Exercise 'not key to obesity fight' Doctors say
Replies
-
Losingthedamnweight wrote: »Oh god the comments on this article are so much fat logic. I'm glad I belong here and not there
http://www.bbc.com/news/health-32417699?ocid=socialflow_facebook
And, it is true that you don't have to exercise to lose weight, all you have to eat less calories than you burn. That's it. If you choose to exercise, it helps create a bigger calorie deficit, that's all. Weight loss happens in the kitchen, fitness at the gym.
As for the rest of the article, it's all opinion.0 -
I just wish when an article is posted people would read it and ideally look at the original article, then use some rational analysis of whats being said and in what context.
Tiger, this is twice you've said that. You don't know that. Why not just allow people to share what they need to share?0 -
I think the study only disproves the myth that if you start working out you can eat however much you want, especially if it is a "healthy" food. Unfortunately the information will be misused as an excuse to not exercise.
Optimal health is achieved by a combination of diet and exercise, period.0 -
If you choose to exercise, it helps create a bigger calorie deficit, that's all.
This is exactly the kind of misleading over-simplification that gets people in trouble. There are many direct benefits to weight loss from exercise, beyond just creating a bigger deficit (which shouldn't even be done, most of the time).
0 -
Chrysalid2014 wrote: »APeacefulWarrior wrote: »I'm curious as to what the real issue is in the MFP community regarding this topic - Weight gain and weight loss work differently for everyone and I would think that factors like exercise, individual metabolism, and nutrients ingested all contribute to someone's success. I'm a believer that there are no absolutes when it comes to science, but that doesn't mean that all theories that don't work for everyone are hogwash.
There have been many studies done (do your own research, I've done mine) that propose that it's not just the number of calories that you take in, but the type of calories you take in, that can make a difference between being a healthy weight or overweight, based on their effect on resting calorie burn. A calorie is not just a calorie, and if you're wanting to get the most bang for your buck for your calorie intake, you need to look at what nutritional value those calories have, based on your individual needs.
As far as sugar goes, from personal experience, and this is based on my body chemistry and my metabolism, avoiding processed sugar has amazing positive effects. I have more energy, less inflammation, less water retention, clearer thinking, and a more positive outlook on life. Would everyone? I doubt it, but before you start arguing against something (unless you're arguing just for the sake of arguing), try it and then form your opinions based on your own individual experience.
Completely agree with everything you've said. Avoiding added sugars even just for the past couple of weeks has made me feel so much better. Some people can clearly tolerate them; well I can't. So I've decided not to have any.
About the 'CICO philosophy' of MFP, I find it amusing that the founder of this site admitted in an interview last week that this was only ever intended as a starting point – a simplification – for those that don't understand anything about nutrition. Yet so many here are convinced this is the be-all-and-end all of dietary reform.
So, you avoid fruit too? You have zero sugar in your diet?
Weight loss is calories in/calories out. Anything outside of CICO-diet type, less sugar, more protein, etc.-has to do with personal preference and/or medical issues.
0 -
While I appreciate this is not the best written article... Not everyone knows abs are made in the kitchen... People largely think that if they exercise it doesn't matter what they eat. Also if they're not informed about calories they may assume that a 30 minute run means that they have 'earned' a bottle of red and an entire pizza
I think more people know better than that, even if they are obese. Even when I was obese I knew it was because I hate too much and no amount of exercise was going to outrun a bad diet. 0 -
If you choose to exercise, it helps create a bigger calorie deficit, that's all.
This is exactly the kind of misleading over-simplification that gets people in trouble. There are many direct benefits to weight loss from exercise, beyond just creating a bigger deficit (which shouldn't even be done, most of the time).
Wait, most of the time you say not to eat back exercise calories, so... WHAT?
If you're not creating a bigger deficit what exactly does your exercise burn do?
(For the record, just so you know, I don't eat back exercise calories... okay yesterday I ate back about 17 calories... I walk primarily to help my psoriatic arthritis and strength train to strengthen the muscles that support my messed up joints.)
0 -
A lot of the time, people say not to eat back the calories because we underestimate what we eat and overestimate what we burn.0
-
Geekymonkey99 wrote: »A lot of the time, people say not to eat back the calories because we underestimate what we eat and overestimate what we burn.
:drinker:
0 -
Chrysalid2014 wrote: »APeacefulWarrior wrote: »I'm curious as to what the real issue is in the MFP community regarding this topic - Weight gain and weight loss work differently for everyone and I would think that factors like exercise, individual metabolism, and nutrients ingested all contribute to someone's success. I'm a believer that there are no absolutes when it comes to science, but that doesn't mean that all theories that don't work for everyone are hogwash.
