Carbs

[Valderon]

Did you even read them? They quoted from studies published in The British Journal of Sports Medicine and a study conducted by University of Colorado School of Medicine.

So?

Any online article can loosely and incorrectly translate a scientific journal to "support" their argument. In fact, most media outlets, or people who write 'blogs' or "articles" almost always misinterpret the actual message, and actual findings of a study. In addition, any one or two studies in isolation have very little value; it is the consolidation and collaboration of numerous studies that validate issues.

 

[Valderon]

ie. for some people exercise won't necesarily help you lose weight.

Wrong. Exercise always expends loads more energy than a resting body. Muscle mass is always a highly active substance (even at rest) which improves any individuals resting metabolic rate.

What will inhibit weight loss in that circumstance is the diet. As no individual eats the same, as most people have poor self-control, and poor nutritional awareness; it is likely the key contributor.

All exercise will lead to weight loss; if a persons nutritional intake remained absolutely constant / the same. Muscle mass is 'heavier' than fat mass, however, any perceived "weight gain" (likely 1 - 2kgs at most); would be offset within a week of continued training thereafter.

OK start again with this, are you saying some people put on weight when they start to exercise?

As previously mentioned in this post. Anyone can put on weight after exercise. However, you are not looking at the cause-effect. The exercise isn't causing the weight gain.

I think you're missing the point. Alot of people don't consult personal trainers and physiologists. Alot of people go to the gym a few times a week and then reward themselves with a powerade or something else.

There's nothing wrong with powerade after a long Gym session; or a long cardio session. While water is a sufficient rehydration tool for exercise up to two hours in duration; an electrolyte + carbohydrate based drink such as powerade is appropriate to assist with recovery; and with the restoration of electrolyte balance in the body. As the traditional person's training program is usually poorly programmed, it would be negligent of the Gym not to supply a powerade / gatorade style drink . After all, they must cater for all gym participants and patrons.

 

[JoeD]

However, 26 of the 58 participants failed to attain the predicted weight loss estimated from individuals&#8217; exercise-induced energy expenditure. Their mean weight loss was only -0.9 ±1.8kg (P<0.01).

from http://bjsm.bmj.com/content/early/2009/09/29/bjsm.2009.065557.abstract

So for 26 overweight or obese people 12 weeks of exercise resulted in a mean weight loss of .9kg. How would you interpret these results?

 

[Valderon]

from http://bjsm.bmj.com/content/early/2009/09/29/bjsm.2009.065557.abstract

So for 26 overweight or obese people 12 weeks of exercise resulted in a mean weight loss of .9kg. How would you interpret these results?

First of all, you've looked only at the Abstract. This does not remotely allow you the ability to interpret the results with any accuracy, as you have no understanding behind how the study was designed or implemented; which always impacts the quality and legitimacy of the outcomes.

Secondly, their lack of results may stem from a wide range of variables; some of which I've already explained to you in a previous post, though you've clearly neglected to acknowledge them. This study did not control the participants diet and nutrition. Therefore, ANY amount of exercise may have been counteracted by the simple fact that these overweight and obese participants were unable to change their dietary behaviour; due to their mental weakness in response to food. This study also only used aerobic exercise as the sole exercise intervention. Their results are not surprising; as their exercise and training programs; in addition to nutritional control are not optimal, or ideal for these people.

 

[JoeD]

This study did not control the participants diet and nutrition.

Which is exactly why i like this study. Participants were told to keep eating the same as they normally would. The study was about the effect exercise,not diet, had on weight loss.

ANY amount of exercise may have been counteracted by the simple fact that these overweight and obese participants were unable to change their dietary behaviour

so for some people (like ones who can't modify their diets) exercise will not help them lose weight?

There's nothing wrong with powerade after a long Gym session

i guess it depends how you define long. 600ml powerade has 500+ calories. Using an online calculator (no idea how acurate they are) i worked out what i think an overweight (75kg) female would consider to be a long gym session - 1/2 hr treadmill, 20min rower, 20 min bike. According to the calculator she would burn 700 calories. So if she's drinks the powerade she has a net loss of 200 calories, which is the equivalent to 25g of body fat. If she kept up the same routine it would take her 5 sessions a week for 8 weeks to lose 1 kg of body fat.

 

[macavity]

If she kept up the same routine it would take her 5 sessions a week for 8 weeks to lose 1 kg of body fat.

I don't drink powerade, and atm that is about the rate im travelling at.... :?

I fluctuate 1-2kg up or down every week (seemingly at random), with a very slight downward trend.

I am almost tempted to drop my recovery shake, but I find I pull up quite a bit more tender if I skip it.

http://www.onlinenutrition.com.au/products/Evolve-Anabolic-Injection.html

I take a 2/3 serve (about 200cal) after every session.

I also take a thermogenic and l-carnitine before workouts - be interested to hear your thoughts.

 

[JoeD]

be interested to hear your thoughts.

Mac, while i like a good argument, and exercise interests me i don't have any specific knowledge besides what i've read. I'm not a gym bunny and i don't do the supplements thing. My philosophy is everyone is different and therefore different things work for different people.
Not losing weight is not a reason to stop exercising but if it was me and i wasn't getting the results i wanted I would try something different.

