Exercise is good … but it won't help you lose weight, say doctors

«1

Replies

  • bigd66218
    bigd66218 Posts: 376 Member
    If you overeat and exercise definitely the weight remains the same. More upper body muscle might be added with layers of fat covering it up. I had a membership at the Y and my weight remained constant even though I was lifting 3days a week and cardio 4-5days a week.
  • SezxyStef
    SezxyStef Posts: 15,267 Member
    Exercise can help create a big deficit but it is not necessary for weight loss...so I don't agree it won't help you lose weight it will but it isn't necessary....
  • DemoraFairy
    DemoraFairy Posts: 1,806 Member
    Isn't this basically what people usually tend to say here? The phrase used in that article, 'you cannot outrun a bad diet', is regularly quoted here.

    If you're eating at maintenance or just above and start doing enough exercise to bring you into a deficit then you'll lose weight, though it'll probably be quite slow weight loss. It's just down to CICO, and it's generally easier to achieve a deficit through diet than exercise.
  • lauracups
    lauracups Posts: 533 Member
    Diet to look good in clothes
    Exercise to look good naked

  • philreeduk
    philreeduk Posts: 51 Member
    The people in the comment section below the article are going rather crazy at this. Personally its both. I have found getting my diet in order has helped me tremendously and now I am on a more sustainable path the exercise will help to further enhance the weight loss and help me to look better once I get down to a more healthy weight.
  • Lois_1989
    Lois_1989 Posts: 6,410 Member
    Without reading the article, I was about to say you are more likely to stick with healthier eating habits than regular exercise. But you have to make sure the healthy eating habits are well in place for them to be a permanent part of your life. Exercise can be derailed. E.g. broken limbs, permanent disabling accident etc. I know more people who have had to give up an exercise routine than people who continuously chose cake over an apple.
  • cincysweetheart
    cincysweetheart Posts: 892 Member
    You can't out exercise a bad diet. You can shovel the calories in a hell of a lot faster and easier than you can burn them off. That is true. But to say exercise doesn't HELP… is not true. At least for me… exercise helps decrease my appetite, so it's easier to stay in a calorie deficit. Not to mention… it helps increase the deficit.
  • kommodevaran
    kommodevaran Posts: 17,890 Member
    A good diet gives you the energy to exercise. Exercising makes you crave better food.
  • Fayeworth
    Fayeworth Posts: 60 Member
    It is true that exercise isn't needed for weight loss but for me, I have been on MFP for a long time and eating at 1400 calories everyday would be hard work for me so I exercise 5 days a week in order to eat more. This works for me and many others too. As long as the deficit is there then you'll lose weight.
  • higgins8283801
    higgins8283801 Posts: 844 Member
    I agree.

    Weight loss happens in the kitchen. You can work your tail off but if you eat in a surplus, excerise won't do anything to the scale.
  • higgins8283801
    higgins8283801 Posts: 844 Member
    You can't out exercise a bad diet. You can shovel the calories in a hell of a lot faster and easier than you can burn them off. That is true. But to say exercise doesn't HELP… is not true. At least for me… exercise helps decrease my appetite, so it's easier to stay in a calorie deficit. Not to mention… it helps increase the deficit.


    Oh I wish exercise decreased my appetite. It turns me into a ravenous pig. :/ it's all I can do to not eat all the things. Lol it taught me moderation though.
  • 999tigger
    999tigger Posts: 5,235 Member
    edited April 2015
    Lois_1989 wrote: »
    Without reading the article, I was about to say you are more likely to stick with healthier eating habits than regular exercise. But you have to make sure the healthy eating habits are well in place for them to be a permanent part of your life. Exercise can be derailed. E.g. broken limbs, permanent disabling accident etc. I know more people who have had to give up an exercise routine than people who continuously chose cake over an apple.

    Why not read the article?

    Op having read that piece as well as the bit on the BBC about it, then am sceptical because a lot of its incomplete, reactionary and taken out of context. Its not clear, the evidence appears to be incomplete and it simply raises more questions than it answers. Probably better off reading it in its original form. British Journal of Sports Medicine.

    http://bjsm.bmj.com/content/early/2015/04/21/bjsports-2015-094911

    These are the interesting points imo.

    1. All calories are not equal for health purposes, what you eat matters.
    However, the obesity epidemic represents only the tip of a much larger iceberg of the adverse health consequences of poor diet. According to the Lancet global burden of disease reports, poor diet now generates more disease than physical inactivity, alcohol and smoking combined. Up to 40% of those with a normal body mass index will harbour metabolic abnormalities typically associated with obesity, which include hypertension, dyslipidaemia, non-alcoholic fatty liver disease and cardiovascular disease

    2. It then goes on to say
    many still wrongly believe that obesity is entirely due to lack of exercise. This false perception is rooted in the Food Industry's Public Relations machinery, which uses tactics chillingly similar to those of big tobacco.

