Interesting, another snippet from something mostly unrelated actually relates to this topic. It's a new posting in Dr. Eades blog.

http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/...arians-part-ii/

Hmmn. Well, that would also seem to make clear why, for example, when the liver is sluggish, maybe the BMR reduces a good %. Because it may turn out the liver's BMR is a whole lot more of your overall BMR than we suspected. And hence a person starts gaining on the same# of the calories they ate 3 months ago at maintenance, before their liver got more and more sluggish (probably due to WHAT they were eating). When you calculate BMR based solely on the weight of combined non-fat, it's a static thing. But if you calculate it based on 'individual rates of organs', then each of those organs is more than their scale weight in effect.

Interesting idea re the liver. IIRC liver transplant patients sometimes have otherwise unexplained weight gain.

The TIME piece was ridiculous.... if you go to starbucks after your 18 min walk on the treadmill for a 400 cal drink and oat bar - no you are not going to lose any weight. But to suggest that there is some physiological urge to consume junk post exercise is completely unfounded. You'll see counter retorts not only by gyms but by those who have a pretty good understanding of the interaction of nutriton and exercise physiology.

Most studies on exercise and subsequent hunger reveal that people do not overcompesate in response to exercise - at least not to a point where they eat more than they've expended during the session.

There are people who overcompensate and others researchers call "unrestrined" eaters but this is generally not the case for most people when you review the literature. Common sense - skip the baconators and large fries after your workout.

Exercise can and will help with fat loss when dietary compliance is adequate.

A good deal of exercise over a long enough period will make you lose weight. But if you ever stop exercising, your weight will come back. Unless you fix the cause of your weight gain. That said, the exercise you did might have helped you fix the issue that caused you to become overweight in the first place. If this happens to you, then even if you stop exercising, your weight will not come back. Unless you start doing again what you did that broke you in the first place.

So if you make a good deal of exercise a part of your lifestyle everyday for the rest of your life, your weight will not come back. If you do it only to lose weight, there is no guarantee that your weight will not come back.

Patrick

I haven't had any exercise for the past three weeks. I have been a marathon runner since 1985. I decided to stop working out so I'd have time to work on a car. It's an old car that I've been restoring for the past two years. My daughter is a senior in high school and most mornings it's a battle for who gets my Subaru for the day. But with the weather changing it's now necessary for me to get the old car road-ready. She refuses to learn how to use a clutch. Or a window crank. :-) So I'll be driving the old car and she'll be driving my year-old Subaru.

TMI, I know, The point is I have time for exercise or time for working on the car but not both. So no exercise for the past three weeks. I worried I would put on weight. Generally I don't have breakfast or at most some raw almonds. Lunch is soup and dinner is salad. During the day I typically will snack on carbs: crackers, chips, granola bars. My reasoning is that carbs fuel my running better than fat could.

I made the effort no not eat any wheat products for the past three weeks. I increased fat intake by having cheese with soup, an avocado with salad, occasional heavy cream with blueberries. I usually dump a can of tuna into the soup and salmon into the salad.

Right now I'm about five pounds lighter. I don't have a scale but know from long experience that every belt hole equals five pounds. I had been at 170# for the past year or so. Today I noticed I cinched my belt to the 165# hole.

But once the car is done I'm going back to running 50 miles per week. I wonder if I can do it without the junk carbs. Probably just cut out the snacking and use carbs around the workouts.

Maybe your belt is trying to tell you something?

I thought the article was very good overall, but this statement was an oversimplification that prompted a lot of people to poke holes in it. That's a very good example of why you should avoid exaggerations or oversimplifications to make a point - it puts your whole argument in doubt.

Nobody makes claims of overcompensation except you. The claim that exercise is useless for fat loss only states compensation. Ein and Eout are dependent in such a way that when one goes one way, the other will compensate to keep the system the same. In order to affect Ein and Eout, we must change the system's size. When the system grows bigger, Eout increases, Ein must increase to compensate. When the system grows smaller, Eout decreases, Ein must decrease to compensate. But you believe that the only way to change the system's size is to first change Ein and/or Eout. And round we go again.

"when dietary compliance is adequate." You mean, when it's not, exercise is useless? That means all fat loss is due to diet, not exercise. Just like all fat gain is due to diet, not lack of exercise.

I'm simply paralleling John Cloud's example in the article. My point is that not overeating/making poor dietary choices post workout should be common sense. This is a psychological trap that many exercisers fall into. Physiologically, there doesn't seem to be much evidence of overcompensation (or to apease certain people) compensation to a point where exercise efforts are negated.

If you want to play that game, I'll call it compensation to the point of negating the exercise effort. Bon?



Haggling over the use (or misuse) of the word "compensation" is a moot point here. The very claim that exercise is "useless" is an obfuscated, broad based and in most cases false generalization.

.

Nice blanket statement. Evidence?

Here's evidence that Cloud's (and Taubes') claims are misguided. The following studies show exercise does NOT cause one to consume more calories to compensate. In fact some studies show that exercise in fact BLUNTS hunger. If you have an equal amount of studies that show otherwise, by all means share.

Stating that diet is more important is one thing. Claiming that exercise is not only not helpful but the factor that may be PREVENTING weight loss is irresponsible.

Blundell JE, cross talk between physical activity and appetite control: does physical activity stimulate appetite? Proc Nutr Soc, 62, 651-661. 2003

Titchenal A., Exercise and Food Intake: what is the relationship? Sports Med, 6: 135-145. 1988

King NA, et al, Individual variability following 12 weeks of supervised exercise: Identification and characterization of compensation for exercise-induced weight loss. Int J Obes, 32, 177-184, 2008.

King NA, effects of exercise on appetite control: Implications for energy balance. Med Sci Sport Exer, 29(8): 1076-1089. 1997

King, NA, The relationship between physical activity and food intake. 57: 77-84. 1998.

Lluch A, Exercise enhances palatability of food, but does not increase food consumption, in lean restrained females. Int J Obes, 21: supp a129.Melzer K., effects of physical activity on food intake. Clin Nutr, 24: 885-895. 2005

Ballard TP, Melby CL, Camus H, Cianciulli M, Pitts J, Schmidt S, Hickey MS. Effect of resistance exercise, with or without carbohydrate supplementation, on plasma ghrelin concentrations and postexercise hunger and food intake. Metabolism. 2009 Jun 2.

Dermott M, McDaniel JL, Weiss EP, Tomazic TJ, Mattfeldt-Beman M J Nutr Elder. Is physical activity associated with appetite? A survey of long-term care residents. 2009 Jan-Mar;28(1):72-80.

The right type of exercise can help your muscles be more insulin sensitive. So yes, some exercises can indeed have a good effect and not be compensated by eating more after.

Patrick

Don't confuse the flip side for the truth. You select data that agrees with your belief. I select data that agrees with mine. To call one side misguided is indeed misguided in itself.

All the papers you linked to freely acknowledge that energy intake is much more significant for fat loss than exercise. They speak of two groups, the compensators, and the non-compensators. However, these two groups are identified not through actual energy intake but through actual weight change. In other words, they make the assumption that when a subject loses weight, he doesn't compensate, and when he doesn't lose weight, he compensates. In simpler terms, they don't know. Consequently, you don't know either.

Completely agree (I will get to your other posts Patrick - sorry for the delay)

The vast majority of studies on this issue shows no compensatory eating in response to exercise. This is what I base my "belief" on. You should be the last person accusing someone of confirmation bias.



You didn't "select" any data.



A point I never contended.