Exercise is good … but it won't help you lose weight, say doctors
Replies
-
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 -
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.
How do you get to comment on an article with any credibility if you dont bother to read it? The source is from a recognised journal. All youve done is stated something blatantly obvious, which no one is going to disagree with, but that wasnt really the point being made in the article.0 -
You'd still have lost weight relative to where you'd have been without the exercise.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.
0 -
An older (early 1990s) study from Baylor (reported in a Rodale Press publication) had the opposite conclusion: Compared to "diet only", "exercise only", and "diet plus exercise". "Exercise + diet" lost weight the fastest. "Exercise only" had the highest instance of keeping weight off. I couldn't tell you what the parameters were, though.
Whichever, however, I agree. I just finished a run. If I tried to eat these Reese's cups, I'd probably hurl (and I absofreekinglutely love peanut butter cups). These raspberries and mini clif bar would hit the spot fine. Maybe some egg whites, too.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.
How do you get to comment on an article with any credibility if you dont bother to read it? The source is from a recognised journal. All youve done is stated something blatantly obvious, which no one is going to disagree with, but that wasnt really the point being made in the article.
Guess cause it's a public forum and as long as I obey the forum guidelines I can post what I like?
You may be over concerned with your credibility, but it's not something I worry about on an internet forum with thousands of anonymous posters.
I have since read the article. It was the same as the news story I'd seen earlier. My post is germaine to the news story I saw (and by extension the article). My point is that what some cardiologist thinks about weightloss/"junk food"/etc is largely irrelevant.
If you've been on a prolonged training programme and purposively gained and lost weight repeatedly, then you already know more about it than these people. If you think that just exercising without any kind of calorie control method (counting calories, weightwatchers, macro elimination, etc) is going to work, then you'll likely fail (in the long term even if you succeed in the short term).0 -
Your example doesn't negate my point at all, which was the whole sentence. Exercise will not make you lose weight but saying that it won't help you lose weight, is BS.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 -
Physical activity “does not promote weight loss”? Pure rubbish.
I agree that it's ineffective to solely rely on exercise to lose weight- you must eat at a deficit- but exercise does help to create or increase a deficit... And more muscle mass burns more calories... In my experience, it's more difficult to lose weight through diet alone (though not impossible, of course).
And to blame "junk food" and soda for obesity is also a cop out- you can get obese just as easily eating healthy home cooked food (I know from experience!)0 -
Experienced this... Didn't start "really" dropping pounds until MFP counting..
I still exercise, but it's for strength. The pounds are coming off with diet adjustments.0 -
I didn't read the article. Just came here to say that you can't out-exercise a bad diet, which I'm sure is what the premise of said article was.
ETA: I felt bad for not reading it, so I skimmed. Sounds like I was right on the mark. All they're saying is, "hey, kids, just because you're physically active doesn't mean you can drink your weight in Coke daily!"0 -
Yes, it all comes down to calories in, and calories out. I have an exercise that I really enjoy doing (hoop dance), so its really fun for me to exercise. I have dieted before without exercise, and while I do lose weight, my body was soft and plushy. Now that I exercise daily, while my body is getting smaller, its also much firmer. My vote? I much prefer exercise and diet as a combination. But, if I had to do it via elliptical or treadmill... I probably wouldn't stick to it. If you find something you love to do, then exercise is not a chore - its play.0
-
Guess cause it's a public forum and as long as I obey the forum guidelines I can post what I like?
You may be over concerned with your credibility, but it's not something I worry about on an internet forum with thousands of anonymous posters.
I have since read the article. It was the same as the news story I'd seen earlier. My post is germaine to the news story I saw (and by extension the article). My point is that what some cardiologist thinks about weightloss/"junk food"/etc is largely irrelevant.
If you've been on a prolonged training programme and purposively gained and lost weight repeatedly, then you already know more about it than these people. If you think that just exercising without any kind of calorie control method (counting calories, weightwatchers, macro elimination, etc) is going to work, then you'll likely fail (in the long term even if you succeed in the short term).
Ofcc you can post what you like but if the thread is about the article then its normal to discuss the points raised in the article. At least youve expanded your view above, which is more insightfu and not soemthing id disagree with.
TiffanyR71 thats not quite what the article was saying.
0 -
I do agree that for me, diet is most important. I could work out for hours every day but if I'm still eating a ton of crap, then I won't lose weight. I feel like, when I'm working out it DEFINITELY helps me lose, because I've worked so hard I don't want to eat all the crap, and I want to eat healthier. So, I believe it's a combination of both, for me at least.0
-
-
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.
Well, 30 years ago I was 15, so I'll agree with you.
In the US, anyway, I think most people walked to and from school and played actively outside both at school and afterwards. Now that seems to be the case here in certain kinds of neighborhoods (where obesity is less common, like mine) but not others, and I agree that kids in general seem to do a lot more sedentary activities. When I was a kid I was a freak because I mostly wanted to sit and read, and now every child seems to spend tons of time on the computer playing games or whatever.
I think in the US things changed in terms of walking for daily activities like shopping earlier than in Europe--it was already far along in those changes in mid-sized cities and the 'burbs when I was growing up--and that's probably one reason why obesity is running ahead here.0 -
I think it's a pretty good article, that doesn't really say exercise won't help you lose weight. It just says that diet is most important for weight loss. And if you follow the link to the full editorial in the BJSM, it further goes into the dangers of a poor diet even if you aren't overweight.
Diet and exercise are important for health. Diet is most important for weight control. Not exactly Earth shattering news.0 -
I lost my first 55 pounds without changing my diet at all...0
-
I agree with one possible exception. If you eat break even amount of calories, with adequately high percentage of protein, and only do heavy compound weightlifting (such that you slowly gain muscle), then eventually you might lose a tiny bit of weight because each additional pound of muscle you add burns approx 50 calories a day. So, you may not lose pounds, but at least you will get leaner. Which is not all bad.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 424 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions