4 ms·

The goal of losing weight is to lose fat, it's not about bringing down the number on the scale. Exercise is going to build muscle or at least maintain it. The s

The goal of losing weight is to lose fat, it's not about bringing down the number on the scale. Exercise is going to build muscle or at least maintain it. The second study you linked cites this study that lasted for 12 weeks[0]: >Subjects and methods: In a longitudinal clinical study, 121 healthy, overweight postmenopausal women (age 53.8 +/- 2.5 years, body mass index: 29.7 +/- 3.1 kg/m2) were randomly assigned to 3 groups: controls, a 4,200 kJ/d diet, or a 4,200 kJ/d diet with combined aerobic and anaerobic exercise. >Results: /.../ The mean loss of body weight (9.5 kg versus 10.3 kg, NS) was similar in the intervention groups, but compared with the diet-only group, the diet-plus-exercise group lost more fat (7.8 kg versus 9.6 kg, p < 0.001) and no lean tissue mass (1.2 kg versus -0.0 kg, p < 0.001). The resting metabolic rate (per kg wt) was increased in the diet-plus-exercise group compared with the control group (11% versus 4%, p < 0.009). If the people that exercised stopped exercising they would lose the muscle they gained/maintained and lose additional weight. PS: I like that this study is written in a way that's relatively easy to follow. [0] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8356979/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8356979/

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
arcticbull 3y ago
The point of linking (2) was to provide a meta-analysis of many studies, and to reduce the specific weighting of individual outliers. There were plenty of outliers in the other direction. Measuring after 12 weeks isn't really useful - what matters is long-term outcomes and sustainability - and honestly I don't know that postmenopausal women are entirely representative. The meta-analysis is clear, the longer you wait to follow up the worse the numbers get. > The achievement after 2 years may appear small, averaging 1.64 kg or 1.24 kg m−2 loss of body weight after a combination of dietary changes and increased physical activity. [2] The meta-analysis only included overweight or obese participants, so BMI 25+ or 30+. That's a total body weight change of less than 5%, after 2 years. Even cherry-picking on 6 year study showed a 5% drop in weight, for obese people who need to lose 20 or 30% to return to a normal weight. The important take-aways here are that studies only look good until you follow up on the participants (12 weeks is not useful) - and that statistical significance isn't practical significance. 3lbs of total weight loss after 2 years is good, of course, but it's an umbrella in a hurricane.
- Aerroon 3y ago
  I picked the study because it measured body fat and had a caloric restriction. If you're eating 450 kcal below your TDEE then you are going to lose fat. If your scale doesn't go down then that means you're going to gain weight somewhere else - muscle mass, glycogen, water etc. I think studies about weight loss should include body fat measurements.
- alexey-salmin 3y ago
  Regardless of your intentions when linking (2) the fact remains: exercise groups lose more fat and gain more muscles which means a healthier body. This would still hold true even under the worst-case assumption of no difference in overall weight loss compared to diets. Which is not the case meaning that the effect of exercise is even greater.
  - arcticbull 3y ago
    Respectfully let's not over-index on the "10th dentist" when the whole panel is here eh?

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

arcticbull 3y ago

The point of linking (2) was to provide a meta-analysis of many studies, and to reduce the specific weighting of individual outliers. There were plenty of outliers in the other direction. Measuring after 12 weeks isn't really useful - what matters is long-term outcomes and sustainability - and honestly I don't know that postmenopausal women are entirely representative. The meta-analysis is clear, the longer you wait to follow up the worse the numbers get. > The achievement after 2 years may appear small, averaging 1.64 kg or 1.24 kg m−2 loss of body weight after a combination of dietary changes and increased physical activity. [2] The meta-analysis only included overweight or obese participants, so BMI 25+ or 30+. That's a total body weight change of less than 5%, after 2 years. Even cherry-picking on 6 year study showed a 5% drop in weight, for obese people who need to lose 20 or 30% to return to a normal weight. The important take-aways here are that studies only look good until you follow up on the participants (12 weeks is not useful) - and that statistical significance isn't practical significance. 3lbs of total weight loss after 2 years is good, of course, but it's an umbrella in a hurricane.

Aerroon 3y ago
I picked the study because it measured body fat and had a caloric restriction. If you're eating 450 kcal below your TDEE then you are going to lose fat. If your scale doesn't go down then that means you're going to gain weight somewhere else - muscle mass, glycogen, water etc. I think studies about weight loss should include body fat measurements.
alexey-salmin 3y ago
Regardless of your intentions when linking (2) the fact remains: exercise groups lose more fat and gain more muscles which means a healthier body. This would still hold true even under the worst-case assumption of no difference in overall weight loss compared to diets. Which is not the case meaning that the effect of exercise is even greater.
- arcticbull 3y ago
  Respectfully let's not over-index on the "10th dentist" when the whole panel is here eh?