Everyday Systems

According to this recent research, there is a Goldilocks point (not too little, not to much) for exercise that helps you lose weight.

In this research, the Mama Bear group (too little, or in this case actually none at all) didn't lose weight. And the Papa Bear group (too much) compensated by eating more and being more sedentary when not exercising.

But the Baby Bear group (the just right which was about 30 minutes a day) did lose weight and did not compensate by trying to eat more.

So once again moderation, reasonableness, and sustainability of practice trump extremism.

http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/1 ... ref=health

but... the guys that did the most did hour long workouts... I suspect if they'd done 2 thirty minute workouts per day, spreading them out to one in AM and one in PM results would have been a lot different?

I think most folks start workouts strong at beginning but start putting less effort in after 15-20 minutes since their energy is blown in the first part of the workout... so 60 minutes at a time is somewhat counter-productive.

It's not a huge difference in weight loss (between Papas and Babies) - just 2lb over 13 weeks. It also says that the Papas gained muscle (which could explain the slightly smaller weight loss?), whereas the Babies didn't.

To lose weight you have to create a calorie deficit (you burn more than you consume).

Exercise helps.

Olympic swimmer Michael Phelps was able to maintain a trim physique, even though he ate 12,000 calories daily which included a lot of junk food, because he trained six hard hours daily.

You can lose weight with exercise alone. But it would be very difficult.

It would be like writing a novel with paper and pencil.

I appreciate the posting even though I'm not here to lose the most weight I can in the least amount of time or any of the usual goals. Besides, for me, 60 minutes is moot until I'm doing 30 consistently.

I'd like to see who is still working out at a similar rate two years later.

I love exercise so sixty minutes to me would be nothing. However, I do feel better when I do two different types of exercise spread over two 30 or 45 minute sets. Today I will walk for 45 mins, briskly, on my lunch hour - then do 30 minutes on the exercise bike tonight followed by maybe five or ten on the glider to wind down and then finish with 100 count on the AbCoaster Plus (which I love). I don't care about the studies, I just love how it feels.

oolala53 wrote:I appreciate the posting even though I'm not here to lose the most weight I can in the least amount of time or any of the usual goals. Besides, for me, 60 minutes is moot until I'm doing 30 consistently.

I'd like to see who is still working out at a similar rate two years later.

Unless I misunderstood the article, they didn't recommend hard exercise 60 minutes daily.

My intent in posting the article was to show there is value in working out at a moderate level and working out hard for an hour isn't necessarily better.

If someone can work out more than 30 minutes a day, then more power to them. There are benefits beyond weight loss in doing more/more intense exercise. But if that's not you, don't feel like you are consigned to the unfit circle of hell. There is a place for you.

hi anne, that's very interesting.. thanks for sharing.. i actually started out dancing for the first 3 or 4 months for about an hour a day, but this month i'm feeling very comfortable with doing more like 30-40 mins, and coupled with eating pretty carefully, but moderately, i'm still seeing weight loss results.. i'm happy about this, because i think that the 1 hr a day was becoming increasingly more unrealistic to maintain long term.

I think it's possible to exercise 60 minutes daily -- as long as about half of it is incorporated into your lifestyle. It could be walking to do errands, walking the dog, mowing the lawn, scrubbing floors, vacuuming and so on. We tend to think of exercise as something you have to set aside time to do, when in most of the world, it happens in the course of daily living.

wosnes wrote:I think it's possible to exercise 60 minutes daily -- as long as about half of it is incorporated into your lifestyle. It could be walking to do errands, walking the dog, mowing the lawn, scrubbing floors, vacuuming and so on. We tend to think of exercise as something you have to set aside time to do, when in most of the world, it happens in the course of daily living.

i totally agree.. i only meant for me that i just naturally found myself very comfortable in that 30-40 min range for actually doing exercise that wasn't incidental/day to day life incorporated stuff.. i'm very happy about that because i enjoy my dancing very much, but i know that there are days it's really just not realistic to do a whole hour and my body is also naturally seeking a more moderate amount..

I appreciated getting the message that less at a time might be better for those that regular exercise doesn't come naturally to, as that's who the subjects seemed to be. If a person is naturally inspired to work out more, that's great! The study showed that people who were REQUIRED to do it tended to let it slow them down (or even stop them!) everywhere else in their day. I resonated a lot with the finding that that 30-minute exercisers tended to be more active more of the rest of the day. I feel peppier when I'm doing something consistently. I can even imagine longer workouts eventually; I just know if I try to press myself to do them soon, it will backfire.