Why Exercise Won't Make You Thin

[black magick hustla]

http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1914857-1,00.html (http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1914857-1,00.html)





Whether because exercise makes us hungry or because we want to reward ourselves, many people eat more — and eat more junk food, like doughnuts — after going to the gym.

intresting article. a lot of mexican nutriologists tell you this btw. i am trying to lose some weight now by slashing sugary/starshy/fatty shit from my diet and eating good food. i think its going fine. ive lost ton of weight before by doing this. i think i already have enough natural muscle mass to not look like a wimp so i am just gonna burn some fat and then maybe hit the gym again.

but yea if you wanna lose weight excersize is dumb just be reasonably active and eat well.

[Black Rat]

Exercise is not dumb. Exercise builds muscle which burns calories.

You want to lose weight? Stop eating shitty junk food and eat veggies, fruits, and lean meats. Drink tea or water, not soda or sugar loaded juices.

Get hungry after you exercise? Then eat some fruit, not a doughnut. Or better yet, go exercise and then eat one of your meals after it so you aren't tempted to go for the junk food. ;)

[ChrisK]

That has a serious flaw. When losing weight you need to diet and exercise, not one or the other.

[TC]

That has a serious flaw. When losing weight you need to diet and exercise, not one or the other.


Well this is the official dogma, the whole point of the article is to critique the dogma.

[Le Libérer]

Everytime I up my workout, I stop losing weight. If you want to lose weight, stop eating excessive calories.

Saying that, I run 4 times a week (on a treadmill or outside) at least 30 minutes each, eat about 1200 calories a day and I maintain my weight.

And heres how to calculate maintaining the desired weight. You take it and multiply it by 10. So if you want to maintain 150 lbs then eat 1500 calories. If you want to lose then eat less than that.

[PhoenixAsh]

So...basically what is says is...if you eat unhealthy and eat more callories than you burn it doesn't matter if you exercise or not....his conclusion is very wrong.

First of all:

Loosing weight is NOT the same as getting healthy and loosing fat.
Thats the first mistake

I have had the unfortunate situation that I have a serious series of shoulder injuries which fior several reasons have made me unable to train. I lost 2.5 kg of weight....that weight was mostly muscle mass.

So that goes to show: loosing weight does not mean loosing fat nor does it mean becomming healthy.


Second mistake:

Fat is created by surplus calories. It really doesn't matter that much which creates the surplus...healthy food or unhealthy food...a surplus will always create fat storage. It is however easier to create a surplus when eating snacks and junk food than it is by eating healthy food.


Third mistake:

Cutting your eating amount and habits will make you loose fat only if you create a caloric deficit. Otherwise...that is useless too.


Fourth mistake:

It is in fact easier to conver protein to energy than it is to convert fat to energy for your body (except for some very gifted individuals). So your body will default convert your muscle tissue to create energy if you have a caloric deficit as well as burning fat storage. Everytime you loose weight...you are loosing muscle tissue as well.

Only if you create the necessity for the body to maintain the muscles
does it NOT burn the tissue. This means exercise.

Fifth mistake:

Training increases your metabolic rate, it creates the amount of calories burned and it stimulates your muscles to keep on existing. So it definately helps to train.



The logical fallacy the article makes is gigantic...

[Decolonize The Left]

Well this is the official dogma, the whole point of the article is to critique the dogma.

The article isn't critiquing the dogma, it's just side-stepping it. The article claims that what you eat after you exercise (i.e. junk food) negates the positive effects of exercise, which is true. But this doesn't say anything about exercise at all - only about what you eat afterward.

So in fact, the 'official dogma' of 'exercise + healthy diet = weight loss' is pretty solid and this article only furthers it. Basically the "healthy diet" part extends to your food after exercise as well. Also, the "weight loss" part really has to do with excess fat, not total weight. The more you exercise, especially anaerobic exercise, the more muscle you build and the heavier you become.

- August

[ComradeOm]

AugustWest beat me to it. Any relevant expert worth their salt will tell you that the key to losing (or gaining!) weight is a combination of exercise plus a balanced diet. Its the latter that is largely missing from the article's analysis. Obviously you're not going to lose weight if you go for muffins after the gym; that should be blindingly obvious to anyone with even a passing knowledge of nutrition or even biology. Criticising the advertising of gyms or gym equipment (including claims of 'spot fat removal' and the like) is fair enough but that's not really what the article's interested in

[F9]

Exercise is great for keeping you in shape, if you want to get "thin" your eating habits is the first and most important thing you need to look!

[black magick hustla]

Exercise is not dumb. Exercise builds muscle which burns calories.

You want to lose weight? Stop eating shitty junk food and eat veggies, fruits, and lean meats. Drink tea or water, not soda or sugar loaded juices.

Get hungry after you exercise? Then eat some fruit, not a doughnut. Or better yet, go exercise and then eat one of your meals after it so you aren't tempted to go for the junk food. ;)

muscle mass burns calories but only like, 5 calories per pound so that is really inefficient. besides to build muscle you cannot diet, you have to "bulk up". trust me ive done this shit before.


the point here is that if you do like 40 mins of cardio you burn at most like 500 calories. that shit is like, a twinkie.

either that or you eat a shitton of healthy food so you still feel hungry and i hate feeling hungry and you end up basically eating up what you burnt.

[black magick hustla]

The article isn't critiquing the dogma, it's just side-stepping it. The article claims that what you eat after you exercise (i.e. junk food) negates the positive effects of exercise, which is true. But this doesn't say anything about exercise at all - only about what you eat afterward.

So in fact, the 'official dogma' of 'exercise + healthy diet = weight loss' is pretty solid and this article only furthers it. Basically the "healthy diet" part extends to your food after exercise as well. Also, the "weight loss" part really has to do with excess fat, not total weight. The more you exercise, especially anaerobic exercise, the more muscle you build and the heavier you become.

- August
this is not true. you didnt read the article. they talk about excersize, and how an intense workout makes you tired and you just like lay on your bed or something, while consistent slow outbursts of energy burn abou the same calories or more. (i dont have a car btw so i walk everywhere)

[Decolonize The Left]

this is not true. you didnt read the article. they talk about excersize, and how an intense workout makes you tired and you just like lay on your bed or something, while consistent slow outbursts of energy burn abou the same calories or more. (i dont have a car btw so i walk everywhere)

It depends on your workout.
If you are doing primarily aerobic exercise (such as walking everywhere or biking everywhere as I do), then you won't be so tired. You'll work your heart and lungs and condition your body and you won't gain very much muscle mass.
If you're doing anaerobic work-outs, the opposite is true. You will be focusing on specific muscle sets and building muscle mass. You'll be tired and sore from the work-outs and you'll be more hungry (mostly for protein and carbs). You'll also gain more weight, though most of it should be muscle if you eat right.

But none of this has to do with wanting to consume sugars and empty carbs after a workout. That's a whole other story and dependent upon the individual.

- August

[Comrade Wolfie's Very Nearly Banned Adventures]

i think i already have enough natural muscle mass to not look like a wimp so i am just gonna burn some fat and then maybe hit the gym again.

Hey let's reinforce gender sterotypes!

[Quail]

And heres how to calculate maintaining the desired weight. You take it and multiply it by 10. So if you want to maintain 150 lbs then eat 1500 calories. If you want to lose then eat less than that.
I don't think that this is true, otherwise I'd be gaining a ridiculous amount every time I ate more than half of the recommended daily allowance for women. Perhaps it works as a rough guide, but if true, I need to drastically reduce my intake.


intresting article. a lot of mexican nutriologists tell you this btw. i am trying to lose some weight now by slashing sugary/starshy/fatty shit from my diet and eating good food. i think its going fine. ive lost ton of weight before by doing this. i think i already have enough natural muscle mass to not look like a wimp so i am just gonna burn some fat and then maybe hit the gym again.
Because all men obviously have to have big muscles, otherwise they're not "real" men. :rolleyes:

[PhoenixAsh]

muscle mass burns calories but only like, 5 calories per pound so that is really inefficient. besides to build muscle you cannot diet, you have to "bulk up". trust me ive done this shit before.


the point here is that if you do like 40 mins of cardio you burn at most like 500 calories. that shit is like, a twinkie.

either that or you eat a shitton of healthy food so you still feel hungry and i hate feeling hungry and you end up basically eating up what you burnt.


You do realise that this is calorie burn in rest....right?