    The cant outrun a bad diet ethos, which I don't think anyone disagrees with here, since its about whether a person is at deficit after taking account of food consumed and exercise calories burned. Is that the fault of the food industry? I dont think they have spun that message and its not one ive ever believed existed to the extent the 3 authors suggest.

    3. This seems to be one of their main points.
    Sugar calories promote fat storage and hunger. Fat calories induce fullness or ‘satiation’.
  • stevencloser
    stevencloser Posts: 8,911 Member
    If your average calorie intake is multiple thousand above your maintenance, you probably aren't going to do enough exercise to make it into maintenance. That's not exactly news.
  • Boogage
    Boogage Posts: 739 Member
    Exercise burns calories which means I can eat more so I'm happier and more likely to stick to my diet :)
  • jimmmer
    jimmmer Posts: 3,515 Member
    Calorie deficit for weightloss.

    Exercise for enhancing a quality (e.g. fat loss, strength, speed, power, endurance, etc.)
  • Sarasmaintaining
    Sarasmaintaining Posts: 1,027 Member
    edited April 2015
    I lost the weight without any exercise. I'm glad I did it this way for several reasons.
  • hiraHL
    hiraHL Posts: 2 Member
    Its 80% diet and 20% exercise, yes you can lose weight without exercise but you wont lose inches that easily, exercise makes you feel better and tone you up
  • Lois_1989
    Lois_1989 Posts: 6,410 Member
    999tigger wrote: »
    Lois_1989 wrote: »
    Without reading the article, I was about to say you are more likely to stick with healthier eating habits than regular exercise. But you have to make sure the healthy eating habits are well in place for them to be a permanent part of your life. Exercise can be derailed. E.g. broken limbs, permanent disabling accident etc. I know more people who have had to give up an exercise routine than people who continuously chose cake over an apple.

    Why not read the article?

    Op having read that piece as well as the bit on the BBC about it, then am sceptical because a lot of its incomplete, reactionary and taken out of context. Its not clear, the evidence appears to be incomplete and it simply raises more questions than it answers. Probably better off reading it in the Lancet.

    ... because it's the Guardian. lol Granted it's better than the Daily Mail or even worse the Sun, but I take any news paper article with a pinch of salt because it is all political and you'll probably find the journalist who wrote it is anti exercise and it just trying to justify why they shouldn't get off his/her *kitten* or has been bribed by someone to write it. lol
  • PAV8888
    PAV8888 Posts: 14,254 Member
    hiraHL wrote: »
    Its 80% diet and 20% exercise, yes you can lose weight without exercise but you wont lose inches that easily, exercise makes you feel better and tone you up
    ^
    +1

  • TimothyFish
    TimothyFish Posts: 4,925 Member
    It seems odd to me that though people seem to agree that it is diet rather than exercise, you don't see many fat people in bicycle shops.
  • feisty_bucket
    feisty_bucket Posts: 1,047 Member
    There was a big article about this in Time last year as well. It said exercising makes people hungry and then they overeat.

    I agree: I think exercising to "burn calories" is a bad idea.
    IMO: You should eat at a deficit to cut, and you should exercise to get stronger.
  • Lois_1989
    Lois_1989 Posts: 6,410 Member
    It seems odd to me that though people seem to agree that it is diet rather than exercise, you don't see many fat people in bicycle shops.

    Because the seat kills your butt cheeks.
  • stevencloser
    stevencloser Posts: 8,911 Member
    Lois_1989 wrote: »
    999tigger wrote: »
    Lois_1989 wrote: »
    Without reading the article, I was about to say you are more likely to stick with healthier eating habits than regular exercise. But you have to make sure the healthy eating habits are well in place for them to be a permanent part of your life. Exercise can be derailed. E.g. broken limbs, permanent disabling accident etc. I know more people who have had to give up an exercise routine than people who continuously chose cake over an apple.

    Why not read the article?

    Op having read that piece as well as the bit on the BBC about it, then am sceptical because a lot of its incomplete, reactionary and taken out of context. Its not clear, the evidence appears to be incomplete and it simply raises more questions than it answers. Probably better off reading it in the Lancet.

    ... because it's the Guardian. lol Granted it's better than the Daily Mail or even worse the Sun, but I take any news paper article with a pinch of salt because it is all political and you'll probably find the journalist who wrote it is anti exercise and it just trying to justify why they shouldn't get off his/her *kitten* or has been bribed by someone to write it. lol
    They actually even quoted people who do not agree with the premise. It was fairly well written.
  • 999tigger
    999tigger Posts: 5,235 Member
    Again if people are going to comment maybe read the article and undestand what points the authors are trying to make. Seems crazy when a thread is about a specific article not to understand the points they are trying to make. Most of the comments are about points not being made or relevant to the article.
  • eric_sg61
    eric_sg61 Posts: 2,925 Member
    edited April 2015
    999tigger wrote: »
    Lois_1989 wrote: »
    Without reading the article, I was about to say you are more likely to stick with healthier eating habits than regular exercise. But you have to make sure the healthy eating habits are well in place for them to be a permanent part of your life. Exercise can be derailed. E.g. broken limbs, permanent disabling accident etc. I know more people who have had to give up an exercise routine than people who continuously chose cake over an apple.

    Why not read the article?

    Op having read that piece as well as the bit on the BBC about it, then am sceptical because a lot of its incomplete, reactionary and taken out of context. Its not clear, the evidence appears to be incomplete and it simply raises more questions than it answers. Probably better off reading it in its original form. British Journal of Sports Medicine.

    http://bjsm.bmj.com/content/early/2015/04/21/bjsports-2015-094911

    These are the interesting points imo.

    1. All calories are not equal for health purposes, what you eat matters.
    However, the obesity epidemic represents only the tip of a much larger iceberg of the adverse health consequences of poor diet. According to the Lancet global burden of disease reports, poor diet now generates more disease than physical inactivity, alcohol and smoking combined. Up to 40% of those with a normal body mass index will harbour metabolic abnormalities typically associated with obesity, which include hypertension, dyslipidaemia, non-alcoholic fatty liver disease and cardiovascular disease

    2. It then goes on to say
    many still wrongly believe that obesity is entirely due to lack of exercise. This false perception is rooted in the Food Industry's Public Relations machinery, which uses tactics chillingly similar to those of big tobacco.

    The cant outrun a bad diet ethos, which I don't think anyone disagrees with here, since its about whether a person is at deficit after taking account of food consumed and exercise calories burned. Is that the fault of the food industry? I dont think they have spun that message and its not one ive ever believed existed to the extent the 3 authors suggest.

    3. This seems to be one of their main points.
    Sugar calories promote fat storage and hunger. Fat calories induce fullness or ‘satiation’.

    Odd that an Atkins funded scientist would say that Sugar calories promote fat storage and hunger. Fat calories induce fullness or ‘satiation’
  • jimmmer
    jimmmer Posts: 3,515 Member
    999tigger wrote: »
    Again if people are going to comment maybe read the article and undestand what points the authors are trying to make. Seems crazy when a thread is about a specific article not to understand the points they are trying to make. Most of the comments are about points not being made or relevant to the article.

    Because:
    jimmmer wrote: »
    Calorie deficit for weightloss.

    Exercise for enhancing a quality (e.g. fat loss, strength, speed, power, endurance, etc.)

    Is correct, whatever the article may/or may not say.
  • DeguelloTex
    DeguelloTex Posts: 6,652 Member
    I think those doctors are full of it.
  • ahamm002
    ahamm002 Posts: 1,690 Member
    Unfortunately things are a lot more complicated than "just diet" or "just exercise." You can't completely separate the two when talking about health and weight.
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    I never understand what 80% diet and 20% exercise is even supposed to mean. How can you quantify it? And, if you exercise a lot, either exercising less or eating more could put you out of a deficit and into a surplus? I suppose the assumption is that the number of calories different from not exercising would be smaller than from eating in an unlimited way, but surely what unlimited eating is depends on the person.

    For me, both are necessary. Sure, I could lose without exercising, but from past experience I maintain my motivation and eat better a lot easier when I am exercising.

    And I gained weight when I stopped exercising. (I initially kept my diet about the same and then gradually started eating more after I'd started gaining.)
  • stevencloser
    stevencloser Posts: 8,911 Member
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    I never understand what 80% diet and 20% exercise is even supposed to mean. How can you quantify it? And, if you exercise a lot, either exercising less or eating more could put you out of a deficit and into a surplus? I suppose the assumption is that the number of calories different from not exercising would be smaller than from eating in an unlimited way, but surely what unlimited eating is depends on the person.

    For me, both are necessary. Sure, I could lose without exercising, but from past experience I maintain my motivation and eat better a lot easier when I am exercising.

    And I gained weight when I stopped exercising. (I initially kept my diet about the same and then gradually started eating more after I'd started gaining.)

    400 calorie deficit from food, 100 from exercise?
This discussion has been closed.