Exercise 'not key to obesity fight' Doctors say
Replies
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »
The reason I mention this is that the original article wasn't really about how to lose lots of weight fast (obviously the key to that is controlling your diet), but how to address the problem of obesity. I think activity is extremely important for that.
I think activity is important for many reasons. It improves insulin resistance, it increases muscle mass which burns more calories even at rest. It makes your heart stronger. It makes your muscles stronger and helps counteract muscle loss as you age.
However, people who think that adding exercise is some sort of magic bullet for weight loss are often disappointed that they don't lose nearly as much weight as they think they will lose. The article attached to this thread is very poorly written but I think that it is true that diet is a much bigger contributor to obesity than lack of exercise.
I know that I managed to get quite fat because I was eating too much even though I did a lot of exercise. I did not lose weight until I changed my diet.
0 -
Chrysalid2014 wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »TheSingingMom wrote: »Do the math. If someone walks at 3.5 mph for an hour they burn roughly 200 cal per hour. So if a person walks 4 hours a week that adds up to about 800 cal per week. If that same person walks for 7 hours a week it adds up to 1400 cal per week.
That would translate to burning a pound of fat in 2.5-4 weeks.
Exercise is good for you but it won't help you lose that much weight.
If I'm sedentary, my maintenance is about 1550. Currently my maintenance seems to be about 2000. So I can lose weight eating 1750, but if I were sedentary I'd be gaining weight. Not gaining or losing quickly, but over a year that matters a lot.
The reason I mention this is that the original article wasn't really about how to lose lots of weight fast (obviously the key to that is controlling your diet), but how to address the problem of obesity. I think activity is extremely important for that.
Good point. I don't recall even gaining a significant amount of weight while exercising. I may not have been losing weight, but I wasn't gaining weight, even though I had something of the attitude that I could eat whatever because I was exercising. All of my weight gain has occurred during periods when I was sitting in front of the TV instead of sitting on the bike.
Not me. I was exercising during the entire time I was gaining 80lbs over the space of 18 months, and eating the same meals. The thing I did different was to consume a lot of sugary carb snacks every evening after dinner.
And back in the days when I weighed 110lbs, my idea of a strenuous exercise session was jumping up and down on a rebounder for 15 minutes. As I recall I used to do that three times a week, as was the recommendation in those days.
Yeah, well when I said "exercising" I meant doing a bit more than 45 minutes a week. I frequently do twice that a day.0 -
What does that person know about her body chemistry and her metabolism though? And how does she measure having more energy and less inflammation.TheSingingMom wrote: »isulo_kura wrote: »APeacefulWarrior wrote: »I have more energy, less inflammation,
How did you measure this? Was there before and after measurements? If it's just personal opinion/evaluation I'm afraid that proves nothing
The person who posted the comment wrote:
"As far as sugar goes, from personal experience, and this is based on my body chemistry and my metabolism, avoiding processed sugar has amazing positive effects. I have more energy, less inflammation, less water retention, clearer thinking, and a more positive outlook on life. Would everyone? I doubt it, but before you start arguing against something (unless you're arguing just for the sake of arguing), try it and then form your opinions based on your own individual experience.
I doubt this person is trying to prove anything.
I could come in here and say that eating more sugar made my hair grow thicker and all my lifts shoot up by 10 pounds immediately while being more potent than ever. I got nothing to base that on but that's what I choose to believe.
That's just a useless statement to make.
0 -
TimothyFish wrote: »TheSingingMom wrote: »Do the math. If someone walks at 3.5 mph for an hour they burn roughly 200 cal per hour. So if a person walks 4 hours a week that adds up to about 800 cal per week. If that same person walks for 7 hours a week it adds up to 1400 cal per week.
That would translate to burning a pound of fat in 2.5-4 weeks.
Exercise is good for you but it won't help you lose that much weight.
How about this? If someone rides a bicycle at 15 mph for an hour they burn roughly 900 calories (bicycling.com). So if a person rides 4 hours a week that adds up to about 3600 calories per week. If that same person rides 7 hours a week, that adds up to 6300 calories per week.
That would translate to burning a pound of fat in 1 week, or even 1.8 pounds per week.
Exercise is good for you, and if you do enough of it, it will help you lose a lot of weight.
The problem with that is that this amount of exercise (not always but often) also translates into a bigger appetite, which usually means eating more if you're not counting calories and ruining a good amount or even all of that deficit you created from your exercise.0 -
stevencloser wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »TheSingingMom wrote: »Do the math. If someone walks at 3.5 mph for an hour they burn roughly 200 cal per hour. So if a person walks 4 hours a week that adds up to about 800 cal per week. If that same person walks for 7 hours a week it adds up to 1400 cal per week.
That would translate to burning a pound of fat in 2.5-4 weeks.
Exercise is good for you but it won't help you lose that much weight.
How about this? If someone rides a bicycle at 15 mph for an hour they burn roughly 900 calories (bicycling.com). So if a person rides 4 hours a week that adds up to about 3600 calories per week. If that same person rides 7 hours a week, that adds up to 6300 calories per week.
That would translate to burning a pound of fat in 1 week, or even 1.8 pounds per week.
Exercise is good for you, and if you do enough of it, it will help you lose a lot of weight.
