Thread: Why exercise won't make you thin...

I just read this article and I think it is fascinating...

Why Exercise Won't Make You Thin - Yahoo! News

Many obesity researchers now believe that very frequent, low-level physical activity - the kind humans did for tens of thousands of years before the leaf blower was invented - may actually work better for us than the occasional bouts of exercise you get as a gym rat.

It depends on what they consider "exercise."

I know tons of women who hit the gym several times a week and just do an hour of cardio, with no success. Conventional wisdom and anecdotal experience from friends of mine who are trying to lose weight shows that regular weight lifting and resistance training could be the way to go. You know, the whole deal about how a pound of muscle burns hundreds more calories than a pound of fat. Plus, people who lift weights are said to have increased bone density and it's a great way to achieve muscle tone.

As with a lot of these MSN/Yahoo articles, I take 'em with a grain of salt. But I'd have to question this overall theory because it hardly seems to examine the health benefits of resistance training and varying up your fitness routine. This is why I never liked to promise my beginner students that BD alone would make them lose weight.

Healthy food plus a varied exercise routine is good for all humans!

No exercise won't make ya thin either. I think it's true that having a higher level of activity throughout the day is more likely to keep a person in shape. However, given many of us have desk jobs, there's no harm and a lot of benefit in working out at a gym (or dancing, or whatever floats your boat).

Originally Posted by SatinWorship19

You know, the whole deal about how a pound of muscle burns hundreds more calories than a pound of fat. Plus, people who lift weights are said to have increased bone density and it's a great way to achieve muscle tone.

Did you read the article?

"Yes, although the muscle-fat relationship is often misunderstood. According to calculations published in the journal Obesity Research by a Columbia University team in 2001, a pound of muscle burns approximately six calories a day in a resting body, compared with the two calories that a pound of fat burns. Which means that after you work out hard enough to convert, say, 10 lb. of fat to muscle - a major achievement - you would be able to eat only an extra 40 calories per day, about the amount in teaspoon of butter, before beginning to gain weight. Good luck with that."

Ok, time for the processing of this article. I've had a heck of a time dealing with the major weight gain over the past two years. Everyone says, you dance so much that should help you lose weight! Even when I started exercising vigorously, I still did not lose weight. Now I am convinced that restricting calories is the best way for me to lose weight. Yes, I still need to move more because my muscles become stiff and achy, but lasting weight loss will result in a permanent change in my eating habits.

I am a firm believer in aerobic exercise for the basic reason of a healthy heart. Heart disease is the #1 killer of women in America. While weight training is essential, so is cardiovascular fitness which is achieved by raising your heart rate for a set amount of time.

But how does one do both weight training and cardio without spending your life in a gym? That's what I wanna know (sorry Andalee for brief rant and slight threadjack)

Originally Posted by HOOKEDNOVICE

I am a firm believer in aerobic exercise for the basic reason of a healthy heart. Heart disease is the #1 killer of women in America. While weight training is essential, so is cardiovascular fitness which is achieved by raising your heart rate for a set amount of time.

But how does one do both weight training and cardio without spending your life in a gym? That's what I wanna know (sorry Andalee for brief rant and slight threadjack)

"There's also growing evidence that when it comes to preventing certain diseases, losing weight may be more important than improving cardiovascular health. In June, Northwestern University researchers released the results of the longest observational study ever to investigate the relationship between aerobic fitness and the development of diabetes. The results? Being aerobically fit was far less important than having a normal body mass index in preventing the disease. And as we have seen, exercise often does little to help heavy people reach a normal weight."

Ha! we posted at the same time. I was going to add that no matter what diet, fitness, hypoglycemic index, BMI, trend is out there, it still comes down to the basic rule: to lose weight, it means more calories burned than consumed. Now how each woman goes about THAT is a whole 'nother thread....

It is frustrating though Andalee, I have restricted my total cals, and oomphed up the exercise and still no dif.....In my case, I'm 42 so metabolism is grinding to a halt anyway. grrr.

Originally Posted by HOOKEDNOVICE

I am a firm believer in aerobic exercise for the basic reason of a healthy heart. Heart disease is the #1 killer of women in America. While weight training is essential, so is cardiovascular fitness which is achieved by raising your heart rate for a set amount of time.

But how does one do both weight training and cardio without spending your life in a gym? That's what I wanna know (sorry Andalee for brief rant and slight threadjack)

"Body For Life."
Only 20 minutes a day.
We brush our teeth, shower, sit at a desk job (or go to some kind of job) everyday. Fitting in something that is good for ourselves should also be 2nd nature, no?

Originally Posted by andalee-oriental

"There's also growing evidence that when it comes to preventing certain diseases, losing weight may be more important than improving cardiovascular health. In June, Northwestern University researchers released the results of the longest observational study ever to investigate the relationship between aerobic fitness and the development of diabetes. The results? Being aerobically fit was far less important than having a normal body mass index in preventing the disease. And as we have seen, exercise often does little to help heavy people reach a normal weight."

Yes, but if you are aerobically fit, I'd say it's more likely than not that your BMI is in the healthy range. The problem with heart rate is that while there are basic guidlines as to what it should be for an individual, it still varies. To burn maximum fat one has to find their target rate and keep it there for about a half hour. If you work too hard, it becomes anaerobic...c:: frustrating to say the least.

more processing...part of me likes this article because it combats the whole sterotype that fat people are lazy and they just need to get off their butts and move. Sure we all need to move more, but addressing things like our environments barriers to being healthy would do a lot more good than finger pointing.

Originally Posted by andalee-oriental

Did you read the article?

"Yes, although the muscle-fat relationship is often misunderstood. According to calculations published in the journal Obesity Research by a Columbia University team in 2001, a pound of muscle burns approximately six calories a day in a resting body, compared with the two calories that a pound of fat burns. Which means that after you work out hard enough to convert, say, 10 lb. of fat to muscle - a major achievement - you would be able to eat only an extra 40 calories per day, about the amount in teaspoon of butter, before beginning to gain weight. Good luck with that."

I just don't know if I really agree with that. The facts may or may not be accurate. And I can only imagine how hard it must be to lose more than a couple of stubborn pounds, obviously I have the opposite problem, but I have a couple of good friends who are getting their butts kicked by personal trainers every day, either doing crossfit or a regimen that involves weight machines. And while it didn't happen overnight, and it probably wasn't a cake walk either, they're looking amazing.

I think the article's onto something, in the sense that just showing up at the gym is not enough. I know tons of people who run themselves silly on the eliptical and give up because it doesn't work. But to add to that point, I also think anyone who belongs to a gym should spend their time wisely. That goes for people of all shapes and sizes. Check out different classes, try the weight machines, maybe book a few sessions with a trainer if your budget allows for it. Everybody's physical makeup is different, as well. What works for some might not work for others.

And I'm sure I'd probably have an issue if somebody wrote an article that said "Gaining weight is easy! Just drink milkshakes!" ,r:;

There is supposed to be an article in the Time Magazine that also discuss exercise and weight loss- I'll be sure to pick it up.

Eric Ravussin, one of the scientists quoted, is a MAJOR proponent of reduced calorie diets. He's alternately been listed as a "longevity specialist" and an "obesity specialist" and personally I think he has a specific axe to grind.

The calculations for the calorie burn of muscle to fat are simply the caloric needs for that pound of muscle or fat to EXIST, not to function -- and that's a gross misunderstanding by the author of the article. The body requires a fair amount energy to simply sustain itself and its involuntary systems.

