Everyday Systems

This article discusses why exercise alone doesn't really do the job alone regarding weight loss. As you lose weight, your metabolism slows a little thereby slowing your weight loss.

It's not hopeless. One of the researchers, in fact, lost 70lbs and yes, she took a daily walk. The article says she took years. She and other researchers are revising the weight loss rates based on the new evidence.

http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/08/0 ... ight-loss/

Funny, I was thinking about losing weight by cutting calories vs exercise this morning while I was walking my dog. I know more people, myself included, who have lost weight, sometimes significant amounts, by calorie cutting alone than by exercising.

I've always been a walker, even before I had my dog. I almost don't consider it "exercise," it's just something I do. I've walked upwards of 15,000 steps daily consistently, though I don't do that now. I've lost weight while walking and I've gained weight while walking.

I think it's probably possible to lose weight by exercising, but you probably have to be an Olympic level athlete to do it. That's a slight exaggeration. However, exercise tones muscle and helps shape the shape you're in. So it helps you look better even if you don't lose weight from exercising.

This might explain why many people either don't lose or gain weight when starting No-S. Though they're not snacking, eating seconds or sweets, they're also not cutting calories because they're eating more at meals so they won't be hungry between meals.

I work a pretty physical job with walking & bike riding all day. I would like to lose twenty lbs and I'm one of the thinner people working here. Exercise has other benefits though. And weight training is certainly beneficial.

I know years ago I lost about ten pounds one month by doing about an hour a day of cardio. Dang, it was hard work. These past years' losses have been from food redution and no purposeful starving. Maybe I wouldn't lose more if I exercised moderately consistently?

I know it would still be worth it to exercise. but it can't make up for getting too full too often.

I am very interested in this one.

If you look at the data it would seem that exercising to lose weight is a lost cause, BUT if you look at successful long term dieters they all seem to exercise (apparently...data from the internet)

My experience. I have lost 3 and a half stone. And I run. Lots. I ran for 1 hour 45 minutes today, and I LOVED it! Who knew running was so much fun!

It wasn't when I started though. i started with run a minute, walk a minute, repeat. By week 3 (run 3 minutes, walk 1 minute) I thought I was going to expire, right there on the beach! i did week 3 again the next week and it got easier, and I never looked back after that.

BUT...I lost a lot of my weight by dieting before I started running. The difference this time is that i have kept it off by running and no s-ing.

Running makes you happy all day, it makes you 'think like an athlete' which in my case means making great food choices. (I am an athlete, so why would i eat chocolate biscuits when i am not hungry....) and running has meant i have kept my weight loss off...and lost more too. I am also slowly developing great legs!

I am still overweight and am training for a half marathon in September. I will keep you posted on any weight loss/gain.

PS I dont carbo load, or do gels or sports drinks. I just drink water and have my next meal when i get home. i think some who put on weight running do gels and things and really they are not necessary, or haven't been yet. Not for back of the packers like me anyway!

I have found that I do not lose weight when I run. When I run more I eat more. However, I do lose weight when I use weights. I just cannot seem to maintain that habit. It is a goal.

I think this varies. I'm not sure of the study that exercise is not beneficial. The Africans were much more slight so maybe per pound they started off burning less calories but ended up burning the same because of exercise.

I hear what others are saying about exercise making you hungry. If I walk or hike or swim I notice I am much hungrier and giving in can easily cancel and calories burned. Intense cardio makes me eat less. I'm intensely thirsty for hours after but not hungry because of the thirst. If I was running around as a kid I was never hungry for some time after exercise. I guess it depends on the person but right now exercise helps me more than calories burned but resetting my appetite so it is more appropriate. Others may vary but we are all built different.

The difficult part with exercise is that to make an appreciable difference in energy balance the person needs to have the time (and inclination) to do quite a lot of exercise. Unless one has a physical job, eating less takes a lot less time out of your day than exercising more. For example, I'm a runner. If I run for 1 hour, then head home for a peanut butter sandwich, I am breaking even. And few people will run an hour every single day forever.

I exercise because it makes me feel good, and improves the shape of my body by building muscle, but I think what I eat is about 90% of the deal when it comes to how much body fat I have.

Ruff wrote: PS I dont carbo load, or do gels or sports drinks. I just drink water and have my next meal when i get home. i think some who put on weight running do gels and things and really they are not necessary, or haven't been yet. Not for back of the packers like me anyway!

Good for you Ruff. Casual athletes chug down way too many sugary "sports fuel" products - marketers havedone a great job. I never needed to eat on the run until I started marathon training. Running through the third hour seems to require a little fuel for me. For a half marathon you'll hopefully be fine.

Once again, I think Reinhard has the right idea. Eat and exercise moderately and consistently for vitality and be happy with the results. It isn't likely you'll be able to do more than that for the long "run" anyway.

ironchef wrote: Good for you Ruff. Casual athletes chug down way too many sugary "sports fuel" products - marketers havedone a great job. I never needed to eat on the run until I started marathon training. Running through the third hour seems to require a little fuel for me. For a half marathon you'll hopefully be fine.

I agree on the marketing job. I've noticed casual athletes eat and drink way more sports fuel stuff than they actually need.

I'm an avid half marathon runner and don't carbo load or drink sports drinks, but I do take gels. One gel around mile 7-8 does the trick for me. I learned the hard way that I need a little something for runs longer than 10 miles. Definitely experiment to see what works for you.

Ruff is absolutely right that exercise makes you think like an athlete. I know I pay more attention to what I eat now than before I started running. When I feel myself slipping, I remind myself I can't outrun bad eating habits.

oolala53 wrote:Once again, I think Reinhard has the right idea. Eat and exercise moderately and consistently for vitality and be happy with the results. It isn't likely you'll be able to do more than that for the long "run" anyway.

There is an infomercial called Insanity where personal trainer Shawn T promises a fabulous body in 60 days. His formula:40 minutes of exercise six days a week for two months.

In 60 days Insanity trainees worked out 1,920 minutes (40*6*8).

Reinhard 14 minutes (14) on N days totals 3,430 minutes in a year assuming THREE WEEKS of missed workouts for the year due to illness, S days, etc. (49*5*14).

14 beats out Insanity by a mile and is sustainable for life.

Moderation rules!

Interesting article. I have never lost weight through exercise alone. I have once gained weight through exercise alone (I wasn't overweight at the time)! I think exercise is still useful for possible health benefits (that's why I do it), but I think there's also a slight advantage in that you can eat more, so what you're eating looks more "normal".

There is also P90X. That's why I call 14 mintues + NO S + walking/moderate cardio ...RE (Reinhard Engels) 90X. Except you do it all year. I guess it should be RE365X.

I still haven't done 90 straight days of all three, though. Never mind a year. But hope springs eternal. In fact, whenever I think of doing something like Insanity, I think, "I haven't even done RE90X yet! Do THAT and see where it gets ya!"

My son does P90X. He's lost quite a bit of weight. Of course, he's young and adding muscle and is monitoring what he eats, too.

One of my questions about the article is what do they mean by exercise? Cardio? Weight training?

Exercise seems to be more valuable for me for weight management than weight loss. When I exercise, I'm less stressed and I think better able to use my "will power muscle". I also sleep better and feel better, especially if I can get outside.

Blithe Morning wrote:My son does P90X. He's lost quite a bit of weight. Of course, he's young and adding muscle and is monitoring what he eats, too.

Don't measure yourself by those young lads. My two sons - 33 and 31 - have a six pack, they never workout and their after work "cocktail" is a pound bag of MMs and an liter of coke/pepsi, respectively. GRRRRRRRRRRRR!

It helps them that her mom (my wife) was a ballerina and her parents played hoops in college.

Everyone's metabolism is different. We need to concentrate on ours, not somebody else.

Blithe Morning wrote:One of my questions about the article is what do they mean by exercise? Cardio? Weight training?

I think any physical exertion qualifies as exercise. Its effectiveness is a function of time and intensity. The more time, the less intensity and viceversa.

Exercise has numerous benefits. However, to lose weight you need to create a calorie deficit. Exercise can help but you have to control what goes down the pie hole. I've seen overweight people perform physical work on the fields for 8-10 hours.

Just thought I'd add to this interesting thread!

I've known for years that for me, more exercise just means a bigger appetite!

When I was young (18-21) I used to dance and took 2-3 hours of dance classes a day, plus daily Pilates for another hour, and on top of that I walked everywhere, probably for another 60-90 minutes per day. You would think with a busy schedule like that I was fit and healthy, but I don't think I was, I was constantly hungry and exhausted!

I'm thinner now (at 33) than I was then - despite exercising much less (I now workout maybe 3 times a week and do a mix of Kettlebells and Pilates, plus some urban rangering) and I feel fitter and healthier now. I think with exercise, quality is more important than quantity and overexercising can be harmful just as underexercising can be.

I'm game for that to be true.

bonnieUK wrote:I think with exercise, quality is more important than quantity and overexercising can be harmful just as underexercising can be.

That may be true for the rare few who are actually over exercising, but I don't see much evidence that there are many people (at least in modern Australian society) with this problem.

I do agree there is a problem when people (especially out of shape people) go for extreme forms of exercising and take themselves from zero to marathon training (and then direct to an injury). However, the vast majority of people I know would probably benefit from introducing a habit of walking (or other light exercise) 30 minutes on most days, rather than worry too much about whether they are doing quality exercise only a few times a week. I include myself in that.

ironchef wrote:However, the vast majority of people I know would probably benefit from introducing a habit of walking (or other light exercise) 30 minutes on most days, rather than worry too much about whether they are doing quality exercise only a few times a week. I include myself in that.

I include myself also. I do about 1 hour of walking every non-S-day, and it's the only form of exercice I've been doing for 7 weeks. I'll start on SG on Monday.

I believe in diet AND exercise, as I am sure will astonish no-one.

As a matter of fact, I've just sat back down to work after an hour and a half walk. I'd been getting frustrated about something, and my response to frustration lately has been "Take a walk."

Yes, one can cut calories to the point where one loses weight on calorie deficit alone. I find eating that little food unpleasant (for those of you just joining in, I'm short, middle-aged and a yo-yo dieter).

The sweet spot for me seems to be the equivalent of an hour-long walk a day, and I'm not just talking weight loss. That's mood regulation, energy levels, good sleep and all that smack. Doesn't matter if it is walking, swimming, weight-lifting or some combination thereof, but about an hour most days without pushing so hard as to drive myself into the ground seems to be where I get the most positive benefits.

I'm also lucky. I live half a mile from an extraordinarily beautiful, well-groomed, nicely-graded former railroad converted into a multiuse biking/walking trail.