The importance of exercise on weight maintenance/loss



P

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
 
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)
 
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
 
<[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
 
: > 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
 
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
 
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.
 
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
 
[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.
 
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.
 
[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
 
"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.
>
>
 
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.....
 
:
: 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
 
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-*****." -Jack Nicholson
 
I went from 300 to 240 in six months without lifing a finger.

brian

300/235/220
 
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
 
[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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom Back