There are many studies detailing the inefficacy of cardio for weight loss for various reasons -- from Friedenreich (2010) which actually compares cardio vs. non-cardio groups... to Willbond et. al (2010) which talks about the overestimation of caloric expenditure.

Not to mention the meta-analysis from last year: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21787904

But I guess you prefer observational, correlational studies instead. Of course people who run marathons are likely more fit. Derp.

Guess what, those who drink diet sodas are more likely to be overweight. I guess diet sodas make you fat?

Firstly, meta-analysis are generally amongst the worst things to go off (study selection makes it very difficult to control for a researcher's expectations). The link you provided doesn't even say how much cardio the subjects were doing.

Secondly, the studies I cited were massive and far better controlled than most. Feel free to offer a link to a larger and better controlled on if you can.

Thirdly your link, despite its problems, supports my argument. Participants reduced their waist circumferences by 2cm in 6 months!

Interestingly the first search result for "Friedenreich (2010)" is your own tweet, but looking further I found that he recommends exercise for cancer prevention. In fact, this presentation I found in the first page of results recommended more cario than any other type of exercise: http://wellspring.ca/Wellspring/media/common/documents/wells...

It took an average of 35 hours of cardio to lose 1 lb of fat.

I'm not saying that it does not cause weight loss. I am saying that it's ineffective. Of course cardio will cause some weight loss vs. doing absolutely nothing. Of course it's good for your health. No one is arguing that.

Then again if you're saying that someone should run 1 hour/day for 5 days a week... which is unrealistic for 99% of the population, and unnecessarily complicates weight loss (not to mention makes it unsustainable)... then you probably don't have a problem with 35 hours to lose a pound.

And note that in this thread the standard for what you should do is an hour a day 5 days a week rather than 20 minutes a day for 7 days a week.

Before I had kids, I never had trouble finding time to exercise and had little sympathy for people who did. Since I've had kids my ability to exercise has varied with life circumstances. At the moment it is very hard for me because my wife is in a medical residency, so most of the time I'm an only parent to small kids.

In particular in periods when I exercised, I've found that between my personal rhythms and outside climate, morning is the only time that it makes sense for me to do so. (Perhaps you are happy running in 100+ degree heat, but I am not.) But when I'm on my own trying to get 2 kids up, ready, and out the door, before I start doing other stuff, I don't have 20 min where I can safely disappear on them.

Even if you broaden it a bit (single parents, spouse in the military on deployment, etc) you are not looking at 90+% of the population. And most people looking after small children are pretty active anyway (due to all the lifting, running around, and so on).

Also in every family with small kids, if one parent wants a piece of freedom, it puts pressure on the other parent. So even if it is theoretically possible, if half of those parents get the freedom to exercise in the morning, the other half do not.

Does it amount to 10% with a legitimate difficulty in scheduling exercise? I'm not sure. But it is more than I would have guessed before I had kids.

You can move into somebody else's house too.

2. I can comfortably do HN while it is too hot outside to exercise.

That said, I certainly feel a lot more difference from resistance training than from cardio, and diet changes have been more effective than either in controlling my weight. (e.g. an hour a day of running is not going to keep me from ballooning out if I use mountain dew as my primary caffeine delivery mechanism.)

I mean, you can get a really nice treadmill for a grand and a half; by the standards of medical care, that's really cheap; Personally, I've also had some success using the manual type (which can be had for $50 or so on craigslist) unlike most other cheap cardio equipment (I utterly destroyed a rowing machine through a month of daily use... most low-end cardio equipment wasn't designed for actual use by a 200lb man.) the manual treadmills seem to be fairly durable. "I'm going to go push the shopping cart" I'd say. It does take a bit more concentration than an automatic, just 'cause if you stop, it stops, but eh, it's certainly usable, and you get a little bit of upper-body work done, too; it really is very much like pushing a heavy shopping cart.

Thanks for the suggestion.

We also went running with a jogging stroller when the weather was nice. Our son usually loved the ride, and was asleep by the time we got home (bonus!). That might not work on its own with kids, but one of the places we went running was a local school with a track and a playground. I know the kids in this house consider a 30 minute visit to a playground far too short, and that's more jogging than I can handle.

Families are different. I'm glad that calisthenics work for you in that situation. They have not for me.

For the record, my current lack of a regular exercise routine is temporary.

I understand the difficulty; when you're a sole caretaker, focused time to do things tends to be limited to naps and schooldays, and then it tends to be used for more system-critical things like taking showers. I hope your situation improves in time. :)

Either way, get them up earlier and out with you while you run. Good for them too!

Also I would not trust you to supervise preschool children in a public space. You clearly do not know what is required to do so responsibly.

Besides, if you do not exercise - it's bad for your children. It's especially bad if they do not exercise either (because you don't have time to play with them, and don't allow them play alone, because you want them to be extra safe).

But for your information, over-supervision means different things at different ages. It is not over-supervision to insist that there is always an available adult that a 4 year old knows how to get the attention of. It is over-supervision to insist that you always be within earshot of a 14 year old. It is one thing for my daughter to be playing in my back yard with me inside of the house. It would be quite another for there to be no adult available when she suddenly realizes that she needs to poop because I am running around the block and won't be back for 15 minutes. (The problem is not that she will have an accident, it is that she does not wipe herself sufficiently well.)

Also what is exercise is relative to your abilities. For instance yesterday we went on a 2 hour hike up a mountain before the heat of the day set in. For her there was a definite cardio element. For me, traveling at her pace, not so much. (My wife and son set out a bit earlier and went at their pace. When we met up they had done 3x the vertical that I did, and had much better exercise.)

Though I know that other kids might be different. But you need to find only one babysitter.

How many teenagers in your neighborhood did you ask?

Besides, there are not only teenagers, but housewives who wake up in the morning anyway.

Or how about this: you exercise while your wife and your daughter are sleeping (or your wife is getting ready to go to work. Or while your daughter is sleeping alone.

Or take your daughter on a run with you in a stroller. She may keep sleeping if it's an issue to wake up.

You may ask your older kid to babysit younger daughter while you are taking 20-minutes run with your cell phone and give another cell phone to your older kid.

You may take two 10-minutes runs if you worry that kids cannot be left alone for 20-minutes.

There are so many ways to find a way/time to exercise ...

My wife's schedule is highly variable from day to day and week to week, but is generally pretty crazy. She's frequently up and out of the house before 5 AM. Or works overnight. Or sometimes is lucky stays at home until 8:30 AM. Scheduling my life around hers is a complete non-starter.

My daughter is unfortunately easily awakened in the morning. Her grumpiness when she lacks sleep lasts all day. She resists afternoon naps even when she doesn't have activities swimming lessons to be awake for. Interrupting her sleep so I can take her running at 6 AM is therefore very much not in her best interest.

As for regularly leaving the house empty with sleeping kids while I go for a run..how about I let you have that argument with my wife? I'm quite aware of what will happen, and don't disagree with her.

My 7 year old son with ADHD is NOT an adequate caregiver. (I can just see it, now you're about to give a lecture about how ADHD isn't real. Please resist the temptation until you read up on the last 15 years of research...)

Are you done being a complete ass to a random internet stranger yet?

(Incidentally, you've now topped my list of people I dislike here.)

Could you please share what exactly you don't like about me?

I just shared my perspective on how you and other people could fix their lack of exercise problem. That somehow triggered your negative attitude toward me. Why?

My theory would be that what I don't like is that I don't like you being a moralizing ass who is quick to judge, lacks empathy, and always missing the mark.

Start with your first entry in this thread: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4372686

Continue with everything else you've said. Up to and including your last post where you assume that I'm just looking for an excuse not to exercise rather than the truth that I'm a person with a rather overwhelming life at the moment.

