The importance of exercise on weight maintenance/loss

Discussion in 'Food and nutrition' started by Pat, Sep 21, 2005.

  1. Pat

    Pat Guest

    I recently went on a cycling trip. It went like this: first three days,
    cycled; fourth day, walked around a town; next day cycled; 6th day took a
    bus tour; 7th day cycled; 8th day walked around town; 9th day caught a bus
    to the airport. During that time, I couldn't eat low carb at all. My diet
    was typically 2 glasses of milk, 3 eggs, 4 pieces of toast with butter and
    jelly, and some Laughing Cow cheese spread for breakfast each day. For
    lunch, it was all over the place with chicken sandwich on a bun and French
    fries one day, "fish and chips", to seafood chowder the next day, to turkey
    and dressing with mashed potatoes another day and ham/cheese/tomato sandwich
    with French fries another day. Every day, I had half a loaf of multigrain
    soda bread--basically, all I wanted of the bread. At night, I had
    hamburgers, spam, spaghetti, baked beans, pork sausages....pretty much
    anything at hand that was filling. Oh, and I drank some Guinness draft, too.

    the result? I lost 2 pounds!

    It doesn't seem to make sense, but the one thing that was constant was the
    exercise. I wish I could eat like this everyday, but the level of exercise
    is too high and I don't have a job like George Bush where I can exercise for
    2 hours every day. But, it was fun while it lasted!

    Pat in TX
     
    Tags:


  2. jbuch

    jbuch Guest

    Pat wrote:
    > I recently went on a cycling trip. It went like this: first three days,
    > cycled; fourth day, walked around a town; next day cycled; 6th day took a
    > bus tour; 7th day cycled; 8th day walked around town; 9th day caught a bus
    > to the airport. During that time, I couldn't eat low carb at all. My diet
    > was typically 2 glasses of milk, 3 eggs, 4 pieces of toast with butter and
    > jelly, and some Laughing Cow cheese spread for breakfast each day. For
    > lunch, it was all over the place with chicken sandwich on a bun and French
    > fries one day, "fish and chips", to seafood chowder the next day, to turkey
    > and dressing with mashed potatoes another day and ham/cheese/tomato sandwich
    > with French fries another day. Every day, I had half a loaf of multigrain
    > soda bread--basically, all I wanted of the bread. At night, I had
    > hamburgers, spam, spaghetti, baked beans, pork sausages....pretty much
    > anything at hand that was filling. Oh, and I drank some Guinness draft, too.
    >
    > the result? I lost 2 pounds!
    >
    > It doesn't seem to make sense, but the one thing that was constant was the
    > exercise. I wish I could eat like this everyday, but the level of exercise
    > is too high and I don't have a job like George Bush where I can exercise for
    > 2 hours every day. But, it was fun while it lasted!
    >
    > Pat in TX
    >
    >


    On my five day bike/camping trips, I generally don't lose much weight,
    but I do eat more than when at home.

    I also eat more carbohydrate containing foods for energy. Probably more
    than is good for me.

    But the trips are fun.... and the purpose of the trip is to have fun.

    The ultimate purpose of low carb eating is to have a life that is more
    fun because one is more fit and feels better. And yes, the loss of
    weight is of importance as well.

    Jim


    --
    1) Eat Till SATISFIED, Not STUFFED... Atkins repeated 9 times in the book
    2) Exercise: It's Non-Negotiable..... Chapter 22 title, Atkins book
    3) Don't Diet Without Supplimental Nutrients... Chapter 23 title, Atkins
    book
    4) A sensible eating plan, and follow it. (Atkins, Self Made or Other)
     
