Lose weight by exercise alone?

On 08/11/2015 03:35 PM, Ed Prochak wrote:


Here is the link

http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar..._HLTH_20150811

to the Scientific American web site article reviewing Coke's claim.

"Don't stress too much about cutting calories if you want to shed
pounds--focus on getting more exercise. That's the controversial
message beverage giant Coca-Cola is backing in its new campaign
to curb obesity."

Thoughts?


I think that there is considerable evidence that weight management is way more complex
than just calories in/calories out. Some evidence suggests that visceral fat actually
operates like an organ in its own right. Certainly, there is reason to believe that
the whole weight management thing varies considerably by individual, by gender, by
ethnic makeup and so on.

So, I'd suggest that anyone who says "The way to manage weight is X" - whether that's
Coke or SA - is at least going to be wrong some of the time, for some of the people.

I started running exactly to manage weight. But along with it I also more-or-less completely
cut out carbs for a while and eat them now only in rather small amounts. It worked for me
and has kept me healthy. I know people who tried the same thing and got lousy results. Having
said that, I do think there is also a ton of research showing that carbs - simple, complex, multigrain,
Wonderbread .... whatever - are contributors to coronary inflammation and that inflammation is
highly correlated to heart attacks. So, even if the low carb thing didn't work for me, I'd
still limit my carb intake.

IOW ...

YMMV

On Tuesday, August 11, 2015 at 6:30:03 PM UTC-4, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
On 08/11/2015 03:35 PM, Ed Prochak wrote:


Here is the link

http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar..._HLTH_20150811

to the Scientific American web site article reviewing Coke's claim.

"Don't stress too much about cutting calories if you want to shed
pounds--focus on getting more exercise. That's the controversial
message beverage giant Coca-Cola is backing in its new campaign
to curb obesity."

Thoughts?


Charlotte Markey is on the the money.
Could you even remotely consider believing ANYTHING Coke has to say?? Jesus...

If you check out my running fatburn post not too long ago, and construct a spreadsheet, you will find that your fat burn, if your "aerobic running limit" is 8 METS (12 min mile), at 1 hour a day, five days a week, you will burn a bit over 1 oz of fat a week, due to the running.

And note that this 1 oz of fat burn a week is a MAXIMUM, and occurs at a considerably slower pace than the 12 min mile, at a HR (for me) at about 105 bpm. This fat burn is a little more than double the fat burn at rest, and it is the maximum fatburn one can achieve, for the inputted VO2 and RER factors for this particular individual.

Contrast this to sleeping all week: you burn over 30 ozs of fat a week. LOL

If you are really interested in seeing how this works in detail, I'll send you a spreadsheet.

So from my own work, Markey knows whazzup. And she is correct, exercise is important for a million other anti-aging reason, not the least of which is le brain, which she did not mention.

Steven Blair was mentioned in the article, he is quite the lone voice, that disputes the whole vendetta against fat/obesity. He basically says BMI is bull****. He says you can be as fat as you want, but you can run 20 miles a week, you are actually in better health than the skinny minnies running 20 mi a week.
Calorially, of course, it's easier to be skinny and run, but that's a biomechanical issue.

Blair: Ito *health*, fat+fit skinny+fit skinny-unfit fat-unfit

Iow, fitness trumps weight if you are fit, weight trumps fitness if you are unfit.

I personally agree with this.


I think that there is considerable evidence that weight management is way more complex
than just calories in/calories out.

Actually, the bottom line IS that simple.
BUT, COMPLIANCE is indeed another very complicated issue.


Some evidence suggests that visceral fat actually
operates like an organ in its own right.

Organ? Proly not, BUT a metabolically, fat is a hormonally active tissue.


Certainly, there is reason to believe that
the whole weight management thing varies considerably by individual, by gender, by
ethnic makeup and so on.

So, I'd suggest that anyone who says "The way to manage weight is X" - whether that's
Coke or SA - is at least going to be wrong some of the time, for some of the people.

I started running exactly to manage weight. But along with it I also more-or-less completely
cut out carbs for a while and eat them now only in rather small amounts. It worked for me
and has kept me healthy. I know people who tried the same thing and got lousy results. Having
said that, I do think there is also a ton of research showing that carbs - simple, complex, multigrain,
Wonderbread .... whatever - are contributors to coronary inflammation and that inflammation

They sure are doing a good job of scaring the **** out of the Merkin Pubic with carbs, eh? And the Big Wheat Scare (What Belly, by Davis). LOL
Now THIS is a complicated issue, and whoever whoever is milking it for all it is frigging worth.

Protein aside (which in principle is NOT a source of calories), it's actually not so easy to vary from a diet that is 50-50 carbs/fat. You of course can, but proly not much beyond 40-60 or 60-40.

Portion control is the real name of the game. Good fats, moderate protein, complex carbs (read: veggies). In small portions.

Fructose may be the Big Evil. Not sure, but if in doubt, don't indulge in soders, juice, yogurts, or deserts. Plain yogurt, milk have no fructose. Veggies have no fructose. Fruits have it, but in moderate amounts. Bread is largely a caloric waste. In Merka, it is the "housing" for real food.

Don't know if fructose is the Big Evil, but limiting it to real fruit almost compels a good diet.
Funny how that works.
I too am in the process of this "intelligent carb, intelligent fat" experiment.

is
highly correlated to heart attacks. So, even if the low carb thing didn't work for me, I'd
still limit my carb intake.

IOW ...

YMMV

On 08/14/2015 03:12 PM, Grokman Grokman wrote:
Plain yogurt, milk have no fructose.


No, but they have lactose, also a kind of sugar.

Veggies have no fructose

Peas and carrots do, as do some of the squashes, if I recall correctly.



Sugar - fructose, glucose, lactose - while it is a fuel, is easily overconsumed and of particular
danger to people (like me) who have that "efficient gene". But I know people who can eat
donuts, cereal, and fruit, and never gain a pound or ever have any A1C issues. That's why I
said that the profile of what to eat and how much diet and exercise each contribute respectively
has to take into account individual differences.