Why you shouldn't exercise to lose weight, 60 studies
Discussion
Hi all,
I thought I'd post this as I found it pretty interesting.
http://www.vox.com/2016/4/28/11518804/weight-loss-...
Who subscribes to this? I've personally always thought diet is about 85% of the end result with the context of using weights to develop a muscular physique however this goes a bit further when referring to fat loss.
I thought I'd post this as I found it pretty interesting.
http://www.vox.com/2016/4/28/11518804/weight-loss-...
Who subscribes to this? I've personally always thought diet is about 85% of the end result with the context of using weights to develop a muscular physique however this goes a bit further when referring to fat loss.
Banting's results were much the same, over one hundred and fifty years ago. He said exercise just gave him a voracious appetite. The only thing he found that worked for weight loss was eliminating sugar and flour from his diet. A result that has been discovered and rediscovered ever since.
No doubt some arable farmers and PT instructors will be along with a counter argument shortly.
No doubt some arable farmers and PT instructors will be along with a counter argument shortly.
okgo said:
I never changed my diet one bit, and still generally eat and drink what I like.
I went from doing no exercise to doing around 10-12 hours a week of cycling. I lost 20 kg in about 12 months.
+1 except I lost about 35kg and cycle half the amount but run about 20km a week and walk a lot.I went from doing no exercise to doing around 10-12 hours a week of cycling. I lost 20 kg in about 12 months.
grumbledoak said:
Banting's results were much the same, over one hundred and fifty years ago. He said exercise just gave him a voracious appetite. The only thing he found that worked for weight loss was eliminating sugar and flour from his diet. A result that has been discovered and rediscovered ever since.
No doubt some arable farmers and PT instructors will be along with a counter argument shortly.
So you just keep eating the same amount as you did prior to starting an exercise regime. It's not rocket science!No doubt some arable farmers and PT instructors will be along with a counter argument shortly.
I have never eliminated sugar and flour from my diet and have no trouble losing weight when I wish.
Banting was quack in a long line of quacks pandering to the lazy and stupid who want to sit on their fat arses and stuff their faces, whilst blaming everything and everyone for their self-inflicted obesity.
i burn 900-1000 calories per session, i go 3-4 times a week.
in 1.5 years lost 1.5 stone, eat what i want but aiming for 4 stone loss over 3 years, and long term loss.
guy at work lost a stone dieting but i guarantee will pile back on, whereas i will keep eating what i want and aim for 2k calorie workout session.
article is commonsense really.
in 1.5 years lost 1.5 stone, eat what i want but aiming for 4 stone loss over 3 years, and long term loss.
guy at work lost a stone dieting but i guarantee will pile back on, whereas i will keep eating what i want and aim for 2k calorie workout session.
article is commonsense really.
johnwilliams77 said:
okgo said:
I never changed my diet one bit, and still generally eat and drink what I like.
I went from doing no exercise to doing around 10-12 hours a week of cycling. I lost 20 kg in about 12 months.
+1 except I lost about 35kg and cycle half the amount but run about 20km a week and walk a lot.I went from doing no exercise to doing around 10-12 hours a week of cycling. I lost 20 kg in about 12 months.
Ditto, really. Furthermore, I used to be ectomorph but then kept eating and didn't bother moving, starting becoming endomorph. Starting moving a lot again but included picking up weights, holy s
t, Batman, I'm now mesomorph.Long Drax said:
grumbledoak said:
Banting's results were much the same, over one hundred and fifty years ago. He said exercise just gave him a voracious appetite. The only thing he found that worked for weight loss was eliminating sugar and flour from his diet. A result that has been discovered and rediscovered ever since.
No doubt some arable farmers and PT instructors will be along with a counter argument shortly.
So you just keep eating the same amount as you did prior to starting an exercise regime. It's not rocket science!No doubt some arable farmers and PT instructors will be along with a counter argument shortly.
I have never eliminated sugar and flour from my diet and have no trouble losing weight when I wish.
Banting was quack in a long line of quacks pandering to the lazy and stupid who want to sit on their fat arses and stuff their faces, whilst blaming everything and everyone for their self-inflicted obesity.
I now work in the fitness industry and hit the pub twice a week typically. I used to hit the pub once every 3 weeks if that.
Hoofy said:
Long Drax said:
grumbledoak said:
Banting's results were much the same, over one hundred and fifty years ago. He said exercise just gave him a voracious appetite. The only thing he found that worked for weight loss was eliminating sugar and flour from his diet. A result that has been discovered and rediscovered ever since.
No doubt some arable farmers and PT instructors will be along with a counter argument shortly.
So you just keep eating the same amount as you did prior to starting an exercise regime. It's not rocket science!No doubt some arable farmers and PT instructors will be along with a counter argument shortly.
I have never eliminated sugar and flour from my diet and have no trouble losing weight when I wish.
Banting was quack in a long line of quacks pandering to the lazy and stupid who want to sit on their fat arses and stuff their faces, whilst blaming everything and everyone for their self-inflicted obesity.
I now work in the fitness industry and hit the pub twice a week typically. I used to hit the pub once every 3 weeks if that.
I don't think there is a single approach but we are all bound by science however some get an advantage in terms of either being lean or being able to develop muscle far easier than others.
AntiLagGC8 said:
Hoofy said:
Long Drax said:
grumbledoak said:
Banting's results were much the same, over one hundred and fifty years ago. He said exercise just gave him a voracious appetite. The only thing he found that worked for weight loss was eliminating sugar and flour from his diet. A result that has been discovered and rediscovered ever since.
No doubt some arable farmers and PT instructors will be along with a counter argument shortly.
So you just keep eating the same amount as you did prior to starting an exercise regime. It's not rocket science!No doubt some arable farmers and PT instructors will be along with a counter argument shortly.
I have never eliminated sugar and flour from my diet and have no trouble losing weight when I wish.
Banting was quack in a long line of quacks pandering to the lazy and stupid who want to sit on their fat arses and stuff their faces, whilst blaming everything and everyone for their self-inflicted obesity.
I now work in the fitness industry and hit the pub twice a week typically. I used to hit the pub once every 3 weeks if that.
I don't think there is a single approach but we are all bound by science however some get an advantage in terms of either being lean or being able to develop muscle far easier than others.
My sub-goals are - increase my CV fitness to suit the sports I play and grow bigger muscles. I'm not doing a proper bulking/cutting thing as my sports come first so I will go with the flow. If I'm too tired to do weights or don't have enough time, tough.
Yeah, we're bound by science - if you eat too much and don't move enough, you get fat. The article above is a case of "TL;DR - excuses".
Edited by Hoofy on Saturday 30th April 23:36
grumbledoak said:
Banting's results were much the same, over one hundred and fifty years ago. He said exercise just gave him a voracious appetite. The only thing he found that worked for weight loss was eliminating sugar and flour from his diet. A result that has been discovered and rediscovered ever since.
No doubt some arable farmers and PT instructors will be along with a counter argument shortly.
I doubt it. My wife is a PT, and she'd be the first person to tell you that diet is the most important factor.No doubt some arable farmers and PT instructors will be along with a counter argument shortly.
She'd then go on to tell you that exercise can help you to lose weight, but only through helping to balance your energy consumption and expenditure.
She's probably round that off by pointing out that if you eat too crap a diet (especially beyond your twenties), then regardless of the number of actual calories consumed, you'll feel pretty crap, which will diminsh your desire & ability to exercise anyway.
Overall, it seems to be about 80% diet, 20% exercise at most.
I am sure that the older you are, the more on point your diet has to be to either keep your weight stable or lose excess fat. Even with regular exercise. I think it is also important to know what your putting in your mouth, calorie and nutrient-wise. From my (limited) experience, cutting out bread and sugar as much as possible is the first step (and have water with your meals instead of soft drinks or water in solution), and cutting it out for good. If you enjoy alcohol, this also needs to be kept to an absolute minimum if you're serious about wanting to lose the weight. Again, more so if you're older.
It isn't easy, though. So many foods you can buy now at the supermarket contain so much crap, especially sugar, even in foods you wouldn't expect!
It isn't easy, though. So many foods you can buy now at the supermarket contain so much crap, especially sugar, even in foods you wouldn't expect!
didelydoo said:
Losing weight is diet, what you look like and how fit you are after losing weight is exercise. Best to do both.
I agree - Also, for me at least, with training you have the incentive to change your eating habits as you start to see the results of both diet and training after only a few months.It's interesting, but it doesn't really point out much that isn't obvious. It's very easy to throw away a lot of hard work with a bit of gluttony. To make much of a difference takes a lot of exercise.
Also, as the experiences people mention here show, your mileage may vary. I also know people who have gradually lost significant weight with just a lifestyle change in activity, as well as people who are quite active yet still struggle.
When my wife and I lost a load of weight some years ago, we found exercise a very useful part of it. But we were doing a lot of it. She was cycling to work and back (which I did with her, I work from home so I was cycling to her work and back twice a day), she was walking in her lunch hour and running, swimming or at the gym almost every evening. And we were tracking everything we did and everything we ate.
Also, as the experiences people mention here show, your mileage may vary. I also know people who have gradually lost significant weight with just a lifestyle change in activity, as well as people who are quite active yet still struggle.
When my wife and I lost a load of weight some years ago, we found exercise a very useful part of it. But we were doing a lot of it. She was cycling to work and back (which I did with her, I work from home so I was cycling to her work and back twice a day), she was walking in her lunch hour and running, swimming or at the gym almost every evening. And we were tracking everything we did and everything we ate.
grumbledoak said:
Kermit power said:
Overall, it seems to be about 80% diet, 20% exercise at most.
Misleading thread title IMO - you should definitely exercise to lose weight. Anything that makes you feel positive about yourself and have wide ranging health benefits is only going to help weight loss.
Gassing Station | Health Matters | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff