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!

Options
«13

Replies

  • jen_bush
    jen_bush Posts: 679 Member
    edited April 2016
    Options
    I guess this guy has never heard of self-control without blocking out foods.....so many extremists out there. eh..
  • darrensurrey
    darrensurrey Posts: 3,942 Member
    Options
    Pretty much hit the nail on the head. I EXERCISED SO I MUST EAT EVERYTHING!!
  • ninerbuff
    ninerbuff Posts: 48,503 Member
    Options
    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

    9285851.png
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    Options
    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.
  • MelodyandBarbells
    MelodyandBarbells Posts: 7,725 Member
    Options
    You don't see how an article that says exercise is almost useless for weight loss is contrary to MFP?
  • JustSomeEm
    JustSomeEm Posts: 20,197 MFP Moderator
    Options
    ^ 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.
    Many 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.
    - And larger portion sizes than ever... Calories in, IMO more important than exercise. http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health/educational/wecan/eat-right/distortion.htm

  • MelodyandBarbells
    MelodyandBarbells Posts: 7,725 Member
    Options
    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?
  • JustSomeEm
    JustSomeEm Posts: 20,197 MFP Moderator
    Options
    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.
  • MelodyandBarbells
    MelodyandBarbells Posts: 7,725 Member
    Options
    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 loss
  • JeromeBarry1
    JeromeBarry1 Posts: 10,182 Member
    Options
    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.
  • auddii
    auddii Posts: 15,357 Member
    Options
    diet_Baseline3.0.png

    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.
  • MelodyandBarbells
    MelodyandBarbells Posts: 7,725 Member
    Options
    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 bait
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    Options
    JaneiR36 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.
  • MelodyandBarbells
    MelodyandBarbells Posts: 7,725 Member
    Options
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    JaneiR36 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?
  • auddii
    auddii Posts: 15,357 Member
    Options
    JaneiR36 wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    JaneiR36 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.