Exercise doesnet help to loose weight

Scubachick

Hi folks,
You might be interested in reading this article which outlines a recent scientific study that claims exercising doesnt help weightloss!

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/sciencetoday/2009/0917/1224254710448.html

kimberjones

very interesting article. thanks for sharing.

:flowerforyou:

GreenEyedMonster

Well looks like that's not entirely true. It all comes down to calorie intake vs calories burned. Excercise burns calories but they say it's a relatively small amount and it's easier to control intake. We're all pretty much ahead of the game anyway just be being on this site.

kokonutmama

hmm, well, it doesn't say anything about measurements, body fat percentage, or even maintenance of the weight loss. Obviously, this bloke hasn't ever read the nutrition label on his bikkies before! Sure, it's easy for someone totally overweight to stop eating for a week and loose a few pounds, but that's neither sustainable nor healthy. I think we already knew that.

Thanks so much for sharing that article. I don't mean to bash it; information is always good.

135gratitude

Calories in, calories out, but I certainly count on those extra 500 calories everyday that I burn through exercise!

Also, thanks to exercise my muslces are firm, and give good shape to my body, without which, weight loss may have left me a little mushy!!

CrystalT

This article annoys me as much as the one John Cloud wrote. Sure, if you get hungry from exercising and you just eat whatever you feel like, exercise isn't going to help. I think they should have focused the articles on encouraging people to eat healthy along with exercising if they want to lose weight instead of just telling people exercise won't help them lose weight at all. It seems a bit irresponsible the way it is writen.

TCASMEY

This article leaves me with a few questions. Did the group that exercised the most not lose weight because they ate more calories as a reward for exercising? That is the impression I got from the article. If that is the case they already changed what was normal for them by consuming more calories. I think a better study would be to add exercise but eat the same calories as before....don't let them reward themselves for exercise.
What was the exercise that these women did? Was it hardcore cardio and weight lifting or was it a slow walk? Personally when I exercise have a calorie burned goal and not an amount of time. For example my morning walk needs to burn at least 300 calories. Some days I can do that fairly quickly and some days I need to walk longer. So just because you workout for a specific time does not mean you get a good calorie burn going.
It was an interesting article, but so many times people set up these studies and leave to many variables so they leave more questions than answers!

SHBoss1673

OK this study really bothers me, and these reporters and "journalists" really irk me. Facts are distorted, and the conclusions of the study are manipulated to meet the goals of the articles (both this one and the Times article). I HAVE read the study, and what it reports is NOT that exercise makes no difference, but that when given a 6 month period and knowledge that your weight is being analyzed (which will affect your eating patterns no doubt)

first, here is the study itself (please read it).

http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0004515


Now, after looking at the results, immediatly you'll probably notice that in the conculsion the study specifically states this:
"However, all exercise groups had a significant reduction in waist circumference which was independent of changes in weight."

Now, I KNOW what this means, yet the people reporting refuse to even note that fact. This means that Adipose body fat was lowered significantly, and while weight loss was about the same, your overall health is MUCH better if you exercise, which is exactly what the ACSM and ACE state. This is directly relatable to the "skinny fat" term used by many trainers. I.E. yes you lost weight, but not exercising means you lost both fat AND muscle in significant quantity.

2ndly, the articles neglect to point out that this study had a median age of 57 years, of which all were post menopausal women. This is significant in that, hormones change drastically for woman who are post menopause, and also, these woman had an average BMI of almost 32, which is obese, which means almost ANY caloric deficit will elicit a strong weight loss. No mention was made of any attempt to record dietary intake and the only request made of participants was to "continue with your current dietary habits" which means don't drastically change how you eat. But they were not asked to reduce caloric intake, which obviously DID happen as the mean results show.

This is what I mean, ONE manipulated study does NOT make a solid theory.

Wecandothis

Technically the article is exactly right. I'm assuming that's why MFP starts you with the calorie deficit - then allows you to add calories for exercise.

I'm exercising because it's good for me, and I want more muscles, less fat. I know it won't really contribute to me losing weight faster - because I certainly do eat my exercise calories back. In fact when I began to exercise I plateaued for two weeks.

But I want to lose fat and gain muscle, so that was okay.

