The argument isn't "What uninformed people believe is true" - if that was the case, then Obama was born in Kenya and Jesus Christ walked on water.

However we're trying to discuss what makes sense.

If you eat a 2000 calorie diet, or around that, and do some cardio exercises and stuff, you'll probably lose weight. That might not be the healthiest way to approach it if you're starting from a 6000 calorie, no exercise diet, or 4000, etc.

What I was trying to say in my post is that, if you go to any decent treadmill you can run for an hour and see how many calories you burn. I guarantee it will be between 50-200 ish, depending on the vigor.

If you do that for TWO HOURS a day, which is a lot, you burn 100-400 calories.

IF you're overweight it likely means you're eating way above the typical amount, such as 3500-5000 calories a day. Will 100-400 reduced calories from that really help you? I don't think so.

You need to address your diet FIRST... your volume intake needs to go down.

My problem with calories in vs calories out is that calories aren't the same and that calories out can't be accurately measured anyway.

I really think people should just exercise more, regardless of exercise type and everything will be okay.

zachandhobbes Wrote:The argument isn't "What uninformed people believe is true" - if that was the case, then Obama was born in Kenya and Jesus Christ walked on water.

However we're trying to discuss what makes sense.

And your expert opinion is based off...the digital readout on a treadmill?

As Ryuujin already pointed out, the caloric benefit of exercise is more than the number displayed on your exercise equipment. The body consumes calories when recovering from a strenuous workout, and an increase in muscle mass increases the rate of calorie consumption even when at rest.

As KMDES pointed out, dieting without exercise is unhealthy. It requires an even larger reduction in calorie intake and furthermore, increases the likelihood of rebound. There are countless variables in effect in human physiology, a major one in weight loss being the rate of metabolism. It's not a simple equation. Starving yourself might show results in the short run, but it will also send your metabolism rate through the floor, and then you'll be in trouble.

Did you actually read any of the replies to your posts, or did you just start spewing more nonsense when you saw someone disagreed with you?

I have been reading replies to the posts. Did you not notice the moderate change in opinion I had? I originally said, exercise is not necessary. My new post said, exercise may be an important factor but diet must come first.

Maybe you should go back and try to read what I said again.

Are you disagreeing with me that, if someone is eating 3500 calories a day, it is hard to believe that running for an hour will help them drop down those love handles?

I definitely DID NOT say you should starve yourself. In fact, I even said, "it may be unhealthy..." meaning that is not a favorable option. I did say that diet needs to be focused on first, or at least in conjunction with, exercise.

By diet, I don't mean drop all the fat and carbs and drink only water and consume only veggies. Like I said, I'm talking about -volume-. Volume/calorie amount is probably the largest reason for obesity, not exercise rate. If you want proof, look at me. This year I have not been doing much exercise at all because of my studies, and I actually have not gained more than 3 pounds. I don't exercise much. I do however eat a pretty balanced diet of pastas, noodles, rice, meat, fruit, etc, and I don't eat a lot either. That is the key to how I have been able to keep my weight down. Perhaps this may have other health issues down the line so I plan to begin exercising once I graduate. But from a purely 'fat/weight' perspective, I am extremely healthy and even bordering underweight... I may need to start eating more.

That is why my suggestion to people who are over weight is to first focus on volume. Try to cut down on volume gradually, so that you aren't starving yourself which is just a waste of time - you'll gain back the pounds if you do it too rapidly, and try to spread out your diet to something more healthy on the food pyramid (or whatever it is nowadays... damn hippies). Going down from 4000 calories a day to 2000 calories a day will help you significantly in weight loss. Exercising will help burn fat but not if you are eating 10x as much as you burn

I do both and it works!

kazelee Wrote:6000 calories/day

0.o

Who eats that much?

When I was bodybuilding I would surpass that amount on a daily basis, and still maintain a healthy body weight. Then again I was also benching 180 and dead lifting 310. That stuff tends to burn a lot of calories.

zachandhobbes Wrote:Are you disagreeing with me that, if someone is eating 3500 calories a day, it is hard to believe that running for an hour will help them drop down those love handles?

If someone eats 3500 constantly and hits an equilibrium weight, then runs for an hour, yes it'll help.

Depending on the type of running and the intensity (like interval training in the article), one could actually reach a state where calories are continuously burned after the exercise is over, or even develop muscle which increases resting metabolic rate.

Quote:Volume/calorie amount is probably the largest reason for obesity, not exercise rate.

Activities nowadays are increasingly sedentary. I hardly move around in a day. At work I'm in a cubicle, I drive everywhere I go, and my hobbies are gaming and studying Japanese. This is in contrast to college where I'd spend an hour or more a day just walking to and from class.

Quote:If you want proof, look at me.

Sample size of 1 is a horrible sample size.

Quote:This year I have not been doing much exercise at all because of my studies, and I actually have not gained more than 3 pounds. I don't exercise much. I do however eat a pretty balanced diet of pastas, noodles, rice, meat, fruit, etc, and I don't eat a lot either. That is the key to how I have been able to keep my weight down. Perhaps this may have other health issues down the line so I plan to begin exercising once I graduate. But from a purely 'fat/weight' perspective, I am extremely healthy and even bordering underweight... I may need to start eating more.

Health is also genetic and depends on a number of other factors.
Also, last October / November I stopped working out. I was at 185 for a long while before I started trending upward in February and am now at 195, the reason being that my muscle degenerated and my new metabolic rate was not enough to compensate for the calories it regularly took in.

Quote:That is why my suggestion to people who are over weight is to first focus on volume.

The thing is, you're not overweight, from what it sounds like you've never been overweight, and I don't think you work with overweight people regularly so it's very difficult for people to take your advice seriously.

elhnad Wrote:In any case this is an indictment on most dieters as being mentally challenged since I'm sure most dieters don't expect the body fat regain to happen when they resume their pre-dieting lifestyles.

What the heck could they expect?? You're telling me a fat person eats less and loses weight and they have no expectation of gaining it back when they start eating lots of food again? Honestly, you can't believe this.

aargh57 Wrote:

elhnad Wrote:In any case this is an indictment on most dieters as being mentally challenged since I'm sure most dieters don't expect the body fat regain to happen when they resume their pre-dieting lifestyles.

What the heck could they expect?? You're telling me a fat person eats less and loses weight and they have no expectation of gaining it back when they start eating lots of food again? Honestly, you can't believe this.

The one guy I spoke of that was on a 'no exercise' diet does this. He diets hardcore to the point where hes only eating like salad, and then he get to eat a whole bunch for a week per month or something of whatever he wants. Needless to say, he's lost about 20 pounds in 2 years and has a massive amount of health and mental problems now like being constantly tired/weak/sore, can't concentrate, no motivation to do anything etc.

But hey, at least he doesnt have to exercise, right?

aargh57 Wrote:

elhnad Wrote:In any case this is an indictment on most dieters as being mentally challenged since I'm sure most dieters don't expect the body fat regain to happen when they resume their pre-dieting lifestyles.

What the heck could they expect?? You're telling me a fat person eats less and loses weight and they have no expectation of gaining it back when they start eating lots of food again? Honestly, you can't believe this.

As the post above shows, yes, most of this country is mentally challenged and will believe whatever the tv tells them to. These people think they've solved their problems by going on these diets.