. Not sit behind a computer screen all day long.
So because I don't EVER advocate weight loss without the goal of physique improvement, you can say that your above post is a
MUTE topic.
In ANY situation, I think exercise and nutrition are equally important from where I stand, simply b/c I don't think anyone should be doing one without the other wrt exercise and eating right.
Follow me?
Now, in the EXACT context of weight loss ONLY:
I certainly think that nutrition plays a larger role than exercise. Energy deficits are the name of the game. It is much easier to create a deficit nutritionally than through exercise. Let's face it, we don't all have hours on top of hours to exercise in order to create the kind of deficit you need. Add to this the idea of fatigue management and whatnot, and it just isn't feasible.
The way I define what is more important is simple:
Which one could take you to your goal without the other, hence, be more important.
Nutrition can. Exercise, not so much.
If your nutrition is off, yet you are exercising everyday, you still won't reach your goals. Hell, you can move in the opposite direction actually. If your nutrition is on, yet you don't exercise, you can still reach your goals.
It is all about perspective.
Again, this is a mute topic for me. It is a theoretical debate only b/c I would only defend this stance in theory, and not in application.
