Exercise slows down metabolism ?
Options
Replies
-
BINGO!This is more sensationalistic crap. It refers to "exercise" as aerobic activities, while terms like "strength training", "weight lifting" "anaerobic" not only don't show up in this article, let alone countless studies performed over the span of decades which almost all conclusively demonstrate the effects of anaerobic activities on RMR.
^^This. The way that this article comes across is very "it's not your fault you're fat".
You just nailed it. And people are fast to shrug off responsibility and embrace ANYTHING that can possibly be used as an excuse not to exercise or take ownership of personal health and fitness.0 -
As I lose weight and become more efficient at exercise I burn less calories than I used to doing the same amount of cardio. NO surprise there. I can now go longer and harder for the same amount of calories. I have to keep pushing myself to become even stronger. THAT IS THE POINT!0
-
To my logic (I'm a numbers banking gal and have no medical expertise save my and my friends experiences) this makes sense as an overweight person already has a pretty fast metabolism. All the extra food and lack of physical exertion would signal to that Neanderthal part of our brain that we're in times of plenty so there's no need to slow the metabolism down and store every little morsel of food for famine times. Now all the sudden you're burning calories that you aren't used to burning and you're probably also eating healthier (most times those go hand in hand especially in a hospital type setting that it sounds like these studies were done) and your Neanderthal brain says "holy crap what's going on?!?" and starts preparing for the famine that must be coming to justify all this work and the lack of an over abundance of food.
As was already stated, that was such a small percentage and the amount of calories burned more than covers the slow down so I wouldn't worry about it.0 -
This is more sensationalistic crap. It refers to "exercise" as aerobic activities, while terms like "strength training", "weight lifting" "anaerobic" not only don't show up in this article, let alone countless studies performed over the span of decades which almost all conclusively demonstrate the effects of anaerobic activities on RMR.
^^This. The way that this article comes across is very "it's not your fault you're fat".
If anyone wants onboard, I'm launching a class action lawsuit against Precor. Use of their equipment has caused my metabolism to slow down and I want compensation for my physical and mental stress. They are destroying America by preaching exercise and we must make our voices heard!
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:0 -
As I lose weight and become more efficient at exercise I burn less calories than I used to doing the same amount of cardio. NO surprise there. I can now go longer and harder for the same amount of calories. I have to keep pushing myself to become even stronger. THAT IS THE POINT!
Exactly and the more strength training you do the easier it becomes to lift that weight. You have to increase the weight to get the same benefit from the exercise. I thought all of this was exactly what people wanted. To be stronger, faster, leaner, and more efficient at doing whatever it is that they do.0 -
As I lose weight and become more efficient at exercise I burn less calories than I used to doing the same amount of cardio. NO surprise there. I can now go longer and harder for the same amount of calories. I have to keep pushing myself to become even stronger. THAT IS THE POINT!
Exactly and the more strength training you do the easier it becomes to lift that weight. You have to increase the weight to get the same benefit from the exercise. I thought all of this was exactly what people wanted. To be stronger, faster, leaner, and more efficient at doing whatever it is that they do.
:drinker: Perfectly said.0 -
I had tried to lose weight for about 10 years. I would watch what I ate and go to the gym and workout like a madwoman. I would give up after 4 to 6 weeks because I had lost nothing. I finally got a trainer who got me to slow down on the machines and got a HRM so that I stayed in the zone for burning fat. It worked, the pounds are finally coming off. Recently, the weight loss slowed, so I tried the madwoman routine again. Weight loss has begun again! What does this show? Low to moderate exercise may be what is needed for the severely overweight. Now I include both high calorie burn and moderate calorie burn in my workouts.0
-
The head scratch in all this is OVERWEIGHT PEOPLE ARE WORKING HARDER THAN TRIM PEOPLE!
Why is it that if you are trim and you walk around with a 100 lb pack on your back you're working out. But when you carry that weight around inside your body, 24 - 7, you aren't working out. Everything is harder to do when you are carrying extra weight but you can't expect to see any credit for it in the BMR charts.
scratch, scratch :huh:0 -
The head scratch in all this is OVERWEIGHT PEOPLE ARE WORKING HARDER THAN TRIM PEOPLE!
Why is it that if you are trim and you walk around with a 100 lb pack on your back you're working out. But when you carry that weight around inside your body, 24 - 7, you aren't working out. Everything is harder to do when you are carrying extra weight but you can't expect to see any credit for it in the BMR charts.
scratch, scratch :huh:
BMR does take weight into account, so I'm confused.0 -
Big deficits and stalls / plateaus seem to go hand in hand.
Don't want to hijack the thread, but I am curious about yours and mcarter's take on the above statement. I think both of you are intelligent and knowledgable and I respect your opinions. I frequently see you both going against conventional wisdom and advocating for or supporting the idea that large deficits are not necessarily to be avoided.
When I see a post like "HELP I'M NOT LOOSING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" on the forums, 99% of the time the person has a really large deficit. That, and my own personal experience of success with a small to moderate deficit, makes me think that too big a deficit is detrimental for weight loss. Do you agree? What do you guys think is the best way to determine an optimal deficit?
Thanks!
I think WEIGHT LOSS and stalls/plateaus go hand in hand. It just doesn't come off in a straight line. And people always think they're stalled when it's a slow point. WW defines a stall as 3 weeks with NO scale loss OR body changes. Usually when you press people they'll admit that they are changing and that they have lost something, just not as much as they'd like or not in a perfect linear trend.
I also think it's not so much that the people who log big deficits are the ones reporting stalls, it's that the impatient people who think they can work out 2 hours a day and eat 1100 calories and lose exactly what the math suggests each week are the ones on the boards with the HELP I'M NOT LOSING threads. They add in this huge increase in quantity or intensity of exercise and it makes their muscles retain water and they're miserable with the exercise level and the deficit so they ask for help and advice.
I believe there is another large subset of us that are calm and patient and content and not complaining because we know it takes time and we know this is a safe level for us, so we wouldn't be on the boards asking for advice in any event, anyway. A lot of us are post-40 females who don't have a big window between BMR and TDEE to aim for, and we don't want to be figure competitors, we just want back in our skinny jeans. We know we're not hurting ourselves because we've done WW or a doctor's plan or something before and we know how we lose and what's safe. Yes, we gain back, but 95% of dieters do so it's not really fair to point fingers and say, "It's how you lost it." We've read a lot of books about it and know what we're doing isn't unsafe.
I don't know the best way to determine an optimal deficit but I think if you're patient and eat well and listen to your body that aiming for 2 lbs/week loss isn't unhealthy, even if you only have 20 lbs. to lose. I think 'adding back' is a hassle and the less you can estimate the better. So I'd say estimate your total average expenditure and subtract 500-1000. Ignore if it's below BMR. If you're uncomfortably hungry, eat more.0 -
Big deficits and stalls / plateaus seem to go hand in hand.
Don't want to hijack the thread, but I am curious about yours and mcarter's take on the above statement. I think both of you are intelligent and knowledgable and I respect your opinions. I frequently see you both going against conventional wisdom and advocating for or supporting the idea that large deficits are not necessarily to be avoided.
When I see a post like "HELP I'M NOT LOOSING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" on the forums, 99% of the time the person has a really large deficit. That, and my own personal experience of success with a small to moderate deficit, makes me think that too big a deficit is detrimental for weight loss. Do you agree? What do you guys think is the best way to determine an optimal deficit?
Thanks!
I think WEIGHT LOSS and stalls/plateaus go hand in hand. It just doesn't come off in a straight line. And people always think they're stalled when it's a slow point. WW defines a stall as 3 weeks with NO scale loss OR body changes. Usually when you press people they'll admit that they are changing and that they have lost something, just not as much as they'd like or not in a perfect linear trend.
I also think it's not so much that the people who log big deficits are the ones reporting stalls, it's that the impatient people who think they can work out 2 hours a day and eat 1100 calories and lose exactly what the math suggests each week are the ones on the boards with the HELP I'M NOT LOSING threads. They add in this huge increase in quantity or intensity of exercise and it makes their muscles retain water and they're miserable with the exercise level and the deficit so they ask for help and advice.
I believe there is another large subset of us that are calm and patient and content and not complaining because we know it takes time and we know this is a safe level for us, so we wouldn't be on the boards asking for advice in any event, anyway. A lot of us are post-40 females who don't have a big window between BMR and TDEE to aim for, and we don't want to be figure competitors, we just want back in our skinny jeans. We know we're not hurting ourselves because we've done WW or a doctor's plan or something before and we know how we lose and what's safe. Yes, we gain back, but 95% of dieters do so it's not really fair to point fingers and say, "It's how you lost it." We've read a lot of books about it and know what we're doing isn't unsafe.
I don't know the best way to determine an optimal deficit but I think if you're patient and eat well and listen to your body that aiming for 2 lbs/week loss isn't unhealthy, even if you only have 20 lbs. to lose. I think 'adding back' is a hassle and the less you can estimate the better. So I'd say estimate your total average expenditure and subtract 500-1000. Ignore if it's below BMR. If you're uncomfortably hungry, eat more.
Thanks for the clarification. Interesting point about the psychology of those who are asking for help vs not asking. I agree a lot of people in that situation have recently started doing much more exercise than they used to and have drastically changed their diet so are likely to be unhappy when the scale inevitably doesn't move as expected.
I also agree with the 500-1000 cut off TDEE being the simplest way to do it and think MFP does make it more complicated than it has to be. I also think it's not a race and 250 is a reasonable cut if you want to lose a couple of pounds a month and not feel deprived. Speaking for myself, a small deficit is a nice way to ease into maintenance and a sustainable way of eating as you approach your goal weight.
Listening to your body is a crucial skill that is really hard to develop, IMO. That's why I still track calories -- to know when I'm done. Kind of sad really.
Thanks again for your thoughts.0 -
I totally agree that a 250 deficit is perfectly sensible and reasonable and healthy. I think it's a hard target to hit, though, and a month is a long time to wait for that feedback and most obese people aren't going to keep doing the logging for 36 months or whatever it takes.
Mainly it's when I see people told they can't aim for 2 lbs/week or they will hurt themselves eating under BMR that I feel like I have to jump in. But I think I'm done. The fears and misinfo are too ingrained here and I'm just banging my head against a wall.
jsl- Thanks for the calm, level-headed discussion! Good luck to you!0 -
Mainly it's when I see people told they can't aim for 2 lbs/week or they will hurt themselves eating under BMR that I feel like I have to jump in. But I think I'm done. The fears and misinfo are too ingrained here and I'm just banging my head against a wall.
Well, I think a lot of us have seen people, both here and offline, who aim for 2 lbs/week by cutting their daily calories drastically, last for a couple of weeks, and then decide 'Dieting isn't worth it, I can't do this' because they've made too big of a change all at once.0 -
I totally agree that a 250 deficit is perfectly sensible and reasonable and healthy. I think it's a hard target to hit, though, and a month is a long time to wait for that feedback and most obese people aren't going to keep doing the logging for 36 months or whatever it takes.
Mainly it's when I see people told they can't aim for 2 lbs/week or they will hurt themselves eating under BMR that I feel like I have to jump in. But I think I'm done. The fears and misinfo are too ingrained here and I'm just banging my head against a wall.
jsl- Thanks for the calm, level-headed discussion! Good luck to you!
I'm sorry to hear that. I think discussions benefit from different viewpoints and I agree it can get a little one sided. The more knowledgable, intelligent advice given around here, the better. That's why I have always been impressed with your posts and wanted to ask more about your thoughts. Hope I didn't contribute to any head banging. Good luck to you too.0 -
I enjoy these articles. They give me a little more perspective than the belief I've held for 25 years that my body just hates me and wants me to be fat and miserable.0
-
Research has shown that steady-state cardio slows down metabolism. Resistance training speeds it up. Yet another strike in favor of weight training for weight loss.0
-
Not sure what you're getting at. Obviously the more you weigh, the more you burn. That is accounted for.The head scratch in all this is OVERWEIGHT PEOPLE ARE WORKING HARDER THAN TRIM PEOPLE!
Why is it that if you are trim and you walk around with a 100 lb pack on your back you're working out. But when you carry that weight around inside your body, 24 - 7, you aren't working out. Everything is harder to do when you are carrying extra weight but you can't expect to see any credit for it in the BMR charts.
scratch, scratch :huh:0 -
Not sure what you're getting at. Obviously the more you weigh, the more you burn. That is accounted for.The head scratch in all this is OVERWEIGHT PEOPLE ARE WORKING HARDER THAN TRIM PEOPLE!
Why is it that if you are trim and you walk around with a 100 lb pack on your back you're working out. But when you carry that weight around inside your body, 24 - 7, you aren't working out.
She's wondering why it doesn't count as exercise for a heavier person to have an extra 100 pounds of body weight the same as if a lighter person carried an extra 100 pound dumbbell in a backpack all day.
I think it does actually. When I'm not watching what I eat I'll get up to around 245 and from that point my body weight seems to like to stick right around that point as if it were the optimal weight it most easily stays at. I think it's for this very reason. The more I weigh the more calories I burn just walking around. In order to maintain a higher weight I would need to eat an increasing amount of calories in order to account for the increasing calories it takes to carry that weight around. Either that or I would need to decrease my activity level to allow for this weight.
Let's say that my TDEE was 3000 calories. If I eat 3500 a day I'll start gaining a pound a week but only just at first. The increased weight will increase my TDEE and then 3500 calories would just be maintenance calories. Of course your body makes a similar adjustment in the opposite direction. If you lose weight then you won't spend the same calories just walking around and your TDEE will decrease.
I think this is why people often gain the weight back after a successful diet. They eat the correct amount of calories to lose but once they reach their desired weight they go right back to eating what once was maintenance calories for when they weighed 50 lbs more. Of course they're going to gain weight back. You have to change your diet to reflect what your new TDEE is in order to maintain that weight. Same issue in either direction but it's much easier to eat too much than not enough. Calorie dense food is so easy and cheap. It takes planning to eat correctly. It's not difficult but you have to have a mindset that corporations want you to buy their products. Like Planet Fitness handing out free pizza and tootsie rolls. Many companies don't benefit if you eat healthier.0 -
Research has shown that steady-state cardio slows down metabolism. Resistance training speeds it up. Yet another strike in favor of weight training for weight loss.
could you cite some of this research?0 -
But that's what I'm confused about. It DOES count as exercise, or rather as more calories burned. Heavier people have a higher BMR. Of course they do.
She's wondering why it doesn't count as exercise for a heavier person to have an extra 100 pounds of body weight the same as if a lighter person carried an extra 100 pound dumbbell in a backpack all day.
Not sure what you're getting at. Obviously the more you weigh, the more you burn. That is accounted for.The head scratch in all this is OVERWEIGHT PEOPLE ARE WORKING HARDER THAN TRIM PEOPLE!
Why is it that if you are trim and you walk around with a 100 lb pack on your back you're working out. But when you carry that weight around inside your body, 24 - 7, you aren't working out.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392.1K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.9K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 403 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 998 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions