Exercise and weight loss?

[irc]

In the past 30 years, as obesity has rocketed, there has been little change in physical activity levels in the Western population

http://bjsm.bmj.com/content/early/2015/ ... 94911.full

I find that hard to believe. 30 years ago there were housing estates in Glasgow where there was almost no cars. When I moved to my current house 25 years ago there were far fewer cars than there are now. Increased car use almost always means less exercise. I'm a mile from the train station but plenty people walk to the train. Less now than there used to be.

Or for some hard numbers the UK car and light goods fleets has increased from around 22M in 1985 to 33M today. No change in physical activity? Nonsense. Not to mention kids spending hours on computer/phone games which didn't exist 30 yrs ago.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/s ... ummary.pdf

[maxcherry]

In the past 30 years, as obesity has rocketed, there has been little change in physical activity levels in the Western population

http://bjsm.bmj.com/content/early/2015/ ... 94911.full

I find that hard to believe. 30 years ago there were housing estates in Glasgow where there was almost no cars. When I moved to my current house 25 years ago there were far fewer cars than there are now. Increased car use almost always means less exercise. I'm a mile from the train station but plenty people walk to the train. Less now than there used to be.

Or for some hard numbers the UK car and light goods fleets has increased from around 22M in 1985 to 33M today. No change in physical activity? Nonsense. Not to mention kids spending hours on computer/phone games which didn't exist 30 yrs ago.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/s ... ummary.pdf

I remember seeing lots of cars 25 years ago.

It's not so much that it's a car problem (not everyone drives) isn't it more to do with the changing food.
a lot of pre packaged food, takeaways and products were not around 25 years ago. Money was different for the sexes and so was society.

The young folk of yesteryear are the older folk of today and now we live in a 'On demand' society.
People consume more, but they also have more free time to enjoy or just veg out. We have more tv stations than you can shake a stick at and
we also have the internet, mobile phones and apps.

Just thinking of all the chemicals that are in food today that was not in food 25 years ago, it's a pretty large list

[Vorpal]

The BBC article actually referred to an editorial http://bjsm.bmj.com/content/early/2015/ ... 94911.full
which referenced this original source http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/content/42/6/1831.full which says...

First, it must be reiterated that the health-promoting role of physical activity – and the ‘more the better’ – cannot be challenged on any grounds. The purpose of this commentary is therefore not to question the value of public health recommendations to maintain an active lifestyle, nor do we doubt that physical activity by necessity will burn calories. The purpose of this commentary is to present the evidence to support two assertions:

First, increases in physical activity of the amount common for most individuals, such as 3 days/week of 1 h of aerobic activity, will not lead to weight loss, nor will it help prevent weight gain, for the majority of the population.

Second, variation in physical activity within the range engaged in by the US population is not modulating obesity risk. Only reduction in calorie intake will result in weight loss, whether done in isolation or together with increases in exercise.

[661-Pete]

The BBC article actually referre to an editorial http://bjsm.bmj.com/content/early/2015/ ... 94911.full
which referenced this original source http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/content/42/6/1831.full which says...

Yes, quite. Even the BBC article makes this point. Problem is, how many readers are going to properly read through the article, instead of just the headline - let alone follow through the links as you have done?

I still say, dangerous journalese.

[Sweep]

There may be something in this research.

I know a fair few italians and most are impressively trim/in decent shape.

But few of them do what i would call regular decent exercise.

Yoga surely isn't exercise?

But they are generally careful what they eat/restricted portions and display a positively saint like attitude to alcohol considering the cheap excellent wine available to them.

At the same time though i have a suspicion that they are not very fit/lack stamina.

And italians are notorious for taking the car for very short trips.

And many would sniff at the very idea of walking for the bus.

[Vorpal]

I'm sure there is something in this research. But it's not what the BBC was making it out to be.

[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".

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.

Never a good idea to challenge empirical data based on theory, especially if you dont even have the relevant facts.

Taking some ball park figures. One Kg of fat is 7700Calories, so 5Kg of fat is around 38,000 Calories.
Energy consumption at my weight for moderate cycling is around 700 Calories per hour, I cycled for 100 hours at a far from leisurely pace. So that could be around 70,000 Calories.

However regardless of such theory, the scales still showed me as 5Kg down a week later.

[RogerThat]

Empirical data.. You may burn 700 cals an hour, but unless you have a device to accurately measure how in earth would you know!!! Where's the empirical data!!!?? Realistically its your best guess. Average hourly calorific expenditure are almost always grossly over exaggerated from inaccurate and frankly insincere training regimes and diet programmes.

I took part in a scientific evidence based programme based around my daily commute. There were over 20 data variables collected and analysed. My ACTUAL hourly burn averaged out at 388 Cals/h and I cycle c. 15.8mph average speed.

Here's a general definition of Empirical Data:

A source of knowledge acquired by means of scientific observation or experimentation. The term comes from the Greek word for experience, ἐμπειρία (empeiría).

Regardless of what your scales say (are they regularly calibrated?) I'm suggesting that 5kg is a mix of fat, fluid and glycogen loss which would be very quickly rationalised by a few weeks of normal eating patterns.

[meic]

The empirical data is the readings on the scales. As you had gone to the trouble of finding the definition and printing it out for me to read, you really didnt need to ask me that.
The use of the ball park figures was just to show that the empirical data that the scales gave was not inconsistent with the theory.

So I get a result from my scales which is consistent with theory. You sitting miles away with no knowledge of my cycling style, weight or terrain covered have decided it is incorrect.

All I did was read the scales before I left and after I got back and they have been consistently (months prior and almost two weeks after) of the order of 5 Kg less after than before, now you can imagine all sorts of strange reasons why that may be the case but any reasonable person would reach the conclusion that the scales were just showing that 5 Kgs had been lost in my weight and a fortnight of strenuous cycling being a prime candidate as the cause.

I didnt really have any reason to expect it to be five kilogrammes that is just what happened, I am obviously happy that it was five kilogrammes but would accept whatever the scales said within reason. As you cast doubts on the figure, I did some sums and the figure is within reason.

I have little respect for scientists who feel obliged to fiddle the empirical data to suit their theories.
Scales have their inaccuracies but it is the same scales before and after and their history of readings they have never shown leaps of that magnitude. There is no good reason to doubt the scales are correct in showing a reduction of five Kg even if the actual weights it gives are not accurate to that amount.
Sure enough the weight will come back onto me at the same old rate that it always does, unless I get more cycling done.

Any suggestions such as freak scale readings are rather like the clutching at straws that you get from people who have failed to lose weight during a half hearted diet.

[horizon]

The irony is that we'll all talking as though it's a pity that exercise might use up so few calories and has such little effect on weight. I say "Thank Goodness!". For those for whom food is in short supply (mainly everyone except those in modern Western society), it is a relief to see just how much can be done on such little food and how long one can survive. Thank goodness we don't have to spend all day grazing (some people do) or find that a single day wthout three good meals and several snacks leads to immediate death from starvation. I cannot believe that the evolution of mankind didn't allow for the possibility of going without food for extended periods. We can actually live on very little so the corollary of that must surely be that we won't use up what we do eat very easily or quickly.

[beardy]

That sounds very positive but is it actually correct?

Human beings in a famine situation tend to sit or lie around doing nothing in order to conserve their calories for survival rather than waste them doing work/exercise.

The figures are there for us to see (they may not be perfect but they seem to function on a rule of thumb scale). Normal existence costs around 2,000 calories a day, cycle touring costs around 5,000 calories a day. So you live two and a half times as long if you sit on your computer rather than do some exercise after the food supply is cut off.

I would guess that in famine induced "shut down" we could survive on less than a thousand calories a day (the amount needed will also decrease as our bodies devour their own muscle mass).

I do agree however that the world is twisted when food is considered bad because it is a good fuel.

[RogerThat]

My last diet regime I fasted on 600 Cals a day, two days a week. I was able to commute in and out to work, do a full days work and on a Saturday fast, put about 55 miles in at average pace before I felt tired.

I was able to glean the following :

1. On fast days with no exercise at all my average weight loss was 300-325gr.

2. On fast days with 2-3 hours cycling my average weight loss was 500-650gr.

Not quite double the effective weight loss each week, but approx 85% more effective. I've been trialling the same effect in two recovering stent post OP patients with similar results.

I think this 'research' published by the BBC is a little disingenuous and I'm disappointed that yet again, relatively unreviewed research has grabbed the headlines when there is not much essential or empirical science to support it. It's a lose lose report, as far as I'm concerned.

[Tangled Metal]

I remember a holiday in the Nice area of France where the only obese people I saw did not speak with a French accent (English and other languages but mostly English with American or British twangs). Nice is also a working city like other areas with poverty and wealth so it should be like equivalent British cities surely? I just think that obesity is less common in nations with a healthy national obsession with good and healthy food (by that I mean there is a tradition of home cooking using natural and decent quality ingredients in their base forms). Processed foods are a major reason that the population's average waistlines in USA and Britain are growing in size.

My partner is getting more and more obsessed with processed carbs. She is cutting right back on pasta, sugars, etc. I guess there is also the view that fat is not as bad as once claimed, that processed carbs are worse. There is even a campaign in USA to get their dietary recommendations (being updated this year) to increase the recommended daily salt intake. Apparently the science behind the low salt recommendations was a flawed or lesser level of scientific certainty and indeed originated purely on the senate committee's over zealous mis-reading of the experts' report when the first edition of these dietary recommendations got produced. The end result was raised in the next edition IIRC but it is now considered by increasing numbers of experts based on published research that is based on a more highly rated scientific methodology. Indeed I think it is the former head of the committee that produces these dietary recommendations is actively campaigning for salt levels to rise. Think she said that the current levels could very well be detrimental to our health. Basically the evidence is that the US population is not actually consuming unsafe levels of salt (sodium).

Sorry if I have digressed a bit but I just think that dietary advice is of the time that it was developed and given by the experts. It seems to change and fluctuate with time. That is why I believe in cooking your own food so you know what is in it (I don't cook bread which is a source of high levels of salt and other processed ingredients but I should do). I also believe in portion size control. Do not eat more than you need. If you feel hungry drink first. Seriously I read somewhere that there was a bit of research that showed a lot of people mistook thirst signals as hunger and ate instead of drinking more. I eat lunch, evening meal then I have another snack at night before bed. I will eat at other times if I have done a level of exercise that warrants it. I think this control on my portions and the overall amount I eat is the reason I have maintained a healthy fat level and BMI (which is not really a useful indicator of healthy size).

My view on exercise is that it is needed for your overall health. By that I think it keeps the cardiovascular system healthy, helps with many other conditions that are increasingly becoming prevalent and is also fun to do. However I feel that diet is more important for weight control and also for conditions like coronary and heart conditions, dementia (in the future - I understand diet is considered a big influence if not one of the contributary causes), cancer, etc.

Another one of my pet views is that being clinically underweight has been chronically underestimated as an impact on health.

[Tangled Metal]

One more thing, what is the obsession with fasting of late? It seems a lot of people I know are doing the 5:2 fasting diet. My partner tried it for a couple of weeks but lost interest. I was talking to her about it and she pointed out that it could be said i fasted. Her argument was that by not eating from about 9pm to 1pm the next day I was fasting every day. I do that because I can not physically keep food down when in the morning until after at least 2 or 3 hours of being up. Some people are like me in that their metabolism doesn't seem to start up straight away in the morning I think. Also on a friday I finish for the week at 12:30 so I do not eat lunch at work. That increases the length of my fast to 2pm or even as late as 4pm. This all means that I have a fasting regime without really considering it. There is an unsupported view that our bodies work better when we have these fasts. I think that is why 5:2 diets seem to give results to certain people when other diets don't.

[pwa]

TM, do you cycle to work without breakfast? If so, I think that may be the sort of fat-burning fast that comes from exercising with no carbs in your system.