Look all I am trying to get across is that exercise CAN cause you to lose weight, now what you or I think is optimal for weight loss regarding exercise, diet, and an individual’s particular goals is a different discussion. But saying that exercise won’t cause you to lose weight period, just isn’t right.[/quote]
I understand what you’re saying, but it’s not accurate. Increased activity causes an increase in appetite. Therefore, exercise only causes weight loss when paired with calorie restriction. You seem hesitant to fully embrace the last part of that sentence, yet it’s necessary for the statement to be true.
It’s a difficult concept to get your head around especially since so many people think that if the overweight and obese would just get off their lazy asses and exercise, they would lose weight. But, they don’t. Or at least, not without restricting calories at the same time.[/quote]
I agree with your point about increased appetite caused by exercise but don’t agree with the conclusion. I think largely over semantic differences over ‘caloric restriction’. If calories are uncontrolled then there are two variables involved, exercise level and calorie intake. For a cause/effect relationship to be observed, there needs to be only one variable, ie calories must be maintained.
Inverting the argument you present, one can say that an increase in calorie intake does not cause weight gain, assuming that exercise level is unaccounted for and hence increased along with calories.
[/quote]
[quote]roon12 wrote:
Inverting the argument you present, one can say that an increase in calorie intake does not cause weight gain, assuming that exercise level is unaccounted for and hence increased along with calories.
[/quote]
To some degree, it does not. It’s observed that people increase activity when eating a greater number of calories.
It doesn’t come down to semantics as much as the debate revolves around “what is” versus “what should be”. One position is that of “what should happen if people begin to exercise” whereas mine is one of “what does happen when people begin to exercise.”
I agree that, ceteris paribus, exercise will contribute to weight loss. However, this is not the way people behave. Theory vs. reality. In vivo vs. in situ.
[quote]roon12 wrote:
Inverting the argument you present, one can say that an increase in calorie intake does not cause weight gain, assuming that exercise level is unaccounted for and hence increased along with calories.
[/quote]
To some degree, it does not. It’s observed that people increase activity when eating a greater number of calories.
It doesn’t come down to semantics as much as the debate revolves around “what is” versus “what should be”. One position is that of “what should happen if people begin to exercise” whereas mine is one of “what does happen when people begin to exercise.”
I agree that, ceteris paribus, exercise will contribute to weight loss. However, this is not the way people behave. Theory vs. reality. In vivo vs. in situ.
I just hit my limit of Latin for 2012.[/quote]
Agreed. The body simply does not work the way people think it should or want it to. Increasing exercise solely for weight loss can be regulated by the body by getting you to expend less energy in other ways. The body just finds a way to make up for your wasted expenditure by making you sit around more or move less in general over the remainder of the day.
Ryan you really must be a unique case. Hopefully you have a team of scientists working on you to learn the secrets of your metabolism. Almost sounds like you have prada-willie syndrome.
[quote]roon12 wrote:
Inverting the argument you present, one can say that an increase in calorie intake does not cause weight gain, assuming that exercise level is unaccounted for and hence increased along with calories.
[/quote]
To some degree, it does not. It’s observed that people increase activity when eating a greater number of calories.
It doesn’t come down to semantics as much as the debate revolves around “what is” versus “what should be”. One position is that of “what should happen if people begin to exercise” whereas mine is one of “what does happen when people begin to exercise.”
I agree that, ceteris paribus, exercise will contribute to weight loss. However, this is not the way people behave. Theory vs. reality. In vivo vs. in situ.
I just hit my limit of Latin for 2012.[/quote]
Agreed. The body simply does not work the way people think it should or want it to. Increasing exercise solely for weight loss can be regulated by the body by getting you to expend less energy in other ways. The body just finds a way to make up for your wasted expenditure by making you sit around more or move less in general over the remainder of the day.
Ryan you really must be a unique case. Hopefully you have a team of scientists working on you to learn the secrets of your metabolism. Almost sounds like you have prada-willie syndrome. [/quote]
Wait so why are there fat people? If when people eat more food they become more active…how do they put on weight?
[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:
Really you never dream of adding exercise before subtracting calories to lose fat?[/quote]
Nope. I can lose fat fine without exercise. [/quote]
I agree. In fact, if I try to exercise to lose fat (without the presence of a strongly anti-catabolic agent) then I simply lose muscle.
I train to gain muscle and eat to lose fat.
BBB[/quote]
Awesome quote, we need to get that up in lights somewhere.
[quote]roon12 wrote:
Inverting the argument you present, one can say that an increase in calorie intake does not cause weight gain, assuming that exercise level is unaccounted for and hence increased along with calories.
