Page 1 of 8 12345678 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 214

Thread: Want to lose weight? Stop exercising.

  1. #1
    How To Go
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    **gone**
    Posts
    11,235

    Want to lose weight? Stop exercising.

    Exercise is great. Makes you health, your heart stronger, and improves your mood. As a tool for losing weight, it isn't all that useful. Exercise and the majority of people end up being hungry and eating a lot more than if they just sat around watching TV.

    http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/l...cle6878496.ece

    That said, I've never lost significant weight without exercise but then maybe it was the life style change in general that had more impact. That said, I may talk to my doctor about my options since I haven't been able to really exercise for the past couple of years.

  2. #2
    Neo Acoustic
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Lahndahn - UK, PSN and Xbox ID: Huntorama
    Posts
    1,840
    I don't think it's a case of "stop exercising". The article says if you do a load of exercise and then eat more, you're unlikely to see a change. It's just your usual lifestyle pages attention-grabbing headline on top of some fairly standard arguments. Diet, in terms of appropriate quantity and quality, and exercise. If your weight is at an equilibrium and you want to change it, maintain one and alter the other as appropriate. Common sense stuff. It's the willpower and everything being so damn delicious that makes it hard to balance the books for some people.
    Last edited by Hunty; 10-21-2009 at 05:02 AM.

  3. #3
    Social Worker
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Northrend
    Posts
    2,401
    The minute cheese ceases to make me fat, I'll be thin, LONG LIVE CHEESE!!!

  4. #4
    How To Go
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Pasadena, Ca
    Posts
    11,328
    The study that started all this was first published in Time Magazine. Here is the LA Times response, which basically says if exercise made you fat, why are athletes all thin? I have no clue why Time didn't vet that article a lot better. In the end, it's simply calories in/calories out. This is why I'm still tempted to trademark my new diet called "Eat Less, Move More". This diet will have the backing of thousands of doctors around the world, has been shown to work since before the birth of Jesus, and is very easy to do. I'll go on the speaker circuit, charge everyone $100 to listen, and make millions, I'm sure.

  5. #5
    World's End Supernova
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Posts
    17,033
    That's fairly basic stuff. If you burn an extra 500 calories exercising and then eat 600 extra calories because you're really hungry afterwards you've basically wasted your time, in terms of weight loss.

  6. #6
    Social Worker
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Dallas, TX Gamertag: Falgo
    Posts
    2,945
    Not to mention that weight is kind of a stupid metric to use to gauge fitness. It's much better to use bodyfat percentage. I'm disgusted if I put on 10 pounds of fat, but elated if I put on 10 pounds of muscle, even though the scale wouldn't show any distinction between the two.

  7. #7
    Account closed How To Go
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Gamertag: Japrufrock
    Posts
    13,675
    Yeah, it's a stupid point that has been brought up in all the other dieting threads and then quickly shot down.

    As I've mentioned before, I was in a medical experiment as part of a control group where one group (the one they were looking at) kept the caloric intake leveled but exercised a lot more, one group (mine) didn't exercise but lowered caloric intake by quite a bit, one group exercised, but ate more and the last group did fuck all.

    The goal was to have the main group and my group lose the same amount of weight on average, but then look at a number of other factors to gauge if one weight loss was "better". The test clearly showed that the group who lost weight and exercised were healthier (cholesterol, insulin and a number of other factors I'd have to look up).

  8. #8
    World's End Supernova
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    19,394
    “I don’t think they’re hungry, I think it’s a reward issue,” Church says.
    I'm not sure what normal cardio exercise does to true appetite, but dedicated weightlifting will obviously ramp it up through the roof. The bitch there is you can't merely avoid junk food; I found that I had to make a conscious effort to consume food that offered the most nutrients for the calories. There are other problems with gaining fat while weightlifting but that's not a concern for the average overweight person.

    I've finally reached the point in my life where I've gained a few pounds from my normal weight. I haven't exercised consistently in a while but still blame it on the availability of junk food. My wife took over grocery shopping and loves to buy the stuff, take one bite, and then let it sit for a week until I gobble it up. :)

  9. #9
    Neo Acoustic
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    1,757
    Quote Originally Posted by WarrenM View Post
    That's fairly basic stuff. If you burn an extra 500 calories exercising and then eat 600 extra calories because you're really hungry afterwards you've basically wasted your time, in terms of weight loss.
    Yeah, generally. But exercise does increase your basal metabolic rate, so in addition to the number of calories you burn from the exercise, there's some additional burning of calories that occurs afterwards.

  10. #10
    World's End Supernova
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Summit of Mt. Sexy
    Posts
    19,186
    You can also eat foods that aren't loaded with calories.

    Second, exercise makes people eat more. “I don’t think they’re hungry, I think it’s a reward issue,” Church says.
    Oh good well whatever you think certainly qualifies as empirical evidence.

  11. #11
    Social Worker Reed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    San Francisco
    Posts
    2,011
    Yeah, it's pretty simple. Exercise can make you hungry + people often eat some ice cream or whatever that night as a reward (I used to too sometimes before I really started thinking in basic terms of calories consumed vs burned). Which can completely void whatever calorie deficit they might have achieved. But of course the exercise will still have been beneficial, just maybe not weight loss wise.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tim James View Post
    I'm not sure what normal cardio exercise does to true appetite, but dedicated weightlifting will obviously ramp it up through the roof. The bitch there is you can't merely avoid junk food; I found that I had to make a conscious effort to consume food that offered the most nutrients for the calories.
    Indeed. Consuming all of it with clean calories is tough. About a year ago I did Mark Rippetoe's program, eating 4000-5000 calories/day and trying not to put on much fat weight. So I was very strict with the diet, spreading the calories out over the day (every 3 hours) and eating only good fats. In addition to feeling like a 2nd job, it got pretty boring after a couple months since I didn't want to put more time into the diet. So I largely stuck with the same stuff every day.
    Last edited by Reed; 10-21-2009 at 08:57 AM.

  12. #12
    motmot intention How To Go
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    11,791
    I've never been really hungry after exercising. Ever. I mean, extra hungry, from exercising, not just because it was dinnertime, or 7 hours after I ate last, or whatever. Except maybe after running 20 miles, but that was because it took hours and hours and I just got hungry as normal. This is just me, your experience may vary.

    I don't buy that exercising makes you hungry. Maybe on some macro level. But I do think it's a valid argument that it's way easier to lose eight by eating less caloric food than yo exercise. You have to run for an hour at a moderate pace to lose 500-600 calories, which is the same as not having a handful of cookies or a large croissant with butter. Or two 20 ounce bottles of coke. I mean, cut out a few cookies or bottle of coke, or run for an hour. That seems like an easy effort choice (though admittedly it takes a lot of willpower).

  13. #13
    World's End Supernova
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    19,394
    Quote Originally Posted by Reed View Post
    Indeed. Consuming all of it with clean calories is tough. About a year ago I did Mark Rippetoe's program, eating 4000-5000 calories/day and trying not to put on much fat weight. So I was very strict with the diet, spreading the calories out over the day (every 3 hours) and eating only good fats. In addition to feeling like a 2nd job, it got pretty boring after a couple months since I didn't want to put more time into the diet. So I largely stuck with the same stuff every day.
    Watching all that was an interesting... exercise... at one point in my life but now I just lift weights casually out of enjoyment without getting real dedicated to it. I still get very cranky with low blood sugar but have finally gotten into the habit of carrying hard candy around, so I'm able to calm down my hunger while avoiding the quick calorie dumps from oversized junk food portions.

  14. #14
    New Romantic
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Portland, Oregon. In a box.
    Posts
    5,448
    If the amount of calories you burn through exercise is greater than the amount of calories you eat then you will be hungry. This is indisputable. Your body will want to replace what it lost. The trick is feeding your body what it really needs to achieve your goals. Want to build mass? Match your caloric loss with a ton of high protein, high carb food. Want to lose a lot of weight? Eat lots of vegetables and cut out empty carbs and fats. Want to gain muscle AND lose fat? This take a lot more work and experimentation as you find the foods that let you keep the muscle with a minimum of fat.

  15. #15
    motmot intention How To Go
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    11,791
    Yeah, true, but if the average person eats say, 2000 calories a day, they would have to run at a brisk pace for 3 to 4 hours per day to offset that amount of calories. Even if you were only consuming 1200 calories a day, that's still 2 hours of brisk running, per day. That's a whole lot of exercise while not eating a whole lot.

    Of course you also burn calories just existing and walking around. But I bet you have to exercise a lot for it to actually make you hungry. I suspect if you get hungry after exercising a moderate amount (say 30 minutes on a cardio machne at the gym), it's just because you haven't eaten in a while.

  16. #16
    New Romantic
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Portland, Oregon. In a box.
    Posts
    5,448
    Sure, but just like caloric intake is cumulative, so is exercise. Let's say you walk to and from the train station, sprint a block to catch a bus, walk a few flights of stairs while at the office and then move some furniture BEFORE you do your official running for the day. It all helps.

    On the other hand, if you eat 2,000 calories a day and literally don't move at all (go straight to your desk and sit in front of a computer for 15 hours) you need to lower your caloric intake. Chances your body is already trying to make you do so. Have you ever skipped lunch and had a light dinner just because you weren't that hungry?

  17. #17
    Social Worker
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    The Bottomless Pit of Despair
    Posts
    4,603
    I would add to caloric intake the need to space out your meals. Never put your body into starvation mode. You'll just drop metabolic rate and store fat.

  18. #18
    motmot intention How To Go
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    11,791
    Quote Originally Posted by noun View Post
    Have you ever skipped lunch and had a light dinner just because you weren't that hungry?
    No.

    OM NOM NOM.


  19. #19
    motmot intention How To Go
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    11,791
    Anyway, joking aside, we are getting way off topic. The title of the thread and article, I find misleading.

    But the first sentence (byline, really) is pretty accurate, I think:

    In the fight against obesity, we’re urged to get off the couch. Yet new research claims that diet is what counts

  20. #20
    New Romantic
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Frankfurt, Germany
    Posts
    6,758
    Quote Originally Posted by Lorini View Post
    In the end, it's simply calories in/calories out.
    Exactly. This article is retarded. I should make my own counter study that concludes: Eating less doesn't make you lose weight. Then I can argue that if you eat less, but also do less exercise, you won't lose any weight...

  21. #21
    New Romantic
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    7,295
    I find that the important part about exercise isn't that you lose weight, but that you redistribute the weight you've got.

    - Alan

  22. #22
    How To Go Enidigm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    10,573
    The fastest way to lose weight is to exercise all day long and eat nothing.

    Why hasn't anyone thought of this before? I'll call it the "plantation" diet!

  23. #23
    Social Worker
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Silicon Valley
    Posts
    4,856
    I think the amount of exercise is a factor. Long distance runners, competitive swimmers and other endurance athletes often have metabolisms that just burn up what they eat even when sitting still. This, despite lower heart rates.

    Someone that exercises about a 1/2 hour a day, 4-5 days a week won't substantially alter their metabolism. Someone that runs 6-10 miles a day, 6-7 days a week, will.

  24. #24
    World's End Supernova
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    19,394
    Quote Originally Posted by noun View Post
    If the amount of calories you burn through exercise is greater than the amount of calories you eat then you will be hungry. This is indisputable.
    Is this true? You can't eliminate hunger and reduce calories by eating foods that make you feel full or whatever?

  25. #25
    Social Worker
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    The Bottomless Pit of Despair
    Posts
    4,603
    Quote Originally Posted by Case View Post
    Someone that exercises about a 1/2 hour a day, 4-5 days a week won't substantially alter their metabolism. Someone that runs 6-10 miles a day, 6-7 days a week, will.
    You're going to come up with a citation for that, because if you're building muscle through effective consistent half-hour exercise sessions, you're going to change your metabolic rate. If anything what I've read suggested the contrary is true - that running (aerobic exercise) isn't as effective a basal rate factor as changing your muscle mass.

  26. #26
    Social Worker
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Looking for a decent pub in Redondo Beach
    Posts
    2,958
    "Swimming sensation Michael Phelps has an Olympic recipe for success - and it involves eating a staggering 12,000 calories a day."

    That said, does the 30 min/500 calorie burn I get on the elliptical 5 days a week have very little effect on my weight/metabolism then? Because right now I can barely move and my shirt is quite liberally sweat covered.

  27. #27
    Social Worker
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    3,053
    Well of course it has an effect. But, to maximize your workouts you should change up what do you. Like, don't do the elliptical every day, use the bike, jog, rowing machine, stair master, whatever. Don't get comfortable in a routine, because then the benefits start to wane. Make your body constantly have to adapt to new things.

    Oh, and don't "congratulate" yourself for working out by eating a pie 6 hours later.

  28. #28
    Social Worker
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Looking for a decent pub in Redondo Beach
    Posts
    2,958
    1/2 a pie...oh and a beer :)

    But yeah that is a definite no no.

  29. #29
    Account closed New Romantic
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Vancouver, BC Gamertag: Shadarr
    Posts
    7,189
    Quote Originally Posted by ElGuapo View Post
    Anyway, joking aside, we are getting way off topic. The title of the thread and article, I find misleading.

    But the first sentence (byline, really) is pretty accurate, I think:
    In the fight against obesity, we’re urged to get off the couch. Yet new research claims that diet is what counts
    If the purpose of the fight against obesity isn't to make people healthier, it's not a fight worth having. A lazy-ass 150 pound couch potato with a weak heart is not better for society than a 250 pound "obese" person who exercises five times a week.

  30. #30
    World's End Supernova
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Seattle, WA
    Posts
    34,142

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •