Why exercise won't make you thin (Time magazine article)

Eve_Dublin

Was just browsing through Time magazine there and found this article about how exercise doesn't help us lose weight as we tend to eat more after the gym because exercise makes us hungry. If this is true, I'm gutted. I've just started going to the gym regularly and was very proud of myself. What do you fitness fanatics reckon?

http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1914857-4,00.html

**Timbuk2**

Actually I've noticed that I'm always hungrier after coming back from the gym / from a cycle. The 'good' half of me doesn't want to eat too much afterwards so as not to 'ruin' the workout, whereas the 'evil' half of me usually wants to eat a massive bowl of Crunchy Nut because I'm starving

And swimming seems to make you even hungrier than just normal exercise alone does. At least I think so!

El Guapo!

Its bullshít.
Of course exercise helps you lose weight. If it makes you hungry afterwards eat something healthy. Or at least don't eat a truckload of grub.

Justin1982

Weight loss occurs when your average calorie intake is less than your average calorie expenditure. Thats the bottom line unfortunately

You dont need to exercise to loose weight. You can loose weight by doing sweat damn all.

You can run yourself into the ground but if you go home and eat more calories than you expended then you'll gain weight.

Its a tragedy to see so many fat people in the gym who are bursting a gut and never loose a pound as far as I can see. They must get so disheartened I just want to go over and tell them to stop sneaking in the extra chocolate bar their eating as a reward for all the gym work

If you dont loose weight, you will get fitter though. Thats a positive at least.

Eve_Dublin

Justin1982 wrote: »

If you dont loose weight, you will get fitter though. Thats a positive at least.

This is why I'm going to the gym personally. Just to tone it all up but I'm still surprised by the article. Total opposite to what were told.

tHE vAGGABOND

Total opposite to what were told.

told by who tho? There are *a lot* of arm chair experts out there, spouting what they think are facts, but are actually rubbish..

When I was loosing my weight I was lucky I found here and read a few good books and I got the real facts early on, so I knew the good do's and dont's

Many many people are not that lucky

Triangla

It should have said exercise ALONE. It's common sense that weight loss is dependant on diet more than exercise.

kevthegaff

im 6 ft 4 and 13 stone for the last 8 yrs.
I eat what i want when i want, but im active every day farming and also running/football 3 times a week. its about keeping active:)

Bloody Nipples

I remember reading that article. Utter Bullshít. I'm 6' and used to weigh 84kg (gut, double chin, the whole shebang) I started running and dropped to 71kg. Diet does come into it but the idea that exercise does nothing is absolutely ridiculous.

Silly article.
Anyway I can't eat for a while after exercising and when I do it has to be healthy.

Triangla

kevthegaff wrote: »

im 6 ft 4 and 13 stone for the last 8 yrs.
I eat what i want when i want, but im active every day farming and also running/football 3 times a week. its about keeping active:)

The article was about weight loss, you're very active yet you are the same weight the last 8 years.

To lose weight you would need to alter/control your diet.

Hence my point the article headline should have read 'Why exercise alone won't make you thin.

kevthegaff

when you exercise- weights you are turning fat into muscle, so perhaps you might not lose weight as muscle is heavier than fat.

TommyKnocker

kevthegaff wrote: »

when you exercise- weights you are turning fat into muscle, so perhaps you might not lose weight as muscle is heavier than fat.

Human muscle tissue is a totally different substance to human fat tissue!!!

Unless you are the second coming of your God or possibly Harry potter, you cannot turn muscle tissue to fat tissue and neither will muscle tissue revert back to fat tissue if you stop training.

Also muscle is not heavier than fat. 1kg of human muscle tissue weighs exactly the same as 1kg of human fat tissue!!!

Muscle is a more dense substance than fat, so 1 cubic inch of muscle tissue will weigh more than 1 cubic inch of fat tissue. This is not the same as "muscle weighing more than fat"!!!

When you train properly with weights, you damage muscle tissue. The body will then repair this damage during rest and the muscle should be stronger after this repair process. If you continue to lift progressively heavier objects, then this will promote muscle growth to meet the demans placed upon it.

kevthegaff

TommyKnocker wrote: »

Human muscle tissue is a totally different substance to human fat tissue!!!

Unless you are the second coming of your God or possibly Harry potter, you cannot turn muscle tissue to fat tissue and neither will muscle tissue revert back to fat tissue if you stop training.

Also muscle is not heavier than fat. 1kg of human muscle tissue weighs exactly the same as 1kg of human fat tissue!!!

Muscle is a more dense substance than fat, so 1 cubic inch of muscle tissue will weigh more than 1 cubic inch of fat tissue. This is not the same as "muscle weighing more than fat"!!!

When you train properly with weights, you damage muscle tissue. The body will then repair this damage during rest and the muscle should be stronger after this repair process. If you continue to lift progressively heavier objects, then this will promote muscle growth to meet the demans placed upon it.

ahh cool the jetters

TommyKnocker

kevthegaff wrote: »

ahh cool the jetters

Jetters are stone cold Your post just contained some of the most widely propogated myths and I was just setting the record straight

Dudess

Exercise in "ineffective if you continue to eat loads of high-cal junk while doing it" shocka! :eek: Idiotic article title...

SheRa

Losing weight is about burning more calories than you consume. Exercise can be an aid in creating this deficit, but if someone eats loads of rubbish after exercise, it defeats the purpose of it.

I had a frightening conversation with a friend of mine who I thought was well informed about health and fitness. She stated that any food eaten after exercise no matter what the food is, doesn't count calorie wise. Scary biscuits altogether.

howtomake

Dudess wrote: »

Exercise in "ineffective if you continue to eat loads of high-cal junk while doing it" shocka! :eek: Idiotic article title...

Ah some articles like this are titled like that just for shock value, they've got nothing originally informative to say so they spice things up with something that sounds controversial (i.e. silly, exaggerated blah blah)

direct

Have to agree with you howtomake. Actually I went through the article and it was shocking how selective that reporter was with research and quoting people to suit her own opinion. After a few paragraphs she breezes into the statement "So why does the belief persist that exercise leads to weight loss, given all the scientific evidence to the contrary?" This is outragously misleading and I find it extraordinary that it is allowed in Time magazine.

Exercise does lead to weight loss through body composition changes in conjuction with appropriate diet and lifestyle. I went through a weight loss process recently via the exercise motivation plan offered by www.dublinsportpsychologist.com and it was a big eye opener how using mental skills in conjunction with diet and exercise changes for a weight loss target can bring massive success in a moderate time period.

Please do not listen to nonsense perpetuated by self-serving reporters who skew the facts about the benefits of exercise.

Utrinque Paratus

Eve_Dublin wrote: »

Was just browsing through Time magazine there and found this article about how exercise doesn't help us lose weight as we tend to eat more after the gym because exercise makes us hungry. If this is true, I'm gutted. I've just started going to the gym regularly and was very proud of myself. What do you fitness fanatics reckon?

http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1914857-4,00.html

1 hours jogging only burns 600 calories.

Eat healther food. Less junk.

Tuna on rye bread is a great low calorie late night snack.

1 can of tuna is only about 70 calories.

Hanley

Utrinque Paratus wrote: »

1 hours jogging only burns 600 calories.

Over estimating

1 can of tuna is only about 70 calories.

Under estimating

Utrinque Paratus

Hanley wrote: »

Over estimating



Under estimating

A person might burn between about 400 and 600 calories running for one hour. Why the inexact numbers? It all has to do with each individual's body size and the level of exertion during a run.

Read more: How Many Calories Are Burned in Jogging for 1 Hour? | eHow.com http://www.ehow.com/about_5439029_many-calories-burned-jogging-hour.html#ixzz1O4NHoyA0


Half a can I should have said, it what I have, late at night.


http://www.ehow.com/about_5439029_many-calories-burned-jogging-hour.html

fatmammycat

Utrinque Paratus wrote: »

A person might burn between about 400 and 600 calories running for one hour. Why the inexact numbers? It all has to do with each individual's body size and the level of exertion during a run.

Read more: How Many Calories Are Burned in Jogging for 1 Hour? | eHow.com http://www.ehow.com/about_5439029_many-calories-burned-jogging-hour.html#ixzz1O4NHoyA0


http://www.ehow.com/about_5439029_many-calories-burned-jogging-hour.html

Honestly? I run a lot and my personal thoughts are I'd be surprised if more than 300 cals are burned in an hour jog ( 9k/10k)- Despite what t-mils say.

Mellor

Utrinque Paratus wrote: »

A person might burn between about 400 and 600 calories running for one hour.

That's running you said jogging, there is a difference.

Calories burned is related to distance, not time.


Then there is also the issue calories used per hour does not equal extra calories burned. If you jog/run and burn 500 cals, thats only maybe 400 cals extra on your day (as you would of used 100 cals or so watching TV)

fatmammycat wrote: »

Honestly? I run a lot and my personal thoughts are I'd be surprised if more than 300 cals are burned in an hour jog ( 9k/10k)- Despite what t-mils say.

How are you measuring this?
What I mean is, you can't feel it. I have a rough idea but only from what I've on the t-mill, online cals, articles, guides, books and mags etc

Utrinque Paratus

Mellor wrote: »

That's running you said jogging, there is a difference.

Calories burned is related to distance, not time.


Then there is also the issue calories used per hour does not equal extra calories burned. If you jog/run and burn 500 cals, thats only maybe 400 cals extra on your day (as you would of used 100 cals or so watching TV)



How are you measuring this?
What I mean is, you can't feel it. I have a rough idea but only from what I've on the t-mill, online cals, articles, guides, books and mags etc

The higher your heart rate the more calories you burn, interval training burns around 250 calories in 20 minutes.

So I have read.

I notice my matabolism is much faster after 20 mins of it.

Mellor

Utrinque Paratus wrote: »

The higher your heart rate the more calories you burn, interval training burns around 250 calories in 20 minutes.

So I have read.

I notice my matabolism is much faster after 20 mins of it.

You're missing the point

Hanley

Utrinque Paratus wrote: »

The higher your heart rate the more calories you burn, interval training burns around 250 calories in 20 minutes.

So I have read.

250kcals in 20 minutes is indiciative of pretty much 100% sustainable effort for that time. It's not something you could repeat daily either, so you're talking maybe 500kcals a week from intervals?

SO much easier to eat 250kcals less per day, plus for beginner and the untrained population, interval training poses a massive injury risk.

You need to be careful what you read - ehow.com is not a reputable source, there was no description as to how the data they referenced was obtained and the details around test subects. The more highly trained you are, the more kcals you'll burn.

I notice my matabolism is much faster after 20 mins of it.

How did you judge the rate of your metabolism?!

Utrinque Paratus

Hanley wrote: »

250kcals in 20 minutes is indiciative of pretty much 100% sustainable effort for that time. It's not something you could repeat daily either, so you're talking maybe 500kcals a week from intervals?

SO much easier to eat 250kcals less per day, plus for beginner and the untrained population, interval training poses a massive injury risk.

You need to be careful what you read - ehow.com is not a reputable source, there was no description as to how the data they referenced was obtained and the details around test subects. The more highly trained you are, the more kcals you'll burn.



How did you judge the rate of your metabolism?![/QUOTE




I feel much hungrier after doing weights, circuits then followed by interval training, it takes about an hour in total, then just jogging.

Obviously if you load up on junk you will put on weight.I have lost fat and gained muscle, and stayed the same weight.

If you dont fancy interval training try 4 1/4s training after a work out do 30 press ups sprint 20 yards, 30 sit ups sprint 20 yards, 20 standing squats. Repeat 4 x, start with 1 if you struggle then build it up.


My diet is

breakfast.
Museli with a kiwi or porridge
protein shake.

11am
Lots of tuna on small slice toast. I glass of red grape juice......Tuna tastes better on dark rye or wholewheat seeded bread with flavour, on white its terrible.

Lunch

3 eggs on 2 slices toast, fruit. Or sardines on toast with 3 egg whites.

4pm protein shake, small handful walnuts. rocket salad

dinner,

Various, fish or meat with veg or salad, pasta or spuds.

before bed.

protein shake and small slice of toast with tuna.



Once a week max, I have a blow out/day off eat drink what I like.

Last Sunday out with g/f had a huge 1/4 pounder with fries followed by huge desert and three pints, you have to let your hair down to.

cc87

Utrinque Paratus wrote: »

I feel much hungrier after doing weights, circuits then followed by interval training, it takes about an hour in total, then just jogging.

So after burning more energy, you are hungrier? Doesnt mean anything in particular about your metabolism

Utrinque Paratus

cc87 wrote: »

So after burning more energy, you are hungrier? Doesnt mean anything in particular about your metabolism

Its common knowledge after exercise you feel hungrier due to your metabolism which includes respiration working faster during exercise.

cc87

Utrinque Paratus wrote: »

Its common knowledge after exercise you feel hungrier due to your metabolism which includes respiration working faster during exercise.

You feel hungrier for a lot more reasons that just metabolism.

Yes your metabolism increases during exercises and to some degree after, but to say you are hungrier because of metabolism alone is ignoring a number of other issues

Utrinque Paratus

cc87 wrote: »

You feel hungrier for a lot more reasons that just metabolism.

Yes your metabolism increases during exercises and to some degree after, but to say you are hungrier because of metabolism alone is ignoring a number of other issues

Ok, you dont have to get into rocket science to get the point.

Hanley

Utrinque Paratus wrote: »

Its common knowledge after exercise you feel hungrier due to your metabolism which includes respiration working faster during exercise.

Common knowledge is usually wrong.

Utrinque Paratus wrote: »

Ok, you dont have to get into rocket science to get the point.

No, you don't, but you don't have to just bury your head in the sand or stick your fingers in your ears when someone says something you disagree with either.

metamorphosis

No articles, books, website will be able to tell you what you are burning calorie wise. They are at best over generous estimates.

Your HR will be most accurate. Good enough HR moniters are cheap to buy. The one on offer in LIDL gave me the same readings as my Garmin GPS watch and my overly expensive Polar.

If i was to input my stats into most sites, todays 9 miler would have me burn amidst 850-1,000 cals or so I am been told. My HR moniter tells me i burned a little over 500 and i believe it. My HR was not high, pace was easy, i was not running 'hard'. Constant pace and effort apart from a few strides now and then. Your heart is the best indicator.

Utrinque Paratus

Hanley wrote: »

Common knowledge is usually wrong.



No, you don't, but you don't have to just bury your head in the sand or stick your fingers in your ears when someone says something you disagree with either.

Did you forget to take your evening primrose oil ?

..................some are talkers others are doers.

Brian?

Utrinque Paratus wrote: »

Did you forget to take your evening primrose oil ?

..................some are talkers others are doers.

Utrinque Paratus infracted for being naughty. No need for this kind of carry on at all, please don't respond Hanley.

Utrinque Paratus

briankeating wrote: »

Utrinque Paratus infracted for being naughty. No need for this kind of carry on at all, please don't respond Hanley.

Abuse deleted, my poor wife. You're banned for a week.

syklops

Its a bit like the regular tip in Mens Health to always have a hearty breakfast, because it stops u snacking during the day. I got news for you mens health whether i have breakfast or not, i never snack during the day, I dont eat sweets, and might have a donut, once in a blue moon. So why do I have to have breakfast again?