There have been many studies done (do your own research, I've done mine) that propose that it's not just the number of calories that you take in, but the type of calories you take in, that can make a difference between being a healthy weight or overweight, based on their effect on resting calorie burn. A calorie is not just a calorie, and if you're wanting to get the most bang for your buck for your calorie intake, you need to look at what nutritional value those calories have, based on your individual needs.
As far as sugar goes, from personal experience, and this is based on my body chemistry and my metabolism, avoiding processed sugar has amazing positive effects. I have more energy, less inflammation, less water retention, clearer thinking, and a more positive outlook on life. Would everyone? I doubt it, but before you start arguing against something (unless you're arguing just for the sake of arguing), try it and then form your opinions based on your own individual experience.
Completely agree with everything you've said. Avoiding added sugars even just for the past couple of weeks has made me feel so much better. Some people can clearly tolerate them; well I can't. So I've decided not to have any.
About the 'CICO philosophy' of MFP, I find it amusing that the founder of this site admitted in an interview last week that this was only ever intended as a starting point – a simplification – for those that don't understand anything about nutrition. Yet so many here are convinced this is the be-all-and-end all of dietary reform.
if you think CICO is just a philosophy, why don't you run an experiment on yourself. Reduce as much added sugar and processed carbs as you like, and eat in a 500 calorie per day surplus for four months, and report back with the results and before and after pictures.
My money is on the fact that you would gain a substantial amount of weight.0 -
Geekymonkey99 wrote: »A lot of the time, people say not to eat back the calories because we underestimate what we eat and overestimate what we burn.
So, then you are creating a bigger deficit. Cool.
0 -
Chrysalid2014 wrote: »isulo_kura wrote: »APeacefulWarrior wrote: »I have more energy, less inflammation,
How did you measure this? Was there before and after measurements? If it's just personal opinion/evaluation I'm afraid that proves nothing
Sorry, but there's no requirement for anyone to 'prove' anything. Some of us have made a personal decision to reduce our sugar intake and we feel better for it. Some of us choose to share that experience on forums such as this one. End of story.
if you are going to use your "experience" as the gospel about sugar intake, then there should be some measurable tangibles that you can supply to other users. Otherwise, you are just basing your experience on "dem feelz"0 -
Which you shouldn't ever do. Or should do. Depending on what argument you want to make in what thread.mamapeach910 wrote: »Geekymonkey99 wrote: »A lot of the time, people say not to eat back the calories because we underestimate what we eat and overestimate what we burn.
So, then you are creating a bigger deficit. Cool.
0 -
mamapeach910 wrote: »If you choose to exercise, it helps create a bigger calorie deficit, that's all.
This is exactly the kind of misleading over-simplification that gets people in trouble. There are many direct benefits to weight loss from exercise, beyond just creating a bigger deficit (which shouldn't even be done, most of the time).
Wait, most of the time you say not to eat back exercise calories, so... WHAT?
If you're not creating a bigger deficit what exactly does your exercise burn do?
(For the record, just so you know, I don't eat back exercise calories... okay yesterday I ate back about 17 calories... I walk primarily to help my psoriatic arthritis and strength train to strengthen the muscles that support my messed up joints.)
meh, mr scrabble word games is just picking the side that he feels needs saving...
you are wasting your time0 -
Do the math. If someone walks at 3.5 mph for an hour they burn roughly 200 cal per hour. So if a person walks 4 hours a week that adds up to about 800 cal per week. If that same person walks for 7 hours a week it adds up to 1400 cal per week.
That would translate to burning a pound of fat in 2.5-4 weeks.
Exercise is good for you but it won't help you lose that much weight.0 -
mamapeach910 wrote: »If you choose to exercise, it helps create a bigger calorie deficit, that's all.
This is exactly the kind of misleading over-simplification that gets people in trouble. There are many direct benefits to weight loss from exercise, beyond just creating a bigger deficit (which shouldn't even be done, most of the time).
Wait, most of the time you say not to eat back exercise calories, so... WHAT?
If you're not creating a bigger deficit what exactly does your exercise burn do?
(For the record, just so you know, I don't eat back exercise calories... okay yesterday I ate back about 17 calories... I walk primarily to help my psoriatic arthritis and strength train to strengthen the muscles that support my messed up joints.)
meh, mr scrabble word games is just picking the side that he feels needs saving...
you are wasting your time
Oh, I know. I just wanted to point it out. He pretty much ignores me all the time anyway.