  3. Pat wrote:
    > I recently went on a cycling trip. It went like this: first three days,
    > cycled; fourth day, walked around a town; next day cycled; 6th day took a
    > bus tour; 7th day cycled; 8th day walked around town; 9th day caught a bus
    > to the airport. During that time, I couldn't eat low carb at all. My diet
    > was typically 2 glasses of milk, 3 eggs, 4 pieces of toast with butter and
    > jelly, and some Laughing Cow cheese spread for breakfast each day. For
    > lunch, it was all over the place with chicken sandwich on a bun and French
    > fries one day, "fish and chips", to seafood chowder the next day, to turkey
    > and dressing with mashed potatoes another day and ham/cheese/tomato sandwich
    > with French fries another day. Every day, I had half a loaf of multigrain
    > soda bread--basically, all I wanted of the bread. At night, I had
    > hamburgers, spam, spaghetti, baked beans, pork sausages....pretty much
    > anything at hand that was filling. Oh, and I drank some Guinness draft, too.
    >
    > the result? I lost 2 pounds!
    >
    > It doesn't seem to make sense, but the one thing that was constant was the
    > exercise. I wish I could eat like this everyday, but the level of exercise
    > is too high and I don't have a job like George Bush where I can exercise for
    > 2 hours every day. But, it was fun while it lasted!
    >
    > Pat in TX


    About 5 years ago I stopped eating refined carbs. Did not change my
    level of exercise one bit. The result? I lost 20 lbs in four months and
    kept it off.

    Exercise isn't the panacea that they try to tell us it is.

    TC
     
  4. GaryG

    GaryG Guest

    <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    >
    > Pat wrote:
    > > I recently went on a cycling trip. It went like this: first three days,
    > > cycled; fourth day, walked around a town; next day cycled; 6th day took

    a
    > > bus tour; 7th day cycled; 8th day walked around town; 9th day caught a

    bus
    > > to the airport. During that time, I couldn't eat low carb at all. My

    diet
    > > was typically 2 glasses of milk, 3 eggs, 4 pieces of toast with butter

    and
    > > jelly, and some Laughing Cow cheese spread for breakfast each day. For
    > > lunch, it was all over the place with chicken sandwich on a bun and

    French
    > > fries one day, "fish and chips", to seafood chowder the next day, to

    turkey
    > > and dressing with mashed potatoes another day and ham/cheese/tomato

    sandwich
    > > with French fries another day. Every day, I had half a loaf of

    multigrain
    > > soda bread--basically, all I wanted of the bread. At night, I had
    > > hamburgers, spam, spaghetti, baked beans, pork sausages....pretty much
    > > anything at hand that was filling. Oh, and I drank some Guinness draft,

    too.
    > >
    > > the result? I lost 2 pounds!
    > >
    > > It doesn't seem to make sense, but the one thing that was constant was

    the
    > > exercise. I wish I could eat like this everyday, but the level of

    exercise
    > > is too high and I don't have a job like George Bush where I can exercise

    for
    > > 2 hours every day. But, it was fun while it lasted!
    > >
    > > Pat in TX

    >
    > About 5 years ago I stopped eating refined carbs. Did not change my
    > level of exercise one bit. The result? I lost 20 lbs in four months and
    > kept it off.
    >
    > Exercise isn't the panacea that they try to tell us it is.
    >
    > TC


    There are only two sides to the weight loss equation...Calories In, and
    Calories Out. It sounds like when you gave up eating refined carbs, you
    reduced the Calories In side of the equation, leading to your weight loss.

    Clearly, controlling Calories In is critical to weight loss success...it's
    far too easy to subvert a good exercise program by overeating. However,
    most studies of successful losers show that incorporating regular exercise
    into your life is a key behavior for long term success.

    While exercise isn't a "panacea", the fact that you didn't change your level
    of exercise "one bit" is instructive...if you had lowered your exercise at
    the same time you gave up refined carbs, it's very likely you would not have
    lost those 20 lbs.

