Inactivity ...... Was : Re: 11 miles a week

[Guest guest]

Hi folks:

Correction: Where I said: " But it appears that, at least in this

particular study, jogging was about one-third less effective for

weight loss than we are led to believe it to be " ,

I had meant to say:

" But it appears that, at least in this particular study, jogging was

about one third **as** effective for weight loss than we are led to

believe it to be. "

Only five pounds of weight was lost, while fifteen pounds should have

been lost based on the data provided and the assumption that one

pound of weight amounts to 3500 calories.

Rodney.

--- In , " Rodney " <perspect1111@y...>

wrote:

> Hi folks:

>

> I have done a quick skim of the article and a fairly close look at

> their data in this study and have some comments. Based on these

data

> my conclusions are considerably different from those of the authors

> of the piece. The *principal* conclusion I draw from these data is

> that, if these results are typical of the kind of results that can

be

> had from jogging 693 miles in eight months, then exercise is a very

> much more useless way of losing weight than I had previously

believed.

>

> Here are the facts as I see them. While the authors appear to be

> implying that eleven miles of exercise a week is necessary to

prevent

> fat build up, they completely ignore the possibility of restricting

> food intake. Certainly it is interesting to examine the effects of

> exercise, and I applaud such efforts. But to make a statement

> like: " Significant gains in visceral fat in only 6 mo emphasize

the

> high cost of inactivity " is ridiculous, imo. Of course we all know

> here that is it not the lack of physical activity that is the

> problem, but an imbalance between energy intake and energy

> expenditure, of which physical activity is only one component.

>

> The subjects averaged 50 to 55 years of age; BMIs averaged 29 to

30;

> body fat percentages do not seem to be disclosed - a major omission

I

> think. Their diets were surprisingly low in protein - 15% of

> calories - while fat was 30% to 35% of calories.

>

> The unexercising control group ate 2047 calories per day, and put

on

> two pounds of weight in ~183 days, all of it fat. Unmentioned is

> that if the control group had instead consumed just 38.3 calories

> less per day - the equivalent of about one-third of a medium

banana -

> they would not have added any weight or fat. Hence the apparent

> ridicularity of the quotation (above) from the abstract.

>

> In contrast the heavy exercise group, the members of which each

> jogged 693 miles in ~243 days, ate a mere 25 calories daily more

than

> the control group (while their extra exercise was presumably

burning

> off almost 300 extra calories!!!!) so who in hell would be

surprised

> if they had lost weight, and that some of that weight lost had been

> fat????

>

> What is really startling about this exercise group is that they

lost

> a great deal less weight than the regular criteria for the

> relationship between weight and exercise would suggest. Here are

the

> numbers:

>

> They do not seem to have specified the speed at which they jogged.

> So lets just assume they burnt 100 calories per mile. For 693

miles

> that is 69,300 calories which converts, using the conventional

wisdom

> (which I have no reason to doubt), to 19.8 pounds of weight loss.

> The controls' energy balance appears to have been 2009 calories per

> day - 38.3 calories a day less than they had consumed. Presumably

> the exercise group's energy balance, sans exercise, would also have

> been 2009 calories per day (that is what a control group is for).

> But they in fact ate 2072 calories. This excess of 63 calories

> daily should, again sans exercise, have resulted in a weight gain

> over the eight months of 4.4 pounds (2072 - 2009 calories) x 243

> days/3500.

>

> So, WITH the exercise their weight loss SHOULD HAVE BEEN 15.4

pounds

> (19.8 - 4.4).

>

> How much weight did they in fact lose? JUST FIVE POUNDS IN TOTAL,

> of which 3.2 pounds was fat and 1.8 pounds was lean body mass.

>

> Clearly I cannot explain precisely where their discrepancy lies.

If

> someone thinks I have made a mistake in my calculations please say

> so. But it appears that, at least in this particular study,

jogging

> was about one-third less effective for weight loss than we are led

to

> believe it to be, assuming 100 calories burnt per mile.

>

> They also found, incidentally, which is useful, that this group

lost

> the same percentages (~7%) of both visceral and subcutaneous fat.

>

> So in conclusion, surprise, surprise, a massive daily energy

deficit

> resulted in the loss of some (not much) fat. My choice would be to

> instead forgo half a banana - after all we do know I think pretty

> much for certain that restricting calories is highly beneficial.

>

> But for those who choose to jog 2.85 miles a day, every day for

eight

> months, come heatwave, blizzard or whatever, in order to lose a

mere

> 3.2 pounds of fat ................. be my guest.

>

> Rodney.

>

> --- In , " " <wmbragg@h...>

wrote:

> > Hi all,

> >

> > That's just the distance you would need to walk or run (it seems

> > either intensity doesn't matter here) for preventing accumulation

> of

> > that diabetes promoting visceral fat.

> >

> > Just two notes about the paper: they didn't have a high amount

low

> > intensity exercisers because they would be walking for more than

8

> > hours a week, and was not easy to fing volunteers. Another point

to

> > look at is that non exercises were gaining visceral fat in spite

of

> > they weren't gaining neither body weight nor subcutaneus fat!!

> >

> > http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?

> > cmd=retrieve & db=pubmed & list_uids=16002776 & dopt=Abstract

> >

> > http://tinyurl.com/a4j3a

> >

> > Cheers.

> >

> > Willlie.

[Guest guest]

Thanks for the summation, Rodney, now I won;t have to do that.

I think your calculations are right - what's left out is the conversion of energy intake to "work" output.

There is about a 20% efficiency in the human near as I can estimate it from measuring gym machine actual physics work versus the claimed work. I think they use calories required to make up the expenditure as opposed to the actual burned. Walking, running biking is not that hard in work terms.

Where this came home to me was doing 30 floors on a stairstepper, when 6 actual floors was hard.

Regards.

[ ] Inactivity ...... Was : Re: 11 miles a week

Hi folks:I have done a quick skim of the article and a fairly close look at their data in this study and have some comments. Based on these data my conclusions are considerably different from those of the authors of the piece. The *principal* conclusion I draw from these data is that, if these results are typical of the kind of results that can be had from jogging 693 miles in eight months, then exercise is a very much more useless way of losing weight than I had previously believed.Here are the facts as I see them. While the authors appear to be implying that eleven miles of exercise a week is necessary to prevent fat build up, they completely ignore the possibility of restricting food intake. Certainly it is interesting to examine the effects of exercise, and I applaud such efforts. But to make a statement like: "Significant gains in visceral fat in only 6 mo emphasize the high cost of inactivity" is ridiculous, imo. Of course we all know here that is it not the lack of physical activity that is the problem, but an imbalance between energy intake and energy expenditure, of which physical activity is only one component.The subjects averaged 50 to 55 years of age; BMIs averaged 29 to 30; body fat percentages do not seem to be disclosed - a major omission I think. Their diets were surprisingly low in protein - 15% of calories - while fat was 30% to 35% of calories.The unexercising control group ate 2047 calories per day, and put on two pounds of weight in ~183 days, all of it fat. Unmentioned is that if the control group had instead consumed just 38.3 calories less per day - the equivalent of about one-third of a medium banana - they would not have added any weight or fat. Hence the apparent ridicularity of the quotation (above) from the abstract.In contrast the heavy exercise group, the members of which each jogged 693 miles in ~243 days, ate a mere 25 calories daily more than the control group (while their extra exercise was presumably burning off almost 300 extra calories!!!!) so who in hell would be surprised if they had lost weight, and that some of that weight lost had been fat????What is really startling about this exercise group is that they lost a great deal less weight than the regular criteria for the relationship between weight and exercise would suggest. Here are the numbers:They do not seem to have specified the speed at which they jogged. So lets just assume they burnt 100 calories per mile. For 693 miles that is 69,300 calories which converts, using the conventional wisdom (which I have no reason to doubt), to 19.8 pounds of weight loss. The controls' energy balance appears to have been 2009 calories per day - 38.3 calories a day less than they had consumed. Presumably the exercise group's energy balance, sans exercise, would also have been 2009 calories per day (that is what a control group is for). But they in fact ate 2072 calories. This excess of 63 calories daily should, again sans exercise, have resulted in a weight gain over the eight months of 4.4 pounds (2072 - 2009 calories) x 243 days/3500. So, WITH the exercise their weight loss SHOULD HAVE BEEN 15.4 pounds (19.8 - 4.4).How much weight did they in fact lose? JUST FIVE POUNDS IN TOTAL, of which 3.2 pounds was fat and 1.8 pounds was lean body mass.Clearly I cannot explain precisely where their discrepancy lies. If someone thinks I have made a mistake in my calculations please say so. But it appears that, at least in this particular study, jogging was about one-third less effective for weight loss than we are led to believe it to be, assuming 100 calories burnt per mile.They also found, incidentally, which is useful, that this group lost the same percentages (~7%) of both visceral and subcutaneous fat.So in conclusion, surprise, surprise, a massive daily energy deficit resulted in the loss of some (not much) fat. My choice would be to instead forgo half a banana - after all we do know I think pretty much for certain that restricting calories is highly beneficial.But for those who choose to jog 2.85 miles a day, every day for eight months, come heatwave, blizzard or whatever, in order to lose a mere 3.2 pounds of fat ................. be my guest.Rodney.> Hi all,> > That's just the distance you would need to walk or run (it seems > either intensity doesn't matter here) for preventing accumulation of > that diabetes promoting visceral fat.> > Just two notes about the paper: they didn't have a high amount low > intensity exercisers because they would be walking for more than 8 > hours a week, and was not easy to fing volunteers. Another point to > look at is that non exercises were gaining visceral fat in spite of > they weren't gaining neither body weight nor subcutaneus fat!!> > http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?> cmd=retrieve & db=pubmed & list_uids=16002776 & dopt=Abstract> > http://tinyurl.com/a4j3a> > Cheers.> > Willlie.

