LOL. That clearly explains the horrendous success rates of people who exercise to lose weight.


Now we get to the truth of the matter. But if exercise didn't typically result in greater energy consumption there would be no need for the caveat.

I know you're not sure. I've been trying to point that out since the start. You're so not sure, that the link you provided for the King paper is dead.

Kilton - if people are ONLY exercising and continuing to eat horribly - they will not be very successful. I've never stated otherwise. Please read the entire thread so I don't have to repeat myself. If you are NOT exercising in addition to making nutritional adjustments, you are not going to reach your goal as quickly. More importantly, you won't reap the tremendous health benefits that exercise offers. Moreover, exercise is a powerful predictor of averting weight re-gain.

People think they can out-train a crappy diet. They can't. If you are exercising with resistance and performing adequate intensity/duration/frequency - exercise will excelerate fat loss. In fact, higher intensity exercise has been shown to BLUNT appetite. hmmmmm....

It's also been shown to increase appetite. I guess you just need to pick which studies you're going to believe.

The other thing studied is that doing exercise takes will power for most people. Dieting takes will power for most people. The more things you have to do that require determination to behave a certain way, the more likely you are to slip. So the reason the people are going for the muffin and starbucks after exercising is because they used up all their will power getting themselves to go to the gym when they didn't really want to. Self-control comes in limited doses. That's another series of studies that went around recently:
http://www.webmd.com/fitness-exerci...?src=RSS_PUBLIC

Hey, if it works for you, it works!

Studies released on Tuesdays always provide opposing results to studies released on other days of the week. Also, on Thursday-released studies the ambient temperature in the lab appears relevant.

This explains everything.

That's irrelevant. The contention is that exercise makes us hungry. Not that exercise is useless when the diet is crappy. But if that's what you believe this is about, then who am I to contradict you. On the other hand, the diets of most people is indeed crappy. So, generally speaking, as you would say, exercise is useless any way you look at it. Because, the alternative, that the diet is healthful, means exercise is not required and thus useless. Because, a healthful diet does not make us fat, no matter how much of it we eat.

Further thoughts. When the diet is crappy, if exercise makes us hungry, fat loss is impossible. When the diet is healthful, if exercise makes us hungry, fat loss happens anyway. If exercise doesn't make us hungry, then it doesn't matter which diet we're on. So it seems that using only logic, exercise is indeed useless no matter how we look at it.

There is no doubt that exercise has its own benefits. But fat loss is not one of them.

Perhaps maybe for an hour or two or a day. But NOT long-term.

Biologically, that is not likely, and in fact, would be detrimental.

If that were so, people who work intensively-- such as athletes, loggers, or ice-age hunters, would eventually shrivel up to nothing. The harder they work, the more energy they expend, the less they eat. Ergo, pretty soon they're sticks.

Doesn't work that way. Increased energy expendtiture MUST increase appetite and eating. Otherwise, an intensively active lifestyle would result in malnutrition, and emaciation.

So every time your position on an issue is taken apart, you resort to attempted "cleverness" by responding with an image.

Wonder what you do when this happens in person rather than via a computer screen.

Au contraire - it's quite relevant as many people are under the delusion that they can in fact indulge dietary-wise. To quote Kilton; He (and others) are assuming that because people who exercising aren't losing weight, it MUST be because the exercise is causing them their hunger. I'm contending that the lack of results for exercisers is more a psychologically-driven fallacy that they can eat whatever they choose as long as they exercise.

Another point is that Taubes and others fail to define "exercise". There is obviously a dose response in terms of type/duration/frequency and intensity to get into. We also need to factor in NEAT and EPOC.

Again, you make a blanket statement that exercise is useless for fat loss. That is false.

I've already contended that exercise generally does NOT make us hungry. I provided studies that demonstated as much. For the record Martin you have yet to show otherwise - instead relying on heresay, speculation and Taubes' "unfallible" word.

I simply build one from scratch... it takes more time of course but does the trick.

If you think Martin has "taken apart" my argument, why don't you share some research on the subject?

It's an interesting way to look at things. I agree that there may be a finite amount of "will power" for most people. But I still don't think that this is an excuse to pick one or the other. Exercise and eating well DO take willpower but this can eventually become "want power". I've worked with many people who hated exercise that really learned to love it once they became proficient at it and saw their health change. I think it's finding that medium that works - like you said.

Oh sure... I agree. What I'm contending is that contrary to the TIME piece where Cloud suggests the harder you workout the hungrier you get, this is not always the case. Naturally you are going to (and should) increase your caloric intake with prolonged and otherwise intense exercise. The whole idea is that the literature does not support the idea that exercising causes hunger and certainly would not be what's preventing us from losing fat as John Cloud contends.

So exercisers don't eat more because they're hungry -- they eat more because of a psychological fallacy that they can eat more (even though they're not hungry).

Pure genius. Go find us some more clever JPGs.

Well you site studies when they suit you and ignore them when they don't. Guess that makes you a member of the human race.