To Lose Weight, Eating Less Is Far More Important Than Exercising More

_Tombstone_

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/16/upshot/to-lose-weight-eating-less-is-far-more-important-than-exercising-more.html?abt=0002&abg=1

Exercise has many benefits, but there are problems with relying on it to control weight. First, it’s just not true that Americans, in general, aren’t listening to calls for more activity. From 2001 to 2009, the percentage of people who were sufficiently physically active increased. But so did the percentage of Americans who were obese. The former did not prevent the latter.

Studies confirm this finding. A 2011 meta-analysis, a study of studies, looked at the relationship between physical activity and fat mass in children, and found that being active is probably not the key determinant in whether a child is at an unhealthy weight. In the adult population, interventional studies have difficulty showing that a physically active person is less likely to gain excess weight than a sedentary person. Further, studies of energy balance, and there are many of them, show that total energy expenditure and physical activity levels in developing and industrialized countries are similar, making activity and exercise unlikely to be the cause of differing obesity rates.

Moreover, exercise increases one’s appetite. After all, when you burn off calories being active, your body will often signal you to replace them. Research confirms this. A 2012 systematic review of studies that looked at how people complied with exercise programs showed that over time, people wound up burning less energy with exercise than predicted and also increasing their caloric intake.

Other metabolic changes can negate the expected weight loss benefits of exercise over the long term. When you lose weight, metabolism often slows. Many people believe that exercise can counter or even reverse that trend. Research, however, shows that the resting metabolic rate in all dieters slows significantly, regardless of whether they exercise. This is why weight loss, which might seem easy when you start, becomes harder over time.

generic2012

Weight loss is about energy balance, energy in vs energy out. Far more prudent to avoid eating excess energy than trying to run it off. Common sense, but not that common all the same.

Hanley

Has the mainstream finally realised you can't out train a bad diet?

generic2012

Hanley wrote:

Has the mainstream finally realised you can't out train a bad diet?

I highly doubt it. #consumerism

Mellor

"Diet is the far more important than exercise for weight loss"
"Overeating makes people overweight, not inactivity"

Did they really need studies and meta-analysis to highlight one of the most basic aspects of nutrition.

generic2012

Mellor wrote:

"Diet is the far more important than exercise for weight loss" "Overeating makes people overweight, not inactivity"

Did they really need studies and meta-analysis to highlight one of the most basic aspects of nutrition.

The joys of science! Everything has to be questioned. There are some ridiculous studies to be found on Google scholar, in the sense of providing results that are totally apparent but it's a good thing. People who argue that energy balance is the (practically) only determinant of fat loss and gain have evidence on their side, while anyone who argues otherwisse doesn't, and it's largely because of seemingly pointless studies like these.

Chemical Byrne

The fact that this is being reported as "news" really demonstrates the level of ignorance in society that so many people cannot grasp the concept that weight control is simply down to calorie balance.

It is hugely more time and money efficient to control weight by reducing calorie intake than by exercise, although a healthy amount of exercise is important for other reasons.

Alf Veedersane

Chemical Byrne wrote: »

The fact that this is being reported as "news" really demonstrates the level of ignorance in society that so many people cannot grasp the concept that weight control is simply down to calorie balance.

Then there are people that do get that concept but seem to massively overestimate how much they burn and underestimate what they consume.

So many people who go to a gym and spend an hour on the treadmill and then treat themselves to a Mars bar presume that the hour on the treadmill puts them in a deficit.

Transform

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

Then there are people that do get that concept but seem to massively overestimate how much they burn and underestimate what they consume.

So many people who go to a gym and spend an hour on the treadmill and then treat themselves to a Mars bar presume that the hour on the treadmill puts them in a deficit.

then strict paleo with lots of avocado, nuts, coconut oil, quest bars etc because they dont count as calories

On a side note - people get more excited about 'clean' treats that they do about their training and thats exactly why most end up looking and feeling the same 6-12months later.