That means that if you do nothing or very, very light work...you will burn 6 calories per pound of muscle. If you do very light exercise it will double to 13 claories per pound. And if you go intense the effect avarages to 40-50 calories per hour.

So...doing nothing will burn you, for the average male..somewhere near 24*2*6= 288 calories per day. Thats the equal amount of 30-45 minutes cardio workout. And that is for resting alone.

Now...nobody here said you should just train and rely on increased muscle size to burn fat.

Everybody here said that loosing fat is dependen on several factors....and the most important one is diet.

The problem with the OPs article is that it equates two things wrong:
1). Loosing weight = loosing fat. Thats not automatically the case.
2). Loosing weight = healthy. Thats not automatically the case either




.




Basically what you say is true.

You can bulk in two ways...one is carefully crafting and calculating so that you create a surplus which is just enough with gaining just a little extra fat.
The other is basically eating like a horse.

Second of all...you also burn your fat if you create a calorie deficit and exercise and still maintain your weight. THis will avarage out your caloric need. If you manage your micronutrients like a "food gestapo" you can gain lean muscle mass for a short period of time (2-3 months) while loosing fat. I know...I have done this on a diet of basically protein and fat with a 1000 calorie deficit a day. THis was due to medical reasons so I do NOT recommend it. But I gained somwhere around 4,5 kilo's of muscle mass, avaraged out my weight and reduces fat%. Offcourse this is not a healthy option.

Now...500 calories per day training 7 days a week...is losing or not gaining 1 pound in fat. That is actually a whole lot of fat. And that is only from that immediate training. And that is if you do NOTHING with your diet and keep that exactly the same.

Then we still have not accounted for the increase in metabolic rates. We have not accounted for the fact that hightened caloric burn lasts several hours after training.

So...if you start attending to your diet. And you create a 500 calorie deficit. And you combine that with the above exercise regime....you are burning 7000 calories extra each week....which accumultaes to 1 kg of fat lost or not gained.

Naturally...this is theoretical and it often does not work that way exactly because it also depends on several other factors. But it is possible if you are strict, manage your diet and train.

[PhoenixAsh]

I don't think that this is true, otherwise I'd be gaining a ridiculous amount every time I ate more than half of the recommended daily allowance for women. Perhaps it works as a rough guide, but if true, I need to drastically reduce my intake.


Because all men obviously have to have big muscles, otherwise they're not "real" men. :rolleyes:

basically roughly 3500 calories is 1 pound of fat/weight

If you want to loose 15 kg you need to cut 105000 calories. Creating a deficit of up to 500 per day is safe and sustainable for two and at the very max IMO three months. You can increase the deficit by cardio or weight training to exceed that range.

[Quail]

basically roughly 3500 calories is 1 pound of fat/weight

If you want to loose 15 kg you need to cut 105000 calories. Creating a deficit of up to 500 per day is safe and sustainable for two and at the very max IMO three months. You can increase the deficit by cardio or weight training to exceed that range.
I'm not disputing that a pound of weight loss comes from a deficit of 3500 calories. However, if what cotr claims is true, to get the deficit I'd be eating 500-600 calories in a day, which is very unhealthy. Having to eat below 1200 calories a day just to maintain definitely doesn't sound right. I'm not even that small.

[black magick hustla]

Hey let's reinforce gender sterotypes!
i agree it was a bad way of phrasing it! hahaha its just that when i was a kid my mom told me to workout because i had skinny arms. my point is that i have enough muscle mass that i am aesthetically pleasing to myself.

[Agnapostate]

Exercise, in conjunction with diet, will improve physical condition. But plenty of activities that aren't regarded as conventionally healthy will make you lose weight, and eventually be thin. Jockeys who induce bulimic vomiting can regurgitate significant poundage. A day of wind sprinting (anaerobic exercise) in ninety-degree heat wearing sweats without food and water will definitely shed a few pounds.

In terms of "unhealthy" activities that could produce long-term weight loss, the caffeine and chlorogenic acid present in coffee will impede fat absorption and storage:

The Effect of Chlorogenic Acid Enriched Coffee on Glucose Absorption in Healthy Volunteers and Its Effect on Body Mass When Used Long-term in Overweight and Obese People (http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/field/jimr/2007/00000035/00000006/art00020)


The results from a clinical study performed in 12 healthy volunteers with different coffee products containing glucose show that instant coffee enriched with chlorogenic acid induced a reduction in the absorption of glucose of 6.9% compared with the control. No such effects were seen with normal or decaffeinated instant coffee. In a second, comparative, randomized, double-blind, 12-week study we investigated the effect on the body mass of 30 overweight people, compared with normal instant coffee. The average losses in mass in the chlorogenic acid enriched and normal instant coffee groups were 5.4 and 1.7 kg, respectively. We conclude that chlorogenic acid enriched instant coffee appears to have a significant effect on the absorption and utilization of glucose from the diet. This effect, if the coffee is used for an extended time, may result in reduced body mass and body fat when compared with the use of normal instant coffee.

Inhibitory effect of green coffee bean extract on fat accumulation and body weight gain in mice (http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6882/6/9/COMMENTS%20/COMMENTS/COMMENTS/ABSTRACT/abstract/)


Background

An epidemiological study conducted in Italy indicated that coffee has the greatest antioxidant capacity among the commonly consumed beverages. Green coffee bean is rich in chlorogenic acid and its related compounds. The effect of green coffee bean extract (GCBE) on fat accumulation and body weight in mice was assessed with the objective of investigating the effect of GCBE on mild obesity.

Methods

Male ddy mice were fed a standard diet containing GCBE and its principal constituents, namely, caffeine and chlorogenic acid, for 14 days. Further, hepatic triglyceride (TG) level was also investigated after consecutive administration (13 days) of GCBE and its constituents. To examine the effect of GCBE and its constituents on fat absorption, serum TG changes were evaluated in olive oil-loaded mice. In addition, to investigate the effect on hepatic TG metabolism, carnitine palmitoyltransferase (CPT) activity in mice was evaluated after consecutive ingestion (6 days) of GCBE and its constituents (caffeine, chlorogenic acid, neochlorogenic acid and feruloylquinic acid mixture).

Results

It was found that 0.5% and 1% GCBE reduced visceral fat content and body weight. Caffeine and chlorogenic acid showed a tendency to reduce visceral fat and body weight. Oral administration of GCBE (100 and 200 mg/kg· day) for 13 days showed a tendency to reduce hepatic TG in mice. In the same model, chlorogenic acid (60 mg/kg· day) reduced hepatic TG level. In mice loaded with olive oil (5 mL/kg), GCBE (200 and 400 mg/kg) and caffeine (20 and 40 mg/kg) reduced serum TG level. GCBE (1%), neochlorogenic acid (0.028% and 0.055%) and feruloylquinic acid mixture (0.081%) significantly enhanced hepatic CPT activity in mice. However, neither caffeine nor chlorogenic acid alone was found to enhance CPT activity.

Conclusion

These results suggest that GCBE is possibly effective against weight gain and fat accumulation by inhibition of fat absorption and activation of fat metabolism in the liver. Caffeine was found to be a suppressor of fat absorption, while chlorogenic acid was found to be partially involved in the suppressive effect of GCBE that resulted in the reduction of hepatic TG level. Phenolic compounds such as neochlorogenic acid and feruloylquinic acid mixture, except chlorogenic acid, can enhance hepatic CPT activity.

If caffeine isn't enough, make sure to add some nicotine, a known appetite suppressant.

Nicotine's effect on hypothalamic neurotransmitters and appetite regulation (http://www.surgjournal.com/article/S0039-6060(99)70163-7/abstract)


Background: Tobacco smoking reduces appetite and body weight. Cessation of smoking leads to hyperphagia and weight gain. Food intake is a function of meal number (MN) and meal size (MZ) (ie, Food intake = MN × MZ). The effect of nicotine on these feeding components and their relationships to dopamine and serotonin in the lateral hypothalamic area (LHA) were determined. Methods: In Fischer-344 rats the effect of 7 days of systemic nicotine infusion on the feeding patterns was measured by rat eater meter and changes in serotonin (5HT) and dopamine (DA) in the LHA were measured by in vivo microdialysis. Results: Nicotine infusion caused hypophagia through a significant decrease in MN with a smaller decrease in MZ, resulting in a body weight reduction. 5HT and DA concomitantly increased in LHA. Stopping nicotine resulted in hyperphagia by a significant increase in MZ. Body weight normalized. 5HT and DA in LHA decreased after nicotine was stopped. Conclusion: Nicotine's hypophagic effect was associated with increased 5HT and DA in LHA, whereas hyperphagia after nicotine cessation was accompanied by decreased concentrations of the neurotransmitters. These findings suggest that nicotine affects appetite regulation, in part by modulation of LHA-DA and 5HT. (Surgery 1999;126:255-63.)

There is evidence of a synergistic effect:

The appetite-suppressant effect of nicotine is enhanced by caffeine (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1463-1326.2004.00389.x/full)


Aim:  To test whether the anorectic effect of nicotine may be amplified by caffeine.

Methods:  Chewing gums with nicotine and caffeine were administered to 12 healthy young men of normal weight. Different combinations of 0, 1 or 2 mg of nicotine and 0, 50 or 100 mg of caffeine were applied during a 2-h period in a randomized, double blind, cross over design. Appetite sensations were measured using visual analogue scales.

Results:  Hunger and prospective food consumption were negatively associated with the increasing doses of nicotine, whereas satiety and fullness were positively associated with the increasing doses of nicotine (p < 0.05). Caffeine appeared to amplify the effects of nicotine on hunger and fullness as a caffeine × nicotine × time interaction was observed in these scores (p < 0.05). The 2-mg dose of nicotine in combination with the 100-mg dose of caffeine caused nausea in four of the non-smokers. However, the effects of nicotine and the caffeine × nicotine × time interaction persisted after the exclusion of these subjects.

Conclusion:  Caffeine added to nicotine chewing gum appears to amplify its attenuating effects on appetite and the combinations of 1-mg of nicotine with caffeine seem to be well tolerated.

Just saying...

[Quail]

Exercise, in conjunction with diet, will improve physical condition. But plenty of activities that aren't regarded as conventionally healthy will make you lose weight, and eventually be thin. Jockeys who induce bulimic vomiting can regurgitate significant poundage. A day of wind sprinting (anaerobic exercise) in ninety-degree heat wearing sweats without food and water will definitely shed a few pounds.

Most of that weight loss will be water-weight. Apparently vomiting only gets rid of ~50% of the calories. Just in case anyone wanted to know.

[PhoenixAsh]

I'm not disputing that a pound of weight loss comes from a deficit of 3500 calories. However, if what cotr claims is true, to get the deficit I'd be eating 500-600 calories in a day, which is very unhealthy. Having to eat below 1200 calories a day just to maintain definitely doesn't sound right. I'm not even that small.

You need to calculate your base metabolic rate. Anything up to 500 calories deficit is safely maintainable for a longer period of time. you can go up to 750 deficit for shorter periods.

So yes...500-600 calories is a stravation diet. Not very healthy.

[F9]

Also, any exercise <30 minutes (based on professionals words) are not benefit at all to you loosing any weight, any exercise exceeding that limit will do cause the first 30 minutes your body just burns energy stored and after those 30 minutes fat starts to get burned. But in any way as i said, if you look forward to change your body aka reduce your weight firstly check your eating habits.After you achieve your desired weight eating more "freely" with exercise the same time will help you on retaining your shape.

[ChrisK]

Well this is the official dogma, the whole point of the article is to critique the dogma.

Right. You sound like the person who latches on to anything for an excuse to be lazy. Not saying you actually are that person, but that is their argument.

Anyway, what they're saying is that you will reward yourself for working out. That is sloppy thinking on the person working out, not on the scientist saying that burning calories is good for losing weight.

[ChrisK]

muscle mass burns calories but only like, 5 calories per pound so that is really inefficient. besides to build muscle you cannot diet, you have to "bulk up". trust me ive done this shit before.


the point here is that if you do like 40 mins of cardio you burn at most like 500 calories. that shit is like, a twinkie.

either that or you eat a shitton of healthy food so you still feel hungry and i hate feeling hungry and you end up basically eating up what you burnt.

You forget post-workout burn. If you get your heart rate up to 80-90% you continue to burn calories faster than before for up to six hours.

Also, if you are only burning 500 calories in forty minutes you aren't working that hard. In forty-five minutes of hard cardio you can burn up to 800.

[S.Artesian]

That has a serious flaw. When losing weight you need to diet and exercise, not one or the other.

And actually, you need to exercise and eat properly even if you are thin. Mental and physical benefits are not limited to weight control.

