Exercise is wasting our time???

Cindy393

This is the article:

http://www.hollandclinic.com/About-the-Medical-Weight-Loss-Program-at-Holland-Clinic/exercise-weight-loss/exercise-may-not-improve-weight-loss

Which is actually full of crap, because it cites this article:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/26/opinion/sunday/debunking-the-hunter-gatherer-workout.html

Which refers to this study:

http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0040503

I'll leave it at that. I presume that most of you won't be able to actually comprehend the study, so take from it what you will.

Thank you!

fitfreakymom

It has been proven time and time again that moving more and eating less is what works, lift weights, run ect and eat less junk, watch your diet.

TR0berts

ksuh999

Is this a peer reviewed study? How large was the group they were studying? Most likely none of this applies and the article was "cherry picking".

The group did a lot of walking. Thing is, even for a porker like me, walking now does absolutely nothing. My HR barely moves (goes from about 70 to 80. Whee). Even my running is getting easier - my HR now hovers around 160, whereas before it was in the 170s.

It's also why "walkable" communities do nothing to actually improve health. It's also why there's a bazillion people on that keep saying that you still have to watch your calories even if you exercise.

So if you take a group that does a not very strenuous exercise all their life, are we really surprised that their caloric consumption really isn't any different than the average first world person's?

CorvusCorax77

Is this a peer reviewed study? How large was the group they were studying? Most likely none of this applies and the article was "cherry picking".

Exercise can boost metabolism, at least for a period right after a high intensity workout. This is known as EPOC, or "exercise post oxygen consumption".

They looked at 30 people over the course of 11 days. *yawn*

Lisa_Rhodes

I've tried exercise and dieting and then just dieting... I have to exercise and diet to lose weight.

Mommybug2

As several people have pointed out there are so many many flaws with these "studies" it is not even funny. There are too many variables in weight loss/diet/exercise to even consider, which is why each individual has to find what works for them. I agree that most people who do not lose weight when working out are eating too much - you think "Oh I can eat more because I worked out", the flaw is that they eat a 900 calorie meal but only burned 300 calories -> so much for a deficit.

I found this particularly intriguing:

As with weight loss, one of the ways your body adapts to an increase in exercise is to lower your resting metabolic rate about 7%, so you actually end up burning fewer calories - anywhere from 50 to 75 fewer per day, the review found.

I think it ranks right up there with "Starvation Mode" and "Fat Burning Zone". First 50-75 calories a day is a drop in the hat - even IF my resting metabolic rate did decrease by that much - I am burning 300-500 calories during the workout so I am still ahead of the curve by 225-550 calories/day right? So seems to me I am better off working out and burning those extra calories then I would be sitting on my butt and getting the 50-75 back.

TR0berts

As with weight loss, one of the ways your body adapts to an increase in exercise is to lower your resting metabolic rate about 7%, so you actually end up burning fewer calories - anywhere from 50 to 75 fewer per day, the review found.

I think it ranks right up there with "Starvation Mode" and "Fat Burning Zone". First 50-75 calories a day is a drop in the hat - even IF my resting metabolic rate did decrease by that much - I am burning 300-500 calories during the workout so I am still ahead of the curve by 225-550 calories/day right? So seems to me I am better off working out and burning those extra calories then I would be sitting on my butt and getting the 50-75 back.

Math iz hrd...

cwolfman13

thank you all for the interesting and valuable info. I refuse to stop anyway simply because it makes me feel great. I have energy, I look leaner and it's a habit I'm not willing to break. I can't seem to get the article to paste on here. Here is the other little "blurb" I found:

4. Exercise does not burn off pounds
TRUE: It's hard to believe, but in a study of 411 women, those who worked out for over one, two, or three hours a week for six months didn't lose significantly more weight than those who'd devoted themselves to Sudoku or other sedentary pursuits. You'd think this finding was a fluke, but a recent review of 15 studies came to the same conclusion: Moderate workouts don't lead to weight loss, possibly because they make us hungrier. But there's also a biological explanation: As with weight loss, one of the ways your body adapts to an increase in exercise is to lower your resting metabolic rate about 7%, so you actually end up burning fewer calories - anywhere from 50 to 75 fewer per day, the review found.
Make this work for you: While exercise doesn't burn off the bulge, "it does boost your PFF: Pants Fit Factor," says Diana M. Thomas, Ph.D., of Montclair State University in New Jersey. "It helps reduce your waist and gives you a firmer, leaner-looking shape overall." What's more, a dwindling waistline is a key indicator that you're losing belly fat - the dangerous fat type that's linked to health problems like heart disease and diabetes.

Again, nothing about building muscle mass...

I think the problem is that there is no discussion of calorie consumption...a lot of people assume that just because they are working out that they will lose weight...when in reality, they are often still eating at maintenance or surplus for the activity. This is why is it so much easier to build a calorie deficit into your diet and use your diet for weight loss...fuel your exercise and exercise for fitness.

ninerbuff

So my professional opinion and experience:

Exercise ENHANCES one's fitness and strength. If one exercises and doesn't change calorie (deficit or surplus) then chances are that weight loss/gain are not going to occur.

Calorie deficit alone will encourage weight loss, but as weight goes down, then metabolism is slower (due to weight loss). Also calorie deficit doesn't address any strengthening or fitness enhancement.

So you can just lose weight from calorie deficit alone, but physically, you probably won't be any better off if you don't include exercise to assist.

Pick your poison. I choose to exercise.

A.C.E. Certified Personal/Group FitnessTrainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

Cindy393

loving everything I'm reading. That's exactly what I was hoping for when I posted this topic. Thank you everyone for all the great feedback!

lithezebra

So you can just lose weight from calorie deficit alone, but physically, you probably won't be any better off if you don't include exercise to assist.

Pick your poison. I choose to exercise.

Exactly! At the very worst, exercise is only improving your health and your life, and not making it any harder to lose weight. Plus, it gets me out of the house away from where the food is.

wackyfunster

In my opinion, in the context of weight loss, the primary purpose of exercise is to ensure preservation of lean body mass. 2-3 days/week of "heavy" resistance training will do this. Cardio can provide a larger caloric deficit, but it is infinitely easier and more time-effective to just do so via diet. Also, recovery capacity is limited when at a caloric deficit, particularly when engaging in activity that forces the body to burn fat rather than muscle (resistance training), and for a person already in poor shape, adding cardio is a recipe for overtraining.

The issue with losing weight via diet alone is that you will lose muscle as well, and for people who are very overweight, leptin/insulin resistance means that a good portion of that weight loss will be muscle. If you weigh 250 pounds and you lose 25 pounds of fat and 25 pounds of muscle, you will, I guarantee, end up looking and feeling even worse than you did when you started your diet. With resistance training and proper protein intake, loss of lean body mass can be kept to virtually nothing until 'healthy' levels of body fat are achieved. In the same scenario, a 250 pound person who lost 25 pounds of fat would be both aesthetically and from an overall health standpoint better off than a 250 pounds person who lost 25 pounds of fat and 25 pounds of muscle, despite still being 25 pounds heavier (that was probably a bit confusing, but whatever).

I am sure that the study was correct in that when people add exercise, but do not control caloric intake, they will naturally increase caloric intake to compensate for calories burned while exercising. This can easily be overcome by tracking your calories.

lvermeer

Exercise makes me feel good and when I feel good it makes my mind in a better place. And that makes me eat less. So for me it's a round robin!

raeleek

I exercise because it makes me feel good.

And it also makes you healthier. Isn't that enough?

BTW if it lowered metabolism, then people eating back exercise calories wouldn't lose any weight. I could see how excessive cardio could cause lots of stress and mess up weight loss, but that's not the same thing.

The high after a good workout is great. Also, for me, it's a great stress relief.

Cindy393

In my opinion, in the context of weight loss, the primary purpose of exercise is to ensure preservation of lean body mass. 2-3 days/week of "heavy" resistance training will do this. Cardio can provide a larger caloric deficit, but it is infinitely easier and more time-effective to just do so via diet. Also, recovery capacity is limited when at a caloric deficit, particularly when engaging in activity that forces the body to burn fat rather than muscle (resistance training), and for a person already in poor shape, adding cardio is a recipe for overtraining.

The issue with losing weight via diet alone is that you will lose muscle as well, and for people who are very overweight, leptin/insulin resistance means that a good portion of that weight loss will be muscle. If you weigh 250 pounds and you lose 25 pounds of fat and 25 pounds of muscle, you will, I guarantee, end up looking and feeling even worse than you did when you started your diet. With resistance training and proper protein intake, loss of lean body mass can be kept to virtually nothing until 'healthy' levels of body fat are achieved. In the same scenario, a 250 pound person who lost 25 pounds of fat would be both aesthetically and from an overall health standpoint better off than a 250 pounds person who lost 25 pounds of fat and 25 pounds of muscle, despite still being 25 pounds heavier (that was probably a bit confusing, but whatever).

I am sure that the study was correct in that when people add exercise, but do not control caloric intake, they will naturally increase caloric intake to compensate for calories burned while exercising. This can easily be overcome by tracking your calories.

^THIS!

mistesh

That's too funny. That we should be so surprised about this.

"Very simply, it appears that exercise lowers metabolism, and it does so to such a degree that it almost exactly compensates for calories burned during exercise. In other words, if you burn 400 calories doing an exercise, your metabolism slows so that you burn 400 calories less."

