Author questions effectiveness of exercise on fat loss

[Adam Campbell]

One thing that I find myself agreeing with more and more is the disagreement with the idea that saturated fat causes obesity, clogged arteries, and high cholesterol. In a discussion with Adam Campbell, he pointed out that prior to modern diets, people consumed large amounts of saturated fats (beef, butter, etc), and 40 years ago, obesity and heart disease were rare

I would say "relatively" large amounts--in relation to other fats and macronutrients, and compared to today's "standards." And response is also individual.

I'm with PMDL: If you don't eat too many calories, it's hard to imagine that what you eat matters all that much--within reason and nutrient deficiencies, health conditions (ie diabetes), etc aside.

To me--and this is cliche--the key is finding a diet that makes you less likely to overconsume. That could be one that reduces your appetite or one that allows you not to feel restricted by enabling you to choose from whatever you want. These could be completely different depending on the person.

[drs]

I disagree. I think diet matters.
Remember that Dean Ornish's work showed coronary plaque regression with a low fat diet.

We could go on for hours discussing why this didn't work as a public health policy, but Ornish's explanation was that the public didn't carry out the diet correctly (didn't lower fat enough and ate more carbs).

I could be swayed by the arguement that how many calories you eat may be more important than actually what those calories include. The body of work regarding longevity indicates that a low calorie diet may be one of the keys to a long life.

[Lost Dog]

a long and hungry life

[Adam Campbell]

Remember that Dean Ornish's work showed coronary plaque regression with a low fat diet.

How did the Ornish study prove it was macronutrient composition--and not weight loss, for example--that was responsible for the regression? And how do you know the regression wouldn't have been greater on a all-meat diet, or say, a Mediterranean diet--in addition to the other lifestyle interventions (ie exercise, smoking cessation, stress reduction) he employed? Maybe I've forgotten the details but I don't think he compared those--that is, if we're thinking of the same research.

Also, I didn't say that one approach might not be better for a given person. I was merely agreeing that not gaining weight is perhaps the factor that trumps all others.

[kevsta]

Originally Posted by PowerManDL

This is absolutely true. It has to be said over and over: excess energy intake, and conversely lack of appropriate energy expenditure, is what causes obesity.

If you do it right, you can eat pizza and ice cream every day and still be skinny. I've seen guys that do it.

What confuses me is the brash statements that "excess calories don't make you fat."

That is blatantly wrong, no matter how you swing it.

It might be a semantics issue, it might be clever language to package the topic for the masses, but it is nevertheless misleading and ultimately incorrect.

Energy, and consequently mass, do not just appear from nothing. If someone is holding 200 lbs of fat, that 200 lbs can be quantified in terms of calorie content.

I don't know why all the researchers and theorists and what not keep glossing over this simple point, as if it were an afterthought; or worse, something they never considered to begin with.

I concur. This could have been written by me.

well said

[drs]

Adam,

You are correct that from Ornish's work you can't necessarily determine the effect of only diet, beecause most of his studies looked at interventions on multiple coronary risk factors. Good point.


The Mediterranean diet has done very well in trials on mortality. But this supports my argument that diet does matter. That's the tricky thing about this,of course, is that there are endless combinations of foods. These trials of which diet is better for which outcome will be endless and even then we will only have partial information.

[Cynic]

Originally Posted by Lou Schuler

Just for the record, I was writing about energy flux before John was. (It doesn't make up for the fact he's smarter than me and a hundred times better-looking, but I'll take any distinction I can find.)

Horsesh*t. I'd like to see how good he's looking at your age.

I've seen a few people criticize NROL and say, let's see what the authors look like.

Let them look at good as you at your age Lou, I sure as hell hope I can.

[Mahler]

Originally Posted by Cynic

Horsesh*t. I'd like to see how good he's looking at your age.

I've seen a few people criticize NROL and say, let's see what the authors look like.

Let them look at good as you at your age Lou, I sure as hell hope I can.

Way to go, Cynic.

What he said!

[Deserve]

Originally Posted by Cynic

Horsesh*t. I'd like to see how good he's looking at your age.

I've seen a few people criticize NROL and say, let's see what the authors look like.

Let them look at good as you at your age Lou, I sure as hell hope I can.

You say that until you find out he's really 35.

[RedWifey]

Originally Posted by Cynic

Horsesh*t. I'd like to see how good he's looking at your age.

I've seen a few people criticize NROL and say, let's see what the authors look like.

Let them look at good as you at your age Lou, I sure as hell hope I can.

I've seen Lou and I'm pretty sure there doesn't need to be the age qualifier...he looks good for any age!

[coreconcepts]

This may seem a little late as this thread fizzled out a while back, but I finally had a chance to read/review Good Calories/Bad Calories. Let me know what you think - I'd appreciate some feedback from the great minds of this board. Click below:

The Good and the Bad of Good Calories, Bad Calories

[Jean-Paul]

I liked your review... Some thoughts:

Taubes also goes to great lengths to disprove the long held belief that calorie balance is the only thing that matters in weight regulation. While I agree that the theory is imperfect and varies according to genetic and hormonal influence, I don't think the research is as unequivocal as Taubes purports it to be in this area. I'm not buying what he's selling either when he implies incessantly that calorie balance has nothing to do with weigh

I am pretty sure he's dead on with this. It actually goes hand in hand with what researchers like Voleck have been saying for the last decade. Saturated fat is a lot more calories, but it is not the bad guy.

On exercise and fat loss (deep breath)... this is where Mr. Taubes and I disagree completely. His contention is that exercise does not produce any weight loss because it makes us hungry. This is what I would call a case of "armchair science" on his part. He seems to cherry pick studies that support his cause, whilst ignoring a wide body of research that says otherwise.

If Taubes had framed it in such a way that suggested that exercise would not likely trump a poor diet - I would agree. Additionally, he does not get into much detail about the varying types of exercise, post exercise calorie expenditure or even the positive impact it has on insulin sensitivity (which is strange considering his near seamless argument on the insulin/fat issue). For the record, I have a teensy, weensy bit of bias in this area . Nevertheless, I have included references

Two things pop out at me here. One is that I don't believe he's saying that exercise doesn't help. I think it is a chicken or the egg argument. I think he's trying to ask is, are we lean because we exercise, or do we exercise because we're lean?

There is absolutely no disputing that society as a whole has become obese in the last three decades, but we are "working out" more than we ever did back in the old days, and there are still more fat people. Maybe when you're leaner you more likely to be active because you don't have hormones working against you.

I know for me that the very fastest way to get my workout mojo back on the times that I have lost it has been when I clean up my diet. The urge just seems to return. I have to force it before that.

I own a gym, and I see a lot of overweight people who workout more than even me, but they don't seem to make any progress, either in performance or body fat loss.

Interesting review though... Thanks.

[PowerManDL]

Originally Posted by Jean-Paul

There is absolutely no disputing that society as a whole has become obese in the last three decades, but we are "working out" more than we ever did back in the old days, and there are still more fat people. Maybe when you're leaner you more likely to be active because you don't have hormones working against you.

Is it that, or is it that despite the increase in the amount of people exercising, there's no improvement in the quality of information, nor in the consistency of those exercising?

How many people would you say that do poor workouts and look the same for years, on average? How many people get all gung-ho about working out around January 1, then are back on the couch by March?

I'd say both of those have a lot to do with that, too.



RE: calorie balance, he has a lot going against him if he's assuming it plays no role in weight loss.

The established knowledge of thermodynamics would be the largest obstacle.

[Jean-Paul]

The established knowledge of thermodynamics would be the largest obstacle.

It can't be that simple. Using myself as an example, I dropped 20 pounds increasing my caloric intake, simply cutting carbs and upping my fats and veggies (TNT diet). I easily consume double my BMR, much more than my supposed activity level. The only thing I used as my guideline was not spiking my blood sugar, effectively managing my insulin.

How many of those beanpoles have you met who eat like pirranhas and have no bodyfat, or how many fat people eat in a 200 calorie deficit and still hold on to all their bodyfat? Their metabolisms are not following that law of thermodynamics. It makes sense on paper, but doesn't fit what I've seen in the 20 years I've been helping people lose bodyfat. Taubes' assertion on the other hand makes a lot of sense to me.

Not so scientific an answer... Rushing to go eat my dinner (low carb of course).

[PowerManDL]

Originally Posted by Jean-Paul

It can't be that simple. Using myself as an example, I dropped 20 pounds increasing my caloric intake, simply cutting carbs and upping my fats and veggies (TNT diet). I easily consume double my BMR, much more than my supposed activity level. The only thing I used as my guideline was not spiking my blood sugar, effectively managing my insulin.

Two questions then:

1) What was your activity level like? Specifically, how did it change in relation to your dietary intake?

2) How had you been eating/exercising before hand?

Both of these factors can influence metabolic expenditure; really, instead of throwing out the idea of energy balance which really is fundamental to our ideas about how things work, we need to look at ways to fit the observations in with those facts.

How many of those beanpoles have you met who eat like pirranhas and have no bodyfat, or how many fat people eat in a 200 calorie deficit and still hold on to all their bodyfat? Their metabolisms are not following that law of thermodynamics. It makes sense on paper, but doesn't fit what I've seen in the 20 years I've been helping people lose bodyfat. Taubes' assertion on the other hand makes a lot of sense to me.

Well, firstly, see above.

Secondly, to get more sciency....if you're going to postulate a mechanism that violates thermodynamics, thats going to take some serious explaining. We've never yet observed such a thing, anywhere; anything that has claimed it has been debunked.

Such a thing would in fact go a long way towards solving our energy crisis; yet mysteriously it's only observed in small populations, in uncontrolled conditions, and never under the rigor of controlled measurement?

I can't buy that; if we're going to overturn something so well-established, there's got to be a better case made for it than this.

Not so scientific an answer... Rushing to go eat my dinner (low carb of course).

Variability of BMR and total energy expenditure, based on energy intake and activity, that I can buy.

Magical creation of energy to be stored as fat, or evaporate away? Not so much.