[S.Artesian]

Right. You sound like the person who latches on to anything for an excuse to be lazy. Not saying you actually are that person, but that is their argument.

Anyway, what they're saying is that you will reward yourself for working out. That is sloppy thinking on the person working out, not on the scientist saying that burning calories is good for losing weight.


Yeah, but at the same time, being lazy is a great human trait. Makes us think of ways to reduce work.

I think this is one of those areas where truly being ambivalent is healthy.

[ChrisK]

Yeah, but at the same time, being lazy is a great human trait. Makes us think of ways to reduce work.

I think this is one of those areas where truly being ambivalent is healthy.

Certainly laziness is good. But when laziness gets to the point of a person being 400 pounds and likely to die soon, then it is excessive. Personally, my laziness comes out best at work when I pretend to work in the office and post here while I get paid.

[Niccolò Rossi]

Yeah, it's my favourite time of the week again!

Ok, lots of stuff to respond to. Please stay with me. Will try not too ramble too much.

First of all, I must confess to only skimming the article. I have a very acute dislike for Time magazine-type journalism. None the less, still plenty to say.


but yea if you wanna lose weight excersize is dumb just be reasonably active and eat well.

First of all, let me make it clear. This is simply not true. Can you loose weight without structured excercise - yes, yes, you can. Does that make excercise 'dumb' - far from it!

Nic.

[Summerspeaker]

Criticizing gyms and the institution of fitness for profit appeals to me, but I don't see any benefit from attacking exercise in general. I definitely feel better when I'm biking 5-10 miles (or more) most days. A wealth of research shows the health advantages of regular exercise.

[Niccolò Rossi]

Exercise builds muscle which burns calories.

The first half of this statement is not quite true. Firstly it depends on the kind of excercise. Low-intensity, long duration aerobics for example will not build muscle in any meaningful way under any circumstances. On the other hand, weight training won't build muscle effectively either if the correct energy needs, protein needs, hormonal environment, etc. aren't met.


You want to lose weight? Stop eating shitty junk food and eat veggies, fruits, and lean meats. Drink tea or water, not soda or sugar loaded juices.

It is possible to loose weight eating shitty junk food, sodas and juices. It is equally possible to gain weight eating veggies, fruits and lean meats.

The reason being that your food choices (considered alone) do not affect your weight. Your net energy balance does.

Now, I'm not advising people take this as advice not to eat good, whole foods. It's about setting the facts straight. Understanding is one of the keys to succeed at any goal, weight loss and bpdy-recomposition included.

Eating good, whole foods can be very helpful when trying to loose weight. For example, fruits and vegetables are not relatively energy-dense. 100g of Broccoli has alot less calories than 100g of cake for example. This is related to satiety (the feeling of fullness). Oats which are rich in fibre and complex carbohydrates will be much more satiating than an equal sized serving of sugar syrup.

These reasons and many more make 'healthy' foods the logical choice when dieting. But we shouldn't get caught up in the myth that you have to eat 'clean' to loose weight. Again, if we are going to have guaranteed success when dieting, we need to dispell all the smoke and mirrors and understand the fact.

More coming your way soon. Off to the gym.

Nic.

[Niccolò Rossi]

That has a serious flaw. When losing weight you need to diet and exercise, not one or the other.

Not true. I can very easily loose weight without any structured excercise program.

Would it be the quickest option, probably not. Would it be healthy, probably not. Would it result in a favourable body-recomposition, probably not.

None the less. You can loose weight and not excercise. Hunger strikers are an obvious example. You simply need an enery (caloric) deficit.

Nic.

[Niccolò Rossi]

You take it and multiply it by 10. So if you want to maintain 150 lbs then eat 1500 calories.

For your average active person I would say this is too low. Jamie Hale in his book 'Knowledge and Nonsense: The Science of Nutrition and Excercise' (and excellant book I can not recommend highly enough), gives the following guidelines:

- Weight maintence = 13-17 calories/pound of bodyweight/day
- Weight loss = 8-12 calories/pound of bodyweight/day
- Weight gain = 18-22 calories/pound of bodyweight/day

Of course these are averages, factors such as age, sex, activity level, body composition and special health considerations will alter the outcome.

Nic.

[Niccolò Rossi]

Obviously you're not going to lose weight if you go for muffins after the gym; that should be blindingly obvious to anyone with even a passing knowledge of nutrition or even biology.

Not necessarily so. It is possible to loose weight and even improve your body composition while still eating muffins. In this case it is above all a question of nutrient timing. Immediately after a workout is in fact the best time to do this.

Intense, anaerobic excercise will use a relatively large proportion of fuel from muscle glycogen (the long chains of carbohydrate stored in muscle tissue). At the end of such a workout your muscle glycogen stores will have been (partially) depleted. Glycogen resynthesis is highest in the immediately post-workout period. Because of this it is highly recommended to consume a meal rich in carbohydrates (often high-GI carbs are recommended, but they are not necessary, lower-GI carbs will also do the job)* following such a workout. A muffin wouldn't be my choice (although an oat bran muffin with say blueberries or something would actually be perfect) but it may do the job. It's certanly not a make or break deal in the post-workout window.

*The exception would be an exceedingly large serve of fructose or sucrose (a dissacharide composed of one molecule of glucose and one molecule of fructose). Fructose, unlike other carbs, can not be stored as muscle glycogen. Fructose is utilised by the body to restore liver glycogen. Once liver glycogen has been fully restored, excess fructose 'spills over' and is stored as triglyceride (fat).

Nic.

[Niccolò Rossi]

they talk about excersize, and how an intense workout makes you tired and you just like lay on your bed or something, while consistent slow outbursts of energy burn abou the same calories or more. (i dont have a car btw so i walk everywhere)

I was going to reply to this in my own words, but Jamie (see previous post) does it so much better:
"Claim: The best exercise for fat loss is low intensity, long duration aerobics.

"Status: Dietary factors excluded, the proportional use of fat during exercise is related to training intensity. The lower the intensity, the greater the proportion of stored fat burned. The higher the intensity, the greater proportional use of glycogen and/or the phosphagen system. The real question should be, what type of exercise promotes chronic fat burning? The actual time spent training takes up a small portion of an entire day. Even if you trained two hours per day every day that still means you have 22 hours per day when you aren’t training. Keep in mind, any training regimen must be supported with a proper nutritional protocol that matches training objectives.
As you’re sitting there reading this, you’re burning proportionally more fat than you would be sprinting 100 meters (you’re relying primarily on the phosphagen system). Does that surprise you? It’s commonsense that sprinting 100 meters would be more beneficial than reading for net fat loss. However, the key word is net fat loss. Net fat loss depends on more than proportional fat oxidation while training. Don’t forget the total calories burned during training. Also, consider the absolute fat oxidation during training. Often, an exercise may burn a higher amount of proportional fat, but due to the low calorie expenditure when compared to a higher intensity exercise (up to 75–80 percent), the absolute amount of fat oxidation may actually be lower. Higher intensity activity also generates a more significant effect on excessive post-exercise oxygen consumption (EPOC).

"Calories burned while exercising
Most trainees overestimate the significance of caloric expenditure while training. The amount of calories burned while training is generally very low relative to total calorie consumption. During low intensity exercise, approximately 5 kcals per minute are oxidized while increasing intensity could result in burning up to 10 kcals per minute.
In general, weight training results in a caloric expenditure of about 7–9 calories per minute including rest periods. Significant gains in skeletal muscle tissue can result in higher calorie expenditure over time.

"Fat oxidation during and immediately following exercise
Fat oxidation during exercise tends to be higher in low intensity treatments, but post-exercise fat oxidation tends to be higher in high intensity treatments. Phelain’s (1997) team compared fat oxidation at three hours post-exercise of 75 percent VO2 max versus the same calories burned at 50 percent. Fat oxidation was insignificantly higher during exercise for the 50 percent group but was significantly higher for the 75 percent group three hours post-exercise. Lee’s (1999) team compared the thermogenic and lipolytic effects of exercise in college males pre-fueled with milk plus glucose on high versus low intensity training. Pre-exercise intake of the milk/glucose solution increased excess post-exercise oxygen consumption significantly more than the fasted control group in both cases. The high intensity treatment had more fat oxidation during the recovery period than the low intensity treatment.

"Fat oxidation: The 24-hour effect
Melanson’s research team (2002) carried out a study that compared an even mix of lean, healthy men and women aged 20–45 with identical caloric expenditures at a 40 percent VO2 max training intensity to a 70 percent VO2 max intensity. There was no difference in net fat oxidation between the low and high intensity groups at the 24-hour mark.
Saris and Schrauwen (2004) conducted a study on obese males using a high intensity interval protocol versus a low intensity linear one. There was no difference in fat oxidation between the high and low intensity treatments at 24 hours. In addition, the high intensity group actually maintained a lower respiratory quotient (burned higher proportion of fat) post-exercise.

"Fat oxidation: Long-term, chronic effects
Long-term tests are the most important when looking at total fat loss. A common finding with long-term testing is that when caloric expenditure is the same during training between high and low intensity exercise minimal differences are seen in fat loss. Another significant finding is that high intensity training usually results in maintenance or growth of muscle tissue. Low intensity training usually results in loss of muscle tissue.
The majority of research indicates that high intensity interval training (interval training alternates periods of short near maximal intensity activity with low to moderate intensity activity) is superior for both fat loss and lean mass gain/maintenance. Tremblay’s team (1994) did a study comparing HITT versus steady state endurance training on young adults over a 20-week period. The HITT used a progressive program working up to five, 90-second intervals near their max heart rate thee times per week. The steady state endurance group worked up to 45 minutes of exercise five times per week. Although the interval training group only worked out one hour per week compared to 3.75 hours in the steady state group and expended only half as many calories during the interval workouts, fat loss, as measured by skin folds, was nine times greater in the interval training group. In the HIIT group, biopsies showed an increase of glycolytic enzymes as well as an increase of HADH activity, a marker of fat oxidation. Researchers concluded that the metabolic adaptations in muscle in response to HIIT favor the process of fat oxidation.

"Contrary to hearsay, you don’t have to do steady state, low intensity endurance training to enhance fat loss. In reality, fat oxidation while training is only part of the picture when attempting to maximize fat loss. Post-workout, 24 hours, and chronic fat oxidation must be considered. One final thing to look at is the physiques of 100-meter sprinters. Generally, they perform minimal to no low intensity aerobic activity. They also burn a minimal proportion of fat while training. Think about it." - Jamie Hale, "Knowledge and Nonsense: The Science and Excercise"
Nic.

[Niccolò Rossi]

Also, any exercise <30 minutes (based on professionals words) are not benefit at all to you loosing any weight, any exercise exceeding that limit will do cause the first 30 minutes your body just burns energy stored and after those 30 minutes fat starts to get burned. But in any way as i said, if you look forward to change your body aka reduce your weight firstly check your eating habits.After you achieve your desired weight eating more "freely" with exercise the same time will help you on retaining your shape.

See my post imeediately above.

Nic.

[Niccolò Rossi]

The fastest way to make a name for yourself in the health and fitness industry is to make seemingly impossible or outrageous claims. Meat causes cancer, carbs make you fat, static stretching will make you fucking explode, etc. etc. 'Excercise won't make you thin' (although the claim itself isn't un-true...) is really no different.

Nic.

[S.Artesian]

Very, very complicated. Very, very informative. Think I'm sticking with my 1 hour/day of karate- broken up between high heart rate activities and lower heart rate "stretching" in the katas.

[Technocrat]

That has a serious flaw. When losing weight you need to diet and exercise, not one or the other.

Correct.

The best way to avoid gorging on sugary, starchy foods is to eat small meals throughout the day that are high in protein. The craving for sugary foods is triggered when the body feels like it is starving - this is because sugar is absorbed rapidly (the body wants something that is absorbed rapidly when it feels like it is starving). So the key then is to eat just enough throughout the day so that you don't feel like you're starving and the sugar cravings aren't triggered.

I've seen good results by eating a diet with sufficient protein, low in refined starches and sugars, combined with a moderate amount of weekly exercise - pushups, pullups, situps, and jogging 3x week. This morning I was in the checkout line in the grocery store when this cute girl behind me poked my arm and asked me if I worked out. She then said I was sexy. Not trying to brag, it was just pretty cool :D.

[B0LSHEVIK]

You dont literally HAVE TO exercise to lose weight. So long as your running a calorie deficiency you should ultimately lose weight.

Also the word is weight is tricky. Do you want to lose 'good' weight like muscle mass, bone structure, etc? Or, do you want to burn off body fat? They're not the same thing. So, ask yourself this question before you hop on another fad-diet scheme.