[/quote]
To some degree, it does not. It’s observed that people increase activity when eating a greater number of calories.
It doesn’t come down to semantics as much as the debate revolves around “what is” versus “what should be”. One position is that of “what should happen if people begin to exercise” whereas mine is one of “what does happen when people begin to exercise.”
I agree that, ceteris paribus, exercise will contribute to weight loss. However, this is not the way people behave. Theory vs. reality. In vivo vs. in situ.
I just hit my limit of Latin for 2012.[/quote]
Agreed. The body simply does not work the way people think it should or want it to. Increasing exercise solely for weight loss can be regulated by the body by getting you to expend less energy in other ways. The body just finds a way to make up for your wasted expenditure by making you sit around more or move less in general over the remainder of the day.
Ryan you really must be a unique case. Hopefully you have a team of scientists working on you to learn the secrets of your metabolism. Almost sounds like you have prada-willie syndrome. [/quote]
Wait so why are there fat people? If when people eat more food they become more active…how do they put on weight? [/quote]
Are you serious? There are limits to what human physiology is capable of.
[quote]bushidobadboy wrote:I pretty much disagree with your stance here. I bieleve it’s what we do when we’re NOT in the gym, that contributes most to our metabolism and fat-burning.
BBB[/quote]
I dont think the good doctor would disagree with that though. He is saying after all that the organs and their processes account for the largest caloric drain. So technically you are correct in saying this. Its the organ and system as a whole trying to get back to homestatis after a workout where the calories are used. I dont find any of this to be new information. I labour under the premise that I workout to build and maintain muscle and eat a caloric deficit to lose fat. The idea of exercising to lose weight never made much sense to me.
maybe this article from John Keifer will help with this discussion
However, does that mean that sprinting WILL NOT help with fat loss in any way?[/quote]
Not exactly. Sprinting doesnt use fat as its primary fuel source but it does require energy to recover from in much the same way that lifting weights explosively does. But in theme with this thread, if you are not in a caloric deficit then Sprinting isnt going to magically melt away fat any better than weight training or anything else.
[quote]bushidobadboy wrote:I pretty much disagree with your stance here. I bieleve it’s what we do when we’re NOT in the gym, that contributes most to our metabolism and fat-burning.
BBB[/quote]
I dont think the good doctor would disagree with that though. He is saying after all that the organs and their processes account for the largest caloric drain. So technically you are correct in saying this. Its the organ and system as a whole trying to get back to homestatis after a workout where the calories are used. I dont find any of this to be new information. I labour under the premise that I workout to build and maintain muscle and eat a caloric deficit to lose fat. The idea of exercising to lose weight never made much sense to me.
maybe this article from John Keifer will help with this discussion
However, does that mean that sprinting WILL NOT help with fat loss in any way?[/quote]
Not exactly. Sprinting doesnt use fat as its primary fuel source but it does require energy to recover from in much the same way that lifting weights explosively does. But in theme with this thread, if you are not in a caloric deficit then Sprinting isnt going to magically melt away fat any better than weight training or anything else. [/quote]
I’ve just read quickly read through the first few references Kiefer uses to ‘prove’ that exercise does not cause weight loss and they exhibit huge flaws in design and execution.
The first one, done on obese women (first problem) defines exercise as ‘five 45-min sessions at 78.5+/-0.5% maximum heart rate’ OVER A 12 WEEK PERIOD. I doubt this fits anyone here’s definition of exercise, I see that as simply ‘moving about’. Therefore I don’t see this as demonstration of anything.
The second reference listed, this time used obese men and defines ‘vigorous exercise’ as ‘stationary cycling 3 times per week, with subjects cycling for 30
minutes at 60% to 70% of their maximum workload’. Again hardly a strenuous program. Yet its largest flaw is that the caloric intake of all subjects was self-monitored. The control group was told to simply continue their usual eating habits and give a 3 day diet log every 2 weeks while the diet group was given ‘tips’ on reducing intake and also completed a 3 day log fortnightly. As mentioned above, exercise can cause increased appetite and this coupled with the natural tendency to underestimate intake renders the results here largely worthless.
[quote]bushidobadboy wrote:I pretty much disagree with your stance here. I bieleve it’s what we do when we’re NOT in the gym, that contributes most to our metabolism and fat-burning.
BBB[/quote]
I dont think the good doctor would disagree with that though. He is saying after all that the organs and their processes account for the largest caloric drain. So technically you are correct in saying this. Its the organ and system as a whole trying to get back to homestatis after a workout where the calories are used. I dont find any of this to be new information. I labour under the premise that I workout to build and maintain muscle and eat a caloric deficit to lose fat. The idea of exercising to lose weight never made much sense to me.
maybe this article from John Keifer will help with this discussion
However, does that mean that sprinting WILL NOT help with fat loss in any way?[/quote]
Not exactly. Sprinting doesnt use fat as its primary fuel source but it does require energy to recover from in much the same way that lifting weights explosively does. But in theme with this thread, if you are not in a caloric deficit then Sprinting isnt going to magically melt away fat any better than weight training or anything else. [/quote]
I’ve just read quickly read through the first few references Kiefer uses to ‘prove’ that exercise does not cause weight loss and they exhibit huge flaws in design and execution.
The first one, done on obese women (first problem) defines exercise as ‘five 45-min sessions at 78.5+/-0.5% maximum heart rate’ OVER A 12 WEEK PERIOD. I doubt this fits anyone here’s definition of exercise, I see that as simply ‘moving about’. Therefore I don’t see this as demonstration of anything.
The second reference listed, this time used obese men and defines ‘vigorous exercise’ as ‘stationary cycling 3 times per week, with subjects cycling for 30
minutes at 60% to 70% of their maximum workload’. Again hardly a strenuous program. Yet its largest flaw is that the caloric intake of all subjects was self-monitored. The control group was told to simply continue their usual eating habits and give a 3 day diet log every 2 weeks while the diet group was given ‘tips’ on reducing intake and also completed a 3 day log fortnightly. As mentioned above, exercise can cause increased appetite and this coupled with the natural tendency to underestimate intake renders the results here largely worthless.
[/quote]
No it doesnt. It totally backs up his claim that exericse without dietary intervention does not lead to weightloss!
[quote]roon12 wrote:
Inverting the argument you present, one can say that an increase in calorie intake does not cause weight gain, assuming that exercise level is unaccounted for and hence increased along with calories.
[/quote]
To some degree, it does not. It’s observed that people increase activity when eating a greater number of calories.
It doesn’t come down to semantics as much as the debate revolves around “what is” versus “what should be”. One position is that of “what should happen if people begin to exercise” whereas mine is one of “what does happen when people begin to exercise.”
I agree that, ceteris paribus, exercise will contribute to weight loss. However, this is not the way people behave. Theory vs. reality. In vivo vs. in situ.
I just hit my limit of Latin for 2012.[/quote]
Agreed. The body simply does not work the way people think it should or want it to. Increasing exercise solely for weight loss can be regulated by the body by getting you to expend less energy in other ways. The body just finds a way to make up for your wasted expenditure by making you sit around more or move less in general over the remainder of the day.
Ryan you really must be a unique case. Hopefully you have a team of scientists working on you to learn the secrets of your metabolism. Almost sounds like you have prada-willie syndrome. [/quote]
Wait so why are there fat people? If when people eat more food they become more active…how do they put on weight? [/quote]
Are you serious? There are limits to what human physiology is capable of.[/quote]
Yeah my point exactly. It works both ways. Your body is only going to down regulate its metabolism or whatever else is claimed to a certain point. Then all that exercise is going to cause weight loss.
[quote]schanz_05 wrote:
Yeah my point exactly. It works both ways. Your body is only going to down regulate its metabolism or whatever else is claimed to a certain point. Then all that exercise is going to cause weight loss. [/quote]
Will you be happy if I conceed that it is possible to lose weight with exercise alone but add that its highly unlikely to be done successfully and without much undue suffering?
[quote]Gl;itch.e wrote:
No it doesnt. It totally backs up his claim that exericse without dietary intervention does not lead to weightloss![/quote]
This goes back to the previously mentioned issue of defining ‘dietary intervention’. My view is that if calories are allowed to change, there are two variables (exercise, energy intake) and so a conclusive statement cannot be made about either.
From the article:
[quote] The Idea
Exercise without dietary changes is sufficient to achieve weight loss goals. [/quote]
The key point being ‘without dietary change’. That study did not ensure that there was no dietary change and so cannot be used to support that point
[quote]schanz_05 wrote:
Yeah my point exactly. It works both ways. Your body is only going to down regulate its metabolism or whatever else is claimed to a certain point. Then all that exercise is going to cause weight loss. [/quote]
Will you be happy if I conceed that it is possible to lose weight with exercise alone but add that its highly unlikely to be done successfully and without much undue suffering?[/quote]
Lol sure man. We both think we are arguing ridiculous points here. I think its ridiculous for you saying that exercise won’t cause weight loss. You think its ridiculous that I am saying it will, but it REALISTICALLY won’t without dietary changes. Fair enough.