Exercise 'not key to obesity fight' Doctors say
Replies
-
mamapeach910 wrote: »Chrysalid2014 wrote: »AlabasterVerve wrote: »
I value reading about people's personal experiences on MFP and hope these absurd demands for proof and research every time someone decides to share stops.
again, "dem feelz" is not a legitimate reason for telling someone else to avoid sugar...
It's certainly a legitimate reason for sharing one's experience on a forum like this one. Many people have reported that they feel better after cutting down or giving up added sugar and it's a valid suggestion to make to others. Whether the 'evidence' they're citing is scientific or anecdotal doesn't really matter – no-one is going to be harmed by giving up added sugar for a few weeks/months to see if it makes them feel better too.
Absolutely. Sharing personal experience as personal experience is awesome.
Making medical claims? Maybe you'd better be prepared to back them up with more than feels or vague assertions.
It's one thing to say "I feel better". That's a subjective statement. "I decreased my inflammation"? Well, that's relevant to my interests. I'd like to see some specific proof.
Sugar and inflammation doesn't seem to be anything new? Whether any of these studies have merit or not I don't know but there's lots of references to diet and inflammation in the literature if you're interested.Role of high glycemic food in Inflammation
An abundant intake of high glycemic food appears to be related to an increased susceptibility to the development of chronic inflammation, as has been demonstrated by several research groups [57-59]. The consequences of a high carbohydrate diet are complex and multiple. The pathways leading to disturbances of normal inflammation are:
1. High glycemic food intake increases inflammation markers
2. High glycemic food intake causes hyperglycemia and hyperinsulinemia leading to disturbed balances in insulin growth factor-1 (IGF-1) and androgens
3. Chronic intake of high glycemic food causes hypoglycemia, which triggers central stress axes
High Glycemic food increases inflammation markers
Various clinical trials have shown that an abundant intake of high glycemic food increases inflammatory markers and markers of metabolic syndrome such as postprandial NFkB in mononuclear cells [57], high sensitive-C-Reactive Protein (hs-CRP)[58], interleukin (IL)-6, IL-7, IL-18 [60], levels of free radicals [59], cholesterol, triglycerides [61] and even blood pressure [62]. Changes incurred by following a low glycemic diet include improved insulin sensitivity, lower blood pressure and total cholesterol, which are all key markers of the metabolic syndrome [58,60,61]. The high glucose-induced inflammatory response is accompanied by hyperinsulinemia and insulin resistance, characteristic for people suffering from obesity [57,59]. Increased hsCRP values, hyperinsulinemia and insulin resistance are strongly related to CVD risk [60]. Glycemic index (GI) and glycemic load (GL) have therefore been proposed as biomarkers and predictors for (chronic) inflammation [63].
Source0 -
MoiAussi93 wrote: »Sophiareed218 wrote: »I've been seeing articles like this recently, but I thought the point they were making is not that exercise isn't important, but that diet is more important to weight loss. Makes sense. The average obese person can't exercise off 1000 calories in a go, but you sure can eat 1000 calories in one meal/snack/milkshake. The titles are often misleading so they can grab attention, sure.
That's what the article seemed to say in my opinion. And that is true. My view is that exercise is SUPPORTIVE of weight loss/control and definitely can contribute, but it is not the most important factor. Diet is much more important because, as you said, an obese person is unable to burn 1000 calories in one exercise session but can easily eat that or more in one snack.
For me (and yes, I realize this is my personal experience and not necessarily true of everybody), I think the fact that exercising on a regular basis seems to make me more likely to eat healthy is more important than the few hundred calories I might burn when I exercise. I think the two habits seems to reinforce each other. I am more likely to exercise when I am eating well. I am more likely to keep eating well when I exercise.
That's a good point about exercise reinforcing healthy eating, especially when it comes to weight loss. If I bust my *kitten* at the gym and find out I've only burned off 200 calories, I'm going to think very carefully about eating that late night snack that comes in at 350.
But back to the main post, I think perhap you can extrapolate that exercise is certainly not the cure for the obesity epidemic. By that I mean as a societal policy, telling people to "just exercise the recommended 30 minutes a day three times a week and you'll be fine" message has clearly failed. Just like teaching abstinence only education in schools was a monumental failure for much the same reason. On an individual level sure, people can protect themselves from obesity with a healthy diet and exercise, but it's unrealistic to think millions of obese people are going to be flooding the gyms and produce isles. Were that the case, I think we'd have decreasing, not increasing obesity levels. If I had to make a prediction, I'd say obesity is going to keep on rising and rising without much reprieve until scientists are able to produce a TRUE weight loss drug. Possibly one that could shut off appetite in the brain causing weight loss almost effortlessly. Sure we have some drugs now that do that, but they're illegal and have catastrophic side effects (think methamphetamine or cocaine.) If they can harness that sort of appetite suppressant and make loosing lots of weight affordable, easy, safe and widely available then I think we as a society have a fighting chance. Bariatric surgery isn't really a great solution either. We are entering a post-antibiotic world, it's expensive and often times not covered by insurance. Meanwhile the Pandora's box of abundant, cheap, delicious, convient food is wide open and won't be closing anytime soon.
Since I don't want to leave this post on a dreary prophecy of things to come, I think everyone on here trying to lose weight or improve fitness is a really great showing of personal responsibility and taking life into your own hands. Congrats.0 -
AlabasterVerve wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »Chrysalid2014 wrote: »AlabasterVerve wrote: »
I value reading about people's personal experiences on MFP and hope these absurd demands for proof and research every time someone decides to share stops.
again, "dem feelz" is not a legitimate reason for telling someone else to avoid sugar...
It's certainly a legitimate reason for sharing one's experience on a forum like this one. Many people have reported that they feel better after cutting down or giving up added sugar and it's a valid suggestion to make to others. Whether the 'evidence' they're citing is scientific or anecdotal doesn't really matter – no-one is going to be harmed by giving up added sugar for a few weeks/months to see if it makes them feel better too.
Absolutely. Sharing personal experience as personal experience is awesome.
Making medical claims? Maybe you'd better be prepared to back them up with more than feels or vague assertions.
It's one thing to say "I feel better". That's a subjective statement. "I decreased my inflammation"? Well, that's relevant to my interests. I'd like to see some specific proof.
Sugar and inflammation doesn't seem to be anything new? Whether any of these studies have merit or not I don't know but there's lots of references to diet and inflammation in the literature if you're interested.Role of high glycemic food in Inflammation
An abundant intake of high glycemic food appears to be related to an increased susceptibility to the development of chronic inflammation, as has been demonstrated by several research groups [57-59]. The consequences of a high carbohydrate diet are complex and multiple. The pathways leading to disturbances of normal inflammation are:
1. High glycemic food intake increases inflammation markers
2. High glycemic food intake causes hyperglycemia and hyperinsulinemia leading to disturbed balances in insulin growth factor-1 (IGF-1) and androgens
3. Chronic intake of high glycemic food causes hypoglycemia, which triggers central stress axes
High Glycemic food increases inflammation markers
Various clinical trials have shown that an abundant intake of high glycemic food increases inflammatory markers and markers of metabolic syndrome such as postprandial NFkB in mononuclear cells [57], high sensitive-C-Reactive Protein (hs-CRP)[58], interleukin (IL)-6, IL-7, IL-18 [60], levels of free radicals [59], cholesterol, triglycerides [61] and even blood pressure [62]. Changes incurred by following a low glycemic diet include improved insulin sensitivity, lower blood pressure and total cholesterol, which are all key markers of the metabolic syndrome [58,60,61]. The high glucose-induced inflammatory response is accompanied by hyperinsulinemia and insulin resistance, characteristic for people suffering from obesity [57,59]. Increased hsCRP values, hyperinsulinemia and insulin resistance are strongly related to CVD risk [60]. Glycemic index (GI) and glycemic load (GL) have therefore been proposed as biomarkers and predictors for (chronic) inflammation [63].
Source
Okay, but what's the threshold for "abundant intake"? That's a vague turn of phrase.
There's a lot of room between totally avoiding such foods and abundant intake, yes?
I have gone the route of totally avoiding, and as I said, I developed a new, chronic autoimmune inflammatory disease while eating that way. At that point, why bother continuing denying myself food I enjoyed? I've added back some carbs, and actually feel better due to exercise.
This is the second thing I've read related to metabolic syndrome/inflammation, but I'm talking about inflammatory conditions like arthritis and autoimmune conditions with symptoms that are troublesome. With the possible exception of fatigue, I'm not aware of any symptoms for metabolic syndrome. When people say that diet decreased their inflammation, what did they experience?
0 -
I have no idea what "abundant intake" is either and I seriously doubt there's any indication of an upper limit in the literature but there does seem to be at least some support for people claiming benefit from reducing sugar and carbs.
But you've done the extremely low carb thing without any benefit so of course you should eat more carbs! It was worth a shot but if you didn't get any appreciable results from it you'd be crazy to stick with a more limited diet than you'd prefer if you didn't have to.0 -
Chrysalid2014 wrote: »AlabasterVerve wrote: »
I value reading about people's personal experiences on MFP and hope these absurd demands for proof and research every time someone decides to share stops.
again, "dem feelz" is not a legitimate reason for telling someone else to avoid sugar...
It's certainly a legitimate reason for sharing one's experience on a forum like this one. Many people have reported that they feel better after cutting down or giving up added sugar and it's a valid suggestion to make to others. Whether the 'evidence' they're citing is scientific or anecdotal doesn't really matter – no-one is going to be harmed by giving up added sugar for a few weeks/months to see if it makes them feel better too.
But, if sugar does not make a person feel back why give it up? I would be harmed, and so would most people, because some sugar is necessary.
I would be harmed because I would crave the Starbuck's flourless chocolate chop cookie I had earlier today. The reason it's flourless is because it's main ingredient is powdered sugar. Delicious!
I think taking your need for "no sugar" and extrapolating it out to other people is not helpful.
0 -
Chrysalid2014 wrote: »AlabasterVerve wrote: »
I value reading about people's personal experiences on MFP and hope these absurd demands for proof and research every time someone decides to share stops.
again, "dem feelz" is not a legitimate reason for telling someone else to avoid sugar...
It's certainly a legitimate reason for sharing one's experience on a forum like this one. Many people have reported that they feel better after cutting down or giving up added sugar and it's a valid suggestion to make to others. Whether the 'evidence' they're citing is scientific or anecdotal doesn't really matter – no-one is going to be harmed by giving up added sugar for a few weeks/months to see if it makes them feel better too.
when I am sick and I lay down on my bed I "feel" better, does that mean that my bed has some magical property that makes me feel better? Of course not, it means it is a placebo effect and I feel better because I am comfortable…
same with sugar…there are way too many factors to say because I feel better when I do not eat sugar that means that sugar is bad and it should be avoided..
Spot on.0 -
My doctor says that exercise is what separates those who keep the weight off from those who don't. I believe her. I have tried it both ways.0
-
stevencloser wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »
Having a bad diet would suggest that they aren't counting. Unless they're counting, going over by 1000 and being like "Oh well." then just keep going.TimothyFish wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »TimothyFish 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.
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.
The problem with that is that this amount of exercise (not always but often) also translates into a bigger appetite, which usually means eating more if you're not counting calories and ruining a good amount or even all of that deficit you created from your exercise.
Who said anything about not counting calories?cwolfman13 wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »TimothyFish 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.
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.
The problem with that is that this amount of exercise (not always but often) also translates into a bigger appetite, which usually means eating more if you're not counting calories and ruining a good amount or even all of that deficit you created from your exercise.
Who said anything about not counting calories?
The overwhelming majority of the population doesn't count calories. Much of the population has a really crappy diet that consists largely of high calorie, low nutrient foods for which it is really easy to overeat. I see all kinds of people in the gym who are crushing it...but their body's haven't changed much...why? *kitten* diet.
All this article and others like it are stating is that the obesity fight starts with diet...yes, exercise is important for many aspects of good health...but fighting the obesity epidemic starts with proper diet.
I can also attest to having a much easier time controlling calorie intake when I'm just sort of generally "working out" vs actually training. When I'm actively training, I'm starving all of the time and have a great deal of difficulty controlling my calorie intake. When I keep my workouts light to moderate, this isn't as much an issue.
If someone is going to do a study that looks at the effects of exercise, the people in the study are going to count calories, so they know they aren't changing their diet. In normal life, weight loss always involves both diet and exercise. But when we have these people trying to separate the two, a study must be done, and that always requires counting calories.
I assumed the distinction here is "Exercising without paying attention to diet" vs. "paying attention to diet without exercising", in which case diet wins clearly.
I would say it isn't as clear as you assume. What person who is "paying attention to diet" doesn't first go calculate their TDEE estimate or something similar? The moment you calculate the number of calories you are burning during a day, you are paying attention to exercise. Technically, even breathing and the beating of the heart is a form of exercise. We just don't call it that because we're more interested in the extra calories we burn.
Come on, you know what is meant with exercise.
Yes, I do. But if we're going to not pay attention to something, we have to include general activity. There's a big different between a truck driver who doesn't exercise and a bicycle cop who doesn't exercise.
The bicycle cop probably doesn't have a weight problem to begin with.
But anyway. Doing exercise raises your TDEE, be that purposeful exercise or just general activity you do to begin with.
It usually also raises your appetite accordingly, which is why the bicycle cop isn't ending up being a spooky skeleton even if he doesn't pay attention to his calorie intake.
So, here's my hypothesis, if you exercise purposefully, but don't keep track of your consumption, so you eat when you're hungry, a good part of the extra burn you're getting from the exercise is going to get negated by eating more food because you're more hungry than if you're not exercising. Which is fine and dandy if you're not trying to lose weight or not much. But if your goal is losing weight that is not the most optimal way.
Add to that funny stories like "I walked for 15 minutes, I earned that BigMac." and the like, when people have no clue how much their exercise actually does for them.
Compared to the truck driver who chooses not to do any extra exercise but counts his calories instead. The only way his deficit could get offset is by going over his goals or by becoming less active than his baseline for whatever reasons.
Sure. There must be some rule that only fit people are allowed to be bicycle cops so they can assign the cars to the obese cops.0 -
DeguelloTex wrote: »
What's your view on the speed of light in a vacuum?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...
According to recent studies, it varies depending on the source of the light beam.0 -
I guess I didn't say one part of my statement clearly - results will not be the same for everyone, because we're not all the same. From the moment we're born, we're exposed to a vast array of external forces that interact with our bodies and create infinitesimally small mutations in our genetic code.mamapeach910 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.
You know what? I had issues with inflammation when I didn't eat sugar. Not eating sugar did nothing to relieve my medical condition. In fact, I had a new inflammatory autoimmune disease start while I was abstaining from sugar. What inflammatory issues did you have that giving up processed sugar cleared up?
I eat sugar now. I find that exercise is the best thing for dealing with inflammation. If something keeps me from exercising for too long (and sometimes, one of my medical conditions will do just that), the inflammatory condition will act up. Has nothing to do with sugar. Has to do with missing out on working out.
I know people who swear that sugar doesn't affect them until they stop ingesting it in "normal" quantities, others that it truly doesn't affect, and still others with disorders of carbohydrate metabolism who feel worse without sugars. I just don't think it's fair to rip apart a study because it doesn't fit your belief system.
To answer the question about the type of inflammation that sugar causes for me personally - severe joint pain, extreme edema systemically, and an increase in biological inflammation markers. Remove the refined sugars from my diet and all of those problems are significantly mitigated. And no, I don't have any medical issues that would cause those except my diet...and to a lesser extent my age - although I've dealt with the inflammation since my 30s. It took until my early 50s to make the connection between diet and discomfort. But, again, this is just my experience. If anyone has answers for me, my drs would love to hear them, because they're at a loss and I'd love to be able to eat a piece of cake or candy now and then without suffering for days afterwards.
0 -
Chrysalid2014 wrote: »AlabasterVerve wrote: »
I value reading about people's personal experiences on MFP and hope these absurd demands for proof and research every time someone decides to share stops.
again, "dem feelz" is not a legitimate reason for telling someone else to avoid sugar...
It's certainly a legitimate reason for sharing one's experience on a forum like this one. Many people have reported that they feel better after cutting down or giving up added sugar and it's a valid suggestion to make to others. Whether the 'evidence' they're citing is scientific or anecdotal doesn't really matter – no-one is going to be harmed by giving up added sugar for a few weeks/months to see if it makes them feel better too.
But, if sugar does not make a person feel back why give it up? I would be harmed, and so would most people, because some sugar is necessary.
I would be harmed because I would crave the Starbuck's flourless chocolate chop cookie I had earlier today. The reason it's flourless is because it's main ingredient is powdered sugar. Delicious!
I think taking your need for "no sugar" and extrapolating it out to other people is not helpful.
They have those at Starbucks????? I've had those before from Whole Foods. That recipe is crazy good. I'd be worried the Starbucks ones were cross-contaminated with gluten, though. Bummer.
And agreed with extrapolating individualized choices for "no sugar" to universal need. Especially from a person who recently exercised poor self-control. That's projection, pure and simple.
Some of us are further along in our journey and are perfectly capable of eating two cookies and walking away from the rest of the box.
I get it, I really do. I didn't get to this place overnight. It's been a loooooong journey and I spent many years not eating sugar and many other foods I loved. But I've earned where I am now and I'm going to enjoy the fruits of the hard won victory over myself.
0 -
TimothyFish wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »
Having a bad diet would suggest that they aren't counting. Unless they're counting, going over by 1000 and being like "Oh well." then just keep going.TimothyFish wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »TimothyFish 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.
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.
The problem with that is that this amount of exercise (not always but often) also translates into a bigger appetite, which usually means eating more if you're not counting calories and ruining a good amount or even all of that deficit you created from your exercise.
Who said anything about not counting calories?cwolfman13 wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »TimothyFish 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.
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.
The problem with that is that this amount of exercise (not always but often) also translates into a bigger appetite, which usually means eating more if you're not counting calories and ruining a good amount or even all of that deficit you created from your exercise.
Who said anything about not counting calories?
The overwhelming majority of the population doesn't count calories. Much of the population has a really crappy diet that consists largely of high calorie, low nutrient foods for which it is really easy to overeat. I see all kinds of people in the gym who are crushing it...but their body's haven't changed much...why? *kitten* diet.
All this article and others like it are stating is that the obesity fight starts with diet...yes, exercise is important for many aspects of good health...but fighting the obesity epidemic starts with proper diet.
I can also attest to having a much easier time controlling calorie intake when I'm just sort of generally "working out" vs actually training. When I'm actively training, I'm starving all of the time and have a great deal of difficulty controlling my calorie intake. When I keep my workouts light to moderate, this isn't as much an issue.
If someone is going to do a study that looks at the effects of exercise, the people in the study are going to count calories, so they know they aren't changing their diet. In normal life, weight loss always involves both diet and exercise. But when we have these people trying to separate the two, a study must be done, and that always requires counting calories.
I assumed the distinction here is "Exercising without paying attention to diet" vs. "paying attention to diet without exercising", in which case diet wins clearly.
I would say it isn't as clear as you assume. What person who is "paying attention to diet" doesn't first go calculate their TDEE estimate or something similar? The moment you calculate the number of calories you are burning during a day, you are paying attention to exercise. Technically, even breathing and the beating of the heart is a form of exercise. We just don't call it that because we're more interested in the extra calories we burn.
Come on, you know what is meant with exercise.
Yes, I do. But if we're going to not pay attention to something, we have to include general activity. There's a big different between a truck driver who doesn't exercise and a bicycle cop who doesn't exercise.
The bicycle cop probably doesn't have a weight problem to begin with.
But anyway. Doing exercise raises your TDEE, be that purposeful exercise or just general activity you do to begin with.
It usually also raises your appetite accordingly, which is why the bicycle cop isn't ending up being a spooky skeleton even if he doesn't pay attention to his calorie intake.
So, here's my hypothesis, if you exercise purposefully, but don't keep track of your consumption, so you eat when you're hungry, a good part of the extra burn you're getting from the exercise is going to get negated by eating more food because you're more hungry than if you're not exercising. Which is fine and dandy if you're not trying to lose weight or not much. But if your goal is losing weight that is not the most optimal way.
