Explain this contradiction.
Replies
-
This content has been removed.
-
"The newest science suggests that exercise alone will not make you thin, but it may determine whether you stay thin, if you can achieve that state. " (New York Times, 4/16/2010, link )0
-
Tim,
Get yourself thin, and then exercise regularly for the rest of your life. You are allowed to make your own decisions.
The rest of us...well, most of us, ... we'll be balancing eating with exercise. I hope. Good luck to us all.
Caio.0 -
Tim,
Get yourself thin, and then exercise regularly for the rest of your life. You are allowed to make your own decisions.
The rest of us...well, most of us, ... we'll be balancing eating with exercise. I hope. Good luck to us all.
Caio.
I hope you do. If so, science indicates that you will have an easier time of it than people who don't exercise.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
TimothyFish wrote: »Sarasmaintaining wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »The National Weight Control Registry is a credible source.
I lost my first thirty pounds from dieting alone. If exercise were necessary, explain that.
Consider that exercise might be a "Keystone Habit". That is, most people who make time to regularly exercise also practice portion control.
People who hope to exercise off their dietary failures, I fear, are bound to be disappointed.
Exercise isn't required for weight loss, only a calorie deficit.
@TimothyFish then explain your contradiction. Unless there is none.
@jgnatca, I see the potential for a number of things going on here, with not all of them being true of all people, but combining to get the results that are reported. During weight loss, a calorie deficit covers a multitude of sins. If a person happens to forget to log something or if they count calories wrong or they have a cheat day, none of it matters because the calorie deficit on other days will eventually wash away the mistake. It may take them a little longer, but they'll eventually lose weight.
During maintenance, it is different. Since the goal is to eat the same number of calories mistakes accumulate. Those who will be successful are those who make adjustments when they see their weight rise and those who are willing to keep doing this over the long haul. For a person who isn't exercising, the calories they can eat is less than what their overweight friends eat. Imagine the woman who is maintaining at 1700 going to a restaurant with friends and being the only one who only eats half her meal, because she knows she doesn't need 1000 calories in one meal. That makes it hard to stay committed. But what if she's maintaining at 2200? Now, it may be that she just doesn't eat the bread, and she is still giving herself room within her limit. She doesn't feel deprived, so she has no reason to question her commitment to maintain her weight. Add to that, exercise brings people out of the doldrums, so someone who was about to give up before they went for a run may be fully committed when they get back. Exercise also gives people something to do other than thinking about food. If they aren't exercising, what are they going to be doing? Perhaps, sitting in front of the television watching food commercials.
Sorry, this post made me laugh a bit. I've been in maintenance for over two years now and I frequently eat meals that are 1,000+ calories, no problem. But I pre-plan my days so those larger calorie meals are consumed guilt free, with the knowledge that the rest of the day is already planned out in accordance to my calorie goals.
As far as if someone isn't exercising what are they doing....are you for real? I don't even have a tv hooked up lol.
And as far as 'doldrums' go-you're projecting your own issues on others here. I've never felt like giving up, both in my weight loss phase and now that I'm in maintenance. I'm actually having a lot of fun with it-I feel great, I look great, my husband can't keep his hands off me and best of all- I'm healthy. Seriously, life is pretty darn good
Not everyone is like you.
And not everyone is how you described.
I never claimed they were. I do, however, wish I had read the New York Times article first, because it states what I was trying to get people to address much more succinctly than I did.TimothyFish wrote: »"The newest science suggests that exercise alone will not make you thin, but it may determine whether you stay thin, if you can achieve that state. " (New York Times, 4/16/2010, link )
0 -
Over 90% of men on the adult matchmaking site Ashley Madison report cheating on their significant other. Explain to me then, how someone could possibly hope to be male without cheating on his wife?0
-
This content has been removed.
-
TimothyFish wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »Sarasmaintaining wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »The National Weight Control Registry is a credible source.
I lost my first thirty pounds from dieting alone. If exercise were necessary, explain that.
Consider that exercise might be a "Keystone Habit". That is, most people who make time to regularly exercise also practice portion control.
People who hope to exercise off their dietary failures, I fear, are bound to be disappointed.
Exercise isn't required for weight loss, only a calorie deficit.
@TimothyFish then explain your contradiction. Unless there is none.
@jgnatca, I see the potential for a number of things going on here, with not all of them being true of all people, but combining to get the results that are reported. During weight loss, a calorie deficit covers a multitude of sins. If a person happens to forget to log something or if they count calories wrong or they have a cheat day, none of it matters because the calorie deficit on other days will eventually wash away the mistake. It may take them a little longer, but they'll eventually lose weight.
During maintenance, it is different. Since the goal is to eat the same number of calories mistakes accumulate. Those who will be successful are those who make adjustments when they see their weight rise and those who are willing to keep doing this over the long haul. For a person who isn't exercising, the calories they can eat is less than what their overweight friends eat. Imagine the woman who is maintaining at 1700 going to a restaurant with friends and being the only one who only eats half her meal, because she knows she doesn't need 1000 calories in one meal. That makes it hard to stay committed. But what if she's maintaining at 2200? Now, it may be that she just doesn't eat the bread, and she is still giving herself room within her limit. She doesn't feel deprived, so she has no reason to question her commitment to maintain her weight. Add to that, exercise brings people out of the doldrums, so someone who was about to give up before they went for a run may be fully committed when they get back. Exercise also gives people something to do other than thinking about food. If they aren't exercising, what are they going to be doing? Perhaps, sitting in front of the television watching food commercials.
Sorry, this post made me laugh a bit. I've been in maintenance for over two years now and I frequently eat meals that are 1,000+ calories, no problem. But I pre-plan my days so those larger calorie meals are consumed guilt free, with the knowledge that the rest of the day is already planned out in accordance to my calorie goals.
As far as if someone isn't exercising what are they doing....are you for real? I don't even have a tv hooked up lol.
And as far as 'doldrums' go-you're projecting your own issues on others here. I've never felt like giving up, both in my weight loss phase and now that I'm in maintenance. I'm actually having a lot of fun with it-I feel great, I look great, my husband can't keep his hands off me and best of all- I'm healthy. Seriously, life is pretty darn good
Not everyone is like you.
And not everyone is how you described.
I never claimed they were. I do, however, wish I had read the New York Times article first, because it states what I was trying to get people to address much more succinctly than I did.TimothyFish wrote: »"The newest science suggests that exercise alone will not make you thin, but it may determine whether you stay thin, if you can achieve that state. " (New York Times, 4/16/2010, link )
Well then I guess I'm lucky to be in the 10% since I only train 3 days a week.
Do you exercise 1 hour everyday to maintain?
I usually exercise every day except Sunday and Wednesday, unless I have a committee meeting or something like that. Without really trying, my rides of late have be right at 84 minutes long. If you do the math, that turns out to be seven hours over five days. Sometimes I'll ride longer on Friday and Saturday. It is a struggle for me to put in that kind of time and I don't always want to do it, even though I know I'll feel better when I get back.0 -
-
mamapeach910 wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »Gosh, Tim. I think I understand maybe, perhaps what you are trying to get to. But they way you set it up is awful. No wonder you lost everyone in this thread.
Consider a slightly different wording:
1) exercise isn't required for weight loss but may help in creating a calorie deficit.
2) maintenance may be easier in a population that exercises - not only because it creates a calorie deficit (allowing more leaway in calories eaten) but as a marker of other healthy habits.
There isn't really a contradiction. It fits the original data.
When someone starts out it's perfectly fine to recommend that one focus on the principal and easiest paths for weight loss (and a few studies have shown that people that improperly focus *primarily* on exercise tend to overeat...), this doesn't negate that exercise is a very good and health habit and can help in maintenance.
However, your study doesn't demonstrate that exercise is the *primary* factor for maintenance - what it does show (coupled with the fact that less than 50% of the gen population self report an hour of exercise) is that these populations that kept the weight off also practiced exercise. It may be a factor, it may be a marker for other habits.
Finally. A voice of reason. Maybe you'll get through to him. We've tried saying all this. It hasn't helped.
You're spelling it out rather concisely in one post. That might do the trick.
I'm guessing, not. Seems that polemic is more interesting. Post was skipped over.
Stay true, Timmeh.0 -
Is there a teacher on here who can explain to him slow and simple what "correlation" is? This is getting ridiculous.0
-
TimothyFish wrote: »"The newest science suggests that exercise alone will not make you thin, but it may determine whether you stay thin, if you can achieve that state. " (New York Times, 4/16/2010, link )
Well, this bit at the end certainly doesn't support the "hour a day" you seem to be so fond of:Streaming through much of the science and advice about exercise and weight loss is a certain Puritan streak, a sense that exercise, to be effective in keeping you slim, must be of almost medicinal dosage — an hour a day, every day; plenty of brisk walking; frequent long runs on the treadmill. But the very latest science about exercise and weight loss has a gentler tone and a more achievable goal. “Emerging evidence suggests that unlike bouts of moderate-vigorous activity, low-intensity ambulation, standing, etc., may contribute to daily energy expenditure without triggering the caloric compensation effect,” Braun wrote in the American College of Sports Medicine newsletter.
In a completed but unpublished study conducted in his energy-metabolism lab, Braun and his colleagues had a group of volunteers spend an entire day sitting. If they needed to visit the bathroom or any other location, they spun over in a wheelchair. Meanwhile, in a second session, the same volunteers stood all day, “not doing anything in particular,” Braun says, “just standing.” The difference in energy expenditure was remarkable, representing “hundreds of calories,” Braun says, but with no increase among the upright in their blood levels of ghrelin or other appetite hormones. Standing, for both men and women, burned multiple calories but did not ignite hunger. One thing is going to become clear in the coming years, Braun says: if you want to lose weight, you don’t necessarily have to go for a long run. “Just get rid of your chair.0 -
TimothyFish wrote: »"The newest science suggests that exercise alone will not make you thin, but it may determine whether you stay thin, if you can achieve that state. " (New York Times, 4/16/2010, link )
You have to be careful about conclusions about studies drawn by reporters, because they are usually wrong.
The studies here demonstrate nothing but correlation. Some scientists have some hypothesis about why those correlations might exist that they are exploring (similar to the arguments about saturated fat and various health issues). So far, it doesn't appear that they have much to establish that those hypotheses are accurate and there's nothing really surprising or in need of explanation about the correlation.
Personally, I exercise more when I'm in good shape because it's something I enjoy (I didn't enjoy it so much when fat). I also do personally find exercise helpful in losing and maintaining weight. Still just not seeing any contradictions here.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »"The newest science suggests that exercise alone will not make you thin, but it may determine whether you stay thin, if you can achieve that state. " (New York Times, 4/16/2010, link )
You have to be careful about conclusions about studies drawn by reporters, because they are usually wrong.
The studies here demonstrate nothing but correlation. Some scientists have some hypothesis about why those correlations might exist that they are exploring (similar to the arguments about saturated fat and various health issues). So far, it doesn't appear that they have much to establish that those hypotheses are accurate and there's nothing really surprising or in need of explanation about the correlation.
Personally, I exercise more when I'm in good shape because it's something I enjoy (I didn't enjoy it so much when fat). I also do personally find exercise helpful in losing and maintaining weight. Still just not seeing any contradictions here.
The thing about correlations is that they indicate dependence and allow us to make predictions, even if we don't fully understand how things are dependent. If we know that 90% of the successful exercise, we can predict that a person who doesn't exercise will not be successful, and we'll only be wrong 10% of the time.
I don't need to worry about what the reporters concluded, because the whole point of the thread was to ask the community what their own conclusions were. But I wanted to highlight he fact that exercise is less predictive of success in weight loss than it is in maintaining weight (and may even be detrimental to weight loss in some cases). That is what I call the "apparent contradiction," because we often assume that if we can figure out this weight loss thing and change our lifestyle in such a way that we are successful in weight loss, then we just need to continue that lifestyle at a higher calorie intake level to maintain our weight. The data doesn't predict that to be true. So the question remains: Why not?0 -
TimothyFish wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »"The newest science suggests that exercise alone will not make you thin, but it may determine whether you stay thin, if you can achieve that state. " (New York Times, 4/16/2010, link )
You have to be careful about conclusions about studies drawn by reporters, because they are usually wrong.
The studies here demonstrate nothing but correlation. Some scientists have some hypothesis about why those correlations might exist that they are exploring (similar to the arguments about saturated fat and various health issues). So far, it doesn't appear that they have much to establish that those hypotheses are accurate and there's nothing really surprising or in need of explanation about the correlation.
Personally, I exercise more when I'm in good shape because it's something I enjoy (I didn't enjoy it so much when fat). I also do personally find exercise helpful in losing and maintaining weight. Still just not seeing any contradictions here.
The thing about correlations is that they indicate dependence and allow us to make predictions, even if we don't fully understand how things are dependent. If we know that 90% of the successful exercise, we can predict that a person who doesn't exercise will not be successful, and we'll only be wrong 10% of the time.
I don't need to worry about what the reporters concluded, because the whole point of the thread was to ask the community what their own conclusions were. But I wanted to highlight he fact that exercise is less predictive of success in weight loss than it is in maintaining weight (and may even be detrimental to weight loss in some cases). That is what I call the "apparent contradiction," because we often assume that if we can figure out this weight loss thing and change our lifestyle in such a way that we are successful in weight loss, then we just need to continue that lifestyle at a higher calorie intake level to maintain our weight. The data doesn't predict that to be true. So the question remains: Why not?
No, they really don't.
0 -
TimothyFish wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »"The newest science suggests that exercise alone will not make you thin, but it may determine whether you stay thin, if you can achieve that state. " (New York Times, 4/16/2010, link )
You have to be careful about conclusions about studies drawn by reporters, because they are usually wrong.
The studies here demonstrate nothing but correlation. Some scientists have some hypothesis about why those correlations might exist that they are exploring (similar to the arguments about saturated fat and various health issues). So far, it doesn't appear that they have much to establish that those hypotheses are accurate and there's nothing really surprising or in need of explanation about the correlation.
Personally, I exercise more when I'm in good shape because it's something I enjoy (I didn't enjoy it so much when fat). I also do personally find exercise helpful in losing and maintaining weight. Still just not seeing any contradictions here.
The thing about correlations is that they indicate dependence and allow us to make predictions, even if we don't fully understand how things are dependent. If we know that 90% of the successful exercise, we can predict that a person who doesn't exercise will not be successful, and we'll only be wrong 10% of the time.
I don't need to worry about what the reporters concluded, because the whole point of the thread was to ask the community what their own conclusions were. But I wanted to highlight he fact that exercise is less predictive of success in weight loss than it is in maintaining weight (and may even be detrimental to weight loss in some cases). That is what I call the "apparent contradiction," because we often assume that if we can figure out this weight loss thing and change our lifestyle in such a way that we are successful in weight loss, then we just need to continue that lifestyle at a higher calorie intake level to maintain our weight. The data doesn't predict that to be true. So the question remains: Why not?
That is not how it works. Just because 90% of the successful people exercise doesn't mean you've got a 90% chance of success if you exercise. Because you don't know how many of the people who exercise are NOT successful.
Let me give you a completely ridiculous example because I don't know the numbers of non-successful people.
You've got 200 people total. 100 exercise, 100 don't. Of those 200 people, only 10 are successful in weight maintenance (that's about the percentage of people who successfully maintain weight loss if I remember right). Of those successful ones, 9 exercise and 1 doesn't. Which means there's still 91 people who exercised but failed, and 99 who didn't but failed. Seems like that's not that much of an indicator for success after all.
In reality, the split between people who do try to exercise and those who don't is probably heavier on the people who do exercise side, making the difference in success rate even smaller.0 -
TimothyFish wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »"The newest science suggests that exercise alone will not make you thin, but it may determine whether you stay thin, if you can achieve that state. " (New York Times, 4/16/2010, link )
You have to be careful about conclusions about studies drawn by reporters, because they are usually wrong.
The studies here demonstrate nothing but correlation. Some scientists have some hypothesis about why those correlations might exist that they are exploring (similar to the arguments about saturated fat and various health issues). So far, it doesn't appear that they have much to establish that those hypotheses are accurate and there's nothing really surprising or in need of explanation about the correlation.
Personally, I exercise more when I'm in good shape because it's something I enjoy (I didn't enjoy it so much when fat). I also do personally find exercise helpful in losing and maintaining weight. Still just not seeing any contradictions here.
The thing about correlations is that they indicate dependence and allow us to make predictions, even if we don't fully understand how things are dependent.
No, the thing about correlations is that--if one applies logic--they indicate that there MIGHT BE a relationship. That relationship, if it exists, might be dependence (although you still have to figure out the order), OR it might be something else, like that both result from another variable.
stephencloser has identified possibilities during this discussion, as have others. Pu's flossing teeth example is actually a pretty good one.
I pointed out that while I perceive exercise as related to my ability to maintain (when I regained in the past it followed me ceasing exercise) that I could not tell you whether that was because (1) exercise makes me more motivated when it comes to eating better/fewer calories; or (2) both exercise and eating well were signs of something else, specifically motivation.If we know that 90% of the successful exercise, we can predict that a person who doesn't exercise will not be successful, and we'll only be wrong 10% of the time.
Here's an example I used in another discussion:
If only 10% of the overall female population have bikinis but 85% of women with body fat of under 20% have bikinis, does that mean that we can predict that buying a bikini will help reduce body fat? Obviously not. Yet that's the kind of logic you seem to be using here.I don't need to worry about what the reporters concluded, because the whole point of the thread was to ask the community what their own conclusions were. But I wanted to highlight he fact that exercise is less predictive of success in weight loss than it is in maintaining weight (and may even be detrimental to weight loss in some cases). That is what I call the "apparent contradiction," because we often assume that if we can figure out this weight loss thing and change our lifestyle in such a way that we are successful in weight loss, then we just need to continue that lifestyle at a higher calorie intake level to maintain our weight. The data doesn't predict that to be true. So the question remains: Why not?
I gave an answer to this question upthread, but I think you still are seeing a contradiction that just does not exist.
Among other things, exercise is not necessary to weight loss, but you actually have not established that it is not helpful, which you keep repeating as if you had. The one study that you have cited does not establish that at all.
As for the data, it's self reported--signing up for the database requires an affirmative choice--which biases it to begin with. Is it really true that being a woman makes it much more likely that you will maintain (or that being a man makes it more likely that you will not?). Based on how you are reading the data one would have to say yes, but that's not a good interpretation. All we know if that women are more likely to join the registry.0 -
mamapeach910 wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »"The newest science suggests that exercise alone will not make you thin, but it may determine whether you stay thin, if you can achieve that state. " (New York Times, 4/16/2010, link )
You have to be careful about conclusions about studies drawn by reporters, because they are usually wrong.
The studies here demonstrate nothing but correlation. Some scientists have some hypothesis about why those correlations might exist that they are exploring (similar to the arguments about saturated fat and various health issues). So far, it doesn't appear that they have much to establish that those hypotheses are accurate and there's nothing really surprising or in need of explanation about the correlation.
Personally, I exercise more when I'm in good shape because it's something I enjoy (I didn't enjoy it so much when fat). I also do personally find exercise helpful in losing and maintaining weight. Still just not seeing any contradictions here.
The thing about correlations is that they indicate dependence and allow us to make predictions, even if we don't fully understand how things are dependent. If we know that 90% of the successful exercise, we can predict that a person who doesn't exercise will not be successful, and we'll only be wrong 10% of the time.
I don't need to worry about what the reporters concluded, because the whole point of the thread was to ask the community what their own conclusions were. But I wanted to highlight he fact that exercise is less predictive of success in weight loss than it is in maintaining weight (and may even be detrimental to weight loss in some cases). That is what I call the "apparent contradiction," because we often assume that if we can figure out this weight loss thing and change our lifestyle in such a way that we are successful in weight loss, then we just need to continue that lifestyle at a higher calorie intake level to maintain our weight. The data doesn't predict that to be true. So the question remains: Why not?
No, they really don't.
What your chart shows is two sets of data that happen to have a similar curvature. Why do they follow a similar curve? In this case, it is caused by the increase in the population. With more people, there are more people spending money on organic food and there are also more people who can be diagnosed with autism. What we can predict from that is that as the population goes up, so will both of those.
But what the scientists are seeing in the connection between exercise and weight loss and maintenance is that the same people who are reporting that they have maintained their weight are reporting that they have been exercising. (Increasing the population doesn't change the results.) But exercise during weight loss or by overweight people doesn't match the results that are seen with people who are maintaining their weight.
Again, I ask, why not?0 -
stevencloser wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »"The newest science suggests that exercise alone will not make you thin, but it may determine whether you stay thin, if you can achieve that state. " (New York Times, 4/16/2010, link )
You have to be careful about conclusions about studies drawn by reporters, because they are usually wrong.
The studies here demonstrate nothing but correlation. Some scientists have some hypothesis about why those correlations might exist that they are exploring (similar to the arguments about saturated fat and various health issues). So far, it doesn't appear that they have much to establish that those hypotheses are accurate and there's nothing really surprising or in need of explanation about the correlation.
Personally, I exercise more when I'm in good shape because it's something I enjoy (I didn't enjoy it so much when fat). I also do personally find exercise helpful in losing and maintaining weight. Still just not seeing any contradictions here.
The thing about correlations is that they indicate dependence and allow us to make predictions, even if we don't fully understand how things are dependent. If we know that 90% of the successful exercise, we can predict that a person who doesn't exercise will not be successful, and we'll only be wrong 10% of the time.
I don't need to worry about what the reporters concluded, because the whole point of the thread was to ask the community what their own conclusions were. But I wanted to highlight he fact that exercise is less predictive of success in weight loss than it is in maintaining weight (and may even be detrimental to weight loss in some cases). That is what I call the "apparent contradiction," because we often assume that if we can figure out this weight loss thing and change our lifestyle in such a way that we are successful in weight loss, then we just need to continue that lifestyle at a higher calorie intake level to maintain our weight. The data doesn't predict that to be true. So the question remains: Why not?
That is not how it works. Just because 90% of the successful people exercise doesn't mean you've got a 90% chance of success if you exercise. Because you don't know how many of the people who exercise are NOT successful.
Let me give you a completely ridiculous example because I don't know the numbers of non-successful people.
You've got 200 people total. 100 exercise, 100 don't. Of those 200 people, only 10 are successful in weight maintenance (that's about the percentage of people who successfully maintain weight loss if I remember right). Of those successful ones, 9 exercise and 1 doesn't. Which means there's still 91 people who exercised but failed, and 99 who didn't but failed. Seems like that's not that much of an indicator for success after all.
In reality, the split between people who do try to exercise and those who don't is probably heavier on the people who do exercise side, making the difference in success rate even smaller.
Point taken. I do ask you to excuse my lapse. With so many people ignoring the question that is being asked by the original post and running of on tangents that don't matter, it is difficult to remain focused. What we can predict is that if you are successful, you exercise and we'll only be wrong 10% of the time. We have to look at other data to see if the unsuccessful fail to exercise. Given that 80% of Americans don't get the recommended amount of exercise, I'm not too worried that someone is going to find that the unsuccessful are exercising just as much as the successful.0 -
TimothyFish wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »"The newest science suggests that exercise alone will not make you thin, but it may determine whether you stay thin, if you can achieve that state. " (New York Times, 4/16/2010, link )
You have to be careful about conclusions about studies drawn by reporters, because they are usually wrong.
The studies here demonstrate nothing but correlation. Some scientists have some hypothesis about why those correlations might exist that they are exploring (similar to the arguments about saturated fat and various health issues). So far, it doesn't appear that they have much to establish that those hypotheses are accurate and there's nothing really surprising or in need of explanation about the correlation.
Personally, I exercise more when I'm in good shape because it's something I enjoy (I didn't enjoy it so much when fat). I also do personally find exercise helpful in losing and maintaining weight. Still just not seeing any contradictions here.
The thing about correlations is that they indicate dependence and allow us to make predictions, even if we don't fully understand how things are dependent. If we know that 90% of the successful exercise, we can predict that a person who doesn't exercise will not be successful, and we'll only be wrong 10% of the time.
I don't need to worry about what the reporters concluded, because the whole point of the thread was to ask the community what their own conclusions were. But I wanted to highlight he fact that exercise is less predictive of success in weight loss than it is in maintaining weight (and may even be detrimental to weight loss in some cases). That is what I call the "apparent contradiction," because we often assume that if we can figure out this weight loss thing and change our lifestyle in such a way that we are successful in weight loss, then we just need to continue that lifestyle at a higher calorie intake level to maintain our weight. The data doesn't predict that to be true. So the question remains: Why not?
No, they really don't.
What your chart shows is two sets of data that happen to have a similar curvature. Why do they follow a similar curve? In this case, it is caused by the increase in the population. With more people, there are more people spending money on organic food and there are also more people who can be diagnosed with autism. What we can predict from that is that as the population goes up, so will both of those.
But what the scientists are seeing in the connection between exercise and weight loss and maintenance is that the same people who are reporting that they have maintained their weight are reporting that they have been exercising. (Increasing the population doesn't change the results.) But exercise during weight loss or by overweight people doesn't match the results that are seen with people who are maintaining their weight.
Again, I ask, why not?
Because you're looking at a data set that has limitations and drawing conclusions from it you shouldn't. Bear in mind, no one has issues with the idea that exercise is a good thing. The problems all come down to how you're using and interpreting data here.
I could just as easily conclude, from the same registry data, that women are more likely to maintain weight loss than men.
0 -
TimothyFish wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »"The newest science suggests that exercise alone will not make you thin, but it may determine whether you stay thin, if you can achieve that state. " (New York Times, 4/16/2010, link )
You have to be careful about conclusions about studies drawn by reporters, because they are usually wrong.
The studies here demonstrate nothing but correlation. Some scientists have some hypothesis about why those correlations might exist that they are exploring (similar to the arguments about saturated fat and various health issues). So far, it doesn't appear that they have much to establish that those hypotheses are accurate and there's nothing really surprising or in need of explanation about the correlation.
Personally, I exercise more when I'm in good shape because it's something I enjoy (I didn't enjoy it so much when fat). I also do personally find exercise helpful in losing and maintaining weight. Still just not seeing any contradictions here.
The thing about correlations is that they indicate dependence and allow us to make predictions, even if we don't fully understand how things are dependent. If we know that 90% of the successful exercise, we can predict that a person who doesn't exercise will not be successful, and we'll only be wrong 10% of the time.
I don't need to worry about what the reporters concluded, because the whole point of the thread was to ask the community what their own conclusions were. But I wanted to highlight he fact that exercise is less predictive of success in weight loss than it is in maintaining weight (and may even be detrimental to weight loss in some cases). That is what I call the "apparent contradiction," because we often assume that if we can figure out this weight loss thing and change our lifestyle in such a way that we are successful in weight loss, then we just need to continue that lifestyle at a higher calorie intake level to maintain our weight. The data doesn't predict that to be true. So the question remains: Why not?
No, they really don't.
What your chart shows is two sets of data that happen to have a similar curvature. Why do they follow a similar curve? In this case, it is caused by the increase in the population. With more people, there are more people spending money on organic food and there are also more people who can be diagnosed with autism. What we can predict from that is that as the population goes up, so will both of those.
But what the scientists are seeing in the connection between exercise and weight loss and maintenance is that the same people who are reporting that they have maintained their weight are reporting that they have been exercising. (Increasing the population doesn't change the results.) But exercise during weight loss or by overweight people doesn't match the results that are seen with people who are maintaining their weight.
Again, I ask, why not?
I posted twice already a likely scenario for why and so did others. If you don't read it that's your problem but don't pretend like you're asking some huge question no one has an answer for.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
mamapeach910 wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »"The newest science suggests that exercise alone will not make you thin, but it may determine whether you stay thin, if you can achieve that state. " (New York Times, 4/16/2010, link )
You have to be careful about conclusions about studies drawn by reporters, because they are usually wrong.
The studies here demonstrate nothing but correlation. Some scientists have some hypothesis about why those correlations might exist that they are exploring (similar to the arguments about saturated fat and various health issues). So far, it doesn't appear that they have much to establish that those hypotheses are accurate and there's nothing really surprising or in need of explanation about the correlation.
Personally, I exercise more when I'm in good shape because it's something I enjoy (I didn't enjoy it so much when fat). I also do personally find exercise helpful in losing and maintaining weight. Still just not seeing any contradictions here.
The thing about correlations is that they indicate dependence and allow us to make predictions, even if we don't fully understand how things are dependent. If we know that 90% of the successful exercise, we can predict that a person who doesn't exercise will not be successful, and we'll only be wrong 10% of the time.
I don't need to worry about what the reporters concluded, because the whole point of the thread was to ask the community what their own conclusions were. But I wanted to highlight he fact that exercise is less predictive of success in weight loss than it is in maintaining weight (and may even be detrimental to weight loss in some cases). That is what I call the "apparent contradiction," because we often assume that if we can figure out this weight loss thing and change our lifestyle in such a way that we are successful in weight loss, then we just need to continue that lifestyle at a higher calorie intake level to maintain our weight. The data doesn't predict that to be true. So the question remains: Why not?
No, they really don't.
What your chart shows is two sets of data that happen to have a similar curvature. Why do they follow a similar curve? In this case, it is caused by the increase in the population. With more people, there are more people spending money on organic food and there are also more people who can be diagnosed with autism. What we can predict from that is that as the population goes up, so will both of those.
But what the scientists are seeing in the connection between exercise and weight loss and maintenance is that the same people who are reporting that they have maintained their weight are reporting that they have been exercising. (Increasing the population doesn't change the results.) But exercise during weight loss or by overweight people doesn't match the results that are seen with people who are maintaining their weight.
Again, I ask, why not?
Because you're looking at a data set that has limitations and drawing conclusions from it you shouldn't. Bear in mind, no one has issues with the idea that exercise is a good thing. The problems all come down to how you're using and interpreting data here.
I could just as easily conclude, from the same registry data, that women are more likely to maintain weight loss than men.
Yes, you could, but I'm not aware of any other studies that back up that claim. There are multiple studies that indicate that exercise is more influential in weight maintenance than it is for weight loss.0 -
TimothyFish wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »"The newest science suggests that exercise alone will not make you thin, but it may determine whether you stay thin, if you can achieve that state. " (New York Times, 4/16/2010, link )
You have to be careful about conclusions about studies drawn by reporters, because they are usually wrong.
The studies here demonstrate nothing but correlation. Some scientists have some hypothesis about why those correlations might exist that they are exploring (similar to the arguments about saturated fat and various health issues). So far, it doesn't appear that they have much to establish that those hypotheses are accurate and there's nothing really surprising or in need of explanation about the correlation.
Personally, I exercise more when I'm in good shape because it's something I enjoy (I didn't enjoy it so much when fat). I also do personally find exercise helpful in losing and maintaining weight. Still just not seeing any contradictions here.
The thing about correlations is that they indicate dependence and allow us to make predictions, even if we don't fully understand how things are dependent. If we know that 90% of the successful exercise, we can predict that a person who doesn't exercise will not be successful, and we'll only be wrong 10% of the time.
I don't need to worry about what the reporters concluded, because the whole point of the thread was to ask the community what their own conclusions were. But I wanted to highlight he fact that exercise is less predictive of success in weight loss than it is in maintaining weight (and may even be detrimental to weight loss in some cases). That is what I call the "apparent contradiction," because we often assume that if we can figure out this weight loss thing and change our lifestyle in such a way that we are successful in weight loss, then we just need to continue that lifestyle at a higher calorie intake level to maintain our weight. The data doesn't predict that to be true. So the question remains: Why not?
No, they really don't.
What your chart shows is two sets of data that happen to have a similar curvature. Why do they follow a similar curve? In this case, it is caused by the increase in the population. With more people, there are more people spending money on organic food and there are also more people who can be diagnosed with autism. What we can predict from that is that as the population goes up, so will both of those.
But what the scientists are seeing in the connection between exercise and weight loss and maintenance is that the same people who are reporting that they have maintained their weight are reporting that they have been exercising. (Increasing the population doesn't change the results.) But exercise during weight loss or by overweight people doesn't match the results that are seen with people who are maintaining their weight.
Again, I ask, why not?
Because you're looking at a data set that has limitations and drawing conclusions from it you shouldn't. Bear in mind, no one has issues with the idea that exercise is a good thing. The problems all come down to how you're using and interpreting data here.
I could just as easily conclude, from the same registry data, that women are more likely to maintain weight loss than men.
Yes, you could, but I'm not aware of any other studies that back up that claim. There are multiple studies that indicate that exercise is more influential in weight maintenance than it is for weight loss.
Really? Post one that says that exact thing.
0 -
mamapeach910 wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »"The newest science suggests that exercise alone will not make you thin, but it may determine whether you stay thin, if you can achieve that state. " (New York Times, 4/16/2010, link )
You have to be careful about conclusions about studies drawn by reporters, because they are usually wrong.
The studies here demonstrate nothing but correlation. Some scientists have some hypothesis about why those correlations might exist that they are exploring (similar to the arguments about saturated fat and various health issues). So far, it doesn't appear that they have much to establish that those hypotheses are accurate and there's nothing really surprising or in need of explanation about the correlation.
Personally, I exercise more when I'm in good shape because it's something I enjoy (I didn't enjoy it so much when fat). I also do personally find exercise helpful in losing and maintaining weight. Still just not seeing any contradictions here.
The thing about correlations is that they indicate dependence and allow us to make predictions, even if we don't fully understand how things are dependent. If we know that 90% of the successful exercise, we can predict that a person who doesn't exercise will not be successful, and we'll only be wrong 10% of the time.
I don't need to worry about what the reporters concluded, because the whole point of the thread was to ask the community what their own conclusions were. But I wanted to highlight he fact that exercise is less predictive of success in weight loss than it is in maintaining weight (and may even be detrimental to weight loss in some cases). That is what I call the "apparent contradiction," because we often assume that if we can figure out this weight loss thing and change our lifestyle in such a way that we are successful in weight loss, then we just need to continue that lifestyle at a higher calorie intake level to maintain our weight. The data doesn't predict that to be true. So the question remains: Why not?
No, they really don't.
What your chart shows is two sets of data that happen to have a similar curvature. Why do they follow a similar curve? In this case, it is caused by the increase in the population. With more people, there are more people spending money on organic food and there are also more people who can be diagnosed with autism. What we can predict from that is that as the population goes up, so will both of those.
But what the scientists are seeing in the connection between exercise and weight loss and maintenance is that the same people who are reporting that they have maintained their weight are reporting that they have been exercising. (Increasing the population doesn't change the results.) But exercise during weight loss or by overweight people doesn't match the results that are seen with people who are maintaining their weight.
Again, I ask, why not?
Because you're looking at a data set that has limitations and drawing conclusions from it you shouldn't. Bear in mind, no one has issues with the idea that exercise is a good thing. The problems all come down to how you're using and interpreting data here.
I could just as easily conclude, from the same registry data, that women are more likely to maintain weight loss than men.
Yes, you could, but I'm not aware of any other studies that back up that claim. There are multiple studies that indicate that exercise is more influential in weight maintenance than it is for weight loss.
Really? Post one that says that exact thing.
"The available evidence indicates that exercise is an important component of weight loss and perhaps the best predictor of weight maintenance." (bpgastro.com/article/S1521-6918(04)00083-6/abstract?cc=y=)0 -
TimothyFish wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »"The newest science suggests that exercise alone will not make you thin, but it may determine whether you stay thin, if you can achieve that state. " (New York Times, 4/16/2010, link )
You have to be careful about conclusions about studies drawn by reporters, because they are usually wrong.
The studies here demonstrate nothing but correlation. Some scientists have some hypothesis about why those correlations might exist that they are exploring (similar to the arguments about saturated fat and various health issues). So far, it doesn't appear that they have much to establish that those hypotheses are accurate and there's nothing really surprising or in need of explanation about the correlation.
Personally, I exercise more when I'm in good shape because it's something I enjoy (I didn't enjoy it so much when fat). I also do personally find exercise helpful in losing and maintaining weight. Still just not seeing any contradictions here.
The thing about correlations is that they indicate dependence and allow us to make predictions, even if we don't fully understand how things are dependent. If we know that 90% of the successful exercise, we can predict that a person who doesn't exercise will not be successful, and we'll only be wrong 10% of the time.
I don't need to worry about what the reporters concluded, because the whole point of the thread was to ask the community what their own conclusions were. But I wanted to highlight he fact that exercise is less predictive of success in weight loss than it is in maintaining weight (and may even be detrimental to weight loss in some cases). That is what I call the "apparent contradiction," because we often assume that if we can figure out this weight loss thing and change our lifestyle in such a way that we are successful in weight loss, then we just need to continue that lifestyle at a higher calorie intake level to maintain our weight. The data doesn't predict that to be true. So the question remains: Why not?
