Why exercise wont make you thin

[Minaku]

My mantra has generally been "one more [insert activity here]." If I'm running, I'll just repeat "one more step." If I'm lifting then "one more rep." Circuit training, "one more round." etc.

I like competition. If I'm in the weight room with guys I'll push myself hard. I can do one more rep. I can do one more set. I can do one more set with a heavier weight. Why? Because I'm fucking cock diesel and a badass, that's why.

At least that's what I say to myself, in reality I'm the only small Asian woman in a room full of weights.

Odie: No one told you to starve yourself. Stop acting like we have.

Edit: If I'm in the weight room with girls it's likely that I'll push myself harder, because those girls are probably pussies anyway. And I'll say to myself, "Do one more pullup, you weak-ass bitch!"

[Eponine]

A little more on-topic: Am I the only person here who eat lots of refined carbs (mostly in the form of rice and pasta)? Of course I eat non-refined carbs as well, but they are difficult to eat in sufficient qualities to satisfy my calorie needs. Are there any important reasons to avoid refined carbs as long as they don't make me fatter?

[Minaku]

A little more on-topic: Am I the only person here who eat lots of refined carbs (mostly in the form of rice and pasta)? Of course I eat non-refined carbs as well, but they are difficult to eat in sufficient qualities to satisfy my calorie needs. Are there any important reasons to avoid refined carbs as long as they don't make me fatter?

I eat a lot of refined carbs. There was a point in my life where I was eating a bowl of pasta twice a day (along with breakfast, vegetables, yogurt, salad, etc.) I suspect if I'd been eating that much in non-refined carbs, I'd never have gotten off the toilet. My diet has always been very carb heavy though.

You are one of the lucky few, Ep. Genetically blessed, inclined to high amounts of physical activity, high metabolism. I don't see why you shouldn't pack away white rice and pasta, or drink whole milk, eat full fat everything. Cap is like you, he's thin but wants to put on weight.

[cjfshaw]

You are one of the lucky few, Ep. Genetically blessed, inclined to high amounts of physical activity, high metabolism. I don't see why you shouldn't pack away white rice and pasta, or drink whole milk, eat full fat everything. Cap is like you, he's thin but wants to put on weight.

lulz, yeah. I've been gaining weight (which is my goal), although it is VERY slow-going. In the past 5 months I've made a lot of little changes I'd say. I've started eating breakfast, lunch, and dinner with some late-night snacks/meals thrown in before bed as opposed to lunch and dinner with a late-night snack. I've also started (typically) snacking on stuff like nuts and peanut butter instead of chips, and I am including more dairy in my diet (something I was very averse to doing b/c I'm lactose intolerant but I recently started using lactaid pills which work to a varying degree). I also cut out distance running and biking since I am not competing anymore. And I threw in more lifting, although I don't necessarily do big lifts. Depending on when I weigh myself I've gained anywhere from 3-5 lbs, huzzah! 12 more lbs to go!

[Stego]

I cannot help someone who is looking to validate failure through sabotage.

This.

As for those who hate my universal truth comment, well, keep in mind that Emilie has me misquoted. :P The actual quote is "Nothing tastes as good as looking good feels."

And it's a universal truth assuming you do not have irrational ideals for what looks good. I suppose that is the issue at hand. I stated this line in the midst of recommending a healthy lifestyle that included weight training, cardio, and plenty of eating. I am not recommending folks starve themselves like Odie has taken it into her head.

[Mo Sneachd]

Personal experience:

1. Taste changes over time. When I'm in a bad phase I can eat crisps and unhealthy food in abundance. When I'm in a good phase, even the thought makes me sick. A lot about healthy living takes a lot of initial work. I really, really hate the taste of stick celery although it's really healthy, apparently; so I don't eat it, but go and find something else. I fond I really love raw carrots which is something I didn't know when I was younger. It's not like stick celery or blueberries are the only thing out there that is healthy. And porridge isn't for everyone. It's not the only healthy breakfast there is though.

