5 ms·

"(...) a) watching caloric input and b) exercise have been known as being primary to weight control since antiquity." No. No, no, no and no. This kind of mis

"(...) a) watching caloric input and b) exercise have been known as being primary to weight control since antiquity." No. No, no, no and no. This kind of misinformation is -=dangerous=-. It pushes overweight people into a dead end which will result only in frustration and sickness. What was known was that WHAT you eat can make you fat. Exercise has no impact on your weight (fat-wise). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D0GSSSE4l8U&feature=youtu.be&t=22m50s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D0GSSSE4l8U&feature=youtu.be... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KZ0pz4Ggpis https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KZ0pz4Ggpis

coryl 11y ago
Your links are terribly long, do you have anything specific to show that exercise won't help you lose weight?
- DanBC 11y ago
  You can look at Cochrane collaborations. These show that exercise alone doesn't do much for weight loss. Most people who exercise and who need to lose weight overestimate the calories they lose from exercise and underestimate the calories they get from food, and so they end up not doing enough exercise and then thinking they can have a food treat. Exercise is almost always a good idea. It just shouldn't be pushed as something primarily for weight loss.
  - true_religion 11y ago
    > they end up not doing enough exercise and then thinking they can have a food treat That's why for most people "diet and exercise" during weight loss, means eating less and exercising more, without any treats to balance out the exercise.
  - sageabilly 11y ago
    So it's almost if, in addition to exercising, these people need to track their calorie intake accurately. Truly groundbreaking.
    - DanBC 11y ago
      You missed the point that, for weight loss, counting calories + exercise is no better, and may be worse, than just counting calories.
      - coryl 11y ago
        The basic physics of this doesn't make sense. If you hold calorie intake as constant, and then increase energy expenditure through exercise, then the energy has to come from somewhere. What I think you're saying is that getting overweight people to exercise may yield mixed results because of their lack of discipline or other human psychological factors. But to suggest that exercise doesn't help with weight loss goes against the laws of physics.
        DanBC 11y ago
        Look it up. There have been plenty of studies. You should recommend exercise because it's healthy. You should be careful when recommending exercise as a weightloss measure because we know it doesn't help people lose weight. Your comment about laws of physics is true, but misses the point that exercise makes it harder for people to maintain food changes, and it's food changes that are most important for weightloss.
      - duaneb 11y ago
        They aren't different processes. Eating is calorie intake. Exercise is burning calories. The "counting calories" necessarily involves taking into account both. if you live an extremely sedentary lifestyle, you need to eat fewer calories. The more you exercise, the more calories you can intake.
unprepare 11y ago
Consuming fewer calories than you burn is the only way to lose weight. You can adjust either side of the equation by consuming fewer calories, or by burning more calories. It is much more effective to restrict caloric intake than to try and burn off a lot of extra calories - it takes a great amount of effort to burn a lot of calories For example, running 3 miles in a half an hour will only burn around 400 calories, thats a lot more effort than just not eating one double cheeseburger a day. Food choice (or WHAT you eat) only affects your hunger level, it does not contribute in any meaningful way to how you lose weight, other than helping you feel more/less full for longer/shorter (and thus enabling you to consume fewer calories by consuming less calorically dense food)
- Frozenlock 11y ago
  > "Consuming fewer calories than you burn is the only way to lose weight." You need to look at what is driving the calories consumption/burning. Suppose I have a problem with my sink and call a plumber. He looks at it for a few minutes and then says: "Sir, your sink is overflowing because more water got in than got out." No shit, I knew that. That doesn't tell me anything useful. I want to know if drain is clogged, or if someone opened a fire hose in it. The question to ask is 'why'. Why am I overeating? Think about it: You don't see a deer spontaneously explode because there was too much food around it. When it's full, it stops eating. What you eat influences how your calories are partitioned; what your body does with them. If I inject you growth hormones, part of the calories you ingest will be used to make you taller. You'll be hungry because your body is growing. Similarly, if I inject you an extra dose of insulin, you won't be able to just "exercise it away". The insulin will prevent you from accessing the energy in your fat cells (while accumulating more). And because the body sees less energy 'available', it will shut down excessive energy expenditure while sending you a big hunger signal. > "(and thus enabling you to consume fewer calories by consuming less calorically dense food)" I don't know why you shifted from total energy consumption to the energy density, but that's just wrong. You can eat fat and still lose weight.
  - unprepare 11y ago
    Running a caloric deficit is the only way to lose weight. everything else is only methods of doing this, and has nothing to do with the underlying principle.
davidf18 11y ago
Actually, exercise does help to lose weight and reduce fat. As men get older, they have lower amounts of testosterone and and lower muscle mass which results in a lower resting metabolic rate. Muscle tissue burns calories even when you asleep so that calories that might have been converted to fat are consumed by the muscle tissue instead. Thus, exercise that increases the gluteus maximus (buttock muscle) in your legs, the largest muscle, will increase resting metabolic rate which results in weight loss.
- Frozenlock 11y ago
  Increasing metabolic rate doesn't mean you'll loose weight, it means you'll burn more calories. While they are often linked, they are not the same. If you just burn more calories, you'll be hungrier and you'll eat more.
  - duaneb 11y ago
    > While they are often linked, they are not the same Well sure. If you're eating more calories than you're burning, you're gonna have a bad time.
duaneb 11y ago
Exercise burns calories, eventually inducing ketosis, which burns fat. I'm not sure what you're arguing. To burn fat, you either need to burn more calories, or reduce intake calories. The videos you linked are equally confusing. There is no "debate" over diet vs exercise. They're both metabolic characteristics that interact heavily. If you tell a doctor you want to lose weight without burning calories or restricting caloric intake, he's going to laugh you out of the office. Arithmetic doesn't work like that.

coryl 11y ago

Your links are terribly long, do you have anything specific to show that exercise won't help you lose weight?

DanBC 11y ago
You can look at Cochrane collaborations. These show that exercise alone doesn't do much for weight loss. Most people who exercise and who need to lose weight overestimate the calories they lose from exercise and underestimate the calories they get from food, and so they end up not doing enough exercise and then thinking they can have a food treat. Exercise is almost always a good idea. It just shouldn't be pushed as something primarily for weight loss.
- true_religion 11y ago
  > they end up not doing enough exercise and then thinking they can have a food treat That's why for most people "diet and exercise" during weight loss, means eating less and exercising more, without any treats to balance out the exercise.
- sageabilly 11y ago
  So it's almost if, in addition to exercising, these people need to track their calorie intake accurately. Truly groundbreaking.
  - DanBC 11y ago
    You missed the point that, for weight loss, counting calories + exercise is no better, and may be worse, than just counting calories.
    - coryl 11y ago
      The basic physics of this doesn't make sense. If you hold calorie intake as constant, and then increase energy expenditure through exercise, then the energy has to come from somewhere. What I think you're saying is that getting overweight people to exercise may yield mixed results because of their lack of discipline or other human psychological factors. But to suggest that exercise doesn't help with weight loss goes against the laws of physics.
      - DanBC 11y ago
        Look it up. There have been plenty of studies. You should recommend exercise because it's healthy. You should be careful when recommending exercise as a weightloss measure because we know it doesn't help people lose weight. Your comment about laws of physics is true, but misses the point that exercise makes it harder for people to maintain food changes, and it's food changes that are most important for weightloss.
    - duaneb 11y ago
      They aren't different processes. Eating is calorie intake. Exercise is burning calories. The "counting calories" necessarily involves taking into account both. if you live an extremely sedentary lifestyle, you need to eat fewer calories. The more you exercise, the more calories you can intake.

unprepare 11y ago

Consuming fewer calories than you burn is the only way to lose weight. You can adjust either side of the equation by consuming fewer calories, or by burning more calories. It is much more effective to restrict caloric intake than to try and burn off a lot of extra calories - it takes a great amount of effort to burn a lot of calories For example, running 3 miles in a half an hour will only burn around 400 calories, thats a lot more effort than just not eating one double cheeseburger a day. Food choice (or WHAT you eat) only affects your hunger level, it does not contribute in any meaningful way to how you lose weight, other than helping you feel more/less full for longer/shorter (and thus enabling you to consume fewer calories by consuming less calorically dense food)

Frozenlock 11y ago
> "Consuming fewer calories than you burn is the only way to lose weight." You need to look at what is driving the calories consumption/burning. Suppose I have a problem with my sink and call a plumber. He looks at it for a few minutes and then says: "Sir, your sink is overflowing because more water got in than got out." No shit, I knew that. That doesn't tell me anything useful. I want to know if drain is clogged, or if someone opened a fire hose in it. The question to ask is 'why'. Why am I overeating? Think about it: You don't see a deer spontaneously explode because there was too much food around it. When it's full, it stops eating. What you eat influences how your calories are partitioned; what your body does with them. If I inject you growth hormones, part of the calories you ingest will be used to make you taller. You'll be hungry because your body is growing. Similarly, if I inject you an extra dose of insulin, you won't be able to just "exercise it away". The insulin will prevent you from accessing the energy in your fat cells (while accumulating more). And because the body sees less energy 'available', it will shut down excessive energy expenditure while sending you a big hunger signal. > "(and thus enabling you to consume fewer calories by consuming less calorically dense food)" I don't know why you shifted from total energy consumption to the energy density, but that's just wrong. You can eat fat and still lose weight.
- unprepare 11y ago
  Running a caloric deficit is the only way to lose weight. everything else is only methods of doing this, and has nothing to do with the underlying principle.

davidf18 11y ago

Actually, exercise does help to lose weight and reduce fat. As men get older, they have lower amounts of testosterone and and lower muscle mass which results in a lower resting metabolic rate. Muscle tissue burns calories even when you asleep so that calories that might have been converted to fat are consumed by the muscle tissue instead. Thus, exercise that increases the gluteus maximus (buttock muscle) in your legs, the largest muscle, will increase resting metabolic rate which results in weight loss.

Frozenlock 11y ago
Increasing metabolic rate doesn't mean you'll loose weight, it means you'll burn more calories. While they are often linked, they are not the same. If you just burn more calories, you'll be hungrier and you'll eat more.
- duaneb 11y ago
  > While they are often linked, they are not the same Well sure. If you're eating more calories than you're burning, you're gonna have a bad time.

duaneb 11y ago

Exercise burns calories, eventually inducing ketosis, which burns fat. I'm not sure what you're arguing. To burn fat, you either need to burn more calories, or reduce intake calories. The videos you linked are equally confusing. There is no "debate" over diet vs exercise. They're both metabolic characteristics that interact heavily. If you tell a doctor you want to lose weight without burning calories or restricting caloric intake, he's going to laugh you out of the office. Arithmetic doesn't work like that.