From someone who exercises a good amount (usually 5-6 days a week for 1-2 hours at a time) I never really believe in exercise for weight loss.

The math just doesnt work out, go and run hardcore for about 3 miles at 250 lbs bodyweight and you are looking at burning about 500 calories. While thats a good amount its the same as maybe 2 bottles of soda. Its a lot easier to cut out 100 calories from 5 meals then to run 3 miles...

So I never advocate exercise for weight loss purposes as much as diet. I greatly advocate exercise for all the other benefits plus the motivation it helps with in dieting.

Really as someone else stated, if you are overweight you need to make a lifestyle change. Cut out all the crap esp empty calories like soda (sugar) pastries, and other junk.

Your math doesn't work because it's not that simple. The effects of exercise - strength training or cardio - do not stop once you stop. Your metabolism is raised for hours after, and your body has to start repairing itself.

Also, please note there is more to exercise than cardio.

Go look at the actual research about raised metabolism after training, and about the increase with more muscle mass. You'll find it's actually pretty tiny.

However, excercise does have other effects, possibly including reducing cravings and changing hormone levels and maybe (over the long term) gene expression.

No, in fact you are wrong for exercise like intense weight lifting.

Of course proper diet does have a huge effect in weight loss though.

> Go look at the actual research

I can and have lost eight pounds (not water) in three days. I could do it right now. I call BS on whatever research.

I'm not going to say you haven't lost eight pounds in three days, but I will say that most of that was water weight and the rest was probably muscle.

A pound of fat is roughly 3500 calories. In order to lose eight pounds of fat in three days, you would have had to induce a caloric deficit of over 9000 calories per day.

A note to everyone: The most weight you can healthily lose is about two pounds per week. More than that and you're going to start losing a measurable amount of muscle mass. The exception is when you first start out exercising and eating properly, but that should only last for a couple of weeks.

When you cover huge distances all day the weight/calorie arithmetic is not linear. Your body rapidly sheds large amounts of weight to become more efficient.

I specifically said it was not water.

You body stores about 1 pound of glycogen (a quickly available starch energy source) in the muscles and the liver. With it is about 5 pounds of water. When you eat a low carb diet, the first thing your body does is burn that off. That, plus dehydration, means you can expect to lose about 6-8 pounds in a few days. I can and have done that many times. And then I can gain it back in two more days with a couple of big plates of pasta. Competitive athlethes like wrestlers who need to make weight can routinely cut and gain a temporary 15-20 pounds in less than a day.

In other words, sorry if you don't believe me, but much of what you lost was water.

I know all this. But when the weight stays off, and you in fact continue to lose weight in the following weeks, then it is not water loss. A lot of muscle, yeah.

I am in no way saying 'don't bother exercising', but if the only reason someone exercises is to lose weight they will usually jump ship. I have never met anyone that has a serious exercise regiment (>3 years) that says they do it mainly for the weight loss.

The problem with exercise, like many endeavors, is that the results are from long hard work. Many times as soon as the initial results slow to a crawl people will lose pretty much all motivation. Its the same as anything else really, burnout is not caused by the work but by the months of seeing no results.

I mainly exercise with weight training (5-6 days a week) and cardio maybe 2-3 times a week. I have been exercising regularly for probably about 8 years now. I don't do it for muscle or weight loss anymore (but of course I enjoy those effects) I do it to get away from everything. Its the time when I can really clear my mind and do something is mentally very easy (although many times physically difficult).

I think exercise is the best thing for people that spend many hours doing mentally challenging but physically non-challenging work like programmers or engineers.

It does scale, and it is that simple. I exercise regularly (run, lift), and if anything, I've only gained weight while on an exercise-only program.

On more than one occasion, I've made relatively mild cuts to my caloric intake (say, 250 Cal/day), and lost significant (>10 lbs) amounts of weight in 1-2 month time periods (and I've kept it off for years). Right now, I maintain my weight (6'2", 180lbs) by eating about 2,300 Calories per day. I don't count Calories anymore (I can estimate pretty well), but by weighing myself daily, I adjust what I eat to maintain.

People think that calorie restriction doesn't work, because they don't give it enough time, they aren't careful about it (i.e. sloppy record keeping), or they cheat. But if you're diligent, patient and honest, it's the most effective weight loss routine you can establish. I recommend using something like calorie-count.com to keep track of everything that you eat for a week or two, then cutting back on that number by a small amount (say, 250-500 Cal.) for a month. You'll be surprised at the results.

For most people, it's pretty easy to cut 400-500 kCals out and barely notice.

Just cut back on soda. Eat half a burrito instead of guzzling the whole thing. Eat proper meals instead of snacking on candy bars.

Just the basics.

I've never dieted, but I'm down at 177 pounds from 189, since I thought I was getting a bit heavy, just through using the techniques above.

I suspect the largest contribution is from not eating an entire Chipotle burrito every couple of days, but instead eating just half, which is still a pretty good meal.

I totally agree with you on your last point about sloppy record keeping. You've learned over time how to properly estimate calories. Once I started to actually measure and record the food I consumed my weight changed dramatically.

I think that many people who over-eat because of 'nervous energy' and the calming effect of moderate exercise can help these people eat less. Also as far as I understand it, exercise raises your metabolism for a considerable period (maybe even days). And of course any extra muscle mass developed through exercise will also increase metabolism.

So I think you may be underestimating the impact of exercise on weight. I certainly haven't done as much as you but I feel exercise has helped me lose weight.

It's more than just metabolism. Slow twitch exercise like distance running and cycling causes your body to shed weight in excess of calories metabolized. Your body says "Hey, I seem to be carrying this extra weight around long distances. Better get rid of it as an efficiency measure."

Makes some intuitive sense but I'd like to see a reference.

i remember in high school i was quite chubby. i was a good runner, too, and ran at least every-other day, and did other exercise. but i didn't lose weight. it wasn't until i stopped eating large servings of delicious burritos & hot dogs that i lost a lot of weight

so yea, at least in my case, exercise doesn't do much for weight. re: stress though, that's a different issue

> i was quite chubby. i was a good runner, too

Sure you were.

The key with exercise is to realize you're on a progression. Maybe you start by burning 500 calories in 30 minutes, but eventually you will be able to burn 800-900 calories in 60 minutes. That's a good 600-800 additional calories per day.

You still may have to make some diet changes: sucking down sodas all day long is not a good idea no matter how much exercise you do.

The other thing to realize is that your body will try to adapt to exercising every day. If you are routinely active, your body is going to be less likely to store energy in fat.

Excellent points. Muscle mass is key for many things, including burning more calories.

I wouldn't focus on being a certain weight or losing a certain weight - you should initially be staying about even since you will be increasing muscle mass while reducing fat mass.

I also think that for many people strength training can be more fun, and consequently, are more likely to continue doing it. It's more visceral than most cardio, and the goal/reward system of increasing weight and reps gives faster gratification.

Part of the problem is that most people have no idea how to do the basic lifts, and most personal trainers don't teach them. Another problem is a basic lack of structure, which is why I advocate focusing on the basic lifts: bench, squat, deadlift and maybe clean & press.

Doing both cardio and strength training is important, but I think most people already understand the basics of cardio.

> I advocate focusing on the basic lifts

For the average dude just trying to stay in shape, nothing beats the full olympic lifts. Take the barbell from the ground to over your head with snatches and cleans. Do it right and you'll be stronger than 90% of the people in the gym from 10 minutes three times a week.

FYI: The kind of lifts you see most people do in a gym are derived from body building routines, not proper strength training for athletic purposes. Such lifts will puff up muscles through sarcoplasmic hypertrophy. These slow movement high volume exercises actually decrease peak force, and puffed up muscles will slow you down and decrease aerobic efficiency. Hence the terms "blown-up" or "puffed-up" fighter.

30 minutes of snatch and cleans per week will not result in you being stronger than 90% of the people in the gym.

Done properly, yes they will. Strength increases from exceeding previous peak maximal effort. That's almost the whole story. This does not require a lot of time. Very brief and intense sessions are effective. Explosive full body movements done to failure have by far the biggest effect on strength.

Strength is more a neurological matter than people realize. Achieving higher explosive strength is almost more about training the nervous system than the muscles. The explosive lifts done properly achieve this training, whereas slow heavy-weight movements simply don't.

To equivocate, just snatches and cleans will lead to accommodation quickly. Variations will be necessary. But I will stand by my assertion that ten minute strength training routines done three times a week can leave you stronger than most of the people in a typical gym. You won't necessarily puff up bigger, but you will throw a much harder punch.

p.s.

I like how you admit to being a newbie elsewhere yet you're contradicting me with confidence. I'm not just talking out my ass. This is knowledge I use to win in the ring.

The Olympic lifts are great, but I've found they often require a base level of fitness to do them at all. Plus, it's a lot easier to teach yourself how to squat or deadlift than to do a proper clean (squat clean, not power clean).

"diet" implies your normal eating habits, not a change in eating habits.

go to a nutritionist and they will ask you "what's your diet like?"

In the context I was using it, "diet" implies a temporary change in eating habits. I'm aware of the definition of the word and it's technical usage, but I'm also aware of how it's actually used.

It's really too bad that "diet" is treated as a "four letter word" in the US and not simply the foods and eating habits that make up your regular intake.