Exercise isn't very effective for weight loss

moonage

Lots of people in the dieticians/diabetes thread mentioned that exercise was important for weight loss, so I'll put this in a separate thread. It's from a blog:

http://www.drbriffa.com/blog/2006/10/09/why-exercise-is-not-a-cure-for-obesity-and-what-works-better-for-those-seeking-to-shed-weight-in-the-long-term/


The on-line version of the British Medical Journal recently published a study in which the effects of exercise on body weight was assessed in some 545 children with an average age of 4 [1] The children exercised for 30 minutes, three times a week. Basically, this additional exercise made no difference to their weight. The bottom line is that this research suggests that exercise alone won’t prevent the burgeoning rates of obesity we’re seeing in kids.

Further prompting to write a blog about this has come from news stories circulating this morning a story about how we in the UK are the fattest people in Europe. Apparently, one in five of us are now clinically ‘obese’.

There is a constant refrain in weight loss circles that goes something along the lines of: ‘if you want to lose weight you need to eat less and exercise more.’ But what are the relative merits of these approaches? The recent BMJ study suggests that exercise may have a somewhat limited role in healthy weight maintenance. Actually, this in line with other research which shows that, as far as weight loss is concerned, exercise is not particularly effective. For instance, one review found the often-prescribed 3-5 hours per week of moderate to vigorous activity is likely to have very little impact on weight [2].

This may come as a bit of a shock, but it probably won’t be to anyone who has exercised in a gym on a piece of equipment that counts ‘calories burned’. Most people who have endured this sort of torture will know that those calories notch up very slowly indeed. And at the end of the workout it might have occurred to those individuals that half a choccie bar wolfed down in less than a minute is enough to undo all that good work that has gone on for the last half an hour or so.

There is some other support for this idea from a study that was published earlier this year in the American Journal of Nutrition [3]. In this research, the relative role of calories intakes and calories burned were assessed with regard to their role in the body weight in children. They found that 74 per cent of variation in weight was down to the calories consumed, rather than those burned. This reinforces the idea that if we’re looking to lose or maintain our weight, then it’s the diet we need to look to in the main.

Personally, I’m not into ‘portion control’ or counting calories, but I do believe it helps for people to eat in a way that puts a natural brake on the appetite. In general terms, this means eating regularly, and it also means eating foods that release sugar relatively slowly into the bloodstream (what are known as low glycaemic index or low ‘GI’ foods). Basically, the lower a food’s GI, the more satisfying it tends to be. Of 20 studies published between 1977 and 1999, 16 showed that low GI foods promoted the satisfaction derived from that meal and/or reduced subsequent hunger [4]. Overall, the results of the studies in this area show that an increase in the GI by 50 per cent reduces the satisfaction it gives by about 50 per cent! This has obvious and profound implications for anyone wanting to curb a tendency to overeat. Low GI foods include meat, fish, eggs, most fruits and vegetables (other than the potato), beans, lentils and nuts. High GI foods include most starchy carbs such as bread, potato, rice, pasta and breakfast cereals. In general terms, reducing these foods in the diet seems to allow people to be less hungry. In practice, I’ve found this usually helps individuals make lasting changes to their diet.

I’ve attached here a couple of articles that explore the concepts of regular eating and expands a little more on the benefits of not filling up on those starchy staples we’re so often told to base our diet on.

References:

1. Reilly JJ, et al. Physical activity to prevent obesity in young children: cluster randomised controlled trial. BMJ, doi:10.1136/bmj.38979.623773.55 (published 6 October 2006)
2. Votruba SB, The role of exercise in the treatment of obesity. Nutrition. 2000 Mar;16(3):179-88
3. Swinburn BA, et al. Estimating the effects of energy imbalance on changes in body weight in children. Am J Clin Nutr 2006 83(4):859-863
4. Roberts SB. High-glycemic index foods, hunger, and obesity: is there a connection? Nutrition Review 2000 58:163-169

Mellor

tl;dr

WalterMitty

its about a combination of sensible eating, exercise etc. That study you quote could be flawed in not controlling for other environmental factors influencing weight and general health. Also the type of exercise is not mentioned, joggin or fast walking is no subsitute for some high intensity exercise or weight training which builds lean muscle etc.

Ciaran500

It would be much more useful if they tested weight loss with people who just dieted against people who dieted and exercised.

Transform

depends on the type of exercise choosen - aerobic exercise such as walking running only, not that effective.

weight training, intervals, aerobic training etc combined with diet = highly effective

brainyneuron

Ciaran500 wrote: »

It would be much more useful if they tested weight loss with people who just dieted against people who dieted and exercised.

+1 Exactly what I was going to say! They studied the effect of exercise on these patients but didn't alter their diets.They need to compare it against changes in diet and/or the combination of diet and exercise.

For me anyway the combination of diet and exercise is the most effective for weight loss. If I don't exercise I generally don't lose anything or lose less. The mantra shouldn't be eat less move more, it should be eat more healthily move more! (Though thats not as catchy-it just stops ppl from misinterpreting the idea and eating next to nothing to lose weight)

metamorphosis

When i lost a lot of weight a few yearsd ago i lost 2 stone through exercise alone without dietarty change. Then it stopped and i had to drastically change my eating habits. My body had reaced a point. The last 3.5 stone was through exercise and proper eating.

Diet is so important to weight loss though ...

g'em

moonage wrote: »

Lots of people in the dieticians/diabetes thread mentioned that exercise was important for weight loss, so I'll put this in a separate thread. It's from a blog:

http://www.drbriffa.com/blog/2006/10/09/why-exercise-is-not-a-cure-for-obesity-and-what-works-better-for-those-seeking-to-shed-weight-in-the-long-term/


The on-line version of the British Medical Journal recently published a study in which the effects of exercise on body weight was assessed in some 545 children with an average age of 4 [1] The children exercised for 30 minutes, three times a week. Basically, this additional exercise made no difference to their weight. The bottom line is that this research suggests that exercise alone won’t prevent the burgeoning rates of obesity we’re seeing in kids.

I shudder a little when I see things like this posted - the negative (and highly mixed) messages it sends out just push us another step backwards in terms of our attitudes towards healthy living (that's not a dig at you at all OP btw, I know you're just reposting a blog!)

Firstly, exercise is not just about weight loss, it's about maintaining a healthy heart, healthy body, healthy mind. I hate that exercise has become this demonised activity, that so many people see it as a chore - we live such incredibly sedentary lives, thanks to cars and convenience living the thought of a simple physical task like walking to the shop is unthinkable for a lot of people. And here is yet another blog that promotes the "why bother to exercise" message - I know I'm grossly paraphrasing there, but not once does it bother to mention the positive effects of exercise on well-being and general health.

In fact it could be argued that it's adownright dangeours message to send out, particularly for htose who are tipping the higher end of hte BMI scale. In obese patients exercise is absolutely vital - not only for weight loss, but to reduce their risk of cardiovascular disease (see Exercise in weight management of obesity.)

Oh and as an aside, the first journal mentioned - 3 x 30 minutes of exercise a week for kids? Jebus, they are kids they should be moving around 3 x 30 minutes per day!!

Secondly, just as Transform mentions above, all exercise is NOT equal - you could pound away on a cross-trainer for hours and not see much difference to your 'weight'. But do the right kind of training and the difference to your waist line will be blatantly apparent in a very short space of time. Too much emphasis is still put on cardiovascular training as the primary type of "exercise" that we should engage in, when more and more research is consistently showing that resistance training is a fantastic way to help both children and adults manage their weight, improve overall strength, increase bone density and improve fat storage trends.

Just to counter the studies quoted here's a few more recent ones (and the first addresses the point that Ciaran500 brought up:

Effects of a popular exercise and weight loss program on weight loss, body composition, energy expenditure and health in obese women.
"Participants were assigned to either a no exercise + no diet control, a no diet + exercise group, or one of four diet + exercise groups... All groups except the no exercise + no diet gp experienced significant reductions (P < 0.05 - 0.001) in waist circumference over 14 weeks." Exercise alone had minimal impact, but exercise along with a change in diet (primarily replacing carbs with protein) had maximum effect.

A High Protein Diet With Resistance Exercise Training Improves Weight Loss And Body Composition In Overweight And Obese Patients With Type 2 Diabetes.

The effect of duration of resistance training interventions in children who are overweight or obese
In 31 children who were overweight or obese total fat mass was significantly reduced by 8.1% following a 24 week resistance training program.

corkcomp

G'ems post is exactly what i wanted to say, except she used a lot more diplomacy:p

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but I often fear people will use some stuff here selectively and use it as an excuse not to eat healthily, or exercise.

