Exercise is wasting our time???

thinnerkate13

finally an answer that brings in the health aspects. While I'm losing weight I want to lower my cholesterol, strengthen my heart, improve my immune system and just plain old feel better. This all reminds me of the commercial about not believing everything you read on the internet. I can almost see the "French model" now!

Cmeitsmiss

This is the link to the yahoo article: http://shine.yahoo.com/healthy-living/surprising-truth-8-common-diet-strategies-153500816.html

I too had read it yesterday and was in shock.

binknbaby

Just using common sense, though I'm not a scientist by any means, I would venture a guess that the "lower metabolism" they saw was not "lower" but merely "balanced out". It's the same reason why, over time, if you do the same exercises, sometimes your weight loss can stall, because your body gets used to that activity. Just like people who are obese/overweight yet they walk 8 hours a day for their job (prime example: my husband). Their body gets used to it, even though other people, who have desk jobs, might lose weight with the same exact activity. It's not that overall the metabolism slows, but that your body gets used to it, and it becomes "everyday" rather than strenuous activity that raises your heart rate. But the more weight you lose, the more your metabolism balances out and, though it's more efficient, it simply doesn't *need* to burn as much, so it "slows down" over time.

Cmeitsmiss

if the link doesn't work google: The Surprising Truth About 8 Common Diet Strategies | Healthy Living

shortchange1

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".

mike_ny

I think that the inefficiency of exercise is a real incentive to eat less in the first place. When you first figure out that the 30 minutes of hard work and heavy sweating on a treadmill /bike/ski machine is about the same calories burned as a donut or bagel you start to look at those snack foods a lot differently and it's a lot easier for me to say no.

But, regardless of the not so high calorie burn of a workout, there's still some cool down period where your body is still working hard cooling you off until your heart rate and breathing return to normal (and burning more calories than your BMR to do so), and several other long term benefits that make it worthwhile regardless of the calorie burn.

xxghost

This sounds like something The Onion would write.

smantha32

They are just taking it a step further and blaming exercise so lazy weight-loss-wannabes will buy their product.

Word.

askeates

I exercise because it makes me feel good.

This is what you need to remember! If it makes you feel good, and it is healthy, then why care about this one article?

Keep on moving

belgerian

I dont know about you but Im trying to figue out where 100 lbs went it sure was not by hitting a calorie deficit and running 3-5 times a week by one hour. It must have been from the occasional ice cream ok maybe more than occasional or the occasional pizza I ate.

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