Message Boards » General Diet and Weight Loss Help

TOPIC: Exercise Does Not Burn Off Pounds?

« Prev 1 2 Next »
« Prev 1 2 Next »
 
Ic_disabled_photos
Topic has been inactive for 30 days or more and images have been disabled.
Display All Images
February 16, 2013 12:37 PM
This study is an exercise in circular logic and wasted time. Nothing burns fat unless you have a caloric deficit. There is no reason for your body use up its fat stores if you are eating more than you are burning. You could be in a coma and burn fat/lose weight if you have a caloric deficit.
  29528706
February 16, 2013 12:38 PM
I'm not buying it. Someone just put money into a study that tells everyone what they want to hear- that they don't have to exercise, or even shouldn't because they won't find any benefit to doing so. This study will now back statements for tons more diet pills, supplements and superfoods to smash down your gob instead of realizing you can put in some effort and move around for free. It takes more than an hour a week to make a difference, too.
February 16, 2013 12:41 PM
QUOTE:

QUOTE:

QUOTE:

Cardio helps burn fat and calories which results in a loss on the scale and inches.

Therefore:

aerobics = cardio = burned fat and calories = lost pounds and inches = debunking article's claim


And with no resistance training mixed in cardio also = loss of lean muscle mass. Nothing wrong with cardio but cardio alone to create a defcicit has it's downside. Overall weight can go down with body fat% changing relatively little.


Walking alone got my bf% down to 13.


Walking is a low intensity cardio activity that uses mostly fat as fuel. Therefore it is not as catabolic as running, elliptcal or other steady state cardio. Also, 13% would be considered a boderline unhealthy body fat % in a sexually mature woman. How was your body fat % measured? Most methods have a margin of error.
February 16, 2013 12:43 PM
No ****...just because you workout doesn't mean you have a caloric deficit. Caloric deficit is the only thing that burns fat. This is why I always say use your diet for weight control...exercise for fitness and overall health.
February 16, 2013 12:47 PM
The article should have read "Light to moderate exercise does not burn off pounds, but very short bursts (30-60 seconds) of vigorous exercise when combined with a calorie deficit does."
  22710373
February 16, 2013 12:55 PM
I exercised every day, 45-60 minutes, almost for about 8 years (cardio and every full moon, something else). Never lost a pound till I joined MFP and realized again that I had to cut down on that food. Back in 1985 I joined a newly opened fitness center, very small business, that had the best cardio workouts under the sun, plus weights and a few machines. Two instructors gave two classes a day each. Within about a year, they had both gained weight, and none of the members were doing too well. The owner introduced balanced diet to the plan, and within a month most were losing weight. ALL of us had been eating what we wanted just because we worked out hard and on a regular basis. Then she introduced calorie deficit and wow, we were on our way to svelt.
February 16, 2013 12:59 PM
This is a very good topic to put on here. Thank you very much.
February 16, 2013 1:00 PM
QUOTE:

According to an article in the March 2013 Good Housekeeping magazine, "Exercise does not burn off pounds"...

...What do you think?


To be honest with you, I would not consult Good Housekeeping on sport science and weight loss. I think one is better off investigating more authoritative sources for reliable information.
kind regards,

Ben
  33639104
February 16, 2013 1:07 PM
QUOTE:

QUOTE:

According to an article in the March 2013 Good Housekeeping magazine, "Exercise does not burn off pounds"...

...What do you think?


To be honest with you, I would not consult Good Housekeeping on sport science and weight loss. I think one is better off investigating more authoritative sources for reliable information.
kind regards,

Ben


I agree with you and do not consider "Good Housekeeping" an authority on fitness and health by any means.

They do have some good recipes in there though ... ; )
  8865471
February 16, 2013 1:13 PM
QUOTE:

QUOTE:

Cardio helps burn fat and calories which results in a loss on the scale and inches.

Therefore:

aerobics = cardio = burned fat and calories = lost pounds and inches = debunking article's claim


And with no resistance training mixed in cardio also = loss of lean muscle mass. Nothing wrong with cardio but cardio alone to create a defcicit has it's downside. Overall weight can go down with body fat% changing relatively little.


My body fat went down significantly. I had a huge stomach for my frame and now my stomach is mostly flat.

I could use more toning for a flatter stomach and tighter muscles but most of my fat is gone and I don't have any loose skin either.

I think it's okay to lose the fat first with aerobics and then do strength training after to tone after reaching the desired weight loss.
Edited by sunrise611 On February 16, 2013 1:16 PM
  8865471
February 16, 2013 1:33 PM
QUOTE:



My body fat went down significantly. I had a huge stomach for my frame and now my stomach is mostly flat.

I could use more toning for a flatter stomach and tighter muscles but most of my fat is gone and I don't have any loose skin either.

I think it's okay to lose the fat first with aerobics and then do strength training after to tone after reaching the desired weight loss.


Do you have any idea how much lean mass you lost? Have you had Dexa scans or Hydrostatic testing? Losing weight with cardio and deficit can have as much as a 50/50 ratio of fat to lean mass. Not always and maybe not in your case. But why would it not be wise to attempt to retain as much as possible and lose mostly fat. The ratio when strength training is usually 80% fat/ 20% lean mass.

Also, I would strongly disagree with your last statement. I don't think what you suggest is optimum at all. You don't just lose fat doing cardio or any other exercise for that matter. Losing substantial muscle mass and then trying to rebuild it is an extremely inefficient way to do it. Are you prepared for the fat gain when you try to "tone" as that requres a calorie surplus and, just like it's impossible to lose just fat, it's impossible to gain just muscle. Why not preserve as much lean mass as possible with simultateous resistance training? It only seems the sensible thing to do.
February 16, 2013 2:21 PM
I lose more weight when I DONT exercise. I know this is counter intuititve but the scale doesnt lie. I find that when I workout, my body begs for more calories which halts my weight loss. I have a girlfriend who started working out, cardio weights and gained 8lbs. She was heating pretty healthy, but the workouts made her hungrier. I have another gfriend who does cardio everyday and swears by it to keep her weight down. I think different bodies responde differently.
February 16, 2013 2:47 PM
QUOTE:

I lose more weight when I DONT exercise. I know this is counter intuititve but the scale doesnt lie. I find that when I workout, my body begs for more calories which halts my weight loss. I have a girlfriend who started working out, cardio weights and gained 8lbs. She was heating pretty healthy, but the workouts made her hungrier. I have another gfriend who does cardio everyday and swears by it to keep her weight down. I think different bodies responde differently.


Part of what you are losing is lean mass. You are not losing all fat. Lean mass is critial for health. It includes things like lean muscle tissue, bone density, connective tissue. Health is about fat loss not weight loss.
February 16, 2013 2:54 PM
I went to the gym 3-4 times a wk, zuma, aerobics for a year and never lost a pound.

I read in a book that a sumo wrestler works out 6-7 hours a day and eats a huge amount of food so that exercising does not make them lose weight, look how big they are, I am sure strong but I don't want to be that big.

Watching my food is what worked but of course I put exercise in with it to tone up but no amount of exercise coud have worked off all the food I use to eat,lol
  37859827
February 16, 2013 4:54 PM
QUOTE:

Do you have any idea how much lean mass you lost? Have you had Dexa scans or Hydrostatic testing? Losing weight with cardio and deficit can have as much as a 50/50 ratio of fat to lean mass. Not always and maybe not in your case. But why would it not be wise to attempt to retain as much as possible and lose mostly fat. The ratio when strength training is usually 80% fat/ 20% lean mass.

Also, I would strongly disagree with your last statement. I don't think what you suggest is optimum at all. You don't just lose fat doing cardio or any other exercise for that matter. Losing substantial muscle mass and then trying to rebuild it is an extremely inefficient way to do it. Are you prepared for the fat gain when you try to "tone" as that requres a calorie surplus and, just like it's impossible to lose just fat, it's impossible to gain just muscle. Why not preserve as much lean mass as possible with simultateous resistance training? It only seems the sensible thing to do.


No, I am not that bro-sci about it.

I respectfully disagree and think it depends on what you want to achieve.

I do not want to build muscle mass. I just want to look longer and leaner and have a stronger core and can achieve those goals with Pilates and Yoga. Ballet is another way to achieve that.
  8865471
February 16, 2013 5:03 PM
Lose weight in the kitchen, get sexy in the gym.
  35008700
February 16, 2013 6:11 PM
QUOTE:

QUOTE:

This study applies to people that exercise but doesn't diet. Diet is as important or even more important than exercise....

Or to put it more simply and succinctly - "You can't out-train a bad diet".


Or, "Abs are created in the kitchen"
  12083221
February 16, 2013 6:55 PM
I agree to be fit and healthy you need to exercise. To lose pounds on the scale you need to eat less calories.
Edited by symonspatrick On February 16, 2013 7:03 PM
  1748336
February 16, 2013 8:27 PM
In my opinion, the study is stupid. Just like most things in faddish Good Housekeeping. Why even track calories burned? Why keep the body fueled if calories burned don't matter? Are we to believe that a person who works hard is the same as a person who sits and reads Good Housekeeping? Absurd at best.
February 16, 2013 9:29 PM
QUOTE:

I'm not buying it. Someone just put money into a study that tells everyone what they want to hear- that they don't have to exercise, or even shouldn't because they won't find any benefit to doing so. This study will now back statements for tons more diet pills, supplements and superfoods to smash down your gob instead of realizing you can put in some effort and move around for free. It takes more than an hour a week to make a difference, too.


Let me ask you this - Who would have put money into a study to show you don't need exercise to lose weight? I didn't see them talk about that. I don't see the produce industry lobbying anyone. If they said more meat and dairy, then you may have a leg to stand on with that argument.

This (these) studies are not telling people what they don't already know - that diet accounts for 70-80% or more of your results. It did say that exercise is good, and did not say to not exercise...

Damn, it seems whatever is written, people will just read/see what they want to...

Edit - it DOES NOT take more than an hour a week to see results either. Another unfounded opinion. 3 times a week of 20 mins- high intensity training is just as good (if not better) than 4 times a week 1 hour moderate. It's been shown that you only need one set to failure to stimulate muscle growth, and that 80 seconds of muscle stimulation is also enough. This spend all this time in the gym is old dated and proven wrong. Problem is, it's been said millions and millions of times, now people just take it as fact.
Edited by jjrichard83 On February 16, 2013 9:35 PM
  34641214
February 16, 2013 9:30 PM
Doesn't seem to address their diets/total calories consumed.
  7740730
February 16, 2013 9:41 PM
QUOTE:

In my opinion, the study is stupid. Just like most things in faddish Good Housekeeping. Why even track calories burned? Why keep the body fueled if calories burned don't matter? Are we to believe that a person who works hard is the same as a person who sits and reads Good Housekeeping? Absurd at best.


Thats not what they are saying.... They are saying that there is no significant difference or may also not be as good as not exercising for weight loss. They are not talking about whats healthier or not. This (and 15 other) studies show what we already know.

Obviously there isn't enough info in the article to let us know about calories or anything else. But the average person who wants to loose weight, and does nothing other than exercise may not loose weight. What is there to argue about that?


- there are so many (countless) benefits of exercise. No one is denying that. The way it's framed here, they are right though...
Edited by jjrichard83 On February 16, 2013 9:43 PM
  34641214
February 18, 2013 9:15 PM
QUOTE:

...I have a girlfriend who started working out, cardio weights and gained 8lbs. She was heating pretty healthy, but the workouts made her hungrier....

When you start an exercise program, the muscles retain glycogen and water to assist in repair and supercompensation. It's very common for people to gain weight when starting an exercise program and it can take weeks (or more) for the body to acclimate itself and the water balance to stabilize.
  18984754

Reply

Message Boards » General Diet and Weight Loss Help

Posts by members, moderators and admins should not be considered medical advice and no guarantee is made against accuracy.