[Guest guest]

Thanks for the summation, Rodney, now I won;t have to do that.

I think your calculations are right - what's left out is the conversion of energy intake to "work" output.

There is about a 20% efficiency in the human near as I can estimate it from measuring gym machine actual physics work versus the claimed work. I think they use calories required to make up the expenditure as opposed to the actual burned. Walking, running biking is not that hard in work terms.

Where this came home to me was doing 30 floors on a stairstepper, when 6 actual floors was hard.

Regards.

[ ] Inactivity ...... Was : Re: 11 miles a week

Hi folks:I have done a quick skim of the article and a fairly close look at their data in this study and have some comments. Based on these data my conclusions are considerably different from those of the authors of the piece. The *principal* conclusion I draw from these data is that, if these results are typical of the kind of results that can be had from jogging 693 miles in eight months, then exercise is a very much more useless way of losing weight than I had previously believed.Here are the facts as I see them. While the authors appear to be implying that eleven miles of exercise a week is necessary to prevent fat build up, they completely ignore the possibility of restricting food intake. Certainly it is interesting to examine the effects of exercise, and I applaud such efforts. But to make a statement like: "Significant gains in visceral fat in only 6 mo emphasize the high cost of inactivity" is ridiculous, imo. Of course we all know here that is it not the lack of physical activity that is the problem, but an imbalance between energy intake and energy expenditure, of which physical activity is only one component.The subjects averaged 50 to 55 years of age; BMIs averaged 29 to 30; body fat percentages do not seem to be disclosed - a major omission I think. Their diets were surprisingly low in protein - 15% of calories - while fat was 30% to 35% of calories.The unexercising control group ate 2047 calories per day, and put on two pounds of weight in ~183 days, all of it fat. Unmentioned is that if the control group had instead consumed just 38.3 calories less per day - the equivalent of about one-third of a medium banana - they would not have added any weight or fat. Hence the apparent ridicularity of the quotation (above) from the abstract.In contrast the heavy exercise group, the members of which each jogged 693 miles in ~243 days, ate a mere 25 calories daily more than the control group (while their extra exercise was presumably burning off almost 300 extra calories!!!!) so who in hell would be surprised if they had lost weight, and that some of that weight lost had been fat????What is really startling about this exercise group is that they lost a great deal less weight than the regular criteria for the relationship between weight and exercise would suggest. Here are the numbers:They do not seem to have specified the speed at which they jogged. So lets just assume they burnt 100 calories per mile. For 693 miles that is 69,300 calories which converts, using the conventional wisdom (which I have no reason to doubt), to 19.8 pounds of weight loss. The controls' energy balance appears to have been 2009 calories per day - 38.3 calories a day less than they had consumed. Presumably the exercise group's energy balance, sans exercise, would also have been 2009 calories per day (that is what a control group is for). But they in fact ate 2072 calories. This excess of 63 calories daily should, again sans exercise, have resulted in a weight gain over the eight months of 4.4 pounds (2072 - 2009 calories) x 243 days/3500. So, WITH the exercise their weight loss SHOULD HAVE BEEN 15.4 pounds (19.8 - 4.4).How much weight did they in fact lose? JUST FIVE POUNDS IN TOTAL, of which 3.2 pounds was fat and 1.8 pounds was lean body mass.Clearly I cannot explain precisely where their discrepancy lies. If someone thinks I have made a mistake in my calculations please say so. But it appears that, at least in this particular study, jogging was about one-third less effective for weight loss than we are led to believe it to be, assuming 100 calories burnt per mile.They also found, incidentally, which is useful, that this group lost the same percentages (~7%) of both visceral and subcutaneous fat.So in conclusion, surprise, surprise, a massive daily energy deficit resulted in the loss of some (not much) fat. My choice would be to instead forgo half a banana - after all we do know I think pretty much for certain that restricting calories is highly beneficial.But for those who choose to jog 2.85 miles a day, every day for eight months, come heatwave, blizzard or whatever, in order to lose a mere 3.2 pounds of fat ................. be my guest.Rodney.> Hi all,> > That's just the distance you would need to walk or run (it seems > either intensity doesn't matter here) for preventing accumulation of > that diabetes promoting visceral fat.> > Just two notes about the paper: they didn't have a high amount low > intensity exercisers because they would be walking for more than 8 > hours a week, and was not easy to fing volunteers. Another point to > look at is that non exercises were gaining visceral fat in spite of > they weren't gaining neither body weight nor subcutaneus fat!!> > http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?> cmd=retrieve & db=pubmed & list_uids=16002776 & dopt=Abstract> > http://tinyurl.com/a4j3a> > Cheers.> > Willlie.

[Guest guest]

Rodney wrote:

>

>

> Only five pounds of weight was lost, while fifteen pounds should have

> been lost based on the data provided and the assumption that one

> pound of weight amounts to 3500 calories.

>

> Rodney.

WHy is this so? stealth calories not reported? Exercise lowers

metabolism? I wonder what the effect of weight lifting would be? If it

builds muscle my guess would be that it is more effective at weight loss

than running.

Positive Dennis

[Guest guest]

My observation is that weight lifting, weight machines, and manual labor build muscle and do NOT decrease weight although it may decrease the amount of fat you have. Getting rid of that muscle weight is not easy.

Consider whether you want to reduce intake to burn muscle protein or fat.

I'm not sure when I burn muscle if it all comes from peripheral muscle as opposed to heart muscle. A quandary for me.

I chose to not weight lift and gradually lose weight by CR. I lost visceral fat first, then muscle and adipose. But some of that adipose doesn't want to leave - the plateau.

Regards.

Re: [ ] Inactivity ...... Was : Re: 11 miles a week

Rodney wrote:>>> Only five pounds of weight was lost, while fifteen pounds should have> been lost based on the data provided and the assumption that one> pound of weight amounts to 3500 calories.>> Rodney.WHy is this so? stealth calories not reported? Exercise lowers metabolism? I wonder what the effect of weight lifting would be? If it builds muscle my guess would be that it is more effective at weight loss than running.Positive Dennis

[Guest guest]

Hi All,

With CR, heart tissue is spared relative to skeletal muscle.

--- jwwright <jwwright@...> wrote:

> My observation is that weight lifting, weight machines, and manual labor build

> muscle and do NOT decrease weight although it may decrease the amount of fat

you

> have. Getting rid of that muscle weight is not easy.

> Consider whether you want to reduce intake to burn muscle protein or fat.

> I'm not sure when I burn muscle if it all comes from peripheral muscle as

opposed

> to heart muscle. A quandary for me.

> I chose to not weight lift and gradually lose weight by CR. I lost visceral

fat

> first, then muscle and adipose. But some of that adipose doesn't want to leave

-

> the plateau.

>

> Regards.

Al Pater, PhD; email: old542000@...

______________________________________________________

for Good

Donate to the Hurricane Katrina relief effort.

http://store./redcross-donate3/

[Guest guest]

Hi All,

With CR, heart tissue is spared relative to skeletal muscle.

--- jwwright <jwwright@...> wrote:

> My observation is that weight lifting, weight machines, and manual labor build

> muscle and do NOT decrease weight although it may decrease the amount of fat

you

> have. Getting rid of that muscle weight is not easy.

> Consider whether you want to reduce intake to burn muscle protein or fat.

> I'm not sure when I burn muscle if it all comes from peripheral muscle as

opposed

> to heart muscle. A quandary for me.

> I chose to not weight lift and gradually lose weight by CR. I lost visceral

fat

> first, then muscle and adipose. But some of that adipose doesn't want to leave

-

> the plateau.

>

> Regards.

Al Pater, PhD; email: old542000@...

______________________________________________________

for Good

Donate to the Hurricane Katrina relief effort.

http://store./redcross-donate3/