Does exercise really not help with weight loss?

[GorgeousLadyofWrestling]

Surely, it must?

I have always adhered to “you can’t out train a bad diet” but surely, lots of exercise must help a bit?

For context, I’m quite overweight, would like to lose about 20kg, and steadily losing about .5kg a week. Which is fine because I have lost it all quickly before and then immediately put it all back on. So I am focusing on low calories using MFP. I have around 1400 a day.

During the first lockdown and all last summer, I got into cycling. I bought a road bike and started cycling to work. It’s about a 30 mile round trip. So I can’t wait to be doing that two-three times a week when go back in the office, because for me - cycling is pure joy.

In December, I started c25k and now manage a 5k, three times a week. I am very slow and I find it quite gruelling and hard. But I don’t plan on stopping because this is a huge achievement - I never ever ever ran before and I don’t plan on losing the gains I’ve made.

In addition I also use weights at least 3 times a week. I don’t “eat back” any calories burnt - I just try to stick to my limit, with or without exercise because I think it’s easy to over estimate calories burned and easy to under estimate calories consumed.

But surely...surely doing something every day that whilst not extremely strenuous but still, moderately strenuous would contribute to weight loss??

Oh yeah, what someone else said, muscle burn more calories than fat, so the more muscle you have, the faster your metabolism

@LaChatte

Muscle is heavier than fat for the same volume, so you may be losing fat and gaining muscle without losing any weight. You will be slimmer and generally look better even if you're the same weight as before.

Women don't generally gain muscle unless working hard with heavy weights whilst consuming sufficient calories to generate muscle growth. Women who are in calorie deficit and doing moderate cardio 3 times a week will not be gaining muscle.

I've found eating less is the key and finding exercise to do everyday that keeps your metabolism up but doesn't make you hungry.
So I was swimming for an hour and that wasn't effective as I was hungry so I cut it down to 40 mins and that was better for weight loss. I have a new fit bit thing and its much more measly with the calories burned than my last one so thats' helping.

I recently read an article which said that exercise doesn't make you lose weight because your body compensates for the calories you're using from exercising by reducing the energy you use for other bodily functions.

I find that extremely hard to believe though. Surely your whole system would have to shut down to make up for running a marathon?!

It was from a reputable source though, I'll see if I can find it.

Exercise does burn calories but not very many. An hour's running covers about a mars bar.

It can increase metabolism but the effects are so low and the effects aren't very long.

However exercise will tone your muscles.
It will improve your self esteem and mood.

The overall feel good factor helps you stick to healthier eating

Also when I used to go to the gym it was 2hr I wasn't spent snacking so this alone made a difference to me for weight loss. (I am a post work snacker)

I think in the short term increasing your exercise leads to burning more calories. But the inconvenient and surprising evidence is that really active hunter gatherers in indigenous communities burn no more calories than sedentary office workers. Which suggests that our bodies are tremendously adaptable to different nutritional circumstances and simply turn the thermostat up or down. I think continually changing up your exercise or taking the odd week off probably helps, but ultimately your body gets used to what you do and adjusts internally (confound it!) inews.co.uk/news/health/metabolism-myth-why-exercise-wont-make-you-thinner-burn-author-herman-pontzer-894794

Don’t forget you’d have been burning calories anyway, even if you were only sitting on the sofa. So you might burn 60 calories per hour sitting down & 500 running per hour, that’s actually 440 excess calories.

I recently read an article which said that exercise doesn't make you lose weight because your body compensates for the calories you're using from exercising by reducing the energy you use for other bodily functions

This is true to an extent. If memory serves though it is only during exercise- bloodflow (and therefore glucose etc) is directed away from the GI tract and toward the heart, muscles, lungs etc. This is why training on a full stomach is not helpful- digestion shuts down and it just sits there.

However once you stop exercising all the other processes return to normal.

[quote GoWalkabout]I think in the short term increasing your exercise leads to burning more calories. But the inconvenient and surprising evidence is that really active hunter gatherers in indigenous communities burn no more calories than sedentary office workers. Which suggests that our bodies are tremendously adaptable to different nutritional circumstances and simply turn the thermostat up or down. I think continually changing up your exercise or taking the odd week off probably helps, but ultimately your body gets used to what you do and adjusts internally (confound it!) inews.co.uk/news/health/metabolism-myth-why-exercise-wont-make-you-thinner-burn-author-herman-pontzer-894794[/quote]
This is the study I was talking about!

muscle burn more calories than fat

This difference gets very grossly exaggerated. The maximum difference due muscle % in your body that can be achieved is about 70 kcal/day -- a tangerine.

The appetite-suppression property of exercise, and keeping you busy doing something that isn't snacking, are MUCH more important than your muscle % for calorie intake control.

DH cycled 200 miles yesterday, about 11 hours in the saddle. He reckons he burnt about 7000 kcal. ? 500/hour. Not an option for most, though.

Exercise helps me in the sense that it improves my mental health so I avoid eating when bored or fed up, it keeps me busy so avoiding snacking. I don't feel it helps so much with the actual calorie burning but it's my attitude to food that it helps improve.

It does help but the majority of weight loss comes from diet.

I do think it's important for maintenance though once you're at your goal weight and want to stop being as strict with the diet.

For me, exercise doesn't have a huge impact on the scales, but it does change (improve) what I see in the mirror and how strong/healthy/fit I feel.

Same here. I’ve never looked better than when I had a PT, even though I wasn’t my lightest.

@Zig4zag

Exercise does burn calories but not very many. An hour's running covers about a mars bar. It can increase metabolism but the effects are so low and the effects aren't very long.

However exercise will tone your muscles.
It will improve your self esteem and mood.

The overall feel good factor helps you stick to healthier eating

Also when I used to go to the gym it was 2hr I wasn't spent snacking so this alone made a difference to me for weight loss. (I am a post work snacker)

A standard Mars bar has 230 calories whilst a 10 stone woman running at 10 minute mile pace for an hour would burn around 600 calories?

This discussion is so interesting!

The cycle I do to work, I do find strenuous. I live in south London and between me and my central London office are some very hilly roads. The fastest route takes about an hour of moderate to strenuous cycling but it’s definitely not a leisurely outing. I really can’t meander anyway because I have to leave home and get to work within a set time frame. I also get a bit competitive with other cycling commuters and have secret races with them.

But, it has been dawning on me for some time that cycling is woefully over exaggerated when it comes to output so I guess it’s just something that a) stops me being so sedentary - from sat down all day to sitting on a train for 45 mins and b) is very joyful to do and exhilarating and gets my heart rate up consistently.

The running is...ugh, not a lot I know but I find it so very difficult. Just to be able to run 5k is a huge accomplishment. I am hoping if I stick with it, the distance will increase if I continue to just run for the same amount of time.

Exercise makes a huge difference to me in controlling my weight. I don't think it's so much the calories burnt when exercising (I never really think about that), but the general boost it gives to my sluggish metabolism plus the building of muscle, which also burns more calories.

Just to add, I don't weigh myself (so the muscle weighing more than fat thing doesn't apply), but my clothes fit better, I look and feel better when I exercise, so must be losing fat.

Yeah totally agree. cycling is better than nothing and at least gets you some outside air but a 1hr cycle to work wouldn't really burn much caloriewise.

@Zig4zag it sure feels like it should 😂

@catinthewindow I don't think most people could run at that pace for an hour. I for one would be dead! Most people would go slower, I think.

I do cardio but mostly lift weights. I will burn 500 calories per hour lifting but 100 per ten mins killing myself on cardio... I can do about ten mins and then it's 70-80 for the remainder.

One thing I have learned is that any sports watch will grossly over estimate the calories used for anything!

I lost 20 kilos through diet, not through any major increase in my exercise in terms of cycling/running/gym. What I do now though is walk everywhere. I almost never drive, I walk or take a bus (walking to the bus stop!). I think the accumulation of steps over the year that I lost the weight by changing my eating was very helpful, but is was mostly the drastically fewer calories that helped me lose weight.
It certainly won't do you any harm and is good for your body and mind in so many ways, but unless combined with a lot less food it won't do much for your weight.

Some wild variations in people's understanding of how many calories are in food ... two pieces of bread and butter is closer to 350 than 500kcal, unless you're absolutely slathering it in butter or cutting doorstops off of your loaf, and a mars bar is worth about 30 minutes of running at a steady state.

The amount of calories burnt from exercise is directly related to the HR and duration of exercise. If you sustain a higher heart rate for a longer period of time, you will burn more calories than a lower HR in a short period. Have you tried using a calorie burn calculator online to see what your output actually is? Wear a chest strap HR monitor if you think any watch etc you have is inaccurate.

Personally I find that I am much hungrier on days where I exercise, and I have to maintain a lot of control (which usually fails around 4pm) to not scoff food.

Just checked a few online calculators for a variety of low-moderate HR for an hour of exercise and at my weight and age I burn between 450-550 calories estimated. That's a decent burn!

I think the biggest issue is underestimating the calories burned in a session. I compete in triathlons and for all my training session i wear a chest strap with a heart rate monitor, when compared to my smart watch the difference is huge - with the smart watch grossly over estimating effort.

Its widely acknowledged that with your diet its easy to misjudge portion size/calories so its recommenced to weigh and log everything. Do the same for exercise if you want to use if for weight loss, but make sure you do it accurately and use a HRM on a chest strap. The accuracy it offers is far higher and will help you really factor.

I've just been for a nearly two hour run and my Garmin says I used 800 calories. When I weighed three stone more I used considerably more calories for the same duration.

I lost the weight through controlling the calories rather than exercise.