An obese person does not need to do one iota of exercise to lose weight
Options
Replies
-
I'd be willing to wager that some people who begin an exercise program without tracking energy intake or intentionally change eating habits probably see weight loss and an improvement in body composition.
0 -
Possibly, if they at least pay attention to what they're eating because they're more concerned about their health as evidenced by the new exercise program. I'd be willing to wager that others overestimate what exercise is doing for them and out-eat any exercise burn and end up heavier and fatter.I'd be willing to wager that some people who begin an exercise program without tracking energy intake or intentionally change eating habits probably see weight loss and an improvement in body composition.
0 -
That is true. I worked with an 85 year old man, who lost 50 pounds, it was amazing. He stopped eating desserts, his breakfast doughnuts, and increased vegetables. No exercise. Just changes in diet.0
-
DeguelloTex wrote: »
Possibly, if they at least pay attention to what they're eating because they're more concerned about their health as evidenced by the new exercise program. I'd be willing to wager that others overestimate what exercise is doing for them and out-eat any exercise burn and end up heavier and fatter.I'd be willing to wager that some people who begin an exercise program without tracking energy intake or intentionally change eating habits probably see weight loss and an improvement in body composition.
Someone starting an exercise program from flat is probably doing something moderate, like a brisk walk for 3*30. That's burning maybe 3-400 calories per week. Which translates to about 4-6lbs per year, which is probably less than they'd been gaining. And that's assuming they don't up their intake, which is unlikely b/c they feel 'virtuous' for being more active.
Burning 500 c/day is incredibly hard - you need an hour of very intense exercise, every day, while not increasing the amount of calories you are eating. I'd wager there are incredibly few, if any, people who can do this from scratch.
0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »In an editorial in the British Journal of Sports Medicine, three international experts said it was time to "bust the myth" about exercise. They said while activity was a key part of staving off diseases such as diabetes, heart disease and dementia, its impact on obesity was minimal.
This is similar to what I just wrote in the other thread about exercise, and I'm not sure if the research being discussed is the same--I read the Guardian article, but the link in the OP here appears to be broken.
I would like to know what the researchers looked at in claiming that differences in activity do not matter for obesity, because one difference I've seen pointed out between areas of the US that have higher levels of obesity and areas that do not, and in particular between the US and other countries with lower obesity and overweight rates, is the difference in daily activity levels.
If this article is to be taken seriously, I guess the percentage of time people spend driving and not walking, the absence of sidewalks some places, decreases in the amount of time kids spend being active (vs. on the computer), changes in job patterns, etc. don't matter. And maybe they don't, but I'd like to see how this was determined.
Also, I am skeptical from the beginning with the researchers claiming that too much emphasis is placed on exercise. My impression is that diet is already the main thing that is focused on and what people think matter (and that dumb arguments over sugar vs. fat and so on--which the authors seem to be playing a role in--are actually part of the problem, as people think they need to follow some correct, complicated diet and can't figure out what is right given the claims from vegans to low carb to paleo and all the rest, when really it's much simpler).
When you look at populations and the different activity levels typical for their environments, the amount of activity does matter. But this is activity that's incidental to their lifestyles. For example people that live in suburban areas where there are no sidewalks and where workplaces and stores are miles away will find it impractical to walk or bike for transportation. These suburban people may tend to be heavier than their city counterparts who find it impractical to have cars and therefore walk most places. (I recently spent a week vacation in New York City and lost weight.)
When you look at an individual who is trying to lose weight, purposeful exercise may have very little relative importance compared to diet. I find it much easier to eat 500 calories less each day, than to exercise 500 calories worth every day. And back to the NYC example, I would never have the time in my every day schedule to walk as much as I walked each day on that vacation.
0 -
I have a few different thoughts on this article. First, I know many obese people with health problems/disabilities that make exercise difficult if not impossible who think they can't lose weight because they can't exercise. Exercise causes them to be in pain, pain makes it hard to do their daily activities, so they give up doing anything thinking things are hopeless. This article clearly indicates that weight loss IS possible without the need for exercise through diet modification.
Yet clearly some form of exercise - even if not done for weight loss - is beneficial to the brain and cardiovascular system. Many people once engaged in regular exercise feel better psychologically as well as physically. And after even a short period of time, can start seeing benefits to their lives outside of their weight loss goals.
In a perfect world, the take away of the article should be that obese people should be encouraged to make diet modifications that will help them lose weight first. Then, they should be encouraged to find a form of exercise they can find pleasurable even if they have a disability but not as a focus of losing weight - as a focus of healthy lifestyle that can prolong their lives and improve their self-esteem and mental health.0 -
lthames0810 wrote: »When you look at populations and the different activity levels typical for their environments, the amount of activity does matter. But this is activity that's incidental to their lifestyles. For example people that live in suburban areas where there are no sidewalks and where workplaces and stores are miles away will find it impractical to walk or bike for transportation. These suburban people may tend to be heavier than their city counterparts who find it impractical to have cars and therefore walk most places. (I recently spent a week vacation in New York City and lost weight.)
Right, that's my point.
If we are talking about what's helpful to address societal obesity I think saying activity doesn't matter is wrong. Ways of encouraging activity (say alternatives to car commutes, sidewalks, walkable downtowns) may well matter.
I live in a city, but had become very lazy about walking as I got extremely obese. The first thing I did when deciding to lose weight was to say this is stupid, I will walk everywhere I possibly can (which meant lots of walking). I struggled a little at first (I had a leg injury that wasn't healing that well, probably because I was so fat), but quickly got back to normal, and I think the number of calories I burn in my daily life when walking where I can vs. taking cabs or driving are significant (and my results support this).When you look at an individual who is trying to lose weight, purposeful exercise may have very little relative importance compared to diet. I find it much easier to eat 500 calories less each day, than to exercise 500 calories worth every day.
But the reverse can be true too. It's easier to create a big deficit through diet, but what matters for gain or loss over time is simply A deficit, not how large it is.
I was 5'3, 120, and active, and ate about 2000 calories/day, I suspect, to maintain my weight. I abruptly became inactive and didn't adjust my eating, and I gained almost a lb/week over the next year, which maps pretty closely to the surplus I would have had over my sedentary maintenance if eating about 2000 calories/day.
Now my maintenance is 1550 or so, if sedentary, and I've been losing at a level higher than that (although I'm currently maintaining at around 2000 again, because I can't seem to stick to a deficit). So is that because of diet or exercise?
I definitely agree that for most people struggling with their weight (including me), you need to understand what you are eating and choose to control your eating in some way, but I just don't agree that that means it's diet and not exercise or some percentage of one vs. the other. I think for many of us they work together. For me it's tons easier if I focus on exercise too.0 -
In an editorial in the British Journal of Sports Medicine, three international experts said it was time to "bust the myth" about exercise. They said while activity was a key part of staving off diseases such as diabetes, heart disease and dementia, its impact on obesity was minimal.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-32417699
This resonates with what I have learnt over the last few decades and concurs with what a fitness instructor told me at a gym years ago.
This seems like one of those "true in theory, wrong in practice" scenarios.
The doc is right - you could be in a coma for 12 months and lose all the weight in the world. On the other hand, the only factor I've ever found that has a positive correlation with successful weight maintenance is a high level of physical activity.
I know for myself that maintaining regular, vigorous exercise absolutely, positively has the effect of suppressing my appetite when I'm heavier than I "should" be.
ETA: Should also add that the more physically active I am, the more my body seems to notice my macro consumption. Which makes total sense, IMO.0 -
In an editorial in the British Journal of Sports Medicine, three international experts said it was time to "bust the myth" about exercise. They said while activity was a key part of staving off diseases such as diabetes, heart disease and dementia, its impact on obesity was minimal.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-32417699
This resonates with what I have learnt over the last few decades and concurs with what a fitness instructor told me at a gym years ago.
This seems like one of those "true in theory, wrong in practice" scenarios.
The doc is right - you could be in a coma for 12 months and lose all the weight in the world. On the other hand, the only factor I've ever found that has a positive correlation with successful weight maintenance is a high level of physical activity.
I know for myself that maintaining regular, vigorous exercise absolutely, positively has the effect of suppressing my appetite when I'm heavier than I "should" be.
ETA: Should also add that the more physically active I am, the more my body seems to notice my macro consumption. Which makes total sense, IMO.
I've had the opposite experience-I've been successfully maintaining without any regular exercise program. During the fall/winter months this past year I did zero exercise (September-January). In the past three months I've done a push-ups challenge (3 times a week/10-20ish minutes a time), and then I've started walking again outside in the past month, 2-4 miles a week-this week I've walked a grand total of one mile.
Besides the bit of walking I've also (as of last week), restarted the push-ups challenge on a more difficult level and then I also started a squats challenge. Three times a week, for around twenty minutes. Calorie wise-what I'm doing is very minimal and the scale has stayed within my maintenance range throughout it all.
It's interesting how we each have such different experiences with this whole weight loss/maintenance thing
0 -
Sarasmaintaining wrote: »It's interesting how we each have such different experiences with this whole weight loss/maintenance thing
Yep. It's like nature evolved us to have diversity or something.
:drinker:
0 -
Lose weight in the kitchen, lose pounds in the gymn and gain fitness with exercise. (probably only UK people would get this :-) )
0 -
no cites atm but most studies i've read have suggested that exercise & nutrition work together, for unclear reasons. in some people (not all, reasons unknown), cardio helps keep appetite in check. others have said it could be related to motivation - if you work out, you might be more likely to make better food choices, just because you now see yourself as a "healthy" person living in a "healthy" way.
you don't have to work out, but it's silly not to, seeing as it helps with every body system (including the brain - exercise helps protect against dementia). so if your only focus is fitting into whatever size, ok, otherwise...0 -
I think the message here is important because of the potential impact, not because of the science.
There are lots of obese people who think that they have to start paying regular visits to the gym in order to lose weight. They're afraid of exercise, or they simply don't like it (because, let's face it, exercising while obese is hard) and therefore they avoid it like the plague. Hence, they don't lose weight.
Communicating the message that, hey, it's okay to start with only diet? That could save many lives and improve countless others.
Anyway, the exercise often comes on its own. Once you're a fair bit into your weight loss, you feel lighter, more energetic and more educated about the process. And maybe you start exercising because, well, now you feel more like it.
And even if they don't, simply losing some weight could give them health benefits beyond where they were before. Which is better than nothing.0 -
I think the message here is important because of the potential impact, not because of the science.
There are lots of obese people who think that they have to start paying regular visits to the gym in order to lose weight. They're afraid of exercise, or they simply don't like it (because, let's face it, exercising while obese is hard) and therefore they avoid it like the plague. Hence, they don't lose weight.
Communicating the message that, hey, it's okay to start with only diet? That could save many lives and improve countless others.
Anyway, the exercise often comes on its own. Once you're a fair bit into your weight loss, you feel lighter, more energetic and more educated about the process. And maybe you start exercising because, well, now you feel more like it.
And even if they don't, simply losing some weight could give them health benefits beyond where they were before. Which is better than nothing.
good points - some who otherwise wouldnt' make an effort at all can feel relieved. but you know, walking can be exercise, too. it's a great exercise, imo. and sitting's bad for you, you know? there's another study for that, sorry not digging today, lol0 -
good points - some who otherwise wouldnt' make an effort at all can feel relieved. but you know, walking can be exercise, too. it's a great exercise, imo. and sitting's bad for you, you know? there's another study for that, sorry not digging today, lol
Yep. And I walked a lot even before losing the weight. Much to my surprise, after about 30 lbs off, I started running. I NEVER would've thought I could do that beforehand. Ever. But at some point, I just started feeling like I wanted to move faster than a walk, and I donned a pair of running shoes and downloaded a couch to 5k app and off I went.
So, yeah, sometimes you surprise yourself.
0 -
good points - some who otherwise wouldnt' make an effort at all can feel relieved. but you know, walking can be exercise, too. it's a great exercise, imo. and sitting's bad for you, you know? there's another study for that, sorry not digging today, lol
Yep. And I walked a lot even before losing the weight. Much to my surprise, after about 30 lbs off, I started running. I NEVER would've thought I could do that beforehand. Ever. But at some point, I just started feeling like I wanted to move faster than a walk, and I donned a pair of running shoes and downloaded a couch to 5k app and off I went.
So, yeah, sometimes you surprise yourself.
Indeed! 0 -
Have to remember that activities, like running, can injure. Less so when not overweight I understand.0
-
The article in the OP references this journal item http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/content/42/6/1831.full
If you're bored, the first six links in it that say ARTICLE are to follow-up correspondance in the journal.
0 -
Watching the calorie intake foremost. While adding exercise at a steady rate that fits your lifestyle.0
-
IMO it's a misleading article being pushed by people with their own bias. It's one of those topics that has multiple discussion threads, so it is easy to selectively use "facts" to distort the argument. In addition a lot of the research on exercise and weight loss is either inconclusive or poorly constructed.
The anti-exercise folks usually cite research in which a very modest volume of exercise is the only variable. I've seen studies that looked at workouts that only burned 150 calories, were done 3x/wk and had no no diet restrictions. Big shock: nobody lost weight.
Equally disingenuous are articles, etc, that focus only on short term weight loss. The effectiveness of any weight loss intervention can really only be measured over a period of two years or more. While all weight loss programs have a depressingly low long-term success rate, programs that include a continuing vigorous exercise program still have a success rate that is 40%-50% better than diet-only interventions.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.7K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 394 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 941 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions