"Exercise doesn't help you lose weight unless it's >4hrs/day"

goldthistime wrote: »

When I heard this statement (sorry I don't have the source, it was a radio interview), I was puzzled.

I interpret it to mean: "Your appetite increases in proportion to the calories burned during exercise unless you exercise an extreme amount". I assume that this statement referred to intuitive eaters rather than calorie counters.

Btw, for some people, exercising more than 4 hours in a day would seem extreme and possibly indicative of an unhealthy compulsion. If it were seven days a week I would absolutely agree. Even athletes take rest days.

I googled "exercise and appetite" and found only articles talking about what I already knew to be true: vigorous cardio is a short term appetite supressant, measurably reducing levels of the hunger hormones peptide yy and ghrelin.

I assume intensity of exercise affects the length of time that hunger hormones are reduced, so lets just say for arguments sake that 60 minutes of cardio at a certain level gives you a further 90 minutes of appetite suppression. So 5 hour long cardio sessions spread throughout the day would give you a further 7.5 hours of appetite suppression. So on that day, you would have 12.5 hours of reduced hunger hormones. Could this be the basis of the statement? Or is the statement just hogwash? Interested in your thoughts.

This is just hogwash and ridiculous. You literally just wasted your time listening to it.

Since there is a minimum calorie intake needed to survive, what would be the point of exercising for that long? You'd just have to eat back those calories to meet your net minimum anyway. SMH

A deficit is a deficit. There's truth in saying diet is the most important thing to losing 1-2 lbs / week. Exercise helps you eat a little more and still lose. I don't know the significance of 4 hrs/day...

It's a load. Response to exercise is individual. Some people get hungrier, some people don't. And it always is going to depend on the intensity of the exercise. Some exercise is just not intense enough to do much of anything to your appetite, but it'll still burn a few more calories than doing nothing.

For me, lifting suppresses appetite the day of (and makes me want to take a long nap), but I must make sure I eat or I'll be beyond hungry the next day.

On the other hand, running suppresses my appetite for maybe an hour. And then I need food and plenty of it.

Combining the two is interesting.

A lot of sources say weight loss is 80% eating less calories than you burn, 10% exercise, and 10% genetic.
Unless you eat less calories than you burn, it would be difficult to lose weight. Exercising 4 hours per day would increase appetite in most people and most would consume more calories perhaps than they would if they did not exercise.
Personally, I lost a lot of weight before I began to even walk more.
I have been on maintenance for a little over two years, joined a gym a year ago, and I know that I am way hungrier than I ever was when I did no exercise. Other people probably have different viewpoints, but that is the way it is for me.

8 hour arm training marathon anyone?

sounds like broscience to me

4 hours does sound like a completely random number.
But from a practical point of view, if you are going to rely on exercise alone to lose weight (not increasing overall physical activity, not changing eating habits, not being careful about calories), I think that it would take several hours of exercise to see results. An hour of moderate exercise burning e.g. 200-300 calories, without being careful about calorie intake, would probably not make much difference on its own. Eating a bit more than usual, to the point where it is hardly noticeable, could easily undo the deficit from the exercise. But exercising for a few hours per day and burning e.g. 1000-2000 calories, makes it probably easier to not eat all these calories back, as regulalry eating over 1000 calories more than you used to, is something you would usually notice and do something about it.
Plus, and this is completely personal and anecdotal evidence, I know that for me, on days I exercise for a couple of hours or more, I tend to eat less. Especially a few hours after training, I have zero appetite. I have no idea if this is just me, or it happens to everyone.
As for 4 hours being excessive, it depends on lifestyle, preferences, goals. For my current self, with a full time job and a large family, it would not be realistic, or a priority. For my much younger self, with no family obligations, 2-4 hours of exercise several times per week was my routine for years, and it was just a hobby (having like-minded friends was part of it). I never was an athlete and never wanted to become one. For people who are committed to a sport, training 3-4 hours per day is also average from what I have seen from friends and relatives. But in order to just lose weight, it sounds over the top and not sustainable.

As several stated, it is all about calories in vs calories out. You can't out-work a bad nutrition plan, but you can lose weight working out 30 minutes a day if you're eating properly. Just because you might feel like you are hungrier after a work out doesn't automatically make food go into your mouth. Haha.

time2cutnow wrote: »

8 hour arm training marathon anyone?

3 times a day

Here's where I think the radio announcer was going, @goldthistime . Eat a box of cookies and you will have to exercise 4 hours or more to compensate. That's just not sustainable. Calorie restriction to lose weight.

That being said, my weight has been much more stable and I've felt much fitter since I upped my exercise. It take a freaking long time to lose more weight, but I'm having a lot more fun doing it.