The problem with that is that this amount of exercise (not always but often) also translates into a bigger appetite, which usually means eating more if you're not counting calories and ruining a good amount or even all of that deficit you created from your exercise.
Who said anything about not counting calories?0 -
Having a bad diet would suggest that they aren't counting. Unless they're counting, going over by 1000 and being like "Oh well." then just keep going.TimothyFish wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »TheSingingMom wrote: »Do the math. If someone walks at 3.5 mph for an hour they burn roughly 200 cal per hour. So if a person walks 4 hours a week that adds up to about 800 cal per week. If that same person walks for 7 hours a week it adds up to 1400 cal per week.
That would translate to burning a pound of fat in 2.5-4 weeks.
Exercise is good for you but it won't help you lose that much weight.
How about this? If someone rides a bicycle at 15 mph for an hour they burn roughly 900 calories (bicycling.com). So if a person rides 4 hours a week that adds up to about 3600 calories per week. If that same person rides 7 hours a week, that adds up to 6300 calories per week.
That would translate to burning a pound of fat in 1 week, or even 1.8 pounds per week.
Exercise is good for you, and if you do enough of it, it will help you lose a lot of weight.
The problem with that is that this amount of exercise (not always but often) also translates into a bigger appetite, which usually means eating more if you're not counting calories and ruining a good amount or even all of that deficit you created from your exercise.
Who said anything about not counting calories?
0 -
TimothyFish wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »TheSingingMom wrote: »Do the math. If someone walks at 3.5 mph for an hour they burn roughly 200 cal per hour. So if a person walks 4 hours a week that adds up to about 800 cal per week. If that same person walks for 7 hours a week it adds up to 1400 cal per week.
That would translate to burning a pound of fat in 2.5-4 weeks.
Exercise is good for you but it won't help you lose that much weight.
How about this? If someone rides a bicycle at 15 mph for an hour they burn roughly 900 calories (bicycling.com). So if a person rides 4 hours a week that adds up to about 3600 calories per week. If that same person rides 7 hours a week, that adds up to 6300 calories per week.
That would translate to burning a pound of fat in 1 week, or even 1.8 pounds per week.
Exercise is good for you, and if you do enough of it, it will help you lose a lot of weight.
The problem with that is that this amount of exercise (not always but often) also translates into a bigger appetite, which usually means eating more if you're not counting calories and ruining a good amount or even all of that deficit you created from your exercise.
Who said anything about not counting calories?
The overwhelming majority of the population doesn't count calories. Much of the population has a really crappy diet that consists largely of high calorie, low nutrient foods for which it is really easy to overeat. I see all kinds of people in the gym who are crushing it...but their body's haven't changed much...why? *kitten* diet.
All this article and others like it are stating is that the obesity fight starts with diet...yes, exercise is important for many aspects of good health...but fighting the obesity epidemic starts with proper diet.
I can also attest to having a much easier time controlling calorie intake when I'm just sort of generally "working out" vs actually training. When I'm actively training, I'm starving all of the time and have a great deal of difficulty controlling my calorie intake. When I keep my workouts light to moderate, this isn't as much an issue.0 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »TheSingingMom wrote: »Do the math. If someone walks at 3.5 mph for an hour they burn roughly 200 cal per hour. So if a person walks 4 hours a week that adds up to about 800 cal per week. If that same person walks for 7 hours a week it adds up to 1400 cal per week.
That would translate to burning a pound of fat in 2.5-4 weeks.
Exercise is good for you but it won't help you lose that much weight.
How about this? If someone rides a bicycle at 15 mph for an hour they burn roughly 900 calories (bicycling.com). So if a person rides 4 hours a week that adds up to about 3600 calories per week. If that same person rides 7 hours a week, that adds up to 6300 calories per week.
That would translate to burning a pound of fat in 1 week, or even 1.8 pounds per week.
Exercise is good for you, and if you do enough of it, it will help you lose a lot of weight.
The problem with that is that this amount of exercise (not always but often) also translates into a bigger appetite, which usually means eating more if you're not counting calories and ruining a good amount or even all of that deficit you created from your exercise.
Who said anything about not counting calories?
The overwhelming majority of the population doesn't count calories. Much of the population has a really crappy diet that consists largely of high calorie, low nutrient foods for which it is really easy to overeat. I see all kinds of people in the gym who are crushing it...but their body's haven't changed much...why? *kitten* diet.
All this article and others like it are stating is that the obesity fight starts with diet...yes, exercise is important for many aspects of good health...but fighting the obesity epidemic starts with proper diet.
I can also attest to having a much easier time controlling calorie intake when I'm just sort of generally "working out" vs actually training. When I'm actively training, I'm starving all of the time and have a great deal of difficulty controlling my calorie intake. When I keep my workouts light to moderate, this isn't as much an issue.
Well said. And very true for me too about training. Can't stop the hunger and have to be very vigilant. But oh well, I'll keep on training and keep tweaking the diet to deal with the hunger and stay on track.0 -
Sophiareed218 wrote: »I've been seeing articles like this recently, but I thought the point they were making is not that exercise isn't important, but that diet is more important to weight loss. Makes sense. The average obese person can't exercise off 1000 calories in a go, but you sure can eat 1000 calories in one meal/snack/milkshake. The titles are often misleading so they can grab attention, sure.
