Why exercise wont make you thin

[IheartTesla]

Didnt want to hijack the exercise thread with this article, and that is meant for encouragement anyways. So, with those disclaimers out of the way, has anyone perused this article? The money quote seems to be:

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

I'll admit, its hard to keep a calorie count of how much you have burnt and how much to splurge afterwards. It could also be that this is classic Time scaremongering based on a few studies that show some contrarian results. This study they cite basically didnt find much difference between the control groups and the ones that exercised strenuously.

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

This is a somewhat reductionist reading of the whole thing, but I get confused by claims that diet dont work, and now that increased exercise only leads to compensation in terms of overeating, so perhaps strenuous exercise doesnt work either. The answer according to the article is increasing your basal metabolism (I think) :

The problem ultimately is about not exercise itself but the way we've come to define it. Many obesity researchers now believe that very frequent, low-level physical activity — the kind humans did for tens of thousands of years before the leaf blower was invented — may actually work better for us than the occasional bouts of exercise you get as a gym rat

Discuss.

[Minaku]

Posted it in the healthy weight and eating thread, but no one responded.

[Nichole]

If combined with diet, it can be very effective. You just can't continue to eat what ever you want even if you are exercising.

[Nakkie]

All I can say is... No fucking shit! Did they actually spend money on this study? because I could have told them that for free. Yes, if you exercise you eat more, the ONLY way to lose weight is to eat properly, and to exercise. Eating properly is extremely important, without a good diet it is impossible to shed or put on pounds.

It's simple math, you must eat less calories than you burn. If you don't, it's impossible to lose weight. Does that mean you should eat less? Not necessarily, does that mean you shouldn't exercise? Absolutely not. What it does mean is that a proper diet (free of sugars, most starches, and fruits) and heavy in healthy fats, protein, vegetables, and nuts, will allow you to lose the weight if incorporated into an exercise regimen.

Here, I'll make it nice and simple... Click here!

[Minaku]

It's a lot harder to get someone to admit that they need to cut out x food from their life UNEQUIVOCALLY than to get them to go exercise. Would you rather to work out 3 times a week for the rest of your life, or would you rather give up white sugar and flour the rest of your life? Most people would choose the working out, if they knew how hard it is to give up white sugar and flour.

It doesn't make sense to me that people would have this reverse mentality but hey, I've been there. Used to think 85% exercise, 15% diet. Nope, that's easy. 85% diet, 15% exercise. That's hard.

[VarysTheSpider]

As Nakkie says, Time aren't really blazing any trails here.

Incidentally, it's also a good reason why people looking to put on weight and gain muscle mass shouldn't neglect cardio on the belief that it will stop them putting on weight - by increasing the metabolism it can make it easier.

[turinturambar]

I've lost weight every time I've hopped onto a consistent exercise regimen. My food intake does increase a bit sometimes, but the burned calories more than make up for it. Most people I know do lose weight when they truly get into a consistent and tough workout schedule. Of course it's always best to pair it with a good diet. If you increase your food intake, try to increase it with wholesome foods.

Back when I played football, I would take in 6,000+ calories a day and still lose 10-15 lbs over the course of the season.

[Eurytus]

That article looks like a muddled mess to me. So you won't lose weight if you do a bit of exercise and then go crazy on the muffins? No shit sherlock.

Sometimes I wonder at the type of journalists who write this articles attacking getting fit with exercise. In the UK newspaper the Guardian there was a guy who complained that despite doing endless stomach crunches he was not getting a sixpack so exercise was nonsense.

Seems that he hadn't bothered to research the effects of bodyfat percentage.

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

That article was retarded. You know what else makes you hungry and prone to overeating? Dieting. By their logic neither diet, nor exercise is effective for weight loss. The only effective method is sitting around reading crappy magazines that stopped being relevant 10 years ago.

[IheartTesla]

All I can say is... No fucking shit! Did they actually spend money on this study? because I could have told them that for free. Yes, if you exercise you eat more, the ONLY way to lose weight is to eat properly, and to exercise. Eating properly is extremely important, without a good diet it is impossible to shed or put on pounds.

To give the writer of the article some credit, I think he is trying to forge some causal links.

Many people assume that weight is mostly a matter of willpower — that we can learn both to exercise and to avoid muffins and Gatorade. A few of us can, but evolution did not build us to do this for very long. In 2000 the journal Psychological Bulletin published a paper by psychologists Mark Muraven and Roy Baumeister in which they observed that self-control is like a muscle: it weakens each day after you use it. If you force yourself to jog for an hour, your self-regulatory capacity is proportionately enfeebled. Rather than lunching on a salad, you'll be more likely to opt for pizza.

I understand that for losing weight you have to be at least calorie neutral, but thats an awfully simplistic way of looking at it. Its like saying the universe obeys the first law of thermodynamics, and thats all we need to know about how a car operates. I would like to understand a little more of how much "free will" we have in these matters.

[Shryke]

It's a lot harder to get someone to admit that they need to cut out x food from their life UNEQUIVOCALLY than to get them to go exercise. Would you rather to work out 3 times a week for the rest of your life, or would you rather give up white sugar and flour the rest of your life? Most people would choose the working out, if they knew how hard it is to give up white sugar and flour.

It doesn't make sense to me that people would have this reverse mentality but hey, I've been there. Used to think 85% exercise, 15% diet. Nope, that's easy. 85% diet, 15% exercise. That's hard.

Oh please. This kind of talk only makes the problem worse. Extreme changes don't work because people are resistant to them. Especially extreme diet changes.

The thing is, they aren't necessary. You don't need to never eat white sugar or white flour ever again to lose weight. Good exercise and some fucking moderation and healthy choice in your diet and pretty much anyone will do fine.

[Iskaral Pust]

I'm with the "no shit, Sherlock" crowd on this. Exercise will generally* stimulate your appetite -- an appropriate reaction from your body -- but if you want to lose weight you need to eat less than your body thinks it needs as replacement. That means hunger.

Weight-loss programs can be hard to sustain because people say they are constantly hungry and will fall off the wagon in a moment of weakness. It's especially so when you start exercising and your body has become used to having a certain default amount of calorie reserves. Your body considers that its natural state and will stimulate hunger warnings as you drop below. If your body accepts the new lower level of calorie reserves as the new default, then the hunger warnings will stop. So you just have to patiently maintain a lower weight until that happens.

The most effective way to manage weight is to not let your body ever get used to carrying all that extra weight and establish that as a default level. Prevention seems easier than reaction.

*My wife finds that regular exercise suppresses her appetite and if denied exercise for more than a few days she is plagued by food cravings. She thinks it is because the exercise helps stabilize her blood sugar (her dad has adult-onset diabetes and she seems to have some blood sugar issues of her own at times)

[Minaku]

Oh please. This kind of talk only makes the problem worse. Extreme changes don't work because people are resistant to them. Especially extreme diet changes.

The thing is, they aren't necessary. You don't need to never eat white sugar or white flour ever again to lose weight. Good exercise and some fucking moderation and healthy choice in your diet and pretty much anyone will do fine.

It depends on what your goals are. Do you want to lose weight? Okay, limit the sugary things to one thing every few days. Eliminate bread for a while. Substitute it with whole grains like oatmeal or other complex starches like brown rice. Give up the fruit. Have 1 serving a day. Skip a day, even.

Do you want to lose weight, lose fat, and see muscle definition? Want a six pack? Want to look like the stars? Then you better not fucking touch sugar or any refined foods for at least a month. Six weeks, even. If after then you still want to eat sweets, then one cheat day a week is all you can allow yourself. There is a reason why cutting diets are designed the way they are. You want to look good, you better make the sacrifice if you're not genetically blessed.

[lessthanluke]

It depends on what your goals are. Do you want to lose weight? Okay, limit the sugary things to one thing every few days. Eliminate bread for a while. Substitute it with whole grains like oatmeal or other complex starches like brown rice. Give up the fruit. Have 1 serving a day. Skip a day, even.

Do you want to lose weight, lose fat, and see muscle definition? Want a six pack? Want to look like the stars? Then you better not fucking touch sugar or any refined foods for at least a month. Six weeks, even. If after then you still want to eat sweets, then one cheat day a week is all you can allow yourself. There is a reason why cutting diets are designed the way they are. You want to look good, you better make the sacrifice if you're not genetically blessed.

Bollocks. You can get a six pack eating crap.

Edit: To expand on this. All that matters is how many grams of protein, carbs, fats and/or total calories you are getting. The source does not matter.

[Shryke]

It depends on what your goals are. Do you want to lose weight? Okay, limit the sugary things to one thing every few days. Eliminate bread for a while. Substitute it with whole grains like oatmeal or other complex starches like brown rice. Give up the fruit. Have 1 serving a day. Skip a day, even.

Do you want to lose weight, lose fat, and see muscle definition? Want a six pack? Want to look like the stars? Then you better not fucking touch sugar or any refined foods for at least a month. Six weeks, even. If after then you still want to eat sweets, then one cheat day a week is all you can allow yourself. There is a reason why cutting diets are designed the way they are. You want to look good, you better make the sacrifice if you're not genetically blessed.

Again: "Oh please."

You don't need to do any of that shit to lose weight, lose fat and gain muscle definition. Not unless by "lose weight, lose fat, and gain muscle definition" you mean "Look like a super model/body builder".

The focus on drastic measures only ensures less people pursue a healthy lifestyle.

[Eurytus]

Bollocks. You can get a six pack eating crap.

Edit: To expand on this. All that matters is how many grams of protein, carbs, fats and/or total calories you are getting. The source does not matter.

Not entirely true. IIRC for example simple carbs will produce more of an insulin spike than complex ones and said insulin spike would make converting calories to fat storage more likely.

[ztemhead]

*My wife finds that regular exercise suppresses her appetite and if denied exercise for more than a few days she is plagued by food cravings. She thinks it is because the exercise helps stabilize her blood sugar (her dad has adult-onset diabetes and she seems to have some blood sugar issues of her own at times)

I was waiting for someone to post this. I experience the exact same thing, and also have a strong family history of type 2 diabetes. I find a little bit of moderate exercise actually suppresses my appetite, most likely due to regulating insulin levels, as you describe. Further, I usually have a bit of a (for lack of a better word, but I think it kinda fits) refractory period after I work out, so after an hour in the gym plus 45 minutes recovery, that's almost two hours I'm not eating.

Finally, on days when I don't work out, I find I'm a lot more driven by what I want to eat right then, rather than calmly considering what does my body need, and what is today's plan for healthy eating. After a good long gym session, I'm much more able to make better decisions about what to eat and how much. So basically, the article's bunk.* ;)

*the only workout that makes me effing starving afterwards seems to be legs day. After a good 80 minutes leg press/ squats/ deadlifts, I feel hungry enough to eat out half of In and Out Burger, and still have room for Cheesecake Factory afterwards.

[phoenix_rising]

im 37 now and the same weight as when i graduated high school. its all genetics...i cant gain/lose weight. all i can affect is flabby or tone...

[Nakkie]

The genetics argument is the biggest load of bullshit and scape-goat excuse in the world. Anyone can gain or lose weight, it's just a function of how you exercise and what you eat. But most importantly it's a function of just how hard you're willing to bust your ass.

[Tyrellius]

After quitting smoking I ballooned up about 20 kgs. Add that to the fact I was a copious WoW hardcore raider I wasn't in the best physical shape to begin with. Probably 115 kg being 6ft2 put me in the obese category. Counting calories and limiting myself to 1400 a day with 1 cheat meal every week (Pizza + dessert or a large BK meal with all the trimmings) with absolutely no exercise whatsoever had me down to 105 in 6 months. Then I wised up and dropped sugar from my diet. 6 months later and I'm a very healthy 82kg.

All from watching what I eat. No exercise in any way, shape or form. I've gotten so used to the 1400 calorie limit that I still stick to it, but only when I'm working. My days off I eat pizza, drink beer, eat crap while going to the movies etc and I've not gained any of it back.

If you are what you eat, I'm a tuna steak.

I know everyone's different - but the above is my take on weight loss and eating.