Permanent Weight Loss

http://www.crockford.com/pwl/

by shawndumas • 16 years ago

49 50 16 years ago

crockford.com

mattmaroon6• 16 years ago

There's strong evidence that exercise is actually counterproductive when trying to lose weight.

RiderOfGiraffes• 16 years ago

Can you provide some links for that?

gte910h• 16 years ago

http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/04/phys-ed-why-doesnt-...

spamizbad• 16 years ago

Not a link, but certain individuals in the pop-diet field argue exercise increases appetite and may cause you to lose self-control binge on the wrong kinds of foods. Or, they'll perform a workout that burns 200 calories and then promptly down a sports drink that puts 200 calories right back into their system.

Others state that unless you're carefully balancing your calories vs. your workout level, you can push your metabolism into "starvation mode" - for example: lets say you require 2300 calories to maintain your weight, but you want to slim down so you decide to consume 2000 instead. If you throw exercise into the mix you're burning off an extra 300-500 calories (a net of 1500-1700 calories) which may put your body's metabolism into starvation mode. Because different people's bodies response to exercise differently, actually tracking your net caloric intake is challenging and not fully understood.

And of course there's the studies that show exercising alone with no diet plans seems to have a negligible impact on weight loss.

I hope I didn't misrepresent their arguments, but that's the gist of them.

ars• 16 years ago

Exercise causes the body want more food.

I know it happens to me - after I work really hard, I'm very very hungry after, and I end up eating too much.

mattmaroon6• 16 years ago

Someone posted an NYT article that linked to a good study.

byrneseyeview• 16 years ago

What kind of exercise? Anecdotally, the kind that causes weight loss is pretty intense (i.e. sprinting, not jogging; Tabata is the most extreme form). See:

http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~cook/movabletype/archives/2010...

axod7• 16 years ago

bs. How many fat joggers do you see?

It's pretty simple - burn more fat, eat less crap.

Evgeny2• 16 years ago

Also, carrot is obviously good for the eyes. After all, how many rabbits wearing glasses do you see?

Tichy2• 16 years ago

Might be survivor bias - if you are fat, you can't run very well, so maybe few fatties keep running.

MichaelSalib• 16 years ago

Overweight people tend to have joint issues that make running really painful. With respect, I don't think it is nearly so simple.

jodrellblank2• 16 years ago

How many no handed pianists do you see?

It's pretty simple - playing the piano causes limb regrowth.

mattmaroon6• 16 years ago

If you assume that's a causation rather than a correlation do the world a favor and don't go into science.

thisisnotmyname• 16 years ago

This has gotten a lot of upvotes in a very short time, so it must be ringing true with a lot of readers. I'd encourage some healthy skepticism.

1) It is really tempting to try to understand ourselves based on the assumed lives of our evolutionary ancestors, but the fact is we know almost nothing about their lives, and conclusions we draw from what we can guess are unlikely to be accurate.

2) There is not one citation in this entire article. This is all opinion, no matter how true it sounds.

3) He offers medical advice based solely on his personal experience. Sleep apnea may not be the same to all people.

mhd• 16 years ago

With all that "paleo diet" rage, raw-foodians etc, I think that pop evolutionary biology is the new pop psychology.

Nutritional science is friggin' hard. Extrapolating from biological reactions has to take a huge load of variables into account and empirical studies have to monitor a huge bunch of people over a long period of time -- and all of them are lying.

jacobolus• 16 years ago

Do you know of any good nutritional science resources/explanations? I wish I knew where to find a readable overview based on careful research.

mattmaroon6• 16 years ago

But it's on the internet. It must be true.

Also, it has pictures, some of which are attractive females. I'm sold!

zyb09• 16 years ago

Yes and no. To be honest I think right now nobody has a god damn clue how the body regulates fat and how weight gain really works. People recommend fruits, while fructose is probably one of the worst things you can eat. I can only recommend the book "Good Calories, Bad Calories" from Gary Taubes. Basically it explains the philosophy behind low carbohydrates, no sugar and high protein & fat. Makes evolutionary sense, too. At least that's what I believe in.

anamax• 16 years ago

> To be honest I think right now nobody has a god damn clue how the body regulates fat and how weight gain really works.

And, it's unclear that it necessarily works the same way in all people.

My opinion is that decomposition is the only permanent weight loss. Before then, there's maintenance, both successful and not which varies by both individual and circumstance.

aaronblohowiak2• 16 years ago

"People recommend fruits, while fructose is probably one of the worst things you can eat." -- fructose is bad for you. Much worse than glucose. However, the amount in fruit compared to anything with HFCS is not even in the same ballpark. Also, fruit is fibrous and mostly delicious. Avoid fruit juice that gets rid of the bulk, but feel free to eat fruit freely (unless you are pursuing ketosis, obvi.)

I think all of the studies show that most people don't keep weight off, and that the slower you lose the weight the more likely you are going to keep it off. Also, running is good for the brain as well as the body.

callmeed• 16 years ago

"There is one other thing. You must exercise at least an hour every day. Walking is best."

Last month, we exhibited at our largest trade show of the year–at the MGM in Vegas. I ate like a pig for a week. The Grand Buffet. Kobe ribeye at Craftsteak. Sushi. Beer. In N Out Burgers. You name it.

When I came home, I had lost 6 pounds.

We also walked a ton that week, stood in our booth for 8 hours a day, and hauled a lot of stuff during the setup/teardown.

I think people misunderstand what it means to "exercise" (at least in terms of losing weight). You don't have to go to a gym ... just get on your feet and move.

ghshephard• 16 years ago

Agreed. It's remarkable - My weight has varied between 160 pounds and 210 pounds, and almost has 100% correlation with a single factor - whether I was carpooling or walking into work. Diet, secondary exercise, type of food I'm eating - none of them seem to have anywhere near the causative impact as just simply walking 25-30 minutes into work (and back) each morning. Every morning. Every Day. For months on end.

I have friends who mock this, and talk about how much more important it is to get into their peak-heart-rate on their at-home treadmill. That they've actually used maybe a couple dozen times.

I don't have a choice - have to walk to work. And Back. 3 1/4 miles a day. Every day.

That's almost a marathon a week. :-)

mannicken• 16 years ago

Walking 3.25 mi in 25-30 minutes? That sounds a bit too fast :)

PS. Sorry I'm just in a bad mood and feel the need to be anal.

Evgeny2• 16 years ago

the initial role of big brains was for sexual attractiveness. For a long time, hominid females were selecting for big brains. Big brains served the same purpose as big tails do for peacocks. I think perhaps that those females were determined to someday produce a man with the mental capacity to understand women.

While this abstract is slightly funny, I suddenly realized that I have no idea about why humans evolved big brains. Why most of the other species do not select for bigger brains, while human evolution seems to suggest that a bigger brain is a much better survival tool compared to sharp claws or protective colour? Certainly, other species would have offspring which have slightly larger/smarter brains. Why is that only a few species (humans, dolphins ...) evolved relatively large brains?

ZenzerNet• 16 years ago

Probably random mutation that happened to turn out beneficial for us. In evolutionary sense, a larger brain doesn't seem to be of utmost importance for reproduction.

_pius• 16 years ago

Probably random mutation that happened to turn out beneficial for us.

Yes, but isn't that just restating the theory of evolution and natural selection?

kingsley_20• 16 years ago

This is from a Nova science documentary (Becoming Human): some scientists believe that humans evolved larger brains in response to a rapidly changing ecosystem. They've found evidence of a ginormous lake appearing and disappearing many times repeatedly over a few thousand years, in the Rift Valley, near where early hominids started evolving larger brains. The theory is that the rapid adaptability afforded by a larger brain was what selected for it.

pier0• 16 years ago

Consult an attorney before applying any of the tips

Permanent Weight Loss

Related Stories