0 -
Chrysalid2014 wrote: »isulo_kura wrote: »APeacefulWarrior wrote: »I have more energy, less inflammation,
How did you measure this? Was there before and after measurements? If it's just personal opinion/evaluation I'm afraid that proves nothing
Sorry, but there's no requirement for anyone to 'prove' anything. Some of us have made a personal decision to reduce our sugar intake and we feel better for it. Some of us choose to share that experience on forums such as this one. End of story.
if you are going to use your "experience" as the gospel about sugar intake, then there should be some measurable tangibles that you can supply to other users. Otherwise, you are just basing your experience on "dem feelz"
She hasn't even given up sugar for a few weeks yet. Her diary's closed now, but that's very recent.
0 -
APeacefulWarrior wrote: »I'm curious as to what the real issue is in the MFP community regarding this topic
Isn't the topic exercise/activity and their role in health and weight loss? You go on to talk about something totally different.Weight gain and weight loss work differently for everyone
Yes and no.
Weight gain and weight loss in the basic ways work THE SAME for everyone--eat more than you need to maintain (and by more I mean more calories) and you gain, eat less than you need to maintain and you lose. CICO, in other words.
But what works for people to achieve CI<CO or tends to result in CI>CO will be different, and that's why different strategies work for different people (including--contrary to Noakes et al.--exercise as an important element for many).There have been many studies done (do your own research, I've done mine) that propose that it's not just the number of calories that you take in, but the type of calories you take in, that can make a difference between being a healthy weight or overweight, based on their effect on resting calorie burn.
The idea being that a sedentary person can manage not to keep gaining weight if she stays at the same calories on which she was gaining but cuts out sugar or carbs? Yeah, not buying that, and the studies don't support that.
That doesn't mean that what you eat doesn't matter. Of course it does.you need to look at what nutritional value those calories have, based on your individual needs.
See, this demonstrates confusion to me. A calorie is a unit of energy. It has NO nutritional value. The same foods that contain calories ALSO contain various nutrients, and they of course differ. So a calorie is a calorie (unless measured wrong). But an apple is not a chicken breast is not a Twinkie.
I don't know why people instead upon pretending that when we say a calorie is a calorie we mean "there are no nutritional differences between foods," because of course there are and no one has ever claimed otherwise.
I suspect it's because many people really, really want to believe that if you just "eat healthy" you won't have to worry about gaining weight. For some people, that might be a good strategy. For me, it's a worse strategy than "just exercise a lot." (The latter doesn't work either, but it works better, since I almost always eat well when I'm exercising a lot.)
0 -
Its all about CICO, no ways around that. Im sure all of you who've lost weight/gained weight have created a deficit/surplus in someway or another. For me, eating less added sugar seems to give me a flatter stomach after consuming, but thats about it.0
-
isulo_kura wrote: »APeacefulWarrior wrote: »I have more energy, less inflammation,
How did you measure this? Was there before and after measurements? If it's just personal opinion/evaluation I'm afraid that proves nothing
The person who posted the comment wrote:
"As far as sugar goes, from personal experience, and this is based on my body chemistry and my metabolism, avoiding processed sugar has amazing positive effects. I have more energy, less inflammation, less water retention, clearer thinking, and a more positive outlook on life. Would everyone? I doubt it, but before you start arguing against something (unless you're arguing just for the sake of arguing), try it and then form your opinions based on your own individual experience.
I doubt this person is trying to prove anything.0 -
I'm losing just over a pound a week beyond what my caloric deficit from food, standing alone, would explain. That's not insignificant.TheSingingMom wrote: »Do the math. If someone walks at 3.5 mph for an hour they burn roughly 200 cal per hour. So if a person walks 4 hours a week that adds up to about 800 cal per week. If that same person walks for 7 hours a week it adds up to 1400 cal per week.
That would translate to burning a pound of fat in 2.5-4 weeks.
Exercise is good for you but it won't help you lose that much weight.
0 -
TheSingingMom wrote: »Do the math. If someone walks at 3.5 mph for an hour they burn roughly 200 cal per hour. So if a person walks 4 hours a week that adds up to about 800 cal per week. If that same person walks for 7 hours a week it adds up to 1400 cal per week.
That would translate to burning a pound of fat in 2.5-4 weeks.
Exercise is good for you but it won't help you lose that much weight.
