fast food, soda, refined carbs the other day at chick fil a, I saw a friend order a #1, and grab 4 packs of chick fil a sauce and pour it all over his sandwhich I told him he just added more calories than his sandwhich and sweet tea combined.....he didn't care when people consume their daily calorie intake during lunch, then the body will store the excess calories as fat, in this case, my friend consumed 1600 calories and his body needed about 600, so his body will store 1000 calories I gave up fast food, soda and frozen dinners and dropped 40 lbs with diet and exercise
Rep me if you want me to spare you me commenting on this thread again! 5 rep points will totally buy me off! (j/k I am gonna ignore it this time....honest....well maybe!)
You can say exercise does nothing in terms of making you lose weight by posting all these articles but I can rebuttal with my own life experiences. I gained 20 pounds my first year of college due to eating whatever I want and drinking heavily. I was lifting weights 5 days a week but never did any cardio. Two years later I started playing full court basketball games, 2-3 hour sessions about 3 times a week (we wouldn't lose so we stayed on the court), on top of still lifting throughout the week. My diet stayed the same, drinking heavy 3 days a week (its college), while eating Church's and Popeye's chicken non stop and I lost 15 pounds doing that. My arteries were probably getting clogged still but I lost a lot of weight. It's a matter of the intensity you put into your workout. I've seen overweight people go to the gym only to barely go through motions, and of course those people aren't going to see any weight loss results they aren't working hard enough for it.
Lets say that I have an identical twin brother. We both consume exactly 2600 calories a day. We are both lazy and sit and watch TV all day, and our total daily energy expenditure of is 2600 calories. If I start running 10 miles a day and burn 1400 calories in the process, won’t I lose more weight than my brother?
Haha YES! I've done it, I've seen my friends do it, I've seen people at the gym work their asses off and since we are all gym frequenters I could see their progress, but apparently we are the ignorant ones. One of my friends ballooned to well over 200 pounds. He literally started running 10 miles a day on the treadmill at one of the highest speeds, it was funny and insane to watch at the same time but he lost over 30 pounds doing that.
no wonder so many people are overweight... there's a lot of idiots in this world. i mean just look at some of the posts in this thread.
This. Not only that, but I bet your friend was hungry a few hours later. When I eat stuff like that, somehow I can't get enough- it's not filling. Also amazing is how hard it is to avoid foods like this unless you cook.
This right here...smh...this thread needs to be closed! It's spiraled out of control when comments like these are made based on a NYMAG.com article. Do you realize how long a marathon is? 26 freaking miles! You honestly don't think you are not going to lose ANY weight if you properly train for such an event? Have you seen how fat a lot of the retired professional athletes are now because they don't work out anymore compared to the ones that still do? And Yes working out makes you hungry, but its about self control.
I think the point he's making is that generally more exercise means you work up an appetite. Less exercise means you shouldn't have an increase in appetite or a small appetite, so based on scientific reasoning, there's no reason why exercise should make you lose weight, or no correlation, so it's not logical to make the statement that "the more you exercise, the more weight you lose." In other words, nutrition is more important, since there's a direct correlation (insulin to fat). If you did lose weight it would be because you forced yourself not to eat more in response to exercise, went against biology, basically starvation, which isn't good. So science says people gain excess weight because of diet, not lack of exercise, which should mean you lose weight through diet, not exercise. I must admit that i've realized over time that even people who are fitness/nutrition professionals are wrong. Usually because they were taught wrong though, so i'm not sure that's true ignorance. For example, you always hear about stretching prior to exercise....and i heard about it from professors, but i had one teaching fellow, with a lot of work and experience (teaching and competing) under his belt, who said he never did it and didn't think it was necessary. That kind of always stuck with me since, especially because i never did i either and had always been pretty athletic, but it seemed like everything i read said the opposite. Recently I read a blog written by a therapist that completely changed things up for me and has helped me a lot. The basic idea is that stretching inactivates muscles, which is exactly what you don't want when you're preparing to move. It's important to constantly learn, but i think we sometimes are afraid to change our views because it's seen as flip flopping or a sign of not being sure of something. I've been reading more of the links posted and I have a better idea of where Commodore is coming from, although i still think he's just confusing people by being too direct with his original statement/explanation. I hope to finish reading later tonight though so i can better gather my thoughts on all this.
I saw a documentary on the Discovery Channel about a guy that swam the English Channel. He gained 16 lbs of body fat on purpose for the swim. By the end of it he had lost it all. I can't find it to embed though.
Huge part. I know for me, we had my gf's brother living with us up until recently. He is 26 and consumes 3-4 energy drinks every day, would eat fast food at least every second day if not more and does no physical activity at all once he finishes work and yet he is basically skin on bones. Meanwhile I am either playing or training for sport 5 nights a week, do weights with a mate 3 times a week and go for an hour walk nearly every night with the missus and I still have to really eat healthy to not put any on. I injured my back and couldn't play sport for 6 months and it was near impossible to stop my weight from increasing.
I’m all for the latest scientific studies, but not when they ignore the basic principles of weight loss (calories in vs. calories burned). Its really hard to take them seriously when they do that. When you look at athletes that have to make weight for their particular sports like wrestlers and boxers, etc.., they all lose weight the same way. They basically lower their caloric intake and increase their activity. Both of my sons are wrestlers. Every October they are usually 20 pounds over their wrestling weight. It doesn't take them long to lose the 20 pounds. The first 15 pounds is lost just by the training alone, without worrying about caloric intake. Because of the exercise they will eat more, but they are burning more calories than they are consuming. The last 5 pounds are a lot harder to burn, which is when they start to diet. At that point they will go on a high protein, moderate carbohydrate (for training energy), low fat diet.
People pig out after exercise? My thinking is totally the opposite, I am always looking for good food after lifting.
That's not a principle of weight loss, that's the definition of weight loss. If I ask you "why is that room crowded?", and you tell me "because more people are entering than leaving", you've explained nothing. Why are people entering? Why aren't people leaving? What determines how many calories you burn? Do the calories come from fat cells? Muscle cells? Organ tissue? Does reducing calories (i.e. starvation) influence calories burned? Fat regulation is what matters, not calorie counting. Fat cannot be released from fat cells if insulin levels are too high, and carbs drive insulin levels. Amazing how the low fat/calorie counting/fitness craze that began in the 1970s corresponds directly to the beginning of the precipitous rise in obesity and diabetes.
I think it just comes down to the skinny-fat problem. Going by calories alone, you put yourself at risk of being skinny-fat after losing weight. Did you lose weight? Yes, but your body's composition is still mainly fat, so you're still fat technically, but in a smaller package. If the point is to lose fat, then you need to go after fat itself, which is where carbs and insulin come in. However, science says it's easier for some people to go after fat itself because they release it more easily, and others dont (because of how they react to carbs). IIRC, to prove something you need both correlation and causation. Excess calories in general or not enough activity are correlated to, but not direct causes, of accumulating fat tissue. The direct cause is insulin secretion. Correlation alone just means that sometimes things will line up for you and you'll get fat loss within your weight loss, but sometimes they dont, and you'll lose non-fat weight. With causation though, you should specifically be losing fat, but again, some people just dont release fat easily.
Not sure what you had to correct me on. I never stated that you didn't burn calories just resting. I do know that. I am just trying to counter Commodore's post that exercise doesn't help you lose weight. Simply put, regardless of how well you eat, if you take in more calories than you burn on a regular basis then you will gain weight. There are two solutions to that situation: 1. Take in less calories 2. Burn more calories Agian, the premise should be that you don't have to exercise to lose weight, but exercising can certainly help you lose weight.