Use this

plug numbers into this

Train with weights most of the time = winning

I cant Fu*king believe there are trainers out there that charge clients over €100 to simply make those calculations for them and send them a 'plan'.

The magic is in the direct coaching NOT the canned coaching.

Alf Veedersane

Transform wrote: »

On a side note - people get more excited about 'clean' treats that they do about their training and thats exactly why most end up looking and feeling the same 6-12months later.

I sometimes people get the impression that people think Quest bars are ~20g of protein and 0 kcals

Transform

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

I sometimes people get the impression that people think Quest bars are ~20g of protein and 0 kcals

Shut your damn wh0re mouth!! They are all BROTEIN and zero cals but only when eaten standing up and take fish oils after.

Quest bars are handy but they're the Tough Mudder/Spartan race of the fitness industry - it seems like the elite thing to do because everyone else eats them but really isnt reflective of your entire nutrition when you are just ending up looking the same week after week.

Its easier to pretend to take action in one area rather than addressing the simple things, you can roll around in muck but it still doesnt address that most are weak, stiff and unfit.

Mellor

generic2012 wrote: »

The joys of science! Everything has to be questioned. There are some ridiculous studies to be found on Google scholar, in the sense of providing results that are totally apparent but it's a good thing.

You are missing my point.
I've no problem with questioning everything. I firmly on team science on that one. I've no issues with these kind of studies themselves.

The "they" I was criticising was the author, not the scientists. They are presenting it as if it is new radical thinking, when it isn't. The meta-analysis (from 2011) on really confirmed what was already established long ago.
As I said, this is basic stuff. And the media should be treating it as such im my opinion.

People who argue that energy balance is the (practically) only determinant of fat loss and gain have evidence on their side, while anyone who argues otherwisse doesn't, and it's largely QQ because of seemingly pointless studies like these.

Exactly, we know that because of the studies. A quick google turned up studies highlighting it in 1992, 1989 and 1983.
In 2015, the NYtimes should be presenting it as an undeniably fact, not a breakthrough.

Macy0161

I'm currently mid weight loss (actually at original target, but have revised downwards). I am much more active than I was, and people asking me about it nearly always assume it's the exercise rather than the diet. I have exercise targets (I aim to average 500 cals burn, even with the caveats about whether garmin + HRM is accurate or not), but how I described it to someone the other week while I was telling them the "can't out train a bad diet" bit was that the exercise just gives me a bit of wriggle room.

I guess it's a lot easier to think about an hour a days exercise rather than address what you're eating over your waking hours.

_Tombstone_

Fat is back: New guidelines give vilified nutrient a reprieve

Fatty foods may be making a comeback. The latest version of the Dietary Guidelines for Americans, which is due out later this year, could contain a number of big changes in its recommendations, not the least of which is an exoneration of fat.

Hints of these changes come from a report earlier this year by the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee, a panel of 14 experts, on the latest scientific evidence on diet and health since the current Dietary Guidelines were published in 2010. The Department of Health and Human Services and Department of Agriculture will use the Committee's report to decide how to update the Dietary Guidelines, which they do every five years. In general, the guidelines can have sweeping effects on what Americans eat.

In the case of dietary fat, the committee did not find a health benefit to limiting the amount of total fat in the diet, whereas the 2010 and 2005 Guidelines stated that total fat should make up no more than 20% to 35% of total daily calories. The committee did recommend keeping the level of saturated fat, which is found in foods such as cheese, butter, whole milk and beef, to within 10% of total calories.

"We wanted the emphasis to be on fat quality rather than total fat, because the evidence really emphasizes that saturated fat is the driver of risk rather than total fat intake," said Barbara Millen, president of Millennium Prevention and chair of the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee.

The committee concluded that reducing saturated fat could lower the risk of heart disease if it is replaced with a type of "good" fat known as polyunsaturated fat, found in vegetable oils, such as soybean and corn oil, and fatty fish such as salmon and trout. However, replacing saturated fat with carbohydrates does not seem to reduce heart disease risk.

The committee also concluded that monounsaturated fats, found in oils such as olive and peanut oil, were probably also good for heart health.

The move away from recommended limits on total fat represents a sea change from four decades of nutrition policy, not just a departure from recent Dietary Guidelines, said Dr. Dariush Mozaffarian, dean of the Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy at Tufts University, who was not involved in the current report.

The recommendation about fat was not featured as prominently in the report as other conclusions, including that "(c)holesterol is not considered a nutrient of concern for overconsumption," Mozaffarian said. So he and Dr. David S. Ludwig, of Boston Children's Hospital, wrote a commentary about it that was published this week in the Journal of the American Medical Association.

"I think it is crucial for all government agencies to formally state that there is no upper limit on fat," Mozaffarian said. He said that includes HHS and USDA, which will decide whether to include the committee's conclusion in the Dietary Guidelines by the end of the year, as well as the Food and Drug Administration, which determines the nutrition information on food labels.

If this statement makes its way into the upcoming Dietary Guidelines, it would directly affect school lunches, programs that supplement food for women and children, and nutrition at government worksites, and indirectly influence consumer choices and food manufacturers, Mozaffarian said.

Despite his support of the conclusion about total fat, Mozaffarian thinks that the limit on saturated fats could be misguided. The overall health effect of saturated fats is probably neutral because they increase the levels of both bad and good cholesterol, he said.

In general, the Dietary Guidelines should make recommendations about food types rather than specific nutrients -- although there should be an exception to limit trans fats and sodium levels because these nutrients can be added or taken away from a food item without changing its overall nutritional value, Mozaffarian said. Trans fats in particular have been linked to heart disease and weight gain, and the FDA recently told food manufacturers they have to stop using it within three years.

Related: FDA orders food manufacturers to stop using trans fat within three years

In its report, the committee described three dietary patterns: the Healthy U.S.-Style, the Healthy Mediterranean-Style and the Healthy Vegetarian, as well as the amounts of different foods, such as fruits, vegetables and whole grains, to achieve a range of calorie intakes. "The message is that there is not a single diet that is necessary to achieve the healthy diet that we lay out, but there are a number of patterns that consumers can choose from," Millen said.

Even though the committee did not put a limit on the level of total fat, Millen said consumers will find they can only fit a limited amount of fat into their diets and still have room for sufficient fruits, vegetables, whole grains and protein within their daily calorie allotment. "It's not like the sky's the limit," she said, adding that there will probably be a natural limit of 32% to 34% of daily calories in the form of fat if consumers are following the healthy dietary patterns.

It is hard to know whether HHS and USDA will incorporate the committee's conclusion about fatty foods into the new Dietary Guidelines, Mozaffarian said, adding that previous guidelines have been known to differ in some aspects from the committee reports.

"I think the government and scientists may be afraid to embrace the new science," Mozaffarian said. "Consumers, ironically, get this message and are moving toward a low carb diet, so I think they would pretty quickly embrace it."

Taboola

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

I sometimes people get the impression that people think Quest bars are ~20g of protein and 0 kcals

I find it hard to eat any of them. They all feel like chewey sand to me.

_Tombstone_

Mushroom used in Chinese medicine 'slows weight gain'

A mushroom used for centuries in Chinese medicine reduces weight gain in animals, say researchers in Taiwan.
The study, published in Nature Communications, suggested Ganoderma lucidum slowed weight gain by altering bacteria in the gut.

The researchers suggested the mushroom could eventually be used in the treatment of obesity.
Experts said the science was good, but putting mushroom extract in cans of cola would not help people lose weight.
G. lucidum has traditionally been sold for "health and longevity" say researchers at Chang Gung University.
They analysed the impact of the fungus on mice being fed a high-fat diet.

Those on just a high-fat diet reached 42g after their first two months whereas mice that were also fed a high dose of mushroom extract reached only 35g.

Mice were still much slimmer if they were fed a normal diet.

Alot of stories about the benefits of a healthy gut lately.