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

finnishguy wrote:

ttc wrote:

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!!".

you are wrong. walking can be great exercise.

90% of the people I see walking, go about 18 min/mile pace. Being chicagoland, means their aren't even hills to help compensate.

If I read easy books, I'll never get smart. If I do easy exercises, then... (you get the point). And walking 18 min miles, like most do, is as easy as easy gets. Maybe it has health benefits. But regarding cardio, muscles, calories, in-shape... it's the same as me reading 'The 3 Little Bears'.

I think he meant "sprinters" have some of the worst diets. Big difference. ;)

Remember how MJ got food poisoning at Barcelona from McDs?

Realize that it takes BOTH exercise and a well balanced diet to maintain a healthy weight. Initially, for grossly overweight and obese individuals, diet restriction is recommended until enough weight is lost in order to make exercise safer (such as for impact/weight bearing activities which can lead to excessive loading of joints and other tissues). Of course, an exercise routine that utilizes small increments of progression each week or month and is guided by an exercise physiologist or similarly qualified person, is best for beginners along with healthy (and sometimes restricted) eating patterns.

Time magazine irresponsibly reported that exercise won’t make you thin.

Aside from this absurd and highly unsubstantiated claim, consistent exercise lowers blood pressure, modifies high cholesterol, reduces the risk of cardiac disease and some cancers, reduces depression, and the list goes on.

The next time anyone hears about this asinine concept that ‘exercise won’t make you thin,’ please understand that Time magazine was only out to make a buck by stirring the pot with poor evidence and reporting. And even if someday there’s a surplus of evidence that exercise makes you overeat, know that high fitness will trump being sedentary every time.

Pittsburgh Joe wrote:

I think he meant "sprinters" have some of the worst diets. Big difference. ;)

Remember how MJ got food poisoning at Barcelona from McDs?

sprinters have less tolerance for crap in their diets because they burn less calories.

and about walking: walking 5 miles burns as many calories as running 5 miles.

finnishguy wrote:

and about walking: walking 5 miles burns as many calories as running 5 miles.

Just because it takes 2-3 times as long.

Running for an hour certainly burns more calories that walking for an hour.

4runner wrote:

finnishguy wrote:

and about walking: walking 5 miles burns as many calories as running 5 miles.

Just because it takes 2-3 times as long.

just because it's the same distance.

there's no hurry. :)

Not for nothing, but...

The easy part:

1-to lose weight, caloric expenditure must exceed energy output

2- This can be done by either decreasing caloric input, increasing energy expenditure or some combination

3- To maintain weight loss, (or stable weight) the decrease in caloric intake or increase in energy expenditure must be maintained.

The hard part-

1-As we age, our metabolism becomes more efficient. What this means is that it takes fewer calories to provide fuel for us to get thru our daily activities.

2- If we decrease our energy expenditure by a certain amount (eg, run one less 1/2 mile a day) and keep our caloric intake the same, we will gain weight.

3- It gets harder to maintain that level of exercise as we age, and its hard to start limiting our caloric input as we age, especially if, as younger runners, we ate pretty much whatever we wanted..

4-Therefore, most of us start to gain weight as we age

There are statistical outliers in any group-some will gain weight at a faster rate than others owing to the idiosyncrasies of their metabolism, some lucky bastards never gain regardless.

NYPT wrote:

3- It gets harder to maintain that level of exercise as we age, and its hard to start limiting our caloric input as we age, especially if, as younger runners, we ate pretty .

it's easier to maintain walking than running.

I think that anything you can't maintain to a very old age is pretty useless. I hope I'll still be running at 90.

Not for nothing, but...

The easy part:

1-to lose weight, caloric expenditure must exceed energy output

2- This can be done by either decreasing caloric input, increasing energy expenditure or some combination

3- To maintain weight loss, (or stable weight) the decrease in caloric intake or increase in energy expenditure must be maintained.

The hard part-

1-As we age, our metabolism becomes more efficient. What this means is that it takes fewer calories to provide fuel for us to get thru our daily activities.

2- If we decrease our energy expenditure by a certain amount (eg, run one less 1/2 mile a day) and keep our caloric intake the same, we will gain weight.

3- It gets harder to maintain that level of exercise as we age, and its hard to start limiting our caloric input as we age, especially if, as younger runners, we ate pretty much whatever we wanted..

4-Therefore, most of us start to gain weight as we age

There are statistical outliers in any group-some will gain weight at a faster rate than others owing to the idiosyncrasies of their metabolism, some lucky bastards never gain regardless.

finnishguy wrote:

[quote]Pittsburgh Joe wrote:

and about walking: walking 5 miles burns as many calories as running 5 miles.

This is incorrect. For a 150 pound man, walking a mile burns about 95 calories, and running burns about 115.

When you run there's a lot more vertical distance traveled.

Nope, uh-uh. wrote:

finnishguy wrote:

[quote]Pittsburgh Joe wrote:

and about walking: walking 5 miles burns as many calories as running 5 miles.

This is incorrect. For a 150 pound man, walking a mile burns about 95 calories, and running burns about 115.

When you run there's a lot more vertical distance traveled.

all this is irrelevant. the question is how many miles of walking or running can somebody sustain for decades.

finnishguy wrote:

Nope, uh-uh. wrote:

This is incorrect. For a 150 pound man, walking a mile burns about 95 calories, and running burns about 115.

When you run there's a lot more vertical distance traveled.

all this is irrelevant. the question is how many miles of walking or running can somebody sustain for decades.

Geez, are you someone who just like to type words that come into your head, or do you stop and think for 5 seconds before you write something or do something?? YOU WROTE that walking 5 miles burns the same calories as running 5 miles, and the guy challenged you on that, and you say: all this irrelevant, that was not the question ... ??? It WAS the question you were raising.

Earlier you wrote: "being an athlete is not healthy." Firstly, there are a million different types of "athletes", so please define, but in general, someone who is an "athlete" is healthier than someone who is not. I can quote 100 studies demonstrating this. So again, you are wrong there.

Furthermore, you wrote that 65% carbs is "crazy". Now that is probably not the ideal % for most people (would be more like 45-50%), but you have absolutely no proof to state that a "higher" carb diet such as 65% for someone who eats very nutritious meals (who is getting most of their carbs from whole grains, legumes and fruit), doesn't eat too many calories, and performs endurance exercise is "crazy." None, zero, zilch.

You seem to like to comment quite a bit on a topic you don't seem to have a lor of knowledge about, but hey, that's par for the course on the internet.

Sure I can eat anything and stay at 140-145 lbs., but if I want to get to 130, or 125 like I was 2 years ago, I have to watch what I eat - regardless of mileage. (Currently at 138, working to get back to 130 - maybe lower. Yes, I'm hungry most of the time, but you learn to ignore it.)

- 29, almost 30, year-old

Clowns of the Purple Sage wrote:

And you CAN lose weight just through exercise, if it's vigorous enough exercise. I did. There was no other factor.

This is not true especially as you get older.

jenner wrote:

Clowns of the Purple Sage wrote:

And you CAN lose weight just through exercise, if it's vigorous enough exercise. I did. There was no other factor.

This is not true especially as you get older.

There's a lot of stuff on here that isn't true (especially this post)

calories in < calories out = weight loss

you can make someone eat a diet of just oreo cookies, and if they expend more calories than they consume, they will lose weight. it's certainly not healthy, but they will lose weight.

Losing weight is easy. Doing it in a healthy way is a bit more of a challenge since everyone in the world seems to be overweight and extremely unhealthy.

Weight Loss is a matter of calories in versus calories out.

What you eat goes in what you burn goes out.

Increase calories in = you gain weight.

Decrease calories in = you lose weigt.

Increase calories out = you lose weight.

Decrease calories out = you gain weight.

/thread.

It is easy for some runners to not notice how much time they spend not eating because of running.

You don't eat because you are going to run.

You don't eat because you are running.

You don't eat because you just ran.

That could be 6 or 7 hours of not snacking.

But if you are injured and not running, you may as well grab something to eat.

Tom