new study on diet vs exercise
 

yahoo article, full pdf

some key claims, many of which conflict with both popular opinion and their original hypothesis:

- weight loss is general and cannot be isolated to specific areas
- calories not eaten are the same as calories burned in terms of weight loss
- exercise does not increase base metabolism rate, and might actually reduce it
- dieting alone does not result in muscle loss compared with diet and exercise

it is still concluded that diet and exercise is superior to just diet when it comes to overall health.

Re: new study on diet vs exercise
 

cool, thanks astro

Re: new study on diet vs exercise
 

3rd point is the most interesting and goes agains the general grain, the rest are common knowledge by now i'd hope.

Re: new study on diet vs exercise
 

the study is [censored] because the "exercise" they cite is low intensity cardio conditioning.

Re: new study on diet vs exercise
 

[ QUOTE ]
the study is [censored] because the "exercise" they cite is low intensity cardio conditioning.

[/ QUOTE ]

was just about to post this ... its an interesting article, but first of all sample size seems awfully small, and secondly, low intensity cardio doesnt really show much.

Re: new study on diet vs exercise
 

1,2, & 4 are common knowledge and #3 sounds just wrong in practical terms. Obviously more muscle = higher metabolism. Perhaps if all you do is endurance cardio, that would actually reduce your resting metabolism, which makes sense.

Re: new study on diet vs exercise
 

imitation,
i would hope that point 1 would be obvious by now but people still post in oot about doing crunches to reduce their gut. point 2 and point 3 are correlated, and many people believe that skipping isn't the same as burning because of BMR increase. most of those same people also make regular claims that dieting will result in muscle loss.

smileyeh,
the male exercise is a treadmill, bike, or stairmaster session for an average length of 53m +/- 11m and 569c +/- 118c burned. i would argue that is signifigant exercise for an overweight, presumably non-exercising individual. my running sessions are lighter than that and i have noticed lots of physical, muscular improvements. mostly legs, but also weird stuff like the crease between my arm and chest. my body looks better at 155 than it did at 135, and my only exercise is running and/or dance dance revolution.

cbloom,
why is it necessarily obvious that muscle = higher BMR? apparently this ravussin guy has addressed that subject in other articles, if you search that metabolism journal a bunch of his metabolic articles pop up. i don't know which specific ones deal with it, but it's generally mentioned in the yahoo article. i would be interested in seeing some conflicting, recent studies.

Re: new study on diet vs exercise
 

astro all the exercise is doing is increasing aerobic fitness and burning calories with perhaps minor muscular development. What you are personally seeing with greater definition is simply reduced body fat. If your only exercise is low intensity running then you are certainly not increasing overall muscle mass or training your anarobic pathways.

Re: new study on diet vs exercise
 

it also seems intuitive to me, although perhaps just because of repetition, that muscle should increase BMR. i think the effects are overstated though.

here's a hypothetical, i'm curious where you would roughly place things smiley:

dude A - 5'8", 150LBs, burns 2000 calories per day.
dude B - 5'8", 150LBs. he's also a former deadlift enthusiast and is 10% stronger than joe.

assuming equally sedentary lifestyles, how many calories do you think dude B burns per day?

Re: new study on diet vs exercise
 

[ QUOTE ]
it also seems intuitive to me, although perhaps just because of repetition, that muscle should increase BMR. i think the effects are overstated though.

here's a hypothetical, i'm curious where you would roughly place things smiley:

dude A - 5'8", 150LBs, burns 2000 calories per day.

dude B - 5'8", 150LBs. he's also a former deadlift enthusiast and is 10% stronger than joe.

assuming equally sedentary lifestyles, how many calories do you think dude B burns per day?

[/ QUOTE ]

10% stronger could mean different things. If he has greater muscle mass (most likely) than his bf will be lower. He will definitely burn more calories imo because of the higher caloric demands of muscle tissue. However, its possible he is stronger for genetic reasons or greater neurological development(think of a gymnast - incredibly strong but not very large) therefore he won't necessarily burn more calories in a day. If the strength numbers are significantly different though - say A has a 150lb dl and dude B has a 300lb dl then I can't seen A ever burning more calories than B. Their bf% will be significantly different.

edit: I don't know at all what number of calories B would burn. Speaking from personal experience a year ago about 2000 calories a day would probably be enough to maintain my former bodyweight (160lbs). Now I weigh 175lbs and probably burn closer to 3500calories a day on heavy workout days and maybe 3000 calories on rest days. Again these are both really rough guesses on my part.

Re: new study on diet vs exercise
 

i said deadlifts to indicate that it was because of muscle mass. you can assume they are twins.

follow-up edit: this isn't a test or anything, i'm just asking for your rough guess.

Re: new study on diet vs exercise
 

[ QUOTE ]

cbloom,
why is it necessarily obvious that muscle = higher BMR?

[/ QUOTE ]

By far the strongest correlation to BMR is your total weight. If you increase your muscle & decrease your fat you can be "fit" at a higher or equal weight, thus higher BMR. You will find this in any decent summary of BMR, search google. Basically it's much easier to be fit as a slightly heavier but muscled person than as a rail-thin person. Some people think BMR is more correlated to FFM (fat free mass) than total weight.

There's also a very significant secondary factor in that if you are stronger you will do things to burn more calories. For example, you might crunch to get from lying down to sitting, whereas if you're not strong you would get up in a way that burns less calories. Thus strong/fit people tend to be much more physically active just in every day activities.

Anyway, I never trust one study and try to draw conclusions from common sense + general scientific consensus.

Re: new study on diet vs exercise
 

[ QUOTE ]

dude A - 5'8", 150LBs, burns 2000 calories per day.
dude B - 5'8", 150LBs. he's also a former deadlift enthusiast and is 10% stronger than joe.

assuming equally sedentary lifestyles, how many calories do you think dude B burns per day?

[/ QUOTE ]

If they really act *exactly* the same dude B would maybe burn 2010 calories per day, eg. not much difference. That however is not realistic and it's been shown that very small behaviors (eg. how much do you twitch, do you sit upright or slouch, etc) affect BMR/RMR greatly.

Re: new study on diet vs exercise
 

[ QUOTE ]
i said deadlifts to indicate that it was because of muscle mass. you can assume they are twins.

follow-up edit: this isn't a test or anything, i'm just asking for your rough guess.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, well 10% is really nothing so say 50% I would guess a couple hundred extra calories a day. This is well outside my knowledge but I think that you can give a rough correllation of calories burned/day/lb of muscle. 50% stronger is probably someting like 5-10lbs more muscle...so 20 calories/lb...maybe 100-200 calories more.

Re: new study on diet vs exercise
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

dude A - 5'8", 150LBs, burns 2000 calories per day.
dude B - 5'8", 150LBs. he's also a former deadlift enthusiast and is 10% stronger than joe.

assuming equally sedentary lifestyles, how many calories do you think dude B burns per day?

[/ QUOTE ]

If they really act *exactly* the same dude B would maybe burn 2010 calories per day, eg. not much difference. That however is not realistic and it's been shown that very small behaviors (eg. how much do you twitch, do you sit upright or slouch, etc) affect BMR/RMR greatly.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah I think this is significant too. I am often very twitchy, feet tapping all day and have always had trouble gaining/keeping on weight.

Re: new study on diet vs exercise
 

when i said "higher BMR", i should have spelled out "signifigantly higher BMR" because that is the suggestion. i'm trying to drill down into how large of an effect people believe it has with the twins example. your response is very interesting though, i hadn't heard about the behavior angle. if you were to assume that dude B behaves as if he is 10% stronger in his everyday motions, how much more over 2010 do you think he would go?

Re: new study on diet vs exercise
 

The thing is this stuff is incredibly difficult to quantify and analyze with any sort of resolution. Realise that 100 calories is a little more than a single egg or a glass of orange juice. Actually tracking caloric input/output at that sort of resolution is practically impossible.

What I can tell you is that high intensity exercise (sprinting, lifting weights, most sports) will all do very good things for your body. Watch what you eat, if you want to maintain weight eat when you are hungry, if you want to gain eat when you're not, and if you want to lose dont eat when you want to. Thats pretty much it.

Re: new study on diet vs exercise
 

[ QUOTE ]
The thing is this stuff is incredibly difficult to quantify and analyze with any sort of resolution. Realise that 100 calories is a little more than a single egg or a glass of orange juice. Actually tracking caloric input/output at that sort of resolution is practically impossible.

[/ QUOTE ]

i would think that it could be analyzed pretty well with test mammals. they're often inbred for similarity, etc and the calorie stuff could still be scaled out for at least an attempt at an extrapolated human analog. it's gotta be tough to get normal people to commit to 6 month+ studies like this just because the control conditions and upkeep are a lot. but it's just really surprising to me in general how there are so many accepted truths, like not eating before bedtime, that are basically more associated with magazines than studies. however true or at least logical-sounding, it still blurs the line between science and hearsay.

Re: new study on diet vs exercise
 

Whoah, is this page for real? It's scary as hell -

http://www.xanga.com/weightloss_royalty

[ QUOTE ]

Hiding it

Anorexia is supposed to be a private and tortured place, dontcha know. Deny it at all costs. Pretend you have not noticed the pounds dropping off you. Don't be suspicious. Here are some relevant tips:

Spend time making yourself look healthy. Drink lots of water and apply a fake tan. Wear makeup so that you have some colour, and keep your hair looking nice and shiny, take vitamins. Smile.

Whenever you do decide to eat, do it in the company of others. That way they can't say they never see you touch food.

On your way out, heat up a slice of pizza or prepare a snack to 'eat on the run'. Of course, you will dispose of the food at your first convenience.

Leave a dirty plate lying around every so often for your parents to yell at you about.

Drink out of opaque cups, and spit your food into it whilst preteding to drink. They'll never know.

Eat really slowly because if everybody else is on their third slice of pizza, they'll assume you are too, even if you're still finishing your first.

Sign out of hotmail and clear the history before you get off of the Internet. This will eliminate Autofill being ever so helpful while your Mum is researching aardvarks, and coming up with www.anorexicsanonymous.com for her. In short, don't leave traces lying around for others to find.


[/ QUOTE ]

Re: new study on diet vs exercise
 

bit of a sidetrack:

Hey Smiley,

"What I can tell you is that high intensity exercise (sprinting, lifting weights, most sports) will all do very good things for your body. "

I know you're a big fan of crossfit, and I think I largely agree with this statement (being that I was in much better shape when I played sports and rode my bike 5 miles a day or more). But do you have any knowledge of how high intensity workouts affect your long term health? As in, are you causing any serious deterioration? I'm not saying it does or doesn't, it's just something I've thought about recently.

Re: new study on diet vs exercise
 

High intensity workouts can cause significant damage to your muscles, which does result in them building faster if you are intaking enough protein and calories. There are also studies that show that high intensity activities can cause ligament or bone damage, stress fractures, etc. (No kidding.)

It should be obvious, but the benefits of high-intensity training outweigh the negatives.

Re: new study on diet vs exercise
 

The only thing better than this retarded ass study is the retarded ass response in this thread.

[censored].

I'm like in retardo idiot land.

Re: new study on diet vs exercise
 

what you just posted doesn't in any way make it obvious that the benefits outweigh the negatives. Maybe being 10 lbs overweight for the rest of your life is better than being a ripped machine-man only for your body to fail you at the age of 45.

I'm not trying to patronize you, but I think it's an interesting debate and deserves attention. Maybe another thread.

Re: new study on diet vs exercise
 

kid are you comparing high intensity aerobics v. low intensity aerobics or aerobic activity generally v. weight training?

I'm confused and affects the answer to your question.

Re: new study on diet vs exercise
 

I'm not an exercise expert, so I'm not sure. I think I'm generally comparing high intensity work outs versus low intensity ones. Whether that's aerobic or weight training I'm not sure. Maybe someone can fill me in.

Me personally, I know I was in the best shape of my life when I played soccer in high school. I could run seemingly forever and probably was in the 4-6% body fat range. Now I know I personally liked how I felt physically then more than I do now, but let's face it: with a 10 hour work day and more responsibilities, 2 hours of soccer practice/game type intensity isn't feasible. But if it were, would my body be better off in the long term? Or would I simply break down by the time I'm 35 (or 40, or 50)?

I look at the crossfit site, and I think to myself, "wow. some people are really beating the crap out of their bodies." Some might have genetic capabilities that allow them to do that.. but I wonder if some go through that sort of brutal training and are really causing all sorts of harm that will show up down the road.

Re: new study on diet vs exercise
 

[ QUOTE ]
bit of a sidetrack:

Hey Smiley,

"What I can tell you is that high intensity exercise (sprinting, lifting weights, most sports) will all do very good things for your body. "

I know you're a big fan of crossfit, and I think I largely agree with this statement (being that I was in much better shape when I played sports and rode my bike 5 miles a day or more). But do you have any knowledge of how high intensity workouts affect your long term health? As in, are you causing any serious deterioration? I'm not saying it does or doesn't, it's just something I've thought about recently.

[/ QUOTE ]

Speaking from personal experience I have less nagging aches and pain now (especially knees and back) than I did a year ago (although I've really only been incorporating crossfit stuff for a little over 4 months), my resting heartrate is lower, and my energy level is generally higher unless I miss meals. The only long term studies I can think of is looking at athletes whose sport closely mirrors that of something like crossfit (soccer, rugby (without the head trauma obv.), olympic weightlifting to a degree, hockey and so on. I think you'll see a lot of these former athletes enjoying above average health/fitness well into middle and old age - Gordie Howe played professional hockey in 5 decades. In anycase, if high intensity training has no long term effects or perhaps minor negatives than I would still choose to live for the next 20-30 years with a much higher fitness and health levels.

Also, what I think most people don't take into account when looking at a crossfit workout which ends in half the participants dry heaving on the gym floor or worse, is that the workouts themselves rarely last longer than 30 mins. It is all about quality vs. quantity and I am almost positive that running 5 days week for an hour a day is going to be far worse for your body than crossfit which will have an average of 3 high intensity workouts, 2 strength days, and a long run/row. Most of the degenerative problems of running for example are because of repeated trauma to the knees - this just doesn't happen in a crossfit protocol because there is such a wide range of movements which for the most part are very low impact.

I read this interview the other day with greg glassman, the founder of crossfit - I think it gives a great introduction to the philosophy outside the website.

interview with founder of crossfit

Re: new study on diet vs exercise
 

[ QUOTE ]
Now I know I personally liked how I felt physically then more than I do now, but let's face it: with a 10 hour work day and more responsibilities, 2 hours of soccer practice/game type intensity isn't feasible. But if it were, would my body be better off in the long term? Or would I simply break down by the time I'm 35 (or 40, or 50)?

[/ QUOTE ]

This is really the best arguement for crossfit possible. You can design a crossfit like program that literally will never take more than 45mins a day and you can do it in your backyard or garage.

[ QUOTE ]
I look at the crossfit site, and I think to myself, "wow. some people are really beating the crap out of their bodies." Some might have genetic capabilities that allow them to do that.. but I wonder if some go through that sort of brutal training and are really causing all sorts of harm that will show up down the road.

[/ QUOTE ]

The training is really not that brutal. All the workouts ask is you go hard for the duration and anyone can do that as long as they have some determination. Ensure that you give yourself adequate rest (you will need a lot more when first starting) and warm up and cool down before and after every workout.

While I think everyone has the genetic capability to get strong, fit, and healthy there are very few people that have the genetic capability to have a poor diet, get no exercise, not enough sleep, and be 30lbs overweight - while still being healthy and fit.

Re: new study on diet vs exercise
 

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not an exercise expert, so I'm not sure. I think I'm generally comparing high intensity work outs versus low intensity ones. Whether that's aerobic or weight training I'm not sure. Maybe someone can fill me in.

Me personally, I know I was in the best shape of my life when I played soccer in high school. I could run seemingly forever and probably was in the 4-6% body fat range. Now I know I personally liked how I felt physically then more than I do now, but let's face it: with a 10 hour work day and more responsibilities, 2 hours of soccer practice/game type intensity isn't feasible. But if it were, would my body be better off in the long term? Or would I simply break down by the time I'm 35 (or 40, or 50)?

I look at the crossfit site, and I think to myself, "wow. some people are really beating the crap out of their bodies." Some might have genetic capabilities that allow them to do that.. but I wonder if some go through that sort of brutal training and are really causing all sorts of harm that will show up down the road.

[/ QUOTE ]

You can't compare attempts to have extreme fitness, no more than extreme manual labor, with conventional notions of being in shape, even in very good shape. There are different types and levels of being in good shape, and tearing your body up isn't necessary. You don't have to work out that hard or often to be in very good shape, not work that many muscle groups as hard as people going the crossfit route might do.

Whereas truly extreme physical endeavor might arguably have detrimental effects in the long-term, merely being in great shape isn't going to break you down by the time you're 35 or 50 or whatever. All exercise can hurt you, though, if you don't perform it safely and with common sense. You don't have to work very hard at all to pull a muscle or damage a joint; you only have to go beyond your own ability, however low, or lift something or move your body the wrong way.

That's the key people should be worried about. Proper, safe movement and good form. Move wrong, and you're in trouble no matter how much or how little you exercise.

I hope we don't start to see more people talking about not wanting to over-exercise to the point of being early cripples the way they sometimes talk about not wanting to get huge bodybuilder muscles -- as an excuse not to work out. Most people are nowhere near having to worry about what they're doing having those negative effects.

Re: new study on diet vs exercise
 

thanks for your insights guys.

Smiley,

I agree that running for an hour is probably worse for your body. I know a few distance runners who have bad knees at the ripe old age of 25.

Blarg,

Good point about form. I recently started seeing a physical therapist for some minor back pain, and she showed me my form was all wrong on the crunches and push-ups I do. I can already see the difference, both in their effectiveness at working the muscles, and in the decrease of aches and pains.

Re: new study on diet vs exercise
 

[ QUOTE ]
The only thing better than this retarded ass study is the retarded ass response in this thread.

[censored].

I'm like in retardo idiot land.

[/ QUOTE ]

What a helpful, relevant, and insightful response.

Re: new study on diet vs exercise
 

[ QUOTE ]
I'm like in retardo idiot land.

[/ QUOTE ]

whatever, fastfoodknight. this comment saved this thread. a bunch of clowns acting like they know what theyre talking about while responding to the dumbest exercise study ive seen in quite some time. but "retardo idiot land," thats gold, jerry. gold.

Re: new study on diet vs exercise
 

[ QUOTE ]
thanks for your insights guys.

Smiley,

I agree that running for an hour is probably worse for your body. I know a few distance runners who have bad knees at the ripe old age of 25.



[/ QUOTE ]
There is a famous Stanford study that tracked runners and non-runners. At the end of the study, 20% of the non-runners experienced knee pain and/or disability versus only 5% for the running group. The runners also had greater bone density and less mineral loss. The idea that running is bad for your knees is just a myth. Playing sports like basketball, soccer and football are much worse on the knees because of the twisting and the tearing injuries that occur. I've been running for 30 years and feel just as good as I did in high school 20 years ago.

Re: new study on diet vs exercise
 

for every pound of muscle you add to your body, you burn 30 to 50 calories extra per day. Just throwing that out ther for whomever. This thread is bad imo.

Re: new study on diet vs exercise
 

[ QUOTE ]
for every pound of muscle you add to your body, you burn 30 to 50 calories extra per day. Just throwing that out ther for whomever. This thread is bad imo.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's not true. That's the whole point of this thread. Read some medical articles. The correct number is more like 6 calroies.

Re: new study on diet vs exercise
 

cbloom,

guids is not saying swapping a lbs of fat for one of muscle. I think he was saying "adding" it. Alot of your BMR is determined by so much out of your control (general activity level etc) that to do exact calcs like this is pretty pointless.

Re: new study on diet vs exercise
 

[ QUOTE ]
for every pound of muscle you add to your body, you burn 30 to 50 calories extra per day. Just throwing that out ther for whomever. This thread is bad imo.

[/ QUOTE ]

the american council on exercise says it's more like 7-10 (net gain of 4-6 over a pound of fat).

but of course, like what you said, it doesn't cite a study either! which is my basic point, everybody quotes stuff as fact but often can't or don't provide science. it blows my mind there aren't more major studies considering how many monetarily interested parties exist. look at transfats, we've been eating them since 1900 and LOTS of them in the last 30 or so years. when the dairy industry was getting handed its head by margarine, shouldn't plan A have been to give one group of mice a diet including butter and another a diet including margarine and then note which ones drop dead first? study their hearts? maybe we could have known the truth in 1985.

Re: new study on diet vs exercise
 

astroglide,

Did you just cite something by ACE? I am not up to date. Is their public stance still that steroids do not work?

Re: new study on diet vs exercise
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
for every pound of muscle you add to your body, you burn 30 to 50 calories extra per day. Just throwing that out ther for whomever. This thread is bad imo.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's not true. That's the whole point of this thread. Read some medical articles. The correct number is more like 6 calroies.

[/ QUOTE ]


Influences on your calorie needs

If you and everyone else were physically and functionally identical, it would be easy to determine the standard energy needs. But many factors influence calorie requirements, including body size and composition, age, and sex.

* Body size and composition. To function properly, a bigger body mass requires more energy (more calories) than does a smaller body mass. Also, muscle burns more calories than fat does. So the more muscle you have in relation to fat, the higher your basal metabolic rate.
* Age. As you get older, the amount of muscle tends to decrease and fat accounts for more of your weight. Metabolism also slows naturally with age. Together these changes reduce your calorie needs.
* Sex. Men usually have less body fat and more muscle than do women of the same age and weight. This is why men generally have a higher basal metabolic rate and burn more calories than women do.




-the Mayo clinic.

Re: new study on diet vs exercise
 

thremp, you probably didn't read my post and you are definitely missing the point. ace didn't cite a study either.

but i did find one at http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/84/3/475 . it says "Every 10-kg difference in lean mass translates to a difference in energy expenditure of 100 kcal/d, assuming a constant rate of protein turnover." that is about 5 calories per pound of muscle. more discussion including citations can be found at http://www.thefactsaboutfitness.com/news/cals.htm

Re: new study on diet vs exercise
 

astroglide,

Between this post and your others, you have established expert status.

Isn't this their "Source" though?

Source: Dr. Cedric X. Bryant, ACE's Chief Science Officer; ACE FitnessMatters, Mar/Apr 2006.