If I was the type of person who just wanted excuses to not exercise, I could not have maintained successful exercises for years in the past. I would not be confident that I will re-establish one in the future. Yet you do not see this as being a possible situation, so you categorize me as just, "...looking for an excuse." And therefore confirm your world view that people like me are an impossibility.

If I hated you a little more I would hope that you could experience as many personal challenges in your life as I do in mine at the moment. But I don't hate you enough for that. Yet.

Respond if you want to. I'm done dealing with you and won't reply back. At the moment my kids are being taken care of by a babysitter, and I have contracting work that I need to get back to. Because, you see, doctors in residency make under minimum wage, so I have significant financial responsibilities on top of my parenting ones...

Not sure why we all should follow "1 hour runs 5 times per week" suggestion. We are not professional runners.

Not the best analogy - because there is some evidence that artificially sweetened beverages have fueled the obesity epidemic (by possibly overriding our typical satiation point for sweet foods).

See:

* http://care.diabetesjournals.org/content/32/4/688.short * http://www.nature.com/oby/journal/v16/n8/abs/oby2008284a.htm...

Though not everyone agrees:

* http://jn.nutrition.org/content/142/6/1163s.abstract

Trying to sort out correlation vs. causation is particularly challenging with this debate.

Isn't it obvious selection bias? People with high blood pressure, high cholesterol and with diabets do not run marathones.

>Americans are more into protein and more into weightlifting than any other nation I've ever seen.

Same is true for refined sugars and completely unhealthy standart eating choices. If you walk into non high-end supermarket a-la Whole Foods or PPC it's just hard, and in some categories impossible, to buy healthy food.

What supermarket are you referring to? I've had no difficulty finding healthy food at Pathmark, C-Town, Supremo, or any other low end supermarket.

Believe it or not, in Whole Foods there is a bread labeled with exactly three required ingredients - whole wheat, yeast and salt.

Cardio really should be a minimum of an hour per day, at least 5 days a week if weight control is the goal

First of all, who the hell has time to do a minimum of five hours of cardio per week? Some people have families or businesses to run. Getting a runner's high may be great for you, but you in no way need to spend an hour doing just cardio for effective weight loss.

My reasoning? The better your body performs, the quicker you see changes in it. Doing just an hour of cardio a day will not create a body at peak performance. You might be able to run a marathon, but you also might not be able to do a push-up. This is not your whole body working at peak performance. So you're missing out on vital conditioning by using all that time for cardio.

On top of that, you can get similar gains in endurance and cardiovascular fitness by doing a variety of high intensity workouts, and they need not last longer than 30 minutes (IMO) if done at top speed. I have no way to prove this other than the theory that lots of muscles trained to perform both slowly and quickly and at intervals of rest and high performance is going to have an overall greater conditioning effect than an hour of the same muscles doing the same thing at approximately the same pace.

I'll leave the meatheads to expound the virtues of resistance/weight training on strengthening the muscles needed to do such a demanding cardio workout in the first place.

For marathon runners, it's the final variable that becomes huge, and you just won't improve that without a solid base of distance running. Even 5k runners, for whom VO2 max and interval work is crucial, benefit greatly from one long run per week (usually around 20km if they're serious).

It might surprise you that there's been a general trend in cross-country at the collegiate level towards slower 90 minute daily runs instead of the faster 60 minute ones so popular a decade or two ago. http://runningtimes.com/Print.aspx?articleID=15744

You can lose weight with no cardio at all. However there is a veritable mountain of research that suggests that an hour of cardio per day is good for you. If you can't get that much, some is better than nothing. It doesn't have to be running all the time, either. Playing with your kids or going on hikes will do good for your health even if it doesn't single-handedly take care of your weight problems.

Running just happens to be an exercise that allows a particularly high HR and lactate threshold compared to others such as biking, rowing or hiking.

The reason for all of that is diet is the biggest factor BY FAR for weight loss and for most obese people, no amount of cardio will fix their diet. Cardio is not bad by any means, and to achieve true fitness you need strength and conditioning, but for most people trying to lose weight in a busy schedule, its place isnt as important as most assume

Because eating a lot will make you fat, and eating a little will make you thin. Whether you eat proteins, fat or carbs, you can gain or lose weight depending on how much you eat.

I haven't studied it very much, but just eating less works for me.

Now, try getting fat eating nothing but fat+protein. Hard, but much easier than just protein.

Now, try getting fat eating just carbs. Easy.

Now, try getting fat eating carbs+anything. Easy.

A "calorie is a calorie" isn't true now and never has been. It was a very simple model. Our understanding has changed and we now know much more.

For instance, there are hormonal changes that come from eating the above (re: hgh secretion, testosterone production (both up and down) and insulin (which we knew all along)).

Eating little does help you lose weight, but the key is the word 'weight'. If you are beyond trying to just be a certain number on a scale and care about things like muscle, performance, body fat percentage or how you look, there are other things to consider.

For instance, trying to build muscle? Eat protein+carbs post working out heavy with weights. Do not eat carbs before you workout. Which means, fat+protein only before a workout.

Trying to lose fat? Have a long way to go? (say upper teens+ in body fat). Do very low carb (protein+fat+veggies like broccoli) for 6.5 days a week. The evening of the 7th day, eat protein+carbs (the carb refeed). do this until you like what you see in the mirror. (this is a muscle sparring approach).

Just trying to live a normal life and don't care about the two above (and you don't exercise much)? Generally restrict carbs to around 100g a day MAX. You aren't using them, so your body doesn't need them. If you keep giving your body carbs it doesn't need, overtime you'll get fatter. Play with the number of carbs a day, but know this is the one dial you have.

You'll have much better results with this than lowering the total calories.

There is another reply in this thread where I talk about goals, so I won't repeat what I said there here.

In reply to the above, what is lacking in that is what happened right before someone at protein+carbs. If someone worked out with heavy weights, the body is actually primed to use both the protein and the carbs to rebuild the muscle. You are actually going to use them.

If someone is going to eat protein+carbs after sitting on the couch all day, everyday, the body is not primed to use them.

Let's say you at the exact same meals in either case, you'll get very different results? Why is that? Because a calorie is not a calorie. Hormones play a HUGE role in all this. Understanding the role they play, the timing of them and how to manipulate them is vitally important. "a calorie is a calorie" neglects this and we end up with people thinking eating x, y or z is ok b/c someone who else eats them successfully under different circumstances for different goals.

Because protein gives a very strong fullness sensation

So you end up eating less calories overall than with a mixed protein/carb (and fats) meal

And a calorie is a calorie with a big if: if your macro nutrients are in range

The statement, 'a calorie is a calorie' is used to make the point that macro ratios don't matter for weight loss/maintenance. ... so then the argument is won, and we can all agree that a calorie is not a calorie.

25% is not high protein. That means 75% is coming from either fat+carbs.

On a typical cutting (VLC) day, I'll eat 50% protein+45%fat+5% broccoli. And I don't consider it a high protein day.

If the average person reading this ate 40% protein + 40% fat + 10% veggies (like broccli) + 10% carbs (sweet potato, rice etc), their weight would stabilize much better, faster and for a longer period of time.

This is why nobody should be taking fitness advice from random non-professionals on the internet

I'll give you carbs, but fats? If you are reading this and it is unclear...do not eat bad fats. Good fats are fine.

So to be explicit on carbs (if someone is unclear): There is actually a place for all carbs. If you are lifting heavy weights, post workout you can eat simple carbs. I personally put dextrose in my shake.

And then, depending on my goals, I'll either eat complex or simple carbs until I go to bed. Like I said, depends on my goals at the time. Same goes for my general advise to others....all depends on their goals and how they react to the carbs.

PS. I'm actually a professional so....

You probably do really need to be explicit there. From Taubes' article that started it all:

"Foods considered more or less deadly under the low-fat dogma turn out to be comparatively benign if you actually look at their fat content. More than two-thirds of the fat in a porterhouse steak, for instance, will definitively improve your cholesterol profile (at least in comparison with the baked potato next to it); it's true that the remainder will raise your L.D.L., the bad stuff, but it will also boost your H.D.L. The same is true for lard. If you work out the numbers, you come to the surreal conclusion that you can eat lard straight from the can and conceivably reduce your risk of heart disease."

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/07/07/magazine/what-if-it-s-all-...

Fucking dieticians, how do they work?

Trans fats, as you mention, are the real bad fats. The whole '80s and '90s in terms of diet really, really screwed us up. I wish I knew then what I know now.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans_fat

[1] http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2009/09/2... [2] http://www.marksdailyapple.com/saturated-fat-healthy/

P.S. you know there's a whole anti-milk cabal that tracks down and castrates anyone who says milk is good for you? be careful out there.

This one isn't hard at all. I unwittingly gained a bunch of weight in one period because I was busy at work and too lazy to make proper food, so I just ate a lot of peanuts as snack food, 'cause I'd heard they're somewhat healthier than other snack foods. Peanuts are basically nothing but protein+fat, but I gained a bunch of weight because they're so calorie-dense (one 8-oz bag has like 1500 calories). I'm not 100% sure, but I think the fat+salt aspect might promote overeating; I can't imagine eating enough walnuts, say, to gain weight, but I can munch on salted/roasted peanuts all day.

I don't mind people trying to hack weight loss, but don't forget that the science behind it should be for your situation, that there's a huge survivor bias and you'll need a long term plan as well.

This is mistaken, and recommending this myth (at least five hours a week) is part of why so few people can stick to a fitness regimen.

HIIT, and in particular, Tabata intervals, have been proven to alter your body's metabolic processes within 6 weeks, with just 10 minutes 3 or 4 times a week. Once the metabolism shifts, the person begins to burn fat "at rest" far more than the long exercise type of athlete.

The goal isn't to lose calories during the exercise itself, but to shift how your body stores and uses energy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-intensity_interval_trainin...

"HIIT is somewhat counterintuitive in this regard, but has nonetheless been shown to burn fat more effectively."

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pmc...

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Metabolism:_Clinic...

My belief is that nearly everything in how someone eats, worksout and approaches fitness and health should be decided AFTER they understand what their goal is. Nearly all the studies above seem to have no idea what they are actually testing (the goal).

Right now I am an amateur powerlifter and bodybuilder. I play sports like hockey, basketball and flag football. In the past I did triathlons and ultramarathons with friends. Do you think I approach the different phases in my life EVEN REMOTELY the same in terms of diet and exercise?

So what is your goal? I'll provide a quick handy guide for some I read above.

Trying to maximize your years on this earth? Only known way is to calorie restrict. Like extreme calorie restrict. Say, around 1000-1200 cals a day.

Trying to maximize athletic performance in power sports (hockey, football, basketball, baseball etc)? Sprints+heavy weights for a workout. Carb cycling for food (high carb days post working out, low carb days when you don't work out).

Trying to maximize athletic performance in enduro sports (distance cycling, distance running)? Know your carb maintenance level, eat for that + protein and lower(ish) fat (fat + carbs leads to weight gain almost universally. So, if you NEED to eat carbs as your main source of fuel, you'll need to lower fat if you don't track your carb intake very closely). *

*Note: there are plenty of people that perform enduro sports on VLC (very low carb) and use fat as their fuel. However, I haven't found studies on this yet so I don't recommend it wholesale. If someone wants to try it and can work through the re-acclimation period in their body, give it a shot.

I can go on, but I need to know what people have in terms of goals. I personally wasted too many years middling around without knowing what I actually wanted to achieve. I know others do as well. Know your goals, then you can set your approach to achieving those goals....persist and you'll hit 'em!

Has this ever been proven to work in humans? I know it has been found to be true in rats, non-human primates, etc, but humans already have abnormally long longevity for mammals (http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/5701/does-every-...). The types of changes calorie restriction triggers in other animals may have already be part of a regular human.

Hardcore males doing CR for health and longevity, pushing it as far a they can go, average about 1700 - 1900 a day. At 6+ foot and 120 pounds.

5 foot female might hit 1100 or 1200, sure.

Keep in mind that's an average though. If you cheat once a week or two weeks you could easily eat a 1200 calorie diet on the other six days and have it work out the same.

Picking a calorie calculator at random on the internet seems to suggest otherwise.

http://www.freedieting.com/tools/calorie_calculator.htm

I put in 6'0", 120lb male, age 30 and just looking for basal metabolic rate gives 1500cals. Sedentary gives 1850cals.

I've read elsewhere (can't find source) that most CR advocates are recommending AT LEAST 20% reduction in cals to actually qualify as CR, some saying 30%-40% are more appropriate.

Those numbers from above cals are 1200 and 1480. If using 30% reduction they are 1050 and 1295.

There is emerging evidence that while CR is effective, an alternate approach that is less extreme could also be just as effective: intermittent fasting[1]. I believe the IF approach warrants more research, but I'm doing it anyway b/c it also aligns with my current goals for powerlifting and bodybuilding. Hoping the research pans out in the longevity department as it will be a bonus ;)

[1] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calorie_restriction#Intermitten...

I've spent a bit of time researching CR and I can tell you those numbers are way too low.

As an anecdote, one of the most dedicated and extreme practitioners in the world is at about 6 foot 120 pounds and his diet:

>Tonight’s calculations are based on Michael’s caloric requirements, and those requirements are as strict as they come. Unlike April’s daily average of about 1,300 calories, which really is an average (she likes to go out drinking and dining with friends on weekends, and doesn’t mind enduring a few 1,000-calorie weekdays to save up for the splurge), Michael’s regimen of 1,913 calories a day is exactly that: 1,913 calories every single day

http://nymag.com/news/features/23169/index1.html

>There is emerging evidence that while CR is effective, an alternate approach that is less extreme could also be just as effective: intermittent fasting[1].

There are a lot of controversial things in CR research (high protein vs low protein for example) but one thing that has been pretty much conclusively established is that IF only gives CR benefits to the degree that it ends up lowering calories. Many people do find that IF makes it easier to stay on a restricted diet, but ultimately, it comes down to calories.

How on earth did you generalise from people who control their diet and training to become "muscled-bound" to the rest of population who clearly don't?

For whatever reason, there is a very American tendency to focus on muscles. Men and recently more and more women on TV are muscular. The trend has been going on for the past 50 years and the effects even show up in toys!

http://www.lhup.edu/tmitchel/wmst/pope.pdf

Edit since I can't reply: Yeah, it's a lot easier to tweet about how manly you are living off of bacon and protein powder than it is to actually hit the gym regularly.

But that doesn't change the observed fact that most people aren't doing the hard yards to attain a muscular physique. Because it doesn't happen by accident.

"This is joke, right? I almost stopped at the first sentence."

"Derp"

"Most basketball players are tall. I guess basketball makes you taller."

If you know some counterexamples personally, I'd be very interested in hearing about them -- it would be an unusual situation.

They also run a slow 50. But, they still run around 50 a week and they are overweight.

The point being there is nothing magical about running long distances and being lean, IMO. Someone could (and like I said, I know several) run that and be overweight). I know plenty of people who ride bikes 150-200+ miles a week and are overweight.

What I suspect you mean when you say 50mpw is that someone running 50mpw at 5 min/mile pace (or less) is not going to be overweight. And that is probably true. But you are factoring in intensity then, which changes the equation entirely.

For instance, I know someone that lifts weights 4 times a week for 1 hour a day and is fat. He's been doing it for years.

I also know someone who lifts weights 4 times a week for 1 hour a day and just won a local bodybuilding contest.

There are so many things I didn't say in the above it isn't worth talking about them? What are they eating? What does their workout look like? Are they both lifting the same weights? How intense are they working out? Adequate sleep in both cases? Any sprinting?

Like I said, I suspect what you meant in the 50mpw case was also something about intensity, not just distance.

Regarding all the studies you have quoted, all of them are epidemiological in nature, and do not prove causal relationships. These studies have hundreds of confounding variables that cannot be understood, and are only as good as a person’s memory (can you remember how much protein you ate in 2011 on a weekly basis?). These studies are used to build hypothesis that THEN can be actually tested.

Now in regards to the scientific literature on the actual physiological processes involved; recent studies have shown [2] [3] that longer forms of exercise such as jogging and running etc. burn more calories DURING exercise, but have an overall negative impact on the hormones that influence weightloss (cortisol etc.). Whereas research [4] [5] [6] on weight lifting and short bursts of high intensity have shown that these forms of exercise light up all the fat loss hormones for even days later, and outperform cardio/aerobic exercises. Not only that, but looking at the aerobic exercises from a hormonal standpoint, these types of exercise negatively affect hunger and stress hormones. [7] [8]

Also I don’t see where there is “food for thought” by looking at Taubes and Atkins any more than looking at the hundreds and thousands of success stories (on places like reddit) who follow this protocol.

My 2c.

[1] http://www.mayoclinicproceedings.org/article/S0025-6196(12)0...

[2] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&...

[3] http://jcem.endojournals.org/cgi/content/full/83/2/626

[4] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&...

[5] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&...

[6] http://www.nature.com/ijo/journal/v32/n4/abs/0803781a.html

[7] http://alturl.com/dnwr

[8] http://ajpregu.physiology.org/cgi/content/full/296/1/R29

It examines hypothetical damage from long term distance racing. It opens with:

"A routine of regular exercise is highly effective for prevention and treatment of many common chronic diseases and improves cardiovascular (CV) health and longevity"

And it clearly states that its model is hypothetical:

"Additionally, long-term excessive sustained exercise may be associated with coronary artery calcification, diastolic dysfunction, and large-artery wall stiffening. However, this concept is still hypothetical and there is some inconsistency in the reported findings. Furthermore, lifelong vigorous exercisers generally have low mortality rates and excellent functional capacity"

As I mentioned earlier, racing long distances isn't necessary for health benefits and can be damaging if you don't have enough of a fitness base. Training for long distances on the other hand is overwhelmingly positive.

The other studies you cited don't all say what you say they did:

2) shows higher cortisol from intense exercise than moderate

3) finds that high cortisol increases fat storage

4) finds that after a 100 minute weightlifting session, the BMR rises enough to burn only an additional 60 calories over the next day.

5) similar to 4 but with fewer details

6) finds more weight loss from 3x/week HIIE than 3x/week SSE

7) examines hormonal response hours after a long swimming race

8)finds that both resistance and aerobic exercise temporary suppress appetite, but did not examine effects on caloric intake

With regards to the studies; I said that long running sessions have a negative affect on weight loss and [2] says that long high intensity sessions increase cortisol secretion, [3] says high cortisol leads to increased fat storage. I said high intensity show burts of exercise increase fat loss, that includes [4] [5] showing increased metabolic expenditure post exercise and [6] directly showing short high intensity interval training being better for weight loss that steady state exercises. Also I dont see how the fact that [7] shows a long swimming race being an issue, and if you actually read [8] the resistance exercise took place over 90 minutes sessions, well past the anaerobic area of short high intensity training.

Look I am all for running, I try to get out and do 10-15km per week, but blanket statements that say you should run 1hr every day and all is well, are not backed by science.

Agree with the majority of your comment but I think the above could be attributed to their smaller portions.