So no - exercise will not make the numbers on the scale go down faster if we're eating our exercise calories back. But we will be healthier doing so. *shrug*

CrystalT

But the article isn't right. Let's say everyday you eat the exact amount of calories to maintain your weight and you don't exercise. You decide you want to lose a pound a week but you don't want to cut down on what you eat. If you leave your calorie intake alone and exercise enough to burn 500 calories a day, you will lose weight. Yes, you may have those times where you don't see the scale go down because you are gaining muscle, but you will eventually lose weight. And you will probably be a lot healthier for doing it that way because you have gained muscle in the process.

SHBoss1673

Well, the concept I was attempting (admittedly not clearly) to convey is that these reporters take little or no responsibility for their statements, ineptly assigning value to parts of a study without A) giving the full picture of the study, and correctly explaining the idea that making conclusions based on a single study is both bad science and bad Journalism.

Whether or not you can lose weight by exercising,and whether it's healthier to exercise while in caloric deficit is besides the point. I'm trying to show how these writers haphazardly throw out facts and numbers to fit their case without ever giving the reader full disclosure of the facts, notice how in neither article did the reporter ever put a link in to the actual study, which was easy to find on line and very clear for me (but I'm an expert at Technology, and so what is easy for me could be difficult to someone who doesn't know the nuances of google searching).

I could give 10 different studies on exercise and weight loss and all 10 would have different conclusions because different variables and constants were introduced, the point isn't to take one very small segment of the population and draw broad conclusions on PART of the fact, the point is to take ALL of the studies, combine the datasets, weight that data based on the stringency of the methods, and publish THEORY that can be retested and either supported by other studies, or disproven by the same such studies. THAT is the scientific method, and THAT is the only real way to interpret these results.

Any good journalist knows all of this, and this article, as well as the TIME article gives me no other choice but to conclude that the journalists in both cases were either inept reporters, or overtly leaving out facts so that the study would fit their conclusions.

Scubachick

Its a thought provoking article alright! By posting it here I wasn't saying that I agreed with anything the author said - I just wanted all of your trusted opinions and thought I might draw some words of wisdom, which it did - THANKS! :flowerforyou:

I kinda know what the author meat about the bikkies though. I am on Weight Watchers and I know that an hour of exercise would only "earn" me a biscuit. It hardly seems worth excercising! However, I exercise not just to earn points for "that" biscuit but for all the other reasons that exercise benefits me. :bigsmile:

kokonutmama

Yeah, exercise certainly makes you look at your food differently. As in: I just burned 300 cal working out. I'm hungry. I could have 2 super sweet cookies OR a hummus sandwich with lettuce and cucumbers. hmmm.

by the way, didn't you know reporters are generally irresponsible? most would say it's not "their job" to consider the consequences of what they write or to write it in a clear and unbiased way. it's their job to sell articles that publishers will buy. don't even get me started on the integrity of publishers!

Azdak

OK this study really bothers me, and these reporters and "journalists" really irk me. Facts are distorted, and the conclusions of the study are manipulated to meet the goals of the articles (both this one and the Times article). I HAVE read the study, and what it reports is NOT that exercise makes no difference, but that when given a 6 month period and knowledge that your weight is being analyzed (which will affect your eating patterns no doubt)

first, here is the study itself (please read it).

http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0004515


Now, after looking at the results, immediatly you'll probably notice that in the conculsion the study specifically states this:
"However, all exercise groups had a significant reduction in waist circumference which was independent of changes in weight."

Now, I KNOW what this means, yet the people reporting refuse to even note that fact. This means that Adipose body fat was lowered significantly, and while weight loss was about the same, your overall health is MUCH better if you exercise, which is exactly what the ACSM and ACE state. This is directly relatable to the "skinny fat" term used by many trainers. I.E. yes you lost weight, but not exercising means you lost both fat AND muscle in significant quantity.

2ndly, the articles neglect to point out that this study had a median age of 57 years, of which all were post menopausal women. This is significant in that, hormones change drastically for woman who are post menopause, and also, these woman had an average BMI of almost 32, which is obese, which means almost ANY caloric deficit will elicit a strong weight loss. No mention was made of any attempt to record dietary intake and the only request made of participants was to "continue with your current dietary habits" which means don't drastically change how you eat. But they were not asked to reduce caloric intake, which obviously DID happen as the mean results show.

This is what I mean, ONE manipulated study does NOT make a solid theory.

I am going to respond to this in much more detail later, but, having read the study myself (thanks for the link), I have to disagree with your criticism of the study itself.

This study was conducted at The Cooper Institute under the supervision of Steven Blair. There is no more scrupulous or meticulous researcher in the areas of public health and exercise than Blair. His discussions and conclusions are also excruciatingly precise and follow the highest of professional standards. I have been following his research since my first days in school, over 25 years ago, and he is one of the best in the business. In general, if Steven Blair challenges your assumptions, you better take a hard, honest look.

Now, that does not mean that this study represents an "exercise doesn't work" position--quite the opposite. But I will have to get back to that, because I want to read the newspaper article first to see how they characterized the research.

I wanted to address the other issue you raised - that of waist circumference changes. The study reported that all groups experienced significant reduction in waist circumference. It also reported that there was no change in body fat levels (which they did measure) and that more detailed analysis indicated that weight change (loss) only accounted for 11.6% of the observed circumference decrease. The report indicated that this was consistent with other study findings and stated that there seems to be some as yet unknown mechanism for this change that is not related to the changes in body fat that we can measure.

The report also addresses your other questions--like I said, Blair is meticulous to a fault, and one of the smartest guys in this field--but I will return to that in my next post.

Demetria

Again, it seems like writers are willing to just throw stuff out there without feeling any responsibility towards their readers. He basically goes over the time mag article, that we have all discussed in length already, then throws in a little bit more and this guy is an associate professor of biochemistry and public awareness of science officer at University College Cork. Shame on him.

Demetria

Azdak

Well, that didn't take long. The "article" presented as the start of this topic, is not really an "article" at all, but a short, rather whiny opinion piece.

Here is the most significant quote:

"The relationship between exercise and weight loss struck me forcibly several years ago when running on a treadmill in a gym. I ran for 30 minutes and stopped out of boredom and the nuisance of excessive perspiration."

Oh yeah, we're going to get an intelligent, objective analysis from THIS guy.......NOT!

His "observations" are pretty easy to refute.

First of all, in the "Discussion" section of the study in question (Changes in Weight, Waist Circumference and Compensatory Responses with Different Doses of Exercise among Sedentary, Overweight Postmenopausal Women), the authors clearly state that: "DREW (name of the research project) was not a weight loss study and it was not designed to examine the nuances of exercise induced weight loss".

Pretty clear, even to a lay person, n'cest pas? Evidently not, since both the John Cloud TIME article and the Irish Times mini-rant by Reville both attempt to use study results to directly examine the nuances of exercise induced weight loss.

After misusing the results of the study to support his contention that exercise doesn't help with weight loss, Reville then goes on to make two assertions as to why this occurs, one directly refuted by the study data.

His first assertion, that exercisers compensate for the expenditure of exercise calories by eating more is a primary subject of the research. This study and others have shown that there is a trend in large population group studies that shows that actual weight loss achieved with exercise programs is LESS than what would be predicted, given the number of calories expended during exercise. This is referred to as "compensation". I will get into this in another post, but these studies are primarily trying to DOCUMENT the occurrence of this compensation effect and define the parameters and population groups where it is most prevalent. Until that is done, we cannot begin to seriously investigate the "why". Of course, that doesn't stop dilettante's like Reville from stating such speculation as "likely".

I bring this up in so much detail because Reville specifically cites the DREW study as the source of his conclusions and yet the authors of the study clearly state that:

"The DREW study was not designed to examine differences in actual and predicted weight loss nor the mechanism responsible for these observations."

Reville's second conclusion about why exercisers "don't lose weight" is even more absurd. He states that: "Another possible explanation is that many people, after a hard bout of exercise, feel a bit stiff and “achey” and don’t move about much for the rest of the day."

The DREW study accounted for this variable (I told you Blair is meticulous) by having participants wear step counters as an assessment of overall daily activity. In the first month, there was a significant difference in the number of daily steps by the control (non exercise group) vs the exercise groups, but by the end of the study there was no significant difference (a result that agrees with other studies in the literature). So you could actually conclude that the exercising groups INCREASED their daily "movement" as they did more exercise, not decreased.

Another important conclusion of the study was that the exercise sessions were of such a nature that they were easily tolerated by the study participants (Avg 57 y.o., unfit, sedentary, obese women). This was demonstrated by the 99+% adherence rate of study participants to the exercise regimen.

It's obvious that Reville did not read the study that he used as a "source" for his opinions. He either cribbed directly from the TIME article or just scanned the abstract, and cherry-picked some random facts that he liked.

The study does raise some interesting questions that I am going to address in yet another post. Not sure if I am going to post it in this thread or start a new topic, but, if you are interested in this subject, tune back in for more.