Add to that funny stories like "I walked for 15 minutes, I earned that BigMac." and the like, when people have no clue how much their exercise actually does for them.
Compared to the truck driver who chooses not to do any extra exercise but counts his calories instead. The only way his deficit could get offset is by going over his goals or by becoming less active than his baseline for whatever reasons.
Sure. There must be some rule that only fit people are allowed to be bicycle cops so they can assign the cars to the obese cops.
I'd rather assign someone as a bicycle cop who isn't out of breath after a few minutes of riding if I was police chief.0 -
No not end of story claiming personal experience as Science is just silly. Just because you feel something cures inflammations does not mean it does. If you make claims you need to be willing to back them up. If you wish to reduce your sugar intake that is a personal decision if though you wish to make unfounded claims about the effect of that on a public forum we have the right to challenge those assertions. Just because you don't like the responses or questions does not make them invalid. if people just want to share experiences that's what blogs are for. The forums are here to exchange information and opinions and in that way misinformation or unfounded claims need to be challengedChrysalid2014 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.
0 -
My doctor says that exercise is what separates those who keep the weight off from those who don't. I believe her. I have tried it both ways.
Unfortunately most people fail at long term weight loss maintenance and regain the weight, regardless of what plan they follow for food and exercise. Maintenance is for 20, 30, 40+ years and once you factor in injuries, illness, life changes, changes in mindset etc etc, it is incredibly hard to actually keep the weight off. It's pretty sobering to think most of the people here will actually fail at this whole thing in the long run.0 -
isulo_kura wrote: »
No not end of story claiming personal experience as Science is just silly. Just because you feel something cures inflammations does not mean it does. If you make claims you need to be willing to back them up. If you wish to reduce your sugar intake that is a personal decision if though you wish to make unfounded claims about the effect of that on a public forum we have the right to challenge those assertions. Just because you don't like the responses or questions does not make them invalid. if people just want to share experiences that's what blogs are for. The forums are here to exchange information and opinions and in that way misinformation or unfounded claims need to be challengedChrysalid2014 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.
There is plenty of science to indicate a link between sugar and inflammation...so it's hardly "silly" to suggest such a thing. This is an area that still needs further research, but it is certainly not baseless or "misinformation" to discuss the association.
0 -
MoiAussi93 wrote: »isulo_kura wrote: »
No not end of story claiming personal experience as Science is just silly. Just because you feel something cures inflammations does not mean it does. If you make claims you need to be willing to back them up. If you wish to reduce your sugar intake that is a personal decision if though you wish to make unfounded claims about the effect of that on a public forum we have the right to challenge those assertions. Just because you don't like the responses or questions does not make them invalid. if people just want to share experiences that's what blogs are for. The forums are here to exchange information and opinions and in that way misinformation or unfounded claims need to be challengedChrysalid2014 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.
There is plenty of science to indicate a link between sugar and inflammation...so it's hardly "silly" to suggest such a thing. This is an area that still needs further research, but it is certainly not baseless or "misinformation" to discuss the association.
Please come over to the inflammation thread. If there's anything I've learned today, it's that inflammation is not a catch-all phrase.
Sugar might certainly be linked to some specific forms/sources of inflammation, but it certainly is not linked to others.
More than ever, being happy something works for one person while understanding it might not be a universal approach is something I've come to appreciate.
0 -
Sarasmaintaining wrote: »My doctor says that exercise is what separates those who keep the weight off from those who don't. I believe her. I have tried it both ways.
Unfortunately most people fail at long term weight loss maintenance and regain the weight, regardless of what plan they follow for food and exercise. Maintenance is for 20, 30, 40+ years and once you factor in injuries, illness, life changes, changes in mindset etc etc, it is incredibly hard to actually keep the weight off. It's pretty sobering to think most of the people here will actually fail at this whole thing in the long run.
The question we may not have the answer to is how many people fail at maintaining a long term exercise program? We get so focused on people losing weight that we kind of forget about people dropping out of fitness as well, and yet, fitness has more health benefits than does weight loss.0 -
Sophiareed218 wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »Sophiareed218 wrote: »I've been seeing articles like this recently, but I thought the point they were making is not that exercise isn't important, but that diet is more important to weight loss. Makes sense. The average obese person can't exercise off 1000 calories in a go, but you sure can eat 1000 calories in one meal/snack/milkshake. The titles are often misleading so they can grab attention, sure.