Exercise is Great For a Lot of Things... but Weight Loss... Not So Much
http://www.hollandclinic.com/About-the-Medical-Weight-Loss-Program-at-Holland-Clinic/exercise-weight-loss/exercise-may-not-improve-weight-loss

In the NY Times by Gretchen Reynolds, a heath and fitness writer.

"As a result, although they were burning up to 500 calories during an exercise session, their total daily caloric burn was lower than it would have been had their metabolism remained unchanged, and they lost less weight than had been expected."

Dieting vs. Exercise for Weight Loss
http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/08/01/dieting-vs-exercise-for-weight-loss/

The same Gretchen Reynolds mentions a University of Copenhagen study.

"But there is encouraging news about physical activity and weight loss in a new study by researchers at the University of Copenhagen. It found that exercise does seem to contribute to waist-tightening, provided that the amount of exercise is neither too little nor, more strikingly, too much."

For Weight Loss, Less Exercise May Be More
http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/19/is-30-minutes-of-daily-exercise-a-sweet-spot-for-weight-loss/

And here's what Robert Lustig, author of Fat Chance, says in an interview.

"There is nothing bad about exercise. It’s all good. It’s just that it doesn’t cause weight loss on its own and that’s where the science comes in. There are no studies, zero, none in the world literature proving that exercise will cause weight loss on its own. Time Magazine came out with a cover story on this a couple of years ago and so it’s not that controversial."

Anti-sugar doctor Robert Lustig talks more about what's wrong with the American diet
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2013-01-17/features/chi-food-policy-robert-lustig-dishes-on-low-carb-obama-toxic-sugar-juice-and-more-20130117_1_anti-sugar-food-industry-food-items

Why Exercise Won't Make You Thin
http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,1914974,00.html

Some mentioned muscle vs fat. This by Christian Finn, MD in exercise science.

"If you were to lose two pounds of fat and replace it with two pounds of muscle, your resting metabolic rate will increase by less than 10 calories per day. It would take a vast amount of muscle to substantially increase your metabolic rate — far more than most people are going to build in the gym."

The Myth about Muscle and Metabolism
http://muscleevo.net/muscle-metabolism/

When all is said and done, I go for neither too little nor too much.

ThatDamnRobyn

Losing weight is a result of calorie deficit. I exercise because it allows me to eat more.

Me too!
Honestly, I think it's pretty simple. Cardio is good for your heart/lungs. You don't need tons of it. I mean, you don't need to train for a marathon or anything.
The best way to burn lots of calories is to increase your metabolism, not to walk or run or jump around for 30 minutes. Boosting your metabolism overall is going to burn calories all day long. The best way to increase your metabolism is to build muscle. That's will help you burn more calories and maintain what you've accomplished. And eat more food.
So, focus on getting more muscle on your body. Do some cardio, for health reasons and to make you feel good, but don't do 20 hours a week or something cray-cray like that!
That's my opinion. Don't worry too much about every little annoying study.

ndj1979

well exercising (lifting/cardio/HIIT) and eating in deficit helped me go from 20+% body fat to 12-13% body fat..but what the hell do I know..

jlapey

This sounds like something The Onion would write.

:laugh: :flowerforyou: I love The Onion

ninerbuff

Biggest waste of time is thinking about whether or not one wants to try to exercise, eat right and get fitter and healthier. Just ****ing do it.

A.C.E. Certified Personal/Group FitnessTrainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

Fithealthyforlife

Ididn't read this entire thread, just parts. I would like to see this "study". Is there a link to the actual paper, or a title given?

The problem is when people (reporters) interpret an article and post a '"news story" about it. The OP may have read someone's interpretation rather than the original study; I don't know.

Too much cardio can definitely alter one's metabolism in a negative way. But to say that "exercise" does that without defining what one is talking about is a blanket statement that means little.

What can I say, I'm scientifically-trained, and my BS radar goes up when I read something like that.

ndj1979

starting to suspect this is a troll thread..

but I will add this final though ..

If exercise makes your metabolism lower, then how is it on exercise days I burn 3000 to 3200 calories but non exercise days I only burn about 2000 to 2400????

Fithealthyforlife

starting to suspect this is a troll thread..

but I will add this final though ..

If exercise makes your metabolism lower, then how is it on exercise days I burn 3000 to 3200 calories but non exercise days I only burn about 2000 to 2400????

There is a possible long-term effect from overdone cardio. Our body has intricate metabolic feedback mechanisms, and tends to adapt to high steady-state stress by decreasing metabolism to conserve energy--to survive, literally. But you'd have to really overtrain for a long time for it to impact you. Especially cardio. The body would basically shut down from overuse. That's why too much cardio can cause adrenal exhaustion, bone weakness, vitamin deficiency, etc. But most people never overtrain for long enough to cause such things.

I think someone has blown this idea way out of proportion, personally.