Author questions effectiveness of exercise on fat loss

[svd201]

Check out this article adapted from a new book by Gary Taubes called "Good Calories, Bad Calories" He basically says theres no scientific evidence linking exercise with fat loss, and in fact, there is evidence to the contrary. Exercising leads to increased hunger, and therefore increased consumption of food, often of starchy carbs, which leads to an increase in insulin, which makes us fat regardless of our caloric output.

What's most disturbing to me is he says that no matter how hard we exercise, an enzyme called lipoprotein lipase (LPL) works to restore as much fat as we used in exercise. Here's the passage:

"In the eighties, biochemists and physiologists worked out how LPL responds to exercise. They found that during a workout, LPL activity increases in muscle tissue, and so our muscle cells suck up fatty acids to use for fuel. Then, when we’re done exercising, LPL activity in the muscle tissue tapers off and LPL activity in our fat tissue spikes, pulling calories into fat cells. This works to return to the fat cells any fat they might have had to surrender—homeostasis, in other words. The more rigorous the exercise, and the more fat lost from our fat tissue, the greater the subsequent increase in LPL activity in the fat cells. Thus, post-workout, we get hungry: Our fat tissue is devoting itself to restoring calories as fat, depriving other tissues and organs of the fuel they need and triggering a compensatory impulse to eat. The feeling of hunger is the brain’s way of trying to satisfy the demands of the body. Just as sweating makes us thirsty, burning off calories makes us hungry."

What does everyone think?

[LWilson212]

Maybe this is just my bias and probably most of the people on this forum since it is about exercise. But I read the article and the message that we are just wasting our time working out seems ridiculous to me. In the article, it does not make one reference to weight training, only to cardio exercise.

One book I really like on this subjuect is The Triathlete's Guide to Run Training by Ken Mierke. He says in this book that the energy cost (calories burned) of exercise is negligible and not the point. The point is that through proper nutrient timing and exercise, your body learns to process and store food differently than the sedentary person. He also discusses insulin response and how you have to eat correctly to not promote fat storage of the carbs you eat.

And the article does not seem to look at metabolism as a factor at all as something a person could change through proper exercise and nutrition. He just says fat people are fat and skinny people are naturally skinny.

I don't think I am going to be changing my program based on this book.

Leah

[Lisa~]

I won’t even get fully into my disagreement with calling calories “good” or “bad” and then criticizing readers for assigning virtue to exercise (last paragraph of the article). He assigned virtue (or lack of it) to certain foods! Both are off base!

I’ll make a stab at answering your question, but I bet Alan or some others can say it much better than I can.

In Alwyn’s presentation at the last Summit he went through studies that showed that even with diet as a constant, adding more calories burned during exercise (adding longer amounts of steady-state cardio) there was no more fat loss. But, adding intervals did increase fat loss and the reason was EPOC. He also showed studies supporting reduced refined-carbohydrate diets (same type of diet this book appears to be promoting).

He covered many of the same topics in his article The Hierarchy of Fat Loss.

He also talked about how metabolically-demanding exercise mobilized fatty acids into the blood stream where they were available for fuel. He said that after HIIT-type activities that he theorized that you could continue slow, steady-state activity and burn those fatty acids as fuel rather than have the remaining fatty acids returned to fat cells. It is a cool idea. But either way, you’ve got EPOC keeping your metabolism revved up for a long time after resistance training or HIIT.

Exercise in this article refers to slow, steady-state cardio. The examples used were the stairmaster, 50 miles run in a week, and marathons. We already know that longer does not equal better. I think most of us agree that slow cardio alone as an exercise modality does not induce weight loss or fat loss. We also know that a person can exercise in any number of ways and if he/she does not also make dietary changes that they will not necessarily experience weight loss or fat loss.

The main idea of the book appears to be that highly refined carbs are the source of increased and prolonged insulin in the body and the main source of fat gain. I also don’t think we’ve got any problem with that concept.

