"Exercise more" in reference to weight loss is also often promoted by fast or processed food companies, in an effort to divert blame for either not displaying nutritional information or making it misleading.
running does use up calories. timing your exercise so that it's just before a fixed portion of a meal means you have used more calories than if you had not - and you still feel full. the surprising part is how little of a difference running makes, but it does make a difference.
while i agree, this concept is easier to sell if you approach it from a different direction - i.e. "you can't outrun your fork."
this is much easier for most people to comprehend, since anyone who's ever been in a modern gym even once knows you can run an hour on a treadmill and wipe it out with a single donut.
Easier to sell, maybe, but "you can't outrun your fork." is also a false statement, whereas the OP's isn't (so much - at least it's open for interpreation). You can outrun your fork.
run an hour on a treadmill and wipe it out with a single donut.
That's going to be have a pretty huge donut then :P (or I'd have to be running at a rather slow pace)
Not really. One hour on the treadmill burns about 600 calories or so. A cream filled donut the gas station next door to me sells is listed at 630 calories.
I would say a 630 calorie donut is pretty huge. After looking at the calorie info for a bunch of Tim Hortons donuts, the average seems to be around 250 calories.
Sugar (and now HFCS) in everything magnify this problem. I wonder how much calories food would have if manufacturers reduced the amount of sweeteners. Probably makes the food taste worse though.
Weird. I usually burn about 400 kilocals in a 30-minute run on an elliptical machine. Technically, I am programming it to push my heart-rate to the top of the safe "cardio zone", but, well, exercise is all about pushing yourself, no?
How much you burn depends a lot on your body weight. I am small (~55kg) so I burn about 600 kcal/h when jogging. Someone weighing 75kg will burn about 800 kcal/h if he runs at the same speed.
the problem with being pedantic like this is that you just come off as a huge nerd to everyone, even other pedantic nerds. that's why i said "easier to sell", not "technically more accurate."
Weight loss is a poor metric. I don't really care what I weigh. I'm primarily concerned with increasing my strenght and building muscle, so if my weight goes up but my %fat goes down I'm more than happy.
I believe that most "normal" people are capable of doing enough exercise (combined with good eating choices) that they can lose weight.
For example, say you have a 1-hour lunch break each day. During that lunch break, you could easily go for a 6km run (30-40 minutes), as well as have time for a shower, and grab food. If you're prepared to have a faster shower, and eat a quick snack, heck, you could even make it a 10km run (50 minutes).
And depending on where you live, you might also be able to jog, or cycle to work - that's probably another 30 to 60 minutes of physical activity, depending on how far. (I have a 15-minute cycle each way).
And maybe some mornings, you could get up early, and go for a swim, or go boxing or something.
Either way, I personally know many ordinary people who manage to get a healthy amount of exercise, and achieve their weight goals.
I also have a friend who quite honestly, eats what seems to be an incredibly unhealthy mix - think large amounts of junk food and deep-fried fast food. However, they manage to stay reasonably slim (think BMI 18) by doing insane amounts of exercise (several hours a day). So it's definitely achievable, assuming you have that sort of willpower.
What studies are you referring to, that show that "normal" exercise will not cause weight loss? I'd be very curious to see them.
Exercise is important for a healthy lifestyle, but it won't result in weight loss. The amount of calories burned are trivial.
For example:
- 30 minute run burns (150 pound individual) burns just 272 calories.
- 30 minute lap swim (150 pound individual) burns, again, just 272 calories.
A single Milky Way chocolate bar has 240 calories. A Big Mac has 530 calories. A McDonalds Chicken Classic Sandwich 350 calories. And so on. So you can exercise for an hour and then regain the weight in under a minute. That's how few calories exercise burns.
The primary way people lose weight is BMR (basal metabolic rate), this is calories burned just keeping you alive. You literally lose weight while you sleep due to BMR.
People often like to claim "'calories in' need to be lower than 'calories out'" and while that is true to a point, it is an over simplification (i.e. even with identical calories certain things, like sugar, are kept as fat to a greater extent than other things, such as fiber, which are "ejected").
So, yes, please exercise. You'll live longer, feel healthier, and it might even shed one or two pounds if you're already skinny. But if you're obese and need to shed 10+ pounds then your diet is the primary means by which you'll accomplish your goals, in fact you can lose all of your weight while in a coma on a hospital bed, so all you need to do is under-eat for your BMR (but consult your doctor, and try to eat a balanced diet).
I recommend using something like MyFitnessPal. It is free. Just set it up, it will track your BMR and what you eat, and as long as you stay in the "green" (below the BMR) you'll eventually lose some weight.
However please keep in mind "water weight" is a legitimate thing. Your body does gain and lose +-5 pounds "randomly" so you shouldn't weigh yourself excessively, you'll just lose motivation. Once a week MAX, every two weeks is better.
Those are fair points regarding energy expenditure for specific exercises. However, that doesn't take into account the effects of regular exercise on BMR. That normal exercise can elevate your BMR is certainly plausible, and many people have conducted studies that have reached this conclusion.
Metabolism is a complicated thing, and there are conflicting answers on the subject. Results differ under a variety of conditions (human, animal, forced/voluntary, etc.). The abstract in this review summarizes the state of the research nicely: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14692598
> That normal exercise can elevate your BMR is certainly plausible, and many people have conducted studies that have reached this conclusion.
It is true that they have conducted these studies, it is inaccurate to claim that it any great impact on BMR, and the study you linked (which you can read in full [0]) supports that conclusion. The 48 hour improvement is inconsequential, and there are no improvements beyond that.
As I said before, exercise is important for a healthy lifestyle (you'll literally live longer), but for weight loss it is much much less important than diet, in particular for people who aren't looking to shed a small amount of weight.
All you're claiming is that for a 30 minute workout you might lose 300 calories instead of 270 calories due to BMR (and that's being generous looking at the study). Which doesn't change the overall point that without diet changes you won't lose significant amount of weight through exercise alone.
I think you are ignoring the elephant in the room.
Active people have higher BMR because they build up bigger muscles. Not talking about bodybuilders - though that is the extreme of a continuous, but anyone who does regular exercise builds up some lean mass.
Off course, if you ever stop your body will pick up the signal and decide to not sustain the extra muscle anymore. If no change in diet follows immediately, you will pick up body fat pretty quickly.
I'm using MyFitnessPal and for the first time in years I'm losing weight. I've known I need to lose weight, but the number just kept going up instead. I second what you say. Exercise helps, but ultimately restricting calories by eating less and eating more correctly is the only way to "stay in the green".
It is amazing and absurd to me how many calories some things have. I had no idea! For example, ketchup is loaded with calories. Same with cheese. I used to load down all my food with tons of ketchup and snack on cheese slices. Way too "expensive"!
You're correct, those foods that you posted are very caloric dense - however, you don't necessarily need to choose to eat those foods. There are far healthier alternatives that will fill you up, and have way less calories.
E.g. my breakfast is 6 sticks of wheatbix + skim milk, 3 apples, 3 pears. Probably similar calories to a large chocolate bar, and way more satisfying =). My lunch is a wholemeal sandwich with fresh tomatoes, lettuce and some chicken breast, plus fruit. Very tasty, and not as caloric dense.
For me, during my lunchtime run or swim, I usually burn between 300-350 calories (Garmin GPS watch with heart-rate monitor, I'm assuming it has reasonable accuracy).
Then the cycle to work, 100 calories, the cycle back home, another 100 calories.
Then 2-3 nights a week, I go to a kickboxing or weights session, that's probably 400-500 calories (This is very much an estimate - I can't wear my heart rate band during those sessions).
Then weekends, you can go for a longer run/swim. It's fun! Ultimately though, you need to find activities you enjoy, otherwise you won't do them.
You just need to find the healthy food you like eating, and the exercises that you like doing.
Of course; eating exactly the number of calories that are required to maintain your weight, and then you start to exercise - yes, you will lose weight.
But people don't do that. They think "hey, I need a post-workout meal", and suddenly they're eating that in addition to everything else. And then it's the weekend, and they feel they deserve something extra because they've worked out a lot. Or they're already getting too many calories, and working out just makes them get fatter slower.
Energy is fungible. Eating less can result in the same caloric deficit as exercise over a "normal" diet.
Since fasting itself has some health benefits, it's probably better to do any exercise at all while reducing food intake, than it is to eat "normally" and try to make up for it with exercise which is not likely to confer much more marginal health benefit.
> I believe that most "normal" people are capable of doing enough exercise (combined with good eating choices) that they can lose weight.
The point is there is there no set point of "enough" exercise to induce weight loss. It is highly variable between people and it is very unlikely that any individual can keep weight off in this fashion over a period of time. Linking exercise and weight is a time waster and, more importantly, can dissuade people from exercising when they don't achieve an impossible standard for weight loss.
> For example, say you have a 1-hour lunch break each day. During that lunch break, you could easily go for a 6km run (30-40 minutes), as well as have time for a shower, and grab food. If you're prepared to have a faster shower, and eat a quick snack, heck, you could even make it a 10km run (50 minutes).
First of all, the majority of workers do not have hour long lunch breaks. Second, that exercise during the middle of the work day sounds like a great way to ratchet up stress rather than be relaxing since now you are stuck in a time management game. This isn't an appropriate approach for everyone.
> Either way, I personally know many ordinary people who manage to get a healthy amount of exercise, and achieve their weight goals.
Again, this notion of a "healthy amount" of exercise is a fiction w.r.t. weight loss.
> I also have a friend who quite honestly, eats what seems to be an incredibly unhealthy mix - think large amounts of junk food and deep-fried fast food. However, they manage to stay reasonably slim (think BMI 18) by doing insane amounts of exercise (several hours a day). So it's definitely achievable, assuming you have that sort of willpower.
This person would likely still be a low BMI even without exercise.
> What studies are you referring to, that show that "normal" exercise will not cause weight loss? I'd be very curious to see them.
For a compilation of study data about weight loss, see the first half of Health at Every Size [1] (this is not an endorsement of a HAES lifestyle, but this book does collect the evidence).
To be honest, I find exercise during the day to actually be helpful - it gets me out of the office, and lets me recharge.
However, you do need to find an activity that you enjoy - if it's running 10km, then do that. If it's swimming 2km, do that. Or maybe you like doing weights, then do that. Or rock-climbing after work. It can't be something that you hate. (There are days you just don't feel like it though - sometimes you just need to grit your teeth and do it).
Also, what is a "healthy amount" of exercise?
I argue that it is possible to combine good food choices with a reasonable amount of exercise that will help you lose weight.
The below calorie burn numbers are from myself, using a HR band and a sports watch.
E.g. your lunchtime run/swim will burn say 300-350 calories.
If you jog or cycle to work, you can easily burn another 100 calories each way, so 200 calories both ways.
And maybe after work, you go to the gym, or do kickboxing, or play a sport you enjoy (e.g. touch footy, hockey, water polo etc.) - that's another 300-500 calories. (I don't wear a band during my sports though, since it'd come off - so these are rough guesses). You might only do that 2-3 nights a week though.
Either way though, if you choose to, you can be very active.
It is optional if the goal is only to lose weight. I personally found it harder to lose weight when I started exercising since then I could no longer fast as much.
For example, yesterday I burned ~750kcal on the treadmill. Are you trying to tell me this makes no dent in the calories I consumed throughout the day?
If my objective was to lose weight, are you implying that doing such a workout couldn't lead to a calorie deficit and therefore expenditure of stored fat?
I suspect he meant something a bit more holistic/behavioral ("In a study of people who promised to X...") rather than in a purely mechanical/metabolic sense.
If the person is only thinking "exercise will make me weigh less", that outcome is unlikely because modern society makes it deceptively easy to wipe out all your gains with a "small" snack, and because the conversion of fat to muscle doesn't show much on a scale.
What do you define "normal exercise" as? You cannot break the 2nd law of thermodynamics: if you calories in is less than your calories burned you must lose weight.
Your body can regulate your appetite and your calorie spending to a certain degree, e.g. people who exercise often eat more afterwards, which negates the calorie burning effect (but it can also lead to changes in body composition: Fat is replaced by muscles).
That's the first law of thermodynamics, not the second (although you can't violate the second either).
In general, through my life, I've found the best way to think about it is exercise for fitness, diet for weight maintenance.
What happens to you once you have responsibilities to others (wife, kids, etc.) unless you are a professional-level athlete is that you really don't have the time and energy to burn enough calories. It's hard to burn 400 kcalories, but it's easy to not eat that piece of pie (or to have a small piece and no bread with your meal).
There are exceptions, and most of us who are somewhat active have probably gone through that phase of life where we do 5000 kcal workouts 5 days a week and so on, but it's a very time-and-energy consuming proposition. I have known some men who have made it a point to continue that lifestyle into middle age, but they are exceptional and almost to a person never married (gay I think) or several times divorced. In other words, it takes total self absorption and those of us with normal family and community responsibilities have to let it go eventually.
That's also the failure I see with people and their New Years' Resolutions to get fit: quit drinking, go to the gym twice a day, etc. It's not sustainable.
There's a bit more happening than the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Our body does a lot of things.
I understand how comforting it can be to put it in "in -> out" terms, so simple. But it just doesn't reflect in any way the complexity of a living organism, and doesn't reflect the experiences of people trying naively to just eat less for instance.
I think he/she means that normal exercise, or rather the typical amount of exercise that people do, is insufficient to burn the calories in a normal diet. So while the exercise you do is healthy, you shouldn't be expecting weight loss, though at the same time you should expect less weight gain (which I wouldn't consider as weight loss).
No, it's that people who exercise more tend to eat more, even when their primary reason for exercising is to lose weight. They either don't think about it or overestimate the calories burned by their exercise and allow themselves to eat a bit more, mistakenly believing that the net result is still negative calories.
Moderate exercise is good for you whether or not you want to lose weight, but if weight control is one objective, you need to be more careful than most people realize to avoid eating more when you exercise more.
Daily hard exercise - the panting, heart-pounding, drenched in sweat kind of exercise - increases your metabolism. You can eat whatever you want, as much as you want, and you won't gain fat.
The 2nd law of thermodynamics has little if anything to do with calorie counting.
I wish. Maybe it's my age, but I do a high intensity exercise class 5-6 times a week and I sweat a lot. I didn't see a significant weight loss until I changed my diet. I guess it's true when they say it's 70% diet, and 30% exercise, at least for me.
> Daily hard exercise - the panting, heart-pounding, drenched in sweat kind of exercise - increases your metabolism.
This is not true for all people and can be highly variable between different people, let alone not necessarily possible for folks with metabolic disorders.
But it will make you healthier, so it's worth it anyway.