How about this? If someone rides a bicycle at 15 mph for an hour they burn roughly 900 calories (bicycling.com). So if a person rides 4 hours a week that adds up to about 3600 calories per week. If that same person rides 7 hours a week, that adds up to 6300 calories per week.
That would translate to burning a pound of fat in 1 week, or even 1.8 pounds per week.
Exercise is good for you, and if you do enough of it, it will help you lose a lot of weight.0 -
Geekymonkey99 wrote: »A lot of the time, people say not to eat back the calories because we underestimate what we eat and overestimate what we burn.
I'd say the better approach is to see whether you actually do or not. Or to see what you are losing to judge what the actual deficit is and adjust accordingly. When I started I was eating a significant portion of my exercise calories and still losing 2-3 lb/week (I was pretty fat), even though MFP predicted 1.8, I think. So presumably I wasn't underestimating my eating, etc., or I was also underestimating my activity/calorie burn from daily life.0 -
TheSingingMom wrote: »Do the math. If someone walks at 3.5 mph for an hour they burn roughly 200 cal per hour. So if a person walks 4 hours a week that adds up to about 800 cal per week. If that same person walks for 7 hours a week it adds up to 1400 cal per week.
That would translate to burning a pound of fat in 2.5-4 weeks.
Exercise is good for you but it won't help you lose that much weight.
If I'm sedentary, my maintenance is about 1550. Currently my maintenance seems to be about 2000. So I can lose weight eating 1750, but if I were sedentary I'd be gaining weight. Not gaining or losing quickly, but over a year that matters a lot.
The reason I mention this is that the original article wasn't really about how to lose lots of weight fast (obviously the key to that is controlling your diet), but how to address the problem of obesity. I think activity is extremely important for that.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »TheSingingMom wrote: »Do the math. If someone walks at 3.5 mph for an hour they burn roughly 200 cal per hour. So if a person walks 4 hours a week that adds up to about 800 cal per week. If that same person walks for 7 hours a week it adds up to 1400 cal per week.
That would translate to burning a pound of fat in 2.5-4 weeks.
Exercise is good for you but it won't help you lose that much weight.
If I'm sedentary, my maintenance is about 1550. Currently my maintenance seems to be about 2000. So I can lose weight eating 1750, but if I were sedentary I'd be gaining weight. Not gaining or losing quickly, but over a year that matters a lot.
The reason I mention this is that the original article wasn't really about how to lose lots of weight fast (obviously the key to that is controlling your diet), but how to address the problem of obesity. I think activity is extremely important for that.
Good point. I don't recall even gaining a significant amount of weight while exercising. I may not have been losing weight, but I wasn't gaining weight, even though I had something of the attitude that I could eat whatever because I was exercising. All of my weight gain has occurred during periods when I was sitting in front of the TV instead of sitting on the bike.0 -
TimothyFish wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »TheSingingMom wrote: »Do the math. If someone walks at 3.5 mph for an hour they burn roughly 200 cal per hour. So if a person walks 4 hours a week that adds up to about 800 cal per week. If that same person walks for 7 hours a week it adds up to 1400 cal per week.
That would translate to burning a pound of fat in 2.5-4 weeks.
Exercise is good for you but it won't help you lose that much weight.
If I'm sedentary, my maintenance is about 1550. Currently my maintenance seems to be about 2000. So I can lose weight eating 1750, but if I were sedentary I'd be gaining weight. Not gaining or losing quickly, but over a year that matters a lot.
The reason I mention this is that the original article wasn't really about how to lose lots of weight fast (obviously the key to that is controlling your diet), but how to address the problem of obesity. I think activity is extremely important for that.
Good point. I don't recall even gaining a significant amount of weight while exercising. I may not have been losing weight, but I wasn't gaining weight, even though I had something of the attitude that I could eat whatever because I was exercising. All of my weight gain has occurred during periods when I was sitting in front of the TV instead of sitting on the bike.
Not me. I was exercising during the entire time I was gaining 80lbs over the space of 18 months, and eating the same meals. The thing I did different was to consume a lot of sugary carb snacks every evening after dinner.
And back in the days when I weighed 110lbs, my idea of a strenuous exercise session was jumping up and down on a rebounder for 15 minutes. As I recall I used to do that three times a week, as was the recommendation in those days.0 -
Yeah, apparently about 500 calories a day worth. Blame the extra calories, not the sugar.Chrysalid2014 wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »TheSingingMom wrote: »Do the math. If someone walks at 3.5 mph for an hour they burn roughly 200 cal per hour. So if a person walks 4 hours a week that adds up to about 800 cal per week. If that same person walks for 7 hours a week it adds up to 1400 cal per week.