Here's another misrepresentation of a paper:

"Being aerobically fit was far less important than having a normal body mass index in preventing the disease" [ Type 2 diabetes ]

NO, that's not what the article says. Here's a synopsis:
Unfit Young Adults on Road to Diabetes in Middle Age

The key goal is to lose weight. BUT, exercise also promotes glucose uptake from the blood which helps to reduce insulin resistance, so for Type 2 diabetics, regular exercise ALONG WITH weight loss is the best way to manage the disease.

To burn maximum fat one has to find their target rate and keep it there for about a half hour. If you work too hard, it becomes anaerobic.

HookedNovice, this is a common misunderstanding of how the body uses fat and carbohydrate for fuel. Although the machines at the gym will argue with this, there really is no "fat burning zone." At various stages of exercise intensity, your body will create ATP (fuel) in different methods, sometimes through aerobic means and sometimes through anaerobic means.

While it was ONCE thought that a person could actually lose more weight - in terms of pounds of adipose tissue or "fat" -- when the body was creating ATP aerobically, that idea didn't pan out.

Calories burned is calories burned, no matter how it's done.

Originally Posted by aziyade

Eric Ravussin, one of the scientists quoted, is a MAJOR proponent of reduced calorie diets. He's alternately been listed as a "longevity specialist" and an "obesity specialist" and personally I think he has a specific axe to grind.

That's what I didn't love about the article. Smacks a little too much of pulp science, for me.

Ok, so the article is biased, but I wouldn't call it pulp science.

A lot of public health programs are of the mentality of Eat Smart, Move More. My Eat Smart, Move More

I think that should be the basic message of this article.
1) Exercise will not undo the damage of unhealthy eating
2) Energy expended moving more, can be just as effective, if not more effective than "exercising."
3) Maintaining a healthy weight is important to prevent disease and chronic health conditions.

Originally Posted by andalee-oriental

Everyone says, you dance so much that should help you lose weight! Even when I started exercising vigorously, I still did not lose weight.

Apart from wearing specific research equipment, it's super hard to determine how many calories you're burning when you're engaging in an activity that does not get your heart rate into the so-called "training zone" for CV fitness.

The problem with most belly dancing is that it does NOT burn nearly as many calories as people think. There are crazy charts out there that say bellydance burns 600 calories an hour! That is so far beyond inaccurate that I don't have a word for it.

There is a difference between exercise, exercise, and exercise.

1. The Surgeon General wants us to get a certain amount of exercise per day. That exercise can consist of walking at a moderate pace, gardening, bowling -- in this case the "exercise" is basically, weight-bearing activity that gets you out of a seated position and has you moving about.

2. For improved cardiovascular health, you have a different exercise prescription. For your heart and CV system to improve, you must do some activity that will elevate your heart rate up to a certain percentage of its maximum rate, and you must keep it at that level for a certain time period. The heart IS a muscle, and for a muscle to develop STRENGTH, it needs to resist against a maximum force, or in this case work at a maximum (or percentage of maximum) rate.

3. For weight loss you have to exercise in order to burn more calories than you consume. The PROBLEM here is exactly what the article said -- people may burn 200 calories on the treadmill, but drink a 260-calorie latte on the way home. Also, people overestimate how many calories they actually are burning.

Cardio equipment often has the thing where you place your hands on a spot and it will tell you how many calories you've burned, based on a sample of your heart rate. Not only is the formula for calories burned WAY more complicated than a simple heart-rate reading, but also these machines are never routinely calibrated and those "spot monitors" may never have worked from the beginning.

In school, I had access to all the nice expensive equipment and I did a comparison of my favorite activities, to see what kind of calorie burn I was getting. Please keep in mind that I had my BMI properly measured by half drowning in the water torture test, my VO2 max measured, and my resting heart rate measured for 5 days before the test. I tested out as "very fit" based on my V02 max, max heart rate, and BMI. (August 2008)

Cardio Kickboxing -- my favorite intense activity -- was what I figured would burn the most calories since I always left exhausted, dripping with sweat, and with the feeling of having a really intense workout. Here were the results:

Total measured time: 44 minutes, 18 seconds.
Maximum heartbeats per minute -- 202 (excellent for CV workout!)
Calories burned in measured time: 344 (really! Not what I expected!)
Calories burned per minute: about 7.786

7.786 calories per minute. That's IT!


Ready for a shocker -- here's the belly dance class results: (I had to work with a video, since I was tied to machines, but I put my all into it, seriously.)

Belly Dance

Total measured time: 41 minutes, 30 seconds.
Maximum heartbeats per minute -- 130
(that was only during the warmup. For most of the class, it was between 99-125)
Calories burned in measured time: 167 (70% during the first 22 minutes, which was the warmup and drilling)
Calories burned per minute: about 4.043

So basically 4 calories per minute, average for bellydancing. But that's an AVERAGE, and most of that was actually from the warmup and drilling.


My body is used to dancing/drilling 90 minutes a night and my caloric intake is based around those 90 minutes of regular activity. If I want to eat more than my usual amount, I have to do some exercise that ISN'T part of my regular routine. So I ride my bike or do kickboxing 2-3 days a week to allow myself a couple of drinks here and there or a hot fudge sundae or whatever.

If I quit dancing/practicing every night, I'd probably have to reduce my calorie intake in order to maintain my weight.

People who are overweight aren't really "LAZY" at all, in my experience. They just seem to be doing the math wrong :)

Originally Posted by aziyade

People who are overweight aren't really "LAZY" at all, in my experience. They just seem to be doing the math wrong :)

Either that or the computer programs we use to estimate such things are doing the math wrong (cough, cough: daily plate, weightwatchers online).

Love this thread. I've been trying to discover the best way to use my gym time. I've been hitting the gym about 3-4 times a week for 45 minutes, spending most of my time on the elliptical machine then doing a few of the weight machines. I haven't lost any weight yet (I don't have much that I need to lose though so it's not surprising). I'm mostly looking to tone up and increase my energy. I definitely feel a lot more energetic now but I'm thinking I'm going to have to work on my addiction to food if I want to shed the extra pounds. :-(

Another big concern is heart health, so I don't see myself stopping the cardio anytime soon. I think a combo is the way to go, I just don't know how long I should spend on each and in what order, or even if order matters.

I've always thought that after getting my heart rate up (which I do with the elliptical machine), that was the best time to then do the weight machines. However I hit the elliptical hard and can't pull as much weight because my arms and legs are already exhausted. Anybody want to share their routine? (Hopefully this isn't a thread hijack, it seems related in my head)

Well, if you do a lot fork lifting, that definitely won't help you be thin.

This is a beautiful article written by one of the coaches of my workout group:
San Francisco Crossfit: No, it's Kardio, With a K
Granted it's a little pluggy-for-crossfit, but he gives a great analogy regarding burning calories.

Oh, and I would replace every "crossfit" with "a variety of weight-lifting exercises" in your head as you read it.

Originally Posted by Azhia

"Body For Life."
Only 20 minutes a day.

is this the program you follow? i wanna be as hawt as you in 20 min a day! seriously, do you have positive experience with this program?

Originally Posted by andalee-oriental

Either that or the computer programs we use to estimate such things are doing the math wrong (cough, cough: daily plate, weightwatchers online).

Yeah -- they all use the same chart with the same basic MISinformation.

Andalee -- if you wanted to try a home version of your approximate calorie burn during a CARDIO workout, you can get a chest-strap heart rate monitor. (I recommend the Polar f4, or whatever their low-end model is.) You'll want one that has you enter your height and weight plus your resting heart rate -- which is really the heart rate you have when you wake up first thing in the morning before elevating your head above your heart. Try measuring it for 5 days and average the results.

The heart-rate monitor will ONLY give you a somewhat accurate calorie burn figure when your heart rate is in the training zone you specify (usually 60-80% of max.) So if you're lifting weights or doing yoga or a light activity and your heart rate is only around 50% of max or less, you won't get an accurate reading. If your heart rate doesn't get high enough into the training zone during your activity, the numbers won't be right.

Also -- if you're doing interval training or some type of cross training where your heart rate drops below the minimum for more than a few minutes, your "calorie burn" results can be skewed.

One more caveat -- having a big meal before you work out can mess up the heart rate. If you're trying to measure your heart rate or efficiency, DON'T have a big meal just beforehand!

Anywho, try several different cardio exercises while wearing the monitor and see what kind of calorie burn results you get. Pick the top 3-4 activities and alternate doing them as your "workouts" for the week. It will be good for your heart and you'll have a better estimate of your energy expenditure, which should help you plan a fitness program that will help you achieve your goals faster and more efficiently.


one more thing -- adding wrist weights (1-3 pounds) can increase your calorie burn by 5-15%. Whenever I do anything lighter in intensity (like walking) I add the wrist weights. Just a thought.

what is working for me is eating all the time , what i do is have a fruit smoothie at 7 am some fruit and small amount of cheese at 10 am and again at 12 or 1 fruit or veg small amount like half of something 3 or so something like a pice of flat bread and some hummus by 7 i make dinner and eat only 1/2 of what ever i make for my husband and about 8 or so a cookie or something sweet . I do dance a few hours 2 or 3 days a week and ride my bike as much as i can also do pilaties when i can . I lost 7 pounds last month doing this . Also it seems no matter how much i exercised before when i tried to starve myself i could not lose weight and if did start eating even a little bit more i would gain weight .

Originally Posted by SidoniaOfNashville

I've always thought that after getting my heart rate up (which I do with the elliptical machine), that was the best time to then do the weight machines. However I hit the elliptical hard and can't pull as much weight because my arms and legs are already exhausted. Anybody want to share their routine? (Hopefully this isn't a thread hijack, it seems related in my head)

There has been research as to the best order in which to pursue a fitness program, but nothing conclusive has come of it. The advice is usually to do FIRST whichever won't leave you so tired you can't do the other one.

Another theory is to do what you DON'T like first, to get it out of the way.

I'm awful. I do ab exercises about 4-5 times a week, but arms only once a week. I KNOW I should do more, especially if I want to tighten my bat wings, but I just don't really care that much! LOL.

I do high-intensity cardio a couple of times a week, which is less than recommended, but I still get a low-intensity cardio workout from all the drilling in Suhaila's online classes (3-4 times a week) and frankly that's all I'm willing to put myself through right now. I HAVE to save time and energy for working with Ranya Renee's dvd, my own dancing and choreography, walking the dog, laundry and housework.

Years ago I started writing a book called, lose the remote and go chop some vegetables. It basically addressed the 'passive' way in which we can burn calories. It amazes me that now there is a whole movement starting about just this topic.

One of the things which all of this conversation doesn't address is mental attitude. I know that when I am feeling healthy, supported, secure, loved and loving, I drop weight. Really fast. When I am getting enough sleep, etc. I also drop weight.

Diet and regular workouts are very important. Knowing how to best allocate your time and energy is also important, as is setting realistic goals. But so that being happy and feeling fulfilled is going to help you get there.

{{{HUGS}}}

Originally Posted by Azhia

"Body For Life."
Only 20 minutes a day.

I tried Body for Life but couldn't find a way to do the cardio part of it. The program wants you to bring your cardio level up to a VERY intense level several times during the 20 minutes, and as somebody who can't do the jumping or jogging thing, I found that pretty frustrating.

Originally Posted by tigerb

I tried Body for Life but couldn't find a way to do the cardio part of it. The program wants you to bring your cardio level up to a VERY intense level several times during the 20 minutes, and as somebody who can't do the jumping or jogging thing, I found that pretty frustrating.

I don't know anything about the program, but I know of people with knee injuries (and can't jog or do step) who do their interval training on the stationery bike. I think spinning classes are like this. Might the bike work for you?