Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
Time to shut down MFP!
Options
Replies
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »You don't see how an article that says exercise is almost useless for weight loss is contrary to MFP?
Not if you read the whole article and what the actual argument is, no.
Exercise, absent ways to control or monitor calories, tends not to result in any weight loss. MFP assumes you are controlling calories and provides a way to do it more carefully than most.
Source?
The article in the OP?
I feel like this whole thread is going in circles because no one reads anything.
Is that kinda like Google is a source? The article was supposedly a collection of 60 studies. Which one said people who didn't monitor or control their calories but added exercise alone tended not to result in weight loss?0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »You don't see how an article that says exercise is almost useless for weight loss is contrary to MFP?
Not if you read the whole article and what the actual argument is, no.
Exercise, absent ways to control or monitor calories, tends not to result in any weight loss. MFP assumes you are controlling calories and provides a way to do it more carefully than most.
Source?
That's what the article says. There are studies. I'm not totally convinced it's generalizable for the reasons discussed in my earlier post (seriously, don't people read the thread?), but this is not anti MFP, which is what we were talking about in the specific post you responded to. It's not my claim, so why should I provide some other source?0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »You don't see how an article that says exercise is almost useless for weight loss is contrary to MFP?
Not if you read the whole article and what the actual argument is, no.
Exercise, absent ways to control or monitor calories, tends not to result in any weight loss. MFP assumes you are controlling calories and provides a way to do it more carefully than most.
Source?
That's what the article says. There are studies. I'm not totally convinced it's generalizable for the reasons discussed in my earlier post (seriously, don't people read the thread?), but this is not anti MFP, which is what we were talking about in the specific post you responded to. It's not my claim, so why should I provide some other source?
How is a statement you just made is not your claim? I didn't make you write it and you certainly don't have to provide any sources if you don't want to, perhaps in case the statement was simply anecdotal
As far as what we were supposedly initially discussing, yes, I do think the article is anti-MFP, and honestly there are some serious reading comprehension gaps going on here since a number of us have confirmed we indeed read the article - either on my part or you guys'
Details: I've been reading the section on the Hazda population having the same TEE as the "Average" Westerner. I will say that the study is intriguing and even the authors state further studies are needed to understand their findings. There was mention of the Hazda generally being smaller than Westerners, but then they also say similar energy levels were found even after controlling for body size. I did not notice a section in the study explaining where they got these "average" US and European Westerners that made up the bulk of their study, as that could make a difference. The researchers did clarify that they did not study the impact of increased Exercise alone on Westerners, which was a source that I was and still am interested in reading.
In "2) Exercise is excellent for health", the article states: "A Cochrane Review of the best-available research found that, while exercise led to only modest weight loss, study participants who exercised more (even without changing their diets) saw a range of health benefits, including reducing their blood pressure and triglycerides in their blood. Exercise reduces the risk of Type 2 diabetes, stroke, and heart attack." Their own referenced study found weight loss associated with exercise alone. Why would the article's conclusion then be that exercise is a poor choice for an individual looking to lose weight? I don't have access to the full study so I do not know what's considered "only modest weight loss". Given their attitude to the example in 5), I suspect "only modest weight loss" is actually decent weight loss for anyone not on a Reality TV show.
"3) Exercise alone is almost useless for weight loss". What the article said: "It found that after 20 weeks, weight loss was less than expected, and that "the amount of exercise energy expenditure had no correlation with weight loss in these longer studies." " But here's what the linked Abstract documented: "Moreover, with respect to dose-response issues, the evidence from short-term studies suggest that exercise-induced weight loss is positively related to reductions in total fat in a dose-response manner. No such relationship was observed when the results from long-term studies were examined. Abdominal fat. Limited evidence suggests that exercise-induced weight loss is associated with reductions in abdominal obesity as measured by waist circumference or imaging methods; however, at present there is insufficient evidence to determine a dose-response relationship between physical activity, and abdominal or visceral fat". To me, this seems more to be examining the relationship between exercise and abdominal fat, not weight loss. Possibly the full study provides additional clarification on that.
I already posted my comments earlier on 5) with the example of the 200 lb man who loses 1 lb per week through exercise only but simply isn't doing well enough! Say, if someone posted on MFP about how their program wasn't working because they were "only" losing 1 lb per week, what would you tell them? Relax, be patient, adjust your expectations, you're doing perfectly fine, that sort of thing? So what is it about this article that gives them a free pass? A couple pretty pictures and charts? Linking a ton of studies where their summaries may or may not be the findings of the actual studies?0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »You don't see how an article that says exercise is almost useless for weight loss is contrary to MFP?
Not if you read the whole article and what the actual argument is, no.
Exercise, absent ways to control or monitor calories, tends not to result in any weight loss. MFP assumes you are controlling calories and provides a way to do it more carefully than most.
Source?
That's what the article says. There are studies. I'm not totally convinced it's generalizable for the reasons discussed in my earlier post (seriously, don't people read the thread?), but this is not anti MFP, which is what we were talking about in the specific post you responded to. It's not my claim, so why should I provide some other source?
How is a statement you just made is not your claim? I didn't make you write it and you certainly don't have to provide any sources if you don't want to, perhaps in case the statement was simply anecdotal
As far as what we were supposedly initially discussing, yes, I do think the article is anti-MFP, and honestly there are some serious reading comprehension gaps going on here since a number of us have confirmed we indeed read the article - either on my part or you guys'
Details: I've been reading the section on the Hazda population having the same TEE as the "Average" Westerner. I will say that the study is intriguing and even the authors state further studies are needed to understand their findings. There was mention of the Hazda generally being smaller than Westerners, but then they also say similar energy levels were found even after controlling for body size. I did not notice a section in the study explaining where they got these "average" US and European Westerners that made up the bulk of their study, as that could make a difference. The researchers did clarify that they did not study the impact of increased Exercise alone on Westerners, which was a source that I was and still am interested in reading.
In "2) Exercise is excellent for health", the article states: "A Cochrane Review of the best-available research found that, while exercise led to only modest weight loss, study participants who exercised more (even without changing their diets) saw a range of health benefits, including reducing their blood pressure and triglycerides in their blood. Exercise reduces the risk of Type 2 diabetes, stroke, and heart attack." Their own referenced study found weight loss associated with exercise alone. Why would the article's conclusion then be that exercise is a poor choice for an individual looking to lose weight? I don't have access to the full study so I do not know what's considered "only modest weight loss". Given their attitude to the example in 5), I suspect "only modest weight loss" is actually decent weight loss for anyone not on a Reality TV show.
"3) Exercise alone is almost useless for weight loss". What the article said: "It found that after 20 weeks, weight loss was less than expected, and that "the amount of exercise energy expenditure had no correlation with weight loss in these longer studies." " But here's what the linked Abstract documented: "Moreover, with respect to dose-response issues, the evidence from short-term studies suggest that exercise-induced weight loss is positively related to reductions in total fat in a dose-response manner. No such relationship was observed when the results from long-term studies were examined. Abdominal fat. Limited evidence suggests that exercise-induced weight loss is associated with reductions in abdominal obesity as measured by waist circumference or imaging methods; however, at present there is insufficient evidence to determine a dose-response relationship between physical activity, and abdominal or visceral fat". To me, this seems more to be examining the relationship between exercise and abdominal fat, not weight loss. Possibly the full study provides additional clarification on that.
I already posted my comments earlier on 5) with the example of the 200 lb man who loses 1 lb per week through exercise only but simply isn't doing well enough! Say, if someone posted on MFP about how their program wasn't working because they were "only" losing 1 lb per week, what would you tell them? Relax, be patient, adjust your expectations, you're doing perfectly fine, that sort of thing? So what is it about this article that gives them a free pass? A couple pretty pictures and charts? Linking a ton of studies where their summaries may or may not be the findings of the actual studies?
Confirmation bias...
1 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »You don't see how an article that says exercise is almost useless for weight loss is contrary to MFP?
Not if you read the whole article and what the actual argument is, no.
Exercise, absent ways to control or monitor calories, tends not to result in any weight loss. MFP assumes you are controlling calories and provides a way to do it more carefully than most.
Source?
