Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
Time to shut down MFP!
darrensurrey
Posts: 3,942 Member
Replies
-
I guess this guy has never heard of self-control without blocking out foods.....so many extremists out there. eh..4
-
Pretty much hit the nail on the head. I EXERCISED SO I MUST EAT EVERYTHING!!4
-
Meh, we could quibble over some of the details in the article, but the message is spot on. And, let me add, if you think this is in direct conflict with how MFP works then you need to reassess how you're using it.16 -
Your joking right? This is a calorie counting site. I count the calories and I lose weight. It's true I'm a couch potato and losing weight by limiting calories. Quote from the article:
10) So what actually works for weight loss?
At the individual level, some very good research on what works for weight loss comes from the National Weight Control Registry, a study that has parsed the traits, habits, and behaviors of adults who have lost at least 30 pounds and kept it off for a minimum of one year. They currently have more than 10,000 members enrolled in the study, and these folks respond to annual questionnaires about how they've managed to keep their weight down.
The researchers behind the study found that people who have had success losing weight share a few things in common: They weigh themselves at least once a week. They restrict their calorie intake, stay away from high-fat foods, and watch their portion sizes. They also exercise regularly.
But note: These folks use physical activity in addition to calorie counting and other behavioral changes. Every reliable expert I've ever spoken to on weight loss says the most important thing a person can do is to limit calories in a way they like and can sustain, and focus on eating more healthfully.
6 -
Some things I don't like/agree with in the article:
They had the example of a 200 lb man losing weight through exercise alone and no dietary modifications. In 25 days he will have lost only five pounds!!! And? What's wrong with that? Once again, Biggest Loser-esque expectations continue to make people disappointed with perfectly good results
Exercise only burns 10-30% of daily calories expended. My thought was, what about NEAT, what gives? Interestingly enough, they cited the rest of the calories burned throughout the day but used the same information to make the opposite point. I would think 10-30% extra is a significant boost to the total number of calories burned and could help one reach their goal faster.
They stated that it was unknown how exercise affects appetite in various individuals. But I would say it is known that it varies. Some people eat a ton after certain types of exercise, some eat less!7 -
The article isn't off point. It's true that many people think just adding exercise is going to be the reason that they lose weight without changing how much they consume.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
2 -
The article isn't off point. It's true that many people think just adding exercise is going to be the reason that they lose weight without changing how much they consume.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
Yeah and that's why I didn't exercise until I got my eating on track. Last time I tried to lose weight, I did it by exercising, but it made me so hungry that I was eating more and completely defeating the purpose...
They do say that exercise alone is pointless for weight loss. So yeah, obviously.
But I don't agree with everything... Even if you only burn 300 calories a day through exercise and your TDEE is 2000, that's still not a negligible amount of calories and can definitely make a difference.
I do wonder about diminishing returns though. It was easier for me to lose weight before I increased my exercise regimen because I was less hungry. So that's something to ponder, I guess.6 -
I linked and commented on this piece in the CICO/can't outrun a bad diet thread, so will copy my response to here:
Here's a really good discussion of the topic: http://www.vox.com/2016/4/28/11518804/weight-loss-exercise-myth-burn-calories
By really good, I don't mean that I agree with everything -- I don't.* But worth reading. (I need to spend some more time with it.)
One issue is that there's probably a distinction between people who become overweight and those who don't and between those engaged in different levels of activity. In one of his books, Matt Fitzgerald (who has written a lot about weight-control in endurance athletes focused on food choices, so clearly sees food as a key) discusses one of the "exercise doesn't help" studies, and points out it focused on people who are basically sedentary and adding what for them was "work" (a tedious walk on the treadmill exercise) that nevertheless did not burn all that many calories. That likely set up a pretty unsurprising dynamic where they felt like they deserved to eat more, despite not really having burned that much more than usual.
People seem to vary quite a bit on how physical activity affects appetite, and as I said above, those who can "outrun a bad diet" are those who don't get fat in the first place. People who get fat either can't or else had some interference in their usual level of activity that led to weight gain, perhaps.
*Specifically, although I think focusing on food is the best way for MOST to lose weight, I don't think that means that we should not prioritize activity and public policy that might make activity (including walking in daily life vs. having to drive everywhere, biking accessibility, etc.) more commonplace. Those things are really important apart from the effect on obesity, including for health.
_______
In addition, re the OP in this thread, I don't see how it's contrary to MFP at all.3 -
You don't see how an article that says exercise is almost useless for weight loss is contrary to MFP?0
-
^ MFP helps count calories. Both from consumption as well as exercise. As a matter of fact, it sets folks up initially to know how many calories to eat without additional (outside of normal daily activities) exercise. I don't see the article as contrary to MFP at all.
I know several folks who managed to lose weight without bothering to incorporate exercise - we all do.
The article title is "Why you shouldn't exercise to lose weight....". It specifically mentions exercise as being for fitness, and for me that's worked. Sure, if I run 10 miles, my TDEE raises and I get to eat cake and have an extra beer... but I'm not doing that for weight loss. If I run 10 miles, I'm starving for the rest of the rest of the day, and highly likely to eat all the extra calories I earned.
- And larger portion sizes than ever... Calories in, IMO more important than exercise. http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health/educational/wecan/eat-right/distortion.htmMany have argued that one of the reasons we've collectively put on so much weight over the past 50 years is that we're much less active than our ancestors.
1 -
I see it as contrary because it goes into a lot of detail and accounts of research to prove that exercise is "useless" for weight loss. When MFP as logs for exercise, people have strategies eating back xx-yy% of their exercise calories. Even TDEE methods take exercise into account - the users just don't want to bother with tracking the specific burns.
The "exercise for fitness" mantra never really made sense to me, to be honest, because I never could comply with my calorie targets without the additional burns from exercise. But that's me personally, since people can and do lose weight with no exercise whatsoever.
The article frankly comes across as a bit kooky to me when they go latching onto possible instances of very active people burning the same number of calories as people who sit on their rears all day. They're happy to see and propagate that information and take it on face value with no real attempt to figure out what the hell is going on.
The article is actually quite long, so to be honest I'm starting to wonder if you guys actually read it all?0 -
Did you read it all? There are some seemingly contradictory statements in there, but this one covers you.
"For weight loss, calorie restriction seems to work better than exercise, and calorie restriction plus exercise can work a little better than calorie restriction alone, according to Allison."
It's long enough that we can each probably cherry pick parts of the article to cover our stance.1 -
JustSomeEm wrote: »Did you read it all? There are some seemingly contradictory statements in there, but this one covers you.
"For weight loss, calorie restriction seems to work better than exercise, and calorie restriction plus exercise can work a little better than calorie restriction alone, according to Allison."
It's long enough that we can each probably cherry pick parts of the article to cover our stance.
Additionally, this is the title of the article: "Why you shouldn't exercise to lose weight, explained with 60+ studies"
Which, I suppose makes sense if you subscribe to the exercise for fitness mantra
I will say that the part you quoted is actually one of the better parts of the article. At some point if I recall correctly, they summarized long term success rates of people who "exercised to lose weight", but of course did not go into detail on the depressing fact that majority of weight loss attempts through any process whatsoever end in failure. Whatever. I just find the whole article misleading and stupid
Exercise burns calories and can be an extremely powerful tool when it comes to weight loss1 -
Toward the end of the piece they mentioned that people who'd lost 30 pounds and kept it off for a year both counted calories and exercised. Maybe if that had been the lede no one would have read the story.2
-
sunnybeaches105 wrote: »
Meh, we could quibble over some of the details in the article, but the message is spot on. And, let me add, if you think this is in direct conflict with how MFP works then you need to reassess how you're using it.
This. If anything the article encourages you to know how much you eat,and so mfp would be rather useful.1 -
JeromeBarry1 wrote: »Toward the end of the piece they mentioned that people who'd lost 30 pounds and kept it off for a year both counted calories and exercised. Maybe if that had been the lede no one would have read the story.
Good point. Gotta have that click bait0 -
You don't see how an article that says exercise is almost useless for weight loss is contrary to MFP?
Not if you read the whole article and what the actual argument is, no.
Exercise, absent ways to control or monitor calories, tends not to result in any weight loss. MFP assumes you are controlling calories and provides a way to do it more carefully than most.1 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »You don't see how an article that says exercise is almost useless for weight loss is contrary to MFP?
Not if you read the whole article and what the actual argument is, no.
Exercise, absent ways to control or monitor calories, tends not to result in any weight loss. MFP assumes you are controlling calories and provides a way to do it more carefully than most.
Source?0 -
All this article seems to be saying is that one shouldn't expect to lose weight simply by ramping up exercise and that your CI is going to be most impact-full for weight management...No brainer and I don't see how it's contrary to MFP.
I see people in the gym who are killing it, but their bodies never really change...because they haven't figured out the diet part.6 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »You don't see how an article that says exercise is almost useless for weight loss is contrary to MFP?
Not if you read the whole article and what the actual argument is, no.
Exercise, absent ways to control or monitor calories, tends not to result in any weight loss. MFP assumes you are controlling calories and provides a way to do it more carefully than most.
Source?
The article in the OP?
I feel like this whole thread is going in circles because no one reads anything.3 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »You don't see how an article that says exercise is almost useless for weight loss is contrary to MFP?
Not if you read the whole article and what the actual argument is, no.
Exercise, absent ways to control or monitor calories, tends not to result in any weight loss. MFP assumes you are controlling calories and provides a way to do it more carefully than most.
Source?
The article in the OP?
I feel like this whole thread is going in circles because no one reads anything.
Is that kinda like Google is a source? The article was supposedly a collection of 60 studies. Which one said people who didn't monitor or control their calories but added exercise alone tended not to result in weight loss?0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »You don't see how an article that says exercise is almost useless for weight loss is contrary to MFP?
Not if you read the whole article and what the actual argument is, no.
Exercise, absent ways to control or monitor calories, tends not to result in any weight loss. MFP assumes you are controlling calories and provides a way to do it more carefully than most.
Source?
That's what the article says. There are studies. I'm not totally convinced it's generalizable for the reasons discussed in my earlier post (seriously, don't people read the thread?), but this is not anti MFP, which is what we were talking about in the specific post you responded to. It's not my claim, so why should I provide some other source?0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »You don't see how an article that says exercise is almost useless for weight loss is contrary to MFP?
Not if you read the whole article and what the actual argument is, no.
Exercise, absent ways to control or monitor calories, tends not to result in any weight loss. MFP assumes you are controlling calories and provides a way to do it more carefully than most.
Source?
That's what the article says. There are studies. I'm not totally convinced it's generalizable for the reasons discussed in my earlier post (seriously, don't people read the thread?), but this is not anti MFP, which is what we were talking about in the specific post you responded to. It's not my claim, so why should I provide some other source?
How is a statement you just made is not your claim? I didn't make you write it and you certainly don't have to provide any sources if you don't want to, perhaps in case the statement was simply anecdotal
As far as what we were supposedly initially discussing, yes, I do think the article is anti-MFP, and honestly there are some serious reading comprehension gaps going on here since a number of us have confirmed we indeed read the article - either on my part or you guys'
Details: I've been reading the section on the Hazda population having the same TEE as the "Average" Westerner. I will say that the study is intriguing and even the authors state further studies are needed to understand their findings. There was mention of the Hazda generally being smaller than Westerners, but then they also say similar energy levels were found even after controlling for body size. I did not notice a section in the study explaining where they got these "average" US and European Westerners that made up the bulk of their study, as that could make a difference. The researchers did clarify that they did not study the impact of increased Exercise alone on Westerners, which was a source that I was and still am interested in reading.
In "2) Exercise is excellent for health", the article states: "A Cochrane Review of the best-available research found that, while exercise led to only modest weight loss, study participants who exercised more (even without changing their diets) saw a range of health benefits, including reducing their blood pressure and triglycerides in their blood. Exercise reduces the risk of Type 2 diabetes, stroke, and heart attack." Their own referenced study found weight loss associated with exercise alone. Why would the article's conclusion then be that exercise is a poor choice for an individual looking to lose weight? I don't have access to the full study so I do not know what's considered "only modest weight loss". Given their attitude to the example in 5), I suspect "only modest weight loss" is actually decent weight loss for anyone not on a Reality TV show.
"3) Exercise alone is almost useless for weight loss". What the article said: "It found that after 20 weeks, weight loss was less than expected, and that "the amount of exercise energy expenditure had no correlation with weight loss in these longer studies." " But here's what the linked Abstract documented: "Moreover, with respect to dose-response issues, the evidence from short-term studies suggest that exercise-induced weight loss is positively related to reductions in total fat in a dose-response manner. No such relationship was observed when the results from long-term studies were examined. Abdominal fat. Limited evidence suggests that exercise-induced weight loss is associated with reductions in abdominal obesity as measured by waist circumference or imaging methods; however, at present there is insufficient evidence to determine a dose-response relationship between physical activity, and abdominal or visceral fat". To me, this seems more to be examining the relationship between exercise and abdominal fat, not weight loss. Possibly the full study provides additional clarification on that.
I already posted my comments earlier on 5) with the example of the 200 lb man who loses 1 lb per week through exercise only but simply isn't doing well enough! Say, if someone posted on MFP about how their program wasn't working because they were "only" losing 1 lb per week, what would you tell them? Relax, be patient, adjust your expectations, you're doing perfectly fine, that sort of thing? So what is it about this article that gives them a free pass? A couple pretty pictures and charts? Linking a ton of studies where their summaries may or may not be the findings of the actual studies?0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »You don't see how an article that says exercise is almost useless for weight loss is contrary to MFP?
Not if you read the whole article and what the actual argument is, no.
Exercise, absent ways to control or monitor calories, tends not to result in any weight loss. MFP assumes you are controlling calories and provides a way to do it more carefully than most.
Source?
That's what the article says. There are studies. I'm not totally convinced it's generalizable for the reasons discussed in my earlier post (seriously, don't people read the thread?), but this is not anti MFP, which is what we were talking about in the specific post you responded to. It's not my claim, so why should I provide some other source?
How is a statement you just made is not your claim? I didn't make you write it and you certainly don't have to provide any sources if you don't want to, perhaps in case the statement was simply anecdotal
As far as what we were supposedly initially discussing, yes, I do think the article is anti-MFP, and honestly there are some serious reading comprehension gaps going on here since a number of us have confirmed we indeed read the article - either on my part or you guys'
Details: I've been reading the section on the Hazda population having the same TEE as the "Average" Westerner. I will say that the study is intriguing and even the authors state further studies are needed to understand their findings. There was mention of the Hazda generally being smaller than Westerners, but then they also say similar energy levels were found even after controlling for body size. I did not notice a section in the study explaining where they got these "average" US and European Westerners that made up the bulk of their study, as that could make a difference. The researchers did clarify that they did not study the impact of increased Exercise alone on Westerners, which was a source that I was and still am interested in reading.
In "2) Exercise is excellent for health", the article states: "A Cochrane Review of the best-available research found that, while exercise led to only modest weight loss, study participants who exercised more (even without changing their diets) saw a range of health benefits, including reducing their blood pressure and triglycerides in their blood. Exercise reduces the risk of Type 2 diabetes, stroke, and heart attack." Their own referenced study found weight loss associated with exercise alone. Why would the article's conclusion then be that exercise is a poor choice for an individual looking to lose weight? I don't have access to the full study so I do not know what's considered "only modest weight loss". Given their attitude to the example in 5), I suspect "only modest weight loss" is actually decent weight loss for anyone not on a Reality TV show.
"3) Exercise alone is almost useless for weight loss". What the article said: "It found that after 20 weeks, weight loss was less than expected, and that "the amount of exercise energy expenditure had no correlation with weight loss in these longer studies." " But here's what the linked Abstract documented: "Moreover, with respect to dose-response issues, the evidence from short-term studies suggest that exercise-induced weight loss is positively related to reductions in total fat in a dose-response manner. No such relationship was observed when the results from long-term studies were examined. Abdominal fat. Limited evidence suggests that exercise-induced weight loss is associated with reductions in abdominal obesity as measured by waist circumference or imaging methods; however, at present there is insufficient evidence to determine a dose-response relationship between physical activity, and abdominal or visceral fat". To me, this seems more to be examining the relationship between exercise and abdominal fat, not weight loss. Possibly the full study provides additional clarification on that.
I already posted my comments earlier on 5) with the example of the 200 lb man who loses 1 lb per week through exercise only but simply isn't doing well enough! Say, if someone posted on MFP about how their program wasn't working because they were "only" losing 1 lb per week, what would you tell them? Relax, be patient, adjust your expectations, you're doing perfectly fine, that sort of thing? So what is it about this article that gives them a free pass? A couple pretty pictures and charts? Linking a ton of studies where their summaries may or may not be the findings of the actual studies?
Confirmation bias...
1 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »You don't see how an article that says exercise is almost useless for weight loss is contrary to MFP?
Not if you read the whole article and what the actual argument is, no.
Exercise, absent ways to control or monitor calories, tends not to result in any weight loss. MFP assumes you are controlling calories and provides a way to do it more carefully than most.
Source?
That's what the article says. There are studies. I'm not totally convinced it's generalizable for the reasons discussed in my earlier post (seriously, don't people read the thread?), but this is not anti MFP, which is what we were talking about in the specific post you responded to. It's not my claim, so why should I provide some other source?
How is a statement you just made is not your claim? I didn't make you write it and you certainly don't have to provide any sources if you don't want to, perhaps in case the statement was simply anecdotal
As far as what we were supposedly initially discussing, yes, I do think the article is anti-MFP, and honestly there are some serious reading comprehension gaps going on here since a number of us have confirmed we indeed read the article - either on my part or you guys'
Details: I've been reading the section on the Hazda population having the same TEE as the "Average" Westerner. I will say that the study is intriguing and even the authors state further studies are needed to understand their findings. There was mention of the Hazda generally being smaller than Westerners, but then they also say similar energy levels were found even after controlling for body size. I did not notice a section in the study explaining where they got these "average" US and European Westerners that made up the bulk of their study, as that could make a difference. The researchers did clarify that they did not study the impact of increased Exercise alone on Westerners, which was a source that I was and still am interested in reading.
In "2) Exercise is excellent for health", the article states: "A Cochrane Review of the best-available research found that, while exercise led to only modest weight loss, study participants who exercised more (even without changing their diets) saw a range of health benefits, including reducing their blood pressure and triglycerides in their blood. Exercise reduces the risk of Type 2 diabetes, stroke, and heart attack." Their own referenced study found weight loss associated with exercise alone. Why would the article's conclusion then be that exercise is a poor choice for an individual looking to lose weight? I don't have access to the full study so I do not know what's considered "only modest weight loss". Given their attitude to the example in 5), I suspect "only modest weight loss" is actually decent weight loss for anyone not on a Reality TV show.
"3) Exercise alone is almost useless for weight loss". What the article said: "It found that after 20 weeks, weight loss was less than expected, and that "the amount of exercise energy expenditure had no correlation with weight loss in these longer studies." " But here's what the linked Abstract documented: "Moreover, with respect to dose-response issues, the evidence from short-term studies suggest that exercise-induced weight loss is positively related to reductions in total fat in a dose-response manner. No such relationship was observed when the results from long-term studies were examined. Abdominal fat. Limited evidence suggests that exercise-induced weight loss is associated with reductions in abdominal obesity as measured by waist circumference or imaging methods; however, at present there is insufficient evidence to determine a dose-response relationship between physical activity, and abdominal or visceral fat". To me, this seems more to be examining the relationship between exercise and abdominal fat, not weight loss. Possibly the full study provides additional clarification on that.
I already posted my comments earlier on 5) with the example of the 200 lb man who loses 1 lb per week through exercise only but simply isn't doing well enough! Say, if someone posted on MFP about how their program wasn't working because they were "only" losing 1 lb per week, what would you tell them? Relax, be patient, adjust your expectations, you're doing perfectly fine, that sort of thing? So what is it about this article that gives them a free pass? A couple pretty pictures and charts? Linking a ton of studies where their summaries may or may not be the findings of the actual studies?
The statement isn't her claim because it's the claim of the article in OP that she just told you because you were asking?0 -
stevencloser wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »You don't see how an article that says exercise is almost useless for weight loss is contrary to MFP?
Not if you read the whole article and what the actual argument is, no.
Exercise, absent ways to control or monitor calories, tends not to result in any weight loss. MFP assumes you are controlling calories and provides a way to do it more carefully than most.
Source?
That's what the article says. There are studies. I'm not totally convinced it's generalizable for the reasons discussed in my earlier post (seriously, don't people read the thread?), but this is not anti MFP, which is what we were talking about in the specific post you responded to. It's not my claim, so why should I provide some other source?
How is a statement you just made is not your claim? I didn't make you write it and you certainly don't have to provide any sources if you don't want to, perhaps in case the statement was simply anecdotal
As far as what we were supposedly initially discussing, yes, I do think the article is anti-MFP, and honestly there are some serious reading comprehension gaps going on here since a number of us have confirmed we indeed read the article - either on my part or you guys'
Details: I've been reading the section on the Hazda population having the same TEE as the "Average" Westerner. I will say that the study is intriguing and even the authors state further studies are needed to understand their findings. There was mention of the Hazda generally being smaller than Westerners, but then they also say similar energy levels were found even after controlling for body size. I did not notice a section in the study explaining where they got these "average" US and European Westerners that made up the bulk of their study, as that could make a difference. The researchers did clarify that they did not study the impact of increased Exercise alone on Westerners, which was a source that I was and still am interested in reading.
In "2) Exercise is excellent for health", the article states: "A Cochrane Review of the best-available research found that, while exercise led to only modest weight loss, study participants who exercised more (even without changing their diets) saw a range of health benefits, including reducing their blood pressure and triglycerides in their blood. Exercise reduces the risk of Type 2 diabetes, stroke, and heart attack." Their own referenced study found weight loss associated with exercise alone. Why would the article's conclusion then be that exercise is a poor choice for an individual looking to lose weight? I don't have access to the full study so I do not know what's considered "only modest weight loss". Given their attitude to the example in 5), I suspect "only modest weight loss" is actually decent weight loss for anyone not on a Reality TV show.
"3) Exercise alone is almost useless for weight loss". What the article said: "It found that after 20 weeks, weight loss was less than expected, and that "the amount of exercise energy expenditure had no correlation with weight loss in these longer studies." " But here's what the linked Abstract documented: "Moreover, with respect to dose-response issues, the evidence from short-term studies suggest that exercise-induced weight loss is positively related to reductions in total fat in a dose-response manner. No such relationship was observed when the results from long-term studies were examined. Abdominal fat. Limited evidence suggests that exercise-induced weight loss is associated with reductions in abdominal obesity as measured by waist circumference or imaging methods; however, at present there is insufficient evidence to determine a dose-response relationship between physical activity, and abdominal or visceral fat". To me, this seems more to be examining the relationship between exercise and abdominal fat, not weight loss. Possibly the full study provides additional clarification on that.
I already posted my comments earlier on 5) with the example of the 200 lb man who loses 1 lb per week through exercise only but simply isn't doing well enough! Say, if someone posted on MFP about how their program wasn't working because they were "only" losing 1 lb per week, what would you tell them? Relax, be patient, adjust your expectations, you're doing perfectly fine, that sort of thing? So what is it about this article that gives them a free pass? A couple pretty pictures and charts? Linking a ton of studies where their summaries may or may not be the findings of the actual studies?
The statement isn't her claim because it's the claim of the article in OP that she just told you because you were asking?
Oh, ok, thanks. Basically I probably should have read her statement as, "[...]what the actual argument is, no, which is that exercise, outside of ways to monitor[...]"
I guess I don't believe that's what the argument of the article was, so I thought the independent stand alone sentence she wrote was her opinion/conclusion. They spent a lot of effort to prove that exercise alone just doesn't work, which clearly I don't agree with for reasons expanded on earlier0 -
I look at it this way (and this is from 25 years of experience with struggling with my weight and trial and error to find what works for me): if you are overweight, you are (or at least have been) overeating. Exercise tends to increase appetite. If you are already overeating, and decide to start exercising to lose weight, you run the very real risk of overeating even more, thereby eliminating any deficit you might have created, and possibly creating a surplus. I've seen it time and time again (and have experienced it myself) - people decide to take up exercise as a weight loss strategy, without addressing diet, and end up gaining even more weight. Add to that the fact that people generally suck at estimating (we tend to overestimate the amount of calories used by any given exercise and underestimate the amount of calories in any given food), well, it's easy to see that exercise alone isn't the most effective weight loss strategy.
That said, exercise has numerous health benefits that shouldn't be ignored. I didn't get the sense that anyone is saying not to bother with exercise, only that, for weight loss, diet is far and away more important. Once you have your eating under control, exercise can obviously help. But in the context of out of control eating (which if you are overweight, that's kind of a given) exercise is an ineffective strategy.2 -
-
tlflag1620 wrote: »I look at it this way (and this is from 25 years of experience with struggling with my weight and trial and error to find what works for me): if you are overweight, you are (or at least have been) overeating. Exercise tends to increase appetite. If you are already overeating, and decide to start exercising to lose weight, you run the very real risk of overeating even more, thereby eliminating any deficit you might have created, and possibly creating a surplus. I've seen it time and time again (and have experienced it myself) - people decide to take up exercise as a weight loss strategy, without addressing diet, and end up gaining even more weight. Add to that the fact that people generally suck at estimating (we tend to overestimate the amount of calories used by any given exercise and underestimate the amount of calories in any given food), well, it's easy to see that exercise alone isn't the most effective weight loss strategy.
That said, exercise has numerous health benefits that shouldn't be ignored. I didn't get the sense that anyone is saying not to bother with exercise, only that, for weight loss, diet is far and away more important. Once you have your eating under control, exercise can obviously help. But in the context of out of control eating (which if you are overweight, that's kind of a given) exercise is an ineffective strategy.
I largely agree with this. I don't think exercise necessarily increases appetite, but for many people it does, and I do think that it's really easy to use it as a justification for eating more food also. And others respond to adding in exercise by being less active in the rest of their lives--I've had that happen, where I ran a half marathon and then basically sat around for the rest of the day if I did not make an effort to keep myself active with normal activities too. So in the context of out of control eating, as you put it, it's not a great strategy and typically not an efficient (and likely to be an ineffective) way of trying to lose.
If you take steps to control eating or at least hold eating constant, of course exercise plays a role in weight loss. Personally, the first time I lost weight I lost a total of 60 lbs. The first 40 I lost by consciously cutting my calories and also adding exercise (I did not count calories, but I changed the way I ate to reduce them). I felt stalled for a while after the 40, took a break and decided to train for a triathlon, ramping up my exercise some. I quickly dropped the remaining 20 (actually more than I'd originally planned to lose). I didn't pay attention to calories when doing that, but I also had a comfortable, set way of eating by that point that was not out of control. Had I started from the beginning just deciding to get back to running (which in fact I'd done at times), it would not have worked, for me.
I also don't see the article making claims about something working or not for 100% of people, either, despite the click bait way some of it is phrased. It's relying on studies and talking about what works better in general or on average. I mentioned above the Matt Fitzgerald discussion of some of the studies, and in the same book he gives a personal example of losing weight really just based on exercise, but he also was an extremely active and athletic teenager at the time, if memory serves.1 -
How about fitness for something other than fat loss, like mental health, increased strength / stamina / energy, looking good, feeling good, apocalypse preparedness, etc.?2
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
- 232.6K 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