Time.com Reports: Why Exercise WON'T Make You Thin....

1. I might do another blog. I don't know.

2. I think fake sports food is expensive and unnecessary. Go with real food. Gatorade and Gu make me want to puke, and these products have already cost someone a very important marathon.

Out.

Runningart2004 wrote:

Diet > Exercise.

Diet + Exercise > Diet or Exercise Alone

I understand the article and what you are saying are based on large studies and experience, but I don't understand how it jives with my own experience.

When I run (or do other strenuous aerobic exercise), I eat less. Frankly, the last thing I want after a hard workout is to eat-- the mere thought of food makes me sick to the stomach.

There was a summer in college when I got off from work at 8 PM, went running, and then went to bed without ever eating dinner. I was hungry in the morning, but by the end of the summer I was ~10 lbs below my normal cross country race weight and ~20 lbs below track weight. My coach even told me to put on weight when I got back to school.

Is it just that people aren't working out hard enough?

Runningart2004 wrote:

Those who lost the most weight included a healthy diet lower in carbs, higher in fat and protein.

Alan

There is no healthy diet for an athlete that's low in carbs, carbs are the most efficient fuel for an athlete assuming they're mainly low GI. Too much protein is the enemy, not carbs.

The atkins diet will make you lose weight but only because the diet is deficient in energy and forces fat stores to be burnt or even muscle. This isn't sustainable in the long run, especially for an athlete! Don't believe me - look at the kenyan diet, 65%+ carbs (unrefined), low fat, zero junk and very little sugar, only 10% protein and little from meat.

Hmmmmmm wrote:

There is no healthy diet for an athlete that's low in carbs, carbs are the most efficient fuel for an athlete assuming they're mainly low GI. Too much protein is the enemy, not carbs.

The atkins diet will make you lose weight but only because the diet is deficient in energy and forces fat stores to be burnt or even muscle. This isn't sustainable in the long run, especially for an athlete! Don't believe me - look at the kenyan diet, 65%+ carbs (unrefined), low fat, zero junk and very little sugar, only 10% protein and little from meat.

I don't believe he was referring to athletes.

Women in three of the groups were asked to work out with a personal trainer for 72 min., 136 min., and 194 min. per week, respectively, for six months.

194 minutes a week? If they had one extra sports drink a day they wouldn't lose any weight. I like how most of the studies don't even describe the exercise done.

Calorie restriction is good for weight loss.

Exercise is for maintenance of that weight loss.

Losing weight is easy, the hard part that everyone has trouble with is keeping all that weight off. Most people lose 10 pounds then put it back on like a month later.

Hmmmmmm wrote:

There is no healthy diet for an athlete that's low in carbs, carbs are the most efficient fuel for an athlete assuming they're mainly low GI. Too much protein is the enemy, not carbs.

The atkins diet will make you lose weight but only because the diet is deficient in energy and forces fat stores to be burnt or even muscle. This isn't sustainable in the long run, especially for an athlete! Don't believe me - look at the kenyan diet, 65%+ carbs (unrefined), low fat, zero junk and very little sugar, only 10% protein and little from meat.

there is no healthy diet for an athlete. period.

being an athlete is not healthy.

atkins is not that great of a diet.

paleo diet IS a great diet.

65%+ carbs is crazy and being an athlete is crazy too. :)

those kenian guys may be fast runners when they are young, but when you get older your diet starts to show.

Simply do the math.....

An adult human being just performing daily functions (heart beat, etc) burns 1500 calories/day....

Therefore, to lose weight with no exercise one has to eat less than 1500 calories/day.

If you run 8 miles/day at 7:30 pace per mile..... equals approx 1000 calories.....

Therefore if you eat 2000 calories or less per day and run 8 miles, it is still possible to lose weight.

Also, the reason many runners can gorge on Cheeseburgers is because they are running 100 mpw (implying a minimum of burning 2000 cal/day from running and 1500 additional for basal body functions). therefore, they can eat 3000 cal and not gain weight.

- Phil Passen

I've been running with my team (I'm a coach) all summer and didn't lose any weight. About 3 weeks ago I decided to start counting my calories and I've lost about 15lbs, or nearly a pound a day.

Thanks for YOUR anectodal single point of data.

I like it when newbie exercisers are on the treadmill at the Y WITHOUT a sports drink. They need to take in those calories and electrolytes during the workout to keep them from getting famished. Then, they won't eat so much later on.

Exactly. It's simpe thermodynamics: spend more energy than you consume, you lose weight. Consume more energy than you spend, you gain. Now what unique blend of will-power, feeling satiated, availability of good food, and amount of time people are willing to spend exercising is highly variable.

Take 2 people: 1 has a job where taking 1.5 hours for a lunch-time run is not an issue, lives in an area conducive to exercise (trails, good weather, etc), has money to spend on good, in-season food, and can easily bike/walk to work or run errands.