That's what the article says. There are studies. I'm not totally convinced it's generalizable for the reasons discussed in my earlier post (seriously, don't people read the thread?), but this is not anti MFP, which is what we were talking about in the specific post you responded to. It's not my claim, so why should I provide some other source?
How is a statement you just made is not your claim? I didn't make you write it and you certainly don't have to provide any sources if you don't want to, perhaps in case the statement was simply anecdotal
As far as what we were supposedly initially discussing, yes, I do think the article is anti-MFP, and honestly there are some serious reading comprehension gaps going on here since a number of us have confirmed we indeed read the article - either on my part or you guys'
Details: I've been reading the section on the Hazda population having the same TEE as the "Average" Westerner. I will say that the study is intriguing and even the authors state further studies are needed to understand their findings. There was mention of the Hazda generally being smaller than Westerners, but then they also say similar energy levels were found even after controlling for body size. I did not notice a section in the study explaining where they got these "average" US and European Westerners that made up the bulk of their study, as that could make a difference. The researchers did clarify that they did not study the impact of increased Exercise alone on Westerners, which was a source that I was and still am interested in reading.
In "2) Exercise is excellent for health", the article states: "A Cochrane Review of the best-available research found that, while exercise led to only modest weight loss, study participants who exercised more (even without changing their diets) saw a range of health benefits, including reducing their blood pressure and triglycerides in their blood. Exercise reduces the risk of Type 2 diabetes, stroke, and heart attack." Their own referenced study found weight loss associated with exercise alone. Why would the article's conclusion then be that exercise is a poor choice for an individual looking to lose weight? I don't have access to the full study so I do not know what's considered "only modest weight loss". Given their attitude to the example in 5), I suspect "only modest weight loss" is actually decent weight loss for anyone not on a Reality TV show.
"3) Exercise alone is almost useless for weight loss". What the article said: "It found that after 20 weeks, weight loss was less than expected, and that "the amount of exercise energy expenditure had no correlation with weight loss in these longer studies." " But here's what the linked Abstract documented: "Moreover, with respect to dose-response issues, the evidence from short-term studies suggest that exercise-induced weight loss is positively related to reductions in total fat in a dose-response manner. No such relationship was observed when the results from long-term studies were examined. Abdominal fat. Limited evidence suggests that exercise-induced weight loss is associated with reductions in abdominal obesity as measured by waist circumference or imaging methods; however, at present there is insufficient evidence to determine a dose-response relationship between physical activity, and abdominal or visceral fat". To me, this seems more to be examining the relationship between exercise and abdominal fat, not weight loss. Possibly the full study provides additional clarification on that.
I already posted my comments earlier on 5) with the example of the 200 lb man who loses 1 lb per week through exercise only but simply isn't doing well enough! Say, if someone posted on MFP about how their program wasn't working because they were "only" losing 1 lb per week, what would you tell them? Relax, be patient, adjust your expectations, you're doing perfectly fine, that sort of thing? So what is it about this article that gives them a free pass? A couple pretty pictures and charts? Linking a ton of studies where their summaries may or may not be the findings of the actual studies?
The statement isn't her claim because it's the claim of the article in OP that she just told you because you were asking?0 -
stevencloser wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »You don't see how an article that says exercise is almost useless for weight loss is contrary to MFP?
Not if you read the whole article and what the actual argument is, no.
Exercise, absent ways to control or monitor calories, tends not to result in any weight loss. MFP assumes you are controlling calories and provides a way to do it more carefully than most.
Source?
That's what the article says. There are studies. I'm not totally convinced it's generalizable for the reasons discussed in my earlier post (seriously, don't people read the thread?), but this is not anti MFP, which is what we were talking about in the specific post you responded to. It's not my claim, so why should I provide some other source?
How is a statement you just made is not your claim? I didn't make you write it and you certainly don't have to provide any sources if you don't want to, perhaps in case the statement was simply anecdotal
As far as what we were supposedly initially discussing, yes, I do think the article is anti-MFP, and honestly there are some serious reading comprehension gaps going on here since a number of us have confirmed we indeed read the article - either on my part or you guys'
Details: I've been reading the section on the Hazda population having the same TEE as the "Average" Westerner. I will say that the study is intriguing and even the authors state further studies are needed to understand their findings. There was mention of the Hazda generally being smaller than Westerners, but then they also say similar energy levels were found even after controlling for body size. I did not notice a section in the study explaining where they got these "average" US and European Westerners that made up the bulk of their study, as that could make a difference. The researchers did clarify that they did not study the impact of increased Exercise alone on Westerners, which was a source that I was and still am interested in reading.
In "2) Exercise is excellent for health", the article states: "A Cochrane Review of the best-available research found that, while exercise led to only modest weight loss, study participants who exercised more (even without changing their diets) saw a range of health benefits, including reducing their blood pressure and triglycerides in their blood. Exercise reduces the risk of Type 2 diabetes, stroke, and heart attack." Their own referenced study found weight loss associated with exercise alone. Why would the article's conclusion then be that exercise is a poor choice for an individual looking to lose weight? I don't have access to the full study so I do not know what's considered "only modest weight loss". Given their attitude to the example in 5), I suspect "only modest weight loss" is actually decent weight loss for anyone not on a Reality TV show.
"3) Exercise alone is almost useless for weight loss". What the article said: "It found that after 20 weeks, weight loss was less than expected, and that "the amount of exercise energy expenditure had no correlation with weight loss in these longer studies." " But here's what the linked Abstract documented: "Moreover, with respect to dose-response issues, the evidence from short-term studies suggest that exercise-induced weight loss is positively related to reductions in total fat in a dose-response manner. No such relationship was observed when the results from long-term studies were examined. Abdominal fat. Limited evidence suggests that exercise-induced weight loss is associated with reductions in abdominal obesity as measured by waist circumference or imaging methods; however, at present there is insufficient evidence to determine a dose-response relationship between physical activity, and abdominal or visceral fat". To me, this seems more to be examining the relationship between exercise and abdominal fat, not weight loss. Possibly the full study provides additional clarification on that.
I already posted my comments earlier on 5) with the example of the 200 lb man who loses 1 lb per week through exercise only but simply isn't doing well enough! Say, if someone posted on MFP about how their program wasn't working because they were "only" losing 1 lb per week, what would you tell them? Relax, be patient, adjust your expectations, you're doing perfectly fine, that sort of thing? So what is it about this article that gives them a free pass? A couple pretty pictures and charts? Linking a ton of studies where their summaries may or may not be the findings of the actual studies?
The statement isn't her claim because it's the claim of the article in OP that she just told you because you were asking?
Oh, ok, thanks. Basically I probably should have read her statement as, "[...]what the actual argument is, no, which is that exercise, outside of ways to monitor[...]"
I guess I don't believe that's what the argument of the article was, so I thought the independent stand alone sentence she wrote was her opinion/conclusion. They spent a lot of effort to prove that exercise alone just doesn't work, which clearly I don't agree with for reasons expanded on earlier0 -
I look at it this way (and this is from 25 years of experience with struggling with my weight and trial and error to find what works for me): if you are overweight, you are (or at least have been) overeating. Exercise tends to increase appetite. If you are already overeating, and decide to start exercising to lose weight, you run the very real risk of overeating even more, thereby eliminating any deficit you might have created, and possibly creating a surplus. I've seen it time and time again (and have experienced it myself) - people decide to take up exercise as a weight loss strategy, without addressing diet, and end up gaining even more weight. Add to that the fact that people generally suck at estimating (we tend to overestimate the amount of calories used by any given exercise and underestimate the amount of calories in any given food), well, it's easy to see that exercise alone isn't the most effective weight loss strategy.
That said, exercise has numerous health benefits that shouldn't be ignored. I didn't get the sense that anyone is saying not to bother with exercise, only that, for weight loss, diet is far and away more important. Once you have your eating under control, exercise can obviously help. But in the context of out of control eating (which if you are overweight, that's kind of a given) exercise is an ineffective strategy.2 -
-
tlflag1620 wrote: »I look at it this way (and this is from 25 years of experience with struggling with my weight and trial and error to find what works for me): if you are overweight, you are (or at least have been) overeating. Exercise tends to increase appetite. If you are already overeating, and decide to start exercising to lose weight, you run the very real risk of overeating even more, thereby eliminating any deficit you might have created, and possibly creating a surplus. I've seen it time and time again (and have experienced it myself) - people decide to take up exercise as a weight loss strategy, without addressing diet, and end up gaining even more weight. Add to that the fact that people generally suck at estimating (we tend to overestimate the amount of calories used by any given exercise and underestimate the amount of calories in any given food), well, it's easy to see that exercise alone isn't the most effective weight loss strategy.
That said, exercise has numerous health benefits that shouldn't be ignored. I didn't get the sense that anyone is saying not to bother with exercise, only that, for weight loss, diet is far and away more important. Once you have your eating under control, exercise can obviously help. But in the context of out of control eating (which if you are overweight, that's kind of a given) exercise is an ineffective strategy.
I largely agree with this. I don't think exercise necessarily increases appetite, but for many people it does, and I do think that it's really easy to use it as a justification for eating more food also. And others respond to adding in exercise by being less active in the rest of their lives--I've had that happen, where I ran a half marathon and then basically sat around for the rest of the day if I did not make an effort to keep myself active with normal activities too. So in the context of out of control eating, as you put it, it's not a great strategy and typically not an efficient (and likely to be an ineffective) way of trying to lose.
If you take steps to control eating or at least hold eating constant, of course exercise plays a role in weight loss. Personally, the first time I lost weight I lost a total of 60 lbs. The first 40 I lost by consciously cutting my calories and also adding exercise (I did not count calories, but I changed the way I ate to reduce them). I felt stalled for a while after the 40, took a break and decided to train for a triathlon, ramping up my exercise some. I quickly dropped the remaining 20 (actually more than I'd originally planned to lose). I didn't pay attention to calories when doing that, but I also had a comfortable, set way of eating by that point that was not out of control. Had I started from the beginning just deciding to get back to running (which in fact I'd done at times), it would not have worked, for me.
I also don't see the article making claims about something working or not for 100% of people, either, despite the click bait way some of it is phrased. It's relying on studies and talking about what works better in general or on average. I mentioned above the Matt Fitzgerald discussion of some of the studies, and in the same book he gives a personal example of losing weight really just based on exercise, but he also was an extremely active and athletic teenager at the time, if memory serves.1 -
How about fitness for something other than fat loss, like mental health, increased strength / stamina / energy, looking good, feeling good, apocalypse preparedness, etc.?2
-
2
-
stevencloser wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »You don't see how an article that says exercise is almost useless for weight loss is contrary to MFP?
Not if you read the whole article and what the actual argument is, no.
Exercise, absent ways to control or monitor calories, tends not to result in any weight loss. MFP assumes you are controlling calories and provides a way to do it more carefully than most.
Source?
That's what the article says. There are studies. I'm not totally convinced it's generalizable for the reasons discussed in my earlier post (seriously, don't people read the thread?), but this is not anti MFP, which is what we were talking about in the specific post you responded to. It's not my claim, so why should I provide some other source?
How is a statement you just made is not your claim? I didn't make you write it and you certainly don't have to provide any sources if you don't want to, perhaps in case the statement was simply anecdotal
As far as what we were supposedly initially discussing, yes, I do think the article is anti-MFP, and honestly there are some serious reading comprehension gaps going on here since a number of us have confirmed we indeed read the article - either on my part or you guys'
Details: I've been reading the section on the Hazda population having the same TEE as the "Average" Westerner. I will say that the study is intriguing and even the authors state further studies are needed to understand their findings. There was mention of the Hazda generally being smaller than Westerners, but then they also say similar energy levels were found even after controlling for body size. I did not notice a section in the study explaining where they got these "average" US and European Westerners that made up the bulk of their study, as that could make a difference. The researchers did clarify that they did not study the impact of increased Exercise alone on Westerners, which was a source that I was and still am interested in reading.
In "2) Exercise is excellent for health", the article states: "A Cochrane Review of the best-available research found that, while exercise led to only modest weight loss, study participants who exercised more (even without changing their diets) saw a range of health benefits, including reducing their blood pressure and triglycerides in their blood. Exercise reduces the risk of Type 2 diabetes, stroke, and heart attack." Their own referenced study found weight loss associated with exercise alone. Why would the article's conclusion then be that exercise is a poor choice for an individual looking to lose weight? I don't have access to the full study so I do not know what's considered "only modest weight loss". Given their attitude to the example in 5), I suspect "only modest weight loss" is actually decent weight loss for anyone not on a Reality TV show.
"3) Exercise alone is almost useless for weight loss". What the article said: "It found that after 20 weeks, weight loss was less than expected, and that "the amount of exercise energy expenditure had no correlation with weight loss in these longer studies." " But here's what the linked Abstract documented: "Moreover, with respect to dose-response issues, the evidence from short-term studies suggest that exercise-induced weight loss is positively related to reductions in total fat in a dose-response manner. No such relationship was observed when the results from long-term studies were examined. Abdominal fat. Limited evidence suggests that exercise-induced weight loss is associated with reductions in abdominal obesity as measured by waist circumference or imaging methods; however, at present there is insufficient evidence to determine a dose-response relationship between physical activity, and abdominal or visceral fat". To me, this seems more to be examining the relationship between exercise and abdominal fat, not weight loss. Possibly the full study provides additional clarification on that.
I already posted my comments earlier on 5) with the example of the 200 lb man who loses 1 lb per week through exercise only but simply isn't doing well enough! Say, if someone posted on MFP about how their program wasn't working because they were "only" losing 1 lb per week, what would you tell them? Relax, be patient, adjust your expectations, you're doing perfectly fine, that sort of thing? So what is it about this article that gives them a free pass? A couple pretty pictures and charts? Linking a ton of studies where their summaries may or may not be the findings of the actual studies?
The statement isn't her claim because it's the claim of the article in OP that she just told you because you were asking?
Oh, ok, thanks. Basically I probably should have read her statement as, "[...]what the actual argument is, no, which is that exercise, outside of ways to monitor[...]"
I guess I don't believe that's what the argument of the article was, so I thought the independent stand alone sentence she wrote was her opinion/conclusion. They spent a lot of effort to prove that exercise alone just doesn't work, which clearly I don't agree with for reasons expanded on earlier
The reason exercise alone does not work (usually) according to the article is because of compensatory behaviors. One of these is eating more and another is being less active. If you track calories, and especially if you track calories AND activity or are careful about monitoring yourself so that you do not move less in other parts of life, then it IS possible to keep calorie intake constant and lose through exercise alone, of course, although for someone to immediately increase to that level of exercise seems unlikely (and if the initial weight loss is super slow or not observable due to the rate, many will give up -- after all, they weren't naturally doing that level of exercise and their motivation was weight loss, which seems not to be happening).
Also, it's really hard to hold calories constant without counting or adoption some other method of watching what you eat, and I suspect that once people start doing that, their eating is no longer out of control. It's not accurate to claim that they are "simply exercising more"--which is what the article is talking about.
I lose weight on a higher calorie level than I would maintain at, when sedentary. Many people do. That does not mean we are "simply exercising more."1 -
JeromeBarry1 wrote: »Toward the end of the piece they mentioned that people who'd lost 30 pounds and kept it off for a year both counted calories and exercised. Maybe if that had been the lede no one would have read the story.
I do love a guy who knows the proper journalistic term is "lede."0 -
The article listed here is what is referred to in academia as a Literature Review. It is not an end-all-be-all definitive answer to the question of whether exercise is useless to weight loss. Some of the studies referenced (and no, my lord, I'm not going to list them out for you because you all, I assume have fingers, eyes, and the internet, and can do the work yourself) are not accurate or true scientific studies by required standards.
That being said, my personal opinion is that weight loss is a fallacy. You are losing water, fat, muscle, bone mass. I have a friend who weighs the same as I do and yet her body looks incredible and trim and mine does not because her body composition is more muscle than fat and mine is currently more fat than muscle. When you do not exercise you lose more muscle mass than fat and you keep a "fatty tone" on your body. Exercise is important to increasing and maintaining a healthy metabolism, building muscle and burning fat. "Weight loss" is relatively useless if you're only losing weight through losing muscle mass. The only reason to avoid exercise when working to "lose weight" is if your doctor says that you shouldn't exercise.
I disagree with the article and with the way that the studies are presented. Exercise does increase metabolism and muscle mass, both of which are critical to burning fat, which is the type of weight loss we should all be striving for. These types of studies that focus only on generalized weight loss are bad for the population and will perpetuate obesity as a problem.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »tlflag1620 wrote: »I look at it this way (and this is from 25 years of experience with struggling with my weight and trial and error to find what works for me): if you are overweight, you are (or at least have been) overeating. Exercise tends to increase appetite. If you are already overeating, and decide to start exercising to lose weight, you run the very real risk of overeating even more, thereby eliminating any deficit you might have created, and possibly creating a surplus. I've seen it time and time again (and have experienced it myself) - people decide to take up exercise as a weight loss strategy, without addressing diet, and end up gaining even more weight. Add to that the fact that people generally suck at estimating (we tend to overestimate the amount of calories used by any given exercise and underestimate the amount of calories in any given food), well, it's easy to see that exercise alone isn't the most effective weight loss strategy.
That said, exercise has numerous health benefits that shouldn't be ignored. I didn't get the sense that anyone is saying not to bother with exercise, only that, for weight loss, diet is far and away more important. Once you have your eating under control, exercise can obviously help. But in the context of out of control eating (which if you are overweight, that's kind of a given) exercise is an ineffective strategy.
I largely agree with this. I don't think exercise necessarily increases appetite, but for many people it does, and I do think that it's really easy to use it as a justification for eating more food also. And others respond to adding in exercise by being less active in the rest of their lives--I've had that happen, where I ran a half marathon and then basically sat around for the rest of the day if I did not make an effort to keep myself active with normal activities too. So in the context of out of control eating, as you put it, it's not a great strategy and typically not an efficient (and likely to be an ineffective) way of trying to lose.
If you take steps to control eating or at least hold eating constant, of course exercise plays a role in weight loss. Personally, the first time I lost weight I lost a total of 60 lbs. The first 40 I lost by consciously cutting my calories and also adding exercise (I did not count calories, but I changed the way I ate to reduce them). I felt stalled for a while after the 40, took a break and decided to train for a triathlon, ramping up my exercise some. I quickly dropped the remaining 20 (actually more than I'd originally planned to lose). I didn't pay attention to calories when doing that, but I also had a comfortable, set way of eating by that point that was not out of control. Had I started from the beginning just deciding to get back to running (which in fact I'd done at times), it would not have worked, for me.
I also don't see the article making claims about something working or not for 100% of people, either, despite the click bait way some of it is phrased. It's relying on studies and talking about what works better in general or on average. I mentioned above the Matt Fitzgerald discussion of some of the studies, and in the same book he gives a personal example of losing weight really just based on exercise, but he also was an extremely active and athletic teenager at the time, if memory serves.
IRT the bolded - that very true too! I know how easy it can be to tell yourself, "I was 'good' and worked out today, so it's okay for me to eat this 'treat'." While that may occasionally be true, all too often the calorie burn of the workout is *less* than the calories consumed in the treat.
I recently (about three months ago) started going to the gym with a friend of mine (I'd never gone before, exercise is not a big part of my strategy, but I want to reap some of the health benefits). I was very close to where I want to be, weight-wise (I was 152 lbs when we started going, with a goal weight of between 138-145); my friend wants to lose 15-20 lbs. She goes to the gym more often than I do, does more when we are actually there (well, more cardio, and more intense cardio; I lift heavier than she does), yet I've dropped 6 lbs in the time we've been attending, she has yet to lose anything
. I feel for her, and we have chatted a bit about diet, but she seems to think that if she works out hard enough/often enough, the weight will just "fall off". I know that my weight loss has been largely about diet - I've had my eating under control for long enough that even though I do notice an increase in appetite on my gym days, I have a pretty good bead on how much "extra" that entitles me to eat (and it ain't much, lol).
But, diet and exercise tends to be like religion; people have their beliefs and often they are so ingrained there is no getting through. I'm just waiting and hoping she'll become more receptive to advice; I don't want to jeopardize our friendship and I know she has to come to her own conclusions.
1 -
amyoliver85 wrote: »The article listed here is what is referred to in academia as a Literature Review. It is not an end-all-be-all definitive answer to the question of whether exercise is useless to weight loss. Some of the studies referenced (and no, my lord, I'm not going to list them out for you because you all, I assume have fingers, eyes, and the internet, and can do the work yourself) are not accurate or true scientific studies by required standards.
That being said, my personal opinion is that weight loss is a fallacy. You are losing water, fat, muscle, bone mass. I have a friend who weighs the same as I do and yet her body looks incredible and trim and mine does not because her body composition is more muscle than fat and mine is currently more fat than muscle. When you do not exercise you lose more muscle mass than fat and you keep a "fatty tone" on your body. Exercise is important to increasing and maintaining a healthy metabolism, building muscle and burning fat. "Weight loss" is relatively useless if you're only losing weight through losing muscle mass. The only reason to avoid exercise when working to "lose weight" is if your doctor says that you shouldn't exercise.
I disagree with the article and with the way that the studies are presented. Exercise does increase metabolism and muscle mass, both of which are critical to burning fat, which is the type of weight loss we should all be striving for. These types of studies that focus only on generalized weight loss are bad for the population and will perpetuate obesity as a problem.
But even when you lose weight without exercise, you aren't losing *just* muscle mass.0 -
amyoliver85 wrote: »When you do not exercise you lose more muscle mass than fat and you keep a "fatty tone" on your body.
It's unlikely that you will lose MORE muscle than fat. How much fat vs. muscle is going to depend on a variety of things, especially how much fat you have to lose. For someone obese, it may not make much difference as to the composition of the loss, at first. Later, as you have less fat to lose, other things will matter more, like diet (having adequate protein to protect muscle--I'd say this is important even when obese), not having too large a deficit, exercise, yes, and ideally strength training of some sort or its equivalent.
People should not be discouraged and told they cannot lose if they don't exercise or that they will simply be losing muscle or more muscle than fat. That's not true. I love exercise and it has always been an important part of my weight loss strategy (I eat better when exercising as well as watching what I eat, although "simply exercising more," as the article discusses, has never worked for me), but for some it is a stumbling block that prevents them from trying to lose, so that you simply need to control calories is an important message. That exercise is good for health independent of weight loss goals is also an important message, IMO.Exercise is important to increasing and maintaining a healthy metabolism, building muscle and burning fat.
Agreed (as I said in my first post here). The article also says that exercise is beneficial for health and that losing WITH exercise AND calorie control works best."Weight loss" is relatively useless if you're only losing weight through losing muscle mass.
Luckily this doesn't happen. Certainly not if you are overweight.1 -
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/02/health/biggest-loser-weight-loss.html?_r=0
Take a look at this article in the NYTs - It seems quite clear that keeping weight off is a significant battle - not a battle that can't be won, but it is a battle. Most people who are obese or morbidly obese- myself included - struggle to keep the weight off because metabolism slows to a crawl & while exercising is great for overall health, it's benefits are not easily seen when you are trying to loose weight because the AMOUNT of exercise you have to keep up is usually not sustainable for many people who are in their late 50s and above.0 -
A friend of mine who trains for competition told me that weight loss is about 90% diet and 10% exercise. My experience backs this up.0
-
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/02/health/biggest-loser-weight-loss.html?_r=0
Take a look at this article in the NYTs - It seems quite clear that keeping weight off is a significant battle - not a battle that can't be won, but it is a battle. Most people who are obese or morbidly obese- myself included - struggle to keep the weight off because metabolism slows to a crawl & while exercising is great for overall health, it's benefits are not easily seen when you are trying to loose weight because the AMOUNT of exercise you have to keep up is usually not sustainable for many people who are in their late 50s and above.
You should probably see your doctor if you think your metabolism has slowed to a crawl.
In fact, heavier people tend to have higher BMRs/TDEEs than lighter folks, assuming you don't have a thyroid issue. Even then, the difference is pretty minimal.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KA9AdlhB18o 0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.7K 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
- 394 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
- 941 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions