Exercise is good: But it won't help you lose weight

[SpannerGeek]

After a long hard battle with the beer gut, this new study in the well respected Cell Journal confirms my long held idea that exercise on its own (especially low intensity cycling) has no, or negligible effect on long term weight loss. As a way of maintaining weight (preventing you getting any fatter) it certainly helps, but the hard work of calorie reduction is where the biggest benefit by far is to be found:

Constrained Total Energy Expenditure and Metabolic Adaptation to Physical Activity in Adult Humans: Current Biology

https://www.theguardian.com/science/201 ... eight-loss

The British Journal of Sports Medicine is also very critical of the perceived links between exercise and weight loss, citing Coca Cola and others in their (wrong and cynical) promotional material. I'll post relevant links later.

[freeflow]

That was an entertaining diversion. Quite funny in places. You can't beat the laws of thermodynamics. If every in is less than energy out then weight loss will occur. The unfortunate complication is that the system to which we are applying the relationship is far more complex and subtle than simple investigations like the one in the paper report. When a diet/exercise study is reported where the inhabitants live 100% of the study time inside a calorimeter then I might give the results some credibility.

[beardy]

This scientific evidence flies in the face of what is reliably seen in the real world about us.

A possible way to combine it with real life experience is the personal appetite. My mind and body seems to want an amount of food that powers an active body. So when I cycle I get to an acceptable weight, when I dont cycle I get fat. Getting out on the bike is far preferable to "starving" myself.

There are people, in this forum, in cycle clubs and doing Audaxes who can show a clear weight loss that coincides with their starting cycling. I am one of those.

[SpannerGeek]

Personally I think the study is accurate and informs my own experience and experience of other cyclists. Audax enthusiasts are a different breed: they are operating in the arena of elite athletes, the ones I know are riding 3-500 miles a week and mostly at a good crack.

Take for instance the 'reward' factor discussed in the paper. So you ride two hours at a leisurely pace and you think 'I deserve something nice after this effort!' The trouble is that reward is usually out of all proportion to the exercise done. I know myself when my food habits were bad I'd eat an entire packet of biscuits. And a few beers too.

In the real world an hour of cycling burns 250-300 cals. But that's not REAL burn, an average male sitting watching TV will burn 100 cals an hour, so the actual 'extra' burn is really only 150-200 for your 'reward'.

2hrs leisure cycling = 300 extra calories.. What does that look like?

3 chocolate biscuits or,

Pint and a half of ordinary strength beer or,

Large glass of wine + few olives

Clearly your NET burn goes back to zero with only the smallest reward.

A fast Audax rider will be working at twice this rate, for 2-3x longer, but after a few months the study says that even these types of athletes bodies react to the intensity and adapt their metabolism to burn fewer calories at rest.

So it's nowhere near as simple as 'calories out/calories in'. There's an entire cynical sports and marketing global industry relies on the myth 'Exercise makes you thin'.

But not without a calorie controlled and restricted diet.

[SpannerGeek]

That was an entertaining diversion. Quite funny in places. You can't beat the laws of thermodynamics. If every in is less than energy out then weight loss will occur. The unfortunate complication is that the system to which we are applying the relationship is far more complex and subtle than simple investigations like the one in the paper report. When a diet/exercise study is reported where the inhabitants live 100% of the study time inside a calorimeter then I might give the results some credibility.

And the people you're applying those self same laws are infinite more complex and subtle than this paper suggests

[beardy]

So it's nowhere near as simple as 'calories out/calories in'.

It is a simple as calories out v calories in.

It is just that some bodies are more prone to converting spare calories to fat than others, even they cant do that if the calories out exceed the calories in.

Yes high mileage riders are much more fuel efficient than novices and they tend to pay the price (around the waist) if they cut back on the miles.

Some of us eat much more (calories) than others do.

[beardy]

In the real world an hour of cycling burns 250-300 cals.

According to my nutrition books it would be an additional 180 cal per hour, (90kg 20mph flat no wind)

So a ten hour Audax ride (it isnt flat so a similar energy use to 200 miles flat no wind) would take an additional 1800 calories which is about a day's recommended calorie intake.

The results of this scientific research could be better described as "Inadequate exercise doesnt help over eaters to lose weight".

[SpannerGeek]

And some of us have much more complex and subtle psychology when it comes to exercise food and I reward.

I know a lot more fat cyclists than I do thin ones...

[SpannerGeek]

In the real world an hour of cycling burns 250-300 cals.

According to my nutrition books it would be an additional 180 cal per hour, (90kg 20mph flat no wind)
It
So a ten hour Audax ride (it isnt flat so a similar energy use to 200 miles flat no wind) would take an additional 1800 calories which is about a day's recommended calorie intake.

The results of this scientific research could be better described as "Inadequate exercise doesnt help over eaters to lose weight".

Yes, that might be the case for Audax long distance riders but as the study says, even for them the body adapts a different long term strategy to burn less calories at REST.. The average cyclist will be doing 2-3hr rides at much lower intensity.

Also, would it be fair to say that on a ten hour Audax you'd be eating a LOT more than your RDA? I rode 6 hours off road on Saturday in the rain. I reckon I had about 500cals extra in sandwiches and drinks during the day and the same at night. So my 6 hours of cycling were effectively zeroed in terms of balance.

[Tangled Metal]

I've read stuff saying exercise increases metabolism but as you get fitter and do more the body adapts to be more efficient. Basically the body adjusts after a period of time in a different regime. The recommendation from experts is to keep changing your exercise routine to prevent this adaptation ability of your body.

Truth is most people expect too much from exercise and diets without making enough of an effort to make a real change. The very fact people can and do lose weight shows it's possible through exercise and food control.

There's been a programme or series about losing weight, repeated at least once, where they split dieters into groups according to their relationship with food. The programme then observed their progress and applied the right changes at the right time to adjust for when they plateaued out with their weight loss. They predicted all this for each group. Very interesting because it was very clearly proven that there are types to relationships to food. Each type needs a different programme and style of weight loss.

I'm sure that the OP's link was in line with this. Basically find what works for you. It'll depend on the your body and your mind (food relationship) .

I chose to lose 2 stones once. Took me little over 2-3 weeks. I put hard work in set the gym and long walks at the weekend. Cut back on the wrong food too. I lost it and kept it off for nigh on 15 years since. If exercise doesn't help weight loss then I'd still be 15.5 stone.

[beardy]

If exercise doesn't help weight loss then I'd still be 15.5 stone.

May I suggest that you would be about 20 stone by now!

My 75 miles a week average is just about keeping me at the same weight. Without it I would be gaining slowly but steadily.

[PH]

when I cycle I get to an acceptable weight, when I dont cycle I get fat. Getting out on the bike is far preferable to "starving" myself.

This is also my experience, if for some reason i have to stop my average 150 miles a week I gain around .5kg a week.
It is easy to overestimate the calories burned and underestimate the reward, but that didn't need any study to establish.

[axel_knutt]

My experience is the complete opposite. If I reduce my calorie intake I just feel cold and lethargic, but lose no weight. If I react by turning the heat up or becoming less active it defeats the point of eating less.

That makes sense to me. If you exercise, then it's a stimulus for your body to increase its metabolism in order to fuel the work, but if you reduce your calorie intake that's an incentive for your body to reduce its metabolism to save energy. Any organism that can reduce its metabolism before it starts burning fat will be able to survive a famine for longer.

Regular short periods of brisk exercise are a counter-stimulus to prevent your body from reducing its metabolism to match the reduced energy supply.

[Vorpal]

viewtopic.php?f=49&t=103193 has links to a couple of articles / programmes about how gut microbes affect food processing. Here is one of the linked articles http://digg.com/2016/calorie-unit-broken

So it's nowhere near as simple as 'calories out/calories in'.

It is a simple as calories out v calories in.

It is just that some bodies are more prone to converting spare calories to fat than others, even they cant do that if the calories out exceed the calories in.

While it's true that calories out have to be greater than calories in to affect weight loss, it's still not so simple as that seems, because different people process food differently. and it's not just a matter of how/whether it is converted to fat. For some people, some foods trigger the generation of excess fat, unrelated to calorie content.

Also some estimates of calories are wildly inaccurate, so it may be difficult to know whether calories in are less than calories out.

As a way of maintaining weight (preventing you getting any fatter) it certainly helps, but the hard work of calorie reduction is where the biggest benefit by far is to be found:

Constrained Total Energy Expenditure and Metabolic Adaptation to Physical Activity in Adult Humans: Current Biology

https://www.theguardian.com/science/201 ... eight-loss

This is contrary to my personal experience. I had some trouble losing weight after my first pregnancy (I gained an extra stone and a half during pregnancy), and tried various dietary means to lose that weight. I didn't count calories, but I did follow a calorie-based diet plan. I also tried keeping a food diary, moderating my intake of sweet things and high fat items, etc. I really couldn't shed significant amounts of the extra weight, until I began a training programme, and then, not only did I lose the weight, but I did so without worrying too much what I was eating (outside of taking it easy on cakes and chocolate). I gained a little extra weight with my second pregnancy, but not as much as with my first. I lost some of that when I returned to cycling and shed the rest with a little help from Swine Flu about 4 or 5 months after Littlest was born.

[beardy]

While it's true that calories out have to be greater than calories in to affect weight loss,

Good, I would hate to have to report you to the Health Police as a "thermodynamics denier".

it's still not so simple as that seems, because different people process food differently. and it's not just a matter of how/whether it is converted to fat. For some people, some foods trigger the generation of excess fat, unrelated to calorie content.

Also some estimates of calories are wildly inaccurate, so it may be difficult to know whether calories in are less than calories out.

Those are failings in our ability to accurately measure our input and output or our ability to plan a good strategy for (comfortable) weight loss.

Rather than watching apps and package labels, we could just act empirically, slicing our diets until the input was seen to be lower than the output by a sustained reduction in the average readings on the scales.