Running Won't Help You Lose Weight?

Options
123468

Replies

  • broscientist
    broscientist Posts: 102 Member
    Options
    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.
  • mumtheshopper
    mumtheshopper Posts: 29 Member
    Options
    It's been widely accepted for a while that the sort of exercise you would have to do to make a difference is mind-blowing! But that it makes a greater difference in men than women. I know, not fair!
  • mumtheshopper
    mumtheshopper Posts: 29 Member
    Options
    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!
  • simplythebaz
    simplythebaz Posts: 33 Member
    Options
    I found it easier to eat well when I was also exercising (running & cycling) - it gave me added motivation. When I'm not exercising it's much easier for me to eat badly. Probably some other underlying cause for this, but I'm also happy I can now run 10k in an hour, whereas before I started I couldn't even run 1k.
  • kirstyfairhead
    kirstyfairhead Posts: 220 Member
    Options
    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!!!
  • myofibril
    myofibril Posts: 4,500 Member
    Options
    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...)
  • summertime_girl
    summertime_girl Posts: 3,945 Member
    Options
    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.
  • pinkraynedropjacki
    pinkraynedropjacki Posts: 3,027 Member
    Options
    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...)

    Anyone who is buggered after burning 500 cals worth on a run is very unfit. I run till I hit 600 at least, then I'll go to the shops...walking for another 6km.... then I'll do housework...then perhaps play with the dogs.... then if I forgot something at the shops that's another 6km walk.

    The article writer is more pissed off that her hubby can run & lose weight & she can run & wont. Thats where she gets the whole 'you cant run & lose' mentality from.


    BTW the last time I sat on the couch for more than 5 mins was back in January 2012.... before I started working out.
  • pinkraynedropjacki
    pinkraynedropjacki Posts: 3,027 Member
    Options
    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.
  • lyttlewon
    lyttlewon Posts: 1,118 Member
    Options
    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.
  • TheLongRunner
    TheLongRunner Posts: 688 Member
    Options
    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.
  • Bumdrahp
    Bumdrahp Posts: 1,314 Member
    Options
    Eff this noise!!


    Running rocks. I effing HATE it while I am doing it sometimes, but the feeling I get after running, nothing can even compare!! ( maybe the bliss of eating brownies.. but we aren't eating brownies here damnit!)

    Running has changed me in so many ways. It's great for your legs and stomach.. and above all I feel it's wonderful for the mind.

    So like i said, eff this noise.. go run.
  • leafss
    leafss Posts: 3
    Options
    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.
  • JessHealthKick
    JessHealthKick Posts: 800 Member
    Options
    There is no denying diet is the most important thing for loss, and it's generally calories in vs. calories out (thyroid problems are a whole different game though). I love doing my jogging on 8% inclines, sprints on 6% and fast walking on 15% when at the gym. Makes my legs sexy and means I lose bf%.

    I guess it depends where you are in your journey and what you want... I focus more on gaining muscle and shedding some bf% while I'm at it. Jogging (even though I secretly hate cardio) can be a great quad + glute workout, especially if you mix in some walking lunges.

    Don't know what the passers by thought of me sprinting up a hill and then lunging 50m today, but hey. My *kitten* is defying gravity more than ever and I was able to hike almost 1km up for 3 hours and feel good after it.

    I am sticking with running and eating chocolate :)
  • ItsCasey
    ItsCasey Posts: 4,022 Member
    Options
    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.
  • Snow3y
    Snow3y Posts: 1,412 Member
    Options
    It assists in burning calories thus losing more weight more rapidly. So yes, it will most definitely help.. Whoever says it wont is a moron
  • myofibril
    myofibril Posts: 4,500 Member
    Options
    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.
  • iLoveMyPitbull1225
    iLoveMyPitbull1225 Posts: 1,690 Member
    Options
    If you are running and therefore burning calories and attaining a calorie deficit, why would this NOT lead to weight loss, if we are going with the fact that we lose weight by consuming less calories than we burn? That just doesn't make much sense.
  • SoDamnHungry
    SoDamnHungry Posts: 6,998 Member
    Options
    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.
  • ItsCasey
    ItsCasey Posts: 4,022 Member
    Options
    It assists in burning calories thus losing more weight more rapidly. So yes, it will most definitely help.. Whoever says it wont is a moron

    You can't say that definitively. If someone is still eating more than they are burning, despite the running, they are not going to lose weight.

    Say someone puts $50k a year on a credit card, but they only make $30k a year. If you give them a $10k raise is that going to help them get out of debt? Not unless they stop spending money they don't have. (<-- a lesson for governments worldwide)

Categories