Exercise is good … but it won't help you lose weight, say doctors
Options
Replies
-
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.
0 -
TimothyFish wrote: »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.0 -
They actually even quoted people who do not agree with the premise. It was fairly well written.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
0 -
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.0
-
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 saymany 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’0 -
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: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.0 -
I think those doctors are full of it.0
-
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.
0 -
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.)0 -
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?0 -
What I find interesting is the claim that over the past 30 years physical activity has not changed. For the US, anyway, I'm not sure that's true, and I'd be curious about the support for it both here and in other areas (like the UK) where obesity has increased.
I expect that intentional exercise has not changed that much, but the broader question is whether daily activity has changed--do people walk as much doing errands, have as much activity in their jobs, etc.
My impression is that there are fewer active jobs and more desk/service jobs that have far less activity, even in the past 30 years, and--perhaps more significant--that kids (at least in many areas) have less daily activity than when I was a kid, which could well set a pattern for life.
But 30 years ago only brings you back to 1985 (basically the period I grew up in or a bit after), so maybe I'm exaggerating the changes.0 -
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: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.
Except the thread is about the article and the specific points it was making. Did you bother to read it?
At least lemur read it.0 -
Hmmm. I dunno if I buy into that completely. My weight loss was helped a LOT by regular cardio 4-5 times a week. No freegin way I lose as much as I did just with food reductions. No effing way.
Exercise also:
1) Helps recomp your body and make you leaner
2) Adds muscle(weight training) which boost metabolism since muscle uses more energy even at rest than fat does
3) Burns calories(duh,
)
4) makes you feel better overall
IMO, losing weight strictly through dietary changes is brutally hard since every little spoonful or bite of everything has to be accounted for/tracked/logged. Screw that. If I want an extra glop of penut butter or a second helping of lean beef Im HAVING it and thats the end of that!
0 -
stevencloser wrote: »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?
You mean from maintenance without exercise (and sedentary)?
For me I think that's 1550, and I eat more than that to lose weight, so I guess I should say it's 100% exercise?
It's not, of course, as monitoring what I eat is necessary for me to avoid slipping into overeating.0 -
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: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.
Except the thread is about the article and the specific points it was making. Did you bother to read it?
No.
But I caught the gist of it on the news earlier. Still it's irrelevant.
If you follow what I say above, it doesn't matter what "popular science" you get from UK media outlets, you'll be fine.0 -
Won't help you lose weight? CI<CO is a two-sided equation.
While you don't need exercise to lose weight saying that it won't help you lose weight is BS.0 -
IMO, losing weight strictly through dietary changes is brutally hard since every little spoonful or bite of everything has to be accounted for/tracked/logged. Screw that. If I want an extra glop of penut butter or a second helping of lean beef Im HAVING it and thats the end of that!
Even with exercise, many of us will still have to account for the calories we consume. I run six days a week and I can easily cancel our the calories burned with a second helping of dinner or an extra snack.
I love exercise, but it doesn't replace monitoring food.
0 -
sgthaggard wrote: »Won't help you lose weight? CI<CO is a two-sided equation.
While you don't need exercise to lose weight saying that it won't help you lose weight is BS.
Not totally.
If I eat 3000 calories a day and exercise off 500...I am still going to gain weight.
Hence the you can't outrun a bad diet phrase.
Now If I eat at maintenance (2000 calories) and exercise off 500 I will lose weight.
0 -
I am still kinda new at this but for me, eating better foods that help me stay under my calorie limit has not only helped me drop weight but it has also given me the boost in energy needed to go workout. To stay under my limit I have had to add more healthy options like fruits and veggies and chicken and stay away from junk food. Once I started doing that, I was no longer bloated and my energy levels shot up! Now I want to go out and walk. I want to go kickboxing. I want to go swimming. I don't want to sit on the couch and binge watch netflix ( well sometimes but no all the time). The added exercise really helps to make sure I say under my limit and help to reshape my body. So I think it does really come down to a nice balance between the two. At least for me it does. 0
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »What I find interesting is the claim that over the past 30 years physical activity has not changed. For the US, anyway, I'm not sure that's true, and I'd be curious about the support for it both here and in other areas (like the UK) where obesity has increased.
I expect that intentional exercise has not changed that much, but the broader question is whether daily activity has changed--do people walk as much doing errands, have as much activity in their jobs, etc.
My impression is that there are fewer active jobs and more desk/service jobs that have far less activity, even in the past 30 years, and--perhaps more significant--that kids (at least in many areas) have less daily activity than when I was a kid, which could well set a pattern for life.
But 30 years ago only brings you back to 1985 (basically the period I grew up in or a bit after), so maybe I'm exaggerating the changes.
I live in the UK, and I think it's painfully obvious that physical activity in the sense of everyday life rather than planned exercise has changed.
When I was a kid (and I'm only 22, so not that long ago) I would play outside, cycle round my area with friends, walk to see them, go for family walks, play ball games in the park etc.
My little sister (17) didn't do any of that. That's a difference of 5 years, and the main difference is technology. If I stayed inside, I'd be bored rigid, or glued to the TV. If she stays inside, she can do anything.
Obviously I don't actually know what it was like 30 years ago, because I wasn't alive then, but I'd imagine most children walked to and from school, most people walked to and from their local shop, wherever they worked etc. If they ran out of bread, they wouldn't nip out with the car, but walk there instead.
Now I'm not imagining that 30 years ago was the dark ages and there were no cars, buses, lifts (elevators) etc. but I am imagining that convenience was much less important (and particularly where children are concerned). Probably shops actually being local helped, because you wouldn't have to walk too far to get to them, but even if the distances involved in walking to places were shorter, the fact that it seemed so much less inconvenient to walk than it does now means that those short walks were taken, and they all add up. Now they're not taken at all.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 393 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 931 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions