Weight Loss

did anyone buy this issue? there is an article in it called "body of evidence" that pretty much contradicts everything we know about weight loss. 

It says: "Excersise has many health and emotional benefits, but it doesn't make a huge difference in when it comes to weight loss"

WHAT!?  I read this, and grew mildly frustrated, as you can imagine. I exercise almost everyday.

It says: "If you do exercise, aerobic activity is far and away the best, for one simple reason: you burn more calories. Its a myth that strength training build muscle and increase metabolic rate. You'd have to be totally rippid-like, body builder ripped- to get a noticeable bump in your metabolism. Most people burn about 2 calorie per kilgram of body weight per minute, whereas a body builder burns about 1.2"

What are your thoughts and opinions about this excerpt from the article? Is it going to change your exercise habits at all?

Nope,
  I won't be changing my habits AT ALL......  the thing you have to think about when you read these articles is where did the info come from.  A lot of articles touting this kind of information often get their "studies" from companies who make weight loss medications.  Not exactly an 'independant' study if you know what I mean! 

You quoted the article as saying "Excersise has many health and emotional benefits, but it doesn't make a huge difference in when it comes to weight loss" 
Sounds like garbage to me...I lost 4 pounds over 8 months with no exercise, but I lost my last 20 pounds with exercise in only 2 1/2 months, just a little bit faster!  Working out creates that calorie deficit that makes you loose weight, or mantain weight while eating more calories.  Also, when you up your metabolism by working out, it doesn't just bottom back out as soon as you stop exercising, it tapers down over time, and you burn more calories durring that time than you would if you hadn't exercised. 

Don't let one article freak you out! 
At the very least, if it really bothers you, hit the library or the internet and look us some independant studies on exercise and metabolism....you will be surprised how many are out there.  Just be sure you look at who is publishing those studies!

Good luck, and keep it up.

NO

I don't change my exercise habits because I lose much more weight that just dieting even help me to reduce my stress I don't think that this article it's 100% right well no work for me!!!

 'strue, though - you can't out-train your diet.

  And cardio doesn't make a real-world difference to your results in terms of fat loss. But do cardio anyway; fat loss is not the only thing you should worry about. Getting short of breath just walking upstairs really isn't any fun; cardio improves that bit even if it doesn't help with fat loss. And it can be fun for its own sake - play soccer sometime and see if you aren't having a good time; and when you're having fun with what you're doing fat loss effects can go hang, neh?

 However.

 There is one form of exercise that does make a real difference to your fat loss efforts. Consider doing some ;)

I shouldve said who the resources were.

James O. Hill studied successful dieters for 13 years, director of the center for human nutrition at university of colorado health sciences center in denver.

he was the one who claimed "exercise wont make a difference"

pff.

Ralph La Forge studies the role of exercise in weight loss and is managing director of the ipid and disease management preceptorship program at duke university medical center.

he was the one who said "strength training is a myth"

those scientist's claims are the only myths i see.

i think the key point is the difference between losing weight and maintaining the weight lost.

if you think about it in terms of 'calories in vs. calories out' actually exercise is not going to be the easiest/best way to lose weight. The article probably assumes that most people usually have pretty atrocious eating habits (not entirely spurious considering how many calories we wolf down at fast food restaurants, in a bag of chips etc.) most people automatically cut out 500cals from their diet each day just by eating one less snickers bar and cutting out that bag of chips or popcorn, or by switching all their flavoured drinks to plain iced water. To burn the equivalent of that will require you to do about an hour of moderate to intense exercise. to lose weight it doesnt make a commensurable difference whether that 500cal deficit you get is going to be from additional exercise or from cutting calories.

It seems that for sustained weight loss, exercise is pretty essential though. most people who fail to keep the weight off typically follow a diet when their losing weight, but revert back to their old eating habits once they reach their goals. (and so gain their weight back again.)

 

i'm lost when it comes to the cardio/strength training debate though =_=

Hey Melkor

So quick question about that study and just maybe a FYI for me but is it basically saying that mixing up your routine instead of staying with the same thing is better or am I missing the point.

Thanks sorry so stupid.

Another question Melkor,

Do you know whether the participants in this study completed those 15 min of weights right after the cardio? Also, was this daily?

 

 

Original Post by friendinneed:

...Its a myth that strength training build muscle and increase metabolic rate. You'd have to be totally rippid-like, body builder ripped- to get a noticeable bump in your metabolism. Most people burn about 2 calorie per kilgram of body weight per minute, whereas a body builder burns about 1.2"

 

Um, so if your "totally ripped-like, body builder ripped" you'll get a bump in your metabolism, but you'll actually burn fewer calories than most people (1.2 vs 2)? Sounds like more of a decrease than a bump to me.

If the rest of the article is like that quote, it isn't worth the paper it's printed on.

I have to add my 2 cents, from experience ofcourse. My diet is super clean and I have a small deficit w/o exercise, and I lose nothing. Add in some cardio and the weight flys off.

Maybe its different for everyone.

 

Or maybe it's because your deficit is bigger when you exercise.

Wayne Westcott's study echoed the findings in these others, basically - that whether your calorie deficit came from cardio or from dieting didn't make much of any difference, but whether or not you did strength training as part of your weight loss routine did.

 Details of the program doesn't much matter, though - as long as you challenge your muscles to get progressively stronger, you're going to see results. Though browse the List of weight training programs from the Fitness forum FAQ, pick one and follow it :)

 Betcha the bunch in the article is making the same basic mistake that Kenneth Cooper did in 1968 - "exercise equals cardio".

 As long as you've bought into the myth that steady state cardio has any relevance to any form of exercise that'll actually benefit you, it's a natural mistake to make though. Scientists aren't immune to popular culture myths, especially when there's a whole multi-billion dollar industry that depends on people not catching on that the cardio equipment they sell is basically useless. It's why I wish propaganda outlets like Shape magazine and the other fitness misinformation magazines would just go away - they keep repeating wrong information; mostly to justify selling you yet another treadmill or elliptical.

Who reads Allure for fitness info anyway?  It's all pitched to high school girls and loaded with speed freak looking models.  Like any of that is "healthy" to begin with...  Next will be an article from the National Enquirer

Original Post by floggingsully:

Or maybe it's because your deficit is bigger when you exercise.

 ACTUALLY, I eat more when I exercise, thanks.

Original Post by floggingsully:

Original Post by friendinneed:

...Its a myth that strength training build muscle and increase metabolic rate. You'd have to be totally rippid-like, body builder ripped- to get a noticeable bump in your metabolism. Most people burn about 2 calorie per kilgram of body weight per minute, whereas a body builder burns about 1.2"

Um, so if your "totally ripped-like, body builder ripped" you'll get a bump in your metabolism, but you'll actually burn fewer calories than most people (1.2 vs 2)? Sounds like more of a decrease than a bump to me.

If the rest of the article is like that quote, it isn't worth the paper it's printed on.

It also says 2 calories per kilogram of bodyweight are burned per minute? Yeah, okay. So if I weigh 41kg, that means I burn about 82cals per minute, and since there's 1440 minutes in a day, then that means.... I burn 118080 calories a day?!? LOL!

I think it's PER HOUR and not per min. That doesn't seem right. Here's an example for per hour:

I've thought that it means that you burn 2 cal/kg of lean muscle mass. You can use a body fat calculator for this whether is a caliper of an electrical impulse on a scale. Say your 30% body fat and you weight 170lbs. 170 - (170*.3) = 119 lbs of body fat. Convert to kg => 119 / 2.2 = 54kg. Calories burned per min with lean muscle mass = 54 *2 = 108 cal per hr. The entire day? 2597 cal/day.

Original Post by kristinedaqueen:

Original Post by floggingsully:

Or maybe it's because your deficit is bigger when you exercise.

 ACTUALLY, I eat more when I exercise, thanks.

but you also burn more, so your deficit would be bigger, which equals more weight loss, you're welcome. 

I actually find you kind of annoying....

My deficit is smaller because I eat back the calories I burn.

Maybe you should just be OK with the fact that you dont know the answer to everything. =)

I think I've decided that I don't give a crap what any article says. 

I know what works for me.  I know what's been working for me as I lost the last 30 pounds.  I know I was doing little to no strength training and I also know that much of what I lost was fat.  So, I'm not buying melkor's constant hammering that cardio is only good for "not being out of breath when you walk up stairs".  It absolutely burned a bunch of fat off my body.  Might I have retained more muscle by strength training?  Sure.  Do I care about retaining a ton of muscle?  Nope.  I've always carried lots of muscle, especially in my legs. 

So, while melkor can link me to 25 articles telling me I'm wrong, I'll bet I could link him to as many telling him he's wrong.  You can show me articles that insist the composition of my food is vitally important (carbs, protein, fats) and I can show you articles telling you that the only thing that matters is how many calories you consume.  Not what kind.  This could go on all year.  We all have access to the Internet and we all know there are sources that will back up the benefits of any hair brained idea we come up with.  Drilling holes in your scull - great!  Beat your children into submission - okay!

Really, it's great to come hear for advice.  To see what's really working for real life people.  But, to read anything on the Internet (or in a magazine that isn't - at minimum - a peer reviewed science journal) and take it's word as gospel is f'ing ridiculous.

Find what you like.  What you can commit to.  What seems to be working for you.  Do that.  If it doesn't work or you hate it (and so will never stick with it) don't do it.  Find something else.

Original Post by kristinedaqueen:

I actually find you kind of annoying....

My deficit is smaller because I eat back the calories I burn.

Maybe you should just be OK with the fact that you dont know the answer to everything. =)

So you're saying that the laws of physics don't apply to you? Am I reading that right, you had a small deficit and made it smaller and lost more weight?

Do regular grits only take 5 minutes to cook in your kitchen too?