Exercise alone doesn't make you lose weight

http://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/05/15/take-off-that-fitbit-exercise-alone-wont-make-you-lose-weight/

by adamsi • 11 years ago

62 66 11 years ago

washingtonpost.com

empressplay• 11 years ago

"No...more...pie."

meesterdude4• 11 years ago

A good article that echos some things I've read here and there already.

I recently started walking 3x a day and avoiding carbohydrates whenever possible; I always knew that the exercise wasn't for the weight loss, but I was surprised to read it did not impact metabolic rates.

It is pretty crazy, the amount of crap food we get presented with; both ones considered "healthy snacks" and the blatant unhealthy ones. Even crazier when you trace back the parent companies and there's only really a handfull of them behind the scenes of most brands out there.

Feels like prime material for a last week tonight episode

mrbriskly• 11 years ago

Agreed, John Oliver would have a field day with this.

thirdsun2• 11 years ago

Last Week Tonight: Sugar - https://youtu.be/MepXBJjsNxs

Should be close enough.

austinjp6• 11 years ago

Avoiding carbohydrates? How about vegetables and pulses? Plenty of carbs in them.

Okay, sans snark.... avoiding refined carbohydrates perhaps?

FooBarWidget• 11 years ago

What vegetables, besides starchy ones like rice and potatos, contain "plenty of carbs"?

meesterdude4• 11 years ago

yes; bread specifically, but generally anything with a lot in it. its mostly a dealbreaker i use when i'm debating something; oh, can i have this? nooooope.

chipsy• 11 years ago

The deadly one for me is dairy. It's omnipresent and I've attributed its component parts to symptoms ranging from brain fog to elevated heart rate to inflamed joints. Fortunately whey seems to be an exception, so protein shakes are OK. Cut out dairy and avoid most sugars, and I have very few remaining issues. But I also admit my experience is personalized; everyone probably has foods that they aren't compatible with, but can tolerate "enough" to dismiss for a single meal - and people who never encounter long-term issues just happened to get lucky.

ozim2• 11 years ago

Hey it would impact metabolic rates if you would be body building. More muscle = more calories to feed them. In article you can see as well that weight loss was connected with slower metabolic rate.

But walking as written in article is easily filled up with couple cookies.

Other thing is I don't like term "losing weight" it is much better to lose fat and even gain weight building some muscle.

meesterdude4• 11 years ago

Well, i think thats where diet comes in. when i go for walks, i don't think about eating a cookie afterwards :) though I do love me some chocolate chip cookies, they're strictly a no-no.

And to me, lose weight == lose fat. Honestly, I'm not even watching the scales anyway; i'm just taking a known good path behaviorally and letting the results pan out on their own.

thirdsun2• 11 years ago

Should be close enough - John Oliver on Sugar: https://youtu.be/MepXBJjsNxs

agumonkey2• 11 years ago

I'd love to see a RandallMunroe `what if processed food was reduced to almost zero`. How many things would disappear (factories, their consumption and polluants, shops, pesticides), how much healthier would we be, wealthier, how much free time doctor would have for worthy cases. The whole shebang.

emsy2• 11 years ago

I found that in addition to avoiding certain foods, gaining muscles is a pretty effective way to increase your energy consumption in idle mode and thus lose weight quicker. Unfortunately, the article seems to target cardio exercises, which in my experience is a waste of time. I've always lost fat when I gained muscles without changing my diet that much. Anyone with similar findings?

walshemj• 11 years ago

yep when I had a 7 mile each way bike ride as part of my commute I lost a lot of weight quickly

austinjp6• 11 years ago

High intensity interval exercise has repeatedly been shown to lead to increased metabolic rate for hours after exercise with minimal increase in hunger.

You have to put on quite a lot of muscle to raise your resting metabolic rate, and this probably isn't practical for most people.

Resistance training (weight lifting etc) can be a great way to do interval exercise and get a real sweat going. Kettle bells for instance are particularly in vogue, although there are plenty of other methods.

Resistance training is great for many other reasons, and we should all be doing some. Increased strength and coordination is a solid investment in your future health.

Lower intensity exercise (eg jogging) does unfortunately increase hunger, and it is far, far easier to 1000 calories than to "burn them off".

Some people are simply predisposed to put on fat and retain it. Aesthetically this may not be what they wish for, and that can lead to desperate dieting and more exotic attempts at fat loss.

It is entirely possible to be "fat but fit" so health measures other than estimating subcutaneous adipose tissue are necessary to understand your health.

It is also possible to be "thin outside fat inside" ie to look thin but have terrible cardiovascular health.

The summary is that most of us should probably eat more green veggies and more fibre but less overall, and do more exercise. Any specific formula for this is a distraction from the general message, but if it works for, good.

On mobile, apologies for lack of references.

tomp4• 11 years ago

Some people are simply predisposed to put on fat and retain it. Aesthetically this may not be what they wish for, and that can lead to desperate dieting and more exotic attempts at fat loss.

Can you provide references for this?

I'm not sure about this one. I've read that in reality, most people have the same resting metabolic rate, i.e. we spend roughly the same amount of calories just to live. It's very possible that there are differences in the efficiency of our digestion systems, but I find it unlikely that the differences are that great (apart from specific foods, e.g. milk). So I'd say that most of the "predisposition" is purely mental.

DanBC• 11 years ago

It's frustrating that the article discusses a bunch of different research and meta analysis and you counter that with your anecdote, especially since your first sentence ("avoiding certain foods") is supported by the research whereas the rest isn't.

tomp4• 11 years ago

You mean this statement?

gaining muscles is a pretty effective way to increase your energy consumption in idle mode and thus lose weight quicker

It's not counter to what the article describes; the article is just saying that most people will also increase their energy (food) intake along with an increase in their energy consumption, resulting in no net weight loss. It's perfectly possibly that grandparent's psychology doesn't make him/her eat more as a result of more muscle.

emsy2• 11 years ago

I think you're right and in hindsight I should've formulated the comment differently, putting the focus on the fact that the article doesn't differentiate between cardio and weigth training.

interpol_p• 11 years ago

I have the opposite experience. I tend to lose weight when I do 30 mins - 1 hour of cardio per day.

hmate95• 11 years ago

I'd still always recommend cardio instead of weight training. Cardio is much more healthier than weight training.

It has been shown plenty of times that running/walking regularly increases life expectency quite dramatically. I've yet to find an article that says the same thing about big biceps :)

agumonkey2• 11 years ago

Having a strong core is a great thing (of course, self centered anecdotal revelation), no need to go into bodybuilding but I'd suggest anyone to strengthen and stretch every two days.

tsomctl• 11 years ago

Weight lifting doesn't necessarily increase life expectancy, but it does increase your quality of life, especially in later years. Basically, when you're old, weight lifting allows you to keep moving around and carrying stuff. While I agree having big biceps is mostly useless, core training (squats!) is extremely helpful for pretty much everyone.

austinjp6• 11 years ago

Plenty of evidence that increased muscle strength protects against trauma such as falling in the elderly. Exercise can help people maintain physical independence and hence keep them sociable, which potentially protects against life-limiting problems. With resistance training comes improved coordination (generally) which protects against balance issues.

There is ambiguous evidence suggesting that resistance training protects against osteoporosis.

This stuff mainly applies in the elderly, but the earlier in your adult life you start, the better you're likely to be (okay, ignoring injury, true -- but that may be balanced by issues later in life).

Loss of muscle mass has a name: sarcopaenia/sarcopenia. Stick it into PubMed and look through the literature.

jroseattle• 11 years ago

I've always lost fat when I gained muscles without changing my diet that much.

The fat-burning aspect of muscle growth has been fundamental for me. 45 minutes of weight-lifting has had a far greater effect on fat reduction than 90 minutes of cardio.

I don't know that I can say it's "weight-lifting" vs. "cardio", but rather the specifics of what those entail. I do free weights, and feel like I work my body out better than the cardio work that I've done.

But I'm with you in that respect -- building muscle is effective for fat loss for me, and I achieve that better through weight-lifting vs. cardio.

threeseed4• 11 years ago

It's always seemed pretty simple to me. Just look at what people who have to manage their weight for a living do i.e. bodybuilders.

Cardio alone with no change to diet will not help you lose weight but will help you live longer. Cardio with healthy eating will help you lose weight and live longer but it will take time. Building muscle with a keto style diet will help you lose the weight the quickest but probably isn't the healthiest long term. So for ideal health aim somewhere between the two extremes.

pvnick• 11 years ago

So for ideal health aim somewhere between the two extremes.

This is generally good advice for everything in life.

tomp4• 11 years ago

Cardio alone with no change to diet will not help you lose weight but will help you live longer.

Technically, cardio with no change in diet will make you lose weight (unless you're a medical miracle that disobey the laws of thermodynamics). The problem is, of course, that people who do cardio usually also eat more (a "reward" after the run?).

Also, I'm not sure you can build muscle with a keto diet - you build muscle by using muscle (i.e. lifting weights). In general, having more muscle is very healthy, especially as we get older.

threeseed4• 11 years ago

This is what makes weight loss simple in theory but difficult in practice. Many people (especially those who are new to exercising) will (a) take it easier in the period after or (b) like you said eat more. Which results in nothing changing or them even gaining weight.

And sorry I meant building muscle as well as eating a keto diet. If you do both you will lose weight very quickly.

ozim2• 11 years ago

"Building muscle with keto style diet will help you lose the weight..."

Please say that it will help lose fat quickest, because gaining muscle will add to body weight. Fun thing is that you might change composition loosing fat and gain muscle and gain weight. So losing weight is not good term.

threeseed4• 11 years ago

Insightfully true. When I think of losing weight I naturally think of losing fat. But most people I would imagine (especially women) are fixed on the weight part.

Seems like there needs to be an awareness campaign by health organisations to focus on losing fat and not on losing weight.

dualogy• 11 years ago

Building muscle with a keto style diet will help you lose the weight the quickest but probably isn't the healthiest long term.

Why not?

hmate95• 11 years ago

Guys, it's really simple. You ned ~2000 calories a day to maintain your weight. If your net calorie intake is less than 2000 than you lose weight. Exercise helps you achieve that because exercise "uses up calories". Simple.

Eating less carbs and more protein etc. are just minor things. Net calorie deficiency is how you'll lose weight.

backprojection• 11 years ago

Do you honestly believe that the people advocating alternative plans (low carb, etc) don't understand this argument? Why just keep on repeating it?

rohanprabhu• 11 years ago

Because people who follow their advocacy generally don't understand this.

hmate95• 11 years ago

Believe it or not, an extremely high amount of people do not understand this. Even here at Imperial, otherwise very intelligent people still do not understand why they aren't losing weight even though they aren't drinkig Red Bull anymore.

alanthonyc• 11 years ago

You state facts, here are some additional ones from the article:

* “people who simply dieted experienced greater weight loss than those who combined diet and exercise.”

* “You would have to walk for more than 45 minutes to burn off the 300 calories from eating just three cookies.”

* “researchers concluded, “active, ‘traditional’ lifestyles may not protect against obesity if diets change to promote increased caloric consumption.”

* “It’s calorie intake that is really fueling the obesity epidemic.”

Personally, the most weight I’ve ever lost was over a six month period of zero exercise, but with a restricted diet. (Consequences of a work assignment out of town.)

My most physically active periods (3-4 hours daily in the ocean) have been accompanied by no weight loss, sometimes even weight gain.

girvo• 11 years ago

The thing is though, weight gain isn't the whole story. Body composition matters, quite a lot.

hmate95• 11 years ago

Still, just because you were active in the ocean doesn't mean you automatically have to lose weight.

You can be extremely active, but still eat more calories a day than you burn.

If we have person A who eats 1500 calories a day and does no exercise and we have person B who eats 1500 calories a day and does 30 minutes of running a day, person B will lose weight much more quickly.

The reason that weight training and exercise is often said to make you lose less weight is because exercise also builds muscle.

Your goal during a diet should not be to lose weight really, it should be to lose fat.

jxdxbx• 11 years ago

Different foods have different effects on your metabolism, and, relevant to this article, different effects on weight. There is very strong evidence on this point. You are going to be better off eating 200 calories of protein than 200 calories of sugar. The idea that "all calories are equal" has been quite damaging to public health.

threeseed4• 11 years ago

It's not even just different effects on metabolism. We are continually learning about the effect that eating food A has on the metabolism of food B but not on C.

Example being diet soda (zero calories) and its effect on gut bacteria and eating behaviour.

hmate95• 11 years ago

It is true that they have different effects, but they are not as big as net calorie intake.

You'll lose weight much faster if you eat 1500 calories a day with just chocolate bars than if you eat 1800 calories a day from meat.

maurits• 11 years ago

For me two books have been a bit of a game changer, Salt Sugar, Fat by Michael Moss (See also the 'bliss point' [1]) and The omnivore's dilemma by Michael Pollan.

What pisses me off the most is the skill and vigilance you need nowadays to find out how healthy a product actually is.

At some point, I would to be able to trust that the farmer-clad package from my western supermarket is actually good for me.

[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/24/magazine/the-extraordinary...

EGreg• 11 years ago

Weight training increases muscle mass in both men and women, causing the body to burn more calories at rest.

Yes, eating sugary junk messes up and changes the metabolic systems. Especially in young kids who are still developing. The obesity epidemic might also be tied to the antibiotics we feed our factory farmed animals to get them to be bigger. Hard to avoid sugar and HFCS and even harder to avoid it now that all vegetables have been genetically altered or selected to produce it and be more addictive.

Based on this article, what is there to do for someone who is naturally plump, and isn't able to burn off the calories quickly? Move to China?

SQL2219• 11 years ago

I am going to go out on a limb here and post my observations on this topic. Humans are very susceptible to personal branding and stereotyping. Personal branding in this context: the notion that wearing a Fitbit, or wearing new running shoes, or wearing trendy workout clothes, or shopping at Whole Foods makes you healthy. AND because I wear a Fitbit and shop at Whole Foods I am now entitled to drink a quart of Gatorade every day, and drinking that Gatorade is making me healthy!

Kind of like wearing glasses to a job interview, enforces the perception that you are smart, and from what I've read, this actually works.

My advice: replace those sugar calories with healthy fat or protein calories.

Then there is this very interesting study on corn syrup: http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S26/91/22K07/

rasz_pl• 11 years ago

clip that supports this assertion perfectly:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HooRolKCM3s (buzzfeed 90 Days Of Working Out With P90X)

No change in diet = 90 days of exercising for (almost)nothing.

7Figures2Commas• 11 years ago

It's kind of amusing that this is news. Most folks involved in sports/fitness have probably heard the old adage, "Abs are made in the kitchen, not in the gym."

ramigb• 11 years ago

As a programmer, I didn't move a lot and i ate all the wrong food, so o fcourse I've gained massive weight during the years I was 385lbs or 175 kgs at my peak. When i decided it was time to regain control over my life a month ago -4th of April- i weighed 370 lbs, today after 42 days i weigh 346 lbs, all i did was cut on sugar and walk a bit, no fancy diets or what so ever, although first week i've tried Atkins but i failed at keeping up with the strict rules of it, now my diet is low in carbs but mostly low in sugar.

anotherevan• 11 years ago

Hey, 10kgs in 42 days is great!

I've been recording my weight every day (almost) for 1033 days so far. I'd already lost ~20kg before that, and lost the next 10kg in 35 days, by comparison. At my lowest weight, day 559, I'd lost 27kg from when I started recording (about 80% of the total I want to lose).

Unfortunately, at day 1033 I've gained about 12kg since my lowest point, so overall loss of 15kg (58% of total to lose). So lost a bit of ground and seem to have really hit a plateau in the last year.

This has been with the assistance of a lapband as of four years ago.

Not to be discouraging, but it seems you make the big losses early and it gets harder. Best of luck.

ddmf• 11 years ago

I'm seeing something similar; about 18 months ago I started walking to and from work (4 miles) and started cutting out sugary drinks.

I went from 325 lbs to 270 lbs in just over a year, but the last 6 months I've barely lost any weight, strangely enough though my body shape has still been changing for the better, as it's only in the last 3 months or so I've dropped another trouser size.

MarkMc• 11 years ago

The title is misleading. 'Exercise alone' suggests no change in diet but the article talks about exercise coupled with an increase in calorie consumption.

vannevar• 11 years ago

I would go further and say the title literally says the opposite of the information contained in the article. It clearly says that exercise alone does make you lose weight. It just adds the observation that very few people actually try exercise alone---most try a combination of exercise and increasing their calorie consumption, which unsurprisingly doesn't work.

WalterSear• 11 years ago

It also mainly focuses on large studies where all excercise is lumped into an 'hours per day' category.

Not one mention of strength training vs the light-to-medium cardio that people consider to be 'exercise'.

ksk• 11 years ago

There is only one sure fire way to lose weight. Be reasonable and practical - Try something, stick to it, if it works. As a first approximation copy the general diet plan of someone who has lost weight. If you have personal test data that shows you're missing nutrients, experiment switching out foods for better ones. If/When your diet plan starts failing, tweak it, or try another one. Use your brain, don't eat like a 120lb woman if you're a 200lb man.

I've lost about 100lbs following this very simple idea. Don't overcomplicate things by changing what is ALREADY WORKING by reading random studies/dissertations, unless you're VERY SURE that it applies to you - your specific lifestyle, your specific diet, workout, body type, etc etc. And even then, when it comes to dietary guidelines, there are no absolutes.

chrismcb• 11 years ago

This is a horrible article. Yes excersize alone can reduce weight. But the problem is glossed over in the middle of the article, most people who start exercising tend to eat more. Eat less, exercise more.

Delmania• 11 years ago

TL;DR: You can't outwork a bad diet.

Of course, a TFA mentions, exercise has benefits of it's own, such as building muscle tone and improving cardiovascular health. But if you want weight loss, start counting calories.

Exercise alone doesn't make you lose weight

Related Stories