The other has a job with a set 30 minute lunch, no shower or locker-room there, lives in a crappy area for running, makes not much money so buying whatever fruit/vegetable looks good is not always an option, and has to drive a long enough distance to work/errands, such that walking or biking is not practical for time reasons.

Both are governed by the same laws of thermodynamics, but the first person will have it a hell of a lot easier adjusting their life to keep from gaining weight. I'd love to see more places have good facilities to accomodate bike (or running- a coworker runs to/from work most days) commuters, be flexible with work-hours, and basically make it easier for people to make the healthy choice. I routinely bike to work, and at least have a locker-room with 2 showers, but if the place was serious about helping employees stay active there would be more showers (there's often a wait), more lockers (I can't get one, so have to plan ahead a little for changes of clothes), and they'd stop locking the door by the bike racks early...

The article is crap, legitimizing as physical facts what are really psychological pitfalls.

It's just another manifestation of the unhealthy relationship most Americans have with food. The idea of "rewarding" yourself with food explains it. The attitude is: I was "good" by exercising, so I can "reward" myself by eating some high calorie crap.

I don't feel much like eating after a 5 mile run, but I don't spend the time running thinking about what I'm going to eat, either.

Just like we have conditioned overeating in our culture, we have conditioned exercise reward. Whether you are hungry or not.

Hell, with fuel belts and goo packs, you don't even have to wait till you're done with your three miles. You can snack at the 2 mile mark.

The reason people don't loose weight if they exercise is because a sedenatary person's view of exercise is very skewed. A woman i work with said "i probably burned just as many calories as i ate with my walk to the cafeteria". the cafeteria is about 200 yrs away.

i had to attend some stress reduction lecture at work where the speaker said "you get your exercise by your walk to the parking lot". the lot is across the street.

People think that not sitting is exercise these days. anything that doesn't include sitting to means they can eat more to make up for it.

I partook in a 3 mile fun run the other day for charity. There was a woman wearing a fuel belt WITH fuel. I did not see her take any of it. Hopefully she was just wearing it to get used to it before her marathon/ultramarathon.

A few years ago I worked at a Fleet Feet during the summers (during college). We had a portly woman who would stop in the store every few days mid-run for GU and water (from the cooler). She would eat/take the GU in the store, drink water and then leave. One day I asked her how long she was running and she told me 4 miles.

When she left, the manager told me she had been doing that for years, despite them telling her she didn't really need to refuel for her 2-4 mile training runs.

finnishguy wrote:

Hmmmmmm wrote:

There is no healthy diet for an athlete that's low in carbs, carbs are the most efficient fuel for an athlete assuming they're mainly low GI. Too much protein is the enemy, not carbs.

The atkins diet will make you lose weight but only because the diet is deficient in energy and forces fat stores to be burnt or even muscle. This isn't sustainable in the long run, especially for an athlete! Don't believe me - look at the kenyan diet, 65%+ carbs (unrefined), low fat, zero junk and very little sugar, only 10% protein and little from meat.

there is no healthy diet for an athlete. period.

being an athlete is not healthy.

atkins is not that great of a diet.

paleo diet IS a great diet.

65%+ carbs is crazy and being an athlete is crazy too. :)

wouldn't it be fair to say that a fair number of professional athletes are some of the healthiest people in the world? i would think that whatever diet they eat is healthy.

Statistically you will find thinner people who live in Manhattan and San Francisco. Too many people make such a big production out of exercising, when basic transportation can suffice for exercise. How many people have gym memberships, but don't take the stairs at work.

Also, many times exercise just MAINTAINS weight....what's wrong with that?

Too many people nowadays are so impatient/expect immediate results with exercise, and their primary motivation is to lose weight....not to get healthy.

How say u?

PS. You generally won't find fat people in London, Paris, Manhattan, San Francisco.....why is that?

Seymour G. wrote:

I think what non-active overweight people consider exercise and what people who run consider exercise are two different things. Most runners can eat 2500-3000 calories a day easily sometimes more, but doing 20 reps with soup cans while marching around your living room does not entitle one to more than 2000 calories a day.

Exactly.

Walking 20 minutes per mile, equals me staring at a book, not intently studying, and wondering why I'm flunking. Or it equals me reading Dr. Seuss and wondering why I'm still dumb. Hey, I'm reading, right??

Have a computerized survey and whenever someone says they walk, automate the program to spit out, NO F***ING WONDER YOU'RE A FATASS -> WALKING ISN'T A WORKOUT, YOU F***ING MORON!!".

not elliot blount wrote:

wouldn't it be fair to say that a fair number of professional athletes are some of the healthiest people in the world? i would think that whatever diet they eat is healthy.

I dont think so. It's easy to be healthy when you are young.

Carl Lewis said that athletes have some of the worst diets. :)