That would translate to burning a pound of fat in 2.5-4 weeks.
Exercise is good for you but it won't help you lose that much weight.
If I'm sedentary, my maintenance is about 1550. Currently my maintenance seems to be about 2000. So I can lose weight eating 1750, but if I were sedentary I'd be gaining weight. Not gaining or losing quickly, but over a year that matters a lot.
The reason I mention this is that the original article wasn't really about how to lose lots of weight fast (obviously the key to that is controlling your diet), but how to address the problem of obesity. I think activity is extremely important for that.
Good point. I don't recall even gaining a significant amount of weight while exercising. I may not have been losing weight, but I wasn't gaining weight, even though I had something of the attitude that I could eat whatever because I was exercising. All of my weight gain has occurred during periods when I was sitting in front of the TV instead of sitting on the bike.
Not me. I was exercising during the entire time I was gaining 80lbs over the space of 18 months, and eating the same meals. The thing I did different was to consume a lot of sugary carb snacks every evening after dinner.0 -
DeguelloTex wrote: »
Yeah, apparently about 500 calories a day worth. Blame the extra calories, not the sugar.Chrysalid2014 wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »TheSingingMom wrote: »Do the math. If someone walks at 3.5 mph for an hour they burn roughly 200 cal per hour. So if a person walks 4 hours a week that adds up to about 800 cal per week. If that same person walks for 7 hours a week it adds up to 1400 cal per week.
That would translate to burning a pound of fat in 2.5-4 weeks.
Exercise is good for you but it won't help you lose that much weight.
If I'm sedentary, my maintenance is about 1550. Currently my maintenance seems to be about 2000. So I can lose weight eating 1750, but if I were sedentary I'd be gaining weight. Not gaining or losing quickly, but over a year that matters a lot.
The reason I mention this is that the original article wasn't really about how to lose lots of weight fast (obviously the key to that is controlling your diet), but how to address the problem of obesity. I think activity is extremely important for that.
Good point. I don't recall even gaining a significant amount of weight while exercising. I may not have been losing weight, but I wasn't gaining weight, even though I had something of the attitude that I could eat whatever because I was exercising. All of my weight gain has occurred during periods when I was sitting in front of the TV instead of sitting on the bike.
Not me. I was exercising during the entire time I was gaining 80lbs over the space of 18 months, and eating the same meals. The thing I did different was to consume a lot of sugary carb snacks every evening after dinner.
Yup. I gained a lot of weight eating... eggs, cheese, meat, nuts, olive oil, fish, and veggies. No starches, no sugar.
0 -
Chrysalid2014 wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »TheSingingMom wrote: »Do the math. If someone walks at 3.5 mph for an hour they burn roughly 200 cal per hour. So if a person walks 4 hours a week that adds up to about 800 cal per week. If that same person walks for 7 hours a week it adds up to 1400 cal per week.
That would translate to burning a pound of fat in 2.5-4 weeks.
Exercise is good for you but it won't help you lose that much weight.
If I'm sedentary, my maintenance is about 1550. Currently my maintenance seems to be about 2000. So I can lose weight eating 1750, but if I were sedentary I'd be gaining weight. Not gaining or losing quickly, but over a year that matters a lot.
The reason I mention this is that the original article wasn't really about how to lose lots of weight fast (obviously the key to that is controlling your diet), but how to address the problem of obesity. I think activity is extremely important for that.
Good point. I don't recall even gaining a significant amount of weight while exercising. I may not have been losing weight, but I wasn't gaining weight, even though I had something of the attitude that I could eat whatever because I was exercising. All of my weight gain has occurred during periods when I was sitting in front of the TV instead of sitting on the bike.
Not me. I was exercising during the entire time I was gaining 80lbs over the space of 18 months, and eating the same meals. The thing I did different was to consume a lot of sugary carb snacks every evening after dinner.
And back in the days when I weighed 110lbs, my idea of a strenuous exercise session was jumping up and down on a rebounder for 15 minutes. As I recall I used to do that three times a week, as was the recommendation in those days.
so you replaced calorie dense foods with less calorie dense foods and started losing weight? Why is this surprising to you? FYI, you were following CICO, even if you fail to acknowledge it.0 -
Chrysalid2014 wrote: »so many here are convinced this is the be-all-and-end all of dietary reform.
Only a Sith deals in absolutes.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions