It’s not his disinterest that is the problem. It’s his stance that exercise is nearly worthless with regards to weight loss.
Even a small workout of 300 calories can make a difference. Say your normal lunch is 800 calories. After lunch, you have a net gain of 800 calories. But if you spend your lunch hour walking, you’ll probably burn around 300 calories. If you then eat the same lunch, the net gain is 500 calories. That’s 300 extra calories that isn’t floating around your system. Your body can’t convert those calories to fat if they’re not there.
But begbert will post something about he tried walking once, thought it was stupid, and gave it up. This thread is not called “How does begbert get fat.” I really wish he would stop posting how exercise doesn’t work for him when he’s not making any significant effort to give it a try.
Yes, if you don’t exercise it won’t help you lose weight.
Yes, if you tried an activity once and gave it up it won’t help you lose weight.
Yes, if you exercise and then eat more than you burned it won’t help you lose weight.
Yes, if you only exercise a little bit it won’t help you lose weight (but it may slow your weight gain)
Just because someone doesn’t have the desire to exercise doesn’t mean exercise doesn’t work. Can anyone point to a study where people gained fat by exercising even though they ate the same amount of calories as they did before exercising?
No, but some cites (like the CDC ), say that exercise can help control diabetes. Diet may be a huge factor, but where diet alone might not help, exercise can. Though, probably not 8 miles a week of normal walking.
Epimetheous, actually 5 hours a week of ‘brisk’ walking is probably exactly what doctors are recommending to their diabetic patients, in order to become what they think of as ‘moderately’ fit.
filmore, explain then why all studies that have been done so far that control for diet, show that exercising has a negligible effect on weight compared to diet. I would be interested to see if you can cite any real evidence that indicates the contrary.
I too know some sedentary people that took up some form of activity and dropped a lot of weight without a lot of attention to diet, and I’m not denying their experiences - everyone is different. As I have said several times in this thread, I put on the pounds when I am exercising a lot (of course, I am eating to hunger and building muscle).
The plain fact is for your above formula to work, most people will have to also moderate their food intake and count calories, since your body is finely-tuned to maintain equilibrium - your hunger will increase, and your next meal you can easily consume that extra 300 calories you burned and more. I suppose your theory would work for most people to some degree if they were on a fixed meal plan of x-calories per day, because they were sure to maintain whatever deficit they created with activity. But this isn’t how real people eat.
Without strict attention to diet, exercise is useless for most. And weight loss can be achieved with little activity.
I haven’t seen begbert post anywhere that exercise doesn’t ‘work’ for him. Just that he is not interested in doing anything but cardio on his stationary bike (which, hello, counts as exercise! More than a lot of people get, and more than a few hours of walking per week!), and that he’s had success with weight loss and improvements in general health without it.
I thought this video might add to the discussion. They claim- using brain scans again- that sugary, fatty or salty foods can be as addictive as heroin or cocaine! They also offer some suggestions in combating this addiction.
Ok, according to your second cite I can calculate my net calorie burn with the formula .63* (my weight)= calories per mile.
My weight dropped at an indeterminate rate, so I plugged in 190lbs as an average. My runs were moving from 90 minutes to 180 minutes over 6 months, but 120 minutes was the usual… I took 15 miles as the average, though I think that is a little lowball overall.
So. .63190=119.7 cal/mile. 119.715=1795.5 cal/run. On average every other day, so 1795.5*3.5= 6284.25 net cal/week burned.
I kept a log and can provide somewhat more specific numbers if you really want, but overall there was a lot of variation in the routine and exact numbers are difficult to pin down.
For one, there certainly are more ways to meditate; they can be separated entirely from the exercise.
For two, yoga instructors never deny that people have different body types, and that some poses may not be possible for some individuals. This ins’t a bad thing. Often types who find certain flexibility poses off-limits have access to strength poses which are inaccessible to the flexible types. There isn’t really a better-or-worse division among the types. Not practicing is the only real mistake.
For three, we’ve already determined that yoga has a physical as well as a meditational aspect. Both are in fact interesting to me. I think they cannot be separated in a discussion of yoga, as done in your argument.
Nonetheless, yes, you will find quieting your mind more difficult than doing a few simple physical exercises, IMHO. I think there is ample evidence for this in this thread.
Ironically, I am a yoga fanatic. My usually unlimited monthly pass isn’t in my budget right now, though. It’s not meditative for me - purely a tough workout, that has the bonus of increasing my flexibility.
The studies where exercise doesn’t work show that uneducated people mistakenly drink sport drinks while working out, reward themselves with treats, or otherwise not pay attention to what they are eating. All of those things can negate the benefits of exercise.
It is a mistake to think by working out the pounds will magically melt away without any work. But it is also a mistake to think that by not eating as much the pounds will also melt away without any work. Were you around at the beginning of the thread? The whole reason we started talking about exercise is because people were posting about how hard it was to not eat and that hormones make them hungry all the time. If they can’t control their eating, then they have to:
-Change their eating habits to eat lower calorie foods
-Increase their activity level
The problem with most overweight people is that they don’t have the self control to simply eat less. Yes, if you can eat less it is the simplest and most effective way to lose weight. But if the cravings and hunger are too much (as people were so strongly posting at the beginning), then you must make other changes like exercising more.
