The Cardio Myth?

The more exercise the better! The myth is that if you keep exercising you lose more weight and benefit from it. The truth is that after about 30 minutes of vigorous exercise you start using anaerobic energy instead of aerobic energy so you gain nothing extra for going longer!

I definitely think that working out is important, but I would say that dietary habits are 90% of weight loss.

All I know is that if I don't exercise regularly I find it harder to eat healthfully. Maybe the cardio is a stress reducer, maybe it's to do with cravings, whatever. If I eat within my maintenance range and don't workout I find it hard to stay in range. Not so if I eat smart/clean AND exercise.

That being said, I feel best when I do ST as well as cardio.

WOw those studies don't even sound healthy for people to read! Exercise is so good for you on so many levels. I HAVE lost weight before by watching weight but I didn't lose it the way I'd want to, feel as good as I do now or tone up by just eating well.

My experience is that I ONLY lose weight when I exercise. I have tried so many (too many to count) "diets" that help lose weight in the beginning, but don't help keep the weight going down. I like what I have learned in the past two years from SP and what I have learned about myself. My body likes activity. Where in this article did they talk about the increased endorphins from exercise, that exercise keeps your metabolism going for hours afterward, and that sweating is also cleansing? When I just "diet" I get bloated--an awful feeling.
I have a friend and co-worker that ran. She ran pretty much every day in the evening. If she skipped, she never skipped more than one day in a row--and bitched about it every day. She hated running. So, I asked, "why do you run?" Her answer, "because I like to eat!" She was always at a consistent weight, 5'6" and wore a size 8. But, she had always thought that way, from her teens, through having 3 kids, and on into middle age. She literally reaps what she sows. I would have never guessed. Unfortunately, on a regular basis, I get to hear about it. But, I still like her and she is my friend.
I appreciate all the comments I have read here, we are self-thinkers, and take these kind of articles with a grain of salt.

JENNILACEY’s post rings true to me. When I was in shape in my 30’s I lifted heavy weights. I was a “small” siZe 8 at 5’9”. Now that Im heavier I wont lift until I trim down some of my excess fat. I dont want to upset the catabolic/anabolic process. I just feel this works for me though.

I can kinda see both sides of this, as I've been on both sides of this.

Before Spark, I was taking in 2200-2500 calories a day, and I needed probably 1800ish calories to maintain my weight. I would exercise enough to burn 100-200 calories every few days. We can all do the math - I was still eating more than I needed so the scale slowly ticked up. In this case, exercise did not help me lose weight, because my diet was so out of line. I quit exercising because hey, what's it doing for me, anyway? This version of me is who the article was written for. If you're that percentage of our population that eats 500-1000 calories extra, every day, exercise will not help you lose weight. It will only slow down the gain.

Now, my calories in are more or less maintenance level, and my entire deficit pretty much comes from my exercise. So right now if I don't exercise I will maintain, and I have to exercise to lose. Sure I could say "exercise DOES make you lose weight" in this case, but we can't forget that I have already taken 500-700 calories off the top that I don't need to exercise off, because they never went in. So diet is still playing the majority part, even though eating 1700ish calories these days is "normal" to me and I've adjusted my life around that.

There were no studies, unfortunately. It was an article that claims to have read studies. It's safe to assume, in my experience, that when an article references a study and does not link to said study, it should be ignored. Furthermore, I question the journalistic integrity of any source that does not cite and link to all sources. After all, isn't that a basic principle of journalism 101? Seems to be forgotten in this day and age. Shock and awe works much better, I guess.

I don't know where you read this scientific research. I know that even if I eat a clean healthy diet without exercise I will not lose weight, matter fact I will gain weight. exercise is a very important piece of the puzzle.

I think it's safe for ME to say that merely exercising will not help me lose weight, I have to cut calories, too. And if there's one thing about the diet/exercise industry that gripes me, it's their "one size fits all" mentality. There is NO SUCH THING as a one-size-fits-all diet. Some people respond better to low-fat higher-carb, others do well on Atkins/Paleo, and still others do better on vegetarian plans. We're all different, with different metabolisms and different bodies, so naturally our diets should be different as well. I imagine the same goes for exercise, lifting heavy is not going to work so well for everyone, and honestly some people will probably never be able to lift heavy anyway. If what you're doing is working, then keep doing it and don't worry about the so-called "experts."

" I just find I lose weight faster if my deficit comes from ADDING exercise rather than CUTTING calories. "

Me too.

I'm very physically active by trade, and when I'm rehearsing in full gear for a show, I can easily drop 5-7 pounds (which is problematic when your costume is designed for a much larger you) if I don't add in extra food, which I'm usually too busy to eat, so I end up kind of bouncing up and down in a 10-pound range.

When I'm off work, or in between major shows, I schedule in some cardio activity that is unrelated to dance, and the weight usually comes right off. I realize those are my "vanity pounds" and aren't much of a big deal, but I applied the same logic when I set out to lose my baby weight, and it's been working so far.

I think (like other commenters) most people have no concept of how many calories they actually take in.

ETA: One other thing I noticed about my own hunger is that if I eat a little bit of protein (chicken, cheese, egg, whatever) with each meal or snack, I stay full a LOT longer than if I just had the snack or meal itself.

Edited by: AMANDANCES at: 7/25/2013 (08:44)

"Right, I totally understand (actually, have been there) that my 90 minute dance class makes next to no difference if I then go to McDonald's and order a quarter pounder, large fries and a large coke. At BEST it evens things out, if you are heavy enough to have burned a similar amount of calories."

Articles of this type are written for the people doing just that. They go for a 20 minute run and reward themselves with oreos and a chunk of cheesecake. Or a blizzard at DQ.

Weight loss comes down to calorie deficit. You can try to do it through diet alone, but that's harder than including exercise to help you gain the deficit.

It's much harder to exercise at a deficit if you're not actively watching what you eat which is why people say that diet is 90% of the equation. In fact, if you're regularly eating over 3000 calories a day, it's pretty much impossible to exercise at a deficit that would give you weight loss.

In short - if you don't watch what you eat, you won't lose weight.

I don't buy into the "best exercise to lose weight" argument whether it's cardio or strength training. I think that a balance of the two (plus flexibility) will give you better results over time based on the studies and articles I've been reading.

It ought to be completely obvious that exercise of any kind (including and not least cardio) burns calories and can make a difference to a person's weight. (In fact, some of the people who talk down cardio will argue that it burns too many calories, thus losing you muscle, thus losing the weight loss battle over the long term instead of the short. Love having to hear both arguments at the same time! Ugh. But anyway.) Personally I was able to maintain approximately equal weight loss rates both while I was doing a lot of light-to-moderate cardio every day and while I was doing almost no exercise at all for about six weeks -- but I was eating MUCH less while not exercising. (It should be noted there was no greater effort involved; I just wasn't as hungry.)

Similarly, when people have very physically active daily lives (like when I worked for a plant grower for a while when I was younger), so many calories are burned that few people who do that kind of work manage to gain any weight no matter how much they may eat. Obviously cardiovascular activity makes a big difference.

I think where most of these studies are coming from is that most people who have significant amounts of weight to lose have gotten that way because they are significantly over-eating. Moderate cardio for 30 minutes a day, three days a week (the gold standard for a long time, advice-wise) just isn't going to crack it. Maybe you burn 800 calories a week doing that kind of exercise -- you were probably already overeating by 1000! You stop your weight gain, perhaps. Some might lose a few pounds if they were close to maintenance to begin with. You certainly gain fitness. But losing 50 or 100 pounds doing that sort of thing? Ain't gonna happen. And most people who have significant weight to lose aren't in a position physically or practically to convert that very moderate exercise level into the several hours a day, every day sort of effort it would take to really change that result.

The thing is, I very much doubt that engaging in strength training, alone, would make any significant difference to starting weight loss, either, in a person who has not changed his or her diet. But since that's never been the conventional wisdom or traditional advice, anyway, no one's got a bone to pick about it (yet) and aren't out there seeking study grants to try to prove it.

Long story short, in my personal opinion I believe that exercise of any kind helps immensely with keeping weight loss going and maintaining it once you get there (and there exist studies that claim to have demonstrated this) -- in part because a healthy lifestyle builds on itself and mentally you want to keep it up more; and in part because it allows you to lose/maintain on more calories than otherwise, meaning that feelings of deprivation are less likely and "slip-ups" are less costly. And the health benefits -- blood lipid and glucose levels, joint health, mental sharpness, better sleep and digestion, all kinds of things -- should be obvious enough that exercise should be an end in itself.

CAITYJAYNE - you're doing it right. Don't let an article or study or anyone here influence what works for you. Keep tracking, introduce slow, systematic changes to things as you see fit. Some things will work, some things won't. Keep learning.

That's great news and exactly what you should be taking from this program. These lessons will aid you for life.

I think the most important lessons you can learn to maintain a healthy weight is how to keep yourself satiated so you don't overeat. So find what works best for you and your own individual body. If what your doing is something you can see yourself maintaining for life and the pounds are dropping, then you're on the right track.