    GG
    http://www.WeightWare.com
    Computer-Assisted Weight Management
     
  5. Pat

    Pat Guest

    : > About 5 years ago I stopped eating refined carbs. Did not change my
    : > level of exercise one bit. The result? I lost 20 lbs in four months and
    : > kept it off.
    : >
    : > Exercise isn't the panacea that they try to tell us it is.
    : >
    : > TC
    :
    :
    : Clearly, controlling Calories In is critical to weight loss success...it's
    : far too easy to subvert a good exercise program by overeating. However,
    : most studies of successful losers show that incorporating regular exercise
    : into your life is a key behavior for long term success.
    :
    : While exercise isn't a "panacea", the fact that you didn't change your
    level
    : of exercise "one bit" is instructive...if you had lowered your exercise at
    : the same time you gave up refined carbs, it's very likely you would not
    have
    : lost those 20 lbs.
    :
    : GG

    I think it is or should be obvious to everybody that our bodies need to be
    fit. And, that takes exercise in some form. Exercise isn't a "panacea", it's
    a necessity! Sure, you can be thin and not be able to climb a flight of
    stairs--but that isn't healthy, either! If he thinks exercise is not
    necessary, he should look at people confined to wheelchairs for a long time.
    Their bodies suffer from the inactivity.

    Pat in TX
     
  6. Pat wrote:
    > I think it is or should be obvious to everybody that our bodies need to be
    > fit. And, that takes exercise in some form. Exercise isn't a "panacea", it's
    > a necessity! Sure, you can be thin and not be able to climb a flight of
    > stairs--but that isn't healthy, either! If he thinks exercise is not
    > necessary, he should look at people confined to wheelchairs for a long time.
    > Their bodies suffer from the inactivity.


    A necessity? You're kidding, right?

    If it's really calories, then it's just a T-account, with calories
    debited (eaten) on the left and calories credited (used) on the right.
    You can balance your account by fixing the left hand or the right hand
    or both.

    That said, I think activity is better for you than inactivity. But you
    can lose weight sitting around, breathing, eating, circulating the
    blood, etc. I wouldn't want to lose it like that, but it can be done.

    Last note: See "Murderball". You will probably never use the phrase
    "confined to a wheelchair" again. I should be so fit as those guys.

    -Hollywood
     
  7. Bill DeWitt

    Bill DeWitt Guest

    GaryG mentioned in passing :
    >
    >
    > There are only two sides to the weight loss equation...Calories In,
    > and Calories Out.


    This is a very common but deceptive cliché.

    While it is true that weight loss will normally occur when less calories
    are assimilated than are burned, there is no way to accurately count
    calories in and calories out. Metabolism, digestion and the human mind/body
    are more complex than a simplistic arithmetic equation.

    When I eat 2000 calories I may only assimilate 1900 and then my body
    temperature may be higher than yours so I burn more with less exercise.
    Another person may have greater muscle mass or a thyroid problem, etc.

    That said, I was under the impression that Low Carb diets are more about
    managing cravings than calorie counting. Since you seem to follow a calorie
    counting philosophy, you may not find this group remarkably receptive.

    Good luck.
     
  8. GaryG wrote:
    > <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]
    > >
    > > Pat wrote:
    > > > I recently went on a cycling trip. It went like this: first three days,
    > > > cycled; fourth day, walked around a town; next day cycled; 6th day took

    > a
    > > > bus tour; 7th day cycled; 8th day walked around town; 9th day caught a

    > bus
    > > > to the airport. During that time, I couldn't eat low carb at all. My

    > diet
    > > > was typically 2 glasses of milk, 3 eggs, 4 pieces of toast with butter

    > and
    > > > jelly, and some Laughing Cow cheese spread for breakfast each day. For
    > > > lunch, it was all over the place with chicken sandwich on a bun and

    > French
    > > > fries one day, "fish and chips", to seafood chowder the next day, to

    > turkey
    > > > and dressing with mashed potatoes another day and ham/cheese/tomato

    > sandwich
    > > > with French fries another day. Every day, I had half a loaf of

    > multigrain
    > > > soda bread--basically, all I wanted of the bread. At night, I had
    > > > hamburgers, spam, spaghetti, baked beans, pork sausages....pretty much
    > > > anything at hand that was filling. Oh, and I drank some Guinness draft,

