"Exercise doesn't help you lose weight unless it's >4hrs/day"

goldthistime

When I heard this statement (sorry I don't have the source, it was a radio interview), I was puzzled.

I interpret it to mean: "Your appetite increases in proportion to the calories burned during exercise unless you exercise an extreme amount". I assume that this statement referred to intuitive eaters rather than calorie counters.

Btw, for some people, exercising more than 4 hours in a day would seem extreme and possibly indicative of an unhealthy compulsion. If it were seven days a week I would absolutely agree. Even athletes take rest days.

I googled "exercise and appetite" and found only articles talking about what I already knew to be true: vigorous cardio is a short term appetite supressant, measurably reducing levels of the hunger hormones peptide yy and ghrelin.

I assume intensity of exercise affects the length of time that hunger hormones are reduced, so lets just say for arguments sake that 60 minutes of cardio at a certain level gives you a further 90 minutes of appetite suppression. So 5 hour long cardio sessions spread throughout the day would give you a further 7.5 hours of appetite suppression. So on that day, you would have 12.5 hours of reduced hunger hormones. Could this be the basis of the statement? Or is the statement just hogwash? Interested in your thoughts.

blankiefinder

goldthistime wrote: »

When I heard this statement (sorry I don't have the source, it was a radio interview), I was puzzled.

I interpret it to mean: "Your appetite increases in proportion to the calories burned during exercise unless you exercise an extreme amount". I assume that this statement referred to intuitive eaters rather than calorie counters.

Btw, for some people, exercising more than 4 hours in a day would seem extreme and possibly indicative of an unhealthy compulsion. If it were seven days a week I would absolutely agree. Even athletes take rest days.

I googled "exercise and appetite" and found only articles talking about what I already knew to be true: vigorous cardio is a short term appetite supressant, measurably reducing levels of the hunger hormones peptide yy and ghrelin.

I assume intensity of exercise affects the length of time that hunger hormones are reduced, so lets just say for arguments sake that 60 minutes of cardio at a certain level gives you a further 90 minutes of appetite suppression. So 5 hour long cardio sessions spread throughout the day would give you a further 7.5 hours of appetite suppression. So on that day, you would have 12.5 hours of reduced hunger hormones. Could this be the basis of the statement? Or is the statement just hogwash? Interested in your thoughts.

This is just hogwash and ridiculous. You literally just wasted your time listening to it.

Since there is a minimum calorie intake needed to survive, what would be the point of exercising for that long? You'd just have to eat back those calories to meet your net minimum anyway. SMH

SonyaCele

It depends on what you consider exercise. Any of my friends that have started a new job where they have to be active and on their feet all all day, they have dropped weight without changing any of their eating habits. It makes me envious, i want a job where i'm active all day. I think being active suppresses hunger because you are often too busy to eat so you don't think about it.

DrifterBear

A deficit is a deficit. There's truth in saying diet is the most important thing to losing 1-2 lbs / week. Exercise helps you eat a little more and still lose. I don't know the significance of 4 hrs/day...

kimny72

There is no way to determine if that statement is true or not, because it depends on how much you eat. Many people find 30 minutes of exercise per day "helps" with weight loss because it gives them more energy so they make better decisions throughout the day. Also, if you are tracking your calories, you can avoid eating more than you should based on increased appetite due to exercise. Regardless, 4 hours seems like an arbitrary number to pick, maybe they chose it as an overly-dramatic way to say - Don't depend on exercise alone to lose weight.

Having said that, this is mentioned here often, and I believe it's true:

Food for weight loss/gain
Macros & micros for health
Exercise for fitness

stealthq

It's a load. Response to exercise is individual. Some people get hungrier, some people don't. And it always is going to depend on the intensity of the exercise. Some exercise is just not intense enough to do much of anything to your appetite, but it'll still burn a few more calories than doing nothing.

For me, lifting suppresses appetite the day of (and makes me want to take a long nap), but I must make sure I eat or I'll be beyond hungry the next day.

On the other hand, running suppresses my appetite for maybe an hour. And then I need food and plenty of it.

Combining the two is interesting.

goldthistime

I do agree that 4 hours seems an arbitrary number. Just trying to figure out the thinking behind it.

Let's say that you were able to burn 400 calories in an hour of exercise. Five hours of exercise then would burn 2000 calories. Now let's assume that you normally ate 2000 calories a day. Let's further assume that you ate 3000 calories worth of food that day. So you have a 1000 calorie deficit while still having 50% more food in your system than normal and have lowered hunger hormone levels for most of the day. I doubt that my joints/tendons would permit that level of exercise anymore otherwise I'd love to test it out.

goldthistime

stealthq wrote: »

It's a load. Response to exercise is individual. Some people get hungrier, some people don't. And it always is going to depend on the intensity of the exercise. Some exercise is just not intense enough to do much of anything to your appetite, but it'll still burn a few more calories than doing nothing.

For me, lifting suppresses appetite the day of (and makes me want to take a long nap), but I must make sure I eat or I'll be beyond hungry the next day.

On the other hand, running suppresses my appetite for maybe an hour. And then I need food and plenty of it.

Combining the two is interesting.

Actually, I think the study I saw said weight lifting reduces ghrelin but not peptide yy, and that people asked to perform cardio for an hour demonstrated more appetite reduction than people asked to strength train. I will look for a link.

ETA: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/12/081211081446.htm

stealthq

goldthistime wrote: »

stealthq wrote: »

It's a load. Response to exercise is individual. Some people get hungrier, some people don't. And it always is going to depend on the intensity of the exercise. Some exercise is just not intense enough to do much of anything to your appetite, but it'll still burn a few more calories than doing nothing.

For me, lifting suppresses appetite the day of (and makes me want to take a long nap), but I must make sure I eat or I'll be beyond hungry the next day.

On the other hand, running suppresses my appetite for maybe an hour. And then I need food and plenty of it.

Combining the two is interesting.

Actually, I think the study I saw said weight lifting reduces ghrelin but not peptide yy, and that people asked to perform cardio for an hour demonstrated more appetite reduction than people asked to strength train. I will look for a link.

It wouldn't surprise me on the cardio side - long periods of cardio tends to slow digestive tract function. It's part of the reason marathoners have to be careful about what they use for nutrition during a race. It needs to be easy on the gut and easy to absorb. It doesn't take too long to snap back from that, though. Hence pizza night after a race

snowflake930

A lot of sources say weight loss is 80% eating less calories than you burn, 10% exercise, and 10% genetic.
Unless you eat less calories than you burn, it would be difficult to lose weight. Exercising 4 hours per day would increase appetite in most people and most would consume more calories perhaps than they would if they did not exercise.
Personally, I lost a lot of weight before I began to even walk more.
I have been on maintenance for a little over two years, joined a gym a year ago, and I know that I am way hungrier than I ever was when I did no exercise. Other people probably have different viewpoints, but that is the way it is for me.

goldthistime

Assuming the statement is true, it certainly isn't what we advocate here, a lifestyle change. In my example, eating 3000 calories per day rather than your usual 2000 calories to compensate for 2000 calories worth of exercise would actually create overeating habits. Not to mention that >4hrs/day of exercise is not sustainable.

time2cutnow

8 hour arm training marathon anyone?

goldthistime

goldthistime wrote: »

I googled "exercise and appetite" and found only articles talking about what I already knew to be true: vigorous cardio is a short term appetite supressant, measurably reducing levels of the hunger hormones peptide yy and ghrelin.

Rereading the study, I didn't have it quite right. Ghrelin levels are reduced, peptide YY levels (appetite suppressing hormone) are INCREASED.

"They found that the treadmill (aerobic) session caused ghrelin levels to drop and peptide YY levels to increase, indicating the hormones were suppressing appetite. However, a weight-lifting (non-aerobic) session produced a mixed result. Ghrelin levels dropped, indicating appetite suppression, but peptide YY levels did not change significantly."

CasperNaegle

sounds like broscience to me

tulips_and_tea

goldthistime wrote: »

I do agree that 4 hours seems an arbitrary number. Just trying to figure out the thinking behind it.

Let's say that you were able to burn 400 calories in an hour of exercise. Five hours of exercise then would burn 2000 calories. Now let's assume that you normally ate 2000 calories a day. Let's further assume that you ate 3000 calories worth of food that day. So you have a 1000 calorie deficit while still having 50% more food in your system than normal and have lowered hunger hormone levels for most of the day. I doubt that my joints/tendons would permit that level of exercise anymore otherwise I'd love to test it out.

Who has this kind of time??? There's no way I'd have the time nor the desire to workout that much every day and find time to eat all that food. Not knowing the context of the statement you heard makes it tough to even know what they were talking about, but I'm pretty sure it's safe to say they are wrong.

LKArgh

4 hours does sound like a completely random number.
But from a practical point of view, if you are going to rely on exercise alone to lose weight (not increasing overall physical activity, not changing eating habits, not being careful about calories), I think that it would take several hours of exercise to see results. An hour of moderate exercise burning e.g. 200-300 calories, without being careful about calorie intake, would probably not make much difference on its own. Eating a bit more than usual, to the point where it is hardly noticeable, could easily undo the deficit from the exercise. But exercising for a few hours per day and burning e.g. 1000-2000 calories, makes it probably easier to not eat all these calories back, as regulalry eating over 1000 calories more than you used to, is something you would usually notice and do something about it.
Plus, and this is completely personal and anecdotal evidence, I know that for me, on days I exercise for a couple of hours or more, I tend to eat less. Especially a few hours after training, I have zero appetite. I have no idea if this is just me, or it happens to everyone.
As for 4 hours being excessive, it depends on lifestyle, preferences, goals. For my current self, with a full time job and a large family, it would not be realistic, or a priority. For my much younger self, with no family obligations, 2-4 hours of exercise several times per week was my routine for years, and it was just a hobby (having like-minded friends was part of it). I never was an athlete and never wanted to become one. For people who are committed to a sport, training 3-4 hours per day is also average from what I have seen from friends and relatives. But in order to just lose weight, it sounds over the top and not sustainable.

goldthistime

I agree that it is over the top and not sustainable. It was more that I was puzzling why, for instance, 2 hours of exercise a day wouldn't be considered to be beneficial to weight loss. Why would it have to be 4? It didn't make sense. Who would get on the radio and make that statement without any evidence?

I tried googling again and found that the doctor who designed the weight loss regime for The Biggest Loser, Dr Huizenga, was a strong believer in 4 hours of exercise a day for weight loss and was suggesting this regime should be used instead of bariatric surgery. The story was reported in March 2015. Its possible I heard it that long ago and have been puzzling ever since.

Burger2066

As several stated, it is all about calories in vs calories out. You can't out-work a bad nutrition plan, but you can lose weight working out 30 minutes a day if you're eating properly. Just because you might feel like you are hungrier after a work out doesn't automatically make food go into your mouth. Haha.

shirleycatt

I remember hearing that weight loss is 80% diet and 20% exercise (or something like that). I guess working out 4 hours would be the exception.. who would have time to eat?

AdrianChr92

time2cutnow wrote: »

8 hour arm training marathon anyone?

3 times a day

stealthq

shirleycatt wrote: »

I remember hearing that weight loss is 80% diet and 20% exercise (or something like that). I guess working out 4 hours would be the exception.. who would have time to eat?

Well, 4 hours is 1/6th of a 24 day, so technically it's still below 20% exercise (time-wise).

Obviously, people can't even math and the recommendation should be 5 hours of exercise per day.

SMH

jgnatca

Here's where I think the radio announcer was going, @goldthistime . Eat a box of cookies and you will have to exercise 4 hours or more to compensate. That's just not sustainable. Calorie restriction to lose weight.

That being said, my weight has been much more stable and I've felt much fitter since I upped my exercise. It take a freaking long time to lose more weight, but I'm having a lot more fun doing it.

FeebRyan

For me, it's near on impossible for me to lose weight on training days. On training days I want to feel nourished, to eat whatever the hell I want to keep my mind alert and my body going.

Up until a few weeks ago I was working out between 2-4 hours 6 days a week on top of a pretty exhausting daily routine and active work life.

Now I've cut back the training and I'm fasting on the days I don't train (3 days of the week) as well as having a proper 'feed' day one day a week where I eat and don't train.

I've lost 8kgs in January.

I can't imagine it's muscle loss because I train so much and eat so much on training days.

I would say from my experience that it's easy to lose weight if you're really big by training, but beyond a certain point you've got to focus entirely on diet even if it means your training relaxes