I posted this on another board when the Time article came up:
Something I didn’t point out at the time is that you’re improving your quality of life by exercising. Yeah, nobody cares if they miss out on an extra two years of pissing in their Depends. The thing is, if you exercise and stay active for the rest of your life, you get a whole lot less of the “lying around in bed waiting to die” stage of being old. Best case scenario any mortal can hope for is continued good health until the end of your life span, followed by a sudden decline and rapid death.
I fail to see how someone who wasn’t keeping meticulous track of their diet is going to see any benefit from exercising burning 500 calories here or there. If they can’t stop themselves from eating to satisfy their hunger, and their hunger increases with exercise, there isn’t going to be any progress.
I don’t see any evidence of this among hale old people of my acquaintance. None of them have ever ‘exercised’. What they did do is stay moderately active (as in vacuuming their own house and picking up sticks in the yard), and engage in the real world after retirement - keeping busy with hobbies, grandkids, volunteer work. Hence they have remained fairly physically and mentally sharp.
I wonder why so many here refuse to acknowledge that there was no such thing as ‘exercise’ until 40 years ago? Oddly, our adoption as a culture of gym memberships, jogging, power-walking, ankle weights, yoga and pilates tapes, and Wii fit, has conincided with a gain of 30 lbs for the average person over the last few decades.
Sure, men were more likely to have jobs that were physically taxing, and kids played outside more (doing non-intense exercise like playing tag and baseball), and housework for women in the home was less convenient..
There will be progress if they end up burning more than they take in.
I exercise 3X/week. Do I feel hungrier after a 30-min run on the treadmill? Yes, I do. Does that spike in hunger make me go out and stuff my face with calories? No, it doesn’t. I snack more after I exercise, but not on calorie-dense food. I address this hunger with dried fruit, or a jello cup, or some animal crackers. I make a conscious effort to watch how much I eat so that I don’t overboard.
Eventually, after a few hours elapse post-exercise and a snack, I don’t feel hungry at all. The key is waiting out the hunger attack until it passes.
Truth be told, I’m irritated by how many people have glommed on to the “exercise does nothing for weight loss!” press that has recently come out. Mainly because this science only challenges a strawman: who has ever claimed that exercise let’s you eat all the china buffets you want? What has almost universially been preached since forever is “eat less, exercise more”… NOT “eat more, exercise more.” So why are people acting like some huge misconception has been knocked down? It just looks like an excuse to remain sedentary.
And another one: “Exercise makes you hungry, so what’s the point? Focus on eating less!” And dieting doesn’t make people hungry? The truth is, doing anything that causes a net loss in calories (either through dieting or exercising) is going to make people hungry. That alone is not reason to eschew doing something. Finding ways to manage hunger that don’t involve overboard eating is the proper approach, IMO. Easier said than done, I know.
You bring up a very valid point. The level of control someone has over their hunger will be the ultimate factor in their success. The one exception is that you can do high levels of excercise and achive a level of activity that outpaces your hunger. I know people who train for ironman triathlons who struggle to eat enough even though they eat plates and plates of food. However, that’s a higher level of activity than most people would do.,
I think, though, that exercise plus diet control is easier than just one or the other. That is certainly the case for me. I eat a pretty regular diet. Cereal in the morning, sandwich + side at lunch, and a varied dinner but I’m pretty consistent with portion size. I find it much easier to reduce 600 calories by restricting 200 calories of food and doing 400 calories of exercise. If I just try to restrict 600 calories of food, I have cravings all day and have to really struggle not to overeat at meal times. But with the 400 calories of exercise, I feel little to no extra hunger from cutting out 200 calories as compared to doing nothing.
I would not be surprised if I gained weight when trying just restriction. I thought about food all the time. But I would not come out and say restriction doesn’t work. Restriction worked, but it made it very difficult for me to maintain. Exercise works great for me. I just get a little hungrier from exercise. I can do an 800 calorie exercise, eat an apple, and my hunger is gone. But not eating 600 calories would create cravings during the day and willpower issues at mealtime.
One thing that’s probably important with post-exercise meals is to eat things that are food and not fuel. Gatoraid, powerbars, soda, etc. are readily absorbed as fuel. Your body does a miminal amount of processing on it. It may not trigger your body to stop the hunger signals. But if you eat normal things like fruits, sandwiches, etc, your body gets the signal that it has food and the hunger may go away.
Well, hardly scientific proof, but an interesting story here. (don’t let the long, annoying ambien commercial turn you off)
72 years old and has been body-building for 40+ years. No medical problems, no medications, etc (at least according to him, of course). Mind you, he apparently doesn’t eat meat either, though I don’t know how long he has had that diet.
I’m curious as to your “definition” of exercise. People have been playing football/soccer variants and other sports for a long time. A very, very long time. The Olympics basically became a modern thing in the late 1890s. That is more than 40 years ago. The marathon started getting ran about that time (though some might claim earlier).
People have likely “ran” for exercise for longer than that. Certainly soldiers trained for “exercise” before there was even a modern gym. (Keep in mind, Gymnastics were also showcased in the 1896 Olympics, so there was actually a modern gymnasium at that point.
Lets not forget that all of this dates back from the Ancient Greeks, who did all of these things (included going to a gym for “exercise” and weightlifting even) back in 300 or so B.C.
Also, let us not forget our Asian counterparts, the martial arts and yoga “exercisers”.
