Does Exercise Really Make Us Thinner?

http://nymag.com/news/sports/38001/

 

I found this article, and was wondering how valid it was. Seems pretty ridiculous, but I thought I'd get some insight from you guys.

Yeah, that's wrong - the article's author claims that Mayer is the father of physical culture, but he's a latecomer to the party compared to Eugen Sandow who published his first book in 1894.

 And there is a vague correct point buried in there, that it's a combination of dietary restriction (calorie counting) and strength training (and NOT with pink dumbbells) that is sufficient stimulus for weight control, while endless hours of cardio is not.

 Successful long-term weight control consists of controlling your intake, increasing your expenditure, and routinely checking your weight on the scale to make the neccesary adjustments along the way. Miss out on either one, and your long-term success is doubtful.

Thanks melkor, good to know considering I only do 20 min. cardio and 30 min. weight training when I go to the gym. And no, their not pink either, however the strength training equipment at the gym happens to be purple. :-/

 Curtinks was thinking of spray-painting his weight plates neon pink just to make a point - it's the weight you lift, not what colour dumbbells you use ;)

 And for some rotator cuff and shoulder pre/re-hab exercises, 1-2lbs weights make perfect sense when you're working on increasing range of motion and correcting postural imbalances and other muscular dysfunctions.

 The only thing that really makes me go "huh?" is when you see mom who routinely lifts and carries her 50lbs child during playtime use a 5lbs dumbbell for her lifts.

 It's all a matter of finding a challenge that's appropriate to you - not anyone else. As long as you're pushing your own limits and expanding them, and having fun in the process, you're doing it right ;)

It's an interesting article and it does a good job of addressing one of the great fallacies in weight loss.  Too many people think that they will lose weight if they exercise when the determining factor is diet. 

Exercise, whether it be cardio or resistance, has it's own benefits but weight loss isn't one of them.  It is true that when people ask me what I've done to lose weight I always say that I have been riding my bike because I have but really I lose weight because of the relationship between what I expend caloriewise bike riding and what I eat.  When I'm not riding I still eat as if I am and I gain weight.  When I ride I burn up these calories and my weight where I want it to be. Bike riding does not make me hungrier but not riding does not make me less hungry. 

But in my opinion exercise does not determine whether or not you will lose weight, diet does and ultimately it is the relationship between calories in and calories out that matters most.

I have also read other articles about the effect of carbohydrates on insuline levels and how this effects body fat.  I think that there is something to this.

As for the question, "Does exercise really make us thinner?"  In my opinion, No.

So trhawley, let me know if I got this wrong - but your opinion is that weight loss is only done by having a deficit of calories? So, if I were to never work out, and have the deficit, I would still lose weight just as quickly?

I know that exercise helps with the deficit (obviously), but I've heard that burning the calories is more effective then starving them, whether it be weight training or cardio.

Melkor, I completely understand - I watch these girls go to the free weight section and lift 5lbs dumbbells, when their purses that they carry (WITH them) probably way more. I want to go over there and help them, but I know they'd get offended. I mean, I could understand if they were just trying to maintain their strength, but, 5lbs?! Then they look at me all funny when I go over there and curl 30 with no problem... I always love that.

Yes, it is my opinion that given the same deficit with or without exercise the weight loss amount will be the same, but the composition of the loss may be different.

Exercise has it's own benefits.  Regular cardio and strength training ensures that you will maintain a healthy heart, bone density, and muscle mass.  This is important for longevity.

What the article points out is that exercise without a calorie deficit does not lead to weight loss.

Original Post by melkor :

Yeah, that's wrong - the article's author claims that Mayer is the father of physical culture, but he's a latecomer to the party compared to Eugen Sandow who published his first book in 1894.

 

 Wow does it ever stop?

This is something everybody needs to be aware of.  Often you will find somebody that disagrees with a premise of an article and will do so with a false claim.  For instance Melkor falsely accuses the author of making the claim that Maley is "father of physical culture", the author makes no such claim. 
Then the individual will try to assert themselves as the primary expert.  Melkor does this by trying to appear to be the expert by inserting obscure knowledge of a book published in 1894.  The book, nor the claim have anything to do with the premise or facts in the article.  Then Melkor tries to assume that he is the superior expert and his advise should take precedence.  

The article does a great job in looking at fat and weight loss from the point of homeostasis.  It also challenges a lot of popular beliefs with some convincing studies. 

OH CRAP melkor you've done it now

This is something everybody needs to be aware of.

Then I hope for everbody's sake they read it, cause eye opening posts like this don't come along very often.  Does this mean we can relieve Melkor of his moderator duties.....J/K Melkor, I always appreciate your posts.

Okay, setting aside the apparent non sequiter, I'd like to point out that the second paragraph of Melkor's post is spot-on. The author is very vague about the combination of dietary restriction and exercise. His fundamental argument as I read it, is that exercise increases hunger and for that reason exercise may in fact increase weight. Of course, the person has to overeat as a response to that hunger in order to actually gain the weight, but that's not really touched . . . the author doesn't seem to want to discuss basic calorie deficits, but whatever. He's decided to look at exercise in a vacuum when nothing in life is quite that uncomplicated. The author obviously has an agenda and is a proponent of the obesity is genetic and carbs are bad theories.

Moving Along . . .

So, what is the consensus about hunger? Are you hungrier after exercising? I know that I usually am, and I tend to eat more calories on work out days, however I maintain a deficit and thus am losing weight. I also tend to have a slightly larger deficit on workout days than regular days because while I do eat more, I don't eat a LOT more. What does everyone else think? Is there some hormone that triggers an intense hunger after exercising?

I  don't pretend to be an academic about the issue but I do know that while I was on a weight loss plateau, I still lost huge amounts of inches and that was strictly from exercise that I consistently did. 

mhaskell - you've hit on what I think was the main problem with the article. Just like reports that say diet soda makes you fat (because it leads you to want more sweet things) - just because something makes you want more does not mean that you actually eat more.

Before I was counting calories, I definitely ate more on days I exercised - I saw it as a necessary reward for my efforts. Now, I pretty much always aim for the same calorie target. Sometimes I'm famished after working out, but if I eat slowly, I still don't go over my limit. Other times (right now, for instance), I'm not that hungry, but by the time I get dinner ready, I'll be ready for it, and will eat an appropriate amount.

In my opinion, when stating that x causes y, you need to keep all other variables constant - and in this case, the explanation isn't that exercise doesn't work, it's that our actions after the excercise negate the weight loss benefits. So exercise isn't the culprit - our response to it is.

Original Post by amethystgirl:

mhaskell - you've hit on what I think was the main problem with the article. Just like reports that say diet soda makes you fat (because it leads you to want more sweet things) - just because something makes you want more does not mean that you actually eat more.

Before I was counting calories, I definitely ate more on days I exercised - I saw it as a necessary reward for my efforts. Now, I pretty much always aim for the same calorie target. Sometimes I'm famished after working out, but if I eat slowly, I still don't go over my limit. Other times (right now, for instance), I'm not that hungry, but by the time I get dinner ready, I'll be ready for it, and will eat an appropriate amount.

In my opinion, when stating that x causes y, you need to keep all other variables constant - and in this case, the explanation isn't that exercise doesn't work, it's that our actions after the excercise negate the weight loss benefits. So exercise isn't the culprit - our response to it is.

You see this a lot in the diet industry.  A lot of times you will hear that breakfast is is important because it is a common characteristic of successful dieters.  But it is not the breakfast that causes the weight loss, it is the way it helps people eat less.  But you will hear that breakfast revs metabolism and causes weight loss all the time.   

Just look how much starvation mode is expressed in these forums.  The article did a better job in pointing out the homeostatic response caused by exercise that promotes fat growth.  Exercise has an impact on the homeostatic response.

This statement is an important take from the article:  

"If it’s biology, and not a lack of willpower, that explains why exercise fails so many of us as a weight-loss tool, then we can still find reason for optimism. Since insulin is the primary hormone affecting the activity of LPL on our cells, it’s not surprising that insulin is the primary regulator of how fat we get. “Fat is mobilized [from fat tissue] when insulin secretion diminishes,” the American Medical Association Council on Foods and Nutrition explained back in 1974, before this fact, too, was deemed irrelevant to the question of why we gain weight or the means to lose it. Because insulin determines fat accumulation, it’s quite possible that we get fat not because we eat too much or exercise too little but because we secrete too much insulin or because our insulin levels remain elevated far longer than might be ideal."

The article did a good job arguing diet was the key factor in weight loss, not exercise.  

strikez, every post i have seen from you is degrading someone's post because "the individual is tyring to assert themselves as the primary expert" but that is exactly what you are doing by saying everyone is wrong all the time. You are the expert on how everyone is wrong. "Then Melkor tries to assume that he is the superior expert and his advise should take precedence. " Melkor never said anything close to that. he actually said "It's all a matter of finding a challenge that's appropriate to you - not anyone else. As long as you're pushing your own limits and expanding them, and having fun in the process, you're doing it right ;)" I would say giving someone the advice of finding what works for you and sticking to it is probably the best advice you could give someone.


go away, you give me a headache

strikez -

I really don't think that this article is "arguing that diet was the key factor in weight loss", as you put it.  That same paragraph that you pulled says:

"Because insulin determines fat accumulation, it’s quite possible that we get fat not because we eat too much or exercise too little but because we secrete too much insulin or because our insulin levels remain elevated far longer than might be ideal."

The author seems to be saying that we have no control over how fat or thin we are.  He's saying that insulin is the determining factor in how much you weigh.  I'm not a biologist and I haven't done studies into weight loss, but I simply can not believe that insulin is the sole determining factor.  If you believe that, how do you explain the hundreds of people who have lost massive amounts of weight and kept it off for years and years? 

I'm sure insulin is a factor and may help explain why some people have a tendency to overeat and others do not, but I think this argument is just as bad as the argument that breakfast causes weight loss.  No single thing is going to explain why some people are overweight or obese and others are skinny without even trying.  I'm tired of hearing people say "it's not my fault I'm obese" and trying to get the quick fix.  Yes, there are people that are naturally heavier than others.  I'm a medium framed female.  I will never be as skinny as a small framed female of the same height.  My metabolism runs slower than some of the women that I work with, therefore I am heavier than they are even though I eat less.  BUT I control what I eat and how much exercise I get and therefore I am at a healthy weight for MY body.  Unfortunately, people in the last two or three generations (mine included) have become obsessed with quick and easy fixes.  They want an easy answer to complicated problems and they don't want to be responsible for their own decisions.  I think this article is just feeding into that mentality. 

I guess what I'm trying to say is that this author is placing the cause of obesity out of the average person's control, and I simply don't think that's a good mentality to have.  Losing weight is a struggle and keeping it off can sometimes be even harder, but it IS controllable and can be done with a change in diet and activity levels and the willpower to stick with it.

End of Rant.

I definitely agree with the idea of the story.  The amount of calories supposedly burned by exercise - by running for 30 minutes, for example - is so small that the extra appetite the exercise gives you is liable to make you eat it all back, unless you're strictly counting calories. 

 

Looking at it another way - when I was 100 lbs heavier, I was probably eating about 300 to 400 calories more per day than I needed to maintain my 275 lb weight.  So if I had started exercising that much, at best, all it would have done was prevent further gain.  I would not have lost weight without changing my dietary habits.  And to have any noticeable change over any reasonable amount of time, it would have to be a significant calorie deficit.

 

When I first started counting, I probably had a deficit of at least 1000 calories per day.  There is NO WAY a person with a normal lifestyle and working schedule could burn that many calories just by exercising.

 

When I was in my 20s, I bought into the whole 'exercise and eat what you want' thing, but it didn't work.  I gained weight, but it was slow, then once I quit exercising after the kids were born, the gain accelerated, and when I started drinking a lot of beer, it got worse.

 

I don't know where I read about calorie restriction, but it was the idea that long-term restriction of calories could be healthy and even improve longevity that got me on this program.  I determined to restrict my calories for the rest of my life.

 

I'm thinking 1800-2000 high-nutrient calories per day - unless I see the weight creep up by more than a pound or 2, in which case I would adjust slightly downward.

Exercise is great, but I don't count calories burned for exercise, nor do I do it to burn calories.  I do it for health.