2. Below-800 Kcal- diets are a matter over which scientists fight. In general diets are - I need to eat next to no carbs to feel good (apparently the body can built near to anything out of protein and vitamins, or so my nutritionist tells me. I'm a wannabe anatomist, Jim, not a biologist.). I've read papers saying this is unhealthy, and I've read papers telling me that I can eat as much fat as I want as long as I don't eat any carbs at all, which also strikes me as unhealthy. Anyways, what I have found with radical diets is that they make me depressed and grumpy if I can't stick to them. I lack in discipline, hence I am not the anorectic type that can cross their arms and live on a bottle of water for a week. Below 1000 kcal diets make me sleepy, unwilling to exercise, socialize or do anything but sleep and count my calories, and make me hate myself if I eat but one calorie more than 1000. I may be an extreme case, I'll grant ye that, but I'm just saying that my experience is that a diet based on healthy food and calories in moderation (anything under 2000) plus exercise worked much better for me.

3. Not everyone is a nutritionist, and depending on your sources you will end up with a headache. As mentioned before, one paper says carbohydrates are bad for you, the next says any fat makes you thin, etc. If you are the type who wants to know the facts, get a proper biology book and look what the body does with nutrients. Otherwise, learn the basics, and not from your tv magazine of choice because they know fuck all, I believe the correct expression is. What my nutritionist taught me was that you need to be careful with fruit not because they are unhealthy but because they are high in sugar, and while fructose is 'healthier' than crystal sugar you still want to watch it while you're dieting, and that hence the danger with fruit juice is that if you count it as a drink, you will end up drinking twice your daily calory intake because you are just having a healthy drink. She also taught me said thing about the body being able to convert protein to carbohydrate (look at the chemistry of the molecules, it makes sense), and that everyone has a different way of reacting to food. My dad can eat two slices of bread and is fine. I'm still hungry. I'm stuffed after a small joghurt though. Learn how your body works. And lastly, you want food with complex carbohydrates and lots of fibre, which is why refined food such as white pasta is less good.

Here ends personal experience.

As for the healthy body image, btw, I'll say that it is a very thin line. Any warped body image is a problem, and it's territory I don't want to cross. I have both extremes in the family, and neither is very nice to deal with.

[Vethnar]

Minaku: Thanks for the advice about refined carbs! I'm glad I can keep eating them without worrying.

:)

It is a tragedy that so few women lift weights. Almost all of the women with the best bodies do.

I agree entirely, except that "almost all women with the best bodies" is a bit of an exaggeration. I am fairly sure the health benefits of weight lifting are even bigger for women than for men.

[The Scabbard Of the Morning]

Losing weight it not that hard. I just lost 20 LBs in the last month and half.

And I did no more exercise than I did before. I just changed my diet to cut out the carbs like flour, potatoes, etc. Just ate white meat, fruits and vegetables.

I do miss the hamburger and fries. But once I get down to my target weight, I'll be able to indulge in stuff like that once every so often instead of cutting it completely out of my life.

[The White Wolf]

A little more on-topic: Am I the only person here who eat lots of refined carbs (mostly in the form of rice and pasta)? Of course I eat non-refined carbs as well, but they are difficult to eat in sufficient qualities to satisfy my calorie needs. Are there any important reasons to avoid refined carbs as long as they don't make me fatter?

I'm with you too. I figure like Eponine it's gas for my running engine. One of my coaches explained it to me as carbs are the premium gas, fats are diesel and proteins are parts of the car. (I typically do about 60-70% of calories in carbs... seeing the 30%'s thrown around makes me cringe. I would hate limiting myself to that). A major reason to avoid refined carbs is that the nutrients get refined away. As long as you get a decent amount of those nutrients from the non-refined carbs/veggies I don't see a reason to avoid them. But if you eat nothing but, your body is going to be nutrient deficient in several important areas.

[polekat]

And I'll say to myself, "Do one more pullup, you weak-ass bitch!"

You can do pull-ups? :love:

[Ocean of Notions]

What's this stigma against wanting to look good? Are you kidding me? Given choices of looking bleh or looking awesome, most people would want to look awesome. Unless you're being unhealthy about it, I don't see the problem. Fuck. I want to look good, dammit. I feel a hell of a lot better about myself and have a hell of a lot more energy when I'm looking good. I'm never looking good as I want to, but I like having a goal to work towards. If everything is already perfect, why bother trying?

[Minaku]

You can do pull-ups? :love:

Assisted pullup, shhhh. >_> One day I will make it to a real pullup. But until then I will happily do pullups with the machine.

[lokisnow]

the direction of this thread is ironically hilarious.