No, they really don't.
What your chart shows is two sets of data that happen to have a similar curvature. Why do they follow a similar curve? In this case, it is caused by the increase in the population. With more people, there are more people spending money on organic food and there are also more people who can be diagnosed with autism. What we can predict from that is that as the population goes up, so will both of those.
But what the scientists are seeing in the connection between exercise and weight loss and maintenance is that the same people who are reporting that they have maintained their weight are reporting that they have been exercising. (Increasing the population doesn't change the results.) But exercise during weight loss or by overweight people doesn't match the results that are seen with people who are maintaining their weight.
Again, I ask, why not?
Because you're looking at a data set that has limitations and drawing conclusions from it you shouldn't. Bear in mind, no one has issues with the idea that exercise is a good thing. The problems all come down to how you're using and interpreting data here.
I could just as easily conclude, from the same registry data, that women are more likely to maintain weight loss than men.
Yes, you could, but I'm not aware of any other studies that back up that claim. There are multiple studies that indicate that exercise is more influential in weight maintenance than it is for weight loss.
Really? Post one that says that exact thing.
"The available evidence indicates that exercise is an important component of weight loss and perhaps the best predictor of weight maintenance." (bpgastro.com/article/S1521-6918(04)00083-6/abstract?cc=y=)
But that's not what you said. That says both loss and maintenance. You said not loss but maintenance. You're trying to get everyone to play into this whole contradiction game thing, right?
0 -
mamapeach910 wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »"The newest science suggests that exercise alone will not make you thin, but it may determine whether you stay thin, if you can achieve that state. " (New York Times, 4/16/2010, link )
You have to be careful about conclusions about studies drawn by reporters, because they are usually wrong.
The studies here demonstrate nothing but correlation. Some scientists have some hypothesis about why those correlations might exist that they are exploring (similar to the arguments about saturated fat and various health issues). So far, it doesn't appear that they have much to establish that those hypotheses are accurate and there's nothing really surprising or in need of explanation about the correlation.
Personally, I exercise more when I'm in good shape because it's something I enjoy (I didn't enjoy it so much when fat). I also do personally find exercise helpful in losing and maintaining weight. Still just not seeing any contradictions here.
The thing about correlations is that they indicate dependence and allow us to make predictions, even if we don't fully understand how things are dependent. If we know that 90% of the successful exercise, we can predict that a person who doesn't exercise will not be successful, and we'll only be wrong 10% of the time.
I don't need to worry about what the reporters concluded, because the whole point of the thread was to ask the community what their own conclusions were. But I wanted to highlight he fact that exercise is less predictive of success in weight loss than it is in maintaining weight (and may even be detrimental to weight loss in some cases). That is what I call the "apparent contradiction," because we often assume that if we can figure out this weight loss thing and change our lifestyle in such a way that we are successful in weight loss, then we just need to continue that lifestyle at a higher calorie intake level to maintain our weight. The data doesn't predict that to be true. So the question remains: Why not?
No, they really don't.
What your chart shows is two sets of data that happen to have a similar curvature. Why do they follow a similar curve? In this case, it is caused by the increase in the population. With more people, there are more people spending money on organic food and there are also more people who can be diagnosed with autism. What we can predict from that is that as the population goes up, so will both of those.
But what the scientists are seeing in the connection between exercise and weight loss and maintenance is that the same people who are reporting that they have maintained their weight are reporting that they have been exercising. (Increasing the population doesn't change the results.) But exercise during weight loss or by overweight people doesn't match the results that are seen with people who are maintaining their weight.
Again, I ask, why not?
Because you're looking at a data set that has limitations and drawing conclusions from it you shouldn't. Bear in mind, no one has issues with the idea that exercise is a good thing. The problems all come down to how you're using and interpreting data here.
I could just as easily conclude, from the same registry data, that women are more likely to maintain weight loss than men.
Yes, you could, but I'm not aware of any other studies that back up that claim. There are multiple studies that indicate that exercise is more influential in weight maintenance than it is for weight loss.
Really? Post one that says that exact thing.
"The available evidence indicates that exercise is an important component of weight loss and perhaps the best predictor of weight maintenance." (bpgastro.com/article/S1521-6918(04)00083-6/abstract?cc=y=)
But that's not what you said.
Now, you're just arguing for the sake of arguing.0 -
TimothyFish wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »"The newest science suggests that exercise alone will not make you thin, but it may determine whether you stay thin, if you can achieve that state. " (New York Times, 4/16/2010, link )
You have to be careful about conclusions about studies drawn by reporters, because they are usually wrong.
The studies here demonstrate nothing but correlation. Some scientists have some hypothesis about why those correlations might exist that they are exploring (similar to the arguments about saturated fat and various health issues). So far, it doesn't appear that they have much to establish that those hypotheses are accurate and there's nothing really surprising or in need of explanation about the correlation.
Personally, I exercise more when I'm in good shape because it's something I enjoy (I didn't enjoy it so much when fat). I also do personally find exercise helpful in losing and maintaining weight. Still just not seeing any contradictions here.
The thing about correlations is that they indicate dependence and allow us to make predictions, even if we don't fully understand how things are dependent. If we know that 90% of the successful exercise, we can predict that a person who doesn't exercise will not be successful, and we'll only be wrong 10% of the time.
I don't need to worry about what the reporters concluded, because the whole point of the thread was to ask the community what their own conclusions were. But I wanted to highlight he fact that exercise is less predictive of success in weight loss than it is in maintaining weight (and may even be detrimental to weight loss in some cases). That is what I call the "apparent contradiction," because we often assume that if we can figure out this weight loss thing and change our lifestyle in such a way that we are successful in weight loss, then we just need to continue that lifestyle at a higher calorie intake level to maintain our weight. The data doesn't predict that to be true. So the question remains: Why not?
No, they really don't.
What your chart shows is two sets of data that happen to have a similar curvature. Why do they follow a similar curve? In this case, it is caused by the increase in the population. With more people, there are more people spending money on organic food and there are also more people who can be diagnosed with autism. What we can predict from that is that as the population goes up, so will both of those.
But what the scientists are seeing in the connection between exercise and weight loss and maintenance is that the same people who are reporting that they have maintained their weight are reporting that they have been exercising. (Increasing the population doesn't change the results.) But exercise during weight loss or by overweight people doesn't match the results that are seen with people who are maintaining their weight.
