I disagree with this assertion strongly. I’m a personal trainer, and am involved with this subject on a daily basis and have been for years. I’ve also personally practised it for years with success.
It’s 80% diet, 20% exercise. The calorie values of an hour of exercise compared to a small amount of food make that so. You have to do hours of solid exercise to work of one single cheeseburger.
Diet. Diet. Diet. That matters. Exercise helps a little, and is good for your shape when the blubber’s gone, but that fat’s going away with diet, not exercise.
I have to watch what I eat. Stops me getting fat. Given that I’ve kept the fat off, the exercise stops me looking scrawny. But the exercise isn’t what’s stopping me getting fat - it’s saying no to that cheeseburger.
Given your question, it’s clear you already know this. Of course, dieters want to lose fat not weight; they coloquially use the terms interchangeably. And they measure their fat reduction by use of weight measurement, which is obviously not ideal - although from the POV of a heavy (fat) person, it works pretty well on average.
You can’t put on more than a few pounds of muscle in a year - assuming you’re a bodybuilder on steroids. You can, however, lose 30+ pounds of fat in a year fairly easily. So the “putting muscle weight on as you lose fat” isn’t usually a very good analysis - the two don’t happen at even close to the same rate.
From personal experience, I agree with the first part of your assessment (although maybe I’d make it 70:30 diet:exercise, same idea, though), but don’t agree with the second. A cheeseburger is, what, 500 calories? (That’s for a McD’s double cheeseburger. Single cheeseburger there is 300 calories, but I’ll assume a bigger cheeseburger.) That’s less than an hour’s run for a slow runner and 30-40 minutes for a decent runner.
Yeah, I was exaggerating a little - to point out the imbalance between food intake calories and those expended by exercise. My point being that it’s a* lot* of work to run off a non-healthy diet.
Dropping your calorie intake by 500 per day is a hell of a lot easier (and much less time consuming) than increasing your exercise level by 500 calories per day (and both only save you 1lb of fat per week).
Doing it by 1000 (2lbs of fat per week) and unless you’re a professional athlete paid thousands to spend hours exercising every day, you’re not going to do it. If you’re dropping 2lbs per week, you’re dieting. No way you’re doing it through exercise unless you’re an extreme case able to run 3 hours every day without fail - which 99.999% of people are not. And we’re not talking about the extreme cases.
It really depends on how much you are looking to lose. If you weigh 300 pounds, it’s pretty easy to construct a healthy diet that provides all needed nutrition and still leaves you with a caloric deficit of 1000 calories. If you are also burning 300-400 calories a day in exercise, that’s useful, but a pretty small portion of what’s burning fat.
If that same person later weighs 135 lbs and are trying to get to 130, it’s pretty much impossible to construct a healthy diet that provides all the nutrients you need and still leaves you with a calorie deficit–your base metabolic rate is just so much lower. You might be able to construct a 250 calorie deficit, but much over that is difficult–especially if a person is older. At that point, the 400 calories a day you are burning through exercise is a much larger portion of your calorie deficit.
If you are maintaining, an extra 400 calories a day is a significant difference in your quality of life.
I agree, but you’re still exaggerating a little. Unless you’re really friggin slow, to burn off 1000 calories a day by running is going to be less than two hours run, more like an hour and a half, and even as little as an hour ten or so. (Or if you’re of racing quality, we’re talking under an hour, but I’m assuming 8-9/mile average.) That said, you need the stamina to maintain that run.
It also depends on how heavy you are. I weigh about 92kg and a 5k run will burn something like 400-500 calories. If I lost weight and got down to say 75-80kg, I’m going to burn fewer calories on the same run.
I used to think the way AClockWorkMelon does. The reason being that when I’ve got into doing exercise at various times in my life, I haven’t felt like I was changing my eating habits at all, but I would lose significant weight. I think what happens, for me at least, is that when I’m exercising I’m not snacking, and I tend to not feel like eating as much on a day that I’ve been exercising.
A couple of things I’ve done recently to try and improve my health is to snack on carrots instead of the old sandwiches and cut down my alcohol intake. By snacking on carrots (doesn’t have to be carrots, I just like them) I’m able to maintain my actual eating habit of munching on something while I’m at the computer, but it isn’t adding much to my daily calorie intake. I’ve found cutting out alcohol to be very easy, I don’t drink it if it’s not there and so I just don’t buy it unless there’s a particular occasion, and then I only buy what I’m going to drink that night.
You can put on a lot of muscle very quickly if it’s your first year exercising. I read a study that followed “middle-aged sedentary females” placed on a moderate aerobic exercise program (basically, walking), and they gained an average of 5 pounds of muscle each in 6 weeks. You could easily beat that with a strength-training program instead of an aerobic program.
Sure. I’m doing my calculations on someone at about 60-70 kg. So a heavier person would burn more in the same time. edit: That is, for a comparable pace.
Looks like my memory tricked me: I looked it up and it was 12 weeks, not 6 weeks, and it was 4.3 pounds of muscle. Still, that’s pretty significant for cardio (not weightlifting) exercise.
I don’t see how people on an aerobic exercise program could put on 4.3 pounds of water weight. Also, note that the people on the less intensive exercise program only put on 1.8 pounds of fat-free mass. These things combined suggest that it’s muscle mass, or at least that the majority of it is muscle mass.
I don’t see how they could put on 4.3lbs of muscle mass in that time. Seriously, man, it’s impossible. It’s superhero fiction levels of muscle boost.
There are only two possible explantions - they had Captain America’s super-soldier serum, or it wasn’t all muscle mass. The former is ridiculous, and the latter is possible - so why would one assume the comic-book explanation rather than the possible explanation?
Even bodybuilders on steroids would consider that a pretty incredible rate of muscle increase. Since these people were neither bodybuilders nor on steroids, there’s only one possible explanation available - it wasn’t all muscle mass.
I’ve known many dozens of people on serious muscle-mass increasing training programs (heavy resistance training, every day, masses of protein - doing everything right). I - unfortunately - know that some of those used anabolic steroids, much to my dismay. None of them achieved the rate you cite.
Sorry. It’s simply not possible to put muscle on at that rate without delving into sci-fi. Unless you have some evidence that someone has achieved this miraculous exercise regime (and presumably they’re a billionaire now, with a discovery like that), “I assume fat-free mass means muscle mass” isn’t going to cut it when there’s a much less fantastical explanation.
I’m saying unless someone can show me it’s possible, I refuse to believe it. I’m merely refuting non-cited claims. I cannot prove a negative, obviously, and it’s somewhat pithy you asking me to do so. I have never seen any eveidence which leads me to beleive that’s possible, and if such evidence exists, I’d be delighted to see it. The above cited evidence is far too vague (“fat-free mass”).
Do you believe it’s possible to put on 4lbs of muscle with an aerobic exerice program without steroids in 12 weeks? If so, I’m totally willing to listen to you - that information will enhance my career massively! I’ll be* really *rich, real quick.
Honestly, I’d love to know how to do that. It’s the PT’s dream formula!
I mean, if you really want to “win” the argument - no I can’t prove that’s not posssible. I merely reiterate my firm belief that it’s not possible, and that I’ve never seen any evidence to indicate that it is. If you wish to take that as proof it is possible - then more power to you. I have no problem with that - I merely reiterate that, based on my own experience, I don’t believe it without evidence. That is a perfectly reasonable position to take.
I assume you could link me to some studies that showed how much muscle people could expect to gain in 3 months time. For myself, back when I was younger, I went from a pencil-necked geek to someone who was much more impressed with his muculature in the course of a summer. I know I gained more than 4 lbs, and since I had water weight before, I am assuming I didn’t put on additional water weight. Are you saying muscle holds more water than fat? I am trying to follow your claim here, and getting lost.