Exercise Article in Time Magazine

Its got sources to back it up, and I think its completely correct. This is why MFP's calorie tracker gives you more calories to eat if you've exercised. We will eat more when we've worked out, the responsibility lies with us to make wise choices about what to eat.

There is very little about this article that I appreciate. I am one of those people who lost weight through exercise. I am short (5'2") and middle aged (44). When eating 1200 calories on my 'diet', I was eating about 250 calories less than my maintenance calories would be if I weren't exercising. In other words, it is incredibly difficult for somebody like me to create a significant calorie deficit through eating alone in order to lose weight.

So I exercised to create a further calorie deficit. And I lost 43 pounds doing that. In fact, I lost those 'last 10 pounds' through exercise alone because I set my calories at my maintenance calories and burned all my weight off through exercise.

So it can be done. And I'm maintaining my weight pretty much through exercise alone as well. It's actually pretty easy to do.

Eating more because of exercise is not inevitable (as I feel it was portrayed repeatedly in this article). It is a choice, just like all eating is a choice. Exercise, no matter how you look at it, burns calories. Weight loss is all about calories in and calories out. If you exercise and don't eat more than you burned off, then you are going to lose weight. That's all I need to know to be honest. Just because this author thinks it is inevitable that people are going to eat more because they exercise (and even indicated that response is due to a sense of 'entitlement') doesn't mean the laws of physiology (more calories lost than consumed=weight loss) do not apply.

Frankly, I am disturbed that any responsible magazine (as I would like to think Time is) would actually print an article that downplays the many (and there are many) benefits of exercise.

You take in too few calories, yes you will lose weight, but you will hinder your metabolism in the process. When and if you go back to eating a maintenance plan, you will likely gain weight.

So you're right you don't HAVE to eat your exercise calories, but you will hinder your metabolism in the process. To each their own, good luck to everyone on their journey. :drinker:

I think factually it is correct but, in my opinion, it is written with a distinct bias to prove that exercise is not useful for weightloss and does show the benefits.

I, also, find it interesting that he talks about people moving less after they exercise so the net change is null becuse most people I know have MORE energy after they exercise if they have a healthy lifestyle. I certainly do.

I, also, find it interesting that he talks about people moving less after they exercise so the net change is null becuse most people I know have MORE energy after they exercise if they have a healthy lifestyle. I certainly do.

I completely agree! I am so rull of energy after a good work! It's better than a strong cup of coffee!

There is very little about this article that I appreciate. I am one of those people who lost weight through exercise. I am short (5'2") and middle aged (44). When eating 1200 calories on my 'diet', I was eating about 250 calories less than my maintenance calories would be if I weren't exercising. In other words, it is incredibly difficult for somebody like me to create a significant calorie deficit through eating alone in order to lose weight.

So I exercised to create a further calorie deficit. And I lost 43 pounds doing that. In fact, I lost those 'last 10 pounds' through exercise alone because I set my calories at my maintenance calories and burned all my weight off through exercise.

So it can be done. And I'm maintaining my weight pretty much through exercise alone as well. It's actually pretty easy to do.

Eating more because of exercise is not inevitable (as I feel it was portrayed repeatedly in this article). It is a choice, just like all eating is a choice. Exercise, no matter how you look at it, burns calories. Weight loss is all about calories in and calories out. If you exercise and don't eat more than you burned off, then you are going to lose weight. That's all I need to know to be honest. Just because this author thinks it is inevitable that people are going to eat more because they exercise (and even indicated that response is due to a sense of 'entitlement') doesn't mean the laws of physiology (more calories lost than consumed=weight loss) do not apply.

Frankly, I am disturbed that any responsible magazine (as I would like to think Time is) would actually print an article that downplays the many (and there are many) benefits of exercise.

I totally agree with you. I believe that most people naturally eat more than they need to maintain or even to lose, and that with regular exercise it is easier for folks to create a deficit.

I am not a big fan of this article either. There was a lot of things in it that just aren't true. You will burn a lot more than 200-300 calories when you run for an hour. I'm only 132 pounds and I can burn over 700 in an hour.

There are people that overeat after exercise...but there are also people that make even better choices after exercising because they don't want to undo the work that they have done.

I think that those who would work out and use it as an excuse to eat a Big Mac are the same people that probably would have had that Big Mac anyway.

In any case, regular exercise is essential for cardiovascular health, not to mention for the prevention of diseases like osteoperosis. I suppose the distinction is that the article is specifically about weight loss, and not about health. It is important that folks that are exercising for weight loss only understand that a healthy diet is important to reach their goals as well, so I can see that side of this argument. But in my opinion if you work at being healthy (regular exercise, healthy diet) then maintaining a healthy weight will be a side effect of this lifestyle.