SHBoss1673

I am going to respond to this in much more detail later, but, having read the study myself (thanks for the link), I have to disagree with your criticism of the study itself.

This study was conducted at The Cooper Institute under the supervision of Steven Blair. There is no more scrupulous or meticulous researcher in the areas of public health and exercise than Blair. His discussions and conclusions are also excruciatingly precise and follow the highest of professional standards. I have been following his research since my first days in school, over 25 years ago, and he is one of the best in the business. In general, if Steven Blair challenges your assumptions, you better take a hard, honest look.

Now, that does not mean that this study represents an "exercise doesn't work" position--quite the opposite. But I will have to get back to that, because I want to read the newspaper article first to see how they characterized the research.

I wanted to address the other issue you raised - that of waist circumference changes. The study reported that all groups experienced significant reduction in waist circumference. It also reported that there was no change in body fat levels (which they did measure) and that more detailed analysis indicated that weight change (loss) only accounted for 11.6% of the observed circumference decrease. The report indicated that this was consistent with other study findings and stated that there seems to be some as yet unknown mechanism for this change that is not related to the changes in body fat that we can measure.

The report also addresses your other questions--like I said, Blair is meticulous to a fault, and one of the smartest guys in this field--but I will return to that in my next post.

3 things,1st My appologies for any misunderstainding, I think it was an excellent study. I'm critical of the article for cherry picking the study. I.E. the journalist for shaping some of the study's facts to reach an (incorrect IMHO) conclusion. Now, I admit, I started off the post a bit hazy, and if you don't read my whole post, then you may draw the conclusion that I didn't like the study, I loved it, but it was limited in scope (which is fine), the journalist though, didn't explain this scope and let the reader believe it was targeted toward the general public.

2, you are incorrect in your statement that there were significant waist circumfrance changes in all groups, all EXERCISE groups only. See figure 6 in the Study, there was no significant change in the control group.

3. you really need to read both my posts again, because you have it completely backwards about my questions, again they are critical of the journalist and his article, NOT the study. Please do so. And also, I further explained my previously unclear assessment in my second post.

dumb_blondes_rock

Prime example....my friend weighs 145 and works out 5 times a week if not more....and runs for 45 mins and does whatever training for like another 30 to 45 mins....and can't lose a pound....but she eats a lotttt of crackers, and other carbs....and eats sooo sparatically, like doesn't eat breafast and all that jazz and complains about not being able to lose weight. So it goes to show diet and exercise really do go hand in hand

songbyrdsweet

Exercise is preventative, not curative. This isn't new information, it's just being portrayed in a different (negative) light.

A better statement would be that exercise doesn't MAKE you lose weight. It certainly can help by wasting calories so that you can eat more and maintain a caloric deficit. But regardless of how much you exercise, if your caloric INTAKE is greater than your caloric OUTPUT, you will gain weight. It's just harder to eat too much if you're burning 3000 calories per day versus 1200 calories per day.

The idiot who wrote this Time Magazine article and got this whole uproar started lost all credibility when we wrote the statement '...convert fat to muscle...'. That alone tells me he has NO idea what he's talking about and wrote a glorified editorial a 6th grader could've come up with using Wikipedia and Webster's dictionary. Use some logic (i.e., count calories instead of eating whatever the hell you want because you spent 30 minutes on a recumbent bike) and it's plain to see that exercise IS HELPFUL in fat loss, but is not a cure-all, as apparent by the author's stupidity.

SHBoss1673

Exercise is preventative, not curative. This isn't new information, it's just being portrayed in a different (negative) light.

A better statement would be that exercise doesn't MAKE you lose weight. It certainly can help by wasting calories so that you can eat more and maintain a caloric deficit. But regardless of how much you exercise, if your caloric INTAKE is greater than your caloric OUTPUT, you will gain weight. It's just harder to eat too much if you're burning 3000 calories per day versus 1200 calories per day.

The idiot who wrote this Time Magazine article and got this whole uproar started lost all credibility when we wrote the statement '...convert fat to muscle...'. That alone tells me he has NO idea what he's talking about and wrote a glorified editorial a 6th grader could've come up with using Wikipedia and Webster's dictionary. Use some logic (i.e., count calories instead of eating whatever the hell you want because you spent 30 minutes on a recumbent bike) and it's plain to see that exercise IS HELPFUL in fat loss, but is not a cure-all, as apparent by the author's stupidity.

