Why you shouldn't exercise to lose weight, explained with 60+ studies

[MachineGhost]

[quote=http://www.vox.com/2016/4/28/11518804/w ... n-calories]"I'm going to make you work hard," a blonde and perfectly muscled fitness instructor screamed at me in a recent spinning class, "so you can have that second drink at happy hour!"

At the end of the 45-minute workout, my body was dripping with sweat. I felt like I had worked really, really hard. And according to my bike, I had burned more than 700 calories. Surely I had earned an extra margarita.

The spinning instructor was echoing a message we've been getting for years: As long as you get on that bike or treadmill, you can keep indulging — and still lose weight. It's been reinforced by fitness gurus, celebrities, food and beverage companies like PepsiCo and Coca-Cola, and even public-health officials, doctors, and the first lady of the United States. Countless gym memberships, fitness tracking devices, sports drinks, and workout videos have been sold on this promise.

There's just one problem: This message is not only wrong, it's leading us astray in our fight against obesity.[/quote]

[MachineGhost]

[jafs]

This is just common sense, and what most reputable doctors/health care people recommend.

A combination of eating well and exercise.

Why are people so focused on finding one narrow thing that will fix everything?  Good health involves a variety of different things, like diet, exercise, sleep, stress reduction, etc.

[Mountaineer]

Yum, let's get some clogger food.  Looks like the Cheesecake Factory is the winner. 

https://www.entrepreneur.com/slideshow/236079

... M

[MachineGhost]

Yum, let's get some clogger food.  Looks like the Cheesecake Factory is the winner. 

https://www.entrepreneur.com/slideshow/236079

... M

Wow, that is insane for French Toast!!!  I'm getting diabetic and wanting to hurl just looking at that Cheesecake...  (seriously, never been to that place but I envision its like WALL-E-sized lazy fatties stuffing their pieholes all over the place.)

Just hold the sauce on that "Monster Burger" and you'll be fine.  The worst that can happen from overfeeding calories with too much protein is you get a bit of liver fat.  Quack!  Quack!

[Reub]

MG, do you look down your nose at fat people?

[Pointedstick]

Really it's just calories in, calories out. You're probably on the right track if you let yourself feel hungry. Food choice has a lot to do with it too, since a lot of today's manufactured/processed/prepared foods are made in such a way that they suppress the body's feeling of fullness. It would be practically impossible to eat 4,000 calories of, like, carrots. But pasta and cheesecake… pile it on!

[curlew]

I can relate to the results of these studies.

We're told to to lower our caloric intake and exercise to lose weight and it sounds perfectly logical according to the laws of physics but what is overlooked is the fact that when we exercise hard our bodies are going to start demanding more calories. And from my own experience "demand" is the correct word. I can go a long time keeping things under control but at some point if I'm really working out hard on a consistent basis I'll develop a voracious appetite where I just want to eat everything I can get my hands on.

So I've had to learn what it takes to avoid working too hard and putting my body into that mode.

[jafs]

I also get hungrier when I exercise, and eat a bit more.

But the combination of a healthy diet and regular exercise has gotten me to a good healthy weight and good lab results, so I'll stick with it.

[Reub]

Really it's just calories in, calories out. You're probably on the right track if you let yourself feel hungry. Food choice has a lot to do with it too, since a lot of today's manufactured/processed/prepared foods are made in such a way that they suppress the body's feeling of fullness. It would be practically impossible to eat 4,000 calories of, like, carrots. But pasta and cheesecake… pile it on!

Are you sure its just calories in calories out? It might not be that simple. Protein seems to ramp up one's fat burning and eating fat seems to effect certain hormones  that satiate you. Carbs seem to cause a person to store fat.

[MachineGhost]

MG, do you look down your nose at fat people?

No comment.

Another big part of the problem is people are confused over what true exercise is.  It should be specifically for two things: muscle anabolism and cardiovascular conditioning.  It's not entertainment, its not sports and its not specifically to be fun.  Fortunately, you can do both at once so there's no need to engage in catabolic steady-state cardio which seems to be 99% of what fatties do to try to lose weight.  No wonder they get hungry and sabotage themselves!

[Reub]

MG, do you look down your nose at fat people?

No comment.

Another big part of the problem is people are confused over what true exercise is.  It should be specifically for two things: muscle anabolism and cardiovascular conditioning.  It's not entertainment, its not sports and its not specifically to be fun.  Fortunately, you can do both at once so there's no need to engage in catabolic steady-state cardio which seems to be 99% of what fatties do to try to lose weight.  No wonder they get hungry and sabotage themselves!

So it's twue! It's twue!

[Ad Orientem]

Diet: Eat sensibly. Too many people obsess over quantity rather than quality. Eliminate the liquid diabetes (soda) and other super sugary crap foods from your diet. Eat fish and poultry in preference to red meat. Go with grilled or baked over deep fried. Try fruits and vegetables for snacks in preference to potato chips and the like. Save the red meat, fried foods and desserts for rare and special events. You will enjoy that cheeseburger a lot more if you haven't had one in the last six months.

Exercise: You don't need to become Mr/Ms Universe to be healthy. But a regular regimen of moderate exercise is important to overall health. There is a mountain of evidence that shows people who live sedentary lifestyles are more prone to serious health problems and have shorter life expectancy. You don't need an expensive gym membership. All you really need is a comfortable pair of walking shoes that you put to use for 45 minutes a day 5x a week.

Goals: Set reasonable objectives. I am about to turn 50 and I know I am never going to be as thin as I was in High School and the Navy. I am not interested in being in perfect shape. I just don't want to be in a shape. And keep in mind that irrespective of whether your idea of a great dinner is tree bark well done followed by grass soup, or a NY strip steak medium rare with baked potato drowning in cream sauce and butter followed by scotch whiskey and a good cigar for dessert, the one thing we all have in common is that a hundred years from now we will all be fertilizing some nice lawn with pretty stone monuments.

[Reub]

I don't think that's quite enough but a good start. Our food is generally nutrient poor. Intermittent fasting, high intensity training, targeted supplementation,  and proper ratios/timing of carbs /protein/fats must also fit into the equation.

[Xan]

Really it's just calories in, calories out. You're probably on the right track if you let yourself feel hungry. Food choice has a lot to do with it too, since a lot of today's manufactured/processed/prepared foods are made in such a way that they suppress the body's feeling of fullness. It would be practically impossible to eat 4,000 calories of, like, carrots. But pasta and cheesecake… pile it on!

I don't think that's true at all.  The biggest contributor to your resting calorie burn rate is, wait for it...  Your calorie intake!

It's true that calories in - calories out = weight gain/loss.  But most people who trumpet that as a truism mistake what the dependent and independent variables are.  It looks as though by controlling calories in and exercise (calories out), we can dial in the exact weight we want.

Does that work with ANY system in the body?  Take temperature.  Heat in - heat out = body temperature, right?  But I'm at 98.6 without having to worry about whether I'm in a 70-degree room or an 85-degree room.  That's because my body manages my temperature in equilibrium.  (Assuming we're not WAY out of whack on the exterior temperature.)

So the answer on weight is to figure out why your body is targeting a heavier weight than you'd like.  And the answer typically has more to do with what you're eating than the calorie count.

[curlew]

So the answer on weight is to figure out why your body is targeting a heavier weight than you'd like. 

I watched a TED talk about this a while ago and the speaker said research shows that our bodies have a kind of internal thermostat that regulates our weight in much the same was as body temperature. Unfortunately, she said, the thermostat goes up when you gain weight but it does not go back down when you lose weight, even if you keep it off for a long time.

If this be true, then it surely behooves us not to put the weight on in the first place.

[Benko]

1.

It would be practically impossible to eat 4,000 calories of, like, carrots. But pasta and cheesecake… pile it on!

As someone who has recently markedly increased their intake of veggies/legumes/fruits, it is amazing how full I've been. 

2.

Are you sure its just calories in calories out? It might not be that simple. Protein seems to ramp up one's fat burning and eating fat seems to effect certain hormones  that satiate you. Carbs seem to cause a person to store fat.

3. Reub,

I do not think it is as simple as calories in vs calories out, but neither am I sure that the theories you are talking about panned out, at least for everyone and to the extent advertised.  Things may deviate from calories in/calories out the most in obese people eating e.g. simple sugars. 

Women's bodies also hold onto weight for evolutionary reasons and I suspect many of the rules don't work quite as simply with respect to women.

4.  There are beneficial compounds found mainly in animal proteins:

http://examine.com/faq/what-beneficial- ... -products/

5.  There are studies (MG posted previously here) that both lecithin and carnitine (in red meat) are converted into a harmful substance TMAO by the gut bacteria of meat eaters, but not by the gut bacteria of vegetarians.   

However carnitine is a substance needed by and beneficial to the body.

LOTS OF CONTRADICTIONS or at least apparent contradictions.  Care to shed any light MG? 

Any more comments on, or sources for more information on your comment something to the effect that cardiovascular disease has to do with deficiency of nitric oxide?

[MachineGhost]

So it's twue! It's twue!

[MachineGhost]

Exercise: You don't need to become Mr/Ms Universe to be healthy. But a regular regimen of moderate exercise is important to overall health. There is a mountain of evidence that shows people who live sedentary lifestyles are more prone to serious health problems and have shorter life expectancy. You don't need an expensive gym membership. All you really need is a comfortable pair of walking shoes that you put to use for 45 minutes a day 5x a week.

All very common sense advice, except this one.  High intensity at a dramatically lesser duration (as short as a couple of minutes) is superior and a lot more doable.  45 mins x 5x?!!  Seriously, who is kidding about that in this day and age where we're all busy and/or with a lot more interesting things to do... (I mean, besides stuffing your piehole).

[MachineGhost]

I don't think that's quite enough but a good start. Our food is generally nutrient poor. Intermittent fasting, high intensity training, targeted supplementation,  and proper ratios/timing of carbs /protein/fats must also fit into the equation.

8-hour IF alone should be is enough for the fatties just because it cuts down on their anabolic feeding window.

I've often wondered if we actually should spike our insulin and all that jazz in the 8-hour feeding window.  It seems like it may be an especially bad idea to fast 16-hours and also take supplements that activate the same pathways in the 8-hour window.  How does the body ever rebuild???  Currently, I'm experimenting with spiking anabolism without the use of carbs in the 8-hour window to see what happens.

[MachineGhost]

Does that work with ANY system in the body?  Take temperature.  Heat in - heat out = body temperature, right?  But I'm at 98.6 without having to worry about whether I'm in a 70-degree room or an 85-degree room.  That's because my body manages my temperature in equilibrium.  (Assuming we're not WAY out of whack on the exterior temperature.)

Well, that gives the fatties excuses: my set point is too high, I have bad genetics, wah wah wah.  My body temperature is 2 degress below normal so its certainly doable to move your set point.  Just stop eating so much!!!!

[MachineGhost]

I watched a TED talk about this a while ago and the speaker said research shows that our bodies have a kind of internal thermostat that regulates our weight in much the same was as body temperature. Unfortunately, she said, the thermostat goes up when you gain weight but it does not go back down when you lose weight, even if you keep it off for a long time.

If this be true, then it surely behooves us not to put the weight on in the first place.

Not completely true, but its a major problem with women as Benko noted.  Their thyroid output will reapidly decrease when calorie intake decreases and without an optimally working thyroid, you won't directly burn off fat.  Hence, why so many women are fatties.

Then again, fatty women giving birth to fatty kids have given them a very high set point.  They put on fat just looking at a candy bar.

[Xan]

Does that work with ANY system in the body?  Take temperature.  Heat in - heat out = body temperature, right?  But I'm at 98.6 without having to worry about whether I'm in a 70-degree room or an 85-degree room.  That's because my body manages my temperature in equilibrium.  (Assuming we're not WAY out of whack on the exterior temperature.)

Well, that gives the fatties excuses: my set point is too high, I have bad genetics, wah wah wah.  My body temperature is 2 degress below normal so its certainly doable to move your set point.  Just stop eating so much!!!!

Is it eating less that changes the set point?  Or is it what you're eating?

[MachineGhost]

LOTS OF CONTRADICTIONS or at least apparent contradictions.  Care to shed any light MG? 

Yeah, ignore in vitro studies in mice who aren't natural meat eaters.  Eat cruciferous vegetables with your red meat.  The proverbial 1950's-style meat and potato eaters tend not to be health conscious to put it mildly, so sorely lack in dietary fiber and phytonutrients.  (Seriously, aren't they all dead by now or at least without their colons, prostates, kidneys or whatever got carved out due to decay?)

[img width=800]http://www.westonaprice.org/wp-content/ ... 24x700.jpg[/img]

[MachineGhost]

Is it eating less that changes the set point?  Or is it what you're eating?

Eating less calories.  It takes time.  For instance, you have a lot of fatty, inactive, sarcopenic elderly women out there that eat hardly anything in the way of calories.  They can't lose body fat because their set point is too low.  If they tried to eat more calories to "rev their metabolism up" and it was carbohydrate dominative and they wasted time on muscle-catabolic steady state-cardio for exercise, then they wind up looking like this:



Granted, its complicated by age onset hormonal decline.  I feel safe in saying that unless they're first on proper thyroid hormone replacement, they'll never lose the body fat.  Ever.