Weight Loss
Moderators: devilish_patsy, spoiled_candy, coach_k, nycgirl, Mollybygolly

june issue of allure magazine...

Quote  |  Reply
did anyone buy this issue? there is an article in it called "body of evidence" that pretty much contradicts everything we know about weight loss. 

It says: "Excersise has many health and emotional benefits, but it doesn't make a huge difference in when it comes to weight loss"

WHAT!?  I read this, and grew mildly frustrated, as you can imagine. I exercise almost everyday.

It says: "If you do exercise, aerobic activity is far and away the best, for one simple reason: you burn more calories. Its a myth that strength training build muscle and increase metabolic rate. You'd have to be totally rippid-like, body builder ripped- to get a noticeable bump in your metabolism. Most people burn about 2 calorie per kilgram of body weight per minute, whereas a body builder burns about 1.2"

What are your thoughts and opinions about this excerpt from the article? Is it going to change your exercise habits at all?
29 Replies (last)

Thats right.

But I'm not linking to articles, I'm linking to peer-revied science in obesity research journals.

 Of course, your perception is that cardio benefits you, becuse it helped you create a calorie deficit. However, the same calorie deficit achieved strictly through dieting would have resulted in the same fat loss to within the +/-5% margin of error for the measurement methods.

Consider this study by Strasser et.al which compared cardio+diet and diet only.
B. Strasser a, A. Spreitzer b, P. Habera

a Department of Internal Medicine IV, Division of Sports Medicine, Medical University Vienna, and
bInstitute of Nutritional Sciences, University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria

Address of Corresponding Author

Ann Nutr Metab 2007;51:428-432 (DOI: 10.1159/000111162)
They concluded that a calorie deficit through diet or cardio exercise alone gave you the exact same result.

 Compare and contrast with the studies from Kramer, Volek et al. Influence of exercise training on physiological and performance changes with weight loss in men.  Hunter et.al. : Resistance Training Conserves Fat-free Mass and Resting Energy Expenditure Following Weight Loss - in addition to Wayne Westcott. PhD's study of resistance training versus endurance training (Westcott, W., Fitness Management. Nov., 1991.) and Resistance Weight Training During Caloric Restriction Enhances Lean Body Weight Maintenance (Ballor, D.L., Katch, V.L., Becque, M.D., Marks, C.R., American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. 47(1): 19-25, 1988.) -

 Not a magazine article in the bunch; it's all peer-revied science. As opposed to a teen magazine or a "fitness" magazine that makes their money from selling you cardio equipment.

 The science is clear. Cardio does not enhance your weight management results over and above what diet alone will do for you. Strength training does.

To see what's really working for real life people. But, to read anything on the Internet (or in a magazine that isn't - at minimum - a peer reviewed science journal) and take it's word as gospel is f'ing ridiculous.

Find what you like. What you can commit to. What seems to be working for you. Do that. If it doesn't work or you hate it (and so will never stick with it) don't do it. Find something else.

Can I PLEASE get an amen? I'm really so over the whole cardio bad/strength training good gospel. Why can't people realize that every single body responds differently to different methods? I'm a firm believer in a combination of calorie deficit, cardio and strength training/weights. I think this constant hammering that cardio is a waste of time is truly discouraging to people who come to this board psyched to begin a new way of life---and then see that cardio is just silly, well, not exactly a good way to encourage newbies, is it?

Science is fantastic. Big fan. But science to one test group is bull **** to another. The methodology that works for my best friend isn't necessarily going to work for me. To be honest, I've not yet found what DOES work for me---but it sure as hell isn't all cardio OR all strength training. The intimation that cardio is just for ditzes who can't read well enough to understand that the only way to get results is by lifting weights? Getting just slightly out of control around here, me thinks.

I've actually found myself being upset when I read another person being reprimanding for GASP wasting time thinking the elliptical is going to help them lose wright---I mean, I must be sabotaging my attempts at weight loss by doing so much exercise! HELLO COUNTERINTUITIVE, HOW ARE YOU?

Don't get me wrong, Melkor is VERY well educated around his particular belief system and has been known to offer fantastic advice regarding getting started on and maintaining a strength training program. In fact, there are quite a few posters on here who have intimate knowledge about the subject and share freely---but really, does it have to turn into a pissing contest every single time? Why all or nothing? If people are creating a deficit and enjoying their cardio, what the hell do you (the royal you, here) have to gain by intimidating them? Getting through that 30 minutes on the treadmill is a major accomplishment to some folks, why not celebrate it as opposed to degrading the effort? The more folks exercise, the more likely they are to KEEP exercising. All good in my book.

How, exactly, did people lose weight 40 years ago before all this new information? What did people do before peer-reviewed scientific journals?

Is the implication that exercise of any kind is a waste truly the message we want to be giving out here?

No offense intended, kids. Just my 2 Euros. Worth more than a US cent these days...

 Actually, it's "exercise of any kind is only for ditzes who can't read well enough to understand that the only way to get results is counting calories".

Exercise is completely and utterly secondary to diet - you cannot out-train it by any means whatsoever. Not even my beloved weights - you can get on the elliptical for 3 hours, burn 1600 calories, and uindo all of that with a single bad choice at the drive-through.

 Wich is where I'm agreeing with the article - diet is way, way, way more important than exercise when it comes to weight management. Hence - anyone who is here and is actively counting calories is already doing everything that's neccessary to see results; exercise merely enhances the results from calorie counting - slightly.

http://annals.highwire.org/cgi/content/abstra ct/133/2/92

Conclusions: Weight loss induced by increased daily physical activity without caloric restriction substantially reduces obesity (particularly abdominal obesity) and insulin resistance in men. Exercise without weight loss reduces abdominal fat and prevents further weight gain.


CONCLUSIONS: Aerobic exercise causes a modest loss in weight without dieting.


This study reports results 1 year after treatment for 77 obese women who had been treated for 48 weeks by diet combined with supervised (a) aerobic exercise, (b) strength training, (c) aerobic plus strength training combined, or (d) no exercise. Mean (+/- SD) end-of-treatment weight losses for the 4 conditions ranged from 13.5 +/- 9.1 kg to 17.3 +/- 10.3 kg, but there were no statistically significant differences among groups. Participants in all 4 conditions regained approximately 35% to 55% of their weight loss in the year after treatment; again, there were no significant differences among groups.


Okay, 30 minutes of scrolling through Google scholar searches is all I have for today.  I'm sure you will pick these articles apart.  I don't really care.  This game isn't all that interesting to me anyway.  The point is that there is a back up for anything if you look hard enough.  As I said, I know what works for me.  I could also link you to dozens of studies I scrolled past indicating that aerobic exercise has benefits ranging from cardio health (of course) to sustained bone density in post-menopausal women to proper insulin function.  There is a seemingly endless list to the benefits.  I just don't get why you are so down on the benefits of cardio.  There is more than one way to a nice bod.  There are probably as many ways as there are people on this planet.

Have a nice day!

Im gonna have to give a double AMEN to  musicismydestiny & juliemae2 



LOL, nuff said, Im done posting in this thread.

Why I'm down on cardio? Because after 40 years of misinformation from Kenneth Cooper and his disciples we've finally started to look at health from an evolutionary biology perspective instead of the harebrained ideas from an army doctor in 1968.

 Cardio is a fad. And even Kenneth Cooper now admits to his mistake, aerobics is not enough for heatlh.

If you want a health blueprint that's rooted in actual evolutionary biology as opposed to health fads from Shape magazine, check out the Primal Blueprint from Mark Sisson.

 And of course it's the case that women doing cardio and dieting lose more muscle mass than men. In a world filled with fitness fads and selective misinformation from from equipment manufacturers (or flat-out lies from utter, utter loonies) out to sell you Random Objects as Exercise Machines it's important that someone take the time out to actually tell you the truth.

 And the truth is that while cardio has a whole lot of benefits and is goal-appropriate training for a whole lot of goals, and it does improve an enormous range of physical parameters - the one it doesn't improve is body composition. It improves cardiovascular function, it improves various hormonal markers, improves insulin sensitivity, and yes, can moderately improve bone density. But whether your calorie deficit comes from diet or diet+cardio makes absolutely no difference to your results - well, they can in fact become worse if you diet too harshly and do too much cardio and not enough strength training.

 I keep saying this: there's no reason to not do cardio, it's good for you in many ways and it can be fun.

 I remember fun, I think I used to like it.

 It's just that cardio is goal-inapproriate training for fat loss; it doesn't improve your results over a calorie deficit created through diet alone, and it's especially harmful to female dieters as it costs you more lean mass than dieting men.
I am sorry.

 I am an idiot.

And if any of you chose to block, delete, or whatever you do on this site to avoid contact from me ever again, i would completly understand...

So i quoted that....>>>>>>  " You'd have to be totally rippid-like, body builder ripped- to get a noticeable bump in your metabolism. Most people burn about 2 calorie per kilgram of body weight per minute, whereas a body builder burns about 1.2"

But i typed it wrong...

It actually says this...>>>>    "You'd have to be totally rippid-like, body builder ripped- to get a noticeable bump in your metabolism. Most people burn about 1 calorie per kilgram of body weight per minute, whereas a body builder burns about 1.2"

and yes, it says minute, not hour.

so im sorry. i am a dumb @$$. i typed 2, instead of 1, throwing the whole concept off balance. i am sorry. ha, bring on the name calling.

However- most of you had made very interesting points, like i do agree that magazines and internet articles should mostly be avoided and we should just stick with what we are doing.

Hey, one typo isn't enough to be put on any block list ;) (Now, if you started writing leetspeak, that would be different).

 Btw, interesting studies,  and the first one supports my point: dieting or dieting + cardio doesn't fundamentally improve body composition as you lose both fat and muscle. Intense anaerobic exercise can slow the rate of muscle loss, but doesn't prevent it. The second one is fundamentally flawed as it doesn't differentiate between the loss of fat mass and lean body mass, unlike Kramer, Volek, et.al:
D, DE, and DES demonstrated a similar and significant (P <= 0.05) reduction in body mass (-9.64, -8.99, and -9.90 kg, respectively) with fat mass comprising 69, 78, and 97% of the total loss in body mass, respectively.
-Kramer, Volek, et.al.

In the Kramer study, a third of the weight loss in the diet-only group was muscle(2.98 kg, or 6.5lbs) and the diet+cardio exercise group also lost significant muscle(1.98kg or 4.35lbs), while the diet+cardio+strength training group mostly retained theirs, losing 0.297kg or just shy of 0.6lbs of muscle.

 You think maybe losing muscle is a bad thing? Especially when dieting - you're looking to reduce body fat, not get smaller and skinny-fat.
29 Replies (last)