Exercise and weight loss?

[661-Pete]

Apparently not:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-32417699
Can-of-worms-opening time, I think . But the most remarkable fact, to me, is that I appear to have got my post in before RogerThat....

[Psamathe]

I think one "difficulty" of "exercise" is that it is a very broad continuum. To some, a 20 meter walk to Macdonalds or a trip upstairs is "exercise". When I had my "old person's health check" (waste of time), I was so far beyond their "do you do at least x mins per day" that the question was not a good indicator. My recollection is that UK guidelines are around 20 mins per day. And if you do that you are "doing good".

Ian
(Changes 20m to be the intended 20 meter distance to Macdonalds - misinterpreted in a following post but not an issue of great importance)

[al_yrpal]

Well, it isnt the most effective way of losing weight but it certainly helps and is vital to your health. There is no controversy, its just basic physics, an energy equation. Ask Brian Cox…

Al

[irc]

When I've done tours over 2 months long I've lost over 2 stones in weight each time. I'd say 6 hours of exercise a day does take weight off. Rapidly.

On the other hand walking upstairs instead of taking the lift to get to the chocolate machine probably won't help.

Most of the population are closer to the second example of "exercise."

[Erudin]

I agree with them. My experience is that exercise gets you fitter, and only a restricted diet will lose you weight. For best results combine both. I was 110kg back in March and have lost 5kg by dieting so far, no alcohol, biscuits, cakes etc.

Also do not believe your bike computer when it tells you how many calories you have burnt. My Garmin 810 told me I burnt 6000 Calories on a ride I did last week, that's 20 McDonald's Cheeseburgers.

[661-Pete]

Well - luckily perhaps - my luddite-friendly computer tells me nothing but speed, distance travelled and time taken. I think I'm somewhere in between, exercise-wise. Certainly no 6-hour marathons or workouts for me, not any more! But I flatter myself I can at least beat the 20-minute stroll to the McD's or KFC's. And that certainly ain't going anywhere towards losing weight. Sensible eating seems to be the formula, as far as I'm concerned. Whether I'd call it a 'diet' depends on your interpretation of the word 'diet' however.

[RogerThat]

Apparently not:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-32417699
Can-of-worms-opening time, I think . But the most remarkable fact, to me, is that I appear to have got my post in before RogerThat....

Quality sarcasm, well played sir!

[RogerThat]

I'm on my second round of diet regimen trying to shred from 13st 10lbs to 13st 2, roughly the weight I was when I was 25, a very long time ago. Having lost two stones in ten weeks to get to here, I can say that cycling alone it would probably have taken me 6 months - a year. I'm now on the kick boxers diet mentioned in the previous thread, about 1500 Cals a day and quite boring. But, I only expect to be on it for 3 weeks to shed the final half stone. This is in conjunction with approximately 300 miles per week in the saddle at varying intensity.

Diet and exercise, they're a rather sophisticated duet in biological terms, but I really can't see any easy way to lose weight consistently and not be on a very long term, very boring and very arduous diet modification without a combination of the two.

[Vorpal]

I can see the point of this, but I think they're missing a trick if they don't continue to encourage exercise and healthy eating together. If nothing else, exercise (an hour's walk or bike ride, yoga, aerobics class, etc., not walking up one flight of stairs) burns calories that wouldn't otherwise be burned.

Some types of exercise also have the effect of boosting metabolism that lasts beyond a bike ride because muscle cells burn more calories than fat cells. And before anyone else brings it up, I am aware that that may not initially result in weight loss, because muscle also weighs more.

But that said, it *is* possible to lose weight through exercise. Every time I have done a long distance, self powered, I have lost weight. One month touring Scotland was about 1 stone. Walking Hadrian's Wall (one week) was about a half stone. Gving up our second car and cycling most places was worth about a half stone. Yes, I've gained some of the weight back here and there. I gained quite a lot with my first pregnancy, and had a little trouble losing it afterwards, despite an active life style. A ltitle more than a year ago, in the winter, I broke a rib, and couldn't exercise. I gained some weight then, though I lost most of it when I could get back to normal exercise.

However, I think it would be unreasonable of me to expect that what works for me, will work for anyone else, or vice versa.

[meic]

Doctor Malhotra and his two colleagues are clearly wrong. It really makes you wonder if they have published any such rubbish or if the journos didnt understand what they read.

I just lost 5 Kg in two weeks by cycling across France without any dieting, in fact my diet was somewhat worse as I wasnt able to do my home cooking. Watch the copious quantities of food (junk or otherwise) that my skinny fellow Audax riders polish off when doing events.

On less certain ground, excess weight may not be the actual cause of the ailments associated with it. I for one consider the theory that the ailments are more caused by the lack of exercise that also causes the excess weight. I dont believe that there is good reason to think that an inactive person maintaining low weight is any less healthy than an overweight person doing exercise. Unfortunately the scientists are not quite able to separate out the effects of inactivity compared to the effects of overweight when the two so often coincide.

I certainly dont plan on dieting my way to thinness, more cycling trips are on my weight loss menu instead.

I to agree with comments above that walking 20 metres to the car no more constitutes "exercise" than restricting yourself to two cream cakes a day constitutes "dieting".

[Tangled Metal]

I don't read these sorts of articles. It does depend on the individual. A long time ago now I got told I was starting to put on weight and getting a fatter face (family are very blunt at times). It didn't bother me because I had always been really, badly underweight all my life so to me it was an achievement to be over 15 stone (6'5" tall it is not thaaat bad but heavy enough).

Anyway, after a family wedding (cue even more family saying I was putting weight on) I decided to lose it. I cut out 2 packs of crisps and 2 bars of chocolate a day and decided to switch from mostly resistance exercise with a little CV to mostly CV with a little resistance. I also started to up the intensity of the exercise too. I was already going to the gym 4 or 5 times a week and doing a long walk on the sunday so I didn't increase the days just the length and intensity. I lost 2 stone in 2 weeks and have kept that off ever since (i.e. not water loss or anything). I also lost a bit of bulk but got a lot fitter over the next 6 months.

I only say that because exercise, I believe, meant I had raised my metabolism which took the fat and weight off. At least my theory. I do think back then I had the metabolism that was high to start off with which is why I say it depends on the individual. I do not think all things are the same for all people.

BTW to anyone struggling to lose weight I apologise. I know the above sounds like boasting. It is not it is just what happened and I accept it is unusual to manage that weight loss trick. No matter how you achieve your weight loss goals it is not important just that you get where you need to be for health and wellbeing. It is an achievement for all to get there.

[RogerThat]

Doctor Malhotra and his two colleagues are clearly wrong. It really makes you wonder if they have published any such rubbish or if the journos didnt understand what they read.

I just lost 5 Kg in two weeks by cycling across France without any dieting, in fact my diet was somewhat worse as I wasnt able to do my home cooking. Watch the copious quantities of food (junk or otherwise) that my skinny fellow Audax riders polish off when doing events.

On less certain ground, excess weight may not be the actual cause of the ailments associated with it. I for one consider the theory that the ailments are more caused by the lack of exercise that also causes the excess weight. I dont believe that there is good reason to think that an inactive person maintaining low weight is any less healthy than an overweight person doing exercise. Unfortunately the scientists are not quite able to separate out the effects of inactivity compared to the effects of overweight when the two so often coincide.

I certainly dont plan on dieting my way to thinness, more cycling trips are on my weight loss menu instead.

I to agree with comments above that walking 20 metres to the car no more constitutes "exercise" than restricting yourself to two cream cakes a day constitutes "dieting".

I think the problem with ' weight loss' after a hard tour or walking ect is that a fair percentage of that is going to be fluid loss (up to 30%) and then perhaps another 25% just in depleted glycogen from musculature and your liver. So that 5kg is probably more like 2kg, which is not bad, but it's not 5kg. It never ceases to amaze me how quickly I put the weight back on after a tour, nut essentially I know I'm mostly replacing fluid and depleted essential components.

I don't agree however, with this thesis. And it may also make your average bear think that it's okay to avoid any physical training as ' it's not that beneficial', in preference to fad dieting. Which is of course completely erroneous.

[531colin]

............. When I had my "old person's health check" (waste of time),................

I had one of those. Despite 3** club runs a week I was considered "inactive" because I didn't do any other regular exercise.....until she asked how I got there, I had walked, I suppose you could stretch it to 10 minutes if you went round the block....but because I walk to the shop for a loaf a few days a week, that counted as exercise, so then I was "active"

**(one fairly "social" ....but 65 miles on yesterday's mid-weeker, the main one is Sunday)

[661-Pete]

Doctor Malhotra and his two colleagues are clearly wrong. It really makes you wonder if they have published any such rubbish or if the journos didnt understand what they read.

It depends on, in what sense you call them 'wrong'. I don't for a moment claim, nor do I think anyone else would suggest, that these accredited experts will have published their article based on flawed or misrepresented scientific evidence. No: for want of any authoritative refutation, we must take the information as genuine. But it's the way in which the article has been presented, with its headline-grabbing language, which is at fault. It's a dangerous topic especially when it appears on the newspaper front pages to be glanced at by non-experts (like myself): it could dissuade many people who are at risk, from taking up the exercise regime which is vital to promoting a healthy life. That's the sort of thing that needs to be countered. Accordingly, I think it was wrong to publish this story in the way they did.

[pwa]

Losing weight is not enough to make you healthy. If you eat very little you can lose weight but still be unhealthy. Exercise is one of the essential components of a healthy lifestyle. And, reluctantly, we must control what we consume. But Erudin goes too far by abandoning alcohol! If I suggested that to my missus I would find myself living alone!