Sadly, that's what I'm learning. As well as keeping my diet journal, I'm writing down everything I notice, such as what foods make me hungry, what times/frequencies of eating are best, what I crave, etc. So far I've noticed that wholegrain carbs fill me up, 3 substantial meals and one snack keeps me full the best and exercise surpresses my appetite. Not what I expected to discover!

"I totally agree that it's all about the deficit. I just find I lose weight faster if my deficit comes from ADDING exercise rather than CUTTING calories. Something I've noticed over the years."

Well, it doesn't necessarily. I find it's easier to eat less when I'm exercising. Are you tracking every single day whether you exercise or not? I don't even trust myself to "eyeball" calories. If I'm not tracking, I won't take my word for it. I suffer from what I like to call "food amnesia".

Exercise also can generate the debatable EPOC effect which might account for a tiny fraction of intake.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Excess_post-
exercise_oxygen_consumption

Bottom line, this article is crap. You're having success dieting and exercising which is exactly the right formula. Ignore the noise, stay the course, congratulations on your success!

By all means, do what is working best for you. I'm definitely not saying it's wrong to look at it that way. It's just that you are no longer eating at maintenance, you are eating less than maintenance.... or you wouldn't be losing weight. Your maintenance calorie needs have simply changed.

I also exercise a lot because I like to be able to eat more and still lose weight. The idea of a 1200-1550 cal range sounds like bird food to me.

'"The article has simply blown things out of proportion for dramatic effect."

A chronic tactic of The Guardian, I'm afraid.'

Sadly, not limited to the Guardian. Not even close.

Yep these article tend to be misleading because they're trying to sell ads and sensationalist headlines do that better. I frankly don't trust anything health related unless it comes with a list of references at the end, and even then there's no guarantee that I'll trust the references.

I totally agree that it's all about the deficit. I just find I lose weight faster if my deficit comes from ADDING exercise rather than CUTTING calories. Something I've noticed over the years.

Maybe these articles are misleading - they seem to be saying 'exercise doesn't help weight loss' when actually they mean 'some people find it easier to lose weight through diet than exercise'.

"The article has simply blown things out of proportion for dramatic effect."

A chronic tactic of The Guardian, I'm afraid.

That is correct, if you are eating at maintenance, introduce more activity, you will lose weight. The article has simply blown things out of proportion for dramatic effect. However, there is a real problem with folks thinking that the simple introduction of exercise will cause significant weight loss, which is largely false.

A deficit is a deficit regardless of how it is achieved. The basic idea here is that it is much easier to achieve a deficit with a reduction in calories consumed as opposed to calories expended.

Yes.... because your TDEE is now higher. So if TDEE is now higher, you are essentially still cutting calories. But you'll be able to eat the same number of calories as your previous TDEE. Only one issue with that... more exercise means an increase in appetite for most people (TDEE is higher).

It all comes down to the calorie deficit. You are no longer eating at maintenance if you introduce cardio. You are creating a calorie deficit from your "new" TDEE.

Edited by: JENNILACEY at: 7/24/2013 (08:42)

No, I meant, I am not overeating and [therefore NOT] actively gaining weight.

"However, let's say I am not overeating and actively gaining weight"

Impossible.

Right, I totally understand (actually, have been there) that my 90 minute dance class makes next to no difference if I then go to McDonald's and order a quarter pounder, large fries and a large coke. At BEST it evens things out, if you are heavy enough to have burned a similar amount of calories.

However, let's say I am not overeating and actively gaining weight, but I am eating to just maintain my weight. If I continue eating that amount, and add exercise in on top of that, I will lose weight without having to 'diet' (cut calories). The reason I brought up the 'healthy' foods is because you need proper fuel to exercise, and also to stay satisfied. I understand that you can overeat anything.

You're forgetting (I think, feel free to correct me) that most people who decide to lose weight are eating well *above* maintenance calories and not exercising (either strength training or cardio) at all. So yeah, it will be diet that controls weight loss for these people. Here's the math that goes into most weight loss plans:
BMR+exercise = total daily energy expenditure (TDEE)

TDEE - calories from food = calorie deficit (a daily deficit of 500 calories leads to about 2lbs/week lost*)

If food calories equal BMR, then yeah exercise is the thing that is creating the deficit in the equation. Like I said above, most people are used to eating more than their BMR and/or don't want to exercise so the deficit has to come from food calories in order to lose weight. I'm like you - I like cardio and strength training so I can eat more and lose weight than if I didn't exercise. I like having endurance for things like fencing and 20 mile hikes and 10ks. I don't do cardio for the weight lost benefits, strength training increases my BMR over time so that's what's driving my deficit. As for bulking up, since I cut my runs to an hour or less and upped the strength training, I've lost inches on my arms, waist, hips, and thighs. I can barbell squat my body weight and bench half my body weight. Still working on the pull ups though :P

*Very rarely does the human body respond in a linear fashion to a calorie deficit. I'm just using this for the math.