LOL, now how do you REALLY feel SB?

songbyrdsweet

Exercise is preventative, not curative. This isn't new information, it's just being portrayed in a different (negative) light.

A better statement would be that exercise doesn't MAKE you lose weight. It certainly can help by wasting calories so that you can eat more and maintain a caloric deficit. But regardless of how much you exercise, if your caloric INTAKE is greater than your caloric OUTPUT, you will gain weight. It's just harder to eat too much if you're burning 3000 calories per day versus 1200 calories per day.

The idiot who wrote this Time Magazine article and got this whole uproar started lost all credibility when we wrote the statement '...convert fat to muscle...'. That alone tells me he has NO idea what he's talking about and wrote a glorified editorial a 6th grader could've come up with using Wikipedia and Webster's dictionary. Use some logic (i.e., count calories instead of eating whatever the hell you want because you spent 30 minutes on a recumbent bike) and it's plain to see that exercise IS HELPFUL in fat loss, but is not a cure-all, as apparent by the author's stupidity.

LOL, now how do you REALLY feel SB?

LOL sorry, this irks me. :laugh: I saw someone reading that mag in the doc's office the other day and had to bite my tongue!!

SHBoss1673

LOL, now how do you REALLY feel SB?

LOL sorry, this irks me. :laugh: I saw someone reading that mag in the doc's office the other day and had to bite my tongue!!

you'll get no argument from me. See my second post. I basically ripped the guy a new one. FYI, I emailed him and told him essentially the same thing, called him basically a fraud and a terrible journalist (too harsh?).

Azdak

I am going to respond to this in much more detail later, but, having read the study myself (thanks for the link), I have to disagree with your criticism of the study itself.

This study was conducted at The Cooper Institute under the supervision of Steven Blair. There is no more scrupulous or meticulous researcher in the areas of public health and exercise than Blair. His discussions and conclusions are also excruciatingly precise and follow the highest of professional standards. I have been following his research since my first days in school, over 25 years ago, and he is one of the best in the business. In general, if Steven Blair challenges your assumptions, you better take a hard, honest look.

Now, that does not mean that this study represents an "exercise doesn't work" position--quite the opposite. But I will have to get back to that, because I want to read the newspaper article first to see how they characterized the research.

I wanted to address the other issue you raised - that of waist circumference changes. The study reported that all groups experienced significant reduction in waist circumference. It also reported that there was no change in body fat levels (which they did measure) and that more detailed analysis indicated that weight change (loss) only accounted for 11.6% of the observed circumference decrease. The report indicated that this was consistent with other study findings and stated that there seems to be some as yet unknown mechanism for this change that is not related to the changes in body fat that we can measure.

The report also addresses your other questions--like I said, Blair is meticulous to a fault, and one of the smartest guys in this field--but I will return to that in my next post.

3 things,1st My appologies for any misunderstainding, I think it was an excellent study. I'm critical of the article for cherry picking the study. I.E. the journalist for shaping some of the study's facts to reach an (incorrect IMHO) conclusion. Now, I admit, I started off the post a bit hazy, and if you don't read my whole post, then you may draw the conclusion that I didn't like the study, I loved it, but it was limited in scope (which is fine), the journalist though, didn't explain this scope and let the reader believe it was targeted toward the general public.

2, you are incorrect in your statement that there were significant waist circumfrance changes in all groups, all EXERCISE groups only. See figure 6 in the Study, there was no significant change in the control group.

3. you really need to read both my posts again, because you have it completely backwards about my questions, again they are critical of the journalist and his article, NOT the study. Please do so. And also, I further explained my previously unclear assessment in my second post.

Arrgh---I hate when I click on the tab and it closes it instead of switching to it, which just wiped out my previously answer.--well, here is the short version:


First of all, #2 was a "brain" typo, and you are correct in pointing out my mistake.

I may have misinterpreted this remark:

This is what I mean, ONE manipulated study does NOT make a solid theory.

I read "manipulated" initially as a perjorative description of the research study itself. Your follow up comment was posted while I was responding to your first one, so I see now that you were using "manipulated" to refer to the author's misinterpretation of the study results. I am happy to stand corrected after that clarification.

SHBoss1673

Arrgh---I hate when I click on the tab and it closes it instead of switching to it, which just wiped out my previously answer.--well, here is the short version:


First of all, #2 was a "brain" typo, and you are correct in pointing out my mistake.

I may have misinterpreted this remark:

This is what I mean, ONE manipulated study does NOT make a solid theory.

I read "manipulated" initially as a perjorative description of the research study itself. Your follow up comment was posted while I was responding to your first one, so I see now that you were using "manipulated" to refer to the author's misinterpretation of the study results. I am happy to stand corrected after that clarification.

no worries, Happy to help clear things up, I believe we're on the same page on this one. :drinker:

Azdak

I think we need to make sure we are interpreting the research for what it actually STUDIED and not what we think it should have looked at. I think some of the findings here might challenge some accepted ideas and we need to be sure that we are not engaging in the same reflexive denial of "bad news" that we see in others.

As I said in an earlier post, any research done under the supervision of Steven Blair is going to be unassailable in the meticulousness of its design and quality of professional standards. It's because of his reputation and the quality of his work that he gets the big research $$$ to carry out these kinds of studies. (When I think of Blair, I think of that Intel commercial where they show the guy who is the co-inventor of the USB port and the line is: "our rock stars aren't like your rock stars").

The purpose of this study was to look at the differences in actual weight loss vs predicted weigh loss with 3 different "doses" of exercise duration (expressed in terms of total caloric expenditure). In other words, if you took the calculated calorie expenditure from exercise and predicted how much weight the person would lose from the calorie deficit, how does that differ from actual weight loss results. The 3 exercise "doses" were 4, 8, and 12 Kcalories per kg body wt per week (KKW).

The primary reasons for the study were A) to see if lower "doses" of exercise had a positive weight loss effect and to further analyze the phenomenon of "compensation" that has been reported in other studies on exercise and weight loss. Other studies have shown that actual weight loss in programs based on exercise is consistently lower than what would be predicted based on the amount of calories expended. This "compensation" effect has been more pronounced in groups that expended the greatest number of calories.

This study also showed similar compensation results. While weight loss in the 4 KKW and 8 KKW groups did not significantly differ from predictions, the actual weight loss in the 12 KKW group was significantly less.

Conclusion:

Relatively high dose of exercise results in compensatory mechanisms that attenuate weight loss in previously sedentary women.

(Did I mention how much I love research study language--that is geek poetry).

Now it is important to put this in perspective. As exercise promoters, our first impulse is to reflexively say "no, that can't be" and try to pick holes in the conclusions, or attack the study methodology.

But, let's take a deep breath and put it in perspective. First of all, let's look at what the researchers themselves say:

DREW (name of project) was not a weight-loss study and it was not designed to examine the nuances of exercise induced weight loss.

Our findings should not be interpreted as suggesting that lower doses of exercise are more effective at producing weight loss than higher doses.

In other words: Don't try to overgeneralize these results (obviously, John Cloud of TIME wasn't listening).

With studies like this, you have to look at, and define what IS before you can even begin to look at the HOW or the WHY. Because of the variety and complexity of humans and our physiology, basic observational studies have to be repeated a number of times with different groups for the big picture to emerge.

So, while it seems clear that a compensatory effect does exist and that exercise professionals need to exercise caution in both designing programs and raising expectations, we don't not know why it exists. It could be a hard-wired part of our makeup, in which case we have some issues to address, or it could be an associated behavior that is nothing more than a habit and is easily corrected, or it could be a natural variant among individuals which exercise professionals will have to take into account as part of their assessment. Right now, we don't know, which is why dismissing it out of hand or giving it "irrefutable truth" status are equally irresponsible reactions.

I know the details will numb some people's brains, but if you look at all the data and all the study conclusions, you can better understand some of the nuances. This study is particularly rewarding in that regard, given the quality research done by Blair's group that I described earlier.

One of the reasons for studies like this is to look at what happens in large groups. Obviously, a large sample size "irons out" individual variations and thus leads to more valid observations of the group. However, it can also mask some important variations--thus the importance of checking out the details.

In each group--control, and the 3 exercise groups--some people lost a lot of weight, some stayed the same, and some gained weight over the course of the study.

I saw two things that I thought were noteworthy: First, although as a group the highest exercising (12 KKW) group had the greatest amount of "compensation", 27% of the members of this group did NOT compensate. Therefore, it seems it is not "inevitable" that high exercisers compensate--further investigation might reveal a greater understanding of this process and show ways to make exercise more effective.

