Like everyone else, I've always been told that cardio is the main thing that helps you loose weight. From what I have read from books like Why We Get Fat, insulin and hormones decide how much you gain and cardio does little to help.
However when I tell people this, nobody ever believes me, and internet research is able to find university studies that say cardio doesnt help weight loss, as well as studies that say it does.
I feel like surely someone has analyzed a lot of the research regarding cardio and weight loss, and laid out all the information in a more digestible way. Does anyone know of anything like this? (There are a few studies mentioned in Taubs/Volek books, but from what I remember it isn't a large list and they don't mention the studies that say the opposite outcome)

Right now I'm basically seeing differing studies and all I can really do is flip a coin as to which side I believe :-/

My favorite to share is this short WP article, Take Off That FitBit!, with its linked, referenced studies, especially the BMJ review and it's further linked studies.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/post...ou-lose-weight/

http://bjsm.bmj.com/content/early/2...015-094911.full

There was some chat about exercise being useless for weight loss on the new Bulletproof podcast about Always Hungry book (see media research forum) so you might check Dr Ludwig's references in his new book.
I don't have it, but assume it is a well-referenced book.

All those footnotes and links would be some of the latest and best studies.

whats weird is that I swear I read on the Mayo Clinic that cardio did little to help weight loss. Now I can't find that page!

An interview with Dr Malhotra (author of my favorites) was picked as one of the "Best Of" on the DietDoctor site. Also it's related articles. http://www.dietdoctor.com/best-of-2...y-and-obesity-2

Which reminded me of...

https://intensivedietarymanagement....gy-expenditure/

I think it's a "your results may vary" sort of thing. There's a twins study of exercise vs. weight loss, I think by a fellow named Bouchard, that gets trotted out a lot by the "doesn't work" crowd. That study shows a wide variation of weight loss (or failure), and that if your twin doesn't lose weight through exercise--you probably won't either. But this is also true--if exercise is effective for your twin, it probably will be for you.

My thoughts are... If the question is whether diet OR exercise is most effective -- then my answer would be diet, hands down. Does an exercise routine added to a diet program increase the rate of weight loss? I'd say, it depends on the diet. If your diet keeps your metabolism strong and insulin levels low, then your body can use the fat in your body for energy. If that is the case, then why wouldn't exercise actually help with the weight loss? If high insulin levels keep your body fat locked up tight, then all exercise will do is burn up your short-term energy supply and make you hungry (and eat more) -- which the studies seem to show.

I have been living this WOE for nearly 2 years now. I added walking to my daily routine about 18 months ago. I walk at a 'low cardio' pace. I barely get winded and my heart rate is only in the 115 to 130 range at the end of my walks. But as I've become more fit, I do walk faster and I do walk a lot - daily when I can. From the "studies" I've read, my 2 solid years of "dieting" should have destroyed my metabolism by now. I eat 2200 calories a day, I'm active with my walking (but I have a desk job), and I'm still losing weight at a clip in keeping with my 'calorie calculator' app that I use. There is no way to prove it, but I think the combination of my LC diet and my regular exercise help me maintain a robust metabolism. I'm still losing weight and I still eat plenty of good food. To be honest, based on what I'd read - I thought that my metabolism was going to suffer as months went by and that I'd have to really ramp up the diet and exercise to get the last 10% of excess fat off. But that predicted 'lower metabolism ' result of long term dieting just never seemed to happen. So those study results didn't seem to pan out for me on the path I've chosen.

There are certainly lots of factors at play and CICO as interpreted by most people is way over simplified. It just is not that simple. But to say that exercises is "worthless" for weight loss? I don't buy that. That too is oversimplified. Over the long haul, I think that the right diet plus exercise is more effective than the same good diet with little exercise. Maybe not for everybody, but it sure seems to work that way for me.

Yes... Gary Taubes argues that exercise may simply increase your appetite. But that would only be a problem if your body has a tendency to overcompensate.

I think exercise has been useful for me for weightloss when I've had an active job, where I had to be on my feet all day. The argument is made that if you make people exercise, then they may just compensate by being more sedentary the rest of the day. At some point, there just aren't enough hours in the day to compensate for all that activity. But on the other end, there are a lot of people who don't have enough hours in the day to compensate for all their enforced inactivity at work, not to mention the drive to and from.

It can skyrocket your cortisol, too, which will lay down weight.

For the last few months I've questioned how exercise relates to weight loss and reduction of insulin resistance (as measured by BG & FBG). Using excel I’ve tracked my BG relative to days and times I’ve worked out and there seems to be a definite correlation..

When I went to 3X per day, 30 min walking morning, lunch and evening there was noticeable improvement. The week I went off the exercise my average BG began to rise and weight loss seemed to stall.

I’m of the opinion that exercise 3X per day tends to elevate metabolism during the day and facilitates dropping metabolism at night during sleep.

Another important consideration is combining cardio and resistance training. Both are needed. We have muscles that are slow twitch, fast twitch and super fast twitch. All need to be worked. And I'm reading more about the importance of resistance training for BG and weight reduction in addition to cardio.

For me the stretchy bands work well ($22), a treadmill and walks during the lunch hour. To save my knees walking on an inclined treadmill is better than jogging on a sidewalk.

Lately I've been bumping up the treadmill speed for 30 seconds, down to a walk for 30 seconds then repeat 4X. I'm really pushing during the 30 second run. In the last month it's become much easier, I think because my heart/cardio-vascular system is getting stronger. This is my "out of shape" version of HIIT.

Also, reading this forum by Nica gave me insight into how diet can trip things up.

How fats shifted my stall

What Ken said.

Dr. Atkins considered exercise an essential component of his original and succeeding diet plans. But not for "burning calories" so much as maintaining basic fitness: cardio/pulmonary efficiency, muscle strength, flexibility. He also emphasized choosing some form of activity that's enjoyable so that you'll actually DO it without having to drag yourself into it each and every time. He liked to play tennis.

You don't need a lot of science to see the common sense in that, right?

Amen. I'm always bothered when people on this forum are actively encouraged not to exercise. It's always been a part of any low carb plan that I know of. It's essential to health, whoever you are and whatever your abilities and limitations are. Because you need strength, endurance and flexibility to perform most essential tasks. Most people don't realize how much they rely on those things until they lose them (for lack of exercising them).

I sometimes wonder if we don't over think things. I don't doubt that exercise is good for a person. I started walking daily about 6 months ago and, much to my surprise the last 20 pounds came off with nothing else changing. Of course 95 pounds had come off without any regular exercise which still leaves low carb responsible for most of it but low carb and walking seem to add some extra element plus its nice to have the energy to do things like walk to the grocery store instead of drive (I've even lent my car indefiniately to my daughter-in-law). But I still wonder if all the energy that people put into figuring out types of exercise, and number of reps, and how often gives anywhere near the kind of pay off that people expect. And then what is it people expect? What's the relationship between fitness and health? I know that I don't want to be like the people I see, some of them younger then me, who can hardly make it up a flight of stairs or walk from the door of their house to their car. I want to be able to take care of things around my apartment even things that include climbing on a ladder or getting down on the floor. I want to be able to carry heavy packages up a flilght of stairs when the delivery person doesn't bother to carry them up (some do). I can still do all that without any trouble and I want it to continue but how would being more scientific about my exercise regimen, adding strength training (which I do intermittently and probably not to much effect) or more targetted cardio (hard to accomplish walking with a small dog although I don't let him sniff and dawdle like he would prefer). This really is a question I have rather than an opinion that it doesn't matter. Do we overthink and overcomplicate things or is it enough to just move every day?

Jean

I don't think anyone on this forum or any LC doctors actively encourage people not to exercise. Similar to saying "you don't have to count calories" giving rein to cheesecake binges, the "exercise does not help weight loss" advice is not meant to discourage anyone from getting the highest level of functional fitness available for them. Dr Malhotra and Dr Fung list the many health benefits of being fit, including having more muscle, but it's the half hour on the elliptical burns X calories meaning you will lose X pounds that is fiction, yet the entire fitness industry is built on that. Including those darn FitBits...the 10K steps isn't for general fitness, it's the excuse to have a muffin with coffee.

Nothing wrong with the Fitbit per se. It's how it's used. When I have visited the Fitbit forums, most people are stuck on the calorie in calorie out paradigm and many of the people who talk about adopting healthy eating are doing nothing of the sort from my perspective. And yes there are those who use the fitbit as a way to rationalize their bad food choices. That said I find it useful as a motivator to keep moving, especially since walking is the one thing I can do that doesn't feel like punsihment to me. I agree with Barbara that you have to enjoy the exercise you choose to do if you are going to have any chance of sustaining it (or at least I do) and most kinds of exercise that I try turn out feeling like a form of torture.

Jean

Monitoring my exercise regime over the years isn't much different from monitoring my diet. Like finding new recipes, occasionally buying a new gadget helps boost the energy, whether it's a Fitbit (don't have one) or new pink hand weights. I admit wandering around Dick's sporting goods store the other day just in case I might spot something I "need" for my workout space. Thing is, you have to actually USE the stuff!

I just received my Silver Sneakers card from my new insurance company. So I'm going to check out Gold's Gym nearby (which I've always associated with sweaty young hardbody dudes) to see what they have to offer. Maybe a few sessions with the lat-pull machine will be fun! It's free. But so is my basement, where I've got space to do any of my strength and cardio video workouts without going out in the brrrrrrrrrrrr!

But first...mind the diet. I'm done with CICO. But I know that the quality and quantity of what goes in my mouth vastly affects how I want to spend my life.

Best wishes with all new year resolutions!