    > too.
    > > >
    > > > the result? I lost 2 pounds!
    > > >
    > > > It doesn't seem to make sense, but the one thing that was constant was

    > the
    > > > exercise. I wish I could eat like this everyday, but the level of

    > exercise
    > > > is too high and I don't have a job like George Bush where I can exercise

    > for
    > > > 2 hours every day. But, it was fun while it lasted!
    > > >
    > > > Pat in TX

    > >
    > > About 5 years ago I stopped eating refined carbs. Did not change my
    > > level of exercise one bit. The result? I lost 20 lbs in four months and
    > > kept it off.
    > >
    > > Exercise isn't the panacea that they try to tell us it is.
    > >
    > > TC

    >



    > There are only two sides to the weight loss equation...Calories In, and
    > Calories Out.


    If it was that simple, 98% of those who counted calories would easily
    lose the weight they wanted to. The bell curve, eh?

    Studies have shown up to a 95% or more failure rate for those on
    low-fat/low-cal diets.

    Also, a couple of studies showed clearly that low-carbers can consume
    up to 300 calories more than low-calorie-dieters and still lose as much
    weight or more.

    Too many inconsistencies.

    TC
     
  9. Roger Zoul

    Roger Zoul Guest

    [email protected] wrote:
    :: GaryG wrote:
    ::: <[email protected]> wrote in message
    ::: news:[email protected]
    ::::
    :::: Pat wrote:
    ::::: I recently went on a cycling trip. It went like this: first
    ::::: three days, cycled; fourth day, walked around a town; next day
    ::::: cycled; 6th day took a bus tour; 7th day cycled; 8th day walked
    ::::: around town; 9th day caught a bus to the airport. During that
    ::::: time, I couldn't eat low carb at all. My diet was typically 2
    ::::: glasses of milk, 3 eggs, 4 pieces of toast with butter and jelly,
    ::::: and some Laughing Cow cheese spread for breakfast each day. For
    ::::: lunch, it was all over the place with chicken sandwich on a bun
    ::::: and French fries one day, "fish and chips", to seafood chowder
    ::::: the next day, to turkey and dressing with mashed potatoes another
    ::::: day and ham/cheese/tomato sandwich with French fries another day.
    ::::: Every day, I had half a loaf of multigrain soda bread--basically,
    ::::: all I wanted of the bread. At night, I had hamburgers, spam,
    ::::: spaghetti, baked beans, pork sausages....pretty much anything at
    ::::: hand that was filling. Oh, and I drank some Guinness draft, too.
    :::::
    ::::: the result? I lost 2 pounds!
    :::::
    ::::: It doesn't seem to make sense, but the one thing that was
    ::::: constant was the exercise. I wish I could eat like this everyday,
    ::::: but the level of exercise is too high and I don't have a job like
    ::::: George Bush where I can exercise for 2 hours every day. But, it
    ::::: was fun while it lasted!
    :::::
    ::::: Pat in TX
    ::::
    :::: About 5 years ago I stopped eating refined carbs. Did not change my
    :::: level of exercise one bit. The result? I lost 20 lbs in four
    :::: months and kept it off.
    ::::
    :::: Exercise isn't the panacea that they try to tell us it is.
    ::::
    :::: TC
    :::
    ::
    ::
    ::: There are only two sides to the weight loss equation...Calories In,
    ::: and Calories Out.
    ::
    :: If it was that simple, 98% of those who counted calories would easily
    :: lose the weight they wanted to. The bell curve, eh?

    Where's the data that says that's true?

    ::
    :: Studies have shown up to a 95% or more failure rate for those on
    :: low-fat/low-cal diets.

    A low-fat/low-cal diet doesn't mean that folks always counted calories. The
    failure rates supports non-compliance as much as anything else.

    ::
    :: Also, a couple of studies showed clearly that low-carbers can consume
    :: up to 300 calories more than low-calorie-dieters and still lose as
    :: much weight or more.

    You surely don't believe that, do you, given that 98% of those who count
    calories don't lose....

    ::
    :: Too many inconsistencies.
    ::

    Surely.
     
  10. Roger Zoul

    Roger Zoul Guest

    Bill DeWitt wrote:
    :: GaryG mentioned in passing :
    :::
    :::
    ::: There are only two sides to the weight loss equation...Calories In,
    ::: and Calories Out.
    ::
    :: This is a very common but deceptive cliché.
    ::
    :: While it is true that weight loss will normally occur when less
    :: calories are assimilated than are burned, there is no way to
    :: accurately count calories in and calories out.

    That's where you just got into trouble. You don't need to accurately count
    calories in and out to lose weight. You just need to maintain a deficit. A
    deficit could be negative (overeating), zero (eating at maintenance), and
    positive (undereating). If you only undereat by 1 calories per day, it will
    take years to lose a pound. However, if you maintain a larger deficit, you
    will lose weight quicker, and much quicker the larger the deficit.

    So, the implication here is that your deficit doesn't need to be super
    accurate, it just needs to exist and be large enough that the person
    maintaining it over time isn't unhappy. Hence, calorie counting (or
    miscounting, however, you like it) can indeed work.

    Metabolism, digestion
    :: and the human mind/body are more complex than a simplistic
    :: arithmetic equation.

    Not really. It just a matter of having the right stuff to plug in.

    ::
    :: When I eat 2000 calories I may only assimilate 1900 and then my
    :: body temperature may be higher than yours so I burn more with less
    :: exercise. Another person may have greater muscle mass or a thyroid
    :: problem, etc.

    Yes....but that doesn't imply that people can't lose weight by counting
    calories.

    ::
    :: That said, I was under the impression that Low Carb diets are
    :: more about managing cravings than calorie counting.

    They are. But that doesn't mean you can't do both....in fact, one enables
    the other as far as successful weight loss goes.

    Since you seem
    :: to follow a calorie counting philosophy, you may not find this group
    :: remarkably receptive.

    Not so....many here count calories and carbs.
     
  11. [email protected] wrote:
    > GaryG wrote:


    > If it was that simple, 98% of those who counted calories would easily
    > lose the weight they wanted to. The bell curve, eh?
    >
    > Studies have shown up to a 95% or more failure rate for those on
    > low-fat/low-cal diets.


    I dunno if you have done LF/LK, or done it with any success. The
    problem isn't that it doesn't work (it does if you are very strict),
    it's that it's very hard. Controlling hunger in a society where food is
    cheap and easy is very hard. Navigating the nutrition of LF foods is
    not easy either (think of those cookies, the ones in the green box...
    no fat, but like a billion calories). I suspect that the difficulty of
    this structure of diet, plus the near ubiquity of it contributes more
    to the failure rate than "it doesn't work like that."

    > Also, a couple of studies showed clearly that low-carbers can consume
    > up to 300 calories more than low-calorie-dieters and still lose as much
    > weight or more.


    I saw a study in Consumer Reports that suggests that LC dieters lose
    8.4 lbs more in the first six months than LF dieters (on WW's winning
    points IIRC). It also found that LF people catch up over the next six
    months.

    I do believe there is a ketogenic advantage, but I think it's in the
    metabolism tweak you get when you are doing LC/in ketosis. Converting
    fat to energy probably burns more energy than taking sugar and making
    it energy. That could be your 300 calories right there.

    The OP's experience suggests that with enough credit on the calorie
    account, you can eat what you will, within limits.

    Hollywood

    PS- LC is, for me, the best way to lose, because I can eat fat and burn
    it. And I like eating it. But I also like
     
  12. GaryG

    GaryG Guest

    "Bill DeWitt" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > GaryG mentioned in passing :
    > >
    > >
    > > There are only two sides to the weight loss equation...Calories In,
    > > and Calories Out.

    >
    > This is a very common but deceptive cliché.
    >
    > While it is true that weight loss will normally occur when less

    calories
    > are assimilated than are burned, there is no way to accurately count
    > calories in and calories out. Metabolism, digestion and the human

    mind/body
    > are more complex than a simplistic arithmetic equation.
    >
    > When I eat 2000 calories I may only assimilate 1900 and then my body
    > temperature may be higher than yours so I burn more with less exercise.
    > Another person may have greater muscle mass or a thyroid problem, etc.
    >
    > That said, I was under the impression that Low Carb diets are more

    about
    > managing cravings than calorie counting. Since you seem to follow a

    calorie
    > counting philosophy, you may not find this group remarkably receptive.


    I'm agnostic with regards to low carb. I know it has helped many people to
    lose weight, but I also know it's not the only path to success.

    At 52, I weigh what I did in high school (6', 166 lbs). I've achieved this
    by trying to eat a "healthy" diet (with an emphasis on veggies and fruits),
    and exercise (cycling, running, etc.). With the amount of exercise I do
    (last year: 4,000 miles on the bike, with 200,000 feet of climbing...this
    year: probably 5,000 mi / 275,000 ft), I don't think low carb would work
    well for me. But, YMMV, and some do claim success with low carb, even when
    combined with endurance sports activities.

    GG

    >
    > Good luck.
    >
    >
     
  13. Roger Zoul

    Roger Zoul Guest

    GaryG wrote:
    :: "Bill DeWitt" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    :: news:[email protected]
    ::: GaryG mentioned in passing :
    ::::
    ::::
    :::: There are only two sides to the weight loss equation...Calories In,
    :::: and Calories Out.
    :::
    ::: This is a very common but deceptive cliché.
    :::
    ::: While it is true that weight loss will normally occur when less
    ::: calories are assimilated than are burned, there is no way to
    ::: accurately count calories in and calories out. Metabolism,
    ::: digestion and the human mind/body are more complex than a
    ::: simplistic arithmetic equation.
    :::
    ::: When I eat 2000 calories I may only assimilate 1900 and then my
    ::: body temperature may be higher than yours so I burn more with less
    ::: exercise. Another person may have greater muscle mass or a thyroid
    ::: problem, etc.
    :::
    ::: That said, I was under the impression that Low Carb diets are
    ::: more about managing cravings than calorie counting. Since you seem
    ::: to follow a calorie counting philosophy, you may not find this
    ::: group remarkably receptive.
    ::
    :: I'm agnostic with regards to low carb. I know it has helped many
    :: people to lose weight, but I also know it's not the only path to
    :: success.

    Indeed. I'm not sure your attitude make you agnostic....but some of us
    really do need LC to even remain at par with weight.

    ::
    :: At 52, I weigh what I did in high school (6', 166 lbs). I've
    :: achieved this by trying to eat a "healthy" diet (with an emphasis on
    :: veggies and fruits), and exercise (cycling, running, etc.). With
    :: the amount of exercise I do (last year: 4,000 miles on the bike,
    :: with 200,000 feet of climbing...this year: probably 5,000 mi /
    :: 275,000 ft), I don't think low carb would work well for me. But,
    :: YMMV, and some do claim success with low carb, even when combined
    :: with endurance sports activities.

    I'd like to know one person who claims to have done what you do on LC.....
     
  14. Pat

    Pat Guest

    :
    : Pat wrote:
    : > I think it is or should be obvious to everybody that our bodies need to
    be
    : > fit. And, that takes exercise in some form. Exercise isn't a "panacea",
    it's
    : > a necessity! Sure, you can be thin and not be able to climb a flight of
    : > stairs--but that isn't healthy, either! If he thinks exercise is not
    : > necessary, he should look at people confined to wheelchairs for a long
    time.
    : > Their bodies suffer from the inactivity.
    :
    : A necessity? You're kidding, right?

    yes. a necessity. Muscles and the bones they are attached to need exercise
    to be healthy. The boy next door to me has Cerebral Palsy and cannot even
    lift his head. He has physical therapy to move his arms, his legs, his head
    and neck. Still, his bones are getting softer from not having weight-bearing
    activity. Our bodies need to be moved by our muscles. a necessity.

    Pat in TX
     
  15. In article <[email protected]>, "Pat" <[email protected]>
    wrote:

    > :
    > : Pat wrote:
    > : > I think it is or should be obvious to everybody that our bodies need to
    > be
    > : > fit. And, that takes exercise in some form. Exercise isn't a "panacea",
    > it's
    > : > a necessity! Sure, you can be thin and not be able to climb a flight of
    > : > stairs--but that isn't healthy, either! If he thinks exercise is not
    > : > necessary, he should look at people confined to wheelchairs for a long
    > time.
    > : > Their bodies suffer from the inactivity.
    > :
    > : A necessity? You're kidding, right?
    >
    > yes. a necessity. Muscles and the bones they are attached to need exercise
    > to be healthy. The boy next door to me has Cerebral Palsy and cannot even
    > lift his head. He has physical therapy to move his arms, his legs, his head
    > and neck. Still, his bones are getting softer from not having weight-bearing
    > activity. Our bodies need to be moved by our muscles. a necessity.
    >
    > Pat in TX


    Your body...

    Use it or lose it.

    Cheers!
    --
    Om.

    "My mother never saw the irony in calling me a son-of-a-bitch." -Jack Nicholson
     
  16. brianlanning

    brianlanning Guest

    I went from 300 to 240 in six months without lifing a finger.

    brian

    300/235/220
     
  17. brianlanning wrote:
    > I went from 300 to 240 in six months without lifing a finger.
    >
    > brian
    >
    > 300/235/220


    I went from zero exercise to building an eighty foot fence and a 10 by
    14 ft shed in about 5 weeks. Several hours a day of constant,
    physically tiring activity. Lifting, nailing, cutting, digging, moving
    gravel by wheelbarrow, etc. Did not lose a single pound. My diet did
    not change.

    TC
     
  18. Roger Zoul

    Roger Zoul Guest

    [email protected] wrote:
    :> brianlanning wrote:
    :>> I went from 300 to 240 in six months without lifing a finger.
    :>>
    :>> brian
    :>>
    :>> 300/235/220
    :>
    :> I went from zero exercise to building an eighty foot fence and a 10
    :> by 14 ft shed in about 5 weeks. Several hours a day of constant,
    :> physically tiring activity. Lifting, nailing, cutting, digging,
    :> moving gravel by wheelbarrow, etc. Did not lose a single pound. My
    :> diet did not change.

    And how do you know? You don't track calories so you have no idea.
     
  19. Roger Zoul

    Roger Zoul Guest

    brianlanning <[email protected]> wrote:
    :>I went from 300 to 240 in six months without lifing a finger.

    Exercise is not required for weight loss. However, it is a very, very good
    idea.
     
  20. Pat wrote:

    > yes. a necessity. Muscles and the bones they are attached to need exercise
    > to be healthy. The boy next door to me has Cerebral Palsy and cannot even
    > lift his head. He has physical therapy to move his arms, his legs, his head
    > and neck. Still, his bones are getting softer from not having weight-bearing
    > activity. Our bodies need to be moved by our muscles. a necessity.


    I hardly think you can submit someone with CP as an example of what
    happens to a healthy person without regular exercise. I suppose you
    can, but you can't expect that to be taken as a rational case.

    That said, I think exercise IS important for proper muscular
    development. It IS important if you want to lose weight the right way.
    But it is not necessary to lose weight. In fact, I would suggest that
    you can probably lose more weight by neglecting your muscles. After
    all, they aren't weightless.

    Last point, just walking around, fidgeting, breathing, moving the
    blood, burns a lot of calories and uses a lot of muscles. And moving an
    obese body around a little probably qualifies as weight bearing
    activity.

    Exercise is not a necessity for weight loss. It is one for long term,
    healthy weight loss.

    -Hollywood, who walks 3-5 miles in the course of a day, and is getting
    his 10K daily steps in as often as not.
     
Loading...