Best weight-loss article I've found

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24843493/

 

Very good article

Agreed!

Wow!  This is fantastic.  It just seems so honest.  I think when you're dieting ... and to be honest even on CC we sometimes perpetuate myths.  I think we all become so desperate to find something that works (hence why fads happen) that we end up believing in things that aren't always true.  Then that myth is carried through these circles of people seeking answers and it just gets bigger and bigger.  It's nice that in this articles things are told how they really are - no myths.

I didn't like it.

Rider Chick -- Just curious, why didn't you like it?

I didn't like it either.  I've read countless articles that completely disagree with many of the "facts" stated in this article.  And these articles I read were not in favor of any fad diets either, they were articles published in scientific journals and such

"Does exercise help?
Exercise has many health and emotional benefits, but it doesn't make a huge difference when it comes to weight loss."

And that's when I stopped reading. What a load of crap.

Original Post by cellophane_star:

"Does exercise help?
Exercise has many health and emotional benefits, but it doesn't make a huge difference when it comes to weight loss."

And that's when I stopped reading. What a load of crap.

 

Ditto.

OK, I actually did keep reading after that, but just barely, and I ended up only finding more with which I disagreed.

I think you should keep reading... I think this guy's comments have been taken out of text. What I take from it is if we do not start eating right we can exercise for hours on end and it will still be difficult to lose weight. ( I am a perfect example - I felt if I just worked out for 2 hours a day 5 days a week I would have to lose something, but it was not until I started making healthier choices and watching my calories did anything happen.)

 

There is a poster at my gym that says 80% of weight loss is what we eat. Exercise plays a huge part in being healthy inside and out - but we have to eat HEALTHY in order for it all to work together.

I was exaggerating... I did read the rest & it wasn't bad but I don't personally understand dieting without exercising.

Original Post by amk042900:

I think you should keep reading... I think this guy's comments have been taken out of text. What I take from it is if we do not start eating right we can exercise for hours on end and it will still be difficult to lose weight. ( I am a perfect example - I felt if I just worked out for 2 hours a day 5 days a week I would have to lose something, but it was not until I started making healthier choices and watching my calories did anything happen.)

 

There is a poster at my gym that says 80% of weight loss is what we eat. Exercise plays a huge part in being healthy inside and out - but we have to eat HEALTHY in order for it all to work together.

 Exactly!  I'm so with you.  Of course exercise is important and the health benefits are tremendous, I think the point being made was that exercise alone is not enough.  As a person who has always struggeled with weight I think people get the impression that I'm completely out of shape and do exercise.  The reality is that my problem is not laziness by any means what-so-ever, my issue is with eating.  Just think of the football players in high school.  So many of those guys were absolutely huge but worked out constantly, those guys just as much exercise as any other type of athlete the only difference was those guys ate so much no exercise would make up for it.

What I got from the article is that weight loss is literally a lifestyle change.  Exercise and changes in eating are the solution, not just one or the other.

If your over consuming calories without being an intense athlete you will not lose weight. If you are lowering your caloric intake and exercising you can eat a little more and your diet will be tolerable. That makes sense to me. It really all comes down to the calories consumed and the calories burned. Fad diets are just gimmicks designed for profit. 

umm..... don't know if i read it wrong, but

 

Doesn't strength training build muscle and therefore increase your resting metabolic rate?
That's actually a myth. You'd have to be totally ripped — like, bodybuilder ripped — to get a noticeable bump in your metabolism. Most people burn about one calorie per kilogram of body weight per minute, whereas a bodybuilder burns about 1.2.

 

if i at 67 kg were to burn 1 calorie per minute of my weight that would mean i burn 67 KG per minute, or over 4,000 calories per hour...

hmmmm.... just doesn't seem plausible, does it?

Original Post by nata28:

umm..... don't know if i read it wrong, but

Doesn't strength training build muscle and therefore increase your resting metabolic rate?
That's actually a myth. You'd have to be totally ripped — like, bodybuilder ripped — to get a noticeable bump in your metabolism. Most people burn about one calorie per kilogram of body weight per minute, whereas a bodybuilder burns about 1.2.

if i at 67 kg were to burn 1 calorie per minute of my weight that would mean i burn 67 KG per minute, or over 4,000 calories per hour...

hmmmm.... just doesn't seem plausible, does it?

You have to remember that what we often refer to as a calorie is a kilocalorie, not an actual calorie. When you put things that way, it still makes some more sense.

At least, it makes more sense than 4000 calories burned an hour.

"After six months, if you get there, you're a success story. If you haven't lost all the weight you want to lose in that time, you're probably not going to do it."

What a load of crap =(  Im glad im not gullable.

I didn't like this part:

"After six months, if you get there, you're a success story. If you haven't lost all the weight you want to lose in that time, you're probably not going to do it."

...I'm sorry, but to me, that sounds really depressing. I'm a failure if I don't lose all that weight in 6 months?! Maaaaaan

Original Post by katepoo:

I didn't like this part:

"After six months, if you get there, you're a success story. If you haven't lost all the weight you want to lose in that time, you're probably not going to do it."

...I'm sorry, but to me, that sounds really depressing. I'm a failure if I don't lose all that weight in 6 months?! Maaaaaan

 I agree. What a load of crap. Some people have too MUCH weight to lose to lose it all in six months. And even for those of us with less to lose, six months isn't some magic number. I've lost 25 pounds since September, which is nine months, and it's been pretty evenly distributed--and some of it lost was DEFINITELY past the six-month mark.

I'm happy others agreed with me.

You can't put a time limit on a lifestyle change, and you will not get the body you want (maybe the weight) if you sit on the couch and eat 1200 calories.

That's only my humble opinion.

I agree. What a load of crap. Some people have too MUCH weight to lose to lose it all in six months. And even for those of us with less to lose, six months isn't some magic number. I've lost 25 pounds since September, which is nine months, and it's been pretty evenly distributed--and some of it lost was DEFINITELY past the six-month mark.

i've read a few articles that have said that any particular weight-loss phase is likely to last about six months, and that after that it may be necessary to take a break.  we're likely to plateaux anyway, so going to maintenance for three months or so is a good idea.  call it establishing a new set-point, if you like.  then you can go into a new weight-loss phase with more success.

it seems to work that way for me.  i can lose about ten, then i have to take a break or i will rebound. 

As far as what muscle does or does not do for your metabolism, I am 110 lbs. and eat 3,500 calories to maintain my weight. I have been working out for almost two decades, but I am not a professional bodybuilder: I am not "ripped." And while I work out a lot every week, that is not enough to explain what I can eat—especially given that my metabolism is negatively impacted by a thyroid disorder (and wasn't faster than the average before I started working out). Exercise and muscle explains the amount of food I can consume.

Of course, as I say, this is something I accomplished over a long period of time. Anyone new to weight lifting, and cutting calories to boot, is likely either to simply maintain the muscle they already have or to build a little initially and then level off. But maintaining muscle is better than losing it as you lose weight, for health and appearance both. And if one is looking for something more than a quick-fix weight loss, and instead considering long-term health, maintaining the weight that has been lost, and  looking the best you possibly can, exercise and muscle maintenance are two things to concentrate on right along with the food you eat—from Day One.