Secondly, participants did keep track of energy intake. That was not the point of the study, and they used self-reporting diaries, which must always be interpreted with caution. However, when sorting the data so that the weight gainers were separated from the weight losers, it turned out that the weight gainers ate more than the weight losers. Now, I know our first response is "yeah, duh!" but that is more significant than at first glance. To me, it indicates that "compensation" is driven more by behavior rather than physiology, which I think may make it easier to control.

It is also important to note that, while other studies have shown similar results in different and younger groups, this was a pretty restricted sample. Mean age was 57 years old, BMI was 32, weight averaged about 84 kg and aerobic capacity was only about 4-5 METs. And weight loss was only about 3-5 pounds over 6 months.

Azdak

BTW, Steven Blair has done a lot of important research on defining the idea of being "fit and fat".

As he admits, much of his interest comes from his personal situation. Blair is about 5'6" tall, weighs over 200 pounds and is prematurely bald. I haven't seen him in 10 or 15 years, but he had kind of a bowling ball body shape.

He was an active exerciser and followed appropriate eating habits and yet, as he related in one of his presentations, still could not get below a certain size and shape.

What he did, however, was explore the idea of "fitness" vs "fatness", especially in terms of health, cardiovascular risk factors and all-cause mortality. One of Blair's specialties is using statistical analysis to squeeze new conclusions out of existing data on large population group studies. He went back and reanalyzed some of the existing lifestyle risk data and concluded that, if you stratified data by fitness level, much of the differences in risk between obese and non obese people disappeared.

He concluded that obese people, because of size and other factors, tended to be less active and less fit and THIS contributed much more to their risk for heart disease, for example, than their obesity. When high-fit obese people were compared to their non-obese high-fit counterparts, there was little significant difference in occurrence of heart attacks, etc.

His research has not been universally accepted, and, like all good research, has stimulated further debate and more research, but it was important for fitness professionals.

Quite frankly, it's a heck of a lot easier to improve someone's fitness level than it is to get them to permanently lose weight. And, often, the increase in fitness results in higher levels of self-confidence and motivation to stick to a weight-loss program.

Anyhow, that's my Steven Blair story. He's one of the good guys.

ivykivy

I read an excellent article on this very idea a couple of months ago. http://www.thinkmuscle.com/articles/gaesser/obesity.htm

What he did, however, was explore the idea of "fitness" vs "fatness", especially in terms of health, cardiovascular risk factors and all-cause mortality. One of Blair's specialties is using statistical analysis to squeeze new conclusions out of existing data on large population group studies. He went back and reanalyzed some of the existing lifestyle risk data and concluded that, if you stratified data by fitness level, much of the differences in risk between obese and non obese people disappeared.

He concluded that obese people, because of size and other factors, tended to be less active and less fit and THIS contributed much more to their risk for heart disease, for example, than their obesity. When high-fit obese people were compared to their non-obese high-fit counterparts, there was little significant difference in occurrence of heart attacks, etc.

His research has not been universally accepted, and, like all good research, has stimulated further debate and more research, but it was important for fitness professionals.

Quite frankly, it's a heck of a lot easier to improve someone's fitness level than it is to get them to permanently lose weight. And, often, the increase in fitness results in higher levels of self-confidence and motivation to stick to a weight-loss program.

Anyhow, that's my Steven Blair story. He's one of the good guys.

kokonutmama

Azdak and SHboss: each of you should write to Time and whatever magazine this op ed piece appeared in (something in Ireland, yes?) you might make a difference to somebody.

BrendaLee

Yep, heard it all before. Exercise does help with weight loss as long as you don't overcompensate by eating more. I love me some cardio!

mmtiernan

The article also does not take in to account that muscle actually weighs more than fat. So, if the exercise group were losing fat AND gaining muscle (which they undoubtedly were since they were exercising!) then the scale may not go down and in some cases, may actually go up!

It's also unfortunate that they failed to mention the other health benefits - increase in cardiovascular health, lowered cholesterol, etc.

I absolutely agree that it is irresponsible reporting, in particular in two ways: 1) it distorts the facts and does not give a complete picture of the full results and 2) in a country where the obesity rate is exceedingly high, it gives folks one more reason not to want to do what is best for them since it leaves folks thinking that if they exercise, they still won't lose the weight so why try?

SHBoss1673

Azdak and SHboss: each of you should write to Time and whatever magazine this op ed piece appeared in (something in Ireland, yes?) you might make a difference to somebody.

I did, I emailed the reporter, that was the only link available. It was pretty scathing though, I doubt I'll ever hear anything in response.