1. Everyone: "I am too proud to read the article but everyone knows there are no other factors than calories in < calories out. Therefore the article is wrong and stupid and silly and dangerous, how dare anyone question calories in < calories out!"

2. Odie: "I am going to only eat one meal a day because I found out there are no other factors than calories in < calories out.

3. Everyone: "OMG! why do you think such craziness, of course there are other factors than calories in < calories out. You are so stupid and wrong and silly, just like that article!

4. Odie: "um, there's a contradiction going on here."

5. Everyone: "No there's not, calories in < calories out is always always true, except when it isn't. Why? Because."

6. My thought: "doesn't the mere fact of a starvation mode being widely accepted indicate other factors are in play? if so, why did everyone have a hissy fit when this article suggested there are counter-factors involved with the efficacy of exercise for weight loss? Calories in<calories out doesn't have a linear response, as the existence of 'starvation mode' shows, so we shouldn't prescribe such a formula so monolithically as to be the end-all-be-all of weight loss.

[Eurytus]

the direction of this thread is ironically hilarious.

1. Everyone: "I am too proud to read the article but everyone knows there are no other factors than calories in < calories out. Therefore the article is wrong and stupid and silly and dangerous, how dare anyone question calories in < calories out!"

2. Odie: "I am going to only eat one meal a day because I found out there are no other factors than calories in < calories out.

3. Everyone: "OMG! why do you think such craziness, of course there are other factors than calories in < calories out. You are so stupid and wrong and silly, just like that article!

4. Odie: "um, there's a contradiction going on here."

5. Everyone: "No there's not, calories in < calories out is always always true, except when it isn't. Why? Because."

6. My thought: "doesn't the mere fact of a starvation mode being widely accepted indicate other factors are in play? if so, why did everyone have a hissy fit when this article suggested there are counter-factors involved with the efficacy of exercise for weight loss? Calories in<calories out doesn't have a linear response, as the existence of 'starvation mode' shows, so we shouldn't prescribe such a formula so monolithically as to be the end-all-be-all of weight loss.

Your chain of events would be more accurate if you actually READ the thread.

As it stands its wrong.

People stated that if you expend more calories than you consume you will lose weight. That is true.

People also stated that if you consume dangerously fewer calories than you burn it will be dangerous and perhaps counterproductive (since you will either die or be unable to sustain it and give up, returning to your prior consumption levels).

This second fact does not contradict the first one.

The body entering starvation mode will not stop you losing weight if your calorie deficit is high. It will simply make the weight loss less beneficial and production than it would be via more sensible methods. If nothing else than because your body will start cannibalizing muscle tissue in preference to burning fat because the latter is more useful to have in famine situations.

That will not stop you losing weight. Indeed if anything you may lose more weight because muscle weighs more than fat. But after you cease starvation you will be in a worse situation because your balance will have shifted from muscle to fat and fat burns fewer calories than muscle.

Nor does starvation mode have any factor on the article. The article was stupid, end of story. She was painting a picture where she does half an hours exercise and then has Gatorade and a muffin or two. It doesn't take a genius to see why exercise was not working for her.

[Minaku]

the direction of this thread is ironically hilarious.

1. Everyone: "I am too proud to read the article but everyone knows there are no other factors than calories in < calories out. Therefore the article is wrong and stupid and silly and dangerous, how dare anyone question calories in < calories out!"

2. Odie: "I am going to only eat one meal a day because I found out there are no other factors than calories in < calories out.

3. Everyone: "OMG! why do you think such craziness, of course there are other factors than calories in < calories out. You are so stupid and wrong and silly, just like that article!

4. Odie: "um, there's a contradiction going on here."

5. Everyone: "No there's not, calories in < calories out is always always true, except when it isn't. Why? Because."

6. My thought: "doesn't the mere fact of a starvation mode being widely accepted indicate other factors are in play? if so, why did everyone have a hissy fit when this article suggested there are counter-factors involved with the efficacy of exercise for weight loss? Calories in<calories out doesn't have a linear response, as the existence of 'starvation mode' shows, so we shouldn't prescribe such a formula so monolithically as to be the end-all-be-all of weight loss.

Let's take a look at what people actually said.

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.

Eurytus said: 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.

Cyrano said: 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.