That's what the article seemed to say in my opinion. And that is true. My view is that exercise is SUPPORTIVE of weight loss/control and definitely can contribute, but it is not the most important factor. Diet is much more important because, as you said, an obese person is unable to burn 1000 calories in one exercise session but can easily eat that or more in one snack.
For me (and yes, I realize this is my personal experience and not necessarily true of everybody), I think the fact that exercising on a regular basis seems to make me more likely to eat healthy is more important than the few hundred calories I might burn when I exercise. I think the two habits seems to reinforce each other. I am more likely to exercise when I am eating well. I am more likely to keep eating well when I exercise.
0 -
Chrysalid2014 wrote: »so many here are convinced this is the be-all-and-end all of dietary reform.
Only a Sith deals in absolutes.
I've always found this line to be.....amusingly ironic.0 -
Sophiareed218 wrote: »I've been seeing articles like this recently, but I thought the point they were making is not that exercise isn't important, but that diet is more important to weight loss. Makes sense. The average obese person can't exercise off 1000 calories in a go, but you sure can eat 1000 calories in one meal/snack/milkshake. The titles are often misleading so they can grab attention, sure.
I think it depends on the spin the particular writer puts on it. Some can make it feel like there is NO place for exercise in fighting obesity. And when the title can start putting that spin on things, it impacts how people new to the topic take in the rest of the article.
Most would tend to agree that "You cannot outrun a bad diet". But just because it isn't *the* key to fighting diabetes, that doesn't mean it can't be *a* key. Activity does still help you burn calories that you wouldn't simply by sitting down and watching your diet.
I think some issues also come up with the perspective of the individuals they interview, too. The individual who said "my biggest concern is that the messaging that is coming to the public suggests you can eat what you like as long as you exercise", might have misunderstood the message or not been given a clearer explanation. Most of the time I hear that, the message that my brain interprets is "you can use exercise and activity to allow yourself room in your diet to eat things that you would want to avoid if you were being inactive", not that exercise is a free pass to eat as much of whatever it is.0 -
TimothyFish wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »TheSingingMom wrote: »Do the math. If someone walks at 3.5 mph for an hour they burn roughly 200 cal per hour. So if a person walks 4 hours a week that adds up to about 800 cal per week. If that same person walks for 7 hours a week it adds up to 1400 cal per week.
That would translate to burning a pound of fat in 2.5-4 weeks.
Exercise is good for you but it won't help you lose that much weight.
If I'm sedentary, my maintenance is about 1550. Currently my maintenance seems to be about 2000. So I can lose weight eating 1750, but if I were sedentary I'd be gaining weight. Not gaining or losing quickly, but over a year that matters a lot.
The reason I mention this is that the original article wasn't really about how to lose lots of weight fast (obviously the key to that is controlling your diet), but how to address the problem of obesity. I think activity is extremely important for that.
Good point. I don't recall even gaining a significant amount of weight while exercising. I may not have been losing weight, but I wasn't gaining weight, even though I had something of the attitude that I could eat whatever because I was exercising. All of my weight gain has occurred during periods when I was sitting in front of the TV instead of sitting on the bike.
Other than picking up 5 lbs while training for a marathon once, that's the same for me. When I've been active I've maintained easily. When I've gained weight I've also been sedentary.0 -
TheSingingMom wrote: »However, people who think that adding exercise is some sort of magic bullet for weight loss are often disappointed that they don't lose nearly as much weight as they think they will lose. The article attached to this thread is very poorly written but I think that it is true that diet is a much bigger contributor to obesity than lack of exercise.
Never met anyone who thinks that exercise is a magic bullet.
There's simply no way to sort out or generalize about the contributions of diet vs. exercise.
It is much easier to lose weight if you understand and control your diet. I think that's common knowledge. (As I said in the other thread, even in "eat less, move more" the eating bit is first.)
But people who are active -- societies where people are active in daily life and walk a lot vs. drive -- are less likely to be obese.
0 -
stevencloser wrote: »
Having a bad diet would suggest that they aren't counting. Unless they're counting, going over by 1000 and being like "Oh well." then just keep going.TimothyFish wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »TheSingingMom wrote: »Do the math. If someone walks at 3.5 mph for an hour they burn roughly 200 cal per hour. So if a person walks 4 hours a week that adds up to about 800 cal per week. If that same person walks for 7 hours a week it adds up to 1400 cal per week.
That would translate to burning a pound of fat in 2.5-4 weeks.
Exercise is good for you but it won't help you lose that much weight.
How about this? If someone rides a bicycle at 15 mph for an hour they burn roughly 900 calories (bicycling.com). So if a person rides 4 hours a week that adds up to about 3600 calories per week. If that same person rides 7 hours a week, that adds up to 6300 calories per week.
That would translate to burning a pound of fat in 1 week, or even 1.8 pounds per week.
Exercise is good for you, and if you do enough of it, it will help you lose a lot of weight.
The problem with that is that this amount of exercise (not always but often) also translates into a bigger appetite, which usually means eating more if you're not counting calories and ruining a good amount or even all of that deficit you created from your exercise.
Who said anything about not counting calories?cwolfman13 wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »TheSingingMom wrote: »Do the math. If someone walks at 3.5 mph for an hour they burn roughly 200 cal per hour. So if a person walks 4 hours a week that adds up to about 800 cal per week. If that same person walks for 7 hours a week it adds up to 1400 cal per week.
That would translate to burning a pound of fat in 2.5-4 weeks.
Exercise is good for you but it won't help you lose that much weight.
How about this? If someone rides a bicycle at 15 mph for an hour they burn roughly 900 calories (bicycling.com). So if a person rides 4 hours a week that adds up to about 3600 calories per week. If that same person rides 7 hours a week, that adds up to 6300 calories per week.
That would translate to burning a pound of fat in 1 week, or even 1.8 pounds per week.
Exercise is good for you, and if you do enough of it, it will help you lose a lot of weight.
The problem with that is that this amount of exercise (not always but often) also translates into a bigger appetite, which usually means eating more if you're not counting calories and ruining a good amount or even all of that deficit you created from your exercise.
Who said anything about not counting calories?
The overwhelming majority of the population doesn't count calories. Much of the population has a really crappy diet that consists largely of high calorie, low nutrient foods for which it is really easy to overeat. I see all kinds of people in the gym who are crushing it...but their body's haven't changed much...why? *kitten* diet.
All this article and others like it are stating is that the obesity fight starts with diet...yes, exercise is important for many aspects of good health...but fighting the obesity epidemic starts with proper diet.
I can also attest to having a much easier time controlling calorie intake when I'm just sort of generally "working out" vs actually training. When I'm actively training, I'm starving all of the time and have a great deal of difficulty controlling my calorie intake. When I keep my workouts light to moderate, this isn't as much an issue.
If someone is going to do a study that looks at the effects of exercise, the people in the study are going to count calories, so they know they aren't changing their diet. In normal life, weight loss always involves both diet and exercise. But when we have these people trying to separate the two, a study must be done, and that always requires counting calories.0 -
TimothyFish wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »
Having a bad diet would suggest that they aren't counting. Unless they're counting, going over by 1000 and being like "Oh well." then just keep going.TimothyFish wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »TheSingingMom wrote: »Do the math. If someone walks at 3.5 mph for an hour they burn roughly 200 cal per hour. So if a person walks 4 hours a week that adds up to about 800 cal per week. If that same person walks for 7 hours a week it adds up to 1400 cal per week.
That would translate to burning a pound of fat in 2.5-4 weeks.
Exercise is good for you but it won't help you lose that much weight.
How about this? If someone rides a bicycle at 15 mph for an hour they burn roughly 900 calories (bicycling.com). So if a person rides 4 hours a week that adds up to about 3600 calories per week. If that same person rides 7 hours a week, that adds up to 6300 calories per week.
That would translate to burning a pound of fat in 1 week, or even 1.8 pounds per week.
Exercise is good for you, and if you do enough of it, it will help you lose a lot of weight.
The problem with that is that this amount of exercise (not always but often) also translates into a bigger appetite, which usually means eating more if you're not counting calories and ruining a good amount or even all of that deficit you created from your exercise.
Who said anything about not counting calories?cwolfman13 wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »TheSingingMom wrote: »Do the math. If someone walks at 3.5 mph for an hour they burn roughly 200 cal per hour. So if a person walks 4 hours a week that adds up to about 800 cal per week. If that same person walks for 7 hours a week it adds up to 1400 cal per week.
That would translate to burning a pound of fat in 2.5-4 weeks.
Exercise is good for you but it won't help you lose that much weight.
How about this? If someone rides a bicycle at 15 mph for an hour they burn roughly 900 calories (bicycling.com). So if a person rides 4 hours a week that adds up to about 3600 calories per week. If that same person rides 7 hours a week, that adds up to 6300 calories per week.
That would translate to burning a pound of fat in 1 week, or even 1.8 pounds per week.
Exercise is good for you, and if you do enough of it, it will help you lose a lot of weight.
The problem with that is that this amount of exercise (not always but often) also translates into a bigger appetite, which usually means eating more if you're not counting calories and ruining a good amount or even all of that deficit you created from your exercise.
Who said anything about not counting calories?
The overwhelming majority of the population doesn't count calories. Much of the population has a really crappy diet that consists largely of high calorie, low nutrient foods for which it is really easy to overeat. I see all kinds of people in the gym who are crushing it...but their body's haven't changed much...why? *kitten* diet.
All this article and others like it are stating is that the obesity fight starts with diet...yes, exercise is important for many aspects of good health...but fighting the obesity epidemic starts with proper diet.
I can also attest to having a much easier time controlling calorie intake when I'm just sort of generally "working out" vs actually training. When I'm actively training, I'm starving all of the time and have a great deal of difficulty controlling my calorie intake. When I keep my workouts light to moderate, this isn't as much an issue.
If someone is going to do a study that looks at the effects of exercise, the people in the study are going to count calories, so they know they aren't changing their diet. In normal life, weight loss always involves both diet and exercise. But when we have these people trying to separate the two, a study must be done, and that always requires counting calories.
I assumed the distinction here is "Exercising without paying attention to diet" vs. "paying attention to diet without exercising", in which case diet wins clearly.0 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »TheSingingMom wrote: »Do the math. If someone walks at 3.5 mph for an hour they burn roughly 200 cal per hour. So if a person walks 4 hours a week that adds up to about 800 cal per week. If that same person walks for 7 hours a week it adds up to 1400 cal per week.
That would translate to burning a pound of fat in 2.5-4 weeks.
Exercise is good for you but it won't help you lose that much weight.
How about this? If someone rides a bicycle at 15 mph for an hour they burn roughly 900 calories (bicycling.com). So if a person rides 4 hours a week that adds up to about 3600 calories per week. If that same person rides 7 hours a week, that adds up to 6300 calories per week.
That would translate to burning a pound of fat in 1 week, or even 1.8 pounds per week.
Exercise is good for you, and if you do enough of it, it will help you lose a lot of weight.
The problem with that is that this amount of exercise (not always but often) also translates into a bigger appetite, which usually means eating more if you're not counting calories and ruining a good amount or even all of that deficit you created from your exercise.
Who said anything about not counting calories?
The overwhelming majority of the population doesn't count calories. Much of the population has a really crappy diet that consists largely of high calorie, low nutrient foods for which it is really easy to overeat. I see all kinds of people in the gym who are crushing it...but their body's haven't changed much...why? *kitten* diet.
All this article and others like it are stating is that the obesity fight starts with diet...yes, exercise is important for many aspects of good health...but fighting the obesity epidemic starts with proper diet.
I can also attest to having a much easier time controlling calorie intake when I'm just sort of generally "working out" vs actually training. When I'm actively training, I'm starving all of the time and have a great deal of difficulty controlling my calorie intake. When I keep my workouts light to moderate, this isn't as much an issue.
Agree with the last paragraph.
I think the article is misleading because it talks about intentional exercise when general activity that isn't perceived as exercise is likely a much more significant player, societally. And my guess--though I'd love to see studies -- is that adding in a bike commute or using your bike vs. driving for errands or, similarly, walking instead of driving is not going to change your appetite much, but will add a LOT almost without effort to your TDEE.
That has been my experience and one reason I found this easier in the summer and fall when I was doing more of that vs. winter when I was mostly exercising or even training.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »TheSingingMom wrote: »Do the math. If someone walks at 3.5 mph for an hour they burn roughly 200 cal per hour. So if a person walks 4 hours a week that adds up to about 800 cal per week. If that same person walks for 7 hours a week it adds up to 1400 cal per week.
That would translate to burning a pound of fat in 2.5-4 weeks.
Exercise is good for you but it won't help you lose that much weight.
How about this? If someone rides a bicycle at 15 mph for an hour they burn roughly 900 calories (bicycling.com). So if a person rides 4 hours a week that adds up to about 3600 calories per week. If that same person rides 7 hours a week, that adds up to 6300 calories per week.
That would translate to burning a pound of fat in 1 week, or even 1.8 pounds per week.
Exercise is good for you, and if you do enough of it, it will help you lose a lot of weight.
The problem with that is that this amount of exercise (not always but often) also translates into a bigger appetite, which usually means eating more if you're not counting calories and ruining a good amount or even all of that deficit you created from your exercise.
Who said anything about not counting calories?
The overwhelming majority of the population doesn't count calories. Much of the population has a really crappy diet that consists largely of high calorie, low nutrient foods for which it is really easy to overeat. I see all kinds of people in the gym who are crushing it...but their body's haven't changed much...why? *kitten* diet.
All this article and others like it are stating is that the obesity fight starts with diet...yes, exercise is important for many aspects of good health...but fighting the obesity epidemic starts with proper diet.
I can also attest to having a much easier time controlling calorie intake when I'm just sort of generally "working out" vs actually training. When I'm actively training, I'm starving all of the time and have a great deal of difficulty controlling my calorie intake. When I keep my workouts light to moderate, this isn't as much an issue.
Agree with the last paragraph.
I think the article is misleading because it talks about intentional exercise when general activity that isn't perceived as exercise is likely a much more significant player, societally. And my guess--though I'd love to see studies -- is that adding in a bike commute or using your bike vs. driving for errands or, similarly, walking instead of driving is not going to change your appetite much, but will add a LOT almost without effort to your TDEE.
That has been my experience and one reason I found this easier in the summer and fall when I was doing more of that vs. winter when I was mostly exercising or even training.
I buy that...
I workout regularly and exercise is very important to me from a fitness standpoint...but most of the increase in my TDEE over these past 2 years and 9 months has been due to just making myself more generally active than I used to be.0 -
stevencloser wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »
Having a bad diet would suggest that they aren't counting. Unless they're counting, going over by 1000 and being like "Oh well." then just keep going.TimothyFish wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »TheSingingMom wrote: »Do the math. If someone walks at 3.5 mph for an hour they burn roughly 200 cal per hour. So if a person walks 4 hours a week that adds up to about 800 cal per week. If that same person walks for 7 hours a week it adds up to 1400 cal per week.
That would translate to burning a pound of fat in 2.5-4 weeks.
Exercise is good for you but it won't help you lose that much weight.
How about this? If someone rides a bicycle at 15 mph for an hour they burn roughly 900 calories (bicycling.com). So if a person rides 4 hours a week that adds up to about 3600 calories per week. If that same person rides 7 hours a week, that adds up to 6300 calories per week.
That would translate to burning a pound of fat in 1 week, or even 1.8 pounds per week.
Exercise is good for you, and if you do enough of it, it will help you lose a lot of weight.
The problem with that is that this amount of exercise (not always but often) also translates into a bigger appetite, which usually means eating more if you're not counting calories and ruining a good amount or even all of that deficit you created from your exercise.
Who said anything about not counting calories?cwolfman13 wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »TheSingingMom wrote: »Do the math. If someone walks at 3.5 mph for an hour they burn roughly 200 cal per hour. So if a person walks 4 hours a week that adds up to about 800 cal per week. If that same person walks for 7 hours a week it adds up to 1400 cal per week.
That would translate to burning a pound of fat in 2.5-4 weeks.
Exercise is good for you but it won't help you lose that much weight.
How about this? If someone rides a bicycle at 15 mph for an hour they burn roughly 900 calories (bicycling.com). So if a person rides 4 hours a week that adds up to about 3600 calories per week. If that same person rides 7 hours a week, that adds up to 6300 calories per week.
That would translate to burning a pound of fat in 1 week, or even 1.8 pounds per week.
Exercise is good for you, and if you do enough of it, it will help you lose a lot of weight.
The problem with that is that this amount of exercise (not always but often) also translates into a bigger appetite, which usually means eating more if you're not counting calories and ruining a good amount or even all of that deficit you created from your exercise.
Who said anything about not counting calories?
The overwhelming majority of the population doesn't count calories. Much of the population has a really crappy diet that consists largely of high calorie, low nutrient foods for which it is really easy to overeat. I see all kinds of people in the gym who are crushing it...but their body's haven't changed much...why? *kitten* diet.
All this article and others like it are stating is that the obesity fight starts with diet...yes, exercise is important for many aspects of good health...but fighting the obesity epidemic starts with proper diet.
I can also attest to having a much easier time controlling calorie intake when I'm just sort of generally "working out" vs actually training. When I'm actively training, I'm starving all of the time and have a great deal of difficulty controlling my calorie intake. When I keep my workouts light to moderate, this isn't as much an issue.
If someone is going to do a study that looks at the effects of exercise, the people in the study are going to count calories, so they know they aren't changing their diet. In normal life, weight loss always involves both diet and exercise. But when we have these people trying to separate the two, a study must be done, and that always requires counting calories.
I assumed the distinction here is "Exercising without paying attention to diet" vs. "paying attention to diet without exercising", in which case diet wins clearly.
I would say it isn't as clear as you assume. What person who is "paying attention to diet" doesn't first go calculate their TDEE estimate or something similar? The moment you calculate the number of calories you are burning during a day, you are paying attention to exercise. Technically, even breathing and the beating of the heart is a form of exercise. We just don't call it that because we're more interested in the extra calories we burn.0 -
The food industry conspiracy theories aside, I completely agree with the authors that for someone who is obese exercise is minimally important to losing weight. The numbers don't lie - if you're trying to create a 3500-7000 weekly deficit, and you are currently sedentary, it's highly unlikely that you are going to make more than a tiny dent in the deficit through exercise. Now, exercise has many other benefits, and I certainly wouldn't discourage it, but not only would I prioritize calorie counting first, I would prioritize food preparation second, and exercise third. If you learn to prepare (most of) your own food, it is much easier to accurately measure, and stick to, your calorie intake goals. And like exercise, it is a habit that will help you throughout life to remain fit and healthy.0
-
TimothyFish wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »
Having a bad diet would suggest that they aren't counting. Unless they're counting, going over by 1000 and being like "Oh well." then just keep going.TimothyFish wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »TheSingingMom wrote: »Do the math. If someone walks at 3.5 mph for an hour they burn roughly 200 cal per hour. So if a person walks 4 hours a week that adds up to about 800 cal per week. If that same person walks for 7 hours a week it adds up to 1400 cal per week.
That would translate to burning a pound of fat in 2.5-4 weeks.
Exercise is good for you but it won't help you lose that much weight.
How about this? If someone rides a bicycle at 15 mph for an hour they burn roughly 900 calories (bicycling.com). So if a person rides 4 hours a week that adds up to about 3600 calories per week. If that same person rides 7 hours a week, that adds up to 6300 calories per week.
That would translate to burning a pound of fat in 1 week, or even 1.8 pounds per week.
Exercise is good for you, and if you do enough of it, it will help you lose a lot of weight.
The problem with that is that this amount of exercise (not always but often) also translates into a bigger appetite, which usually means eating more if you're not counting calories and ruining a good amount or even all of that deficit you created from your exercise.
Who said anything about not counting calories?cwolfman13 wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »TheSingingMom wrote: »Do the math. If someone walks at 3.5 mph for an hour they burn roughly 200 cal per hour. So if a person walks 4 hours a week that adds up to about 800 cal per week. If that same person walks for 7 hours a week it adds up to 1400 cal per week.
That would translate to burning a pound of fat in 2.5-4 weeks.
Exercise is good for you but it won't help you lose that much weight.
How about this? If someone rides a bicycle at 15 mph for an hour they burn roughly 900 calories (bicycling.com). So if a person rides 4 hours a week that adds up to about 3600 calories per week. If that same person rides 7 hours a week, that adds up to 6300 calories per week.
That would translate to burning a pound of fat in 1 week, or even 1.8 pounds per week.
Exercise is good for you, and if you do enough of it, it will help you lose a lot of weight.
The problem with that is that this amount of exercise (not always but often) also translates into a bigger appetite, which usually means eating more if you're not counting calories and ruining a good amount or even all of that deficit you created from your exercise.
Who said anything about not counting calories?
The overwhelming majority of the population doesn't count calories. Much of the population has a really crappy diet that consists largely of high calorie, low nutrient foods for which it is really easy to overeat. I see all kinds of people in the gym who are crushing it...but their body's haven't changed much...why? *kitten* diet.
All this article and others like it are stating is that the obesity fight starts with diet...yes, exercise is important for many aspects of good health...but fighting the obesity epidemic starts with proper diet.
I can also attest to having a much easier time controlling calorie intake when I'm just sort of generally "working out" vs actually training. When I'm actively training, I'm starving all of the time and have a great deal of difficulty controlling my calorie intake. When I keep my workouts light to moderate, this isn't as much an issue.
If someone is going to do a study that looks at the effects of exercise, the people in the study are going to count calories, so they know they aren't changing their diet. In normal life, weight loss always involves both diet and exercise. But when we have these people trying to separate the two, a study must be done, and that always requires counting calories.
I assumed the distinction here is "Exercising without paying attention to diet" vs. "paying attention to diet without exercising", in which case diet wins clearly.
I would say it isn't as clear as you assume. What person who is "paying attention to diet" doesn't first go calculate their TDEE estimate or something similar? The moment you calculate the number of calories you are burning during a day, you are paying attention to exercise. Technically, even breathing and the beating of the heart is a form of exercise. We just don't call it that because we're more interested in the extra calories we burn.
Come on, you know what is meant with exercise.0 -
stevencloser wrote: »
What does that person know about her body chemistry and her metabolism though? And how does she measure having more energy and less inflammation.TheSingingMom wrote: »isulo_kura wrote: »APeacefulWarrior wrote: »I have more energy, less inflammation,
How did you measure this? Was there before and after measurements? If it's just personal opinion/evaluation I'm afraid that proves nothing
The person who posted the comment wrote:
"As far as sugar goes, from personal experience, and this is based on my body chemistry and my metabolism, avoiding processed sugar has amazing positive effects. I have more energy, less inflammation, less water retention, clearer thinking, and a more positive outlook on life. Would everyone? I doubt it, but before you start arguing against something (unless you're arguing just for the sake of arguing), try it and then form your opinions based on your own individual experience.
I doubt this person is trying to prove anything.
I could come in here and say that eating more sugar made my hair grow thicker and all my lifts shoot up by 10 pounds immediately while being more potent than ever. I got nothing to base that on but that's what I choose to believe.
That's just a useless statement to make.
She probably knows quite a bit about her body chemistry and metabolism. Don't you know about yours? When you make positive (or negative) changes don't you notice a difference in how you feel or in your bloodwork?0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Never met anyone who thinks that exercise is a magic bullet.
There's simply no way to sort out or generalize about the contributions of diet vs. exercise.
It is much easier to lose weight if you understand and control your diet. I think that's common knowledge. (As I said in the other thread, even in "eat less, move more" the eating bit is first.)
But people who are active -- societies where people are active in daily life and walk a lot vs. drive -- are less likely to be obese.
I have been that person who thinks that all you should have to do is work out and you will lose weight. I also know tons of people who think that they will lose weight if they run after work or whatever.0 -
TheSingingMom wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »
What does that person know about her body chemistry and her metabolism though? And how does she measure having more energy and less inflammation.TheSingingMom wrote: »isulo_kura wrote: »APeacefulWarrior wrote: »I have more energy, less inflammation,
How did you measure this? Was there before and after measurements? If it's just personal opinion/evaluation I'm afraid that proves nothing
The person who posted the comment wrote:
"As far as sugar goes, from personal experience, and this is based on my body chemistry and my metabolism, avoiding processed sugar has amazing positive effects. I have more energy, less inflammation, less water retention, clearer thinking, and a more positive outlook on life. Would everyone? I doubt it, but before you start arguing against something (unless you're arguing just for the sake of arguing), try it and then form your opinions based on your own individual experience.
I doubt this person is trying to prove anything.
I could come in here and say that eating more sugar made my hair grow thicker and all my lifts shoot up by 10 pounds immediately while being more potent than ever. I got nothing to base that on but that's what I choose to believe.
That's just a useless statement to make.
She probably knows quite a bit about her body chemistry and metabolism. Don't you know about yours? When you make positive (or negative) changes don't you notice a difference in how you feel or in your bloodwork?
I have no idea about my body chemistry and all I know about my metabolism is how many calories I burn in a day. I feel good on any given day, regardless of if I had a bunch of mcdonalds or nutritious homecooked meals. So no.
I also never experienced a "sugar high" or "crash", which people like to talk about when talking about evil sugar either.0 -
stevencloser wrote: »I have no idea about my body chemistry and all I know about my metabolism is how many calories I burn in a day. I feel good on any given day, regardless of if I had a bunch of mcdonalds or nutritious homecooked meals. So no.
I also never experienced a "sugar high" or "crash", which people like to talk about when talking about evil sugar either.
You may not know about yours but would you say that a person who says they know about theirs is lying? That is what is being done here. A person made a claim about having less inflammation when eating less sugar and was told that she couldn't know that. But that is not true. Inflammation has markers and it can be tested. Many doctors test for inflammation. It is disingenuous to call someone a liar because you don't like their message. You didn't do that but someone else did.
Someone's personal experience is just that. In my personal experience I have to cut carbs to lose weight. That's not true for everyone, but it's true for me. I don't doubt that you never experienced a sugar high or crash. That doesn't mean someone else hasn't experienced it.
0 -
TheSingingMom wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »I have no idea about my body chemistry and all I know about my metabolism is how many calories I burn in a day. I feel good on any given day, regardless of if I had a bunch of mcdonalds or nutritious homecooked meals. So no.
I also never experienced a "sugar high" or "crash", which people like to talk about when talking about evil sugar either.
You may not know about yours but would you say that a person who says they know about theirs is lying? That is what is being done here. A person made a claim about having less inflammation when eating less sugar and was told that she couldn't know that. But that is not true. Inflammation has markers and it can be tested. Many doctors test for inflammation. It is disingenuous to call someone a liar because you don't like their message. You didn't do that but someone else did.
Someone's personal experience is just that. In my personal experience I have to cut carbs to lose weight. That's not true for everyone, but it's true for me. I don't doubt that you never experienced a sugar high or crash. That doesn't mean someone else hasn't experienced it.
the point is, unless that person has a medical condition, sugar has nothing to do with it.
More than likely they have lost weight, which has lead to them feeling more energized and having less inflammation.
without providing any more information it is impossible to know, and "dem feelz" is not a legitimate reason ....0 -
TheSingingMom wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »
What does that person know about her body chemistry and her metabolism though? And how does she measure having more energy and less inflammation.TheSingingMom wrote: »isulo_kura wrote: »APeacefulWarrior wrote: »I have more energy, less inflammation,
How did you measure this? Was there before and after measurements? If it's just personal opinion/evaluation I'm afraid that proves nothing
The person who posted the comment wrote:
"As far as sugar goes, from personal experience, and this is based on my body chemistry and my metabolism, avoiding processed sugar has amazing positive effects. I have more energy, less inflammation, less water retention, clearer thinking, and a more positive outlook on life. Would everyone? I doubt it, but before you start arguing against something (unless you're arguing just for the sake of arguing), try it and then form your opinions based on your own individual experience.
I doubt this person is trying to prove anything.
I could come in here and say that eating more sugar made my hair grow thicker and all my lifts shoot up by 10 pounds immediately while being more potent than ever. I got nothing to base that on but that's what I choose to believe.
That's just a useless statement to make.
She probably knows quite a bit about her body chemistry and metabolism. Don't you know about yours? When you make positive (or negative) changes don't you notice a difference in how you feel or in your bloodwork?
Blood work will not show anything as nebulous as "less inflammation" with the exception of CRP, and that is a number that fluctuates on its own all the time, even in the presence of an inflammatory condition. You can get a normal CRP reading and still be suffering from whatever condition you have (per my rheumatologist, I'm not just making things up... I have inflammatory diseases and my CRP numbers have tested all over the place).
As for your metabolism? Outside of having it tested, you can't go by how you "feel". Feelings are subjectively unreliable and easily influenced by confirmation bias.
The placebo effect is a powerful thing. Predicted outcomes are often ascribed by those expecting them to any good days and bad days are generally ignored or forgotten. The fact of the matter is that we all have good days and bad days regardless of how we eat.
0 -
the point is, unless that person has a medical condition, sugar has nothing to do with it.
More than likely they have lost weight, which has lead to them feeling more energized and having less inflammation.
without providing any more information it is impossible to know, and "dem feelz" is not a legitimate reason ....
How do you know whether sugar has something to do with it or not?0 -
TheSingingMom wrote: »the point is, unless that person has a medical condition, sugar has nothing to do with it.
More than likely they have lost weight, which has lead to them feeling more energized and having less inflammation.
without providing any more information it is impossible to know, and "dem feelz" is not a legitimate reason ....
How do you know whether sugar has something to do with it or not?
Because there's no conclusive scientific evidence for the claims about sugar that the anti-sugar crowd makes.
0 -
TheSingingMom wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »I have no idea about my body chemistry and all I know about my metabolism is how many calories I burn in a day. I feel good on any given day, regardless of if I had a bunch of mcdonalds or nutritious homecooked meals. So no.
I also never experienced a "sugar high" or "crash", which people like to talk about when talking about evil sugar either.
You may not know about yours but would you say that a person who says they know about theirs is lying? That is what is being done here. A person made a claim about having less inflammation when eating less sugar and was told that she couldn't know that. But that is not true. Inflammation has markers and it can be tested. Many doctors test for inflammation. It is disingenuous to call someone a liar because you don't like their message. You didn't do that but someone else did.
Sorry, but the test for a generic inflammation marker are not a reliable indicator. Try again.
0 -
mamapeach910 wrote: »TheSingingMom wrote: »the point is, unless that person has a medical condition, sugar has nothing to do with it.
More than likely they have lost weight, which has lead to them feeling more energized and having less inflammation.
without providing any more information it is impossible to know, and "dem feelz" is not a legitimate reason ....
How do you know whether sugar has something to do with it or not?
Because there's no conclusive scientific evidence for the claims about sugar that the anti-sugar crowd makes.
But there doesn't need to be scientific evidence that something works for an individual if it works for that individual. Saying something works for HER doesn't mean it works for everyone.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.7K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8.1K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1.2K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions