Aerobic exercise - Do you agree with this statement?

This latter is a slow process, and is accompanied by a decline in performance level. The switch to fat as fuel is a major cause of what marathon runners call "hitting the wall." Paradoxically, if one wants to lose fat, the most efficient way to do this (according to some scientists), is by executing prolonged exercises when feeling weak and hungry.

Source - Wikipedia

No I don't agree with it.  I'm living proof that you can lose weight with no exercise at all.  For the first few months of this year I was practically an invalid and lost weight.  I hit a plateau, then continued downward more quickly, still with only normal day to day moving around.  The most exercise I get is walking around the supermarket pushing a cart.

The key is controling your diet, eliminating extra fats, sticking to "good" carbs, and getting enough protein.

I'm slated to begin an exercise class soon and expect to see my weight level off for a while as I build muscle (I'm still very weak).

Maybe your "expert" was thinking about very fast weight loss, which we all know is unhealthy.  Take it with a grain of salt if it came from Wikipedia.  Anybody can go in and edit so you have no way of knowing where the information came from.

You know, derrick.. you're giving me a starting point for a great rant.

Something you should all know:

The title of this rant is: How to know when "the latest studies" are pure bull.

OK.. so you're reading the paper and the nearest headline says "New Study In: Cabbage Is Bad For You, Causes Cancer!" You get upset, of course, start disincluding cabbage from your diet. After all, you don't want to be sick. Then the new headline a week later says "New Study In: Cabbage Not Bad For You, No Link To Cancer."

Well.. what do you believe?

Here's a quick guide to finding out if you can believe what you read.

Experts: Anyone can claim their an expert. A national expert, an international expert. Whatever.
Don't believe them.
Let me give you an example, from our very own boards.

Coachdee's information says "I am certified by the National Endurance and Sports Trainers Association (NESTA) as a personal fitness trainer, as well as a lifestyle and weight management coach, and, I am also a certified sport/fitness hypnotist (guided imagery)through NESTA. "

We have some reason here to believe that coachdee knows what she's talking about. NESTA. Sounds good. So... what is NESTA? How do they certify trainers? Is it a thorough process?
Find out, don't assume! It could be that the expert is no expert at all, just someone who wants to sounds smart.

Sorry, coachdee. :)

Scientific Studies:
The sad fact is that anyone can do a scientific study and they aren't always unbiased.
So... here's some key things to look for.
WHO did the Scientific Study? Was it a University? Was it the Federal Government? Or was it a private firm?
Who PAID for the study? Was it the Government or someone else?
How was the study done: What sort of sample size was used. The bigger the sample sized, the more likely it is to be true. What sort of sample? If the study was done for middle-aged women only, it may NOT apply to men. Were the sampled men random or all from a certain communittee?
Read through the description of how they set up the study and analyzed it. Was it done fairly and unbiased?

As a note, checking the actual study is always worthwhile as the papers can blow a point way out of proportion.

Basically, just read through everything and see if it makes sense. If it doesn't, ignore it.

Good luck! :)

I have a different rant that Clairelaine touched on: that of using wikipedia as the be-all, end-all source of information as people can edit it!  Yes, it's a good tool to start from, but the anal-retentive part of me (who deals with gathering information and making sure it is CORRECT) screams that everything on Wikipedia needs to be verified by other sources.  :) 

I don't trust the statement, considering just about everything else points to aerobic exercise being exactly what one needs to do to get rid of the flab.  (Not to mention how good it is for one's heart)

I do not trust anything that just has "some scientists" as a source.  Like HK, I'd like to see who they were (and what lobby paid for them), and what credentials they have.  Like those "doctors" who sell diet pills or wonky super exercise products (my favorite: the shoe inserts that help you lose weight when you... get this WALK or RUN for miles a day... hmm... what's doing all the work here, the INSERT or the fact that one is exercising!)

~Beanie

*nod*I have something similar. I'm what you'd call a Certified Floodplain Manager. That means I'm certified to manage a community's floodplain maps. I got that by taking an intensive course, taking an intensive proctored exam AND Need to keep taking up to 24 "Credits" of Floodplain Studies every 2 years.
Having this certification makes me an expert in floodplain management and mapping.
If I let this expire, well.. maybe I'm an expert and maybe I'm not.

Think of it this way, people.

Would you prefer to have a liscenced dentist, with liscence showing so you can see for sure, drilling into your teeth when you have a cavity, or just someone who tells you he knows how to handle a cavity. Which would YOU prefer?

ooh, me! me! I know the answer!

but then you get my profession- paralegals went to school for a while and have a nifty certificate but not necessarily any real experience, but legal assistants don't have a piece of paper but usually have been doing the job for years.

the real answer is... TRUST NO-ONE! mwahahaha....

or, at least, ask to see primary sources.

*nod* Yeah, it's similair for most certified/liscenced careers. No offense, but I'd no more want you defending me in court than you'd want me signing off on your new skyscraper construction plans (You should ask Rahana to do that ;) )

i wouldn't defend you in court anyway, I do business/nonprofit law and estate planning.  you'd be in real trouble!

uck that is kinda like me... The paralegals in our firm... well only TWO have certifications.. I am a assistant paralegal and have a bachleors degree in LEGAL STUDIES and going to law school next month.. I also have more than 2 years experience but I am still an assistant for that firm.. The OTHER firm I work in I am the TOP paralegal.  While I have a degree it is not the CLA that is recommended, I actually have MORE schooling than required.  All I have to do is take the test.  But why I am going to LS in a month so who cares...  Law Firm Number two gets that #1 doesn't.  Because I don't have a peice of paper I am not a "paralegal" I can do ALL of the work and someone else gets the credit.. Sucks but that is the way it is... Maybe it is better that way..

I agree with HK.. Know the source of the money.. that is where the REAL opinion is!

You guys are WAY off topic....

My answer: I AGREE!

Here's validation: http://www.drweil.com/u/QA/QA287180/

By the way, I do this nearly every day, and it doesn't sound counter-intuitive to me at all. It makes sense: if your body doesn't have the immediate fuel found in a full stomach, it's going to go to your fat reserves to find the energy for your workout. Ergo you lose it.

Then when you eat, your metabolism's already been jacked up by the exercise. It makes perfect sense to me.

Alright..

Some questions..

WHO is Dr. Weil

What is his Dr. Liscence in? (There are lots of different kind of doctors. He could be a foot doctor for all we know. Or a Dentist. Or, hell, a Doctor of Psychology.) What sort of proof do we have that he's an expert in Sports Medicine/Nutrition/any of the like?

Mmmm....I see your problem right away--you got it off Wikipedia--you CANNOT, absolutely CANNOT believe what you read on that site. There is no authority on there, no license.....anyone can put any BS up there that they want....so I don't trust it in the least.

HK- darn.. um, I can't fidn where I saw it, but I've seen Dr. Weil's credentials someplace, I think he was written up in one fo the majro mags recently (Time, Newsweek, etc.)...

I can't type today.

BUT.  There's a significant difference between working out on an empty stomach, per the Dr. Weil article, and working out while feeling weak from hunger, per the Wiki quote.

Just another way to look at the topic . . .

How do you feel when you are weak from hunger? Maybe weak? How does that translate into your workout? Maybe not as good of a workout?

From personal experience (I am not a doctor, disclaimer, etc, etc), I have found that I have a much better quality of workout when I have some energy and when I am comfortable. Otherwise I am much more likely to throw in the towel - I quit earlier and workout less intensely. And that can't be good, can it?

I don't think I'll try this . . .

Dr. Weil is an M.D. He teaches at the University of Arizona School of Medicine (where I met him). He's thorough in his research. I've been following his advice for years and I'm quite healthy.

I wouldn't say I'm "weak from hunger" in the morning when I ride to work. Going over those hills couldn't be done if I were. But I'm still fasting since dinner the previous day. And I have plenty of energy to get me the 6.2 miles to work.

To be "weak from hunger" I'd have to fast for a few days.

p.s. You can read more about Andrew Weil's credentials on his web site. Here's a link to the best book on nutrition every written (as far as I'm concerned):

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0060959584/s r=8-7/qid=1151098253/ref=pd_bbs_7/104-7134501 -6126366?%5Fencoding=UTF8