Again, I ask, why not?
Because you're looking at a data set that has limitations and drawing conclusions from it you shouldn't. Bear in mind, no one has issues with the idea that exercise is a good thing. The problems all come down to how you're using and interpreting data here.
I could just as easily conclude, from the same registry data, that women are more likely to maintain weight loss than men.
Yes, you could, but I'm not aware of any other studies that back up that claim. There are multiple studies that indicate that exercise is more influential in weight maintenance than it is for weight loss.
Really? Post one that says that exact thing.
"The available evidence indicates that exercise is an important component of weight loss and perhaps the best predictor of weight maintenance." (bpgastro.com/article/S1521-6918(04)00083-6/abstract?cc=y=)
But that's not what you said.
Now, you're just arguing for the sake of arguing.
no you are and have the entire thread. I haven't chimed in because of that fact.
It doesn't matter what anyone says here unless they agree with you....
Why? Because the common advice here is as follows:
1. Use a food scale it helps (you disagree and posted a thread about it)
2. Exercise is not required for weight loss only a calorie deficit is (you apparently disagree with this too)
so @TimothyFish you have lost weight without a food scale but have said you gained it back...do you exercise? do you plan on exercising while maintaining...did you exercise the last time you tried to maintain?
and if you do/did do you do it for an hour a day on average?
0 -
TimothyFish wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »"The newest science suggests that exercise alone will not make you thin, but it may determine whether you stay thin, if you can achieve that state. " (New York Times, 4/16/2010, link )
You have to be careful about conclusions about studies drawn by reporters, because they are usually wrong.
The studies here demonstrate nothing but correlation. Some scientists have some hypothesis about why those correlations might exist that they are exploring (similar to the arguments about saturated fat and various health issues). So far, it doesn't appear that they have much to establish that those hypotheses are accurate and there's nothing really surprising or in need of explanation about the correlation.
Personally, I exercise more when I'm in good shape because it's something I enjoy (I didn't enjoy it so much when fat). I also do personally find exercise helpful in losing and maintaining weight. Still just not seeing any contradictions here.
The thing about correlations is that they indicate dependence and allow us to make predictions, even if we don't fully understand how things are dependent. If we know that 90% of the successful exercise, we can predict that a person who doesn't exercise will not be successful, and we'll only be wrong 10% of the time.
I don't need to worry about what the reporters concluded, because the whole point of the thread was to ask the community what their own conclusions were. But I wanted to highlight he fact that exercise is less predictive of success in weight loss than it is in maintaining weight (and may even be detrimental to weight loss in some cases). That is what I call the "apparent contradiction," because we often assume that if we can figure out this weight loss thing and change our lifestyle in such a way that we are successful in weight loss, then we just need to continue that lifestyle at a higher calorie intake level to maintain our weight. The data doesn't predict that to be true. So the question remains: Why not?
No, they really don't.
What your chart shows is two sets of data that happen to have a similar curvature. Why do they follow a similar curve? In this case, it is caused by the increase in the population. With more people, there are more people spending money on organic food and there are also more people who can be diagnosed with autism. What we can predict from that is that as the population goes up, so will both of those.
But what the scientists are seeing in the connection between exercise and weight loss and maintenance is that the same people who are reporting that they have maintained their weight are reporting that they have been exercising. (Increasing the population doesn't change the results.) But exercise during weight loss or by overweight people doesn't match the results that are seen with people who are maintaining their weight.
Again, I ask, why not?
Because you're looking at a data set that has limitations and drawing conclusions from it you shouldn't. Bear in mind, no one has issues with the idea that exercise is a good thing. The problems all come down to how you're using and interpreting data here.
I could just as easily conclude, from the same registry data, that women are more likely to maintain weight loss than men.
Yes, you could, but I'm not aware of any other studies that back up that claim. There are multiple studies that indicate that exercise is more influential in weight maintenance than it is for weight loss.
Really? Post one that says that exact thing.
"The available evidence indicates that exercise is an important component of weight loss and perhaps the best predictor of weight maintenance." (bpgastro.com/article/S1521-6918(04)00083-6/abstract?cc=y=)
But that's not what you said.
Now, you're just arguing for the sake of arguing.
no you are and have the entire thread. I haven't chimed in because of that fact.
It doesn't matter what anyone says here unless they agree with you....
Why? Because the common advice here is as follows:
1. Use a food scale it helps (you disagree and posted a thread about it)
2. Exercise is not required for weight loss only a calorie deficit is (you apparently disagree with this too)
so @TimothyFish you have lost weight without a food scale but have said you gained it back...do you exercise? do you plan on exercising while maintaining...did you exercise the last time you tried to maintain?
and if you do/did do you do it for an hour a day on average?
I have never said that a food scale isn't helpful to some people. All I have ever said is that it isn't required and we shouldn't be telling people that it is.
If you have been reading this thread, then you should know that I have repeatedly said that exercise is not required for weight loss. That is the whole point of the thread. Why is it that exercise isn't required for weight loss, but the studies show that it is the main predictor in success at maintenance? How many times do I have to repeat it to convince you people? Exercise is not required for weight loss.
Exercise is not required for weight loss.Exercise is not required for weight loss.Exercise is not required for weight loss.Exercise is not required for weight loss.Exercise is not required for weight loss.Exercise is not required for weight loss.Exercise is not required for weight loss.Exercise is not required for weight loss.Exercise is not required for weight loss.Exercise is not required for weight loss.Exercise is not required for weight loss.Exercise is not required for weight loss.Exercise is not required for weight loss.Exercise is not required for weight loss.Exercise is not required for weight loss.Exercise is not required for weight loss.Exercise is not required for weight loss.Exercise is not required for weight loss.Exercise is not required for weight loss.Exercise is not required for weight loss.Exercise is not required for weight loss.Exercise is not required for weight loss.
As for when I lost weight before, I lost most of it with very little exercise, other than walking across campus between classes. (Hardly enough to count.) During the time that I was maintaining my weight, I was exercising. Was it an hour a day? No, not if I remember correctly. I only began to regain the weight when I stopped. So, my experience seems fairly consistent with what the studies show (not that that matters).0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.3K 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
- 424 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