Slashdot Mirror
Why Doesn't Exercise Lead To Weight Loss?
antdude writes "The New York Times' Well blog reports that 'for some time, researchers have been finding that people who exercise don't necessarily lose weight.' A study published online in September 2009 in The British Journal of Sports Medicine was the latest to report apparently disappointing slimming results. In the study, 58 obese people completed 12 weeks of supervised aerobic training without changing their diets. The group lost an average of a little more than seven pounds, and many lost barely half that. How can that be?"
The Hackers Diet makes it clear: Exercise just doesn't burn that many calories. You can lose weight just by eating less calories than you burn, no exercise required.
http://www.fourmilab.ch/hackdiet/www/hackdiet.html
They didn't change their diet. That's reason enough.
Putting stuff in your mouth is just step one. How you chew your food, how well it is digested, how active your metabolism is, all these will affect how much energy you actually get out of your food.
Still, physics still stand: Use more energy than you get through food you _will_ lose weight.
.: Max Romantschuk
Well, a 3.5 to 7 pound weight loss over 12 weeks isn't such a bad result. You can't just diet, you have to change lifestyle. TFA seemed kind of whiny, like one expects to magically melt the pounds off if you run around a while. Even moderate physical activity only burns a couple of hundred calories per hour - that's one brownie.
Then there is the issue of converting fat to muscle (which weighs more) and the fact that people in general don't exercise as much as they think they do. For most people, weight control is hard, it's basically a lifetime commitment to minimizing calories and maximizing physical work.
The world continues to deteriorate
Give up.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
Cause you eat to much fat f*ck!
Body weight management is a basic input/output formula (barring influencing medical conditions). I have no sympathy for the majority of obese people, a little self discipline goes a long way.
Oddly the article does not list exercise duration, but assuming that the 500kcal per session is accurate, these people are eating the equivalent of a small African village, which is hardly surprising.
Seems that the conclusion that this study found is that, getting a bunch of people consisting of mostly fat, make em actually move, generates muscles, weight reduction is not that significant, as they are mostly replacing fat with muscles. Any gym bunny could tell you that...
GPLv2: I want my rights, I want my phone call! DRM: What use is a phone call, if you are unable to speak?
Losing weight is an easy formula: intake fewer calories than you expend. Doing that can be hard for various reasons but weight loss boils down to that one principle. That's what we teach people who come to our clinic for help with their weight. The key is that you have to eat the right kind of calories so you stay healthy - you just restrict how much you eat. Exercise will help up to a point - after that, people start gaining weight because they gain muscle mass (that's a good thing though).
But..but...it's just thermodynamics! There's no way that the human body could be a complex organism that adapts to it's environment or anything like that! If you're fat it's because you're lazy! Exercise and you must lose weight! 2nd law says so!
Oh, wait...
"Where quality is like a dead stinking rat - you just can't miss it."
And I've been doing so for the last 6 months. I've been keeping track of what I eat in a database, and I can tell you that if you're not, you're constantly changing your diet. Eating till you're full will have drastically different nutritional values, and you're just not equipped to gauge that.
I've also been exercising. I wasn't losing weight until I did both.
Compared to keeping your body at 37 degrees, exercise hardly costs any energy. It just makes you healthier. The only way to lose weight is by eating less, and eating low-calory food.
-- Cheers!
calories in versus calories out, and you would have to exercise a ridiculous amount to change the 'calories out' to anything useful. not that exercise doesn't have great benefits in other areas, but for pure weight control diet is 10 times more important than exersize.
Simple. Just by changing your diet is all you need to do. You don't have to move a single muscle to lose weight, that's a fact (look up people in a comatose state). Your metabolism takes care of that naturally...even while sleeping.
I suspect the idea of exercising and bulking up to lose weight was supported by the media and all its vanity pushing ideals.
Life is not for the lazy.
Your body is not a simple machine. How much you eat impacts how much you use; simply cutting calorie intake will just cause your resting metabolism to drop. Worse, you might start metabolizing muscle.
When you exercise you lose fat and gain some muscle. Muscle is heavier than fat. So you don't lose much weight but you do lose fat.
If you just diet, you lose fat and gain no muscle so you're a lot lighter, but not fitter.
if you are still munching your way through 6 soft drinks, 2 packets of doritoes, a couple of chocolate bars and fried chicken each day you are still sucking in a hell of a lot more calories than you can burn off with just exercise?
The main role of exercise in weight loss is to help you maintain your metabolic rate ( or increase it a bit) while eating a normal amount of calories.
For a regular guy this should be about 2500 to 3000 Calories depending on your body size.
If you just cut your calories, your body is going to tend to just drop it's metabolic rate, so it's harder to lose weight with diet alone.
Oils and fats have 4 times the energy packed in them as carbs and protein, so if you are eating a lot of fatty food it is going to give you a lot of calories without filling you up much.
a normal healthy diet (ie. balanced protein/carbs and healthy fats, like from nuts, fish & avocados) plus exercise is the way to really succeed. Have a big heap of non-starchy veggies and it will really help fill you up without too much extra calories compared to having say, fries with your steak.
Oh. and diet drinks have been found to have a tendancy to fool your body it is starving, which gives you a bigger appetite, so avoid those & just drink fewer sugary beverages instead.
Losing weight isn't rocket science. Increase /maintain your metabolism a bit with 30 min excercise a day and reduce your calorie intake to below what your body burns is all you need to do - and be patient. Don't expect to lose more than about 2 pounds a week - any more is too fast and unsustainable in the long term.
The muscle you put on with exercise also helps you maintain your weight loss because muscle burns more energy than fat.
Break out of the overweight geek stereotype and be a healthy fit geek - you will think better too when you improve your circulation.
Geee... let me see... "without changing their diets" Could this perhaps be it?
"I'm burning 300 calories a day in excersise and taking in 2000 a day in whoppers. Why can't I lose weight?"
Science fail!
I lost 40+ pounds this year. Haven't exercised one bit.
How'd I do it?
I stopped eating for three people.
Exercise means nothing. Do you know how much exercise you need to do to burn off a single energy drink? Unless you're working yer arse off manually tilling fields all day, you either need to eat right (eg, more than likely eat a hell of a lot less), or get used to carrying around an extra person worth of fat.
If you just cut your calorie intake, your body will adjust. You have to exercise so you're body doesn't decide that your muscle mass is more expendable than your energy reserves (fat).
You must add muscles in order to lose weight. You lose most of your reserves by just being alive. By adding muscles, you will need even more food to survive, or you'll lose weight. I don't really understand what the mystery is here. It has been known for a long time. And if you want to use aerobic exercises, all the gyms will then force you on a special diet... I really fail to see what's new here.
...and why is this even on Slashdot???, For a minute I thought I was reading MSN.
It's not as simple as $poundsLost - exercising will build muscle and make you healthier in so many ways. Muscle is heavier than fat. Even if you didn't lose a bunch of pounds, after exercising for a while you're benefiting from a healthier cardiovascular system and more balance in terms of muscle tone. At the worst point in my health I started working out and I was pleased to lose a pound or two a week, because it wasn't just fat lost it was muscle gained as well. If you didn't lose a pound at all working out is worth it because your mood improves and your entire body feels better. Weight isn't everything.
As a computer nerd who lived with a body builder in college let me put this into perspective. 1.) If you eat a lot of food, or if you eat food with a lot of fat in it, then you gain weight. 2.) Losing weight requires a fundamental rethinking of your lifestyle. 3.) If you start doing push-ups, sit-ups and running daily but don't change your lifestyle then you will probably put on additional weight (muscle weighs more than fat). To lose weight you just need a healthy simple plan. Change the types of food you eat and cut calories, then take three days a week to begin working out. I personally lost 55 pounds in 12 months because I was dedicated to the process of getting into shape.
Muscle weighs more than fat.
Yes, per pound, muscle weighs more than fat... (please note the sarcasm)
We were all warned a long time ago that MS products sucked, remember the Magic 8 Ball said, "Outlook not so good"
It is physics.
"Exercise and you must lose weight! 2nd law says so!" isn't true as you point out. What is true is:
"Eat fewer calories than you expend in a day and you will have an energy deficit." Followed strictly, the body will either use energy stored in the body to make up for that deficit and you will lose weight, or you will waste away and die. That's the complicated part. Not the physics.
The observation period in this study is way too short to see an effect on body weight.
Muscles are heavier (more dense) than fat and exercise has some anabolic effect too. So in the first period a study person is loosing fat and gaining muscle mass. When the muscle amount stabilizes on the higher lever, you will see the weight drop. This effect was nicely seen in SuperSize me.
The best way to consider a weight loss program is this.
(Starting Weight) + (Muscle Gained) - (Fat Lost) = Current Weight
Most folks skip the muscle gained consideration and solely focus on the fat loss, thus throwing off the results interpretation. Calipers are cheap and easy ways to measure the change in fat loss, thus allowing for minimal weight changes to still be considered successful. In a pinch, you can also just check the changes in belt notches, jeans fit and whether or not you can see your toes when you look down.
"Common sense will be the death of us all"
Even if you're a tub of lard, the body reduce your metabolism and metabolize unused muscle mass before using fat reserves.
McDonald's hasn't been around long enough to have an evolutionary impact. Starvation has.
What kind of tag is that? Blow Job Sado Maso helps losing weight?
Still, physics still stand: Use more energy than you get through food you _will_ lose weight
Agreed, I call bullshit on any conclusion that make the claim that exercise doesn't lead to weight loss . Show me a overweight Olympic level marathon runner, and I might believe it.
Delta in < delta out = delta down.
HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
I read an article a while ago, and forgive me for not linking, you'll just have to take my word for it. :P It might have been on Ars Technica, but it could just as easily have been linked here.
Anyhow, the gyst of the article was that when you exercise, your body reacts to the higher concentrations of oxygen in your blood, besides other things. The problem is that if you drink lots of tea and coffee or are otherwise endowed with higher than normal levels of anti-oxidents, then your body actually has an easier time of coping with the results of your exercise. So tea and coffee actually "protect" you from benefiting from exercise on some level.
I think it's funny that a study published in a country famous for drinking tea is displaying these results.
Again, take it with a grain of salt since I haven't linked.
How does this matter? Bleah - myspace, twitter we are.
Perhaps some of these people actually performed physically strenuous work for a living and achieved the holy grail of trading fat for muscle.
BMI is part of the picture. You really have to look at body fat percentage. (Hint: body builders have horrible BMIs: their muscle is presumed as fat!)
Newbies to exercise can actually "lose weight" and "gain muscle" at the same time (because they have so little to begin with).
In Liberty, Rene
"simply cutting calorie intake will just cause your resting metabolism to drop"
No, it won't. That is simply wrong.
You have to cut your intake by a significant percentage and keep it that way, cutting calories moderately does not result in lowering your base metabolic rate, and is an effective way to slowly trim excess pounds.
I DESPISE the pseudo-experts like you who pop up whenever this subject comes up.
Stop pretending that you're knowledgeable because you perused a few web sites.
Hasn't it been shown in numerous studies that overweight and unfit is what's causing the health issues? Overweight and fit, does not.
But I suppose this isn't about being healthy, but about fitting in with the current "perfect body" image.
Burning 200 calories is not exercise. That's activity... exercise is what athletes do and for aerobic activity that means 2 hours at a time. It is disingenuous to make the blanket statement that exercise doesn't make you loose weight when you are doing amounts of work that any fit person would scoff at. I'm not saying a 250 pound + person is going to be able to do legitimate amounts of exercise, but over time as part of a healthy lifestyle they can work towards burning 500-700 calories in 1 hour. Most people have an extra hour a few times a week and those extra 1500 calories a week mean that you loose about a pound every other week. Anything more than a half a pound to a pound of weight loss in a week is generally considered overly aggressive.
Losing weight is a slow, methodical task. Worse, the slow speed means you won't be able to notice the effect. As I said elsewhere, I've been losing 2-3 kg a month for the last 6 months (for a total of about 17 kg or a bit less than 40lb), and I'm just starting to feel a difference.
There's no reason it has to stop at 15 lbs, though. I don't know where you're getting that.
What really works is fear. Here's what to do: pass out, go to the hospital, wonder if that's going to become commonplace and maybe you can't drive or go outside any more, ask doctors why you passed out and they don't know but tell you to lose weight.
Walk fast for 1 to 1.5 hrs every day and eat a lot of salad, shoot for 1200 calories a day intake (you won't get there but it's a target). Weight yourself on an accurate scale every week (protip: home scales suck, including expensive digital ones. They vary by a few pounds from measurement to measurement, especially if you move them. Try to find an old-timey balance-beam scale you can use, there's a reason the doctors have those in their offices). Went from 245 to 180 lb in something like a year (not 12 weeks!), at 1 to 2 lb per week. Now I've slacked on the salad and am back up to 188 dammit, but I've mostly kept it off for a year after, and kept on exercising.
That's discouraging actually... it can be done, but something has to scare you enough. Most people don't get that "lucky".
“If you work out at an easy intensity, you will burn a higher percentage of fat calories” than if you work out a higher intensity"
(from TFA)
That's surprising! Maybe that's why I gained 5lb after I started running instead of walking... and I told myself it was probably muscle ;-)
The group lost an average of a little more than seven pounds, and many lost barely half that
In other words, all of them lost weight. So why did slashdot put such a summary ?
Exercise is not necessarily linked to weight loss because body weight is a bad parameter. A much more interesting parameter is body fat %.
Muscle has a much higher density than fat, meaning that if you exercise, reducing fat and increasing muscle, your weight loss is negligible.
But who cares about weight, when exercise can cure your type II diabetes, strengthen your cardio-vascular endurance and make you feel comfortable in your own body.
When you eat 35,000 calories a day, a little exercise isn't going to make much difference.
Weight is a function of dozens of factors, not the least of which are diet, exercise, and genetics. Mental state is a huge factor, since fat storage (likely) evolved as a response to environmental stress. Even little things such as gut bacteria and ambient temperature affect weight. And diet and exercise are not anywhere near as simple as "running X number of minutes a day" or "eating Y number of calories per day". What you eat and how you exercise are much more important than how much or how little.
"I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
Do any of you British slashdotters in University have access to the full text of the second article? The brief description in the "methods" section doesn't say if the researchers were monitoring or controlling the diet of the subjects. It seems absurd that they would not, but it's possible that the lack of weight loss was partially caused by an increase in caloric intake. After all, the stated intent of the research was to study how the health benefits from exercise are affected by changes in body weight, not whether exercise is necessary or sufficient to achieve weight loss. The major result from the British study points out that exercise can make one a healthier and happier individual even if one doesn't lose much weight. The Colorado study refutes the popular notion that exercise causes an "afterburn" of fat. Both exercise and a diet change are necessary for weight loss, but neither one is sufficient by itself. Why is this surprising to anyone?
well - actually about 0.6 or so, and since a pound of fat is about 3500 kcal of energy, an average sized person (150 lbs) would need to run/walk 38 miles to burn a pound of fat - or I could just eat half portions for 3 days.
The study says they just lost a little weight, not none at all.
..........FULL STOP.
The sole purpose of fat reservoirs is to extend the time of survival in times of malnutrition. On the contrary people who do "exercise" in pre-historic times (meaning to do what everyone had to do) and were not able to retain or even gain weight, are more likely going to die in times of need. So people who fall into that pre-historic ultimate winner group and who want to loose weight need to eat less, much less.
The summary said that they didn't change their diets but the abstract makes no mention of that.
I suspect the poster just inferred that because they didn't mention diet in the abstract, but not mentioning diet does not mean the diet didn't change. In my experience when you exercise you tend to eat more. I'm not particularly large (BMI 24.9) but I've never lost any weight by increasing my exercise, it takes changing my diet to affect my weight.
I know for myself, and other relatively fit people I know, when we exercise more we simply eat the extra calories we burned. Of course this isn't the case for all people and I suspect that once you start getting larger you might start to see benefits more often, but note that diet is still the biggest single factor.
I'm actually surprised this study showed as big a difference as it did (-3.3 kg in 12 weeks is pretty good) although 31.8 BMI is starting to trend towards the chubbier side.
I stole this Sig
"If you just cut your calorie intake, your body will adjust."
No. It takes a significant reduction in calories over time to cause this, cutting say, 5-10% of your weekly intake won't do it, but will lead to weight loss overtime.
"You have to exercise so you're body doesn't decide that your muscle mass is more expendable than your energy reserves (fat)"
That's not why you exercise, and it's not necessary for weight loss.
Please, stop sharing your opinion until it's not wrong.
if you look at the same volume, since muscle is mostly water, and fat is well, fat. Last time I looked fat floated on water, and this means it's less dense.
Note that the original poster didn't mention per pound - that was your mistake.
..........FULL STOP.
Most of the "food" in grocery stores today, isn't (see documentaries "The World According to Monsanto, "Food Inc.," and Pollan's book "In Defense of Food" were he proclaims ""Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants."). Plus a lot of people are really, really lazy when it comes to moving around. You need to make exercise a lifestyle which means walking (or biking) more. We are animals. Animals need to move to stay fit. Unless you have some genetic condition, you're just eating wrong and not moving around enough. Now... let the whining excuses begin!
Time Magazine covered this three months ago. The article started off by pointing out that exercise stimulates hunger, which by itself is pretty obvious. But then they went into more interesting topics like "brown fat", which burns extra calories (humans don't have as much brown fat as other species), as well as psychology - the "self-control muscle."
They say that self-control is a zero-sum game and that by running for an hour, you are actually depleting your self-control to avoid eating a bag of chips. Like any "muscle," I'm sure one's psychology can be improved, but I've certainly noticed this myself: One reason I don't exercise more often is because I like having the energy to go to work.
Anyway, exercise does make you lose weight (duh). But in a 24 hour day, there are 23 great opportunities to ruin the 1 hour of real effort that you made.
Of course, the real question is, do athletes live longer? I think if they did, we would have heard about it by now. Either that, or we've stopped funding studies in this country. Because athletes living 10 years longer than the rest of us would be the blockbuster study for sure.
Not to mention that everyone has a slightly different ideal body weight. This has nothing to do with what you *think* you should weigh, how you look or what your BMI is (which I believe is a completely useless number). Muscle mass and bone structure or density can vary quite a lot from one person to the next, and both of these can be significant influences to your overall weight. As several posts have already pointed out, muscle weighs more than fat, so converting fat into muscle through exercise is not going to make you lose weight. Exercise can help develop lean muscle tissue and contributes to burning more calories, but the issues behind weight gain/loss are much more complex than that.
Its NOT superficially logical, but eating less is much better than exercise to lose weight! But exercise sounds appealing and people can sell it to you - capitalism. Whereas it is difficult to make money from eating less. Thus capitalism is so deeply entrenched even in science and logic that it seems illogical that exercise does not work well. Just think how capitalistic our science is; spend thousands of dollars and do Protestent hard work to lose weight. Gym membership, Fancy bikes, work out clothes, protein supplement, personal trainer. No pain no gain. Compare this to the easy way- just eat less. No big deal, easy. Lazy. - How unamerican! Micahel Pollan talks about this stuff, how 100 years ago everybody was thin and it was easy. Now everybody is highly educated and we are all fat. All very counterintuitive. Watch as china gets capitalstic and gets fat...
As a guy who lost 70 pounds of fat over 1 year I can tell you that the article is correct. This is due to the fact that fat tissue is replaced by muscle tissue , the latter beeing denser than the former. The whole point of trying to loose weight is not to care about how much you loose. The most important thing is to start exercising , and keep exercising. I did not watch my weight at all in the begining , all I cared was to run for at least 45 minutes for a session. But over the time , running became less tiring and more rewarding due to the endorphins released after the effort.
As I've said elsewhere, I've been losing 2-3 kg per month for the last 6 months. I also have a record of everything I've eaten in the last 9 months, and daily weighings. There's a very sharp turn at the point I added exercise to the mix.
7 pounds of fat in 12 weeks? One pound of fat is 3500 calories, so they were burning an extra 1500 calories per week. This equates to 200+ calories a day net loss. That's not bad for a diet by any means, but we also have to remember these are fat people! They were already eating excess calories (this is why they are fat).
I don't think these results are surprisingly in the least.
The title is broken. Exercise actually does lead to weight loss, as the linked article explains. Ben Goldacre has looked at claims that exercise does not lead to weight loss and has found that they are mostly bogus, using selective data to make a point that probably isn't there. He writes:
I know this is going to sound elitist, but can we get submissions approved that are less...pedestrian?
I'm seen the american diet. I am surprised that group lost any weight at all. When I was in the states I ordered small or normal portions of everything and most often couldn't finish them. And yet by european standards I can eat a lot.
They didn't lose weight because while the "scientists" weren't looking, the fatso's were sneaking off to the fridge for an extra serve of deep fried Mars bar with icecream and a pop-tart for garnish.
Or, they simple eat so much that their body can't absorb all of the fat with their low metabolism. Raise their metabolism and they simple absorb more to compensate.
dnuof eruc rof aixelsid
Everytime I exercise I gain weight, I started overweight about a year ago and am now 16 pounds heavier. I lost fat and gained muscle and I feel better for it.
Obsessing over weight is pointless as muscle is 3 times heavier per unit of volume than fat. BMI is a really stupid measure as it can't tell muscle from fat.
I'd need to actively work to "not change my diet" when exercising. That's part of the deal: When you exercise, the food you want and the amount you eat changes, because your body requires different things.
-- 'The' Lord and Master Bitman On High, Master Of All
I've never been able to pass 11.5 stone in weight no mater what I eat, for two years I used mollasis as a wight gain this has been shown to be the most effective way to put weight on and is also the reason its added to cattle feed. But no mater what I can't pass 11.5 stone? I've come to the conclusion that it must be because I don't chew much of my food I "Gulp" everything down and I take about 2500 Kcals a day that a bit more than any man needs to maintain weight! I believe because I chew little my digestive system has to burn more calories to break up the food I don't chew?
Did they really expect any results without moving from a high sugar/fat/calorie diet?
Burning fat just isn't the only or first tactic available. Reducing metabolism and muscle mass will also happen.
Though if you die of "starvation" with love handles, it'll really be malnutrition.
It's called "density", you know, dense...
Oh, wait, maybe you're already quite familiar with it...
Without exercising they would have gained on average 3 pounds in 12 weeks, average for obese people not in diet phase. So, with exercise they lost 1 pound a week, not as much as in a miracle-crash diet, but a decent amount.
Silly them. If an untrained person starts to exercise, (s)he is likely to build up muscles. And muscles are heavy, heavier than fat. So if they lost a few pounds, they should've SEEN a significant difference. Losing weight is very simple: use more calories than you take in. Exercising burns trough calories quickly, and even just having more muscles burns more calories when idling than before. If you, like in the study, don't change your diet and are obese, you are probably already taking in way too much calories - or increased the amount of food you eat because your body tells you to, to compensate for the exercise. Hence, no or no significant weight loss.
> a 3.5 to 7 pound weight loss over 12 weeks isn't such a bad result.
It is.
A good shit or two or so, and you get the same result.
That little doesn't mean much.
"Aerobic exercise" it says in the TA. Why not to the thing properly? 500 kCal per day, maximum 70% heart rate... Was this the "old ladies of both sexes" method of exercise?
For starters, they should have walked to the sports centre. It is unfortunately a sad world we live in. My father in-law once ran a major sports centre in the UK. He tells me that the most important aspect of success is to have the parking lot just in front of the entrance.
These people went from doing no exercise it would appear, to performing a tiny amount of exercise. I am certain that had they added:
"Walk 3 km (2 miles for part the world) to the sport centre, do your little thing, walk 3 km to get back home afterwards. Walk to work, walk back from work."
the results would have been more impressive.
Obligatory schooling was introduced in my native Sweden in 1842. It was then decided that school should start at 7. Not because of the maturity of the children, but because it was decided that a 7-year old can walk, alone, 3 km to school, and 3 km back. This would be too much for a 6-year old. Therefore, by starting school at 7, much fewer school buildings would need to be constructed.
Note to UK readers:
The frequency of paedophilia was most likely just as large as it is now. People, for some reason, decided not to introduce a police state at the same time though. Maybe their risk assessments were a bit more realistic in those times.
Resting Metabolism is about 1000 kcal /day
So about a pound of fat every 3 days.
Another 1000 ish is enough for sedentary living.
With some cardio conditioning, a person can burn 1000kcal / hour a few times a day. however, the body will scavenge muscle if glucose is unavailable. so the calories go up a bit.. but the weight can drop like a rock.. if someone can find a spare 4 hours a day. with an hour a day, it still drops reasonably. A 2000-3000 kcal diet is fine if your cranking 2+ hours of cardio.
Exercise always makes me hungry!
Muscle weighs more than fat.
Yes, per pound, muscle weighs more than fat... (please note the sarcasm)
People that should know better keep saying 'muscle weighs more than fat', It's obvious bull. What they mean is muscle weights more than fat PER UNIT OF VOLUME.
Modern humans are consuming huge amounts of carbohydrates as compared to our ancestors. If you want to get in better shape then you might want to mimic (to an extent) what we ate before carbohydrates took over the majority of our diets, for example: meat, nuts/seeds, vegetables, and fruit. Throw in some moderate exercise and that will be end of obesity (unless your a genetic freak).
The problem is homeostasis - your body is self-regulating, and if you do more exercise you'll eat more. What's surprising is not how much people eat varies, but how much it stays the same. A recent documentary pointed out that a bodyweight of 40 stone comes to those who eat one third of an apple too much every day.
Also, obese people don't eat more than thin people - they often eat far less. One route to this seeming contradiction is diet and exercise. Sustained hunger and overexercise both trigger the autonomic stress response. That increases the amount of calories you burn - but it also makes your body burn muscle rather than fat for energy. As your muscle mass reduces, your resting metabolic rate drops. Because you need protein to replace lost muscle, you get hungry - and because high-protein foods are relatively expensive and inconvenient, the high fat high carb no protein snack foods tend to be preferred. That means you accumulate bodyfat, stay hungy and stressed, and continue to lose muscle and reduce your resting metabolic rate.
Why don't doctors explain this? As far as I can tell, as soon as you mention the word protein they think you're going to become a steroid abusing protein obsessed freak. They don't understand that overeating is unpleasant (just ask a bodybuilder - they have to force-feed themselves), so if you're eating enough of the nutrients you need you will naturally stop eating. They *KNOW* that increasing your protein intake tends to reduce your appetite and lead to reduced bodyweight - studies have proven it repeatedly. Rather than accept that this is simply because you're now getting the protein you need for homeostasis, some doctors prefer to imply that protein is an unhealthy appetite-suppressing narcotic! It's very much like all the studies that have consistently shown that obese people often eat less than thin people - rather than try to understand it (if you didn't notice, one mechanism is described in this reply) the normal reaction is to declare it impossible, call everyone involved liars and a frauds etc etc. Proof by closed-minded denial.
Speaking of exercise and weight loss, does anyone know of an online calorie calculators that figure calories burned based on:
Weight
Distance
Effort (type of exercise)
All of the online calculators I've been able to find use time instead of distance, which makes no sense. If I move a given weight (my body) a given distance (e.g. 5 miles) using a standard type of effort (walking/running, or bicycling which takes less effort), then the calories burned are the same no matter the speed. This is basic physics. But all of the online calculators say that the faster you go the fewer calories you burn. If it takes 25 minutes to run 5 miles or 100 minutes to walk 5 miles, it still takes the same amount of "work" to move a mass that distance, and the calories burned should be approximately the same. If I ride my bike 20 miles and it takes 1 hour my effort per minute will be *about* twice the rate as if it takes 2 hours and both rides should require (burn) about the same amount of calories. But the calorie calculators say that the slower ride burns twice as many calories because I rode for a "longer" period.
"I'd much rather be mistaken as a lesbian by a bigot than be mistaken as a bigot by a lesbian."
Lose over 100lbs by running then eh? These ass-clowns that suggest exercise doesn't help you lose weight are so full of it! After many years of working out, I have come to find excess fat to be wasted energy. Meaning that you eat something, and if you do not perform some activity strenuous to burn those calories, they end up on your stomach, thighs, neck, arms, thighs, and ass.
-Oz
The researchers did a very naive thing - they followed the standard aerobic exercise program, which is widely known not to help with weight loss. Everybody knows that if you want to lose weight, the right way to do it is to exercise hard, not to do aerobic exercise. Aerobic exercise is for improving your cardiopulmonary fitness, not for losing weight. What surprises me is that these researchers didn't know that, and didn't study the regimen that fitness trainers actually recommend for weight loss: building muscle mass with exercise much closer to your aerobic limit. Burning calories in the workout is a waste of time - what you want to do is increase the number of calories your body burns outside of the workout, and you do that by building muscle and not bonking (not allowing your glycogen levels to drop to zero during the workout).
There's more than calories and exercise to losing weight.
High calcium is important while losing weight for instace, people often cut out dairy when dieting, and a lot of people don't eat enough calcium anyway. (studies have shown)
Less accessible energy sources are a good idea too, hydrophilic colloids can create a matrix through which your nutrients get absorbed. (In terms of what you eat this means stew/chilli/curry with flour in it, also cut out simple sugars)
Ticking all your mineral and vitamin intake boxes is a really good idea (a daily multi vitamin is a great way to do this).
I personally found I could lose a lot of previously very stubborn weight by doing the above and then running for an hour in the morning. (n=1 study and so totally worthless)..
A lot of the overweight people in the study may have been overweight partly because of their bad diets in the first place, without changing that you don't expect changes.
Famine victims in third world countries would presumably get at least moderate exercise, what with not having cars. That said, no one is suggesting that you'll lose all or even a large portion of your muscle mass from dieting.
As someone who has done a bit of bulking up and trimming down, I can tell you that the general opinion in professional fitness is that in order of importance losing weight is: - 50% what you eat - 30% how much muscle you have - 20% exercise 7 pounds on just ramping up your exercise and changing nothing else - including continuing to consume extra calories that made the person fat in the first place? Actually those results are pretty good!
Your body knows better than you how to manage itself. You have to exercise _and_ change your diet. It's not just a problem of caloric intake, it's really about how efficiently your body can process what you take in. The caloric chambers used to come up with the numbers on boxes are absolute for the chemical composition, but the human body is more complex than that. America is getting fatter because portions are increasing along with the level of processing. Processing increases the bio-availability, so volume-wise it's even worse in terms of what your body keeps around. Dieting sends the body into an evolutionarily conserved "oh crap, food is scarce" storage binge. Just exercise while cutting your volumetric intake and increasing the fruits and vegetables in your diet. Three colors on your plate per meal is the rule of thumb.
7 pounds in 12 weeks isn't a bad result; experts recommend a weight loss of half a pound per week, so they were in the range.
Still, a good explanation for the relatively small weight loss is that they were developing muscle while loosing fat, as they moved from a sedentary lifestyle to working out 5 times a week; it would have been nice to see the body fat percentage before and after the 12 week period.
Speed Dial for Firefox
Fat is less dense than muscle. You may weigh a bit less but it'll be muscle, not fat so you'll be significantly smaller.
It takes about 12 weeks to see results. Then you just have to keep it up, which is why I chose karate and jujutsu. You get fit and it isn't mind numbingly boring.
Btw, the failure rate for diets is something like 95%[1] which it pretty bloody significant scientifically.
[1]http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/2725943.stm
Deleted
The exercise test described in the NY times article is what we cyclists call a recovery ride and I would expect that it would only burn through a couple hundred calories at best ..
I am a computer nerd, but I also race on my bike and train between 6-10 hours a week. Typical workout is 2 hours and my calorie burn is about 600 calories per hour. This is the equivalent of about 1-2 pounds a week of weight. And I have to make sure I eat enough to maintain my weight. When I took 4 weeks off in September my weight shot up 8 pounds ....
It really does end up as calories in versus calories used. But the amount of hard work it takes to burn through 3500 calories (a pound of fat) is far far more than most people think it is.
Fat can not be converted to muscle. It can be stored or burned. That's it.
Perhaps the original poster meant fat is replaced by muscle... rather than literally converted to.
You can just diet. Take in fewer calories than you burn, and you will lose weight.
Scientifically, 95% failure rate is highly significant.
Which means, no you can't just diet. It doesn't work. It's been proven not to work.
Deleted
One of the problems with these types of studies is that they pay attention to variables that are easily measured rather than those that are more meaningful. Measuring weight is easy, but less meaningful than Body Mass Index. Measuring Body Mass Index is also a fairly easy calculation, but is less meaningful than Body Composition (which shows the relative proportions of fatty and non fatty tissues). This is of course just a symptom of the larger problem, which is a lack of clarity and purpose when it comes to the stated goals of the study. If the goal is to improve appearance one should measure size rather than weight, or to be more scientific, to compare both segmental body composition and circumferential measurements over the course of the study, with separate goals based on gender. Both genders typically want to reduce waist circumference, but men typically want bigger upper arms and don't worry about saddlebags, while women often want to reduce both of those areas. Significant changes in these areas are possible with apparently minimal changes in weight, primarily due to the fact that fat is less dense than muscle, and that weight-bearing strength activities that are intense enough to add meaningful amounts of muscle can also lead to increased bone density, which also adds weight without a net increase in volume. If on the other hand the study claims to be aimed at improving health, fitness or wellness they would do well to primarily focus on activity and performance-based measurements and downplay bodyweight. It has been well-established that moderately heavy people who are active can be considerably healthier than their slender but sedentary colleagues.
Whereas before they were probably GAINING a pound or three a month, now they're losing as much as 7 pounds over this period. It's not a great mystery, burn more calories than you consume. Exercise is only one piece of the puzzle.
If you adjust your diet to reduce your caloric intake to a reasonable level (1800-2000 calories a day is reasonable for most people), and increase exercise to increase lean muscle mass (which increases your resting metabolism) as well as burn more calories during the day then you're going to lose weight.
What did they expect? They were going to drop 10 pounds a week like on "Biggest Loser" just by modest exercise alone?
-B-
Well duh, if you say that something weights more than something else, that's obviously not by pound! :D
You just got troll'd!
It CAN work if you follow some simple rules:
1. Eat 5-6 small meals a day containing protein and always eat breakfast. 75% of the meals should be 'healthy' (i.e. low in junk carbs like pasta and bread). You can use protein shakes as a couple of these meals per day.
2. Do weight training around 3 times per week for about 30-45 mins (varying the routine every 2 weeks or so).
3. Do light cardio 2-3 times per week on non-weight training days.
4. Drink plenty of water.
That's basically it and it works.
Moderate exercise, i.e. being active does lead to weight loss if you are overweight. If you were leading a normal active lifestyle then you would not be overweight in the first place.
I know a lot of people are going to talk about CoE. After all, that's the driving equation here. It is absolutely correct, but can we not glean more insight into the problem?
IWAHTE (I Was A Heat Transfer Engineer), so my guess is that what's going on is that people spend the vast majority of their calories maintaining body temperature. If you eat less, your body's first reaction might well be to reduce skin temperature, maintaining core temperature. This theory links the fact that women eat less then men by 20% with the observation that women are complain about being cold earlier than men. Less calories burnt to keep skin temperature high.
In the case of someone who is overweight, they have an additional layer of blubber (yes, basement /. denizens, you are coated in blubber) that insulates them and maintains their core temperature for free. Maybe there's a hysteresis? First the body weight comes down, then the body learns it can waste excess heat maintaining skin temperature, and then, and only then, the body is free to consume additional calories.
Now, I don't do human anatomy, so a doctor would have to chime in and confirm just how much of the body's caloric consumption is lost to heat, vs. other bodily functions.
A personal example: on an average day, I eat some 3500 calories. But I am athletic, and only weigh 70, so this is a "good" 3500 kCal. What I notice is that my skin temperature is always warm, especially compared to women. In fact, I am very comfortable when the temperature is around 15deg inside. I go outside on a 5deg day in nothing more than a sweater and a top hat. I routinely mock my friends who wear a sweater, coat, and scarf when I'm sitting around in short sleeves. Certainly, my body is horribly inefficient, and if society falls in some sort of catastrophe, I will certainly be one of the first to starve (if my 20/800 eyesight doesn't make me walk off a cliff first). However, in a society that has mass amounts of overconsumption, it seems to fit me just fine.
A second personal example: I dated a German doctor who as a 16-year-old doing a year-abroad in Minnesota, had been anorexic. After she came back, she put on a lot of weight: obviously her body reacting to the extreme abuse she had given it. Now as a 25-year-old, she was in the Bundeswehr (German army), and this girl could RUN. She ran marathons. She ran 2 hours with 25kg of weight attached to her. And yet she was always, always overweight by 8kg or so vs. her pre-American anorexia bout. Not a lot, but she was... pudgy. She'd been to doctors, etc, and could do nothing to get her weight down. I lived with her for a while, I can guarantee she ate nothing but healthy food, and only somewhere around 1600-1800kCal/day. However, she liked her rooms warm.
So I am less physically active, yet consume twice as much. The only thing that can explain this is that physical activity just doesn't use that many calories, not compared to maintaing body temperature. Since I go outside without a coat, I burn more calories than she does to maintain the same core temperature.
My two cents, but I certainly welcome other /.er ideas, though.
www.eissq.com/BandP.html Ball and Plate System. Amuse your friends. Crush your enemies.
I totally agree that this is much more important than most people think.
I've been training hard (swimming) for the last 4 weeks. So far i've lost 0.6kg total weight, which is below my expectations. However, I also have been taking bodyfat measurements, which show that I've actually gained 1.4kg of muscle, and lost 2kg of fat.
As sticking with a routine is really about mentality, it really helps to know that you're making progress.
Accurately estimate bodyfat using a measuring tape
But I think it's fair to say that you couldn't remain healthy on 900 calories a day, where as 1700 - 800 is entirely doable. In fact that's very close to what I've been doing.
I like the approximation that dieting is 40%, exercise is 30% and the rest is genetics. More importantly, weight is not such a 'big' deal, but where it's distributed and what the tissue is, that matters.
Often wrong but never in doubt.
I am Jack9.
Everyone knows me.
I've recently started going to the gym on a regular basis, but didn't really expect to lose much weight from it at least in the short term. I've been 19 stones for quite a while and I've temporarily lost weight a few times before through dieting but I always seem to just return to the same weight. However I've got a set of body composition scales to monitor what's going on more than just plain weight. In the two months I've been going to the gym, my weight has dropped half a pound (i.e. none, since my water weight changes by that much if I have a cup of coffee), however I've lost 5 pounds of fat.
The main benefit I'm hoping with my weight is longer term, since muscle burns through calories faster. I can see from the calorie counters on the aerobic equipment at the gym, my morning workout will only get through about 400 calories, and it usually leaves me feeling hungry and so I probably eat that much extra food. But in the longer term I should be burning more calories just sitting around throughtout the day.
I tried a new machine in the gym the other day, but I had to give it up after 30 minutes as it made me feel sick... ...I can only eat so many chocolate bars...
AT&ROFLMAO
Unless I'm mistaken the number -3.3 ±3.63kg (Pgained weight "due to" the exercise ("due to", perhaps "during" should be better).
And then the article goes "but you should still do exercise, even if it fattens you" for a few paragraphs and starts looking at all sorts of justifications to still stating that exercise was the correct advise for weight loss even if, you know, it didn't actually lead to weight loss ...
They sound like politicians explaining how they fulfilled their campaign promises ...
Simple: The Universe is a hologram, and you'll only loose weight if you believe you will, and thus project slimness into your "physical" being.
Despite attaining lower than predicted weight reduction, these individuals experienced significant increases in aerobic capacity (6.3 ±6.0ml.kg-1.min-1; P<0.01), decreased systolic (-6.00 ±11.5mmHg; P<0.05) and diastolic blood pressure (-3.9 ±5.8mmHg; P<0.01), waist circumference (-3.7 ±2.7cm; P<0.01) and resting heart rate (-4.8±8.9bpm, p<0.001).
The reduced waist line should be an indicator of fat loss, I think people are confusing weight loss with fat loss. The take-home story should be to not rely on weight loss as an indicator of benefit from exercise - not that exercise doesn't reduce fat mass.
First let me declare interest, I'm 59 and a fairly hard-core greenie (although my house is filled with computers, Negroponte: move bits not atoms!).
I run 2/3 three times a week, don't use a car, don't drink (that's important massive amounts of calories) and have an 'asian' style diet, steamed rice, steamed veg, veg curries, lots of fish and also porridge or oats (rather than sugary cereals) for breakfast. Fruit rather than sugary desserts.
But I'm not a food/exercise fascist, I eat ice-cream, burgers and chocolate from time to time and if I don't feel like it or feel ill, I don't run. Of course, being out of a car and running up and down the subway stairs provides a lot of extra aerobics too, cheaper that gym membership.
My weight stays steady at about 62-64kg, I weigh myself but I don't obsess, calorie count or distance count. Weight goes down if I eat 'more' veggie, which I do from time to time. So my point about this is that it's a whole sustained unspectacular program and healthy way of life that does it. I was heavy in my mid forties, all this sorted it, gently and keeps it sorted.
On y va, qui mal y pense!
Didn't want to read TFA since it would not be in keeping with the slashdot way.
But weight is only one data point. Did the exercise change their body makeup (ie: % bodyfat) significantly? And not using the dumb-ass BMI but an actual measurement of bodyfat. (the better the shape you're in, the worse the BMI method in any way resembles reality)
You'd be burning calories but adding muscle.
Anyway, *not* consuming the calories in the first place is the obvious best way to, uh, not pack the calories on. Like the cheapest "alternative" energy is conservation.
Why doesn't exercise lead to weight loss? Well, according to this article... it does!
Starvation response doesn't kick in until you are starving. Cutting you diet by 10% or 20% will not trigger it. My wife fasted for 4 weeks, no food at all only the liquid from steamed vegetables, she also worked 16 hour days in a garden, digging and weeding.
The trick is to excercise when you come off the fast, or all the new food turns to fat.
The biggest mistake the majority of people who go on a diet is that they approach it as a way to lose weight.
Actually the only way to do this effectively is to approach it as a change in lifestyle, and accept that this is how you are going to be eating for the rest of your life (if you want to stay in good health that is). The next step is to find a diet that can match this requirement. diets like weight watchers do work, but the most effective diet that I have found is a Low Glycemic Load diet. Stabilizing ones blood sugar automatically creates an environment where the body begins to rid itself of excess weight. I use the word diet in the context of a way to eat, and not as a means to an end. The next step is to learn to eat correctly and stick to
It. It takes about 3 months to learn to eat correctly, and can take about 6 months to become acclimatised to the new lifestyle. On a low GL diet one can lose 1 to 2 pounds a week. This continues until you are within your normal body weight range, and then it stabilizes.
I would really recommend a low GL diet to anyone who is serious about wanting to switch to a healthy and vibrant lifestyle.
Participatory Governance : The only feasible option for a real democracy, where everyone really does have a say.
Fat people are always full of excuses.
I have been thin and I have been fat. The difference between the two was I ate a lot, drank a lot of beer, and exercised very little when I was fat. The opposite was true when I was thin. Imagine that. I wonder if there's a causal relationship.
(For the stupidly insane, the answer is yes--there was.)
Camping on quad since 1996.
How does the sentence, "The group lost an average of a little more than seven pounds [from exercise], and many lost barely half that" get parsed into "Exercise does not lead to weight loss"? This is a geek news site, and the editors of a story posted in science section can't do maths? FFS...
Antiquis temporibus, nati tibi similes in rupibus ventosissimis exponebantur ad necem.
This made me laugh. Mostly becaues I've lost about 7 pounds reccently (not quite 12 weeks, more like 16) and a significant improvement in my general well being. I'm not overweight, not an over-eater, but my weight as creeping up and I was developing a beer gut. The solitary change I've made is making a point of boosting fibre and protein intake skipping the junk food. I do have some exercise.
But really, the secret to being healthy is quite simply to stop beating around the bush, prosetylizing and making excuses. An attitude change, together with getting a freaking clue is the single real solution.
Here is the multi step approach to a fitter you and keeping the weight off:
1. Do or do not, there is no moderation. Don't eat bullshit food and don't prosetylize about it if you do give in to temptation. Embrace your guilt, harden up and resolve to better.
That includes sugary drinks, salty fatty chips, snack foods, white pasta, white rice, white bread, butter/margarine, foods loaded with thickeners and no reall food content. These foods are bad even in very small quantities. They are for all practical purposes, poison. Moderation is trying to sugar coat it, and guess what you'd eat that too. These are addictive foods, the less you eat of them the more you'll not want them.
*The low fat varieties are even worse than full fat, becaues the glycemic index goes up. *
2. Avoid foods loaded with artificial flavours, MSG, artificial sweetners, food acids etc. Becaues these foods lie to your brain and your palate. MSG is cheating, used where there is little actual food content. Same with flavours and food acids, these substitute for natural ingredients that could have potentially given you some nutritional value. Artificial sweetners are purely demonic. They still send all the same signals to your brain, but without the calorific hit, thus making you crave more carbohydrates. There is research showing sweetners can permanently reset the calorie gauge in rats, and research in humans showing ditching the sweetners alone, resulted in weight loss. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/02/080210183902.htm (one example)
Interestingly natural sweetners such as Xylitol have been shown (by multiple peer reviewed studies) to have health benefits
3. Get a clue on what a portion size is - because this is assuredly the main problem with the North American diet. It explains the french paradox, and how my American plates don't fit properly in my European dishwasher. Don't supersize that combo, unless you want to feed 3 adults with it. Better yet go home and make a wholegrain sandwhich.
4. Learn to cook, because you'll learn to love food, you'll learn to actually taste things for flavours and recalibrate your palate for texture, flavour, spice, rather than sweet/salty/fatty and flavourless shite which is what contemporary palates have adapted to. You need food to live, and paradoxically it'll slowly kill you if you get it wrong.
Most kids these days are growing up unable to name many vegetables let alone know how do to much more than rip a seal off a microwave dinner or open a packet of crisps. Don't let your kids end up like that.
5. Healthy food does not taste bad, get this into your head. If you think good food is bad, you are brainwashed by the gazillion marketting messages for junk food that hit you every day. Last time I checked I'm cooking with herbs I grow and fresh whole foods, lean meats, lots spices, and this stuff and the things you can make with it are delicious, especially if you have a sodding clue how to cook.
6. Hack your food. Sure I have porridge for breakfast, yuck you say. Well my porridge is hacked, I have wheat germ, wheat bran, a seed mix with flax seed (killer omega 3 hit), thats the nutrition taken care of, tastes ok kind of hearty. What makes it taste better than any store brought
After logging in slashdot still does not take you back to the page you were on. It's been that way for 20 years.
...when you stuff your face with twice as much fat and fast carbs than what your body can process anyway, wriggling your fat around a bit and calling it exercise is like trying to empty a dam of water by scooping a bit of it manually over the edge (with a siphon).
Cut sugar, sugar contained foods. Potato, bread...
Drop your blood sugar to burn your fat.
Plain simple.
Or mock me with your high knowladge about this than.
And while you mocking me, I'm melting just sitting down here and slasdotting...
[My english is better than most other people's Turkish, so please point out mistakes politely. Thank you.]
I was once obese, 300 lbs. I lost 100 pounds over an 18 month period by going on a low carb diet, with no significant extra exercise. My thoughts on that are that if your body is capable of going into ketosis (the mode where it gears up for using fat as energy, both from food in the stomach and fat stores throughout the body) then it is effective for weight reduction. Also, eating a low carb diet got very boring for me, and I found myself eating less because of this (was never hungry or starving myself though). This of course is different for everyone.
Next major body change was when I joined the Navy. I went into boot camp weighing 199, I got down 8 weeks later weighing 199 but with vastly less body fat. My physical structure changed significantly. I started off not eating to much, but ending up consuming pretty large amounts of calories (and drinking tons of water, that is very much forced on new recruits to avoid dehydration problems which are very common when you are exercising in one form or another for most of the day.) Most of the people in my division did not lose weight, some gained a few pounds, all were in vastly improved physical condition. Not big body builder type musles, but lean endurance muscles.
The best method of weight control/weight loss I know is to not eat until I feel full. If I am hungry I will eat until the hunger stops, and then wait 15 to 30 minutes. Sometimes I find there is more room, usually I find that I am full. It seems to take food some time to settle in and for my stomach to give the feedback to the brain that it is doing alright. The stomach is actually a pretty small organ and the digestive system seems to operate best when working on small loads. Full loads both have the effect of stretching and enlarging the stomach (thus making it more difficult to feel full) and diverting energy to digestion (alot of energy is consumed for digestion, thats why people go on health fasts, to give the rest of the body a period of time where the body's energy can be continuously applied to other systems for repair and maintenance. Thats the idea anyway) that could be used for other things, like keeping one alert and full of energy and providing for the immune system to do its job.
My $0.02
you forget the fundamental psychological effect.
7 pounds, in 12 weeks - some claim it's not bad, some claim it's weight loss so it's okay and so on.
First off, if you weight 238 pounds, going down to 232 pounds is just a pathetic joke. It took you 3 months to get there. It will take you 5 years to get there at current speed. It would be a reachable goal if it was fun, but...
But the second problem is that it's a dull, boring, miserable exercise. From a slim person's point of view, exercise makes you feel far less miserable than from an obese one's.
The thermal isolation makes you sweat like a pig and overheat in matter of minutes.
If lifting a weight uses 50 joules of energy, a fit person will easily lift it, expending the 50 joules distributed equally throughout the volume of thick muscles. A person with poor muscles will expend the same 50 joules but concentrated in thin, weak muscle that aches, hurts and throbs with exertion, it uses the same insignificant amount of energy but feels vastly worse.
The fat gives you extra weight for exercises like push-ups, sit-ups or pull-ups. Sure you use more energy but don't neglect the psychological effect, how miserable and ashamed you feel without breath after two push-ups.
Then you start feeling hungry, and the body which has a tendency to gain fat, usually gains it because your hunger feels more intense to you than to most slim people who just shrug it off. Take it from an obese person, getting really hungry feels somewhat like drug starvation, you feel ultra-miserable. And still you need to cut on the calories.
Oh, with even little strong will you will go like that for a month easily, suffering and feeling miserable, but telling yourself you're doing it to lose weight to be able to do all the things you can't do because you are obese.
After second month of being miserable like that you start having second thoughts.
After third month, when you went from 240 pounds to 220, you can see it will take you another 3 years of feeling miserable before you get out of this swamp. You say "fuck it", drop the exercise and start eating again.
If you can devise a diet that is low-calorie but filling and tasty, if you can devise exercises that are fun, it could work.
And even worse if eating is your method for stress. It becomes a habit. Something stresses you out and you won't calm down until you fill up your stomach. It's a habit like smoking or drinking. Unfortunately, the fundamental rule of dropping any habit is to drop it entirely. If you're a chain smoker, no one smoke a day, you just have to stop. If you're an alcoholic, you can't drink one and stop, you can't drink alcohol at all. But what about eating? You can't drop eating entirely. It's a horrible habit to drop, really.
45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
We have known for a while that exercise by itself is not as effective as diet for weight loss. However, weight loss due to dietary changes are much much less likely to "stick" without an exercise program. That being said, the target rate of weight loss is only 10% in a six month period. So a loss of 7lb in 12 weeks? Not too shabby - especially considering that they are probably gaining muscle mass which is heavier than fat during those 12 weeks. The real question in my mind would be if they kept this off. It is easy to lose lots of weight quickly (crash diets make you lose lots of water weight). Keeping it off though is hard, and exercise is one thing that helps keeps those pounds off.
-- The Genesis project? What's that?
Exactly. Who cares about losing weight? What most people want is to lose *fat*. If you lose fat and gain muscle, that's even better.
-- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
The Sunday Telegraph here in the UK ( http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/6083234/Health-warning-exercise-makes-you-fat.html ) used pre-publication data from this study that Blundell has stated totally mis-represented its findings (that, amongst other things, only 15% of the study group gained weight, and that they were all ones who ate more than usual during the study period.)
That article also quoted the one of 43 trials reviewed by the Cochrane Library that did not show a significant weight-loss in the participants (it says "some surprising studies in America " when it means "one surprising and possibly unrepresentative study in America". The lead author of that study, Dr Timothy Church of Louisiana University, seems to undermine the validity of his own study, in which the participants were asked not to alter their diet by saying (according to the Telegraph article) "after spending time in the gym, they eat a chocolate muffin, which undoes all of the work they did.”
The Telegraph unaccountably ignored the 42 studies which did not conform to what appears to be their preconception.
For more information see ( http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/aug/29/telegraph-exercise-fat-bad-science ), or go to Ben Goldacre's own site ( http://www.badscience.net/ ) for a fuller version.
That's your problem right there. Let's see:
Fat is a long term storage form of energy. Everything (proteins, glucose) can be converted to fat, but fat cannot be converted back to glucose (unless you count the lone glycerol molecule that holds the 3 fatty acids together on the triglyceride). It's NOT a reverse reaction. Thus the problems begin. It's easy to make fat, and hard to get rid of it.
So how is exercise supposed to get rid of fat then? Well, fat CAN be converted to acetyl-COA and shoved into the Krebs cycle. Only the Krebs cycle is an AEROBIC process and takes place in the mitochondria, not in the cytoplasm of the cells. Aha! Problem #2. Sedentary people have fewer mitochondria than athletic people. Therefore their ability to "burn" fat as acetyl-CoA is limited. An athlete can burn fat just as efficiently as glucose, the only difference being he'll lose out on the couple ATP from glycolysis.
So you need mitochondria, in quantity, to burn up acetyl-CoA and therefore fat. If you don't get rid of the acetyl-CoA somehow, the whole catabolic process starts backing up. How do you obtain mitochondria? Increased exercise - over a sustained period. 12 weeks is hardly enough to increase the number of mitochondria in your muscle cells, much less expect them to burn through a dozens of kilos of fat. But the title of this article is misleading - according to the study the cited article is based on -
Mean reduction in body weight was -3.3 ±3.63kg (P less than 0.01). However, 26 of the 58 participants failed to attain the predicted weight loss estimated from individuals' exercise-induced energy expenditure. Their mean weight loss was only -0.9 ±1.8kg (P less than 0.01). Despite attaining lower than predicted weight reduction, these individuals experienced significant increases in aerobic capacity (6.3 ±6.0ml.kg-1.min-1; P less than 0.01), decreased systolic (-6.00 ±11.5mmHg; P less than 0.05) and diastolic blood pressure (-3.9 ±5.8mmHg; P less than 0.01), waist circumference (-3.7 ±2.7cm; P less than 0.01) and resting heart rate (-4.8±8.9bpm, p less than 0.001). In addition, these individuals experienced an acute exercise-induced increase in positive mood.
So they ALL lost weight. Only some (probably cheated on their diets/lied about their original diet) lost LESS weight than others. Continuing the exercise for more than 12 weeks would probably have caused further reduction in weight. I don't know HOW the submitter can turn that into "Why Doesn't Exercise Lead To Weight Loss?". Oh yeah, but this is slashdot- news for nerds. This site should be renamed to "Slashdot - news for trolls: engage critical thinking now".
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
... seriously ... nature did that. Nature killed off those least able to survive. The end result is a species that is well adapted to live in nature. Guess where we are going now? We are making a species better able to survive a modern society with its technologies like internet, computers, and advanced health care. So fat people live, and thrive .. at least long enough to make a couple babies ... which they don't have to care for.
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
The key to losing weight is the control of metabolism. Acetyl-Coenzyme A Carboxylase (ACC) converts acetyl-CoA to malonyl-CoA, where malonyl-CoA is the first committed step in fatty acid biosynthesis. Malonyl-CoA inhibits mitochondrial fatty acid oxidation through feedback inhibition of mitochondrial carnitine palmitoyltransferase (CPT1), and therefore plays key roles both in controlling the switch between carbohydrate and fatty acid utilization in liver and skeletal muscle and also in regulating insulin sensitivity in the liver, skeletal muscle and fat. Inhibition of acetyl-coenzyme A carboxylase not only switches metabolism from lipogenesis to whole-body fatty acid oxidation, it also prevents the synthesis of triglycerides which contribute to atherosclerosis, a leading cause of cardiovascular disease.
Useful links:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acetyl-CoA_carboxylase#cite_note-pmid9449982-1
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malonyl-CoA
Thing is, though: They're right.
If you haven't read "Good Calories, Bad Calories" by Gary Taubes, you should. This book outlines how 40 years of bad science and personality cults in nutrition research has lead to a serious misunderstanding of the causes of heart disease and obesity.
At the very least you should read his eye-opening NY Times article, which pre-dated the book by a couple of years.
In the course of every project, it will become necessary to shoot the scientists and begin production.
In High school, I was 250+ that took up weight training. 2 years later i was ~ 225 and in the best shape of my life. Two years after that I had balooned up to nearly 270. I wasn't working at the time. At 270 I started on the Hacker's Diet. In 2 months I was down to 255. I started a job that kept me on my feet. In another year I'd dropped back to 230. Two years after that and I'm fighting the scales to stay at 250. A little over 2 years ago I moved. my diet changed, my environment changed. I went from a strictish diet to eating whatever and whenever, the change exacerbated by the shift in environment. I'm watching my weight again and trying my damdest to track calories. My new (relatively) job has my sitting at a desk 8 hours a day (Burger flipper is more active than helpdesk monkey). I need to get back on the weightlifting bandwagon, and that means joining the local gym, a feat not financially feasable at present. So I'm left with moderating calories trying to make my way down to 240.
We have known for sometime now that exercise and diet are the way to lose weight. You must adjust both, I know this from personal experience.
Eric Bursley
Reducing body fat % and increasing muscle mass % to improve one's rest metabolic rate and bone density should be the goals. And these do not necessarily imply a continuous loss of weight. But the modern way of things (and our American way in particular) is for swallowing a teh magical slim-fast pill, munch some broccoli every now and then and hop on the threadmil to do some feel-good make-believe "cardio" while reading a magazine.
What will the scale say when you gain 1 pound of muscle and lose 1 pound of fat? I hate reading "fitness" articles in mainstream media!
It's because muscle is more dense than fat. Those people probably lost 15 pounds of fat and gained 8 pounds of muscle.
You're not old until regret takes the place of your dreams.
so this has been known for a lot of time: simply burn more calories than you consume and there you go!
It's called cutting. Bodybuilders have been doing it for years. If you just diet by cutting your calorie intake then eventually your metabolism slows down and weight loss slows down. If you just exercise then you take in too many calories to lose weight. It's really simple, to lose weight you have to skip breakfast and ride the stationary bike for 45 minutes. If you do that every day for a week you'll lose 3lbs. If you do that every day for a month you'll lose 10lbs. If you run instead of bike you could lose up to 20lbs. The more exercise you do when under a calorie deficit the more your body must burn itself to feed itself glucose.
The key is not to eat sugar, or dairy, but everything else you can have in small quantities. It's essential to exercise on an empty stomach early in the morning, this is why boxers and the military jog in the morning. Skip breakfast and your body will burn itself until lunch time, and if thats not fast enough then skip lunch too and you'll shed even more pounds.
- and how much did you lose? - 31 days.
I am going to hit two points I didn't see mentioned.
The first is that the intensity of your exercise matters a lot. High intensity burns a lot more calories than medium or low intensity. Jog 3 miles at an easy pace. Now run 1.5 miles pushing yourself. You'll see a difference. The same goes for working other parts of the body. One routine I like to do is 10 pull-ups, 20 push-ups, 40 abs (bicycle crunches, obliques, etc.) - do 8 sets of that, then run 3 miles. When I'm trying to improve, I push myself and it works. However, I can do that same workout for weeks at just medium intensity (taking my time) and I don't see an improvement in my performance. High intensity also burns calories faster.
Oh, and a good exercise session will increase your metabolism for hours. Do it early.
Another issue is that when you eat your calories matters. Having a big meal helps to set your body's metabolism for the day. Your other meals should be sensible, but don't have a huge dinner and then go to bed 2 hours later. That's terrible for losing weight. I tell people trying to lose weight to have a healthy breakfast, decent lunch, and then keep dinner reasonable, and dinner cannot be right before bed. After dinner the only thing you should be doing is drinking water. Don't starve yourself; you have to take in calories or else your body slows down metabolism.
If someone is exercising and thinks they are watching what they eat, I also tell them to keep a journal of everything they eat and drink (except water). They often find they've picked up calories in expected places, like sports drinks or a food item.
There's a lot more to losing weight and getting in shape, but I'm pressed for time.
Andrew Borntreger
Champion of cinematic disasters
You will lose weight when you switch diet at first because you are cutting the carbs and sugar but once your body adapts to that you'll gain your weight back. The trick to keeping your body fat percentage at the lowest possible level is to go through a cutting cycle once a year. This is where you train for approximately 3 months bootcamp style. You skip breakfast in the morning or skin dinner at night, and you run in place of that meal. The combination of skipping meals and running causes weight loss. If running is not your thing (I don't run), then play basketball or ride a bike. Anything which keeps your body moving for an hour is good enough. You don't even have to do it every day, but just a few times a week and its done to keep the metabolism from slowing down when you go into starvation mode.
That is the trick. You bulk, then you cut, then you bulk and then you cut until your body fat percentage goes down into the single digits. I judge my progress based around how much fat I have and how much muscle I'm gaining. Based on how fast I run or for how long. Weight is never accurate enough to determine progress unless you are 50 years old and cannot judge progress in other ways.
After my final season of college football, I dropped 30 pounds in about 4 months. I did this very simply: I cut my meals roughly in half(ate just enough to where I wouldnt feel massively hungry for the next 6 hours) and worked out for about 1.5 hours 5 days a week(mostly strength training, some light running). I also changed what I ate: grilled chicken 3-4 nights a week with rice, lots of salads, little to no fried foods, and cut out soda almost completely. This was about 7-8 months ago. Now, with grad school, I'm lucky to get in 2-3 1 hour workouts a week. While my muscle mass has certainly gone down, I have managed to stay constant with my weight. It's not about how you do it, it's about WANTING to do it. You have to have the motivation to really want to do it. Most Americans just want a magic pill they can pop that'll make them lose weight, but that's not how you do it. You have to want it, and work at it. A large part of it is mental. And as for some of the earlier comments, when you compare someone with more fat with someone who is skinny, and neither have worked out, the fatter person is going to be able to lift more weight. I first noticed this in high school, and it's been a continuing trend up through college. So, you pretty much have no choice but to lose strength when you first start losing weight, but once your weight stabilizes, you should be able to get it back up.
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
Yes, calorie restriction *works*, but everyone who promotes it is putting a million issues into the bubble of dietary restriction. Why are some competitive eaters so darn thin?
Sonya Thomas *lost* weight eating tons of food, she's tiny!: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonya_Thomas
I'd reference more, but I won't spend too much time on this. Yes, overeating in many cases will cause you to gain weight. Ever noticed why some people can eat 1k Calories per day and never have their weight change, even with lots of exercise? It's because their metabolism slows down to that rate. Diabetics of a certain kind (I think type 1, but I don't recall exactly) can't gain weight no matter what, strictly because they've got little ability with insulin.
You can lose weight restricting calories, but all you do in the long run is put up hormonal and physiological red flags saying that the body is in starvation mode. There have been studies with prison subjects being force fed 10,000 Calories a day of I think mostly fructose. They gained weight, (no wonder, since it was mostly fructose) but many peaked around 4 pounds, even after weeks! This should be a weight gain of 2lbs a day, even if their basal rate burns 3k Calories. Something's up.
Some people can eat themselves over and lose weight without exercise, while feeling a huge desire to exercise but fighting it. Some people gain weight with a few green peas. Why? It's far more complex than I can answer here, or even know myself. I will say that the body, when eating good healthy food, will have it's metabolism "unlocked" at a certain point. For some people, it takes eating a lot. They gain weight initially, have a number of health problems taken away, plateau, and then lose weight super easily. Some need thyroid supplementation. Some people don't gain weight at all. In the end, you feel better, you have tons of energy, and can eat as much butter and mashed potatoes as you've ever seen, without gaining weight. Now, that doesn't work for everyone. Some people will have gluten intolerance, hiatal hernia, and so much in the way. Just, Calories in - Calories out = Weight change is a nice formula for you /.'ers, but it's downright stupid. It may work 70% of the time, but it's not meant to be that way, and it's missing 99.99% of the picture.
The best answers I've seen to this are on http://180degreehealth.blogspot.com/ , where I learned about most of this. I had suspected it for a while myself, but this guy really puts it into perspective.
Thoughts?
It seems interesting to me that I never see discussion of food mass in this type of discussion. It's almost like everyone treats it as E=mc^2, with direct conversion of (caloric) energy to (body) mass. Is it really that simple? If I drink a 1000-calorie milkshake, does that generally mean that's all that I need to look at? How much does it matter that most of that mass is water, which is easily excreted? For that matter, since we have to balance mass in and mass out to maintain our weight, how much is lost in the obvious way (excretion) and how much is lost in the others? Do we lose any significant mass (carbon) via respiration?
And it took a while to get into "loss mode". I exercised about 3 months on cardio machines and never lost anything, but then got into a "zone" where I lost 2lbs a week. 15 lbs later, I had met my goal and stopped worrying about weight. (Yeah, 15lbs isn't a lot, I nipped the weight problem in the bud.) After the 15 lbs, I switched exercise routines and stopped losing weight, but I never really gained it back until I took an injury and became more sedentary.
My only diet change was elimination of sugary drinks--and as I said, for the first 3 months I never lost anything, even without the extra sugar.
The "weight loss zone" was, for me, when I had worked up to 5-6 1 hour workouts per week in which I'd burn 1000+ Cal according to the elliptical I was using.
I think different things work for different people. For me, exercising like crazy works. Nothing else has.
--PM
There is only one way to lose fat, and thats a healthy low calorie diet combined with exercise. I'm poor so losing weight is actually cheaper and easier than gaining it. When in a cutting cycle I save money on food because I consume less. To lose 3lbs a week requires no exercise at all. To lose 5+lbs a week requires aerobic exercise 30 mins 3 times a week to keep the metabolism from slowing.
So to lower your body fat percentage you bulk, cut, bulk, cut, bulk, cut, bulk, cut, for the rest of your life. Eventually after a few years of bulking and cutting cycles your body fat percentage will approach the single digits. Bodybuilders who aren't on drugs get that ripped look by doing this. And once you get that ripped look and lower body fat percentage down to the single digits its near impossible to get fat because your muscle to fat ratio is so off balance that even if you pack on weight, you still will look ripped. I know because I packed on 30lbs, but because I bulked cleanly and slowly at a pace of 5lbs a month, and because I had a very low body fat percentage when I started, my body fat percentage is still low and I just weight 30lbs more. This is how athletes bulk up, as oppose to drinking a lot of beer and eatting junk food and bulking up so fat that you gain mostly fat. Whenever you gain weight you will gain muscle and fat if you do it slowly and you lift weights, and the next time you cut down, you'll lose weight but you'll keep a lot of the muscle you gained.
You don't want to build muscles which are naturally big according to your genetics. If you have naturally big legs genetically, you wont need to train them. When you eat more calories they'll grow big again. You should train and bulk in the areas where your physique is weakest, thats usually peoples abs, back, chest or arms, but its according to genetics. If you have poor genes for the lower body then train the lower body.
The point of lifting weights is to trigger muscle growth in areas which don't build muscle from just walking.
You are correct on paper but not in practice. If a person never exercises at all their metabolism will slow to a crawl and they'll stop losing weight after they reach a certain weight. Usually that certain weight is either slightly overweight, or within the healthy range. The problem with this is they'll look like a smaller fat person rather than a fit person.
Weight loss is not as important as fat loss. It's better to be ripped and obese, than to be small and chubby. The only way to lose fat is to combine weight lifting and exercise with a low calorie diet.
This post is extremely misleading and dangerous. Why anyone would want to propagate this lie is beyond me.
Exercise does lead to weight loss. The article cited clearly says it does. It's just that a small amount of exercise -- aerobic exercise for short periods over a mere three months, without strength training or diet changes -- is less effective than you'd want it to be. Well duh. But even in those circumstances, with all those factors stacked against weight loss, the participants still lost some weight.
A counterexample: A mildly overweight or average person, who has no heart problems and is otherwise healthy, can engage in much more vigorous exercise. An hour on the elliptical can burn approximately 700 calories. An hour in an intense gym routine can burn more (ever see those ads for LA Boxing touting the one-hour 1000 calorie workout?). Lets say you do an hour of 700-calorie cardio every morning and dont change your diet. That's an additional 3500 calories you're burning per workweek. If you give yourself weekends off and don't change your diet and don't strength train, you're still losing a pound a week, mostly of fat. If you add in proper diet -- not calorie restriction per se but just switching from soda to water or cutting out one or two greasy meals a week -- you're doing better. Add in strength training and you're be doing amazingly.
But it's not enough to just diet. The health benefits of good cardiovascular health and muscle strength are important in their own right. Things like the Hacker's Diet work to lose weight, but they are very unhealthy, even possibly dangerous. It condones a quantitative instead qualitative approach; the Hacker's Diet seems to take the position that you can eat microwave pizzas for every meal as long as you keep it under about 2000 calories. What it doesn't tell you is that in the process you'll be failing to provide muscular support for an aging skeletal system, adding cholesterol to your body, hardening your arteries, and atrophying major muscles.
If your body fat percentage is the same as it was before then you aren't more fit, you just weigh less.
I lost 25 pounds this year, and it mostly came from a diet change. Excersizing is great, and can speed things up but the biggest factor to losing weight and keeping it off was just eating less. Cut out the crap like snacks and pop soda, try to "feel hungry" more often it won't kill you. Excersize makes you look great and develop some muscule but that alone won't take off the weight until you change your diet.
did you forget to take your meds?
In order to lose weight for cutting purposes you only have to do enough to keep your metabolism from slowing down when you enter starvation mode. If you just burn 100 calories 3 times a week that alone would be enough to keep your body burning fat all week. It's not important that you burn a lot of calories, its just to keep your body burning itself.
You don't lose muscle when you run, bike, and or lift weights along with cutting calories because exercise is what keeps your resting metabolism up. It's really very simple, a few hours a week of exercise will guarantee that your resting metabolism stays high.
And you will metabolize muscle either way so its best to build as much muscle as you can BEFORE you drop the calories. You can then expect to lose 20% of muscle.
There is a reason why body builders lift weights. They lift weights so that when they go into the cutting phase and burn muscle they'll still have some muscles to show off after dropping 20 or 30lbs. The body burns muscle and fat together, so its going to burn some muscle with the fat, but if you have plenty of muscle to spare along with the fat to spare, you'll be just fine. Most people can go to the gym and bulk up their muscles all year and then diet like crazy for 3 months.
the book by that title has pointed this out for years.
I alway assume it's 50/50 but the truth is it depends on what you eat. If you eat enough protein and fat while on a low calorie diet and you exercise you wont burn much muscle. Also it depends on the rate of speed you cut the pounds. If you drop 5lbs a week or more then you will be losing half your weight in muscle. If its 2lbs a week its probably all fat.
I have gone through large weight swings at different periods throughout my life. I was ectomorphic growing up, and matured into a mesomorph. Because my job is IT, I'm sedentary for long periods of time, and as such, will accumulate fat, especially given that in my mid-30's I still eat just like I did in my mid-teens.
Due to my particular personality - mild OCD, extremely impatient - I am very, very good at modifying the way I look in short periods of time. I lost 19 pounds in a week, just to prove a point. I ate 3 hard boiled eggs per day, 1 slice of whole wheat toast, lots of water, lots of coffee, and never stopped chewing sugarfree gum. I also exercised for 4-5 hours per day. It takes incredible willpower. It absolutely sucks. You'll feel like shit. But it does work.
Swimmers who cross the English Channel and Florida Straits also lose huge amounts of weight in very short periods of time. Susie Maroney lost 22 pounds in just over a day when she swam from Cuba to Key West. Not all of it fat, to be sure, but a lot of it was.
Much hype was made about Michael Phelps' diet when he trains. He consumes between 10,000 - 12,000 calories per day while training. So imagine your daily food intake, and quadruple it. That's how much he eats. And that's just to prevent him from losing weight. He has to eat that much to stay the same.
I also freedive. Freedivers are some of the leanest athletes in the world. They tend to stay away from gyms as too much muscle burns too much oxygen. The repeated depletion and replenishment of O2 across the cell membrane really burns the calories. After a 4-day freediving training session off the coast of Florida, I had lost 6 pounds of fat in 4 days.
As others have noted, most people feel like they're doing a lot of exercise, but they simply aren't.
Exercise absolutely works. Just just aren't doing it intensely enough or long enough if you aren't burning fat.
"Study your math, kids. Key to the universe." -The Archangel Gabriel
If diameter decreases by about 20% (muscle being 18% more dense than fat), you'll see approximately 3 times that lost on your waist circumference. Approximating the human waist to a circle.
really this is just an excuse to see if /. will print pi.
Deleted
However the amount of muscle you lose is determined by the rate of weight loss. If you cut calories a lot, like under 1000 calories a day, then you don't want to exercise too much. You do that type of diet when you wont be exercising at all but sitting on your ass all day and still want to lose weight. If you are exercising then you need at least 1000 calories a day typically but the deciding factor as to whether you burn muscle is how much protein you consume and how much water you drink. Body builders expect to lose muscle before a competition, so they cut for 3 months typically after bulking to as much muscle as their genes and body will let them carry they starve themselves down.
30lbs in 3 months sounds exactly like what you are supposed to lose in a cutting cycle so you appear to know what you are talking about. As far as 5lbs of it being muscle, 5lbs of muscle doesn't take everyone 6 months to gain. I can gain 5lbs of muscle every month with minimal exercise. I admit I'm not 40 so thats probably why, but even at 40, if you eat right and you train right you can get 1lb of muscle per week with little to no fat gain at all. In fact when I bulk I do it in such a way that I gain nearly pure muscle, I bulk hardcore for 2 or 3 weeks out of the month then I cut back for the final week of the month. The fat comes off easier and easier as you gain more muscle, and if you dont cut for longer than a week, you'll gain all your muscle back naturally but the fat will remain gone.
Please people, thermodynamics and conservation of energy are all you really need to understand here.
-Eric
Diet, resistance training, and minimal aerobics. In fact you could lose weight without doing any aerobics at all, it's just when you get below 15% body fat percentage then you have to push yourself with aerobics or cardio.
Also you are consuming over 1000 calories which is definitely the slow way. If you lose 3lbs a week then its probably all fat. If you lose more than that then you are losing muscle. Usually you have muscle to spare if you bulked up, but the point is to have the lowest body fat percentage.
I think that a lot of people here talking about fitness are making the common mistake of not defining what fitness is relative to them. Fitness is a pretty vaguely defined state of being, which is proven by the existence of several "benchmark" tests to gauge it. However, a professional cyclist who's fit enough for hours of hard cycling might not be fit enough for the NYC Marathon, and vice versa. From a general perspective, cardiovascularly fit athletes are horribly unfit at strength-biased activities because of the high cardiovascular activity keeping their weight (and, thus, muscle weight) at much lower levels.
As for the main article, enough people here already said it: weight control is a balancing act. You are what you eat.
If you eat a couple avocados a day, and maybe an orange, along with some protein you'll be fine.
I didn't RTFA, but it makes sense if they don't change their diets well then no shit Sherlock, they're not going to lose weight. For instance, it takes minutes to consume 1000 calories, whether it's a burger, chips, poutine, ice cream, or whatever, but to burn that off you'd have to engage in moderate exercise for over an hour. You have to change what you eat.
Cardio is used to keep the metabolism fast and keep your body from slowing down in starvation mode.
Seriously? A study that doesn't recognize the difference between muscle mass and fat? Or doesn't consider that not gaining more weight is the same benefit as losing weight? I say their study sucks.
Obese people who start exercising have to first burn enough calories to change their metabolism. That generally takes far longer than 12 weeks but if you're trying to lose weight without changing your diet, you might as well give up. Exercise alone won't fix things because you end up being "hungrier" and eat more, though you think you're still eating the same amount.
"Growing old is inevitable; growing up is optional."
If not, then presumably their bodies just became more efficient at processing the food they ate into usable calories.
Everything I hear about weight loss is, that you can get a maximum of around 1 pound per week sustainable weight loss. The average is more than half of that. And does not take muscle gain into account.
Whenever in my life I have started training for some goal, my initial weight go up as muscles gain mass. Then weight drops later.
When I trained for marathon, I was running 2 time 8km + 1 times long run, when my long run started to go beyond 75 minutes, I kept losing around half a pound per week. And I was on normal food, but bigger portions. I was on half a liter of icecream and 200 grams of potato chips as supplement so as not to lose too much weight too quickly, and not be too tired.
Exercise works. Especially 60-65%+ of Heart Rate Reserve in more than 75 minutes at a time. Most people burns mostly sugar the first 45 minutes. The body need to be starved off carbohydrates during exercise, so that the body will learn to use fat as the primary energy source, and keep carbs as a fuel for the brain.
while not fantastic it is in the ball park. I've been losing weight at a rate of about 1-2 pounds per week for the past 15-20 weeks. I've lost about 28 pounds at a rate of about 1-2 pounds a week. When you crash diet your body goes into "survival mode" so you loose the weight but as soon as you stop the diet, your body goes into "storage" mode to store up provisions for the next "famine". Best to watch how much and what you eat AND get moderate exercise, and increase your metabolic rate. As long as your intake is less than your output you will loose weight. You didn't gain it overnight why should you try to loose it overnight.
Meddle thou not in the affairs of Dragons, for thou art crunchy and with most anything.
I will let know my triathlete mates know that those 800-1000 extra calories a day they burn by cycling, running and swimming while they train is a figment of their imagination (while having a nice meal, eating pretty much whatever they want and looking in top condition).
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Unfortunately, given the literature, you are likely mistaken. While there are protein sparing mechanisms in the body that will often prevent catabolising muscle tissue, it is still far easier for your body to burn muscle tissue than fat, as the process to convert fat requires a bit more of an energy input. In the presence of carbohydrates in the diet--especially excess carbs-- your body will generally not burn fat at all. Now if you are starving, it will burn both, but preferentially muscle. Again, the literature is pretty clear on this.
And that is my issue with the study: The participants did not change their diets. I guarantee they are all on a high carb, low fat regimen, which will only increase weight gain, especially fat gain. Put them on a reduced carb (processed carbs) diet, cut out the packets of crisps and cheezy puffs that they were consuming, and you will see a loss in weight. And it will be all fat.
The reason people can't lose weight is that they eat the wrong types of foods. While a calorie may just be a calorie, when it comes to weight loss, I assure you the typw of calories you eat do matter. Read Eades and Taubes to get the full picture.
100 years ago and more, people were not fat, and were free from most of obesity related ailments.
What changed?
It wasn't food until very recently, if at all.
The most dramatic change is that most people in developed countries do sedentary jobs now.
Same food, less exercise = fatter people.
And now is even worse: fatter food, less exercise = even fatter people.
I didn't RTFA naturally, but then they say that they didn't change the people's diet, do they mean they rigorously made sure they ate exactly the same or that they didn't check at all?
And in any case, if people actually lost weight while exercising more and eating the same, how it comes that exercise does not reduce weight?
The summary says they lost *in average* seven pounds in 3 months.
So in one year they may lose 28 pounds! (or around 14 kg for people living in civilized countries).
That is what a lifestyle change is all about: change your habits and the gains will come slowly.
Some studies need to try harder, because at least in this case the numbers say one thing, but the results seem to be interpreted in a completely different way.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
If you abuse your body for years to no end, you will need the will to put things right for a very similar amount of time.
As long as people want magic formulas there will be people out there willing to sell the necessary snake oil.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Sure, if the person is usually with a slow metabolism, it takes a long period before bringing the metabolism up especially in obese, people, however, the diet did not change, so if this person was consuming 3000 EXTRA calories that they could not burn before the exercise, and only did 1200 calories of exercise, then there is still an overabundance of calories that is being stored.
You have to combine exercise AND diet to make the person lose weight, you can not have just one.
They wasted their money doing this study, and we let them waste taxpayer dollars for this...jesus!
Any trainer worth their salt, tells you its a 2 part process diet and exercise.
You need to balance the food incoming equal to maintaining and or losing weight, some people even want to GAIN weight...
so each person needs a customized program, and can not just use a generic program without knowing what they are doing.
Let's see...seven pounds of weight loss times 3500 cal/pound of fat = an average loss of 24500 calories. Divide by 12 weeks, and 7 days, and we get an average weight loss of about 290 calories per day. Not bad for one light exercise session daily, and still eating all the crap you normally eat if you ask me. I don't see the news in this.
Crocs, aligators, snakes... they eat once a week, but are pretty active animals inbetween.
They can do this because they are cold blooded, we run hot, so we can't.
If you want to loose weight fast then wear one less jumper.
Or go outside (if you live somewhere cold) for an extra 20 minutes a day.
--------------------------------------------- "In the end, we're all just water and old stars."
Have you never seen those pictures of obese mothers in the 3rd world with starving, emaciated children? It's more complicated than calories in, calories out--because under certain circumstances your body CAN'T burn fat (specifically, when insulin levels are kept high by a diet too rich in carbohydrates and too low in protein/fat.) Now, I grant you that in a true starvation diet you'll lose weight--but you have to get to VERY low calorie levels for that to happen.
"He who would learn astronomy, and other recondite arts, let him go elsewhere. " -- John Calvin, commenting on Genesis 1
To lose weight, put the fork down.
To get healthier and/or build muscle, work out.
If you are on a 3.5 kcal a day diet, all the working out in the world isn't going to help unless you are Michael Phelps, work out for 6-8 hours a day and burn it all.
Unless you are always a little hungry and eat healthy, you aren't going to lose weight. If you are working out, and not losing weight, you need to eat less. It's a simple equation. You have to burn more calories than you take in.
Not putting the fork down (or overdoing it leading to yo yo dieting) is the part that screws people up. You can lose weight the healthy way and not work out at all if you simply stop eating when you are no longer hungry, instead of vacuuming your plate and getting seconds. You also can't eat a bag of corn chips and a cup of queso dip while watching CSI, then again that falls under the whole put the fork down rule.
Don't kid yourself. It's the size of the regexp AND how you use it that counts.
Dude... in June, I took charge of my health as a Type 2 diabetic, educated myself about diet and nutrition, and started losing weight with a starting weight of 420 lbs. I lose 3.5 lbs. a WEEK without trying hard. When I'm really strict, I can hit 10.
The reason people quit diets is because they don't see results. Give them diets and exercise plans that work, and they'll stick. Nobody wants to be fat.
"He who would learn astronomy, and other recondite arts, let him go elsewhere. " -- John Calvin, commenting on Genesis 1
what happened to Slashdot?
"And you didn't read the article either."
I did.
" If you're trying to burn fat then "running your butt off" is counterproductive. "
That is, quite possibly, the stupidest thing anyone has ever said on the subject, and in the absence of anything resembling a citation (the article DOES NOT say that or even infer it) the conclusion is that you're talking out of your fat ass.
"This is according to people who use actual science (*gasp*) to do things like conduct an experiment to prove a hypothesis and all sorts of crazy things."
No it isn't, you're a liar and can't (and WON'T) prove otherwise.
Find a citation that says "vigorous exercise is counterproductive to weight loss" or SHUT THE FUCK UP, you've already proven you're completely full of shit, I don't about your opinion, CITATION OR SHUT UP.
Just make sure you put less mass into yout body than comes out. Each day I weigh my output, then on the next day I eat and drink a half an ounce less than that. I'll weigh exactly 0 on my 100th birthday.
The reason diet food tastes like shit is because you're on the wrong diet. I'm a T2 diabetic, and I found that for me (as well as probably 40% of the population) low-carb is the only way to go. My idea of "diet food" is steak! Granted, I occasionally wish I could have bread, but... I have a lot of great-tasting, healthy foods available to me. The biggest problem is the lack of "convenience foods." It's really hard to eat out on my diet.
I've lost over 70 lbs. this way, and still losing, so I know it works. Just got done moving, and went off my diet for 3 weeks--you could even say I went nuts. Didn't put any weight back on. It works.
"He who would learn astronomy, and other recondite arts, let him go elsewhere. " -- John Calvin, commenting on Genesis 1
In order to meet the Thanksgiving holiday, this site hereby release Thanksgiving gift, that is, gift, our web site is http://www.coolforsale.com/ [coolforsale.com] [coolforsale.com] Nike Air Jordan(1-25)/Jordan Six Ring/Jordan Fusion/Nike Shox/Air Max/AF1/Dunk shoes, coach,gucci,lv,dg,ed hardy handbags, Polo/Ed Hardy/Lacoste/Ca/A&F ,T-shirt welcome new and old customers come to order.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
http://www.fourmilab.ch/hackdiet/www/subsection1_1_1_0_3.html
"Whether you've always been overweight, have been on a roller coaster of dieting and regaining, or have just recently added some excess poundage, the key resources you need to achieve and maintain whatever weight and health goals you set for yourself are the same as you need to accomplish anything else worthwhile in life:
* An eye firmly fixed on the goal.
* Will power.
* A high tolerance for pain."
The problem is most people don't have two out of three of those requirements.
A work that expires before its copyright never enters the public domain and thus enjoys eternal copyright protection.
Even more people (including researchers) don't seem to think about the energy excreted in the feces (or other ways).
I hardly ever see any mention of it in studies related to weight loss, diet etc.
Go check out how many researchers actually take samples and work out how much a subject is excreting.
Then there's was also a study which showed that mice in a bacteria free environment could eat a lot and not put on weight.
See: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=95900616
And another which had the bacteria free mice getting gut bacteria from obese mice and ending up fatter than if they got gut bacteria from skinny mice.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6654607
Based on these, it should not be a surprise that some people will actually find it hard to lose weight despite eating and exercising the same as skinny people. Of course, your diet also affects your gut bacteria populations. I bet consuming lots of "sugar water" isn't going to help breed gut bacteria that makes it easier for you to be skinny.
Despite what the entire diet & exercise industry would have you believe, genetics is a major factor. Your metabolic rate is set genetically. Sure you can increase it temporarily but eventually it readjusts to whatever you're activity and food intake level is (starvation notwithstanding) and the weight loss rate flattens out. Personally, every time some schmuck who has NEVER had to lose an ounce in their entire lives tells me to eat less or work out more, I tell them to go eff themselves because they have no goddamn clue what they're talking about. Okay so you go on a diet and three months later you're still on it and not losing or even gaining. That's NOT living. IMHO, the entire diet & exercise industry is predicated on you NOT losing weight and keeping it off because if it worked, you would stop buying what they're selling. IMHO, this is an engineering problem and the solution is not to keep doing something (and paying money for it) for the rest of your life. The proper solution is to change the metabolic rate once and permanently. But of course that isn't the best foundation for making money.
The answer is actually pretty simple -> weight gain and loss are regulated by the hormone insulin, and the only macronutrient that spikes your insulin levels is carbohydrate.
Gary Taubes wrote a book on this called "Good Calories, Bad Calories". Read it. He's also got a lecture online here:
http://webcast.berkeley.edu/event_details.php?webcastid=21216
Now, people have differing levels of insulin sensitivity/resistance, so you will get cases of people who can eat all the carbs they want and never gain a pound, and others who plump up with the slightest addition of carbohydrate to their diet, but the basic biomechanics are pretty clear -> insulin causes fat cells to hold onto fat, starving the rest of your body for energy, making you both fat, and hungry. Satisfying your hunger using carbs only makes it worse.
For all the people still stuck on the thermodynamics of it all (I understand, I'm a physicist, and I thought the body was just a calories in/calories out machine before reading about the science), seriously, grab the book "Good Calories, Bad Calories".
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I dropped 60 lbs in 6 months a few years ago. 15 lbs each of the first 2 months (total 30 lbs).
a) I watched calories. 1500-1700 per day with 1 day a week "cheat" day with 2500 or so.
b) I moved just a little more. Hiking 3x a week for about 2 hours. Walking around cities and shopping 4-6 hours is the same effort.
c) I sat on the couch or behind a computer the rest of the time.
d) I stopped eating "processed foods" and switched to food that didn't come in a box or package. When you are eating so few calories, it is important to have nutrient dense foods.
e) No artificial sweetened stuff - diet sodas - gone. For me, this flavoring caused junk food desires. Once stopped, the junk food desires became less and less. They don't go away completely.
I plateaued around 235 lbs, but not really at any point before that.
I've maintained 235 lbs for 18 months and only get hiking 1-2 times a week. Some months, I haven't gotten out at all.
I suspect that to lose more weight and get to 190 lbs (my fit weight), I'd need to spend time in gyms, WHICH I HATE. It isn't worth it to me. I'll try strength training at home a few days a week and report back in a month.
I wonder what genius came to the conclusion, that an action that builds up muscles (weight) through burning of energy, only leads to weight loss, if you actually burn up your fat. And not the additional food you will then most likely eat, or even worse: Your heart, liver, etc, that you drain in the first two weeks of "emergency mode" (like a battery backup) that happens when you suddenly don't eat enough. ^^
I mean the only people thinking otherwise, are those who still think that "low-fat" products would mean that you become "low-fat" too. lol.
But OK. The knowledge gap between what you read in magazines, and what really works, is quite huge. Even doctors often can't help you at all.
That is, because... let me make this "bold" statement: 90% of all weight problems are psychological problems.
It really is not hard to lose weight. Eat stuff with a high amount of fibers. As much vegetables as you like. Until you burst. Never without some unsaturated (=liquid! never solid. never margarine & co.) fat (like olive oil- or the like (which is essential!!).
If the energy density is low enough, you will feel stuffed, but still lose weight. Obviously.
More so, if you work out, of course. (More in the time between the workouts, because your base energy usage/wasting goes up.)
BUT: Who can actually do that? And for whom, the call of Cthul...uuum... sugar (short carbohydrates) and saturated fats, simply is too strong?
No nutritionist can ever help you with that, can he?
That's why often, finding out what you replace with your addiction... or a behavioral re-training (therapy)... will help you more, than any guide about thousand facts (that you already read about a thousand and one times) ever could.
Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
Why would it?
. . . much like most other diet "news". How closely were they monitoring the subjects food intake? If they weren't keeping track of every calorie, then I'm willing to bet a fiver the subjects were cheating. Now, granted, exercise doesn't really burn that many calories, but all it takes is a net deficit of 500 calories a day to lose a pound a week. Of course, to burn 500 calories with exercise, you usually have to do some heavy exercise for about 60 minutes, and a candy bar and a soda for a snack afterwards will (almost) completely negate that. I say "almost" because the exercise will up your metabolism for a short while afterwards (I've found the effects last about a whole day for me after doing a hard 60min workout). I'll also be the first to admit that the ~30lb I've lost were almost entirely due to diet. OTOH, exercise actually suppresses my appetite for a while, it ups my metabolism all day, and even if it didn't do both those things I would still keep doing it because it makes me feel damn good, both physically and mentally. I also credit the exercise to helping me keep the weight off. In any case, you can't just diet to lose the weight, then start pigging out again. If you want to keep the weight off, you have to make some lifestyle changes. Thankfully, there are ways to eat healthy while still nourishing your soul. It just takes more effort than some people are willing to put out. Also, exercise might not help you lose weight fast, but it sure wouldn't hurt. If you are fat, increasing your amount (not intensity!) of exercise will not hurt you.
Nathan's blog
That's the formula. If you aren't bothering to keep track of everything you eat, then you're more likely to eat more because you're hungrier when you exercise regularly. Wouldn't at all be surprised if some people actually end up gaining weight while exercising for that reason.
Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
First, exercise is boring as hell. We all know that. So, find a way to make it actually fun and you've overcome a huge hurdle. What worked for me was EA Active for Wii, with the female trainer. Yeah, I know it's silly, but hearing a fit woman saying things like "you're really working hard! You're body will thank you for this!" was a motivator. Maybe others would prefer the guy trainer for other silly-but-effective reasons, or maybe a different workout regimen altogether. That's OK! The whole point is finding something that you, personally can actually get excited about doing several times a week.
Next, and even more importantly, I've started keeping track of what I eat. I installed the (free) "Lose It!" app for my iTouch, entered my height and weight, how much I wanted to weigh, and how fast I wanted to get there. It creates a personalized calorie goal for each day which decreases over time as you lose weight. The single biggest thing it did for me, though, was making me aware of the nutrition of everything I eat. I was hungry one day and bought an Angry Whopper. I was halfway through it when I discovered that it had 880 calories and 55g of fat. WTF? I don't want that in my body! So I cut it in half and ate the rest for lunch the next day. Notice something important though: I still got to eat it. I'm not subsisting on rice cakes and lemon water. I had a nice meal at Red Lobster a couple of nights ago, then made up for it by eating lightly the next day. I'm not going to spend the rest of my life denying myself everything I'd actually enjoy eating, but I'm perfectly fine with keeping track of intake and adjusting appropriately until the day I die. Again, I found the tool that worked best for me. Maybe you'd prefer a paper notebook, or an Excel spreadsheet? Whatever. Just be aware of what you're actually taking in, not what you think you might be eating.
So, what's this got me? I've lost 29 pounds in three months without doing anything other than playing a fun (to me) video game and coming to understand the nutrition of the food I'm eating. No fads, no energy-burning drinks, no starvation, no feeling intimidated at the gym, nothing. I've taken in three holes in my belt and started wearing my jeans up around my waist, not under my gut. I admit that I got discouraged a week or so ago because my weight had plateaued, but one day I was hopping in the shower after a workout and saw my arms. What. The. Hell? For the first time, perhaps in my entire life, I could see all the major muscle groups in my arms and shoulders. I've always been decently strong, but instead of just having large, amorphous arms, I can actually see the (amazingly large, to me!) individual muscles in them. Screw my weight - I'm getting ripped! Slowly, sure, because Wii Active isn't the same as pumping iron at a gym, but it's still happening! That was just about the best feeling: looking into a mirror and grinning like an idiot because I actually liked what I saw.
I've been having fun and eating decently for the last three months, lost nearly thirty pounds, dropped about 6% body fat, and have a totally different self image. If I can do it, barring any exceptional physical conditions, you can too. Don't torture yourself or regard diet and exercise as something awful and difficult, but as something that can be fun and educational. I listed the tools that worked for me, but find your own and go with them. Geek out on it. We're as able to do this as anyone else!
