Running Won't Help You Lose Weight?

Running absolutely factored into my weight loss. I have a hard time meeting my calorie goals without it. I'm usually a couple hundred over, which I can easily take care of with a jog. It's helped my stay in shape and not feel deprived.

i lost loads of weight with running and watching what i ate. Probably lost too much weight.

Running won't help you lose weight. Running helps make you awesome!

this!!!

Running will "help" you lose weight if you do it right, it won't magically lose weight for you. Use it to help create a calorie deficit to achieve your goals and you can't go wrong.

You do have to be totally honest with yourself though - running is perhaps more prone than many other cardio activities to adaptation. Your body quickly becomes very efficient at doing the same, so you have to keep challenging yourself, or prepare to make an adjustment to your burn, however calculated (even an HRM burn is a best guess based on maths).

Anecdotally, not all miles burn the same. Based on observations from myself and friends, you won't burn twice as many calories on a 10-mile run as you would have burned on two separate five-mile runs. I imagine this is because your body uses different energy release mechanisms the longer you make it go. This is affected by how you fuel on the ruin too.

I wish I'd been on MFP when I was training for my first marathon - I was still maintaining or gaining despite five-hour long runs at weekend. I know now that was because I was eating practically an extra day's worth of calories, despite only having burned around 500. "But I was starving!" doesn't cut it!

false..i've lost close to 50 pounds running...:noway:

The person who wrote the article wrote this


"Instead of focusing just on exercise as the key to fat loss, pay more attention to your calorie intake. Knocking off 100 calories a day from your evening snacks can theoretically result in 10 pounds of fat loss in a year. Does one less cookie a day seems simpler than hours of sweating...?"


Um wait... 100 cals less a day for weight loss? only 100? Hell....if anything were that accurate I'd have lost weight years ago. OP why on earth are you listening to this dribble?

What part of eating 100 calories less a day for a year and you'll be 10 lbs lighter do you not understand?

100 calories x 365 days = 36,500 = about 10-1/2 pounds.

Eating 100 calories a day less for a year may not make you lose 10lbs, it may make you 10lbs lighter than you would have been. It may mean only putting on 2 stone instead of 3 stone of course!

I can't actually see where the article says that running won't help you lose weight. It says that if you run (theoretically this could be any kind of exercise) and then as a result of running you do less than you normally would during the day or you eat more to compensate then you won't lose weight....... not sure where the big eye opener is here.

If however you were to run (or any other kind of exercise) and as a result of that you create a bigger deficit than you otherwise would have done, you will lose weight. (assuming your deficit is not over the top or takes your net calories too low)

So the argument is:

1. eat a pie and go for a run
2. don't eat a pie and don't go for a run

Which one of these is easier depends on how much you want the pie!!!

My diet didn't change, and I've lost over 50 pounds since I started running. I do other things too, like Crossfit, but I run a fair amount.

The person who wrote the article wrote this


"Instead of focusing just on exercise as the key to fat loss, pay more attention to your calorie intake. Knocking off 100 calories a day from your evening snacks can theoretically result in 10 pounds of fat loss in a year. Does one less cookie a day seems simpler than hours of sweating...?"


Um wait... 100 cals less a day for weight loss? only 100? Hell....if anything were that accurate I'd have lost weight years ago. OP why on earth are you listening to this dribble?

What part of eating 100 calories less a day for a year and you'll be 10 lbs lighter do you not understand?

100 calories x 365 days = 36,500 = about 10-1/2 pounds.

Well go ahead, knock 100 cals off your food a day....better be damn accurate calories I think cause otherwise you are going over. Damn accurate, better hope the makers of the foods got the rates right or you are going over.... 100 cals is not a whole lot. That's ONE banana worth. But then what if that banana is larger than 'normal' over you go....


100 cals & you will be fine.

It doesn't help you lose but it REALLY chnges your body. Totally worth it

This....Plus, running typically has a high burn for the amount of time spent doing it. Also, I agree with what was said in terms of diet playing the most role in weight loss/management. Lets put it this way, I have gained a little weight while training for my marathon. Some weeks I was running over 60 miles in a week. I was also hungrier and eating a bit more to maintain that activity level.

You Can’t Out-Exercise A Bad Diet!

But any exercise that you aren't doing now and start doing will help your overall fitness level and calorie deficit.

Let's be honest ... people who take articles like that seriously are not likely to run to the front door for their pizza delivery, let alone run for exercise. Talk about confirmation bias.

I'm not defending running. I hate it and think it is a colossal waste of fuel for my muscles, but this is stupid.

I don't see how anyone could possibly argue that burning calories, in any manner, would not help you lose weight.

I think, as the article correctly points out, it is the effect that exercise may then have on non exercise physical activity (NEPA) that you would normally do during the day (general activity such as standing, moving around, walking etc.)

Lets say you do 1 hour of exercise and you burn off 500 calories. However, because you are knackered you do far less during the say than you would normally do otherwise (because you are lounging on the coach instead of walking the dog, playing with the kids and so on.) This causes your normal daily activity to fall by 500 calories worth. Therefore you have zeroed out and the calorie burn from the exercise has made no difference at all your deficit.

For overall weight regulation (maintaining) exercise has shown to be invaluable. That is really without question. For weight loss however it becomes a bit trickier (especially if it does a number on hunger and causes over eating, particularly unconscious eating...)

I spend way less time lounging around, in general, now that I run. If someone is that zonked from their run they should reevaluate their training program.

Yes, and their diet. That is exactly the point.

I think all to often that people embark on a running programme because they care more about calorie expenditure than the fitness or CV benefits of it. They think "holy crap, look at all the calories I am burning, I am [/i]bound[/i] to lose weight"

But they don't. Or they experience the law of diminishing returns and their fat loss tails off quickly.

How do they respond? Add more running (or whatever exercise in reality) into their programmes.

Then you have people logging significant mileage every week but still don't have the body they really want.

Don't get me wrong. I think running is a great form of exercise and can be beneficial from a body composition point of view as long as it is incorporated well bearing in mind the overall context of the individual, their diet and their general lifestyle.

What works well for some may fail drastically for others.

A caloric deficit will help you lose weight. Plain and simple. But exercise is great for you. Running and then eating back some of the calories is healthier for you than just skipping the food and sitting around. You get to eat more and consume more nutrients, plus you work your heart, lungs and muscles. Seems like a pretty beneficial workout.