 

[Shorty]

if it was me and i wasn't getting the results i wanted I would try something different.

Like what?

 

[Valderon]

Which is exactly why i like this study. Participants were told to keep eating the same as they normally would. The study was about the effect exercise, not diet, had on weight loss.
so for some people (like ones who can't modify their diets) exercise will not help them lose weight?

I'm honestly struggling to understand how myopic you're being on this issue.

This study does not only look at the effect of "exercise". It fails to effectively test the effect of exercise on weight loss:-

• It only looks at one particular type of exercise, for a pre-determined time period, at a pre-determined intensity, across all participants, irrespective of their individual characteristics, preferences, or needs.
• I repeat - It does not control nutritional intake

For the study to have any relevance at all; it would have to split the participants into numerous groups; some using resistance training, some using aerobic training, some using a combination of the two, some in a 'control' group; and also use varying training durations and intensities.

As for testing "only the effect of exercise" - for the study to achieve this it would have to control nutritional intake, whereby each individual would consume a set amount of kilojoules per day, (or net kJ per-week). That way you would be-able to know the impact the exercise is having; as opposed to the majority of other impacts that may have influenced this outcome.

i guess it depends how you define long. 600ml powerade has 500+ calories. Using an online calculator (no idea how acurate they are) i worked out what i think an overweight (75kg) female would consider to be a long gym session - 1/2 hr treadmill, 20min rower, 20 min bike. According to the calculator she would burn 700 calories. So if she's drinks the powerade she has a net loss of 200 calories, which is the equivalent to 25g of body fat. If she kept up the same routine it would take her 5 sessions a week for 8 weeks to lose 1 kg of body fat.

How can you "assume" a woman is overweight, without any other anthropmetrical measures?. How tall is she?. What's her body mass like?. How active is she normally?. What's her RMR?. What's her age?. These, and many other factors, will all influence the amount of calories she burns.

In addition to this; you're again only discussing one type of exercise - aerobic activity. Aerobic activity, we all KNOW burns kilojoules during the actual activity; though fails to capitalise on heightened kilojoule usage post-exercise. This is why you'll notice all personal trainers, or fitness staff programming resistance training in addition to aerobic training; so that the increased lean muscle mass will increase a persons resting metabolic rate; meaning they utilise / "burn" more kilojoules at rest, and between exercise.

As with your assumption that she'd lose "1kg of body fat over 8 weeks". You are being very close-minded on the issue. Again, you're assuming that over those 8 weeks, her eating patterns, exercise routines, and daily life is identical every single minute, of every single day, of every week; with no fluctuating stress levels; whereby that one "powerade" makes all the difference. It's not the appropriate way to look at things. Nutritionists look at general weekly intakes rather than specific daily intakes when investigating nutritional deficiencies or dietary requirements; because the daily intake is not as important as the net intake for a particular period of time. It is the same case in regards to exercise / fitness.

This whole ordeal is not as black and white as you're making it out to be.

 

[JoeD]

Like what?

Drop the recovery shake, or if you don't feel like thats possible, exercise less intensely so you don't feel like you need it.

This whole ordeal is not as black and white as you're making it out to be.

Hang on, I'm the one saying everyone is different and that for some people exercise is not he best way to lose weight. You're the one being black and white - ie exercise is always good for everyone to lose weight.

Anyway while it s been fun I think we should agree to disagree.

Another thing i've always wondered about weight loss is where does the weight actually go. What i mean is my sister firmly believes when you go on a run or something you 'burn' fat and it magically disappears. What i try to convince her is that your body must process it and either sweat, piss or poo it out.

 

[roopy]

Another thing i've always wondered about weight loss is where does the weight actually go. What i mean is my sister firmly believes when you go on a run or something you 'burn' fat and it magically disappears. What i try to convince her is that your body must process it and either sweat, piss or poo it out.

People forget respiration. You breath in O2 and breath out CO2, so the net result is that a small amount of carbon leaves your body with every breath. You also breath out a hell of a lot of water vapor and toxins as well (just smell someones breath, or look at breath on a cold morning as the water vapor condenses).
You can lose a kilo or more overnight, some from sweat, but the biggest part from water vapor in your breath.

 

[Shorty]

Drop the recovery shake, or if you don't feel like thats possible, exercise less intensely so you don't feel like you need it.

Really, that's what you've come up with?

I don't know why I'm bothering though, you have no real knowledge and appear to be quite willing to read anything over years and years of research and testing.

'Exercise less intensely so you don't feel like you need it'..
That's really a howler.

 

[Valderon]

You're the one being black and white - ie exercise is always good for everyone to lose weight.

Exercise is good for everyone to lose weight. Exercise is a very, very multidimensional process. That's why it, in itself, is not black and white. You clearly don't understand it that well, hence why you're struggling with the concept.

Another thing i've always wondered about weight loss is where does the weight actually go.

Heat.

The energy you 'burn' is given off as heat. It's all to do with chemical reactions during the process of moving, and through exercise. Sweat is only a thermoregulatory response to heat, attempting to cool you down (keeping you within homeostatic core temperature levels).

 

[sportive cupid]

Twizz...you asked for this;-)

 

[JoeD]

People forget respiration.

yeah i forgot to add breathing.

'Exercise less intensely so you don't feel like you need it'..
That's really a howler.

i know exercising less really offends the no pain, no gain gung ho gym types but if you aren't getting the results you want you gotta try something different. You got any suggestions?

 

[Shorty]

Yes actually keeping an eye on your diet and exercise with good intensity and duration.
Which I said all along...

What you say...has basically been proven to be ineffective, if one were to lower their intensity they would go backwards.
Low intensity is for specific populations...

If you keep to your proper dietry needs and exercise appropriately, you will lose weight there's no question.

 

[adamkungl]

yeah i forgot to add breathing.



i know exercising less really offends the no pain, no gain gung ho gym types but if you aren't getting the results you want you gotta try something different. You got any suggestions?

I have a suggestion. actually take the given advice and alter your diet to complement your exercise program, instead of continuing to eat poorly and claim that exercise doesn't work.

 

[JoeD]

I have a suggestion. actually take the given advice and alter your diet to complement your exercise program, instead of continuing to eat poorly and claim that exercise doesn't work.

I haven't asked for any advice and i don't eat poorly. Someone asked me for my advice and I gave it.

 

[GAZF]

I came across this thread while mistakenly clicking to the oldest page in the forum. I skimmed through the first few pages then moved on to the last and it seems like the predominant argument re: nutrition has been that calories in=calories out.

I'm not a nutritionist, or doctor, or biologist but I do have a keen interest in nutrition. I also have a background in process/chemical engineering which has some parallels in terms of reactions. Still, there may be a few incorrect points below but the general ideas are there.

A calories-in, calories out model operates on the following assumptions:

1. 100% GI absorption efficiency - the body absorbs all available energy/nutrients in food to usable energy. If you've ever eaten corn, you'd probably know that isn't the case. Nutrients like fibre actually inhibit or slow the absorption of nutrients, genetics and certain medical conditions also have an effect.
2. All macronutrients are subject to the same reaction pathways (and corresponding energy costs/yields (kJ/kJ)) as one another. Not the case - carbs->glycolysis, fats->beta-oxidation, proteins-> transamination (these are the main ones as far as I know). All of these pathways lead to minor pathways/cycles, energy storage, or the Krebs cycle (ATP) so its important to not skip the middleman.
   
   
3. All macronutrients yield the same hormonal response and effects on hunger, fat storage, organs, etc... The concept of glycemic load/index shows that this isn't even the case for molecules of the same macro-group.

So to me at least, metabolism is a lot more complex than a simple input-output model.

Gary Taubes has a couple of excellent books about the fats=bad fallacy. The first section of "Why We Get Fat: And What to Do About It" treats the obesity epidemic as an investigation (or court case, can't remember), so even if you aren't savvy, you can follow on through his logic. He disputes calories in-calories out and most of the dietary science since WW2 in lieu of hormonal theory. I personally think its a combination of both in that what you eat is as important as much as how much you eat - in fact, what you eat has an effect on how much you eat.

Tim Noakes, the guy responsible for carb-loading in athletes, basically did a 180 on his way of thinking after he lived a life of carb-loading and marathon running yet still managed to become diabetic. He's now a huge proponent of the low carb lifestyle.

Carbs still have their benefits as insulin spikes promote growth (including muscle growth) so a hit of carbs pre-post WO can yield positive effects. Carb-loading is really only necessary for elite athletes who need a more efficient metabolic pathway to energy. Most of us are not in that category.

 

[Danish]

Carb loading is much more tied to the length of physical activity being performed than your performance level. Carb loading is necessary whenever you are intending on completing an endurance physical activity for over 90-120 mins.

Elite athletes only need to carb load when running marathons. Regular distance athletes can see benefits of carb loading for half marathons. If you are running any distance shorter than that then carb loading is a waste of time for everyone and in fact will slow you down.

In saying that, a lot of people go way overboard with their carb load in the days leading up to a marathon, especially in just assuming they can guzzle coke and sugary foods and be fine. Carb loading isn't an excuse to eat junk. Its basically just adding a carb to every meal (cereal, bread, pasta, etc) in the days leading up to a race, snacking on plenty of fruit,and then cutting out any high fat foods the day before a race (unless you enjoy runners trots).


There is obviously more complexities than just "calories in<calories out", but I find that if you are meticulous about counting your calories eaten and measure them against your calories burnt every day to ensure you are always in deficit, you WILL lose weight.

Whats more, most if not all people who are overweight/obese could also stand to actually start moving their fat ass around from time to time, so the exercise is certainly not going to hurt. I don't care how many salads you eat, if you are just plopped in front of a computer all day and your ony exercise is walking to and from your car each morning you aren't going to be in optimal health.

The same of course is true that you can run for an hour every day but if you are eating shit every meal you are still likely going to be in less than ideal condition (unless you are an absolute elite like Michael Phelps. He eats like a f**king 800 pound pig just to keep his body fueled)