They want to debunk the myth that exercise is the KEY to weight loss. It’s not. Diet is the KEY ingredient in weight loss. But I will not buy that resistance training as well as other exercise is not necessary for a healthy and lean body. You exercise so that when that fat comes off what becomes visible is strong, firm muscle. Like JB’s g-flux ideas, if we eat more of the “good calories” and also exercise more (all kinds of exercise) then that creates the healthiest body.

Dietary changes alone can certainly result in total weight loss, but if you want that weight loss to come specifically from fat and leave your muscle mass intact, then you’d better include some resistance training too.

[PowerManDL]

Originally Posted by svd201

Check out this article adapted from a new book by Gary Taubes called "Good Calories, Bad Calories" He basically says theres no scientific evidence linking exercise with fat loss, and in fact, there is evidence to the contrary. Exercising leads to increased hunger, and therefore increased consumption of food, often of starchy carbs, which leads to an increase in insulin, which makes us fat regardless of our caloric output.

What's most disturbing to me is he says that no matter how hard we exercise, an enzyme called lipoprotein lipase (LPL) works to restore as much fat as we used in exercise. Here's the passage:

"In the eighties, biochemists and physiologists worked out how LPL responds to exercise. They found that during a workout, LPL activity increases in muscle tissue, and so our muscle cells suck up fatty acids to use for fuel. Then, when we’re done exercising, LPL activity in the muscle tissue tapers off and LPL activity in our fat tissue spikes, pulling calories into fat cells. This works to return to the fat cells any fat they might have had to surrender—homeostasis, in other words. The more rigorous the exercise, and the more fat lost from our fat tissue, the greater the subsequent increase in LPL activity in the fat cells. Thus, post-workout, we get hungry: Our fat tissue is devoting itself to restoring calories as fat, depriving other tissues and organs of the fuel they need and triggering a compensatory impulse to eat. The feeling of hunger is the brain’s way of trying to satisfy the demands of the body. Just as sweating makes us thirsty, burning off calories makes us hungry."

What does everyone think?

I think he's ignoring basic things like thermodynamics.

Insulin's good but it's not perpetual motion.

I'd also like to see him define "exercise".

[PowerManDL]

Originally Posted by Lisa~

He also talked about how metabolically-demanding exercise mobilized fatty acids into the blood stream where they were available for fuel. He said that after HIIT-type activities that he theorized that you could continue slow, steady-state activity and burn those fatty acids as fuel rather than have the remaining fatty acids returned to fat cells. It is a cool idea. But either way, you’ve got EPOC keeping your metabolism revved up for a long time after resistance training or HIIT.

Lyle's had people doing this for a few years, in his stubborn fat cardio, which is likely where Alwyn got the concept (since he's borrowed it off Lyle in the past).

Basically you do hard intervals, rest a bit, then follow up with 20-40 minutes of LI cardio to burn off the FFAs mobilized by the intervals.

It's been pretty consistently effective in those needing to get rid of fat that otherwise wouldn't budge.

[Lou Schuler]

Originally Posted by PowerManDL

Lyle's had people doing this for a few years, in his stubborn fat cardio, which is likely where Alwyn got the concept (since he's borrowed it off Lyle in the past).

Basically you do hard intervals, rest a bit, then follow up with 20-40 minutes of LI cardio to burn off the FFAs mobilized by the intervals.

It's been pretty consistently effective in those needing to get rid of fat that otherwise wouldn't budge.

We recommend that in NROL for Women, and we do indeed credit Lyle with giving Alwyn the idea.

[svd201]

Originally Posted by Lisa~

In Alwyn’s presentation at the last Summit he went through studies that showed that even with diet as a constant, adding more calories burned during exercise (adding longer amounts of steady-state cardio) there was no more fat loss. But, adding intervals did increase fat loss and the reason was EPOC. He also showed studies supporting reduced refined-carbohydrate diets (same type of diet this book appears to be promoting).

