5 ms·

Exercise doesn't result in changes in body mass (weight loss), unless accompanied with a diet. https://www.theguardian.com/science/2016/jan/28/study-reveals-th

Exercise doesn't result in changes in body mass (weight loss), unless accompanied with a diet. https://www.theguardian.com/science/2016/jan/28/study-reveals-that-exercise-alone-wont-cause-weight-loss#:~:text=Exercise%20alone%20is%20not%20enough,extra%20calories%2C%20researchers%20have%20found https://www.theguardian.com/science/2016/jan/28/study-reveal....

kevin_thibedeau 4y ago
Yes it can. I had an injury that prevented me from cycling for over a year and slowly gained weight. It all came off after resuming a normal routine without dietary changes.
- epolanski 4y ago
  Well whether you lose/gain weight depends on (caloriesIn - caloriesOut) it's no rocket science. If you didn't compensate anymore as much for lowering the calories out you're obviously going to gain weight.
  - nolok 4y ago
    So what you mean is your original comment could just have much said "exercice results in weight loss unless accompanied by a corresponding change in diet to increase calories intake", aka exercise alone as a change results in weight loss.
    - newaccount74 4y ago
      People get hungry after exercise and automatically eat more to compensate for the spent calories. If you start exercising, but don't watch your nutrition, you will most likely not lose weight.
      - saiya-jin 4y ago
        I don't get why folks often need to reduce such a complex and unique system as our body and its metabolism into some few word description. You are correct, and there is more, much more: psychology, how our body adapts to training, and so does metabolism. One random example of this vast topic - its well known in weightlifting community if you do hard compound exercises near your limits (squats, deadlifts etc) your metabolism switches to 'higher' burn rate (basal metabolic rate IIRC) and you can basically consume more. One sure way to lose weight if thats the goal, but one should never start weightlifting with those exercises, at that intensity. Also, again generally, its pretty non-smart to take sedentary individuals and expose them to HIIT as the study did, even if its just spinning. Body should gradually adapt to workload (=stress) and HIIT should be the final step in training, since its so taxing. Otherwise injuries and lose of motivation will happen more often than not. The systems that need adaptation are numerous - muscles, tendons, ligaments, cardiovascular system, nervous system etc. People are just looking for quick solutions to problems that don't have ones, not good long term at least. Same as diet fads. The cold hard truth that permanent change of fitness/BMI/overall health for the better requires permanent change in nutrition, training and TBH at least a bit overall life approach. Why not start with that?
      - cj 4y ago
        >People get hungry after exercise and automatically eat more to compensate for the spent calories. This isn't universally true. Exercise significantly decreases my appetite for about 3 hours post exercise. And for me, it's not just a barely noticeable decrease - it's an extremely noticeable long-lasting appetite decrease where I'll often end up skipping meals. Do a quick google search for "exercise decrease appetite" for supporting evidence.
        mister_mister 4y ago
        During the exercise the body is in a state of flight or flight[0], the other mode is rest and digest. So during hunger will go away, but the body will want to be able to exert the same or more(because that amount was at least needed), and as such it will start fighting against rapid weight loss by exercise, by increasing hunger, and or slowing metabolism. The reason why this is quite simple, body is unable to see the difference betweenexercise and staying alive in a hostile world. As such staying alive will always be prioritized. If CICO would work then we wouldn't be obesity pandemic[1] [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sympathetic_nervous_system https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sympathetic_nervous_system [1]https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28292617/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28292617/
        px43 4y ago
        That sounds neat. For me, after I exercise, I get ravenously hungry and am unable to concentrate for the rest of the day unless I eat a 3-5k calorie meal. I heard it would get better over time, so I did it for a year, one hour with a really good personal trainer, three times a week. It put a lot of strain on my relationships, and I got in trouble at work since I was basically at half capacity, and couldn't get any work done on Mondays, Wednesdays, or Fridays. I did it for a year and it was the same the whole time. I was also told that eventually I would get "addicted" to exercising, but I hated every moment of it up to the very end. After a year of that, I stopped, and regained my sanity for the most part. I didn't actually lose much weight, but towards the end I had gotten some compliments about looking healthier, which was nice, but not worth the psychological tool it took on me. I guess I'm just sitting here desperately trying to not destroy my body further while I wait for some miracle cure for leptin resistance or something.
      - watwut 4y ago
        First, this heavily depends on how exactly you exercised and on your actual diet. Bulking makes you hungry. Mild cardio or runs makes you less hungry and less likely to just eat crap. Second, your body is rebuilding and healing itself from micro injuries, so eat proteins if you are hungry at that time. That does not mean your dinner then has to be exactly the same as before, you just have to shift when and what you eat.
- ohgodplsno 4y ago
  A part of that weight gain is caused by no longer burning let's say an additional 500 calories a day from cycling, another part is due to lack of activity and muscle atrophy lowering your base metabolic rate. And all of this accounts to one thing: you eat too much for a sedentary lifestyle. Cycling just allows you to compensate. So, sure, exercise helps at a certain point. But, take into account: * If you're fat, your base metabolic rate is insanely high. Obese people are easily at 3000+ calories needed _just_ to maintain that mass. * If you're fat, it's going to be almost impossible for you to do sessions where you burn 500 calories, simply because you're out of shape and possibly exercising injures you. Running isn't exactly good on your knees if you're overweight. Realistically, you'll do 200-300 cal sessions, at best, every day. * If you're fat and you manage to burn these 500 calories... Good job, but that's less than 20% of your daily intake. Not eating something is infinitely more simple and efficient. Our bodies are incredibly efficient at exercising without using lots of energy. Unless you do it for long and hard enough that you reach huge numbers of calories burned, diet is the most important component of losing weight.
  - hhmc 4y ago
    It's 'basal metabolic rate' not 'base', and it's not going to change materially over a year, even with a shift to inactivity.
    - ohgodplsno 4y ago
      Muscle atrophy from not maintaining exercise for a year will absolutely make your BMR change. In the same way, spend a year at the gym lifting weights and your BMR will absolutely go up, even if at the same weight.
      - hhmc 4y ago
        Change, but not materially, maybe 5% or something that doesn't really move the needle like the claim of 500 calories.
  - sasawpg 4y ago
    That simply isn't true. Unlike running, cycling at an low endurance pace is quite gentle on your body. Reaching 500kcal/session isn't going to be a problem after a few weeks of getting your mind and body accustomed to biking for more than 15-30 minutes, and chances of injuries will be quite low, especially if you use a stationary bike. You can hit 400kcal in an hour of biking without too many issues. Larger people will generally put out more power and therefore burn more calories.
- adql 4y ago
  > It all came off after resuming a normal routine without dietary changes. well, doh, if you eat the same and use less you will gain mass. It's not because (lack of) excercise, it's because diet not fitting lifestyle Excercises help in burning more calories so you can actually eat some tasty food from time to time without getting fatter and not going crazy from eating only low calorie stuff and that's about the only effect for weight loss...
  - Fricken 4y ago
    I think what the parent meant by "no dietary changes" is that they didn't have to exercise any special discipline over their diet. If I'm exercising regularly with sufficient intensity my appetite will go up, yes, but I still lose weight. For me, when training, keeping weight on is the dietary challenge. It's hard to eat enough!
petesergeant 4y ago
I think it’s safe to assume that many inactive people start to exercise because they believe it will help them lose weight, however
- Scarblac 4y ago
  I find changing diet much easier when I'm also workig to get into shape at the same time.
CPLX 4y ago
This is nonsense. Try running 70 miles a week on the same diet and see if you weight the same after a few months.
- etothepii 4y ago
  I can't abide this line that it's all about diet. I'm a big guy >270lb. When I moved in 2017 I was living 4.5 miles away from my job down this beautiful disused old railway line. "Jogging" and eventually running the 9 miles a day to get to and from work caused me to lose 80 lbs. Stupidly once the weight was off I bought a car and stopped and over 3 years the weight came back. So much of this stuff is whether you were conditioned from childhood to be active. You can change that, but you probably won't do it on a treadmill in a gym a couple times a week.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
gadders 4y ago
Like the saying goes, you can't out-train a bad diet (unless you're a complete outlier like Eddie Hall or Micheal Phelps or DK Metcalf). This is a good podcast on the topic as well: https://www.artofmanliness.com/health-fitness/health/new-science-of-metabolism-podcast/ https://www.artofmanliness.com/health-fitness/health/new-sci...
- mister_mister 4y ago
  Reading about the diet of DK Metcalf that is Low carb, Intermittent fasting, with plenty of vegetables is according to the latest science. Eddie Hall has goal based diets, Normal people wouldn't be able to process the amount of food he eats, can't be healthy to eat that much. But at the same time it's clearly working for him. Just saying genetics does a disservice to them.
  - VerminOctopus1 4y ago
    Intermittent fasting contributes nothing to weight loss beyond the psychological effect, which may result in calorie restriction. This is the latest science.
    - mister_mister 4y ago
      Calories concept is from 1819.[0] Are you aware how calories are measured? [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calorie https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calorie
  - gadders 4y ago
    I think they are genetic outliers, but they are also outliers in the stresses they are putting on their body. They genuinely need ~12k calories per day (Hall and Phelps).
    - mister_mister 4y ago
      They are genetic outliers because are able to operate at a elite level, but if you would learn more about sport and nutrition then those diets wouldn't look so extreme. They are eating goal based diets, that's different diet then normal person could or should consume. Hall and Phelps diet is not one that very sustainable but Metcalf one is actually the quite similiar to longevity diets. As such statements about that they are just genetic freaks this a disservice to diets they are eating and what we can learn from that. If they would 4k their bodies will start to adjust to those levels, would that be their top performance probably not. The human body is very adaptable to any kind of circumstance.

kevin_thibedeau 4y ago

Yes it can. I had an injury that prevented me from cycling for over a year and slowly gained weight. It all came off after resuming a normal routine without dietary changes.

epolanski 4y ago
Well whether you lose/gain weight depends on (caloriesIn - caloriesOut) it's no rocket science. If you didn't compensate anymore as much for lowering the calories out you're obviously going to gain weight.
- nolok 4y ago
  So what you mean is your original comment could just have much said "exercice results in weight loss unless accompanied by a corresponding change in diet to increase calories intake", aka exercise alone as a change results in weight loss.
  - newaccount74 4y ago
    People get hungry after exercise and automatically eat more to compensate for the spent calories. If you start exercising, but don't watch your nutrition, you will most likely not lose weight.
    - saiya-jin 4y ago
      I don't get why folks often need to reduce such a complex and unique system as our body and its metabolism into some few word description. You are correct, and there is more, much more: psychology, how our body adapts to training, and so does metabolism. One random example of this vast topic - its well known in weightlifting community if you do hard compound exercises near your limits (squats, deadlifts etc) your metabolism switches to 'higher' burn rate (basal metabolic rate IIRC) and you can basically consume more. One sure way to lose weight if thats the goal, but one should never start weightlifting with those exercises, at that intensity. Also, again generally, its pretty non-smart to take sedentary individuals and expose them to HIIT as the study did, even if its just spinning. Body should gradually adapt to workload (=stress) and HIIT should be the final step in training, since its so taxing. Otherwise injuries and lose of motivation will happen more often than not. The systems that need adaptation are numerous - muscles, tendons, ligaments, cardiovascular system, nervous system etc. People are just looking for quick solutions to problems that don't have ones, not good long term at least. Same as diet fads. The cold hard truth that permanent change of fitness/BMI/overall health for the better requires permanent change in nutrition, training and TBH at least a bit overall life approach. Why not start with that?
    - cj 4y ago
      >People get hungry after exercise and automatically eat more to compensate for the spent calories. This isn't universally true. Exercise significantly decreases my appetite for about 3 hours post exercise. And for me, it's not just a barely noticeable decrease - it's an extremely noticeable long-lasting appetite decrease where I'll often end up skipping meals. Do a quick google search for "exercise decrease appetite" for supporting evidence.
      - mister_mister 4y ago
        During the exercise the body is in a state of flight or flight[0], the other mode is rest and digest. So during hunger will go away, but the body will want to be able to exert the same or more(because that amount was at least needed), and as such it will start fighting against rapid weight loss by exercise, by increasing hunger, and or slowing metabolism. The reason why this is quite simple, body is unable to see the difference betweenexercise and staying alive in a hostile world. As such staying alive will always be prioritized. If CICO would work then we wouldn't be obesity pandemic[1] [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sympathetic_nervous_system https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sympathetic_nervous_system [1]https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28292617/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28292617/
      - px43 4y ago
        That sounds neat. For me, after I exercise, I get ravenously hungry and am unable to concentrate for the rest of the day unless I eat a 3-5k calorie meal. I heard it would get better over time, so I did it for a year, one hour with a really good personal trainer, three times a week. It put a lot of strain on my relationships, and I got in trouble at work since I was basically at half capacity, and couldn't get any work done on Mondays, Wednesdays, or Fridays. I did it for a year and it was the same the whole time. I was also told that eventually I would get "addicted" to exercising, but I hated every moment of it up to the very end. After a year of that, I stopped, and regained my sanity for the most part. I didn't actually lose much weight, but towards the end I had gotten some compliments about looking healthier, which was nice, but not worth the psychological tool it took on me. I guess I'm just sitting here desperately trying to not destroy my body further while I wait for some miracle cure for leptin resistance or something.
    - watwut 4y ago
      First, this heavily depends on how exactly you exercised and on your actual diet. Bulking makes you hungry. Mild cardio or runs makes you less hungry and less likely to just eat crap. Second, your body is rebuilding and healing itself from micro injuries, so eat proteins if you are hungry at that time. That does not mean your dinner then has to be exactly the same as before, you just have to shift when and what you eat.
ohgodplsno 4y ago
A part of that weight gain is caused by no longer burning let's say an additional 500 calories a day from cycling, another part is due to lack of activity and muscle atrophy lowering your base metabolic rate. And all of this accounts to one thing: you eat too much for a sedentary lifestyle. Cycling just allows you to compensate. So, sure, exercise helps at a certain point. But, take into account: * If you're fat, your base metabolic rate is insanely high. Obese people are easily at 3000+ calories needed _just_ to maintain that mass. * If you're fat, it's going to be almost impossible for you to do sessions where you burn 500 calories, simply because you're out of shape and possibly exercising injures you. Running isn't exactly good on your knees if you're overweight. Realistically, you'll do 200-300 cal sessions, at best, every day. * If you're fat and you manage to burn these 500 calories... Good job, but that's less than 20% of your daily intake. Not eating something is infinitely more simple and efficient. Our bodies are incredibly efficient at exercising without using lots of energy. Unless you do it for long and hard enough that you reach huge numbers of calories burned, diet is the most important component of losing weight.
- hhmc 4y ago
  It's 'basal metabolic rate' not 'base', and it's not going to change materially over a year, even with a shift to inactivity.
  - ohgodplsno 4y ago
    Muscle atrophy from not maintaining exercise for a year will absolutely make your BMR change. In the same way, spend a year at the gym lifting weights and your BMR will absolutely go up, even if at the same weight.
    - hhmc 4y ago
      Change, but not materially, maybe 5% or something that doesn't really move the needle like the claim of 500 calories.
- sasawpg 4y ago
  That simply isn't true. Unlike running, cycling at an low endurance pace is quite gentle on your body. Reaching 500kcal/session isn't going to be a problem after a few weeks of getting your mind and body accustomed to biking for more than 15-30 minutes, and chances of injuries will be quite low, especially if you use a stationary bike. You can hit 400kcal in an hour of biking without too many issues. Larger people will generally put out more power and therefore burn more calories.
adql 4y ago
> It all came off after resuming a normal routine without dietary changes. well, doh, if you eat the same and use less you will gain mass. It's not because (lack of) excercise, it's because diet not fitting lifestyle Excercises help in burning more calories so you can actually eat some tasty food from time to time without getting fatter and not going crazy from eating only low calorie stuff and that's about the only effect for weight loss...
- Fricken 4y ago
  I think what the parent meant by "no dietary changes" is that they didn't have to exercise any special discipline over their diet. If I'm exercising regularly with sufficient intensity my appetite will go up, yes, but I still lose weight. For me, when training, keeping weight on is the dietary challenge. It's hard to eat enough!

petesergeant 4y ago

I think it’s safe to assume that many inactive people start to exercise because they believe it will help them lose weight, however

Scarblac 4y ago
I find changing diet much easier when I'm also workig to get into shape at the same time.

CPLX 4y ago

This is nonsense. Try running 70 miles a week on the same diet and see if you weight the same after a few months.

etothepii 4y ago
I can't abide this line that it's all about diet. I'm a big guy >270lb. When I moved in 2017 I was living 4.5 miles away from my job down this beautiful disused old railway line. "Jogging" and eventually running the 9 miles a day to get to and from work caused me to lose 80 lbs. Stupidly once the weight was off I bought a car and stopped and over 3 years the weight came back. So much of this stuff is whether you were conditioned from childhood to be active. You can change that, but you probably won't do it on a treadmill in a gym a couple times a week.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

gadders 4y ago

Like the saying goes, you can't out-train a bad diet (unless you're a complete outlier like Eddie Hall or Micheal Phelps or DK Metcalf). This is a good podcast on the topic as well: https://www.artofmanliness.com/health-fitness/health/new-science-of-metabolism-podcast/ https://www.artofmanliness.com/health-fitness/health/new-sci...

mister_mister 4y ago
Reading about the diet of DK Metcalf that is Low carb, Intermittent fasting, with plenty of vegetables is according to the latest science. Eddie Hall has goal based diets, Normal people wouldn't be able to process the amount of food he eats, can't be healthy to eat that much. But at the same time it's clearly working for him. Just saying genetics does a disservice to them.
- VerminOctopus1 4y ago
  Intermittent fasting contributes nothing to weight loss beyond the psychological effect, which may result in calorie restriction. This is the latest science.
  - mister_mister 4y ago
    Calories concept is from 1819.[0] Are you aware how calories are measured? [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calorie https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calorie
- gadders 4y ago
  I think they are genetic outliers, but they are also outliers in the stresses they are putting on their body. They genuinely need ~12k calories per day (Hall and Phelps).
  - mister_mister 4y ago
    They are genetic outliers because are able to operate at a elite level, but if you would learn more about sport and nutrition then those diets wouldn't look so extreme. They are eating goal based diets, that's different diet then normal person could or should consume. Hall and Phelps diet is not one that very sustainable but Metcalf one is actually the quite similiar to longevity diets. As such statements about that they are just genetic freaks this a disservice to diets they are eating and what we can learn from that. If they would 4k their bodies will start to adjust to those levels, would that be their top performance probably not. The human body is very adaptable to any kind of circumstance.