Guest viewing limit reached
  • You have reached the maximum number of guest views allowed
  • Please register below to remove this limitation

Diet, exercise take off equal pounds, study finds

There some stuff in there that that actually says what people in these circles have been saying for years. There's a couple of points that, while different, can't be automatically shrugged off until more is looked into it.

Seems interesting though. Especially for those who need to lose a lot of weight.
 
What one has to remember is that there are other physiological benefits to exercise besides weight-loss. One can lose the weight and still die of a stroke because of cardio-vascular blockages.
 
SwordBurn said:
Before I ran into Anabolicminds.com, I would have normally believed all the BS in that link.
Click to expand...

Ravussin has published other studies that also dispute the idea that exercise builds muscle that helps people lose weight.

"If anything, highly trained people are highly efficient, so they burn fewer calories at rest," Ravussin said.

:rolleyes:
 
Points to note about this article:

Tests on overweight people show that a calorie is just a calorie, whether lost by dieting or by running, they said.
Click to expand...

Overweight means what? Do they go by BMI? BF%? They don't say, making this a vague discription. More than likely, they took a bunch of people who could afford to lose a few pounds.
So what kind of overweight people are we talking about? Beats me, I didn't pick 'em. Chances are they were ordinary working stiffs. You know, the kind of people who work sedentary jobs all day, only to go home to a couple cans of beer and a tv dinner.





They tested 24 people, 12 who ate a calorie-restricted diet, and 12 who dieted and also exercised five times a week for six months.

The dieters ate 25 percent less than normal, while the exercisers reduced their calorie intake by 12.5 percent and increased their physical activity to lose an extra 12.5 percent in calories.

Another 10 volunteers acted as controls. All food was provided by the university in carefully measured portions for most of the study.
Click to expand...

This part, I absolutey love. If you follow my posts, you'll find that there's a certain scientific law which I'll always harp on about: the first law of thermodynamics. This law states that energy cannot be created or destroyed;therefore, it is always conserved. In mathematic terms, it would look sort of like this:


Energy stored (as fat, etc)= Energy Absorbed (eaten) - Energy expended (exercise + BMR)


If this is the case (which it ALWAYS is), then calorie restriction will always cause a loss in bodyweight, since energy is stored as bodyweight. This law was proven in 1850.
It is not miraculous that both test groups lost the same amount of weight: it is expected.

In conclusion, this study proves nothing new or innovative, but rather serves up a little hype to revive the long forgotten weightloss ideals of using diet and exercise (instead of yet another pill with green tea, hoodia, and some other crap in it). Though I've just spent the majority of this post mocking this study, I'm glad it was put together as people are turning more and more to the diet pill, and shying away from what works!
 
I always thought that, ounce for ounce, lean tissue required more energy (calories) to maintain than fat tissue.

Am I wrong?

If not, how in the hell can they claim, "...dispute the idea that exercise builds muscle that helps people lose weight." ?
 
ShakesAllDay said:
I always thought that, ounce for ounce, lean tissue required more energy (calories) to maintain than fat tissue.

Am I wrong?

If not, how in the hell can they claim, "...dispute the idea that exercise builds muscle that helps people lose weight." ?
Click to expand...
Just makes more sense to me that if you take two people that weigh 250 pounds, both with same lifestyle/diet but one has 50 pounds more lean muscle mass, then the one with the extra lean mass would have a higher BMR? Just seems logical to me but im no scientist though :) Like what takes more gas to run a 4 cylinder engine or a 8 cylinder?
 
Dr. Ravussin is referring to "Highly Trained Individuals" he's not trying to compare more muslce mass to less mass, but rather trained vs. untrained.

I'm sure you'll agree that someone who has just started out will see a lot more progress than someone who's been training for the past 10 years. The body will try to adapt to conserve energy.
 
thesinner said:
Dr. Ravussin is referring to "Highly Trained Individuals" he's not trying to compare more muslce mass to less mass, but rather trained vs. untrained.

I'm sure you'll agree that someone who has just started out will see a lot more progress than someone who's been training for the past 10 years. The body will try to adapt to conserve energy.
Click to expand...
Ah ok, that makes sense then.
 
Just thought I would mention, they discussed this study on the Supertraining group on Yahoo as well, and a couple of individuals looked at the study and found that there actually is no weight training done, the exercise is all endurance based cardiovascular exercise, and as well it is commented that statistically the evidence in the article could not dismiss the null hypothesis, and the author admitted that the amount of people used for the study might not have actually been big enough to get an accurate representation of the influence of exercise or dieting on weight loss.
 
Yes they loss the same amount of weight. It never does say which one losses more FAT MASS. uh...wonder what group lost more fat mass.....drrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr:nutkick:
 
First Law of Thermo.--Not always

I teach science. The first law of thermodynamics is true. That is why it is a law; however, one law cannot thoroughly demistify the most articulate machine ever created-the human body.

Indeed, energy input = energy output, but we also must remember to factor in the energy lost as heat. Energy input may travel in two directions: work done or heat lost.

Complex carbohydrates stoke the fire to keep metabolic pathways moving rapidly. Lipids (fats), on the otherhand, are the energy stores you want to tap into. In order to tap into those stores, you must put your body into that mode by limiting the amount and type of carbohydrates you consume. To replace this loss of calories, so as to not slow the metabolism, increase protein and lipid portions in your meals. You may replace these with Omega-3 and Omega-6 Fish Body Oils and use lots of Olive, and other nut oils. Start with carbs early, like oatmeal, and taper the carbs off during the day.

Avoid processed grains and whatever you do, do not consume large quantities of lipid and carbohydrate calories in the same sitting.
 
prophet469 said:
I teach science. The first law of thermodynamics is true. That is why it is a law; however, one law cannot thoroughly demistify the most articulate machine ever created-the human body.

Indeed, energy input = energy output, but we also must remember to factor in the energy lost as heat. Energy input may travel in two directions: work done or heat lost.
Click to expand...
I don't think you quite understood my previous post. And that's ok because I write in hard-to-follow, run-on sentences.

If we hadn't factored in heat lost by bodyheat, we would assume that the sedentary group wouldn't need to eat food, since a sedentary lifestyle performs negligable amounts of work. You and I both know that this is not the case. Energy lost is already factored in by the persons basal metabolic rate (the amount of calories it takes the person to not die).

In order to create a deficit, you must first have a baseline. The whole purpose of this study was show that consuming less calories is just as effective as exercising away the same amount of calories as the deficit. I was basically trying to say "Well no sh*t" you can't break the first law of thermodynamics. BTW, calories burned during exercise were not calculated as work, since this would give horribly swayed results. We have the technology to factor in human efficiency.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top