That's what the article seemed to say in my opinion. And that is true. My view is that exercise is SUPPORTIVE of weight loss/control and definitely can contribute, but it is not the most important factor. Diet is much more important because, as you said, an obese person is unable to burn 1000 calories in one exercise session but can easily eat that or more in one snack.
For me (and yes, I realize this is my personal experience and not necessarily true of everybody), I think the fact that exercising on a regular basis seems to make me more likely to eat healthy is more important than the few hundred calories I might burn when I exercise. I think the two habits seems to reinforce each other. I am more likely to exercise when I am eating well. I am more likely to keep eating well when I exercise.
That's a good point about exercise reinforcing healthy eating, especially when it comes to weight loss. If I bust my *kitten* at the gym and find out I've only burned off 200 calories, I'm going to think very carefully about eating that late night snack that comes in at 350.
That's a great observation. I've been there myself--"I spent an hour on the treadmill, no way am I 'wasting' that by eating a muffin." Also, maybe this is just me, but I actually feel less hungry after intense exercise.0 -
MoiAussi93 wrote: »isulo_kura wrote: »
No not end of story claiming personal experience as Science is just silly. Just because you feel something cures inflammations does not mean it does. If you make claims you need to be willing to back them up. If you wish to reduce your sugar intake that is a personal decision if though you wish to make unfounded claims about the effect of that on a public forum we have the right to challenge those assertions. Just because you don't like the responses or questions does not make them invalid. if people just want to share experiences that's what blogs are for. The forums are here to exchange information and opinions and in that way misinformation or unfounded claims need to be challengedChrysalid2014 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.
There is plenty of science to indicate a link between sugar and inflammation...so it's hardly "silly" to suggest such a thing. This is an area that still needs further research, but it is certainly not baseless or "misinformation" to discuss the association.
links to said studies?0 -
BlueSkyShoal wrote: »Sophiareed218 wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »Sophiareed218 wrote: »I've been seeing articles like this recently, but I thought the point they were making is not that exercise isn't important, but that diet is more important to weight loss. Makes sense. The average obese person can't exercise off 1000 calories in a go, but you sure can eat 1000 calories in one meal/snack/milkshake. The titles are often misleading so they can grab attention, sure.
That's what the article seemed to say in my opinion. And that is true. My view is that exercise is SUPPORTIVE of weight loss/control and definitely can contribute, but it is not the most important factor. Diet is much more important because, as you said, an obese person is unable to burn 1000 calories in one exercise session but can easily eat that or more in one snack.
For me (and yes, I realize this is my personal experience and not necessarily true of everybody), I think the fact that exercising on a regular basis seems to make me more likely to eat healthy is more important than the few hundred calories I might burn when I exercise. I think the two habits seems to reinforce each other. I am more likely to exercise when I am eating well. I am more likely to keep eating well when I exercise.
That's a good point about exercise reinforcing healthy eating, especially when it comes to weight loss. If I bust my *kitten* at the gym and find out I've only burned off 200 calories, I'm going to think very carefully about eating that late night snack that comes in at 350.
That's a great observation. I've been there myself--"I spent an hour on the treadmill, no way am I 'wasting' that by eating a muffin." Also, maybe this is just me, but I actually feel less hungry after intense exercise.
For me it depends on the exercise, and I think I am more hungry over all even when I'm not wanting to eat immediately after, but it's not a huge effect. The bigger thing is that it seems to make me want to eat more healthy, to crave a more balanced diet. (It also makes me want more carbs, though, which I don't think are unhealthy, but obviously some would claim are.)
Also for me (as I said upthread), exercise is an extremely important part of it, and has FAR more difference on how I feel (which wasn't that bad before, to be honest, but is better now) than any dietary changes I've experimented with. I am sure I could lose without exercising if I couldn't exercise (consistent maintaining without exercise would be more challenging), but I wouldn't want to, so I'm not sure why people want to say that the focus on exercise is bad. For me, focusing on broader fitness goals was important.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K 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
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions