nothing for 3 weeks? am i doing this wrong!?

gdunn55

http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2010/sep/19/exercise-dieting-public-health

From a practical perspective, then, exercise is never going to be an effective way of slimming, unless you have the training schedule – and the willpower – of an Olympic athlete. "It's simple maths," says Professor Paul Gately, of the Carnegie Weight Management institution in Leeds. "If you want to lose a pound of body fat, then that requires you to run from Leeds to Nottingham, but if you want to do it through diet, you just have to skip a meal for seven days." Both Jebb and Gately are keen to stress that there is plenty of evidence that exercise can add value to a diet: "It certainly does maximise the amount you lose as fat rather than tissue," Jebb points out. But Gately sums it up: "Most people, offered the choice, are going to go for the diet, because it's easier to achieve."

There's another, more insidious, problem with pinning all your hopes for a holiday bod on exercise. In what has become a defining experiment at the University of Louisiana, led by Dr Timothy Church, hundreds of overweight women were put on exercise regimes for a six-month period. Some worked out for 72 minutes each week, some for 136 minutes, and some for 194. A fourth group kept to their normal daily routine with no additional exercise.

Against all the laws of natural justice, at the end of the study, there was no significant difference in weight loss between those who had exercised – some of them for several days a week – and those who hadn't. (Church doesn't record whether he told the women who he'd had training for three and half hours a week, or whether he was wearing protective clothing when he did.) Some of the women even gained weight.

Church identified the problem and called it "compensation": those who exercised cancelled out the calories they had burned by eating more, generally as a form of self-reward. The post-workout pastry to celebrate a job well done – or even a few pieces of fruit to satisfy their stimulated appetites – undid their good work. In some cases, they were less physically active in their daily life as well.

His findings are backed up by a paper on childhood obesity published in 2008 by Boston academics Steven Gortmaker and Kendrin Sonneville. In an 18-month study investigating what they call "the energy gap" – the daily imbalance between energy intake and expenditure — the pair showed that when the children in their experiment exercised, they ended up eating more than the calories they had just burned, sometimes 10 or 20 times as many. "Although physical activity is thought of as an energy-deficit activity," they wrote, "our estimates do not support this hypothesis."

That doesn't prove anything hoss. It says in the article that they ate food to compensate the burned calories. Weight loss is simple.. Burn more than you put in.

a2canadian

you weigh 224 and are surviving on 1200 calories?! eek... that's just brutal. Think about how much you were eating before your lifestyle change and try to cut that ammount by 500 calories a day (this should include a substantial ammount of exercise). There is just no excuse for not exercising enough... trust me... if you want the time in your day, you will find it!

gdunn55

you weigh 224 and are surviving on 1200 calories?! eek... that's just brutal. Think about how much you were eating before your lifestyle change and try to cut that ammount by 500 calories a day (this should include a substantial ammount of exercise). There is just no excuse for not exercising enough... trust me... if you want the time in your day, you will find it!

You don't even have to join a gym.. You can't go outside because the weather doesn't cooperate, you can do prisoner squats, push ups, curls.. The sky's the limit.

katbass

http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2010/sep/19/exercise-dieting-public-health

From a practical perspective, then, exercise is never going to be an effective way of slimming, unless you have the training schedule – and the willpower – of an Olympic athlete. "It's simple maths," says Professor Paul Gately, of the Carnegie Weight Management institution in Leeds. "If you want to lose a pound of body fat, then that requires you to run from Leeds to Nottingham, but if you want to do it through diet, you just have to skip a meal for seven days." Both Jebb and Gately are keen to stress that there is plenty of evidence that exercise can add value to a diet: "It certainly does maximise the amount you lose as fat rather than tissue," Jebb points out. But Gately sums it up: "Most people, offered the choice, are going to go for the diet, because it's easier to achieve."

There's another, more insidious, problem with pinning all your hopes for a holiday bod on exercise. In what has become a defining experiment at the University of Louisiana, led by Dr Timothy Church, hundreds of overweight women were put on exercise regimes for a six-month period. Some worked out for 72 minutes each week, some for 136 minutes, and some for 194. A fourth group kept to their normal daily routine with no additional exercise.

Against all the laws of natural justice, at the end of the study, there was no significant difference in weight loss between those who had exercised – some of them for several days a week – and those who hadn't. (Church doesn't record whether he told the women who he'd had training for three and half hours a week, or whether he was wearing protective clothing when he did.) Some of the women even gained weight.

Church identified the problem and called it "compensation": those who exercised cancelled out the calories they had burned by eating more, generally as a form of self-reward. The post-workout pastry to celebrate a job well done – or even a few pieces of fruit to satisfy their stimulated appetites – undid their good work. In some cases, they were less physically active in their daily life as well.

His findings are backed up by a paper on childhood obesity published in 2008 by Boston academics Steven Gortmaker and Kendrin Sonneville. In an 18-month study investigating what they call "the energy gap" – the daily imbalance between energy intake and expenditure — the pair showed that when the children in their experiment exercised, they ended up eating more than the calories they had just burned, sometimes 10 or 20 times as many. "Although physical activity is thought of as an energy-deficit activity," they wrote, "our estimates do not support this hypothesis."

Wow. That is the first time ive ever read an article opposed to exercise. I completely disagree with it based on my own personal experiences, and I think its pretty silly to post on a FITNESS website....but if it works for someone else, I wish them well.

meggonkgonk

I think a lot of people jump in too fast to the diet part, and too slowly to the exercise part. Figure out your maintenance calories (what it would take to maintain your current weight.) BMR calculators can tell you that.

Sorry gotta clarify this- BMR does NOT tell you what you burn in a day. No, it tells you what you would burn in a day in a coma, keeping your basic functions going. To get the amount of calories you burn in a typical day, go to the "My Home" tab> Goals On the right hand side it should say "Diet Profile" and there should be a number "Calories Burned...From Daily Activity" THIS is the number from which you should be subtracting 500 calories. NOT your BMR.

I actually use my BMR as my guideline to steer away from triggering starvation response- I make sure my NET is roughly enough to support my basic bodily function and exercise. So my lowest is 1300+exercise and my highest is 1400+exercise.

givprayz

I just took another look at the BMR on MFP and it only calculates basic life function needs, so don't take 500 calories off that number! Some calculators factor in activity and give a maintenance calorie number, that is the one to take 500 off of. You could use the BMR number on here as your actual daily goal, no math needed.

stormieweather

Sorry gotta clarify this- BMR does NOT tell you what you burn in a day. No, it tells you what you would burn in a day in a coma, keeping your basic functions going. To get the amount of calories you burn in a typical day, go to the "My Home" tab> Goals On the right hand side it should say "Diet Profile" and there should be a number "Calories Burned...From Daily Activity" THIS is the number from which you should be subtracting 500 calories. NOT your BMR.

^^This^^

Do this to find what MFP calculates your maintenance to be and subtract 500 a day to lose 1 pound a week. BMR is NOT what you base your deficit on.

lodro

The article I posted is not opposed to exercise. It only points out that exercise is of minimal importance as a weight loss tool.

gdunn55

The article I posted is not opposed to exercise. It only points out that exercise is of minimal importance as a weight loss tool.

I'm no doctor, but I strongly believe that exercise is an important tool. You've got to get your blood to flowing somehow. That's just me.

MrX8503

Your'e eating 1200 a day? Is this what MFP told you to eat when you entered in your height/weight/etc? Follow what MFP suggested and eat that NET calorie amount. If you can't eat that much, plan your foods out and force yourself to eat it. You're doing more harm than good by not eating.

Something to remember is that you can't rush losing weight and if you do, its not healthy or pleasant, and you won't look as good as the next person who lost it slowly. Stick to 1-2lbs a week.

If you lose weight fast, especially with minimal exercise, your body will burn a lot of your muscle off. This leads to an undefined body.

1. Eat your NET Calories. (At your weight I don't think 1200 is the right amount)
2. Exercise (At least 3 times a week)
3. Eat your fats, carbs, and proteins.
4. Take a multivitamin

lodro

Your'e eating 1200 a day? Is this what MFP told you to eat when you entered in your height/weight/etc? Follow what MFP suggested and eat that NET calorie amount. If you can't eat that much, plan your foods out and force yourself to eat it. You're doing more harm than good by not eating.

Something to remember is that you can't rush losing weight and if you do, its not healthy or pleasant, and you won't look as good as the next person who lost it slowly. Stick to 1-2lbs a week.

If you lose weight fast, especially with minimal exercise, your body will burn a lot of your muscle off. This leads to an undefined body.

1. Eat your NET Calories. (At your weight I don't think 1200 is the right amount)
2. Exercise (At least 3 times a week)
3. Eat your fats, carbs, and proteins.
4. Take a multivitamin

Yes, however, burning substantial amounts of lean body mass as fuel will only happen if the OP is severely malnourished and below 6% body fat. That's not something most people here on MFP will ever experience while bringing down their weight.

The other way would be to fast a little more, not less, but do this in a structured way, if this is something the OP can sustain mentally.

http://ifdiet.blogspot.com/2007/11/one-meal-day-vs-intermittent-fasting.html

heresy, I know, but it's simply an alternative approach.

MrX8503

Yes, however, burning substantial amounts of lean body mass as fuel will only happen if the OP is severely malnourished and below 6% body fat. That's not something most people here on MFP will ever experience while bringing down their weight.

The other way would be to fast a little more, not less, but do this in a structured way, if this is something the OP can sustain mentally.

http://ifdiet.blogspot.com/2007/11/one-meal-day-vs-intermittent-fasting.html

heresy, I know, but it's simply an alternative approach.

I hope you're not suggesting that exercising isn't important. We need to get out of the mindset that we need to "lose weight". What we need to do is "be healthy".

With minimal exercise and large weight loss, you'll have a lot of loose skin. Your body won't be very toned.

lodro

Yes, however, burning substantial amounts of lean body mass as fuel will only happen if the OP is severely malnourished and below 6% body fat. That's not something most people here on MFP will ever experience while bringing down their weight.

The other way would be to fast a little more, not less, but do this in a structured way, if this is something the OP can sustain mentally.

http://ifdiet.blogspot.com/2007/11/one-meal-day-vs-intermittent-fasting.html

heresy, I know, but it's simply an alternative approach.

I hope you're not suggesting that exercising isn't important. We need to get out of the mindset that we need to "lose weight". What we need to do is "be healthy".

With minimal exercise and large weight loss, you'll have a lot of loose skin. Your body won't be very toned.

That's not what I'm saying. However, as a weight loss tool, exercise is of very limited benefit.

I'd say we definitely need to eat fewer calories.

MrX8503

That's not what I'm saying. However, as a weight loss tool, exercise is of very limited benefit.

I'd say we definitely need to eat fewer calories.

The OP is eating 1200 calories, thats already eating fewer calories than she is recommended to do. Also weight loss shouldn't be the only goal here.

lodro

That's not what I'm saying. However, as a weight loss tool, exercise is of very limited benefit.

I'd say we definitely need to eat fewer calories.

The OP is eating 1200 calories, thats already eating fewer calories than she is recommended to do. Also weight loss shouldn't be the only goal here.

That is true as well.

nibbynoo

well 1250 is what MFP has told me!!

so confused! my brm is around 1700 should i go up to that?