But, but, but, if your argument has already been taken apart, to bring in anything else would be overkill. We wouldn't want to humiliate you further.

It may not be that will power is finite but that the number of targets toward which will power can be focused is limited. Or that the chain of reasons which link the act to the goal is too complex. But maybe it's all a function of the amount of bullshit we believe in. The less bullshit, the fewer targets, the shorter the chain, the more effective the will power. In effect, the stronger we are.

Exactly. Exercise is useless for fat loss. Unless diet is controlled. But then if diet is controlled, it's not exercise that caused fat loss, it's diet.

How about some good old fashion personal experience .... I am a triathelete and self admitted, addicted to exercise.

When I do a typical 1 hour weight work out (heavy weights) I experience no increase in hunger that day or the next. I don't really experience a decrese in appetite either.

When I run/cycle at high intensity I experience a decreased appetite afterwards. I ran 20K this morning, it's 2 1/2 hrs past lunch and I've only had a flax muffin and a couple of coconut bark squares since breakfast and I'm not hungry. Am I more hungry the day after a long run? No. Not that I notice. I eat nearly the same thing every day so I know I do not eat more the day after my long runs.

Last weekend I did an intense climb that was 7 hrs, my average heart rate for the 7 hr period was 149. I didn't eat anymore that day that normal (although I should have eaten more during the climb). The next day I did notice that I was more hungry than usual. But I only had an extra flax muffin, not an extra meal.

My opinion on the will power thing is that it's more attitude than will power. Some people (I used to be one of them) tell themselves that they've earned the treat. I don't really think it's will power because when I changed my attituded towards earning food I stopped doing it. (Now I have to do at least 2 hrs of cardio to 'earn' something - lol).

Also, I've lost about 10 lbs since last spring when I started LC. This was also when I started exercising a lot more (was training for my first half ironman). In my experience diet was 80% of the weight loss, exercise 20% ... and that's being generous. Burning calories doesn't matter. I burned over 3000 calories in that one climb last week and I still didn't lose any weight this week (I also did an additional 4.5 hrs of exercise).

Anyways, interpret as you will

Edited to add: I did go from a size 14 to a size 10 and I attribute 80% of that to exercise and only 20% to diet. I've been this weight before and normally would be a size 12, not a 10

The contention of exercise for fat loss is over a long period. That's because the contention of fat gain due to overeating and/or lack of exercise is over a long period (i.e. 100 surplus calories per day for years). It's also a function of the time it takes to lose the amount of fat we have in surplus which is typically a whole lot so it takes a whole lot of time. So, if you were an athlete for a long time now, then you won't be more hungry than you were yesterday or the day before or last week after bouts of exercise. However, for somebody who goes from a sedentary lifestyle to an active lifestyle, there will be an increase in hunger and a proportional increase in food intake.

So the question is, are you more hungry, or do you eat more, than when you were not an athlete?

The short answer is no. I have been obsessed with my weight, counting calories, etc my entire life. It's only in the last 2 years that I've become an exercise manic. I do however eat better now than I did before, but about the same calories.

5 years ago I tracked my calories and usually averaged 1800 - 2000 calories a day, sometimes over, and if I was on a diet sometimes slightly less (hated that), but on average I ate 1800-2000 calories a day was standard and I maintained my weight on that and would have to eat under 1800 calories a day to lose weight at a very slow rate (I'm 5'10" so eating less than that was very hard). Now I still eat on average 1800 - 2000 calories a day.

That being said, I think that my metabolism is still messed up. I only started doing LC last spring, and I'm pretty sure that years of low fat, low calorie dieting has done some pretty sever damage to my system and my metabolism is still pretty slow even though I exercise so much. Those scales that tell you your metabolic rate show me at under 1484 calories a day, but I don't know how accurate they are. Most people who know how much I exercise are shocked that I don't eat more than I do or drop weight like crazy ... neither happen for me - boo!

How about the fact (opinion?) that as we age we lose muscle mass, which causes our metabolism to become lower as muscle burns more fat than fat. Is it worth doing at least some maintenance muscle exercises as we age to maintain our muscle mass? Not even to gain, but just to stay baseline. That's what I'm thinking of doing.

I always think it is a good idea to exercise with weights as well as cardio - regardless of weight loss, I believe that being active is the corner stone to good health and resistance training is part of that.

Did you start exercising and low-carbing at the same time? A decrease in carbs can also cause a decrease in hunger.

The body also has ways other than hunger to maintain calorie balance. Reductions in "spontaneous motion" during rest periods have been observed in those who engage in vigorous activity. Was it on this thread that we were discussing the "expensive tissue hypothesis?" It turns out that your brain, heart, liver, kidneys, and intestines use most of your body's energy - your muscles only use a little. That would explain why cardio tends to increase hunger more than resistance training, but it also suggests that you might be conserving energy in other ways that are hard to measure. I seem to recall that athletes who are in good shape tend to have extremely low resting heart rates.

We lose muscle mass by not using it. Your body only wants to keep what is needed. We don't lose muscle only by ageing. It's just that because most people don't use their muscles in resistance exercise, more people lose it than not, over time, and then we call it "normal ageing."

I highly recommend what you're thinking of doing. I want freedom of movement and freedom from fat while I age, for sure.

Check out Mark Sisson's wife Carrie's routine at 53. (!!!) On the other hand she's never been sedentary or fat so on second thought, why am I pointing to her as an example ? oh well.

http://www.marksdailyapple.com/dear...ndup/#more-8384

No, I started exercising regularly about 2 yrs ago, and then last January ramped it up with a half ironman training program. I was at the time eating a body builder's diet of zero fat, high carb, high protien (which I wasn't losing any weight on unless calories were dropped below 1800, even though I was logging 9 - 12 hrs of exercise a week). I tracked everything neurotically. Even salmon was too fatty to eat according to the proponents of that diet. I started LC in May.

I know that my resting heart rate is a lot lower now that it was 2 years ago, and probably a little lower than it was in January as well so I'd say it seems reasonable that my body doesn't expend as much energy that way. I read the 'expensive tissue' thread too, it's interesting. I don't know that I'm less active most of the time, but after a good 3 hr run I certainly have a nice long nap that I wouldn't be otherwise having

This assumes a one to one relationship of calories burned exercising to extra calories consumed due to increase in hunger from exercise.

And that, of course, is not true. Some will get hungry enough to eat more than they burn, some will not have as high a hunger response and eat less than they burn. For some it may well be a one to one relationship. More importantly, that relationship could change as times goes on.

I don't really care whether people exercise or not, it's a personal decision. For me, exercise is important, helpful and does help with my weight loss maintenance. Yes, I may be hungrier than if I didn't exercise, but I'm not usually so much hungrier that I gain weight and I like food and actually find that being able to eat more because I exercise is a good trade off and the non-weight loss benefits of exercise are important to me.

And, in my experience, exercise has greatly improved my insulin resistance, to the point that I can consume a fairly moderate carb diet without the weight gain or uncontrollable hunger. While I know being able to eat a moderate carb diet isn't a goal of many here, being able to eat more carbs has been a good thing for me.

Absolutely Wrong.

It has been shown repeatedly that people lose more fat while exercising and dieting than on diet alone. What they may not loose is more weight. Why, because exercise, particularly resistance training, will reverse sarcopenia in previously untrained subjects leading an increase in lean mass.

a pretty graph and summary for you

http://www.exrx.net/FatLoss/WTCalLBWStudy.html

My experience as someone who cannot exercise was that eliminating carbohydrates enabled me to lose weight without exercising at all.
We all know exercise helps you lose weight. But does it? There is almost no scientific evidence to support the orthodoxy. Indeed, it could even do the exact opposite... Gary Taubes weighs up the facts and takes a controversial look at why the gym is not going to fix it
I'm not sure what your problem is in comprehending the mechanics of fat storage. It may be helpful if you explain where you lose the thread of this argument
My experience is that after following Taubes in practice for 6 months I lost weight. I achieved my target and resumed drinking a modest amount of alcohol and haven't regained a significant amount of weight. I avoid exercise as much now as I did previously. At no point has exercise been an option for me nor will it ever be. The idea that you either have to exercise or restrict calories is absurd and only a fool thinks these are the only options.
I eat all I want.
I never exercise
I don't increase weight because I don't eat those foods that require my body to store fat.

Losing weight and losing fat are not necessarily the same thing. Taubes' finished book contains no references to studies which differentiate between fat loss and indiscriminate weight loss, nor does it include studies which are based on strength training. Jeff Volek Phd, and Adam Campbell wrote a book as well, called the TNT Diet, based on the research which demonstrates the greater fat loss achieved by adding strength training to a low carb diet.