Weight, health & body image

Pross

This thread is making me hungry so I've just had a handful of biscuits. I was going to do a 5 mile run at lunchtime but as it seems it is pointless I'll just eat the rest of my Easter egg instead.

focuszing723

I was just thinking right. With the wonders of AI, people could wear glasses with a camera in them that monitors what they eat and tells them how many calories they've eaten. No cheating, just cold hard gluttonous fact.

focuszing723

Fat specs.

yellowv2

The thing is Calories are not all the same.
Calories obtained from natural food source will have a different effect than those obtained from artificial trans fats, which is why full fat yoghurt for example is more healthy than low or zero fat yoghurt. Similarly fast food calories are unhealthy compared to whole food calories.
Trans fats will accumulate up to three times more visceral fat and have a different insulin response, which will have a different energy response and metabolise differently, the glucose is not disposed of as quickly.
Which is why it's not as simple as calories in vs out.

morstar

TheBigBean said:

morstar said:

It’s way more complicated than just calories in / calories out.

.

I'm not sure it is. A lot of people want it to be.

So when you eat is known to affect how energy is consumed.

Also, the make of those calories matters. I’ve referenced how Maurtens have looked at the delivery of calories under exercise. There were lots of articles in magazines about this breakthrough in sugar absorption about 3-4 years ago.

Maybe that’s all mumbo jumbo then.

wallace_and_gromit

rick_chasey said:

wallace_and_gromit said:

rick_chasey said:

What % of your energy intake do you think is used up by exercise? I doubt it’s bigger than 10-15%

So that’s what, 300-400 calories a day, or 1 large glass of wine.

Per one of my earlier posts, I reckon I get through circa 600/700 calories per day on average in terms of exercise, which is circa 25%-30% of the circa 2000 calories per day that a middle-aged guy of my size needs to simply exist.

My guess is that no-one for whom "exercise doesn't work" gets remotely close to that level of exercise.

That's what, 3 hours of cycling a day?

Running is your friend if you want to lose weight via exercise as it's "weight supporting". Second only to XC skiing I believe, which is also weight supporting but uses more muscle groups. I generally run 30k-40k per week on a regular basis, plus "weekend warrior" cycling activities. Turbos are also your friend as you don't freewheel.

wallace_and_gromit

rick_chasey said:

However, study after study after study finds *prescribing excercise does not help people lose weight*

No-one's arguing against this though. We're saying that if you stop exercising and maintain your current diet then you gain weight and if you maintain diet and increase exercise then you lose weight.

You're saying that people in general don't exercise when instructed to do so to help lose weight, which no-one is arguing against. Most people lack our collective willpower and motivation, given that we're cyclists and they're couch potatoes.

wallace_and_gromit

focuszing723 said:

davebradswmb said:

rick_chasey said:

pblakeney said:

rick_chasey said:

I thought it was pretty much established exercise basically doesn't really lose you weight and it's really all about diet.

Quote as many reports as you like but I lost 3 stone by becoming a born again cyclist without changing my diet. I became a born again cyclist due to noticing I was becoming obese.

Sure, I don't doubt that at the extreme ends exercise obviously does, but I think a) cycling is fairly unusual in that you can spend a lot of calories for a long time and b) you do really need to be quite fit to put out enough power to get through the calories enough to be material to your weight.

For a lot of my life I raced canoe slalom. A normal training session would consist of a 5 minute warm up followed by 4 sets of 5 repetitions of a 20 - 30 second course. A total of 15 minutes exercise in a little over an hour, which I would do 2 or 3 times a week. A weekend's racing consisted of a few 6 x 2 minute runs down the course plus warm ups. Other than that I commuted 4 miles to work about half the time by bike. I never had to watch my weight. Either I am exceptional or there was something about the relatively small time I spent exercising that stopped me from getting fat, Basically I don't buy into the idea that doing exercise doesn't control weight.

...HIT exercises burn a lot of calories.

So true. My last kilo or so to get down to race weight only drops off when I do the final phase of training which is HIIT on the running track or with weights.

wallace_and_gromit

yellowv2 said:

The thing is Calories are not all the same.
Calories obtained from natural food source will have a different effect than those obtained from artificial trans fats, which is why full fat yoghurt for example is more healthy than low or zero fat yoghurt. Similarly fast food calories are unhealthy compared to whole food calories.
Trans fats will accumulate up to three times more visceral fat and have a different insulin response, which will have a different energy response and metabolise differently, the glucose is not disposed of as quickly.
Which is why it's not as simple as calories in vs out.

But for a given person, if they eat more / less of the "same" type of food as normal then with maintained exercise levels, they will lose / gain weight.

The "athlete diet" is very different to the average diet. (More complex carbs, less fat and less processed in general.) My offspring are both at Uni and are a triathlete and a swimmer. They regularly dine with their non-athlete friends and then have to eat a "proper" meal afterwards to fuel up for training the next day.

There's a saying amongst age group swimmers that they all have to learn the hard way that pizza is not a good pre-race meal!

Jezyboy

Massively generalising here, but much of the extra complexity around in v out seems to boil down to how satisfying the food is, and whether you will feel full for longer.

The exercise doesn't help bit boils down to, unless you are a outlier, you won't end up exercising enough to burn a significant amount of calories.

pblakeney

wallace_and_gromit said:

rick_chasey said:

wallace_and_gromit said:

rick_chasey said:

What % of your energy intake do you think is used up by exercise? I doubt it’s bigger than 10-15%

So that’s what, 300-400 calories a day, or 1 large glass of wine.

Per one of my earlier posts, I reckon I get through circa 600/700 calories per day on average in terms of exercise, which is circa 25%-30% of the circa 2000 calories per day that a middle-aged guy of my size needs to simply exist.

My guess is that no-one for whom "exercise doesn't work" gets remotely close to that level of exercise.

That's what, 3 hours of cycling a day?

Running is your friend if you want to lose weight via exercise as it's "weight supporting". Second only to XC skiing I believe, which is also weight supporting but uses more muscle groups. I generally run 30k-40k per week on a regular basis, plus "weekend warrior" cycling activities. Turbos are also your friend as you don't freewheel.

Not necessarily true. I do enjoy a good descent after slogging my way to the top.
No danger of crashing either! 😉

wakemalcolm

Is nobody banging the drum for increasing N.E.A.T. anymore or has that ship sailed on a wave of convenience? I remember me and my brother arguing over who would have to walk to the chippy in the way that people now argue over who has to get off the couch to answer the door to the delivery guy.

wallace_and_gromit

pblakeney said:

wallace_and_gromit said:

rick_chasey said:

wallace_and_gromit said:

rick_chasey said:

What % of your energy intake do you think is used up by exercise? I doubt it’s bigger than 10-15%

So that’s what, 300-400 calories a day, or 1 large glass of wine.

Per one of my earlier posts, I reckon I get through circa 600/700 calories per day on average in terms of exercise, which is circa 25%-30% of the circa 2000 calories per day that a middle-aged guy of my size needs to simply exist.

My guess is that no-one for whom "exercise doesn't work" gets remotely close to that level of exercise.

That's what, 3 hours of cycling a day?

Running is your friend if you want to lose weight via exercise as it's "weight supporting". Second only to XC skiing I believe, which is also weight supporting but uses more muscle groups. I generally run 30k-40k per week on a regular basis, plus "weekend warrior" cycling activities. Turbos are also your friend as you don't freewheel.

Not necessarily true. I do enjoy a good descent after slogging my way to the top.
No danger of crashing either! 😉

Fair point! I was thinking WattBike QuickRide rather than anything Zwift-like with descents (and 80kmh 90 degree turns!)

pangolin

rick_chasey said:

I can go further. When I lived in NYC which was for about a year I dropped all 'exercise' save for walking around and I lost weight as I ended up skipping meals because I was so busy.

I enjoy this anecdote where you admit you changed what you ate, changed how active you were, have no actual numbers, but think it supports your argument.

yellowv2

wallace_and_gromit said:

yellowv2 said:

The thing is Calories are not all the same.
Calories obtained from natural food source will have a different effect than those obtained from artificial trans fats, which is why full fat yoghurt for example is more healthy than low or zero fat yoghurt. Similarly fast food calories are unhealthy compared to whole food calories.
Trans fats will accumulate up to three times more visceral fat and have a different insulin response, which will have a different energy response and metabolise differently, the glucose is not disposed of as quickly.
Which is why it's not as simple as calories in vs out.

But for a given person, if they eat more / less of the "same" type of food as normal then with maintained exercise levels, they will lose / gain weight.

The "athlete diet" is very different to the average diet. (More complex carbs, less fat and less processed in general.) My offspring are both at Uni and are a triathlete and a swimmer. They regularly dine with their non-athlete friends and then have to eat a "proper" meal afterwards to fuel up for training the next day.

There's a saying amongst age group swimmers that they all have to learn the hard way that pizza is not a good pre-race meal!

However if they eat a poor diet lots of fast food and high in trans fats then they will still be predisposed to type 2 diabetes and visceral fat. It would also depend on the pizza, a pizza made from artisan baked soughdough topped with quality meats/veggies is an entirely different proposition to one from Domino’s et al.

rick_chasey

pangolin said:

rick_chasey said:

I can go further. When I lived in NYC which was for about a year I dropped all 'exercise' save for walking around and I lost weight as I ended up skipping meals because I was so busy.

I enjoy this anecdote where you admit you changed what you ate, changed how active you were, have no actual numbers, but think it supports your argument.

Yeah. I guess I try different techniques, right?

Multiple experts saying one thing isn't persuasive, but then neither is the anecdote.

Which would you prefer?

rick_chasey

Thread confirms all my pre-conceived ideas about what people think about this.

1) men want to call out people about their weight in public, and are disappointed they can't and for some reason think it helps.

2) If the evidence points to a counter-intuitive conclusion people will disregard on the basis of their own intuition. (aka. "had enough of experts")

3) the public health message that weight is largely about diet is falling on deaf ears.

4) not very many people are interested in why people overeat, and seem to be of the conclusion they they are somehow either in denial about it or are lazy (because, of course, as cyclists who aren't fat, we are more virtuous than people who are, or something ridiculous like that)

wallace_and_gromit

rick_chasey said:

pangolin said:

rick_chasey said:

I can go further. When I lived in NYC which was for about a year I dropped all 'exercise' save for walking around and I lost weight as I ended up skipping meals because I was so busy.

I enjoy this anecdote where you admit you changed what you ate, changed how active you were, have no actual numbers, but think it supports your argument.

Which would you prefer?

Consistent arguments would help.

You quote experts who make the point that exercise as a tool to help the masses lose weight is ineffective because the masses don't do the required amount of exercise.

Then your anecdote is that your weight doesn't vary regardless of exercise and diet.

These are arguments in support of different fundamental points. The experts are right. Your anecdote feels uncompelling for the reasons pangolin articulated.

pangolin

rick_chasey said:

pangolin said:

rick_chasey said:

I can go further. When I lived in NYC which was for about a year I dropped all 'exercise' save for walking around and I lost weight as I ended up skipping meals because I was so busy.

I enjoy this anecdote where you admit you changed what you ate, changed how active you were, have no actual numbers, but think it supports your argument.

Yeah. I guess I try different techniques, right?

Multiple experts saying one thing isn't persuasive, but then neither is the anecdote.

Which would you prefer?

I guess I am not really clear what your point is.

Hopefully we can all agree exercise burns calories. Everyone will have a number of calories they can consume to maintain their current weight, and if they then spend an extra 500 calories per day exercising then they can either eat an extra 500 calories or they will begin to lose weight at a rate of about 1lb per week.

Will most people sustain that? No. But it is possible and people do manage it.

Is altering diet likely to be more effective for most people? Yes.

pangolin

As an aside your view of how many calories exercise burns seems a little skewed.

rick_chasey

pangolin said:

rick_chasey said:

pangolin said:

rick_chasey said:

I can go further. When I lived in NYC which was for about a year I dropped all 'exercise' save for walking around and I lost weight as I ended up skipping meals because I was so busy.

I enjoy this anecdote where you admit you changed what you ate, changed how active you were, have no actual numbers, but think it supports your argument.

Yeah. I guess I try different techniques, right?

Multiple experts saying one thing isn't persuasive, but then neither is the anecdote.

Which would you prefer?

I guess I am not really clear what your point is.

Ultimately we have public health experts talking about how we need to "disassociate obesity with exercise altogether" and yet all the thread can bang on about is exercise.

Seems remarkable to me.

pangolin

rick_chasey said:

pangolin said:

rick_chasey said:

pangolin said:

rick_chasey said:

I can go further. When I lived in NYC which was for about a year I dropped all 'exercise' save for walking around and I lost weight as I ended up skipping meals because I was so busy.

I enjoy this anecdote where you admit you changed what you ate, changed how active you were, have no actual numbers, but think it supports your argument.

Yeah. I guess I try different techniques, right?

Multiple experts saying one thing isn't persuasive, but then neither is the anecdote.

Which would you prefer?

I guess I am not really clear what your point is.

Ultimately we have public health experts talking about how we need to "disassociate obesity with exercise altogether" and yet all the thread can bang on about is exercise.

Seems remarkable to me.

Do you disagree with the rest of what I wrote?

rick_chasey

pangolin said:

rick_chasey said:

pangolin said:

rick_chasey said:

pangolin said:

rick_chasey said:

I can go further. When I lived in NYC which was for about a year I dropped all 'exercise' save for walking around and I lost weight as I ended up skipping meals because I was so busy.

I enjoy this anecdote where you admit you changed what you ate, changed how active you were, have no actual numbers, but think it supports your argument.

Yeah. I guess I try different techniques, right?

Multiple experts saying one thing isn't persuasive, but then neither is the anecdote.

Which would you prefer?

I guess I am not really clear what your point is.

Ultimately we have public health experts talking about how we need to "disassociate obesity with exercise altogether" and yet all the thread can bang on about is exercise.

Seems remarkable to me.

Do you disagree with the rest of what I wrote?

Sure, I'm pretty sure I even addressed that earlier in the multitude of posts on the topic. Check out the first 2 pages

I think a) we underestimate how much people overeat - it's way more than a few hundred calories more a day. People talk about gaining 5 kilos when they stop exercising. Majority of people are a long way off being within 5 kilos of being a healthy weight.

b) This thread is chockablock with everyone's own anecdotes but mine is the only one that's called up, because I'm the only one here who is making a counter-intuitive argument.

To clarify the anecdote I basically stopped cycling entirely and still lost weight, because, as per the experts, the main and most effective way to lose weight is to eat less.

Everyone here seems obsessed that they're different. I bet it isn't, I think you just don't realise how much people overeat.

If the experts say losing weight is about eating less *not* exercise, why does everyone here bang on about exercise?

pblakeney

rick_chasey said:

Thread confirms all my pre-conceived ideas about what people think about this.

1) men want to call out people about their weight in public, and are disappointed they can't and for some reason think it helps.

2) If the evidence points to a counter-intuitive conclusion people will disregard on the basis of their own intuition. (aka. "had enough of experts")

3) the public health message that weight is largely about diet is falling on deaf ears.

4) not very many people are interested in why people overeat, and seem to be of the conclusion they they are somehow either in denial about it or are lazy (because, of course, as cyclists who aren't fat, we are more virtuous than people who are, or something ridiculous like that)

1) It's hard to discuss an issue without talking about the issue.
2) If my experience contradicts a study then the set parameters must not apply.
3) No, it's not. We all know that the average diet consists of unhealthy food.
4) I'm not that interested in why people overeat, I just wish they wouldn't. I suspect my advice would not be welcome in any case.

pangolin

rick_chasey said:

pangolin said:

rick_chasey said:

pangolin said:

rick_chasey said:

pangolin said:

rick_chasey said:

I can go further. When I lived in NYC which was for about a year I dropped all 'exercise' save for walking around and I lost weight as I ended up skipping meals because I was so busy.

I enjoy this anecdote where you admit you changed what you ate, changed how active you were, have no actual numbers, but think it supports your argument.

Yeah. I guess I try different techniques, right?

Multiple experts saying one thing isn't persuasive, but then neither is the anecdote.

Which would you prefer?

I guess I am not really clear what your point is.

Ultimately we have public health experts talking about how we need to "disassociate obesity with exercise altogether" and yet all the thread can bang on about is exercise.

Seems remarkable to me.

Do you disagree with the rest of what I wrote?

Sure, I'm pretty sure I even addressed that earlier in the multitude of posts on the topic. Check out the first 2 pages

I think a) we underestimate how much people overeat - it's way more than a few hundred calories more a day. People talk about gaining 5 kilos when they stop exercising. Majority of people are a long way off being within 5 kilos of being a healthy weight.

b) This thread is chockablock with everyone's own anecdotes but mine is the only one that's called up, because I'm the only one here who is making a counter-intuitive argument.

To clarify the anecdote I basically stopped cycling entirely and still lost weight, because, as per the experts, the main and most effective way to lose weight is to eat less.

Everyone here seems obsessed that they're different. I bet it isn't, I think you just don't realise how much people overeat.

If the experts say losing weight is about eating less *not* exercise, why does everyone here bang on about exercise?

You don't seem to actually be replying to what I said.

One of the articles you linked:

https://time.com/6138809/should-you-exercise-to-lose-weight/

When moderate exercise is added to diet, the results are equally unimpressive. Pooling data from six trials, researchers found that a combination of diet and exercise generated no greater weight loss than diet alone after six months. At 12 months, the diet-and-exercise combo showed an advantage, but it was slight—about 4 pounds on average. In another review of studies, the difference was less than 3 pounds.

In studies where exercise has produced meaningful weight loss, participants burned at least 400 to 500 calories per session on five or more days a week. To achieve that, a 150-pound person would need to log a minimum of 90 minutes per day of brisk walking or 30 minutes of running 8-minute miles. In short, sessions need to go well beyond what most of us are willing or able to do. And even if we manage to exert that much effort, our bodies often compensate by boosting appetite and dialing down metabolism, effects that over time limit how many pounds we shed.

1. That is in line with what people on here are saying they have experienced
2. Why is an article about weight loss using a 150lb person as an example?! Someone twice that weight would burn 500 calories significantly faster.

rick_chasey

lol, Why does the second paragraph there matter when the first paragraph is there?

Who's gonna run 30 mins a day more than 5 days a week? You're not being realistic here.

pangolin

rick_chasey said:

lol, Why does the second paragraph there matter when the first paragraph is there?

Who's gonna run 30 mins a day more than 5 days a week? You're not being realistic here.

Ironically it's like you're not really reading what I am posting and are just assuming people are writing things that "confirm all my pre-conceived ideas".

rick_chasey

Honestly, I'm baffled at what you're on about.

I mean, come on, if people do extreme amounts of exercise they will lose weight.

That's a tiny proportion of people. That does not an overweight epidemic solve.

So why even mention it?!!?! The health experts are explicitly saying specifically that exercise is basically irrelevant for anyone normal when it comes to weight loss.

pangolin

rick_chasey said:

Honestly, I'm baffled at what you're on about.

I mean, come on, if people do extreme amounts of exercise they will lose weight.

That's a tiny proportion of people. That does not an overweight epidemic solve.

So why even mention it?!!?! The health experts are explicitly saying specifically that exercise is basically irrelevant for anyone normal when it comes to weight loss.

I literally said most people wouldn't sustain it, and diet is likely to be more effective for most. That seems a more balanced view than "exercise is basically irrelevant"

TheBigBean

It's fairly simple. If you're fit, you can burn a meaningful amount of calories through exercise. If you're not fit, which is quite likely if you are obese, you won't be able to burn a meaningful amount through exercise.

No expert required.