Forum Settings
       
« Previous 1 2 3 4 5
Reply To Thread

Why Exercise Won't Make You ThinFollow

#1 Aug 10 2009 at 9:26 AM Rating: Good
*****
12,049 posts
Found an article on TIME.com that puts forth the idea that exercise is counterproductive to weight loss because it makes you eat more. I was wondering about other peoples' takes on it.
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1914857-1,00.html
Quote:
The conventional wisdom that exercise is essential for shedding pounds is actually fairly new. As recently as the 1960s, doctors routinely advised against rigorous exercise, particularly for older adults who could injure themselves. Today doctors encourage even their oldest patients to exercise, which is sound advice for many reasons: People who regularly exercise are at significantly lower risk for all manner of diseases — those of the heart in particular. They less often develop cancer, diabetes and many other illnesses. But the past few years of obesity research show that the role of exercise in weight loss has been wildly overstated.

"In general, for weight loss, exercise is pretty useless," says Eric Ravussin, chair in diabetes and metabolism at Louisiana State University and a prominent exercise researcher. Many recent studies have found that exercise isn't as important in helping people lose weight as you hear so regularly in gym advertisements or on shows like The Biggest Loser — or, for that matter, from magazines like this one.

The basic problem is that while it's true that exercise burns calories and that you must burn calories to lose weight, exercise has another effect: it can stimulate hunger. That causes us to eat more, which in turn can negate the weight-loss benefits we just accrued. Exercise, in other words, isn't necessarily helping us lose weight. It may even be making it harder.

...

The findings are important because the government and various medical organizations routinely prescribe more and more exercise for those who want to lose weight. In 2007 the American College of Sports Medicine and the American Heart Association issued new guidelines stating that "to lose weight ... 60 to 90 minutes of physical activity may be necessary." That's 60 to 90 minutes on most days of the week, a level that not only is unrealistic for those of us trying to keep or find a job but also could easily produce, on the basis of Church's data, ravenous compensatory eating.

It's true that after six months of working out, most of the exercisers in Church's study were able to trim their waistlines slightly — by about an inch. Even so, they lost no more overall body fat than the control group did. Why not?

Church, who is 41 and has lived in Baton Rouge for nearly three years, has a theory. "I see this anecdotally amongst, like, my wife's friends," he says. "They're like, 'Ah, I'm running an hour a day, and I'm not losing any weight.'" He asks them, "What are you doing after you run?" It turns out one group of friends was stopping at Starbucks for muffins afterward. Says Church: "I don't think most people would appreciate that, wow, you only burned 200 or 300 calories, which you're going to neutralize with just half that muffin."

...

Then how did the exercise-to-lose-weight mantra become so ingrained? Public-health officials have been reluctant to downplay exercise because those who are more physically active are, overall, healthier. Plus, it's hard even for experts to renounce the notion that exercise is essential for weight loss. For years, psychologist Kelly Brownell ran a lab at Yale that treated obese patients with the standard, drilled-into-your-head combination of more exercise and less food. "What we found was that the treatment of obesity was very frustrating," he says. Only about 5% of participants could keep the weight off, and although those 5% were more likely to exercise than those who got fat again, Brownell says if he were running the program today, "I would probably reorient toward food and away from exercise." In 2005, Brownell co-founded Yale's Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity, which focuses on food marketing and public policy — not on encouraging more exercise.

Some research has found that the obese already "exercise" more than most of the rest of us. In May, Dr. Arn Eliasson of the Walter Reed Army Medical Center reported the results of a small study that found that overweight people actually expend significantly more calories every day than people of normal weight — 3,064 vs. 2,080. He isn't the first researcher to reach this conclusion. As science writer Gary Taubes noted in his 2007 book Good Calories, Bad Calories: Fats, Carbs, and the Controversial Science of Diet and Health, "The obese tend to expend more energy than lean people of comparable height, sex, and bone structure, which means their metabolism is typically burning off more calories rather than less."

In short, it's what you eat, not how hard you try to work it off, that matters more in losing weight. You should exercise to improve your health, but be warned: fiery spurts of vigorous exercise could lead to weight gain. I love how exercise makes me feel, but tomorrow I might skip the VersaClimber — and skip the blueberry bar that is my usual postexercise reward.


Anyone else read this and think "This author is full of it?" I mean, shame on me for thinking my anecdotal evidence is any different, but making a claim like "exercise could lead to weight gain" seems deliberately misleading. Exercise does not; eating does. As any good health expert knows, one of the first ways to start losing weight is to keep a food journal: a tabulation of exactly what you eat during the day. I do this and try to keep my caloric intake as low as possible. Making a few changes in the day has helped; instead of getting a candy bar to ward off the 3 o'clock hunger, I drink a lot of water and save an apple. Instead of getting a bag of chips to go with lunch, I eat a granola bar (90 calories) about 10 minutes before, and then by the time I finish my meal I'm not hungry.

As for exercise, I find a different issue. If I'm NOT exercising, I'm usually sitting around in my room or out with friends. Sitting in my room leads to mindless munching; I want something brainless to do, like eating, while I rot my brain with games, books, or TV. Out with friends leads to going to bars or grabbing something to eat as often as not. Exercise is a break from both of these: when exercising I'm only drinking water, and after I have very little urge to eat. I actually find it an excellent appetite suppressor; when I'm done, I'd much rather take a shower and then relax for a while, and hunger seems to depart.

Any other takes?
#2 Aug 10 2009 at 10:22 AM Rating: Excellent
@#%^
*****
15,953 posts
Throwing up after every meal works better.
____________________________
"I have lost my way
But I hear a tale
About a heaven in Alberta
Where they've got all hell for a basement"

#3 Aug 10 2009 at 10:38 AM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
******
20,643 posts
Maybe compare muscle weight and density to fat?

I know I don't need exercise to keep me thin. I naturally have a metabolism like a jet engine: anything that gets dumped into me is immediately burned off. My wife claims I'm better than a space heater in winter.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#4 Aug 10 2009 at 11:22 AM Rating: Good
@#%^
*****
15,953 posts
Debalic wrote:
My wife claims I'm better than a space heater in winter.


Would she say that you make her... hot?
____________________________
"I have lost my way
But I hear a tale
About a heaven in Alberta
Where they've got all hell for a basement"

#5 Aug 10 2009 at 11:46 AM Rating: Decent
Jack of All Trades
******
29,633 posts
Quote:
exercise is counterproductive to weight loss because it makes you eat more.


Personally, I've always believed that to be true in most cases (I certainly do get hungry after I exert myself), but this is mainly because I'm a very picky eater and my diet generally sucks *** from any healthy person's perspective.

The reality, most likely, is that exercise isn't enough. It probably does make you eat more, but the important part is picking healthy foods to fill the void that you create.
#6 Aug 10 2009 at 11:52 AM Rating: Excellent
Vagina Dentata,
what a wonderful phrase
******
30,106 posts
I think the wider message is that unless you watch what you eat, exercise won't help you become or remain thin, which is reasonable.
____________________________
Turin wrote:
Seriously, what the f*ck nature?
#7 Aug 10 2009 at 12:13 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
I've found that when I exercise regularly I tend to want to eat better stuff. /shrug

____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#8 Aug 10 2009 at 12:16 PM Rating: Good
***
2,824 posts
My friend is a nutritionist that's in the eat right first camp. All of her plans involve two months of diet change before you ever step foot in the gym. Then again, she's ******* crazy so who knows.
#9 Aug 10 2009 at 12:20 PM Rating: Good
Tracer Bullet
*****
12,636 posts
Yeah, there's always a balance in these things between what works in theory and in practice, when human psychology is involved. They say "diets don't work" because people go off their diet and gain all the weight back. That doesn't mean the diet itself isn't "working," just that mental weakness causes it to fail in practice. I still think doctors and health organizations should start off by pushing the theoretical, difficult strategy rather than kowtow, but of course in many cases it would be best to compromise and use something that works in practice, that a person actually sticks with.

Myself, when I exercise, I tend to eat even healthier, because I don't want to spoil all the work I'm doing. Plus, I'm someone that doesn't get more than a superficial pleasure from eating something tasty. So I don't mind eating bland health food.

Of course ignoring all this, even if exercise doesn't help someone lose weight, it improves their cardiovascular health. Smiley: thumbsup



Edited, Aug 10th 2009 3:20pm by trickybeck
#10 Aug 10 2009 at 12:28 PM Rating: Good
Quote:
"The obese tend to expend more energy than lean people of comparable height, sex, and bone structure, which means their metabolism is typically burning off more calories rather than less."


That in no way implies they excercise more. Shockingly a larger body takes more energy to heat,a among other things. Puting on muscle increases the amount of calories your body burns more than fat pound for pound, but they both increase it.
#11 Aug 10 2009 at 12:34 PM Rating: Good
***
2,824 posts
The difference per day for 10 pounds of muscle vs. 10 pounds of fat is 40 calories. The article mentions that it's easy to think that you've put on all that muscle so you can eat more when the difference what you are actually burning is tiny.

Quote:
Yes, although the muscle-fat relationship is often misunderstood. According to calculations published in the journal Obesity Research by a Columbia University team in 2001, a pound of muscle burns approximately six calories a day in a resting body, compared with the two calories that a pound of fat burns. Which means that after you work out hard enough to convert, say, 10 lb. of fat to muscle — a major achievement — you would be able to eat only an extra 40 calories per day, about the amount in a teaspoon of butter, before beginning to gain weight. Good luck with that.


Edited, Aug 10th 2009 2:36pm by baelnic
#12 Aug 10 2009 at 12:59 PM Rating: Good
I think that, in addition to fat grams and calorie information, the nutrition panel on food packages should include: "You will gain x pounds if you eat this product." Smiley: nod
#13 Aug 10 2009 at 2:50 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
10,802 posts
I'm going to be echoing Nephy (where is he BTW?) on this but weight gain happens when there is an excess of caloric intake.

Instead doing a diet or working out, it's more of a mindset of living a healthy lifestyle.
#14 Aug 10 2009 at 2:56 PM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
17,302 posts
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
I think that, in addition to fat grams and calorie information, the nutrition panel on food packages should include: "You will gain x pounds if you eat this product." Smiley: nod


Well, they do have the Net Weight on the bottom of the box. So if you eat 1/2 lb of food for lunch, you would weight 1/2 lb more, for a while at least.
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#15 Aug 10 2009 at 4:08 PM Rating: Decent
Repressed Memories
******
21,027 posts
baelnic wrote:
The difference per day for 10 pounds of muscle vs. 10 pounds of fat is 40 calories. The article mentions that it's easy to think that you've put on all that muscle so you can eat more when the difference what you are actually burning is tiny.

Studies have varied widely on the subject, and a difference of 4 calories per pound is on the lower end of even the more conservative studies.
#16 Aug 10 2009 at 5:27 PM Rating: Good
****
4,158 posts
Thumbelyna Quick Hands wrote:
I'm going to be echoing Nephy (where is he BTW?) on this but weight gain happens when there is an excess of caloric intake.

Instead doing a diet or working out, it's more of a mindset of living a healthy lifestyle.


I lost 12 kilos in 4 weeks whilst eating a LARGE cooked breakfast, LARGE lunch and a MASSIVE dinner, and snacking on the likes of apple crumbles and custard, sandwiches and chocolate and half a dozen muesli bars every day.

The trick??

Get yourself to an altitude of 5000 metres or more and go for a long, long walk.

Hope this helps.
____________________________
"If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders". Carlin.

#17 Aug 10 2009 at 5:48 PM Rating: Good
**
290 posts
I can see where this author is getting his theory from mostly because I've experienced it personally. When I was reaching close to 300lbs I decided that my weight was getting ridiculous and needed to get under control and fast because diabetes does run in my family deep and hard. So, the next 8 months the only change i made was a conscious effort to eat 4 small meals throughout the day and no late night eating of any kind and to be realistic bout it. I totaled bout 1600 to 1800 calories a day and am now a healthy weight of 175. All without exercising of any sort. I could lose a little more if i wanted to but I don't want to look like bones and skin. lol

Another thing i noticed when got down so low, i did hit the plateau and i did try introducing cardio and weight training into my daily life. It was no dice. I wasn't seeing any results after a month of hard work and felt defeated and that lead to emotional eating. I did gain 5 lbs but that was enough to sober me back up and realize i was heading back down the old routine and eventually went back to my normal weight again.

I think in the end its a combination of psychology and physicality. Its rarely just one thing that causing any trouble when it comes to the human body and mind, IMHO.
#18 Aug 10 2009 at 6:10 PM Rating: Decent
***
2,211 posts
The main key I think is more that when you exercise you gain muscle mass which is heavier then fat. So you might lose fat, but you're gaining just as much in muscle mass. Eating right is the best way to keep weight off, with exercise to help keep you healthier.
#19 Aug 10 2009 at 6:14 PM Rating: Decent
*****
10,359 posts
Quote:
Get yourself to an altitude of 5000 metres or more and go for a long, long walk.


I don't know why this would work, but even if it's ambrosia, I don't think I can fly to Denver to burn calories.
#20 Aug 10 2009 at 6:33 PM Rating: Good
Tracer Bullet
*****
12,636 posts
Pensive the Ludicrous wrote:
Quote:
Get yourself to an altitude of 5000 metres or more and go for a long, long walk.


I don't know why this would work, but even if it's ambrosia, I don't think I can fly to Denver to burn calories.

What do you think he meant by "long, long walk?"



Edited, Aug 10th 2009 9:33pm by trickybeck
#21 Aug 10 2009 at 6:45 PM Rating: Decent
*****
10,359 posts
How bout splitting the difference and drive to denver? That should burn lots of calories right, right?!
#22 Aug 10 2009 at 6:46 PM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
17,302 posts
Drink ice cold water.
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#23 Aug 10 2009 at 7:05 PM Rating: Excellent
It's not only how much you eat, but what you eat. You can eat 10 pounds of steamed vegetables a day and drop weight like a stone, but if you eat only a pound of white bread, you'll go diabetic in a short time. While I'm not particularly fond of the Atkins diet, it does have the right idea that Americans are way too carb heavy in their diets, and the carbs we eat tend to be the wrong ones (overly processed sugars, not enough whole grains, etc.)

Also, those on a diet should focus on low-salt home made soups. My dinner tonight was the equivalent of half an onion, a clove of garlic, a tablespoon of parsley, a teaspoon of other herbs, a teaspoon of olive oil, and 3 oz or so of chicken. But because it was disguised in soup form (with a low sodium bullion cube) I had two big bowls of it and was full for many hours.

Healthy eating doesn't mean starving yourself, it just means skipping McDonald's and getting Subway instead.
#24 Aug 10 2009 at 7:25 PM Rating: Good
****
4,158 posts
Pensive the Ludicrous wrote:
Quote:
Get yourself to an altitude of 5000 metres or more and go for a long, long walk.


I don't know why this would work, but even if it's ambrosia, I don't think I can fly to Denver to burn calories.


It's because at high altitude, everything is extremely physically laborious. Even sleeping.

I would wake in the morning, dying for a ****, but would have to lie in bed for 5 minutes just getting my breath back before i could summon up the energy to walk outside.

At those sort of altitudes, you need huge amounts of calories to perform everyday tasks, such as walking or even sitting and breathing.

Add in 30 kilos of stuff to carry and shovelling in 3500 calories a day and still losing weight like an anorexic on a mission is easily achieved.

Weight loss/gain has always been about nothing more complicated than the ratio of calories consumed to calories burned.

Fitness is another thing entirely.
____________________________
"If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders". Carlin.

#25 Aug 10 2009 at 8:16 PM Rating: Good
Tracer Bullet
*****
12,636 posts

Oh, 5,000 meters. Yeah, you won't find that in Colorado. That's like -have oxygen on hand just in case- altitude.


#26 Aug 10 2009 at 8:34 PM Rating: Decent
*
142 posts
Weight gained or weight lost depends on your calorie intake vs calories burnt. Exercise will alter your metabolism and your body fat %. You might stay same weight just more muscle and less fat (this in turn will make you look thinner because muscle takes up less space than fat).

So in order to lose weight, you have to watch your food. If you want to lose weight and be fit you have to work out as well. Working out in itself is not enough.
« Previous 1 2 3 4 5
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 102 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (102)