r.c wrote:Here is the link to the original article in BMJ.

Regular physical activity reduces the risk of developing cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes, dementia and some cancers by at least 30%. However, physical activity does not promote weight loss.

The bold is the part of the paper, I have a problem with. It looks like a mere assertion, as it provides no references.

I would agree. They really have to say more than just that.

Edit. However, if you read the reference 2 article, it goes into more detail about the role of physical activity.

More edit. Link to Ref. 2:
Journal of Epidemiology

From my understanding of the article, it's more an issue with how 'physical activity' is viewed. Most things people do for 'physical activity' are not enough to promote weight loss.

For reference:

In the new ACSM position stand, Donnelly et al. (2009) define weight maintenance as a <3% change in body weight, where as an increase in >5% change in body weight is considered a clinically significant change. The term “clinical' infers involving a medical observation, treatment, practice or diagnosis. It is clear from all of the research and medical/scientific organizations (Centers for Disease Control, ACSM, AHA and AMA) that more physical activity is needed for most persons. The recent research indicates that moderately vigorous physical activity of 150 to 250 minutes per week at an energy equivalent of ~1200 to 2,000 kilocalories per week (about 12 to 20 miles per week of jogging or running) will be sufficient in preventing weight gain greater than 3%.

How Much Physical Activity Is Needed for Clinically Significant Weight Loss?
It is recognized that most studies showing clinically significant weight loss (5% of body weight) demonstrate this with energy restriction (i.e., eating fewer calories) combined with physical activity to create a larger negative energy balance (i.e., more calories expended than consumed). That noted, the research denotes that physical activity <150 minutes/week has a minimal effect on weight loss. Physical activity >150 minutes/week usually results in modest weight loss (defined as ~2-3 kg), with physical activity between 225 and 420 minutes/week resulting in the greatest weight loss (5 to 7.5 kg).

https://www.unm.edu/~lkravitz/Article%20folder/RegainUNM.html

It's also important to realize that with exercise, you are likely to actually gain weight due to muscle mass. BMI should be a better indication of overall health rather than just 'weight'.

NamelessFaceless wrote:I had a cocker spaniel years ago that took it daily. He ballooned too. I don't even recall why he took it.

I didn't balloon but my face swelled up. I looked like a Muppet.

wunksta wrote:From my understanding of the article, it's more an issue with how 'physical activity' is viewed. Most things people do for 'physical activity' are not enough to promote weight loss.

Yeah, something like that. Also, the point made in the report that "lack of exericse is not responsible for the obesity epedemic" is actually a far cry from "exercise has no effect on weight loss".

I've now read the report itself (which is actually extremely short and still, itself, lacking in any kind of informative detail) and a few links from it. There seems to be a combination of statements in the report itself, and interpretations people have made of them, trying to suggest the much stronger claim that exercise, per se, has no bearing on weight loss. This is obviously a ludicrous claim that flies in the face of everything we know about human biology, and the report doesn't prove it in any way whatsoever.

Beatsong wrote:

wunksta wrote:From my understanding of the article, it's more an issue with how 'physical activity' is viewed. Most things people do for 'physical activity' are not enough to promote weight loss.

Yeah, something like that. Also, the point made in the report that "lack of exericse is not responsible for the obesity epedemic" is actually a far cry from "exercise has no effect on weight loss".

I've now read the report itself (which is actually extremely short and still, itself, lacking in any kind of informative detail) and a few links from it. There seems to be a combination of statements in the report itself, and interpretations people have made of them, trying to suggest the much stronger claim that exercise, per se, has no bearing on weight loss. This is obviously a ludicrous claim that flies in the face of everything we know about human biology, and the report doesn't prove it in any way whatsoever.

Evidence? You cant accept that maybe something has been discovered which for some is general knowledge. Modern food contains modern substances such as refined products like sugar and corn syrup. A simple fact calories are not all the same and how your body stores them is a main point in the report which is why people still get fat even though they are exercising.
Just check the food you are eating especially processed foods.

http://authoritynutrition.com/9-ways-that-processed-foods-are-killing-people/

Simple solution dont eat processed foods. Dont eat fast foods.
I personally eat as much organic non processed food as possible. Luckily even our largest super market chain has plenty of organic food and is proud of it and even this month running a campaign to get people to eat more of it.

Every 'exercise for weight loss' regime will also encourage or even insist upon 'healthy eating'. How does one know that the 'healthy eating' part is not the major cause of any weight loss experienced?

There are people who have fallen for this 'exercise' con who still continue with an unhealthy diet - and then complain that they can't lose weight...

What the report is saying is that the energy from CHO is used by the body in a different manner to the energy derived from fats. This is due to the chemical differences between CHO and fat which the body treats in entirely different ways regardless of the total 'kcalories', er, 'counted'.

The different ways in which the body uses CHO (tends to 'overweight') and fat (tends to be 'satiated') is irrelevant to any physical exercise undertaken.

That is it Alan. Nothing against keeping fit but going to a McDonalds after a workout is pure madness (well going to a McDonalds anytime is).
My regime is walking 15k three times a week and one or two visits to the sauna.
Except the last two weeks thanks to vitamin loss and the godamned flue.

Don't you get a 'flu jab, Scot?

Alan B wrote:Don't you get a 'flu jab, Scot?

I get it offered but never take it. There is more flue this year than ever before. Makes you wonder?

I've had mine, but I hear that it may not cover all strains. Keeping my fingers crossed here.

Alan B wrote:I've had mine, but I hear that it may not cover all strains. Keeping my fingers crossed here.

That is the big problem and I tend to be of the "why induce problems" school. Vaccination's etc fall into another group but the flue jab (griepprick in Dutch) is just a stab in the dark. Normally I do get one flue at this time of year. I did take the jab for a couple of years but nothing changed.

It's all that 'fresh air', Scot. All them germs flying around - you just dunno where they've been.

Alan B wrote:It's all that 'fresh air', Scot. All them germs flying around - you just dunno where they've been.

I often think we are so highly densely populated that bugs must travel faster here. I used public transport all my life I think it improved my resistance better than any flue jab. Since being retired flues and colds seem to be more regular.

Scot Dutchy wrote:

Beatsong wrote:

wunksta wrote:From my understanding of the article, it's more an issue with how 'physical activity' is viewed. Most things people do for 'physical activity' are not enough to promote weight loss.

Yeah, something like that. Also, the point made in the report that "lack of exericse is not responsible for the obesity epedemic" is actually a far cry from "exercise has no effect on weight loss".

I've now read the report itself (which is actually extremely short and still, itself, lacking in any kind of informative detail) and a few links from it. There seems to be a combination of statements in the report itself, and interpretations people have made of them, trying to suggest the much stronger claim that exercise, per se, has no bearing on weight loss. This is obviously a ludicrous claim that flies in the face of everything we know about human biology, and the report doesn't prove it in any way whatsoever.

Evidence? You cant accept that maybe something has been discovered which for some is general knowledge.

I don't have a problem accepting things, but extreme claims require extreme evidence. There's a MOUNTAIN of evidence, both theoretical (about how we know biology works) and empirical (about what we see happen to people's weight when they exercise more) behind the fact that exercise affects weight. If someone wants to challenge that mountain, they need to provide something pretty damn robust to do so. The half a dozen paragraphs in that report don't provide any such thing. They don't even provide any evidence of THAT claim at all.

Modern food contains modern substances such as refined products like sugar and corn syrup. A simple fact calories are not all the same and how your body stores them is a main point in the report which is why people still get fat even though they are exercising.

Sure. Not sure what this has to do with the question we are disagreeing about.

The fact that "(SOME) people still get fat even though they exercise" does not for a moment mean that exercise has effect on weight. It's perfectly normal for things to have effects that are counteracted by other things with opposite and stronger effects. Some people get poor even though they work and earn money. Some people drown even though they can swim. So the fuck what?

Simple solution dont eat processed foods. Dont eat fast foods.

I agree that's great advice.

I think I see your problem. You think things can only have one cause, so if you point out something that is a clear cause, it must mean that everything else ISN'T a cause. I've seen this fallacy before around here, most noticeably in the argument that because mental health and social deprivation issues cause gun crime, guns themselves therefore must not cause it. It's a stupid argument there and it's a stupid argument here.

Scot Dutchy wrote:That is it Alan. Nothing against keeping fit but going to a McDonalds after a workout is pure madness (well going to a McDonalds anytime is).
My regime is walking 15k three times a week and one or two visits to the sauna.
Except the last two weeks thanks to vitamin loss and the godamned flue.

You've had influenza and you've still posted here everyday...are you sure you don't have a dose of man flu?

Briton wrote:

Scot Dutchy wrote:That is it Alan. Nothing against keeping fit but going to a McDonalds after a workout is pure madness (well going to a McDonalds anytime is).
My regime is walking 15k three times a week and one or two visits to the sauna.
Except the last two weeks thanks to vitamin loss and the godamned flue.

You've had influenza and you've still posted here everyday...are you sure you don't have a dose of man flu?

Yep still here today. My nose is running like hell which would be very visible if you saw the amount of used paper handkerchiefs lying next to me. I find sitting at my desk the most acceptable position. I hate lying in bed when sick.

So sucking down doughnuts makes you fat? Whooda thunk it.

Scot Dutchy wrote:

Briton wrote:

Scot Dutchy wrote:That is it Alan. Nothing against keeping fit but going to a McDonalds after a workout is pure madness (well going to a McDonalds anytime is).
My regime is walking 15k three times a week and one or two visits to the sauna.
Except the last two weeks thanks to vitamin loss and the godamned flue.

You've had influenza and you've still posted here everyday...are you sure you don't have a dose of man flu?

Yep still here today. My nose is running like hell which would be very visible if you saw the amount of used paper handkerchiefs lying next to me. I find sitting at my desk the most acceptable position. I hate lying in bed when sick.

Yes, as it happens I also have a cold. When I had flu a few years ago, I didn't choose to lay in bed, I was knocked for six and couldn't get out of my pit.

Rachel Bronwyn wrote:You got it to treat the associated inflammation. I bet its a super low dosage and you've said its only for five days.

I was on a high dose of prednisone for months to suppress my immune system and get the arthritis it was causing under control. I was weened off it without side effects.

When I first started showing signs of rheumatoid arthritis (one of the auto-immune types of arthritis), my doctor tried to put me on prednisone. Took one dose, didn't sleep for three days, never took it again. I'm rather glad I didn't. There are folks on the RA support sites I frequent who have been on it for years. Weight gain is only the beginning of the issues that predinisone can cause.

I definitely wouldn't use it on an ongoing basis unless there were no other options available to me. Prednisone is hardcore. Symptoms would have caught up with me over time. The flare-up had gotten completely out of hand though due to a lack of diagnosis. Once I got the diagnosis the doctor hit me hard with prednisone to get the arthritis under control as fast as possible. I was quickly losing my ability to walk. I regained my full range of motion in a matter of weeks and remained on prednisone until the specialist the ready to switch me onto methotrexate.