El_Dangeroso

People don't need scientific studies not to exercise corkcomp, lol! They just ignore any advice and go on their way.:D

I am an admitted lazy so and so, and lost four stone without doing any formal exercise at all really, though I always lifted heavy things very slowly a few times a week. I do think most people's idea of effective exercise is pounding away on a treadmill for hours on end. I really hate to see people chronically running, thinking that they are improving their health.

This a is brand new study and quite surprising:

From http://www.medpagetoday.com/MeetingCoverage/ACC/19091

ATLANTA -- A group of elite long-distance runners had less body fat, better lipid profiles, and better heart rates than people being tested for cardiac disease, but, paradoxically, the runners had more calcified plaque in their heart arteries, according to a study reported here.

There's another (admittedly tiny) study, showing that long distance runners got more heart attacks when compared to controls that smoked, had high BP and were obese!

Marathon runners also get ridiculously high rates of embolism compared to normal people.

My brother runs 10k's and does triathalons I don't think I could ever get him to stop (No idea how we're related ). He's a 'natural runner'. But I have advised him to switch more of his training to sprints.

HIIT, resistance training and slow gentle constant activity like walking are where it's at if you want to shed pounds, not by burning up calories but by increasing insulin sensitivity and reducing the body fat set point.

Here's a study showing weightloss from HIIT with no change in diet whatsoever. The steady state cardio people had no significant reduction in weight.

I think exercise is 10% of weightloss and diet is 90%, but you really need that 10% to get to goal when everything else slows down on you IMO.

corkcomp

I would say its down to energy in vs energy out TBH. Just to give a different perspective, I managed to lose 4.5 stone in a little over a year by exercise alone, now I did make some dietary changes but nothing drastic. let me tell you, there is nothing wrong with running, and it has several benefits, and this is coming from someone who prefers compound lifting to running btw!
@temple glad to see you have increased beyond the 30 minutes gentle weights per week :D

Pembily

If the only reason you exercise is to loose weight then is a bad attitude!!!

To me exercising helps
- Concentration
- Sleep
- Back problems (under doctors orders)
- Weight loss
- Head aches
- Injury recovery (under doctors orders)
- Mental clarity
- Friendship
- Relaxation
- Team work


Exercise is important...

The above are through my own experience and under supervised doctors orders!!!

El_Dangeroso

There's nothing wrong with running until you drop down dead you mean!:D

Top ten reasons not to run a marathon

corkcomp

Temple_Grandin wrote: »

There's nothing wrong with running until you drop down dead you mean!:D

Top ten reasons not to run a marathon

stop being sensationalist;) most people could benefit from a 30 minute / 5 k run a few days a week. no body was recommending running over 40k and the training that goes with it

El_Dangeroso

corkcomp wrote: »

stop being sensationalist;) most people could benefit from a 30 minute / 5 k run a few days a week. no body was recommending running over 40k and the training that goes with it

You see, that sounds like it makes sense, but unfortunately science seems to be showing otherwise. The only study that shows running is beneficial is a study on older runners, and of course they were healthy, or they wouldn't still be running!

Whatever about the heart disease, running is hell on joints, that 30 minute run 3 times a week adds up to a lot of wear and tear over 20 years. Runners are known to suffer much more long term joint injuries. No point running when you're 30 if you can't walk when you're 70.

You'd be a million times better off in the long run using that time for sprints or weightlifting. C'mon, you know it's true!

Beffy

I've been concentrating on losing weight for the last few weeks now.

Some weeks I can get to the gym 3/4 times, other weeks I get to go once.

I have noticed that on the weeks that I exercise I barely lose any weight.

On the weeks that I diet alone I lose more weight.

My calorie intake would pretty much be the same daily.

Is it that muscle gained by going to the gym stops me from seeing the difference scales wise?

El_Dangeroso

Pretty much, the scales are a terrible way of measuring fat loss sometimes.

I've stayed the exact same weight while losing a whole dress size. Get a pair of trousers that are too small and use that to measure progress instead.

Trousers of truth >>> Number on a scale.

shipwreck

Or the old reliable measure tape is great too...I love seeing the number go down on that rather than the scales!

Beffy

Temple_Grandin wrote: »

Pretty much, the scales are a terrible way of measuring fat loss sometimes.

I've stayed the exact same weight while losing a whole dress size. Get a pair of trousers that are too small and use that to measure progress instead.

Trousers of truth >>> Number on a scale.

I think i'm going to have to get a measuring tape or something, I have to see some kind of loss or I won't keep going. Measuring thighs etc is kinda bordering on obsessive though

Lux23

I was going to the gym to help aid weight loss but like Beffy said I found I was losing weight quicker by dieting and doing 10 30 minute walks a week. I have a target weight in mind that I want to reach and then I will head back to the gym, I will then be happy enough to drop a 1lb a week and hopefully tone up a little bit more.

menoscemo

Temple_Grandin wrote: »

There's nothing wrong with running until you drop down dead you mean!:D

Top ten reasons not to run a marathon

Yeah if you go out to run a marathon having not prepared for it properly, of course it is unhealthy and potentially fatal. That is the whole point of building up your endurance, distance, speed in the 4/5months before the day itself. It is the training for the event that keeps you healthy, and proper marathon training (or any kind of distance running i.e. 5k+) requires all kinds of running, from long slow runs to short high intensity sprints (HIIT). It is ridiculous to say that running is unhealthy (when done in the right way).

Macha

menoscemo wrote: »

It is ridiculous to say that running is unhealthy (when done in the right way).

Running is high impact and I find it brings out any niggling problems with joints/tendons/ligaments etc.

Low-impact, long, low-intensity cardio - I just find it so boring. Give me 5-10 minutes of HIIT on the bike any day!

Transform

corkcomp wrote: »

stop being sensationalist;) most people could benefit from a 30 minute / 5 k run a few days a week. no body was recommending running over 40k and the training that goes with it

AGREED!

Transform

Beffy wrote: »

I've been concentrating on losing weight for the last few weeks now.

Some weeks I can get to the gym 3/4 times, other weeks I get to go once.

I have noticed that on the weeks that I exercise I barely lose any weight.

On the weeks that I diet alone I lose more weight.

My calorie intake would pretty much be the same daily.

Is it that muscle gained by going to the gym stops me from seeing the difference scales wise?

use a fat calipers to tell the real truth or tape measure is easy

Transform

menoscemo wrote: »

Yeah if you go out to run a marathon having not prepared for it properly, of course it is unhealthy and potentially fatal. That is the whole point of building up your endurance, distance, speed in the 4/5months before the day itself. It is the training for the event that keeps you healthy, and proper marathon training (or any kind of distance running i.e. 5k+) requires all kinds of running, from long slow runs to short high intensity sprints (HIIT). It is ridiculous to say that running is unhealthy (when done in the right way).

even runners world says over 66% have injuries at some time during a year.

running on its own = really slow way of looking/feeling your best

http://thetransformationcatalyst.wordpress.com/2010/03/19/is-running-causing-too-many-injuries/

El_Dangeroso

Transform wrote: »

even runners world says over 66% have injuries at some time during a year.

running on its own = really slow way of looking/feeling your best

http://thetransformationcatalyst.wordpress.com/2010/03/19/is-running-causing-too-many-injuries/

Oh nice link! But yeah, the main reason I don't think running should be recommended is because it annoys the computer programming side of my brain, it's so inefficient! The effort/return ratio is crap, it injures you and might give you heart plaque in the long term.

If you like running, then sprint, walk, repeat until tired!

Khannie

Transform wrote: »

depends on the type of exercise choosen - aerobic exercise such as walking running only, not that effective.

That's just not true. Tired of people bashing aerobic exercise as a means for controlling weight. It is a tried and tested means of weight control used by professional fighters and other athletes for generations. While is may not be *as* effective as HIIT or whatever it is still very effective and requires a lot less recovery time. edit: For example; I have no problem banging out 40 minutes on a cross trainer at lunchtime, then heading down to bridgestone for a 2 hours long Muay Thai class. If I'd done HIIT at lunchtime you can forget proper padwork in the evening time.

I am currently losing weight (the christmas puddin') and I'm using plenty of aerobic exercise alongside my regular fighting training (highly anaerobic) and it's working very nicely.

I grant you that aerobic exercise alone will generally not give most people the body shape they are after.

corkcomp

agree 100%. it may not be the very most efficient way, but cardio works, period. HIIT is great but anyone who knows anything about fitness + training knows it is not suitable for doing every day, neither is lifting (if you are lifting heavy enough, I dont mean faffing about with 6kg dumbells). Saying that running = heart plaque is one of the biggest loads of crap ive ever read on here (and before anyone flies off the handle, I am attacking the post and not the poster)

menoscemo

Transform wrote: »

even runners world says over 66% have injuries at some time during a year.

running on its own = really slow way of looking/feeling your best

http://thetransformationcatalyst.wordpress.com/2010/03/19/is-running-causing-too-many-injuries/

Ok, I'll agree with you there, especially having had plenty of niggles myself. I also agree that maybe it is inefficient compared to other forms of excercise if your goal is to look good. But it is great from a competitiive/self improvement view point. You quickly see improvements in your times and speeds and there are so many races to test out your competitive juices. There may be more efficient ways of self improvement but running is very accessible.

Anyway the point of this thread is that excercise is not healthy and Temple Grandin said that running specifically is unhealthy. My point is it's a hell of a lot better than doing nothing.

moonage

menoscemo wrote: »

Anyway the point of this thread is that excercise is not healthy and Temple Grandin said that running specifically is unhealthy. My point is it's a hell of a lot better than doing nothing.

Our legs/feet aren't designed for running for long periods and an elevated hearbeat for too long doesn't sound too safe. You do hear of a lot of seemingly healthy young men dropping dead after vigorous exercise.

I think being sedentary is safer than running.

corkcomp

moonage wrote: »

Our legs/feet aren't designed for running for long periods and an elevated hearbeat for too long doesn't sound too safe. You do hear of a lot of seemingly healthy young men dropping dead after vigorous exercise.

I think being sedentary is safer than running.

I have come to the conclusion that your posts are clearly trolling. letting running aside for a minute, the comments about elevated heart rate and being sedentary show you have a chip on your shoulder regarding exercise.

An elevated heart rate is a good thing, your heart is a muscle and it is good to train it. Did you know that most heart attacks occur in the US after the first heavy snow? people who are sedentary 365 days a year drop dead when they go out shovelling snow, where as if they were regularly getitng their heart rate up it may not be as prevalant.

menoscemo

moonage wrote: »

Our legs/feet aren't designed for running for long periods and an elevated hearbeat for too long doesn't sound too safe.

You do hear of a lot of seemingly healthy young men dropping dead after vigorous exercise.

I think being sedentary is safer than running.

We humans are certainly designed to run, how do you think we ate before they invented supermarkets? How do you think we moved around before we invented cars?

If what you say about elevated heartrate is true then most field sports are a no go as well. i though the complaint about running for long periods was that you didn't high enough heart rate :rolleyes:

moonage

corkcomp wrote: »

I have come to the conclusion that your posts are clearly trolling. letting running aside for a minute, the comments about elevated heart rate and being sedentary show you have a chip on your shoulder regarding exercise.

I don't have a chip on my shoulder about exercise. Most days I go out for a 20 or 30 minute walk and I enjoy it.

I'm not trolling, although I do seem to annoy and wind up lots of people. I like a good debate to try to get to the truth and it helps me clarify my own thinking on things.

If more people also think I'm a troll, then I won't post here anymore.

lubie76

moonage wrote: »

Our legs/feet aren't designed for running for long periods and an elevated hearbeat for too long doesn't sound too safe. You do hear of a lot of seemingly healthy young men dropping dead after vigorous exercise.

I think being sedentary is safer than running.

What nonsense!!

I think you will find alot more people are dropping dead from not exercising.
The kind of deaths you are referring to in young healthy men are more often the result of a genetic or a predetermined heart condition.

moonage

menoscemo wrote: »

We humans are certainly designed to run, how do you think we ate before they invented supermarkets? How do you think we moved around before we invented cars?

We can run but we're not designed to do it for extended periods.

If we wanted to catch an animal we'd creep up on it and then run briefly to catch it. Before cars we walked. Running for fun or for health reasons is a recent phenomenon.

menoscemo

moonage wrote: »

Before cars we walked. Running for fun or for health reasons is a recent phenomenon.

Some of us prefer to get there quicker, i think you'll find most young boys will run rather than walk. Look at the nations that produce the best midlle to long distance runners, they are normally mountainous, rural, farming/hunting societies. The kids there might have 5 or 6 miles from where they live to the nearest school and tend to prefer running over walking.

Edit forgot to say, there are loads of tribes famed for running distances much greater than the marathon regularly eg the Tarahumara in Mexico or the Kalenjin in Kenya to name just two.

moonage

lubie76 wrote: »

What nonsense!!

I think you will find alot more people are dropping dead from not exercising.

Blimey! I never said people are dropping dead from exercising in general. I was talking about running and vigorous activities. It's fairly rare, though.

lubie76 wrote: »

The kind of deaths you are referring to in young healthy men are more often the result of a genetic or a predetermined heart condition.

I know. The point is if they hadn't been exercising so vigorously they might still be alive.

menoscemo

moonage wrote: »

The point is if they hadn't been exercising so vigorously they might still be alive.

Yeah and if they hadn't been excercising so vigourously they might have been dead.

Khannie

moonage wrote: »

I think being sedentary is safer than running.

Less likely to receive injury perhaps. Less likely to receive heart attack...probably not.

moonage wrote: »

We can run but we're not designed to do it for extended periods.

Strongly disagree. Humans are shockingly good at covering long distances. They are an amazing endurance animal. Amazing.

El_Dangeroso

The assumption that running is good for you long term is complete dogma, there is no evidence to prove this, in fact there is evidence to the contrary.

Having a chronically high heart rate is NOT a good thing! It's a quick way to get chronic inflammation which is a known risk factor for CHD. It also chronically elevates cortisol, which inhibits lipolysis (fat burning).

Here is a good round-up of the case against cardio from Mark Sisson, he was an endurance runner for 20 years, it injured him and it reduced his immune system.

http://www.marksdailyapple.com/case-against-cardio/

And no, endurance running on a regular basis played no part in human activity before agriculture. Running over long distances is very energy-inefficient compared to walking, that's the reason we walk upright after all. So we walked for miles, sprinted over short distances and lifted heavy things infrequently.

Why the hell anyone would promote a form or exercise that causes injury in 66% of people at any given time is just beyond me.

Macha

Khannie wrote: »

Strongly disagree. Humans are shockingly good at covering long distances. They are an amazing endurance animal. Amazing.

Some are, some aren't. I'm terrible - can't run long distances and suffered through training and doing a 10k a few years ago in the mistaken belief it was the only exercise worth doing to lose weight. I lost weight but did quite a bit of damage to my knees.

Then I discovered sprinting/HIIT. My boyfriend is a triathlete and on long distances will win out every time but I can kick his ass on bike sprints or up short hills. Some of us are built to do long distances and some of us are built to sprint.

menoscemo

Temple_Grandin wrote: »

Why the hell anyone would promote a form or exercise that causes injury in 66% of people at any given time is just beyond me.

The statistic given was that 66% of runners are injured at some time in any given year. There is a world of difference between that and saying that 66% are injured at a given time

As for me, well I just like running and find it to be a great challenge, there is always something else to achieve. I feel that stories of it's unhealthiness are much exaggerated by the lazy brigade.

brianthebard

menoscemo wrote: »

Some of us prefer to get there quicker, i think you'll find most young boys will run rather than walk. Look at the nations that produce the best midlle to long distance runners, they are normally mountainous, rural, farming/hunting societies.

Sorry but this sounds a lot like amatuer anthropology picked up from various half sources. the whole thread in fact has become a bit of a joke in this regard. What a mountainous, rural, farming/hunting society is I don't know, but it basically covers 99% of the pre-industrial world so its really not going to help further the debate.

menoscemo wrote: »

The statistic given was that 66% of runners are injured at some time in any given year. There is a world of difference between that and saying that 66% are injured at a given time

No. Re-read what was said, you've just repeated what the person you're trying to correct said.

corkcomp

Temple_Grandin wrote: »

The assumption that running is good for you long term is complete dogma, there is no evidence to prove this, in fact there is evidence to the contrary.

Having a chronically high heart rate is NOT a good thing! It's a quick way to get chronic inflammation which is a known risk factor for CHD. It also chronically elevates cortisol, which inhibits lipolysis (fat burning).

Here is a good round-up of the case against cardio from Mark Sisson, he was an endurance runner for 20 years, it injured him and it reduced his immune system.

http://www.marksdailyapple.com/case-against-cardio/

And no, endurance running on a regular basis played no part in human activity before agriculture. Running over long distances is very energy-inefficient compared to walking, that's the reason we walk upright after all. So we walked for miles, sprinted over short distances and lifted heavy things infrequently.

Why the hell anyone would promote a form or exercise that causes injury in 66% of people at any given time is just beyond me.

this post illustrates that you know very little in practice about running. firstly, who said anything about "chronic" high heart rates? in fairness, HIIT gets the heart rate close to max, albeit for a shorter period of time, but im pretty sure it puts the heart under a lot more pressure, which IMO is not a bad thing. Also, keep in mind that I can go for a run now and hardly be out of breath, or I could sprint to the point I couldnt even hold a conversation, you can adjust your speed to match desired heart rate and perception of physical exertion.
you keep using marathon and long distance runners (i.e. extremes) to try to prove a point which IMO is not relevant to the average recreational runner.
and, to get slightly back O/T, this has developed into a pros / cons of running thread which IMO has happened because the people who wanted to say that exercise in general is harmfull / not beneficial could see that argument was going nowhere

Khannie

taconnol wrote: »

Some of us are built to do long distances and some of us are built to sprint.

In fact all of us are very capable of long distance work. We may excel at sprinting or long distance but humans are very capable of both. Getting sore knees is no indication of your ability to cover distance. It could be caused by a hundred things.

I know you like reading and I think you'd really enjoy it so I'm going to recommend this book. Savage read. It genuinely redefined how I perceive distance work.

Khannie

Temple_Grandin wrote: »

Why the hell anyone would promote a form or exercise that causes injury in 66% of people at any given time is just beyond me.

I would say that a figure approaching 100% of the people who do my sport get injured at some time during the year. I've been repeatedly injured in the last year. On the plus side: I'm lean. Fitter than the vast majority of the population. Eat well because of my sport and it has a host of other side benefits. A bit of an oul' injury every now and again? Who cares? Not me.

menoscemo

brianthebard wrote: »

No. Re-read what was said, you've just repeated what the person you're trying to correct said.

Ok, sorry that reads wrong. The statistic was that 66% of runners are injured at some time in a year (in my experience most injuries last a week or two), But TG was trying to say that 66% of runners are injured at any one time which is Plain BS. As Khannie points out most people who regularly pratcise any kind of sport will be injured at some period of any given year.

Now to get back on topic. This forum as we all know is used by loads of people who are trying to change their diet and lifestyle in order to lose weight. I know several of those people have taken up running (and other sports) as a means to get fit in this pursuit. For apparently knowledgeable and experienced posters to come on spouting scare stories about how doing various forms of excercise is bad for you is not only plain wrong but incredibly irresponsible IMO.

brianthebard

Now to get back on topic. This forum as we all know is used by loads of people who are trying to change their diet and lifestyle in order to lose weight. I know several of those people have taken up running (and other sports) as a means to get fit in this pursuit. For apparently knowledgeable and experienced posters to come on spouting scare stories about how doing various forms of excercise is bad for you is not only plain wrong but incredibly irresponsible IMO.

People should at least know that running is not mandatory to health and weight loss, after that its up to them to make an informed decision. Its fairly obvious that someone who's overweight and inexperienced at running will probably face joint issues or shin splints.

jam_mac_jam

Running is not the only exercise you know, there are plenty more, I dont understand how anyone can argue that exercise will not help you loose weight, my brain just cant get that.

Macha

Khannie wrote: »

In fact all of us are very capable of long distance work. We may excel at sprinting or long distance but humans are very capable of both. Getting sore knees is no indication of your ability to cover distance. It could be caused by a hundred things.

I know you like reading and I think you'd really enjoy it so I'm going to recommend this book. Savage read. It genuinely redefined how I perceive distance work.

Duly noted Added to the list!

dxhound2005

In the last few days Moonage has given us the following gems of wisdom.

Government agencies advice on nutrition and health is nonsense.

He/she would not trust a dietician / clinical nutritionist as far as he/she could throw them.

A person eating only eggs beef and cheese for 6 months would be healthier than the average person in the street.

And while not trusting proper scientists he/she says it doesn't matter that a "Doctor" of Nutrition who he/she supports bought his "qualification" from a diploma mill.

I am not qualified to comment on the effect of exercise on health or weight loss but whatever Moonage says the opposite is probaly true.