Your case is not compelling. from the American Heart Association and the American College of Sports Medicine in 2007: http://www.acsm.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Home_Page&Template=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=7788 Translation: even though we've been pimping this advice for decades and have staked our reputations on it, we have no evidence that exercise leads to weight loss. The best we can say is that if you are a man who exercises an hour a day, you might gain less weight than a similar man who doesn't exercise. But they both still gained weight. No it isn't. For one thing, those variables are highly dependent. When you restrict calories in (deprivation) your body responds by restricting calories out (fatigue, lower body temp). Also, there is no reason for the calories you lose to neccesarily come from fat cells. Fat cells are regulated by insulin, and as long as insulin is high, your body will consume energy from other cells before fat cells give up their energy. That's why you see alot of "skinny fat" people who have lost weight through semi-starvation diets. Or if you try to exercise to increase calories out, your body will respond by getting very hungry and by expending less calories during nonexercise periods. That's why my dad sleeps on the couch all day after playing a few hours of tennis every sunday morning, and probably consumes more calories on those days as well. A 250 lb man would have to climb 20 flights of stairs to work off a piece of toast.
Taubes article on exercise from NY Magazine (read the anecdotal comments as well) http://nymag.com/news/sports/38001/comments.html
Oh come on, as long as you feed your body with the right things you aren't doing any harm to exercise. I have increased my exercise activity recently and I feel like I don't eat much more than when I did before, just enough to keep it moving. The key is eating until you are not hungry, not eating until you are full. Most people have a skewed view of exercise where if you exercise for an hour then it's a free pass to lay around all day, just keep moving a little all day long.
Two thoughts, from my experience. A year ago, I had gotten seriously obese, topping out at 240 pounds (at 5'9"). I had been what I call manageably obese (~215-220 pounds) for a few years. At 220, I didn't look my best, but I got around fine, could do any outdoor activities that I wanted, and didn't have any serious health problems due to my health. I had been a gym member and somewhat regular exerciser the entire time. The extra 20 pounds really hurt my ability to ride bikes, hike, and play pickup basketball, and I decided I had to do something. I started Crossfit and lost 45 pounds in 6 months. I've done a paleo-ish diet at times, but not consistently. I've lost the weight almost completely due to the exercise. From my experience, the exercise that most fat people do to lose weight doesn't work very well at all. 30 minutes on the elliptical three times a week won't do anything for you. You have to build muscle and get your heart rate up. High intensity interval training is the flavor of the day, and it works. If you prefer, lift heavy weights and run medium distances fast. Anyone saying that it's a simple heat balance is wrong, because they can't tell you how many calories you burn. A pipefitter that lifts weights burns three times as many calories in a week as a IT guy that only walks around the block for exercise, but the books will tell you to eat the same amount of calories. I'm pretty sure that I ate close to 3000 calories/day, and lost weight. I avoided sweets and breads, so I didn't have many reactions slowing my metabolism down, but I didn't diet seriously. I worked out seriously, built muscle, and burned fat. I'm still technically overweight by the official measurements and I still have a bit of a belly, but I'm stronger and faster than 90% of the men my age, and really healthy, according to my doctor. To get even more obese is a different lifestyle. My brother is 5'11", 325 pounds, at 20 years old. He's a really big and strong guy and could probably carry 240-250 healthily, but not that much. He eats a lot, and a lot of junk, and he does most of the things a typical junior college student does, except the physical part. He doesn't do any physical activity on a regular basis. No pick-up basketball, no lifting weights, no ultimate frisbee, nothing. He goes home and watches sports all day, every day. He does play sports occasionally, and does well at basketball and football, and is generally happy. But his health sucks. He can't do a tough-ish mile hike without stopping several times for breath. He has hip, knee, and back problems like a 50-year-old. My obervations are this: The normal American lifestyle will get most people fat, even if you do the recommended 3 days/week of moderate exercise. You won't get to the extreme obesity that my brother does, but you will get fat enough to hamper your lifestyle and cut years off your life. The study is right about the normal long, slow exercise that most people recommend. It might make you somewhat healthier, but it doesn't help you lose weight beyond a point. You won't build much muscle, and the 3-5 hours per week isn't nearly enough to offset the 160-ish sedentary hours. And increasing the amount of same long, slow exercise might actually hurt your health. As a country, if we're going to continue eating similar things, we don't need more marathoners to get healthier; we need more sprinters.
In highschool I used to weigh 180 fast forward 5 years and I got up to 260 lbs(6'0) by eating fast food, drinking alot, and just generally being lazy.. last year in a matter of 7 months i lost nearly 80 pounds by doing *drum roll* Getting my fat ass to the gym to work out, and by semi counting my caloric intake and portion control... I just don't wanna hear "its gentics, blah blah blah" they sound like excuses to me... So I am pretty sure It has to do with taking in less energy than you exert..
Here are some diverting tactics: It's society's fault=Blame everyone but yourself. Society is the mystical object, untangible and elusive in its responsibility to answer for the affects manifested by itself. Why do people do (insert habit - ie surf the web, play video games)?=Diversion comparison - a classic technique used to derail a discussion by inserting a reference to a non-related habit. This is accomplished by insinuating that non-related habits are somehow responsible for other behaviour, or that the methodolgy to understand non-related behaviour is relevant or irrelevant to the discussion, or more commonly that the uncertainty in understanding what cause non-related behaviour makes the argument irrelevant. Let's ask about a relevant related behaviour: getting skinny. Is it caused by genetics? Sure why not. Is it caused by physical exercise? Sure why not. Is it caused by good diet? Sure why not. So is being fat or skinny an immutable characteristic? Only if it is genetic. So it must be genetics that made the average waste size of an adult American male change from 28 to 34 in the past 100 years. Gee, I'm so stupid. I thought it had something to do with food availability and sedintary life-style.
Americans eat, this number is a total guess but I think somewhat close, more than three quarters of their food raped with preservatives. Where in many European countries their food is fresh, made at home. It may have all the ingredients of something less healthy than what we eat, but the lack of preservatives more than makes up for it. We're a lazy people, we'd rather have food in 5 minutes than waiting an hour for something healthier.
To answer the question, They get fat by being lazy, eating too much, and eating unhealthy. Get your ass off the couch and exercise a few times a week. Rather than being lazy and picking up McDonalds on the way home from work, spend 30-60 minutes cooking some fresh.
Commodore is correct and you guys need to re-read what he wrote. There is more than 1 way to get "super fat": 1. Consuming too many calories relative to your resting metabolic rate. 2. Consuming not enough calories relative to your resting metabolic rate. At a certain point. Not eating enough or frequently enough will trick your brain into thinking that it's starving. When in starvation mode, the body will hold onto whatever it takes in (as fat). Exercise becomes a factor because your body will adjust to the physical activity you put it through and understand it needs to be built to readily expend energy. Instead of placing food into storage, it places it in your body where it is easily burned off (I'm speaking in laymen's terms on purpose). We are now into many generations where people don't know how to eat. Most Americans are overworked, underexercised, and lack basic diet/exercise knowledge. Parents go to work, skip breakfast, eat a huge lunch, come home and eat a huge dinner, and pass out only to repeat the next day. Their kids are taught the same habits and this is accepted as being normal. Rather than just blabber and not offer solutions I'll post a common daily schedule of a person that is more than likely to be overweight versus somebody that has control over their weight. Person 1: MORE LIKELY TO BE OBESE 6 AM: Wake up and go to work 12 PM: Big Lunch that is probably a massive portion from a restaurant. Includes white carbs, fatty meat and no vegetables. 5 PM: Leave work 6 PM: Big Dinner: Similar meal to lunch. 7-10PM: Turn into a couch potato in front of the TV and pass out. Person 2: MORE LIKELY TO HAVE CONTROL OF THEIR WEIGHT 6 AM: Wake up and eat a big breakfast. This includes eggs (egg whites w/veggies are better), a lean protein (turkey bacon, canadian bacon, ham), small portion of fruit. Drive to work. 9:30 AM: Snack. 4 oz of a lean protein, cup of veggies, cup of healthy carbs (ie: brown rice). For those that can't make a meal like this, a cup of greek yogurt is better than nothing. 12 PM: Lunch: Similar meal to 9:30 snack. 3 PM: Handful of almonds (healthy source of fat). 5 PM: Leave work 6 PM: Dinner. 6 oz of lean protein, salad, vegetables and a healthy carb (ie: sweet potato) 9 PM: Pre-Bed snack: 4-6 egg whites or a protein shake. Person 1's diet is too acceptable in our culture while Person 2's diet seems crazy to most of us. Person 2 eats more often and probably more food overall. Until we acknowledge that 1-2 meals a day is bad and being ignorant about exercising and eating good foods, our obesity problems will continue. Until then...
i don't want to copy chievous' post to make mine super long, but you run into a problem that many people don't want to take on. Person 2 will spend a ton more money on food than Person 1 will, people instinctively will always go for the cheaper option.
That is certainly a good eating plan, but isn't it true that if "Person 2" burns less calories then they take in, they will eventually gain weight? Assume I eat a healthy diet (similar to the one you mention) and overall take in 1000 calories a day (for argument's sake). Assume I only burn 800 calories a day. Won't I eventually gain weight? In't a reasonable alternative to burn off an additional 200 or so calories a day by exercising? Doesn't that lead one to believe that exercising DOES help you lose weight?
i dont think so, I could eat two meals at a restaurant and spend less than $20. I would spend about that much getting the ham, eggs, fruit, yogurt, even more yogurt/fruit, nuts, salad, vegetables, sweet potato, lean protein meat, more eggs/protein shake. in fact looking at it, I'd spend well over $20 a day on food going that route.
On top of that, I'd be spending the same if not more money and have to prepare everything for myself instead of letting someone else do it. People are way way way too lazy to pay more for food and have to do all the work.
When you eat properly portioned and balanced meals frequently through the day, your body will turn into a calorie burning machine (I know this from my own experiences and results from other people). You are telling your body that it's getting food often. It knows that it's going to constantly be getting energy and doesn't need to store it. It not all about how much you eat, it's also about how often and what you eat. Different foods might be equal calories. If one is broken down slower than the other, the body is going to need to expend more energy just to break down food. This is why celery is considered a negative calorie food as it's very tough for the system to break down. This is why brown carbs are typically better than white carbs. As to your questions, of course exercise helps you lose weight. The human body is an amazing thing. We come in all shapes and sizes and these are determined by both our genetics and what we do with our time. There's a reason why sumo wrestlers look like sumo wrestlers, power lifters look like power lifters, track and field stars look like.... and so on. Our bodies will adapt to the activities you put it through. If you lift heavy weight on a consistant basis, your body will know that it needs more mass continue to gain strength and muscle will grow. If you run long distances, your body knows that being super lean is ideal and it adapts. For men, the right exercise boosts testosterone levels. Boosted testosterone levels help promote more muscle growth. To hold onto that muscle, the body will spend more energy to maintain it (this is why muscle is called the best fat burner). Exercising over your lifetime will absolutely help you keep fat off. Exercising is still not an excuse to eat like crap, but putting on muscle and telling your body that its going to burn some calories today does set yourself up for success. I will correct you on one thing though. Every person has a "resting metabolic rate" and "basal metabolic rate." Google them to get a brief understanding. Basically, if you lay in bed all day, your body will still burn calories for it's basic functions. These rates vary based on size, gender, genetics, etc. From what I've read: To lose fat: You should consume 350 calories less than your resting metabolic rate(RMR). Let's say mine (I'm 5'9 180 lbs) is 1850 calories. On a day where I don't workout, my goal should be to consume 1500 calories (1850 calories for my RMR less 350 calories for fat loss). If I happen to workout and burn 200 calories, I need to consume 1700(1850 RMR + 200 exercise - 350 fat loss) calories as my body needed more energy to do what it does for the day. To gain muscle: You should consume 350 calories MORE than your RMR. Yes, you eat more than you burn. You need to be putting strain on your muscles to stimulate growth. You will likely put on small amounts of fat along with the muscle, but in the long run you are doing your body a favor by putting on that muscle to help burn the fat off. Disclaimer: I'm not a doctor or personal trainer. I just love fitness/nutrition. I could be mixing up Resting Metabolic Rate and Basal Metabolic Rate. And apologies for the TL;DR
I would rather spend a little bit more on healthy food and a little bit of effort than spend $20 on cheap restaurant food that is most likely terrible for me. Personal choices of course. This is opening another can of worms, but another reason we are getting fat is that cheaper foods are typically horrible for you. There's a reason fruit/vegetables cost more than flour products and dairy products... we pay our farmers huge government subsidies to make these fattening foods with little nutrition so we can buy them cheap. Very little government money goes to fruits/veggies.
ChievousFTFace, Meal frequency has nothing to do with your metabolism. Eating more frequently doesn't stoke the "metabolic fire." That myth has been laid to rest. I only eat two meals a day and each is around 1000 kcals, more on workout days. I am 5'8" and 155lb around 9%bf. I also don't ever eat breakfast, oh and I eat right before I go to sleep on most days.
