A response to the TIME article on exercise

[vmelo]

This article balances out the other one a bit:

http://peakperformance.runnersworld.com ... right.html

[kccc]

That makes me feel MUCH better.

The more I thought about it, the less the original article seemed congruent with my personal experience. In my youth, lost weight 2x through calorie-restriction diets, but until I added exercise, I couldn't keep it off. With exercise, I kept it off for decades (mid-life-metabolic slowdown + a baby got me then).

Plus, I FEEL so much better when I exercise that I just can't see EVER stopping.

Thanks, Vmelo!

[Bushranger]

Yet another "Well duh!" moment in Time (pun intended) . Their more recent articles are really starting to lack depth. Is it just me or is that magazine slipping?

[flightisleavin]

Agree Bushranger. TIME seems to want to sell magazines and anything with "myth" on the cover especially when it comes to dieting will cause you to click on the article.

It seems we have come full circle from fad diets to now hearing about how dieting doesn't work, calories in calories out is a myth, exercise does not contribute weight loss, good calories bad calories, insulin response, genetics are entirely responsible, etc., etc., etc.

It just seems that the public does not want to hear that losing weight is going to mean a little bit of discomfort and discipline whether it be adjusting to the simple habits of not stuffing, not snacking and being consistent with moderate exercise when you one would really rather watch t.v. and eat microwave popcorn complaining about how hard it is to lose weight. It is an all or nothing mentality - either go on a tortured diet or accept your weight gain. And granted it is hard and it can be slow but simple formula of eating a little less and exercising a little more can have results.

[Thalia]

hearing about how dieting doesn't work

Well, long-term, most diets don't work. I don't think any of them has a good track record for producing long-term weightloss. Which is why, before No S, I had decided to never diet again. I could ALWAYS lose weight -- I could never keep it off, and more than 90% of other dieters can't either. I'm not sure it's fair to blame it on being people being "lazy" and lacking "willpower" -- it's not particularly normal to eat a drastically restricted food plan for the rest of one's life, and those drastic restrictions tend to produce disordered eating.

Generally, I don't think it's helpful to turn weight, appearance and health into a moral issue. Bad habits, sure, but not bad people.

I like the Runner's World piece a lot -- because the value of exercise is tied to health and general well-being, and we tend as Americans not to care about those -- we care about what our bodies look like more than we do about how well they function or how good they feel. And we tend to judge others on what they look like, as well.

[Nichole]

"We also know that any exerciser with a brain realizes he or she has to balance "calories in" with "calories out." And to lose weight you need to put out more than you take in. If you reward yourself with a frappuccino after every yoga session, the calories are going the wrong way."

That's what I said!

[flightisleavin]

Thalia

When I said "hearing that diets don't work" what I meant was that the thinking that No S would not work either (it is a diet plan but not the typical fad diet). In other words NO plan of eating differently or eating less would work so you might as well eat whatever you want whenever you want because nothing works. Rejecting the idea that lowering your food amount does not make a difference. That is what I meant.

I hear that argument a lot. People will say "I cut down and I still did not lose weight, so why bother?" The same with exercise. "I exercised and did not lose anything so why bother exercising?" The idea of doing it slow and steady is not appealing because there is not an immediate loss on the scale.

But yes, you are right it is certainly not a moral issue. I guess what I am trying to say is that when you forego seconds and snacks you may feel a little bit of discomfort at first while you are getting used to it. The premise of the low fat or low carb diets is "you can eat all you want as long as you don't eat the evil foods" therefore no hunger or discomfort or any discipline needed. I felt like the original article in Time on exercise was saying to forget exercise.

[Bushranger]

I'm not sure it's fair to blame it on being people being "lazy" and lacking "willpower" -- it's not particularly normal to eat a drastically restricted food plan for the rest of one's life, and those drastic restrictions tend to produce disordered eating.

Correct, it's not normal to be drastically restricted calorically. But it is normal to be slightly restricted. Historically this has always been the case. It's been proven scientifically that a slightly calorie restricted diet leads to marked increased longevity. Bluezones are the real world example of this as they still choose to eat and live this way.

Most westerners can’t stomach this idea of calorie limiting given their lifestyle of excess and abundance. Instead they try to invent all manner of other ways to lose weight while still stuffing their faces. Hence the gym craze, you just know most of those people are trying to lose weight and have no other fitness or health goals in mind. Then when they fail they blame it on anything besides themselves. If someone honestly doesn’t care that they are overweight that’s fine, it’s their life, just don’t make up some lame reason why you are.

[Blithe Morning]

I still think the original article had some valid points. People tend to overestimate the role of exercise in losing weight, especially given some of the psychological foibles we humans are prone to. Some of these foibles may even be hard wired - like eating more after working out hard.

Although I, like others, consider exercise an integral part of my weight maintenance plan. It's funny, but I believe you won't lose weight just because you exercise, but you can't keep weight off unless you do.

[kccc]

It's funny, but I believe you won't lose weight just because you exercise, but you can't keep weight off unless you do.

I think that makes perfect sense. Doesn't sound as if it ought to, but it's exactly the way it works in my own experience.

[DaveMc]

People tend to overestimate the role of exercise in losing weight, especially given some of the psychological foibles we humans are prone to. Some of these foibles may even be hard wired - like eating more after working out hard.

Although I, like others, consider exercise an integral part of my weight maintenance plan. It's funny, but I believe you won't lose weight just because you exercise, but you can't keep weight off unless you do.

I always think, if you're going to do one thing to try to lose weight, you should change the way you eat. If you're going to do *two* things, you should increase your amount of exercise, as well. (Plus, exercise makes you healthier in other ways, makes you generally feel better, etc. I'm psychologically lucky: I love to exercise, it's not something I need to force myself to do.)

Most people probably will get a lot more immediate benefit (in purely weight loss terms) from a change in diet: it takes a long time to burn 400 calories through exercise, but it takes no time at all to not eat a Snickers bar. (I'm making up the number of calories in a Snickers, don't quote me on that.)

[vmelo]

Although I, like others, consider exercise an integral part of my weight maintenance plan. It's funny, but I believe you won't lose weight just because you exercise, but you can't keep weight off unless you do.

This has been my experience as well. In general, when I get down to the weight I want to be, I find that making exercise a part of my regular routine makes up for those times when I slip up (in terms of eating). The only reason I've always regained weight in the past is that I start eating a whole bunch of junk and stop exercising altogether (as Reinhard would say---"gluttony and sloth").