Hmm... so far, no mention of calories in < calories out as the only surefire way to lose weight has been mentioned. Let's keep digging.

Gerold Hightower said: People tend to underestimate how much exercise it really takes to lose weight. It takes an hour of running to work off one Big Mac. So if you exercise to have an excuse for keeping up a bad diet you will of course not lose weight. You need to burn more calories than you eat. The easiest way to achieve that is to eat less.

Another thing people tend to underestimate is the effect of snacks, candy, ice cream, and soft drinks, including fruit juices. All of that stuff is full of fat or sugar. A salad for lunch won't help you if you drink coke all day.

Seems like what everyone has been saying is not starvation, but replacement of crappy foods with good ones, as well as exercise and moderate portions. Still waiting on the calories in < calories out crowd.

[polekat]

Assisted pullup, shhhh. >_> One day I will make it to a real pullup. But until then I will happily do pullups with the machine.

You will totally get there! I still <3 you anyway.

[Balefont]

The body entering starvation mode will not stop you losing weight if your calorie deficit is high. It will simply make the weight loss less beneficial and production than it would be via more sensible methods. If nothing else than because your body will start cannibalizing muscle tissue in preference to burning fat because the latter is more useful to have in famine situations.

That will not stop you losing weight. Indeed if anything you may lose more weight because muscle weighs more than fat. But after you cease starvation you will be in a worse situation because your balance will have shifted from muscle to fat and fat burns fewer calories than muscle.

I've experienced this and it is NOT fun. AT FUCKING ALL.

[Security Squish]

Oh, I don't know. I expected to be ravenous this morning, but in all honesty I feel great. Didn't even really start feeling hungry until I got to work, where I promptly brewed myself a pot of tea. Though I do need to find a way to pick up some multi-vitamins.

And it's just logic that going by the "calories in < calories out" idea that you would be hungry all the time. Even after you just ate. That's how I felt last night after dinner, but I still put the rest of my plate away. You're getting less energy than you need, so your body tries to trick you into eating more.

And besides, doesn't it make sense to go to bed on an empty stomach?

In all seriousness you should see your Doctor, or if you don't have one go to a medical clinic if you want to try a diet like you are proposing. I'm guessing most people on this board aren't qualified to give legit dietary advise. You really risk doing yourself harm and as a medical proffesional I would feel remiss if I did not put this in writting after reading this thread. If you are just joking around in this thread ignore my statement, otherwise you should see a doctor about your nutrition plans.

[Mackaxx]

Just to add to the mess, you guys should also not that a lot of those 'calories' are actually used to increase the size of your existing muscle mass. So technically its not as simple as has been stipulated because in this case many of the calories stay in, albeit in the form of muscle tissue architecture.

And yes, you should all do weights, even the girls. A slab of muscle burns a crapload of energy during exercise and even at rest. If you arn't very well muscled losing weight will be hard. Even with lots of weights I've never seen a women end up with stonking great man arms. It's actually hard for a dude to build that kind of muscle there too. You need nutty amounts of exercise coupled to a very specific body building diet. If you are worried then maybe work on core muscles and stuff like your thighs and ass, which are massive hunks of muscle and quite popular with the opposite sex.

Also, if your drinking juice, cordial or soft drinks then you've got no chance. Seriously, lay off them and if its a problem go for the artificial sweeteners. They're not going to give you cancer and better still they are not going to give you fat and heart disease.

[Balefont]

Just to add to the mess, you guys should also not that a lot of those 'calories' are actually used to increase the size of your existing muscle mass. So technically its not as simple as has been stipulated because in this case many of the calories stay in, albeit in the form of muscle tissue architecture.

And yes, you should all do weights, even the girls. A slab of muscle burns a crapload of energy during exercise and even at rest. If you arn't very well muscled losing weight will be hard. Even with lots of weights I've never seen a women end up with stonking great man arms. It's actually hard for a dude to build that kind of muscle there too. You need nutty amounts of exercise coupled to a very specific body building diet. If you are worried then maybe work on core muscles and stuff like your thighs and ass, which are massive hunks of muscle and quite popular with the opposite sex.

Also, if you're drinking juice, cordial or soft drinks then you've got no chance. Seriously, lay off them and if its a problem go for the artificial sweeteners. They're not going to give you cancer and better still they are not going to give you fat and heart disease.

Well said