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
I went from 185lbs (fat) down to 150lbs (string bean). At first I lost a few pounds, but it wasn't until I change my eating habits that I really began to lose weight. I cut out most of my fat intake for a month. That was EXTREMELY hard to do and for most people it isn't realistic. Losing is very hard work. Now that I've lost the excess weight it is easy to maintain my current figure (5'10", 175lbs, muscular, flat stomach but no ab muscles). How did I do this? I basically ran 3 times a week for 20-60 minutes (started at 20 minutes and added 2-5 minutes per week) and then worked free weights for 45 minutes. I did this for a year (it took this long because I was refining my workouts). Now I do free weights 2-3 times a week and run for 60 minutes (on a treadmill) once a week (at a 9-10 minute mile pace). Again, cutting down on eating is the hardest part (it is also the most important). DISCLAIMER: always consult a physician before starting any exercise program. Stop IMMEDIATELY if you feel light headed.
Exercise really does help boost your metabolism.
I picked up swimming 4 years ago. I've been able to keep it doing it 2-3x a week for a little over an hour at a time. It's a coached group workout so we get pushed to get our heart rates up and the resistance of the water builds muscle mass while being low-impact on the joints. I highly recommend it. At the rate I swim now I burn roughly 1000 calories a workout. I managed to lose 15 pounds and I have the satisfaction of knowing I could swim 2 miles without stopping if I had to.
"training without changing their diets."
"How can that be?"
Seriously? You are seriously asking this?
On the other hand, if there were a diet that didn't leave someone feeling hungry all the time, while allowing them to significantly reduce their calorie intake, they could cut 1000 calories a day and lose 2 lbs. a week without spending ANY time on it. And imagine if that same diet left them feeling energized and strong, bounding up stairs wanting to exercise, so that they started going to the gym of their own accord? What would THAT be worth? If only such a diet existed! You could get all the benefits of exercise, along with greatly enhanced weight loss!
Wait, it does exist. It's called carbohydrate reduction. Step 1 is to gain control of blood sugar swings by substantially reducing intake of carbohydrates. Lose some lbs. Feel better. Then we can start talking about exercise. Bottom line is no one is going to exercise consistently if they're so damn tired from blood sugar issues that they can't stand the idea of going to the gym.
"He who would learn astronomy, and other recondite arts, let him go elsewhere. " -- John Calvin, commenting on Genesis 1
People who are obese didn't get that way by being lazy. Being lazy is only part of it. Cramming chocolate cake down your maw 24/7 plays a much bigger role.
So, I lost some weight a while back, around 40 pounds. It was pretty painless, honestly. I called it the put down the fork diet. It wasn't starving myself. Here's the mindset:
Basically, to start losing weight, you first have to stop gaining weight. We gain weight by eating, nothing more. Since matter cannot be created or destroyed, there is absolutely no way to gain more weight than the weight of the food we eat. Also, we lose weight, primarily, by pissing and taking shits. The sky is blue.
So, from there, I just tried to eat "lighter" things. Not necessarily less volume, just lighter. Also, we piss more than shit, on average. So when I got hungry, I drank something low calorie (I like very lightly sweetened iced tea. Water also works). If after that, I was still hungry, I ate. Pita Pit was wonderful here, as their food is good, and not really heavy!
At first, it's difficult to get out of the habit of eating, but after a few days you get used to it. The pounds flew off, I lost about 15 lbs a month. I know that measuring the weight of stuff isn't as accurate as counting calories, but weight is easier to do on the fly, at a restaurant, etc.
He slipped on icy steps and hit his head. What the Vegan nazi's have done with the poor man's death, invading his privacy and the privacy of his family in an attempt to smear low-carb diets because they can't win on the science is thoroughly despicable.
"He who would learn astronomy, and other recondite arts, let him go elsewhere. " -- John Calvin, commenting on Genesis 1
Fasting can help some people too, by resetting the taste buds to prefer vegetables instead of salty, sugary, and other extreme foods.
"The Pleasure Trap: Mastering the Hidden Force That Undermines Health & Happiness"
http://www.amazon.com/Pleasure-Trap-Mastering-Undermines-Happiness/dp/1570671508
Comments:
http://www.healthpromoting.com/Articles/articles/PleasureTrap.htm
A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
The problem is people don't know how to exercise. I'm at the gym a lot, and I see people who think they are getting a good workout but are not.
You can't walk for 20 minutes on a treadmill, go home and eat two cookies as a reward, and expect to lose weight.
Run 10 miles and get back to me.
[FromTheMorning]
There a few points which should be made about the first story and the Denver study (didn't bother reading the second).
Firstly, they did lose weight. On average about 3kg (7 pounds) over 12 weeks.
Secondly these folk were obese when they started out. Presumably they haven't been exercising much and on average their hearts, muscles and bones aren't that strong. 55% HR could probably be achieved just by raising themselves up out of a chair. If these people kept exercising for longer than the 12 weeks they would start to see physiological changes: 1. a stronger heart pumping a higher volume of blood per stroke 2. a higher volume of blood 3. stronger muscles and bones 4. more capillaries and mitochondria in muscle tissues etc .
A year later these people would be able to sustain much higher work rates at the same percentage of maximum heart rate, they would also be capable of exercising for longer periods and more often. The weight loss would quicken over time until their bodies came to reflect their new lifestyles.
Thirdly this stuff about low intensity leading to maximum weight loss because it's in the high "fat burning zone" is utterly wrong. Whilst the percentage of of calories taken from fat is higher at lower intensities, the total energy used at high intensities is so much greater that more fat is burnt overall (i.e 40% of 1000 is more than 80% of 300). Also it's really the total energy spent that matters.
The point is exercise DOES work. A little exercise only works a little. If you want big results you need to build up to higher intensity and more frequent workouts. Running is the best exercise for weight loss and general health. Cycling and swimming are also great.
The author of this article probably should read this study: Reduced disability and mortality among aging runners: a 21-year longitudinal study
If you want to lose weight, you must cut caloric intake. You can't just exercise it off. You will build muscle mass, which is more dense. Doing aerobic exercise can help if you also cut back caloric intake. But by itself, exercise alone may make you gain weight because it increases your appetite.
Wansu, th' chinese sailor
This: http://www.zonediet.com/
Plus this: http://www.crossfit.com/
Equal this: http://www.crossfit.com/mt-archive2/Jeremy-Wann.html
In one year. Guaranteed. No bullshit.
Nobody on this forum has a clue what it means to live a life style with "exercise". Lolly gagging around for 30 minutes at the gym every other day is just toying with the concept. You need to get involved in real exercise sports and spend time at it. But it's really a lot of fun doing stuff that take exercise. Once you get in shape, if you miss a few days or a week, you really miss the workouts.
I take several 7 day long backpacking trips a year, and carry a 70 lb pack (on my 200 lb 6' 2" frame) 10 miles a day. I eat till I'm full each day, and come back with more muscle and in better shape that I started with, and lose 1 lb of weight a day!
When I take a weekend climbing trip on Mount Ranier (10,000' elevation gain, 15 miles, 40 pound pack) I'll loose several pounds.
Several times a month in the summer I'll just take a day hike into the mountains outside of town, swim and have lunch at an alpine lake, then return home. 5,000' elevation gain over a 5 mile trail outbound is about 3 hours of continuous max heart rate and my cardio watch says about 3000 calories round trip in 5 hours (for my 62 YO body - I could do 3,000' elevation gain an hour when I was younger).
Now my wife is more into bikes so I do some road and mountain bike trips with her. But my butt gets sore. Still, going out and riding a rural road on a sunny day in the spring is really nice. We do a 2.5 hours 35 mile loop with 1000' elevation gain. That burns a good 1/2 pound. Some mountain bike trails we ride take a good half day and probably burn off almost a pound of fat.
Then there is the cross country and downhill skiing in the winter. 25,000' of vertical descent at the ski area takes an incredible amount of energy and strength. It usually takes me 5-6 trips to get strong enough to do that much in a day. And we skate ski in the evenings during the week after work, 10-15K two - three times a week, 90 minutes.
We also go to the gym a few times a month to work on certain muscle group strengths. And we still both work full time. Just a few more years till we can retire and play all the time! Which we may need to, as I find that as we age, the muscle mass disappears from disuse much faster than it did when we were young, and it takes longer to get it back, meaning you need to work at it longer each week. And yes, we can pretty much eat anything we want and don't carry very much excess fat on our bodies. So if you want to lose weight through exercise, get interested in an exercise sport and spend time at it.
I spent years, a decade even, trying to lose weight according to the "eat less, exercise more" assumption. I could never stick to it because I would literally become physically weak at the low calorie levels required, I was always hungry, and the weight loss was sporadic and uninspiring. But I was a good boy and believed the authorities and ate a low-fat "healthy diet." It got me to 420 lbs.
Then I was diagnosed with T2 diabetes and spent ANOTHER 6 months trying to be a good boy and do what the medical establishment told me to do--eat a low-fat, high carb diet. Gained MORE weight, my blood sugars got WORSE, felt like crap. I got disgusted, and found out that a lot of diabetics were going on low-carb diets as a way of controlling their blood sugars. So I decided to try it and went on a diet that had no more than 6g of carbs for breakfast and 12g for lunch and dinner.
Within ONE week, my average blood sugars went from 214 (dangerously high) to 105 (just above normal). After 3 months, my triglycerides went from 633 to 114. My cholesterol went from 233 to 145. And, oh, by the way the least important thing, I lost 60 lbs. I'm never hungry. If I get hungry I eat, just something without carbs in it. I have energy all through the day--I don't feel weak on this diet.
Is it a "miracle." No. It's a hard diet to stick to, especially when eating out. But it WORKS, unless every other diet I ever tried. Do I "eat less" on this diet? Probably. But I don't eat less because I've somehow magically found some new store of "will power." I eat less because I'M NOT HUNGRY. Hunger matters--there's something really sick about telling people not to eat when they're genuinely hungry. There's a better way, and the arrogant establishment (made up mostly of life-long skinny people!) needs to realize that the advice they've been pushing for 40 years now ISN'T WORKING and try something different!
"He who would learn astronomy, and other recondite arts, let him go elsewhere. " -- John Calvin, commenting on Genesis 1
I learned a lot from this video Sugar: The Bitter Truth wherein Robert H. Lustig, MD, UCSF Professor of Pediatrics in the Division of Endocrinology, explores the damage caused by sugary foods. He argues that fructose (too much) and fiber (not enough) appear to be cornerstones of the obesity epidemic through their effects on insulin.
One of the things I learned is that exercise can't possibly burn off the calories you need it to for most people. The real reason exercise works is that it decreases appetite, which then reduces calorie consumption, while increasing metabolism, and is a health negative feedback loop to help stabilize weight.
If you start exercising and keep your caloric intake equal, you're negating the feedback look, and you'll have to do a LOT of exercise to do.
I think that if you learn more about the whole system, you'll approach things from a different perspective, and you can reach reasonable goals instead of constant frustration.
The article specifically addressed the question of "afterburn." There is no "afterburn"--you don't burn calories after exercise is over.
"He who would learn astronomy, and other recondite arts, let him go elsewhere. " -- John Calvin, commenting on Genesis 1
Most people just starting a workout program have a couple of months of exercise to do just to get into the shape to be able to do a proper workout. The sort of exercise being described here isn't going to help much. At 200 calories per day, you'd need something like 17 days to lose a single pound, and it's such a small amount per day that tiny slipups in diet would throw out any benefit without even being noticed. While the summary says they didn't change their diets, it would only take something like 50 extra calories per meal/snack to completely negate the workout, and only an extra bite or so per meal to cut the benefit in half.
This is stupid.
The reason why exercise does not guarantee weight loss is nutrition. It's a numbers game. Going from being a couch potatoe to trying to run marathons will not work if you continue to eat more calories than you burn.
EI = Total amount of energy taken in
EO = Total amount of energy used for work
If you increase both EO and EI, there will be no weight loss. There will be other health benefits, but as long as you are taking in more calories than you are using in a given day you will gain weight.
Starving yourself can result in weight loss, but it will be unhealthy. The best way to loose weight is to exercise and modulate your caloric intake. People seem to fixate either on calories or exercise when BOTH are required to loose weight in a healthy way. That's why the Fad Diet of the week never seems to work for long. You get board with it, your body's metabolism adapts to the new cycle/source of energy intake and optimizes the efficiency of energy digestion and utilization. However, if you count calories AND exercise you will eventually burn off calories and loose the weight you want, and even if you fall off of the wagon occationally, you'll still have the high metabolic rate or controlled calorie intake to keep the minor slip up from leading to major weight gain.
Bureaucracy expands to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy.-Oscar Wilde
People keep saying this, but even when I went to Bally's everyday I couldn't loose an inch from my waist or the annoying "baby fat" on my lower abdomen. Strength training gave me better muscles under my belly fat. Dieting helped a little (even without exercise), but as I age that last 10 pounds (or inch) simply won't go away. I have dieted so that I lost muscle mass and then injured myself during a simple yoga move, which sucks so bad I'll take the belly fat. You can write this off as a vain female response, but as long as I can function, I give a damn about muscle mass or being "healthy". I want my old waistline back and a flat tummy. If working out doesn't do that, then for me working out does work.
The government defines obese as a BMI of greater than 30kg/m^2. There is no account made for body fat percentage3 or the like.
This was on /. a while ago,
http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/11/20/1748243
Gary Taubes book "Good Calories, Bad Calories" looks at the science behind it. Having read it, I'm not surprised the researchers came to their conclusion.
Worth a read.
If you are going to prepare each meal from scratch using fresh ingredients, you are going to spend a lot of time making food and related tasks. You have to go to the grocer often, which in the US is generally not convenient (we don't tend to have small grocers near where you live, they are larger and more spread out). You are going to spend a good deal of time on preparation and so on.
Now if you enjoy cooking then this is great, however many people don't. That is time they'd rather spend on other things. They are not interested in spending a number of hours a day making food.
At least make some attempt to be correct before criticising someone else.
It is for a lot of people (regardless what thin snide detractors say) - and if you force them to exercise more they'll "compensate" by eating more.
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
His rather prolific research into the history of the science of obesity, diet, nutrition, and "diseases of civilization" are mind-blowing. (see link to video below)
Especially to geeks who know that sometimes EVERYONE gets it wrong.
In this case, the common (mis)understandings have tainted the understanding of an entire generation of scientists and thus the people they inform.
In a nutshell, it's all about the only hormone in the body that turns ON the fat storage system. All others, including dopamine, adrenaline, etc. tell the body, HEY WE NEED ENERGY NOW, and so energy flows OUT of the fat system. The one hormone that flips the switch to STORAGE is INSULIN.
So when the body has plenty of insulin, its IMPOSSIBLE for it to go back to RELEASE fat mode.
What causes insulin to be released? All carbohydrates do. The #1 of those is GLUCOSE. The others all do to a greater or lesser degree (read about GLYCEMIC LOAD/INDEX).
So without glucose (and the other oses) there is no insulin released. No insulin released means the body stays in the natural energy release when needed mode, not stuck in storage mode.
To add to the trouble, one effect of insulin release is actually HUNGER itself. Thus creating a feedback loop.
Bottom line is, and unbelievable as it sounds in the face of modern "nutrition science", humans don't need to worry about their blood sugar levels being too low. Too high, and chronically elevated, mean the body can't release the fat, no matter how much exercise is done.
Finally he shows how fat has been wrongfully vilified over the past 50 years, and so if you take fat (high-density energy storage) out of the diet, it is replaced with carbs, and that itself is what triggers the storage system.
Taubes has a great one hour video lecture that is very geek friendly.
http://dhslides.org/mgr/mgr060509f/f.htm
http://www.google.com/search?q=taubes+adiposity+101
Geeks, you're the only ones who can grok this easily as you RTFM -- well Taubes has wrote the book on it, and if you're curious about why science could be so wrong, start your search engines and know there's a huge revelation that you'll not only say WOW to, but you'll realize that you can help spread the word of how to stop the spread of obesity...
Good luck geeks!
p.s. the key to it all may be the GLYCEROL-3-PHOSPHATE (aka ALPHA GYLYCEROL PHOSPHATE) ... which is the backbone of the stored form of fat in the fat cell. The triple glyceride molecule is too big for the "loading dock" and so transportation in or out of storage necesitates the disassembly of free 3x glycerides down to 2x, and then reassembly inside the fat cell back to 3x. And the best ironic bit, the G3P/AGP is an EXHAUST PRODUCT of the "burning" of the sugars! So it's actually like some component of the car exhaust actually causing the "environmental change", so its not even the energy of the sugars (and starches; which are actually sugars our taste buds can get a 'grip' on to taste as sweet), but rather a by product of their use.
Without excerise I went from 300 lbs down to 165, so it must work... YMMV ;-)
Finally this comment is probably too late to get modded to visibility right now, but if you find this down the road and want to know more, don't hesitate to ask and send an email! The more geeks aware of this, the more ability we have to help others understand too.
Except that you're falling into the same sensationalist things that OP fell into. T2 diabetes = you need a different specialized diet to begin with, else you gain weight.
Every human has a different body setup. When I change my diet, I gain weight. I eat mostly the kind of crap that makes doctors pass out in horror, but I eat in moderation. My same diet could probably kill someone else.
What the arrogant "here's my success story" need to understand is that it's really, really cool that you and 10% of the population had this work for you, but that it will never work for everybody. No amount of caps lock emphasis will change the fact that there is no successful diet for everyone on this planet. The initial reason that I posted was not to say "well here's my success story". My reason was to say "that's great that such a method works for you, but it's not the One True Method and there is no method that works for everyone".
But feel free to fly by that nuanced meaning and scream about how the devil carbs are the reason why people are so fat. Maybe instead of hating the skinny people, you should understand that they found a method that works for them but don't understand that it won't work for everybody. Hell, you're one of them now, correct? Skinny, shouting that your way is the right way and everyone else is wrong...just sayin'.
Diet and exercise is the only way to lose weight and keep it off forever. Everything else is a fad and a delusion. Nothing else works so this study is no surprise. If they jogged weekly and changed their diet they would have seen significant weight loss. Thing is bonafide joggers are alot more conscious of the fuel they use to stoke their furnaces compared to average people and newbie joggers. Personally right now I do a modified NAVY SEALs training regimen (even though I'm not in the NAVY SEALs) and I'm in elite physical condition.
The formula is simple. Eat well, exercise and you will lose weight.
Eat bacon, smoke cigs, drink pepsi, eat doritos and you will be fat and gross forever. Even if you try to run your flab for 30 minutes a day, it will be worthless.
I dont need no doctor or study to prove me right.
So if you wanna lose weight, get off your ass and stop eating your gross chicken wings and ribs and pepsi and chips and hot dogs and fries. It will save your life.
Really doubt that. Using unpowered exercise equipment well tell you the power you are generating--it's usually at least 600 calories an hour for a moderate to low amount of exercise.
Getting 150 calories from a Twinkie certainly is less beneficial than 150 calories from oatmeal, for the exact reasons you describe, but they both give your body 150 calories to use (or store...).
You're gonna get 150 calories from a half of a Twinkie.
Or maybe even a third of a Twinkie.
And therein lies the problem.
...to not exercise, but besides exercise burning calories it's just generally better for you in so many other ways than just changing your diet, or dieting in general. Exercise strengthens your body and heart, brings levels of cholesterol and triglycerides to healthy levels, decreases blood pressure, gives you more energy. Lean muscle burns more calories while at rest as well as when you're exercising. The more muscle you have the more calories you burn even when you're sitting at your desk playing 2-D Duke Nukem. I started mountain biking last year and have lost 40 lbs. (255 down to 215) riding 5 days a week/15 miles (trails, not roads) a day. Sure you have to find time for that, but I bet most people could replace one sedentary past time with an active one without missing a beat and the lbs. will start dropping off immediately. I haven't changed my diet one bit which is why I've only lost 40 lbs. If I reduced my carb (read-beer and pasta) intake I could probably drop another 20 lbs. in a matter of a couple months. I am still losing weight a pound at a time and am healthier than I've been in years. I went from my doctor threatening me with Lipitor to cholesterol and triglyceride levels below normal in 6 months. From exercise, not diet change. Exercise is better for you in so many other ways (increases libido and sexual performance) that dieting could never claim. Nike has it right - Just Do It! I feel and look fantastic!
I lost 19 pounds in a week, just to prove a point.
No, you didn't. 19 lbs * 3500 cals/pound / 7 days = a deficit of 9,500 calories per day. Assuming you were pretty big before with a base metabolism of 3,500 calories per day, if you ate nothing whatsoever, you'd have to burn off an extra 6,000 through exercise. The fact that you're posting here and not busy with your hyperathlete training program would lead me to believe that there's no way in hell you could do that.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
Cinderbunny: Anyway, it worked for me - I went from 135 lbs down to 112 lbs.
POIDH: Image Shack is your friend.
a day negates any exercise you might do!
Potatoes rank highly.
If you to maximize sense of being full while lowering energy density, you might look at sites that deal with "Fullness Factor".
http://www.google.com/search?q=fullness%20factor
A million comments and viewpoints, so I couldn't help throwing mine into the mix. While not an adherent of the Hackers Diet per se, it articulates the same principles that I beleive.
I've lost 80lbs in the six months from May to October this year, from 320 down to 240. I anticipate being around 200lbs by January 1. I limit my calorie intake and endeavour to avoid too much fatty food, do weight circuits three times a week, aerobics (elliptical and cycle) 5-6 times a week and, VERY IMPORTANT, dance salsa :)
Calorie control works. If you can't measure it, you can't control it. If you don't track it (I use an iPhone app) you can't measure it.
The time in the gym is mainly about maintaining metabolism and preventing muscle loss. The calories burned give you some headroom in keeping under your intake limits as a secondary benefit.
Find a supplemantary activity you can *enjoy* that is going to contribute to your goals. I personally hate the gym.
When I say Salsa, I'm really menaing a lifestle change - for me that is Salsa. Salsa classes are as effective as an aerobics class (and far more entertaining). Meanwhile, in an evening out dancing, I can burn through anything up to 800 or 1,000 calories (polar heart monitor based readings). At a minimum I'm far ahead, even if I have a couple of drinks, and your metabolism is cranked for a good portion of the night. Worst case, I can grab a slice on the way home and not feel particularly guilty about it. Compared to sitting at the bar boozing, or sitting on the couch at home, enough said.
Salsa might not be what works for you, but finding something that is entertaining while being beneficial makes it far easier to acheive your goals, and goes along way to maintaining the results once you've acheived them.
... it has a catchy title playing on the "Diet and Exercise" popular belief.
Based on you're synopsis, his theory is quite trivially wrong. Cutting carbs is purely a gimmick and isn't, in and of itself, going to help anyone lose weight. Cutting the calories in those carbs can, but eating lard because it's low in carbs is quite obviously a bad idea.
That of course is not what Atkins (or presumably this guy) actually say, but it is how they get translated for the masses.
Silly bunch of slashdot nerds.
They may as well have been doing 10 toe-touches every morning. What a joke.
A) Aerobic exercise alone isn't the best approach to losing bodyfat.
B) A leisurely stroll on a loathsome treadmill is a waste of time investment.
C) The quality of food you eat and it's nutrient density will have a much more profound effect on your body composition
You can't continue to eat truck loads of garbage food and expect to offset it much with this kind of miserable attempt at 'exercise' .
You don't have to sacrifice the amount of food you're eating, replace it with healthy food choices. (increase fiber, colored vegetables, quality diverse protein sources, full spectrum of clean fatty acids) Then hit the gym and do 10 minutes warm-up and mobility or remedial work, 30 minutes properly programmed and monitored resistance training, with metabolic drills on rest periods and between exercises. Finish with 2-3 rounds of tabata style short interval training on a cycle or elliptical trainer (depends on the clients ability), warm down with 10 or so minutes or steady state aerobic exercise. Sweep client into the showers. I guarantee you'll lose 30 lbs or more in your 12 weeks.
Diet and exercise are like anything else worth doing, you get out of it what you personally invest into it.
Those people are all, at least, 100 pounds overweight. And they workout, all day long, everyday, with world-class trainers, yet they don't lose all that much weight - maybe one pound a day on average.
First off, my quick story. I'm a programmer and I gained some weight. I asked on a martial arts forum, "Hey, what's the best way to dump some weight I've picked up?" As a chorus they responded South Beach Diet. So I tried it. Two months, twenty pounds. Still going. I'm not going to say it's easy, but it is easy enough. It's a great diet, makes good sense, and you're *never* hungry.
I bought a jogging machine and ran on the damn thing for three months without losing a pound. All I did was torque my foot. I started this diet and quit jogging on the same day - 20 pounds. Really, weight loss is far more about nutrition than activity. The calories going into you are far easier to deal with on the outside before you put them in your mouth rather than trying to blast them off your gut by exercise.
Here's how Dr. Agaston says weight gain works.
It's all about insulin and sugar crashes. Let's say you eat a typical programmer's snack. A couple of doughnuts and a coke. What happens next?
The doughnuts are covered in sugar which goes directly into the bloodstream. The coke is HFCS which is sugar, it goes directly into the bloodstream. The flour in the doughnuts are carbohydrates which are chains of easily accessible sugar moledules. They convert to sugar and go directly into the bloodstream. So in the course of a couple of minutes suddenly your blood sugar skyrockets.
Your pancreas will record this as an emergency. Your body knows that high blood sugar is potentially fatal. Diabetics who don't get their shot can die, your body knows this, and responds in a crisis mode. "Quick! Make as much insulin as you can or we're going to die!" So you begin making insulin like mad trying to keep up with the emergency.
So what is insulin? In short, it acts like a key that opens up cells and moves nutrition into them. So now your blood has a pile of sugar in it (nutrition/energy) and an equally large pile of insulin to move it into cells. And seeing as how you're not running the Boston marathon at the moment, you don't actually need that much mobile food in your blood. So your body does the next best thing and stores it. As fat.
That's only the first half of the problem. The second part is what happens next once the doughnuts and coke are dealt with.
Your pancreas will overrespond to the emergency. It's not really built to make a ton of insulin at a moment's notice. You'll notice that doughnuts don't grow on trees. Nothing in nature hits your body like it. So since it's evolutionarily speaking something new and unexpected, it can't really deal with it effectively. It will typically produce too much insulin. What does that do?
If your blood sugar was at X, and your body makes too much insulin (let's call it X + E, E for 'extra'), then what will happen is the doughnuts sugar will be moved into fat by X, and whatever sugar/nutrition you had in your bloodstream from before you ate the doughnuts will also be stored as fat. And now your blood sugar level will be just where it was from before you ate the doughnuts, minus E. In other words you will have lower blood sugar than before you started!
And what does your body do when you have low blood sugar? Make you hungry. You are nutrition deficient - go eat something.
And the cycle continues.
How to break the cycle? LAY OFF THE SUGAR AND CARBS. Avoid them. Once you stop spiking your body with these gigantic whopping doses of sugar and eat lean meat, vegetables, and the like you'll lose weight. Because you won't be sugar crashing all the time. It's not that you have to diet, you will simply not want to eat like you did before. Portion control happens all by itself.
For the science minded, here is an experiment you can try. Go to your local Chinese food place for dinner. What's the joke with Chinese food? Fifteen minutes later you're
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
That's the one point that needs to be understood. There's no effortless magic bullet to losing weight.
The problem I think is that real weight loss is so gradual that you won't notice the change as it's happening. You don't get the positive feedback that you need to learn.
To add to this, I encourage anyone to simply read some of the slides in Taubes' lecture. http://dhslides.org/mgr/mgr060509f/f.htm
The easy way to peruse the slides without watching the video is to click below the video on the "CHAPTERS" tab ... It'll switch to a list of 64 "Chapters", each of which is actually a slide at the right.
(and here's another way to change between the slides: look to the right of the video, where you'll see "SLIDES" and "THUMBS". Click on 'THUMBS' to see the thumbnails, then double click on one to change to it, then click on SLIDES again to see that slide (a pain but its easy).)
http://dhslides.org/mgr/mgr060509f/f.htm
Just for the sake of a suggested start try "Chapter 62" (in THUMBS near the end at TIME 53:59). Here what it says:
Just check out some of the slides :)
http://dhslides.org/mgr/mgr060509f/f.htm
Please reply here with any head-scratcher you have as questions are the only way to find answers. To me, the only dumb question is the one that goes unasked :^)
for the remaining 5% of serious athletes and bodybuilders, it is stupid. however those 5% of workout monsters stopped thinking about BMI years ago and are probably well versed in the knowledge of dietitians and sports physiologists. to criticize the BMI from that point of view is to simply not understand your audience: the average joe, who isn't interested in exercise, and needs to be. so why shit on a valuable tool for getting him interested?
BMI is not meant to be the end-all be-all metric. it is meant to be a quick rule of thumb for the majority who are only vaguely interested or educated in the details of physiology. the BMI is a gateway to more interest and more concern for your health, and therefore it is extremely useful
so you should welcome and respect the value of the BMI for the average joe as a doorway to more interest and more knowledge about their well-being. you shouldn't shit on it because it isn't comprehensive and exacting
you see this a lot in people who have specialized information but are blinded by a preening ego. such as computer professionals who scoff at the low security knowledge of the average joe. look: the average joe is the average joe is the average joe. instead of shitting on him, throw him some easy tips he can use to become more knowledgeable and interested in what he should be more knowledgeable and interested in out of concern for his well-being
stop turning your nose up at the BMI. the only thing you are helping is your ego. embrace the BMI, and evangelize it to passively interested folks, for their sake. of course its bullshit for a serious athlete. as if a serious athlete doesn't know that already. as if anyone needed you to remind them that the BMI is only a rough blunt instrument. as if average joes need you to turn them off from this very useful quick rule of thumb
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
(just for the sake of them all being together, here's a subthread for the comments and replies I've gotten)
"This is just one more fad diet"
Absolutely Correct. Diets don't work. Ever.
Want to lose weight permanently? Go and see a Nutritionist.
I got fed-up with being a fatarse about 4 months ago and complained to my Doc, as I felt I was eating a healthyish diet. My Doc referred me to a local Nutritionist and since then I have lost about 25 pounds. I'm not on a diet, I simply replaced a few of the items I was eating with others - there is no diet to fall off.
This is simple, permanent weightloss. I have been astonished with how successful it has been given how easy it has been.
If you genuinely want to lose weight then see a Nutritionist. It works. Really.
Amazing weight loss story you have there. I personally lost 24% of my body weight in 6 months following the Atkins diet (high-fat, low-carb). I did NO exercise either -- just diet change (real butter, olive oil, steaks, fish, salads, asparagus, etc).
I even challenged my doctor before starting the diet (you should consult a doctor for any dietary changes), and all my blood panel numbers improved being on the diet. HDL increased, LDL decreased (or flat, can't really remember), triglycerides WAY down, and blood pressure improved out of borderline hypertensive.
Unfortunately, I've gone back to my pizza and dorrito eating ways and have gained a lot of the weight back -- this slashdot discussion is probably the kick in the butt I need to start eating healthy (atkins diet) again.
A a cyclist, I say these stories are BS to make fat people feel good.
Why don't they try this experiment: Have the obese ride four 3hr non-stop bike rides each week for 20 weeks.
That will end this nonsense pretty fast. Really. The exercise industry is a bunch of tards.
In the first 30mn your body doesn't use fat. It uses the sugar reserves. So if you do 30mn to loose weight, you might as well find something else... Maybe like a better diet?
I'm 50, and somewhat overweight - not obese.
Up until I was 40, I was always very skinny. It was just natural, I never had to think about it.
When I started gaining weight, I stopped eating as much, especially cut down on snack foods etc. It did not help. Now, I eat a diet that, I am certain, would be called very healthy by most real experts, but I can not lose a pound. I also work-out for, at least, a few hours a week.
Everybody thinks that if your gaining weight, you much be stuffing yourself with pastries all day. But, that was not true in my case.
I am not looking for advice. I am just saying: don't assume that every person who is over-weight, is over eating.
Think horses, not zebras. When you hear "the scientific establishment is persecuting me," think crackpot.
I can tell you that I'm currently losing 2-3 kg per month, and I'm doing it without tracking carbs at all, outside of total calories. I am keeping fat at below 60 g/day, preferably less. I can tell you that the idea that a low fat/calorie, carb irrelevant diet is not successful is indisputably false.
Perhaps a low carb/calorie fat irrelevant diet would also be successful. I don't know. It's dishonest to dispute that the available data is at best inconclusive, and possibly contradicts that theory.
Everything the parent said is correct. I visited Japan for 3 weeks and when I came back I lost 5lbs without even trying. Here's what I have to add:
Without trying, you can easily lose weight in Japan. Even though I didn't need to lose weight (I'm thin to begin with), you'll feel "alive" again after eating their food. After coming back to the states, I realized that the food here genuinely sucks and I even live in Southern California. The food in America is loaded with sugar and fat and makes you lethargic. In Japan anything like that would fail because people need to be active to live their lives. They're always walking and moving around so they can't eat heavy foods. In fact they probably walked at least 10 to 15 minutes to get to the restaurant and will need to walk at least that much to get back home or wherever they're going next.
Because of demands on my time, I eat carryout/delivery way more than I'd like, or should (for both health and money reasons). With regard to calorie-counting approaches like The Hacker's Diet, how do you figure stuff like this? Obviously there's a way to do it for fast-food, but I'm not talking about fast-food. I'm talking about a dinner portion of chicken tikka masala from the Punjabi place up the street, or garlic dill potatoes from the soul food restaurant. How do those of you who have successfully applied The Hacker's Diet deal with stuff where the calorie content isn't easily discoverable?
This makes a snazy urban legend, but frankly there's no proof of it. My mother claims the same thing, but she'll melt down when she sees her favorite donut just like anybody else. She just won't admit it. People like to think that they've "passed through" the Great Barrier of food preferences, but their actual behavior says otherwise.
Table-ized A.I.
The ONLY way to lose weight is to REDUCED YOUR CALORIE INTAKE. I lost 10 pounds in 2-3 weeks by cutting out Pizza and Burritos and replacing them with Salads.
In theory, practice doesn't matter...
In practice, many studies have been done, and none have shown notably higher weight loss from low card diets than from low fat diets.
In practice, reducing the amount of calories you eat will cause you to lose weight. Carbs, fat, doesn't matter.
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
Yes, there's no one diet that's best for everyone. However, is it really 10% of the population that can't tolerate massive amounts of carbohydrate in their diet? Or is it more like 40%, 50%, or even 60%? I've got an obesity epidemic and an epidemic of T2 diabetes that says that these problems are far more prevalent than you're making out that they are.
In my experience, it's not the low-carb community that pretends that there is one dietary model that's right for everyone. It's the low-fat community. My doctor, who's a vegetarian, was absolutely sure that I would kill myself with this diet, even as I lost weight like crazy and gained perfect blood sugar control--and only shut up when my blood lipid profile came back and shut him up. And let's not even get into the crap put out by the Physicians Committe for Medical Responsibility, a PETA front group that pushes Veganism at every opportunity. These people have been pushing a low-fat, high-carb diet since the 70's for reasons having nothing to do with health (i.e. for environmental, ethical, and sustainability reasons) without any regard for the fact that they might very well be killing people.. We the American people have been the victims^H^H^H^H^Hobjects of a giant, uncontrolled nutritional experiment, and it's a failure.
Anyway, you need to remember something about the low carb diet books and the low carb community: we're not talking to you, and we're not writing to you. If you can control your weight with portion control, then almost by definition you're probably not carb sensitive and don't have a significant degree of insulin resistance. Perhaps low-carb diet books could make this more clear, but then again they have to go to some lengths to counteract the "OMG fat will kill you" and "pasta can't make you fat" (remember that? 1980's nutritional wisdom) propaganda of the past 30 years.
What I really look forward to is a day when genetic typing will allow doctors to tailor a diet to each individual's metabolism--it might not even be that far off. But, until then, I can say with some certainty that when I see someone with 100 lbs. to lose, they are probably carb sensitive, insulin resistant, and would benefit greatly from a low carb diet.
"He who would learn astronomy, and other recondite arts, let him go elsewhere. " -- John Calvin, commenting on Genesis 1
It is because of eating cholesterol, which is in all animal products but no plants. How else do you think they got fat? Duh! Read some Natural Hygiene articles instead of the ignorant mainstream agenda.
We only define three macro nutrients. Why do you think you can cut one out? I lost about 2lbs a week for 3 months easily, and I ate cereal for breakfast, lots of fruit (almost entirely sugar), bread for lunch, and vegetables, potato and meat for dinner. And I drank about half a liter of cola (none of that diet crap) in the evenings as well.
So why did I lose weight? My meals were small, only just filling enough, and I exercised (with some vigor) four times a week: two times cardio, two times weights. Of course, I also consumed plenty of fat, and the meaty products I ate (dinner, bread toppings) gave me enough protein. I also drank quite a bit of water.
The trick is to have a more or less good balance of the macro-nutrients, made of real food (vegetables, milk, meat, eggs, bread, basically anything that can rot. Cereal is actually not that good), and have small portions. If you're hungry an hour after breakfast, have some more breakfast next morning. If you're not hungry at lunch, have a little less breakfast next morning. Easy peasy.
The problem with cutting calories is you also cut nutrition (vitamins, minerals, amino acids...). Screw with your body's fuel long-term, and you'll also screw up various aspects of your endocrine system, among others. If you screw that up, you change how your body reacts to and processes food and nutrients. Then your body is trying to fight disease and imbalances in addition to coping with less energy. Doesn't sound too good for you, does it? And guess what? You don't feel so great while that happens.
The calories in/calories out argument is a good general thing to keep in mind, but it's *vastly* over-simplified. Your body needs other types of fuel than just calories. If you can manage to view foods as fueling different processes your body needs, you're on the right track.
Same with exercise. Instead of viewing it as "something I have to do to lose weight", people should really be asking what the goals are and how the exercise will work on the body to give specific benefits.
It seems obvious to give more weight to the opinion of those who study and practice nutrition and sports medicine than those who do not. Constantly read and learn, and put fringe theories in the holding tank.
Starve. People without food can't get fat. Doh, America. Doh!
``Tension, apprehension & dissension have begun!'' - Duffy Wyg&, in Alfred Bester's _The Demolished Man_
You can't burn a tank of gas if you only drive 20 miles a day. Either fill up less or drive more. This isn't rocket science.
Again, just so its archived in the thread, here's Taube's Top 10 (his goes to 11)
The 11 Critical Conclusions of Good Calories, Bad Calories:
1.Dietary fat, whether saturated or not, does not cause heart disease.
2.Carbohydrates do, because of their effect on the hormone insulin. The more easily-digestible and refined the carbohydrates and the more fructose they contain, the greater the effect on our health, weight, and well-being.
3.Sugars -- sucrose (table sugar) and high fructose corn syrup specifically -- are particularly harmful. The glucose in these sugars raises insulin levels; the fructose they contain overloads the liver.
4.Refined carbohydrates, starches, and sugars are also the most likely dietary causes of cancer, Alzheimerâ€s Disease, and the other common chronic diseases of modern times.
5.Obesity is a disorder of excess fat accumulation, not overeating and not sedentary behavior.
6.Consuming excess calories does not cause us to grow fatter any more than it causes a child to grow taller.
7.Exercise does not make us lose excess fat; it makes us hungry.
8.We get fat because of an imbalance—a disequilibrium—in the hormonal regulation of fat tissue and fat metabolism. More fat is stored in the fat tissue than is mobilized and used for fuel. We become leaner when the hormonal regulation of the fat tissue reverses this imbalance.
9.Insulin is the primary regulator of fat storage. When insulin levels are elevated, we stockpile calories as fat. When insulin levels fall, we release fat from our fat tissue and burn it for fuel.
10.By stimulating insulin secretion, carbohydrates make us fat and ultimately cause obesity. By driving fat accumulation, carbohydrates also increase hunger and decrease the amount of energy we expend in metabolism and physical activity.
11.The fewer carbohydrates we eat, the leaner we will be.
In theory, there's no difference between theory and practice. But in practice...
Seriously, you have to change what you do in your diet. How many times does that have to be said? Exercise alone is useless, we have known that for a damn long time.
"They confiscated everything, even the stuff we didn't steal!"
Ultimately its not that excercise is ineffective, it's that biochemistry trumps the accounting.
To start, yes reducing what you eat certainly covers a lot of weight loss.
But the action shown of what's going on is more than the simple accounting of calories in and calories out.
Specifically, the hormonal action on the fat storage/release is what Taubes talks about.
Yes, if you reduce calories IN, or increase calories OUT, there will be some change to the homeostasis of the organism (you, me them, everybody)... but the specific nature of some of the bio-chemistry we ingest, namely the insulin trigging of the sugars/starches CHANGES the equation.
The change might be better understood when generally looking at the concept of catalyst, and how a catalyst changes the speed of a chemical reaction by even a billion fold. E.g. enzymes modify biological processes and without a certain enzyme, chemical reactions will still take place but the time it will take could be years instead of seconds.
The idea with excercise not "working" is that despite the change in the caloric accounting, if the chemistry is overriding that caloric deficit, then we're left wondering why someone can workout forever and not see a change (as reported in TFA).
The point is, if the biochemical system is stuck on "storage", aka unable to switch to "release", because of all the sugary/starchy "Energy Drink" (or pop tarts) the excerciser consumes, then no matter how much excercise there is, the biochemsitry just can't make that change.
On the other hand that same excercise without the presence of the one thing that triggers fat storage, you'd see that person drop excess weight.
There is hormonal control beyond just the quanity of energy. That's the point.
Ultimately its not that excercise is ineffective, it's that biochemistry trumps the accounting.
Print Print Email Email
Dissecting the Energy Needs of the Body – Research Review
Title and Abstract
McClave SA, Snider HL. Dissecting the energy needs of the body. Curr Opin Clin Nutr Metab Care. (2001) 4(2):143-7.
The majority of the resting energy expenditure can be explained by the energy needs of a few highly metabolic organs, making up a small percentage of the body by weight. The relationship of the specific size, individual metabolism, and proportional contribution to the actual body weight and total energy expenditure for each of these organs is a dynamic process throughout growth and development, the onset of disease, and changes in nutritional status. Defining the energy needs of the individual tissues and organ systems immeasurably enhances our understanding of the body’s response to these clinical processes, which otherwise could not easily be evaluated by focusing solely on total energy expenditure, fat-free mass, nitrogen imbalance, or actual body weight. Recently reported studies have served mainly to reinforce concepts described previously, and clarify some areas of controversy. ...
The Normal Human
The next topic addressed in the paper is an examination of the different tissues and how they contribute to resting energy expenditure in a fairly ‘average’ human being. I’ve reproduced Table 1 from the paper below, honestly this was the main reason I wanted to examine this paper, to get this chart up on the site.
.
Organ or Tissue
Metabolic Rate (kcal/kg/day)
Metabolic Rate (kcal/lb/day) % Overall REE Weight in Kg Weight in Lb %Body Weight
Adipose 4.5 2.0 4 15 33 21.4%
Muscle 13 5.9 22 28.2 61.6 40
Other 12 5.4 16 23.2 51 33.1
Liver 200 90.9 21 1.8 3.96 2.6
Brain 240 109 22 1.4 3.08 2.0
Heart 400 181 9 0.3 0.66 0.5
Kidneys 400 181 8 0.3 0.66 0.5
Other refers to bone, skin, intestines and glands.
Note: the lungs have not been measured for methodological reasons but have been estimated at 200 kcal/kg similar to the liver.
Summing Up
The main point that I wanted to make with today’s research review was to clear up some of the oft-held (and unfortunately incorrect) ideas regarding the impact of things like skeletal muscle mass and fat mass on resting energy expenditure. Based on current data, the idea that skeletal muscle burns massive numbers of calories would appear to be 100% incorrect.
Rather, skeletal muscle actually burns fairly few calories on a per pound basis; it primarily has a major impact on resting energy expenditure because there is a good bit of it. But adding even moderate amounts of muscle are unlikely to massively impact on energy expenditure. As noted above, I expect the major effect to be from the effort of stimulating muscle mass gains along with the energy needed to synthesize that muscle tissue. But once it’s there it doesn’t burn many calories.
Rather, the majority of resting energy expenditure is generated by the organs which, despite their small size, burn a massive number of calories per unit weight. Someone on the support forum jokingly asked “So how do I hypertrophy my liver?”
Finally, fat cells, while not having much of a calorie burn do burn calories. In fact, they are only about 1/3rds of the burn of skeletal muscle (2 cal/lb vs. 6 cal/lb respectively). While low, someone carrying a lot of fat will have this add up and it will contribute to overall resting energy expenditure.
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/research-review/dissecting-the-energy-needs-of-the-body-research-review.html
To-do List: Receive telemarketing call during a tornado warning. Check.
Seriously. Far too many fat people basically think that their life is on hold until they lose weight. "Once I get skinny, everything's gonna change." This is, of course, fucked.
I've been fat pretty much my whole life (currently 260 on a 5'11'' frame). I (quite truthfully) eat a pretty sane diet, rarely drink (maybe a beer or two a week), don't smoke and get moderate exercise (biking, walking, etc.) (And I don't own a game console, or a car for that matter.) I probably could be thinner if I hit the gym for an hour or two and stuck to a 1800 calorie diet every day for the next 50-100 years. But I'd rather just live my life, thanks.
This isn't to say I haven't tried in the past. Not too long ago for about a year and a half I used to bike commute (10 miles each way) and hit the nearby gym for some additional workout (I needed the gym to shower anyway.) I did lose some weight during that time but nothing dramatic - I was still a fat guy. But I bike-commuted mainly because it was fun, not just to lose weight. When my company changed offices bike commuting was no longer practical, so I also stopped hitting the gym. I still get my biking in on the weekends, because biking's still fun.
My advice if you're fat - and it took me far to long to accept this myself - is to go live your life. Get out of the house. Have fun. Meet people. Be adventurous. Hang out. volunteer. Buy good-looking clothes that fit well. Go dancing. Go to the beach. If anyone snickers at you doing something that's considered strictly at thin-person activity, just say "Fuck 'em if they can't take a joke." and keep going. If you're fat and doing all this already, more power to you.
And since this is one of the main objectives with weight loss: If you're single, go out on dates. Again, seriously. Fat people date, have sex, fall in love, etc. etc. all the time. Heterosexually speaking, there are plenty of women who don't mind if a guy's big. There are even plenty who like big guys. And there are certainly plenty of guys who like or don't mind big women (Raises hand!) You can look online, natch, but don't be afraid to give someone you like the eye. Ask them out. If you get the brush off or get shot down, well it happens to skinny people too. And remember that nothing is sadder than a fat person who hates others for being fat. Karma can be a bitch.
If you're looking to get exercise and eat better, go for it. But don't let an image of a skinny you dominate your life. Be one of those many people out there living long, happy, loving, fulfilled lives. Who also happen to be fat.
Prisencolinensinainciusol. Ol Rait!
No. No we aren't. It's extremely clear. The difference between vigorous exercise and being sedentary is minuscule. To burn off a pizza, you really have to run a marathon.
The article, which you're citing without understanding, specifically states that consuming a single bottle of Gatoraide during your workout will more than defeat the calories burnt by that workout.
It has been well known (by those who know anything about the subject) that exercise is simply not a practical way to lose weight. Dietitians will tell you that you need to change your diet to lose weigh. Exercise is useful ONLY to help maintain body weight (ie. not getting fatter).
You can make assertions all you want, but the explanation for why working out doesn't work is known, has been know for a very long time, and has nothing at all to do with glucose levels. This has been shown in theory, and it's been proven in practice.
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
Good sir, are you living in the 1800s?
www.marksdailyapple.com
I'd like to buy homeland for our 10 million people. http://twitter.com/mahadiga
http://muller.lbl.gov/TRessays/22-ThePhysicsDiet.htm
This pretty much sums it up perfectly, the physics diet.
On that note, I can confirm with almost no excercise I reduced 45lbs in 5 months with a large eating change. Sadly I put it back on because I'm stupid but none the less it worked.
I don't understand how fat people can not comprehend how they got fat. It was hard work! They had to eat a LOT of food, and food isn't cheap. They had to sit around on their ass a WHOLE lot, doing not much. How could they have forgotten all of that eating and doing a whole lot of not-much? Getting fat is an achievement! It's hard work and should be recognized as such. It takes determination and commitment. I can't even imagine eating that much food over a long period of time and then sitting still. It would be like torture. I just don't understand how fat people do it. I'll never be fat! I'm going to go for a walk now and eat some rice. Waaaaa!
If you eat right and exercise, you will maintain a healthy weight. Period.
2 + 2 = 5, eh?
In 2006 I was 156lbs, my lowest weight. I reached this weight by accident trying a vegetarian diet. This weight was too low because I felt weak all the time. I started bulking up my consuming more calories. I consumed meat again but I focused on a high intake of omega 3 fat and fish oil along with calories. Fish oil allows you to bulk up muscle without putting on any fat, as long as you consume a low glycemic diet with the fish oil.
I do not eat much junk food or dairy, and I would not have gained any fat at all if I didn't drink the occasional bottle of wine or drink the occasional beer.
Bulking is fairly easy when you are in your 20s because testosterone levels are naturally high. Fish oil and higher calorie and protein intake raises testosterone levels even more, and if you lift weights it keeps testosterone levels high also. Right now I'm in a cutting phase this month, I actually bulked up too much and while I don't look bad, I'm about 20lbs above my ideal weight so it's time to cut down. At a rate of 10lbs a month by December I'll be at my ideal weight if I stick to it.
Clean bulking is just a matter of eating right. If you don't eat junk food and you have good genes you'll be able to bulk almost all muscle if you are young. Low glycemic index, high calorie and high in omega 3 fats is how you clean bulk. When you consume enough omega 3s the body actually burns more fat and builds more muscle because DHA increases testosterone levels somehow.
In practice, many studies have been done, and none have shown notably higher weight loss from low card diets than from low fat diets.
I have noticed the opposite, and Wikipedia seems to agree with me. Low carb diets, when followed closely, cause higher weight loss than most other diets. However, the attrition rate (people stopping the diet) is significantly higher with low carb diets, so the benefits over a population are negated.
Different bodies have vastly varying ways of dealing with different carbohydrates, proteins, hormones, etc. So making a blanket statement that this guy's theories on the effects of hormones is incorrect, is poor judgment at best. I have my doubts, but it certainly is not impossible. There is simply too much that we do not understand about how everyone's bodies react to the myriad of different simultaneous inputs.
I had a similar experience with a low card diet, except that I did exercise. I was still somewhat overweight, and a routine visit to the doctor with a bloodtest showed all of my blood levels to be good. The doctor said everything about me was healthy, but that I needed to lose weight...
-Atamido
My sister and her fiancee are both personal trainers/fitness instructors. Some observations they've shared with me:
1) 200 or 300 calories an hour, um, that's not really exercise, in the sense that you wanna define "exercise" in the context of weight loss. That's a rate of exercise that you'd recommend for someone who is very, very, overweight, the sort where you're worried that having them hit a heart rate > 120 might not be safe. This is not the majority of people 50 or 60 years old.
200-300 calories an hour, um, that's not even breaking a sweat for a lot of people. Call me old-fashioned, but I think if I'm not breaking a sweat, I don't really call it exercise.
2) The math on this shows nothing surprising. Estimate 2000 calories net gain/loss over a timeframe of weeks per pound of fat gained/lost.
So you wanna call burning 200 calories your "workout"? OK, no problem. But with no changes to diet, and assuming someone is eating basically their "revenue neutral", no loss, no gain, amount of calories per day, well, if you exercise 5X a week, you're going to lose a pound every 2 weeks.
So a really anemic, unsatisfying rate of weight loss is what you get if you do a teeny, tiny, bit of exercise that barely breaks a sweat and don't change your eating habits. Film at 11.
3) My sister has a client that I met, once, then didn't see for a year or 2. She had lost at least 100 lbs. So I asked my sister "aren't there some people that are still fat, even if they exercise and eat properly?" and she told me, not that she'd seen. She told me the number of clients she'd had who had decent eating habits in the 2000-3000 cal/day range, who exercise 3X/week (that is, vigorous, 500 cal/hour, think running intensity level) for an hour or more at a time, who started out overweight and stayed just as overweight was exactly zero. She hasn't even ever _heard of_ another fitness instructor who had someone like that.
4) One problem my sister identified in a lot of clients, especially people who are hitting the gym for the first time in their life in their 30s or later and never played any sports, is they don't want to do a level of exercise intensity that they find "uncomfortable". Anybody who's ever done anything even remotely athletic in their life will know the truth of "no pain, no gain", but there are some people who don't want to endure the "pain" part of that equation. Those people have a lot of trouble losing weight, and often feel that "it just never works for me", and only when they get one-on-one training with a fitness instructor (or go to the gym with a fit friend) that anybody has ever pointed out "you're doing it wrong".
And, ok, profoundly unscientific, but at least in my own personal experience, I'm amazed at how much exercise I can do, and how much I can improve my fitness level (by whatever measure you like) and have zero or next-to-zero effect on my waistline, and by how significant effects on my waist that I _do_ see, with what seems like a pretty small change in diet. Like, as in, switch from coke to coke zero, and changing morning "coffee plus donut" to "just coffee".
The plural form of "anecdote" is "anecdotes", not "evidence".
OK, I don't have any experience with _only_ cutting my caloric intake, but I _do_ know that in 3 months of running for an hour (say, 4 miles, I'm slow) at a time 3X+/week, it had virtually zero effect on my waistline/% body fat, but after doing that for about 3 or 4 months, I changed my diet, and the fat _melted_ off, or so it seemed.
The plural form of "anecdote" is "anecdotes", not "evidence".
"Not. Not in reality (I haven't seen any third world starving person looking "fat") nor within context (people with a high percentage of fat on his diet may look fatty; but if they don't eat fat but say, mainly vegetables, white fish, a bit of carbohydrates -pasta and rice, and a bit of red meat, they won't look fatty no matter what)."
Thats a result of quality of calories, not amount. If you don't get enough vitamins and minerals then you'll look and be sickly. If you get enough vitamins and minerals your weight will become stable at the normal levels. Plenty of Americans consume very low calorie diets and because they take vitamins and get proper nutrition they don't look like they went through a famine.
At least from what I saw, I was looking for links or citations, which you STILL didn't provide.
Because you don't have any and are full of shit.
"Uh, sfb, the quote I provided *is* the cite."
No, it isn't liar, you apparently have no fucking idea what a citation is.
" That's why they article refers to things liked published charts of recommended "fat-burning" zones for heart rate."
Just go ahead and admit you don't have a single citation that shows "vigorous exercise is counterproductive to losing weight" AS YOU CLAIMED, so we can move on to things that don't involve you being a lying piece of shit.
"But thanks for playing, seriously."
So, NO citation, or even an attempt then?
Right, thought so, exactly what I expected from YOU, a bullshit excuse.
I didn't mean to imply that exercise alone would help much, if at all.
"Thats a result of quality of calories, not amount."
You didn't read what I wrote, did you? If you ingest calories below the level you burn them you *will* lose weight. If you are on equilibrium you *may* look a bit fatty if your calories come mainly from fat even if you don't get weight (at the expense of exchange muscle mass by fat). If you ingress more calories than you burn you *will* build fat reserves. "Quality" of calories (what the hell are high or low quality calories? Calories are calories are calories. Depending on your definition you can describe better or lower quality on food, but on calories?) has nothing to do.
"Plenty of Americans consume very low calorie diets and because they take vitamins and get proper nutrition they don't look like they went through a famine."
That's what they, Americans, think. They don't look like on famine because they are *not* on famine: they ingest enough calories (usually much, much more than enough) to ballance their burning rates. While there's a range where the human body can and will use compensating mechanisms (reducing basal methabolism, making more effective the intestinal absortion, trying to change the tendence by feeling hungry and/or tired, etc.) there's an absolute truth: as long as you ingest less calories than you burn you *will* lose weight to the point to look thin, to the point to look like starving, to the point of being caquectic, to the point to die.
(Somehow this reply got posted to another story.)
Actually, the problem is probably better analyzed as a dynamic system. The limbic system is highly efficient at preserving energy in the face of stress. Just thinking about restricting your food intake will slow your metabolism by as much as 40%. Exercise stresses the body, and trying to move the body from a homeostatic state of sedentary activity requires a lot of adaptation. Twelve weeks is probably not enough. A high-carbohydrate diet overloads the cellular sensitivity to insulin control which essentially "gives up" allowing high concentrations of insulin to exist in the bloodstream, and insulin causes fat accumulation in the presence of excess calories from carbohydrates. The use of high-fructose corn syrup in so many different foods stimulates the production of insulin in a manner that is not controlled by oxycalcitrin (a hormone produced in the bones), further aggravating fat accumulation. And, the onset of a life-changing activity without going through the seven steps outlined in James Prochaska's transtheoretical model of change creates mental and physical reactions that are inimical to the reduction of obesity. (And I'm just hitting the high points of the system here.)
Any more questions? (Go on, ask me a HARD one!)
"The mind works quicker than you think!"