Edited by: LEC358 at: 7/24/2013 (08:33)

Yeah... I read that article yesterday and got a good chuckle.

"You mean... after sweating buckets in the gym for an hour, I shouldn't follow it up with my post workout snack of 2 crispy crème donuts on the way home? Who'd have thunk it!"

I do think cardio is overrated... and that if your diet isn't in order (in other words, you're eating back all the calories you burn) then your weight loss plan is going to be ineffective. It takes 5 minutes to wolf down 2 crispy crème donuts and about 2 hours for me to burn them off..... but shouldn't that be elementary for anyone who actually devotes to gym time?

If you're getting "bulky" from lifting heavy, then it's likely that you're not lean enough yet. Muscle is not bulky, fat is. Muscle takes up less room than fat. The reason you don't get "bulky" from doing bodyweight exercises is because you're likely not building much muscle from them. As a woman, if you're lean 20-22% or less body fat, you won't look bulky... you'll look toned. Reduce the fat on top and you'll look lean and sculpted.

I lift heavy... and I doubt anyone would ever refer to me as "bulky". I also have 18% body fat.

Edited by: JENNILACEY at: 7/24/2013 (08:20)

Yes, DIET means cutting calories. You can overeat anything, you can undereat anything, so it has nothing to do with "healthy food" and everything to do with how many calories you're consuming.

But that's the thing. Losing weight being 90% diet. What does the 'diet' mean in that context? Cutting calories? Because if that's the case, I can eat at or just over maintenance level but if I'm exercising, the weight comes off.

If, however, 'diet' means, eating healthy foods at or just under maintenance level, it makes more sense. But if I cut calories alone, I hardly lose anything. This article is saying the opposite.

Well, I guess I will keep doing it my way while others cut out the cardio (and their favourite treat) to lose weight.

Maybe my body is just weird.

Oh my goodness, the orginal thread on this is hilarious because I feel the EXACT same way. As a nurse, I do know one thing, the heart needs exercise, so pump it up by doing some cardio.
I have diabetes, so I find a good diet and a good exercise regimen keep me in line. I could not imagine not exercising. I'm addicted.
If I don't exercise and just 'focus" on diet, I always gain, always. I am on a restricted enough diet, so I don't see the harm in exercising.
I am glad someone else is tired of hearing all this "nonsense"(again, this is my opinion).

They refer to "studies" but never link to said studies, so we just have to accept their conclusion. That's rubbish. The media is never your friend in this journey. What they've uncovered here is absolutely nothing. You've probably seen the phrase in these forums and elsewhere "You cannot out train a bad diet". That's basically what this long winded article says.

So I'm not sure what the myth is. Losing weight is 90% diet. Do exercise to improve your body. That is not a myth or news, I'm afraid.

This article sums it up, and refers to different research too

http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2
010/sep/19/exercise-dieting-public-health

Where are these studies?

So, I've been reading all kinds of scientific studies about how exercise does not help you lose weight at all. There are MANY of these studies, from very reputable sources (though I don't have them to hand right now).

A big argument seems to be that you burn so little calories through exercise, it's actually easier to just cut those calories from your diet.

This is in direct contrast to what I've experienced. If I try and take something from my diet, I end up feeling deprived. If I add something to my life, i.e., yoga, a dance class, swims, etc, I feel enriched.

But also, I know from experience that if I keep my calories at maintenance level and exercise every day, the weight drops off me like no other. Even more than if I only exercised moderately (3-4 x per week, 30 minutes) and reduced my calories. Exercise is the key to weight loss, for me.

The fact that the scientists have got it so wrong (for me personally) makes me question other stuff. I've been lifting heavy, and I am definitely getting bulky. On the other hand, when I focus more on working with my own body weight (lunges, pushups etc) I tend to lean out. But every article you read says you should lift heavy. In fact, books (such as Gunnar Petersen's 'The Workout', 'New Rules...' and so on) go as far as to almost mock people who are on the treadmill every day. As if they're stupid and behind the times.

I wonder if all this is much more of an individual thing than 'science' has us believe?

Would like thoughts and experiences on this!