But what about his claim that no matter how hard the exercise is, the corresponding increase in LPL in one's fat tissue will replace the lost fatty acid deposits? According to him: basically, your body works just as hard to restore the burned fat no matter how hard your interval session or strength training session is. I'd never heard of this before...

As far as adding muscle to increase RMR, I'm pretty sure that Lou Schuler in NROL claimed that the notion was overhyped or the benefits were overstated.

[Lou Schuler]

Originally Posted by Lisa~

Like JB’s g-flux ideas, if we eat more of the “good calories” and also exercise more (all kinds of exercise) then that creates the healthiest body.

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.)

And Christian Finn was writing about it before me.

And the studies we used were mostly published in the 1990s, years before any of us thought to write about them.

[Lou Schuler]

Originally Posted by svd201

But what about his claim that no matter how hard the exercise is, the corresponding increase in LPL in one's fat tissue will replace the lost fatty acid deposits? According to him: basically, your body works just as hard to restore the burned fat no matter how hard your interval session or strength training session is. I'd never heard of this before...

As far as adding muscle to increase RMR, I'm pretty sure that Lou Schuler in NROL claimed that the notion was overhyped or the benefits were overstated.

In NROL for Women, I mention this study by Claude Bouchard, which shows that exercise intensity is a trump card against genetics:

Finally, heritability for the metabolic rate during cycle exercise was high (greater than or equal to .46) at low power output, but it became nonsignificant when the energy cost reached about 6 times the RMR.

That's an effect observed during exercise, so it may not matter to post-exercise metabolism. Still, there's plenty of reason to believe that EPOC is the great equalizer when it comes to exercise and fat loss. Any type of workout that creates more EPOC figures to offer superior fat loss when compared to a workout that creates less.

[Lisa~]

Originally Posted by svd201

But what about his claim that no matter how hard the exercise is, the corresponding increase in LPL in one's fat tissue will replace the lost fatty acid deposits? According to him: basically, your body works just as hard to restore the burned fat no matter how hard your interval session or strength training session is. I'd never heard of this before...

As far as adding muscle to increase RMR, I'm pretty sure that Lou Schuler in NROL claimed that the notion was overhyped or the benefits were overstated.

The way I understand it, RMR isn't elevated so much by the increase in muscle mass, but by the metabolic disturbance caused by the training.

If you mobilized fatty acids in the blood stream and burned some of them in your muscles, then there'd be a net loss, wouldn't there? Your body does work for homeostasis and it will return fatty acids to fat cells if they aren't used, but hopefully there are less to return. And if EPOC is high would it make sense that some of that fuel is still needed? Not to mention that if you continued activity you could use up even more of it.

The study can be correct and the conclusions drawn from it skewed to make the author's point. Like many books that try to sensationalize, if you look for commonalities with other diet/programs we know work, we find them. Here's part of the book synopsis:

The 11 Critical Conclusions of Good Calories, Bad Calories:

1. Dietary fat, whether saturated or not, does not cause heart disease.
2. Carbohydrates do, because of their effect on the hormone insulin. The more easily-digestible and refined the carbohydrates and the more fructose they contain, the greater the effect on our health, weight, and well-being.
3. Sugars—sucrose (table sugar) and high fructose corn syrup specifically—are particularly harmful. The glucose in these sugars raises insulin levels; the fructose they contain overloads the liver.
4. Refined carbohydrates, starches, and sugars are also the most likely dietary causes of cancer, Alzheimer’s Disease, and the other common chronic diseases of modern times.
5. Obesity is a disorder of excess fat accumulation, not overeating and not sedentary behavior.
6. Consuming excess calories does not cause us to grow fatter any more than it causes a child to grow taller.
7. Exercise does not make us lose excess fat; it makes us hungry.
8. We get fat because of an imbalance—a disequilibrium—in the hormonal regulation of fat tissue and fat metabolism. More fat is stored in the fat tissue than is mobilized and used for fuel. We become leaner when the hormonal regulation of the fat tissue reverses this imbalance.
9. Insulin is the primary regulator of fat storage. When insulin levels are elevated, we stockpile calories as fat. When insulin levels fall, we release fat from our fat tissue and burn it for fuel.
10. By stimulating insulin secretion, carbohydrates make us fat and ultimately cause obesity. By driving fat accumulation, carbohydrates also increase hunger and decrease the amount of energy we expend in metabolism and physical activity.
11. The fewer carbohydrates we eat, the leaner we will be.

Regarding #5 and #7, technically correct I guess, but they don't tell the whole story. If you want to maintain your muscle mass then you've got to resistance train, even if it makes you hungry. Regulating insulin so that we achieve "regulation of fat tissues" has always been a goal of the diets supported by this forum.

[Lisa~]

My apologies if I didn't properly credit the ideas I mentioned. I credited them to the people I learned them from. Now that I think about it, Alwyn may have credited Lyle when he talked about that protocol at the Summit.

[PowerManDL]

Originally Posted by Lisa~

The way I understand it, RMR isn't elevated so much by the increase in muscle mass, but by the metabolic disturbance caused by the training.

Muscle mass, depending on who you ask, will add something to the effect of 6-13 cals/lb to your energy expenditure, at rest at least. It's not much (if any) more metabolically active than fat tissue. Heart, lungs, liver, brain, et al all contribute much more to RMR.

If you mobilized fatty acids in the blood stream and burned some of them in your muscles, then there'd be a net loss, wouldn't there? Your body does work for homeostasis and it will return fatty acids to fat cells if they aren't used, but hopefully there are less to return. And if EPOC is high would it make sense that some of that fuel is still needed? Not to mention that if you continued activity you could use up even more of it.

In that event it would boil down to nutritional factors, which even the guy writing the original article neglected to account for.

Yes, acutely that would be the case...you'd mobilize FFAs and in the resulting triglyceride-binge a glycogen-starved muscle fiber undergoes, a good bit of them would end up fueling the process. AMPK is a hell of a drug.

But this all assumes a net calorie deficit. If you're eating more than your body needs, then not even the afterburn effect is going to stop excess calories from going right back into the fat tissues.

Calorie deficit will *always* but the master determinant of weight/fat loss. Anything you do on top of that regarding exercise, supplementation, or even drug use will have to obey that.

The study can be correct and the conclusions drawn from it skewed to make the author's point. Like many books that try to sensationalize, if you look for commonalities with other diet/programs we know work, we find them. Here's part of the book synopsis:



Regarding #5 and #7, technically correct I guess, but they don't tell the whole story. If you want to maintain your muscle mass then you've got to resistance train, even if it makes you hungry. Regulating insulin so that we achieve "regulation of fat tissues" has always been a goal of the diets supported by this forum.

In number 5 he confuses cause and effect. A simple mistake of logic but one that is very powerful. Obesity doesn't just come from nowhere; human bodies still obey thermodynamics last time I checked. Fat mass, like any other mass, doesn't just come from nothing. It got there because of too many calories being taken in for the BMR + activity to expend.

Number 7 is contextually correct; exercise doesn't do anything for fat loss if a calorie deficit isn't in place.

And there's more:

3 - He doesn't seem to realize that glucose is the end result of CHO metabolism, period.
4 - Want to see a reference for that one.
6 - He needs to go take physics 101, because he's essentially saying that obese people magically get that way without taking in the energy required to do so. Essentially violating the conservation of mass/energy postulate that is the foundation of much of our understanding of the world. Someone needs to get on the phone with this dude because he's evidently solved the world's energy problems.
8 - He's an insulin wanker. Insulin can now magically create fat mass from its mere presence, regardless of calorie intake. See above; world's energy problems = solved!
9 - What calories? He just told me a calorie excess didn't matter. Also, fat tissue can store nutrients independently of insulin. Oops.
10 - I see where he's trying to go here, by assuming that more exercise equates to more food intake. But he's still an idiot.

Somebody give me this dude's email address, I'm gonna light his ass on fire.

[Alan Aragon]

The 11 Critical Conclusions of Good Calories, Bad Calories:

1. Dietary fat, whether saturated or not, does not cause heart disease.
2. Carbohydrates do, because of their effect on the hormone insulin. The more easily-digestible and refined the carbohydrates and the more fructose they contain, the greater the effect on our health, weight, and well-being.

Wrong. No single dietary factor can cause heart disease, I don't care what you point the finger at. There must be a whole host of interplaying variables in order to screw up your cardiovascular health.

3. Sugars—sucrose (table sugar) and high fructose corn syrup specifically—are particularly harmful. The glucose in these sugars raises insulin levels; the fructose they contain overloads the liver.

Nice blanket statement, the validity of this warning depends strictly on the amount of sugar in the diet. Why? Because you can still have a low to moderate intake of sugar & be perfectly fine.

4. Refined carbohydrates, starches, and sugars are also the most likely dietary causes of cancer, Alzheimer’s Disease, and the other common chronic diseases of modern times.

What a load of horseshit. Good thing he covered his tracks by saying "the most likely causes", implying the truth of the matter, which is, he has ZERO causal evidence supporting this asinine claim.

5. Obesity is a disorder of excess fat accumulation, not overeating and not sedentary behavior.

hahahahahahaha!

6. Consuming excess calories does not cause us to grow fatter any more than it causes a child to grow taller.

Vague, unsubstantiated, misdirected.

7. Exercise does not make us lose excess fat; it makes us hungry.
8. We get fat because of an imbalance—a disequilibrium—in the hormonal regulation of fat tissue and fat metabolism. More fat is stored in the fat tissue than is mobilized and used for fuel. We become leaner when the hormonal regulation of the fat tissue reverses this imbalance.

The bullshit is strong in this one... How 'bout providing scientific proof instead of blowing smoke up everyone's ass. Taubes conveniently ignores research to the contrary of the crap he's spouting. The following studies are the result of a 5 minute search:

http://ajpendo.physiology.org/cgi/co...act/293/1/E197
http://jcem.endojournals.org/cgi/con...tract/92/3/865
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/en...t=AbstractPlus
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/en...ubmed_RVDocSum
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/en...RVAbstractPlus
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/en...RVAbstractPlus
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/en...RVAbstractPlus
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/en...ubmed_RVDocSum
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/en...RVAbstractPlus

Let's not forget exercise's superior effect over caloric restriction on bone health, muscle size, aerobic capacity, & strength:

http://archinte.ama-assn.org/cgi/con...ct/166/22/2502
http://jap.physiology.org/cgi/conten...ract/102/2/634

Scientific studies aside, let me add to this the fact that I see clients who exercise, as well as those who do little to no exercise at all. For the most part, the "exercise-challenged" clients take twice as long to get the same results of the exercising clients. So, reading some guy mention that exercise is ineffective at causing fat loss is especially funny to me, since I wonder how many fat loss clients he's dealt with personally. My guess is that he has squat's worth experience in this department, and is having fun stirring the pot from his computer desk.

9. Insulin is the primary regulator of fat storage. When insulin levels are elevated, we stockpile calories as fat. When insulin levels fall, we release fat from our fat tissue and burn it for fuel.
10. By stimulating insulin secretion, carbohydrates make us fat and ultimately cause obesity. By driving fat accumulation, carbohydrates also increase hunger and decrease the amount of energy we expend in metabolism and physical activity.

The ignorance just never stops. As PMDL mentioned, fat can be stored in the absence of insulin. Let me add that fat can be burned in the presence of insulin as well.

11. The fewer carbohydrates we eat, the leaner we will be.

*sigh*... Hey genius, what do you think exercise does to insulin & carbohydrate metabolism?