chinarider

weight loss?
Good article. What do you think? I'm 64 and have gone through periods in my life when I've been in very good shape and exercised a lot and other periods when I've exercised little if at all and gained weight. The only way I've ever been able to lose weight is when I exercise a lot. However I've never needed to lose more than about 20 lbs ( which at 5' 4" is a fair amount) and when I'm exercising a lot, I'm also eating better and drinking less. What do you all think?


https://www.vox.com/2016/4/28/1151880...-burn-calories

adamhenry

It seems a little obvious but the key to losing weight is burning more calories than you consume. There are many ways to burn calories. The trick is in the counting. I am currently losing about 2lbs. a week by reduction of intake combined with increased exercise.

chinarider

If you read the article, what they're saying is that the calories in/ calories out model is overly simplistic and doesn't hold up in the real world. I think exercise is important, but it's not with the mathematical precision many assume.

Heathpack 

Articles like this are honestly just misleading. Most of these studies "proving" exercise "doesn't work" for weight loss take an unrealistic approach. They look at exercise alone, with no calorie restriction. Or they look at exercise with big calorie restrictions and inadequate protein, so people invariably get the double whammy of a lowered metabolic rate (from the calorie restriction) and an even more lowered metabolic rate (from the muscle loss from the protein restriction). People in these studies don't train, meaning they don't increase the intensity of their exercise as they become fitter, so they become more efficient over time & actually burn less calories for the given amount of exercise. These articles also cite stupid things (like people believing the calorie burn estimates from exercise machines) as 'evidence' that you don't burn as much as you think.

However, following common sense works- moderately calorie-restrict your diet while not protein-restricting it, increase the intensity of your exercise over time and realistically track calories burned (power meter is helpful). That's pretty much the formula for most people & exercise is a key part of it.

adamhenry

Yes they make some very good points. They summarize some towards the end:

"The researchers behind the study found that people who have had success losing weight share a few things in common: They weigh themselves at least once a week. They restrict their calorie intake, stay away from high-fat foods, and watch their portion sizes. They also exercise regularly.

But note: These folks use physical activity in addition to calorie counting and other behavioral changes. Every reliable expert I've ever spoken to on weight loss says the most important thing a person can do is to limit calories in a way they like and can sustain, and focus on eating healthfully."

I count calories and I don't use exercise as an excuse to eat more. Actually what I do is a little more complex than counting calories. I count macros(fat, carbs, protein). I try to hit my allowed macros as close as possible without going over and do it by eating whatever I want within certain limits.. The exercise is just insurance that I burn more than I eat. So far I've lost 19lbs. and have a few more to go.

Machka 

Yup ... it all comes down to CI<CO.

I lost 25 kg (55 lbs) using CI<CO in 2015.

With mathematical precision, I counted all the calories I consumed (CI) and all the calories I burned through existing and exercise (CO), and I lost precisely what I wanted to lose. Really remarkably simple and straightforward.

kzin

This is all that really matters and why most arguments about the right way to lose weight are amazingly stupid.

Tundra_Man 

For me I've found I can exercise all I want and I won't lose weight. Probably because if I'm not counting calories I'm eating more and nullifying the calorie burn of the exercise.

When I focus on reducing my caloric intake, I lose weight. I use exercise as a tool to increase that deficit.

It's pretty simple from a math perspective, but surprisingly difficult when I'm eyeing the pan of brownies someone left on the break room table.

Seattle Forrest

You can lose weight without any exercise at all, because weight is purely a matter of calories. But this is a cycling website, so probably everybody here exercises. Also, there's a lot more to health than weight (although it's a huge piece) and exercise is very good for things like your fitness. If you have a history of diabetes in your family, exercise increases your sensitivity to insulin. For everybody, it makes you happy.

Riding a bike a lot gives me goals, ones that are a lot more meaningful to me than just maintaining my current weight. I need to be fit to accomplish them, but that's just a side effect of wanting to have fun and see pretty places.

I tend to crave healthier foods during the periods of my life when I've exercised regularly.

chinarider

That's not what this article says at all. It is saying that exercise alone won't do; that it has to be combined with attention to intake.

I don't think the authors would disagree. The problem is that one can't increase intensity indefinitely. Metabolic adaptions do occur and there is a point of diminishing returns. In this regard the studies involving twins and the hunter/gatherer tribe (while limited) are interesting. A relatively new exercise program can lead to weight loss even without substantially changing diet, but this is inevitably short lived.

While activity is no doubt important, and exercise imparts benefits aside from weight loss, in the long run I think diet is the most important component of weight control. Take some time looking at people's carts in the grocery store. While there are always exceptions, by and large the extremely overweight people have carts filled with processed food, sugary drinks, pizza, chips and the like. The people with body compositions most would aspire to have carts with fruits and vegetables, low fat protein and whole grain foods. This may be a generalization, but I think it holds up pretty well.

BTW, I think the title given the article misrepresents what it's saying. I doubt the authors chose it.

ypsetihw

+1 on the weight loss vs fitness clarification. I have lost probably 25 lbs this year. I am about 5 lbs away from my "goal" but then I will revise that goal. I have made HUGE gains however in fitness during that time, and I look (and actually am) stronger and fitter than I did at this weight last year, because my body composition has changed. the whole preoccupation with weight has nothing to do with strength, fitness, and overall health.

look at some olympic sprinters, football players, hell even lebron james is technically "obese" based on a basic BMI calculation. they are all very strong, fit, healthy, and upwards of 200-250lbs, sometimes more.

prathmann

So after several pages explaining in great detail how exercise is at most of minimal importance in losing weight and may even be counter productive, they still note that most people who successfully lose weight and keeping it off do in fact include regular exercise as part of that effort.

Hmm, maybe exercise isn't as insignificant as all their previous discussion would have you believe. I think they're missing a few factors. One is motivation. Regular exercise, especially enjoyable exercise like cycling, swimming, hiking, etc., provides positive feedback when weight losses are achieved. You find that you can cycle faster, hike up hills easier, and swim better. That provides motivation to continue losing weight in order to see even more improvement. Conversely, a gain in weight results in immediate negative feedback as these activities become harder and thus encourage a resumption of weight-loss efforts. Another is muscle building. Muscle tissue consumes more energy even when inactive than fat tissue. So the basal metabolic energy expenditure increases as muscle tissue grows as a result of exercise. I also find that while I'm cycling or hiking/etc. I'm concentrating on that activity and tend not to think about eating. So their comment that a 5-minute snack can undo the caloric effect of an hour's worth of exercise is missing the fact that you weren't eating during that hour. If it had instead been spent watching TV it's more likely that you would have been tempted to grab some food during the hour - and possibly still get the 5-minute snack at the end.

chinarider

Yeah, some of the statements (including the title if it was indeed chosen by the authors) are kind of sensationalized compared to the real conclusions.