eat less and moving more doesn't actually work?

[Ivykaty44]

not sure what to make of this

The article doesn't say "eating less and moving more" doesn't work, it says that eating more and moving more doesn't help you lose weight, which is about right in my experience.

But exercise is good for you. It helps with blood pressure, cholesterol, mood, etc, and it definitely does keep your weight down too, as long as you're not stuffing your face with lard pie all the livelong day.

didn't read it all but got as far as this - which seems to explain it perfectly well "First, people have been shown to overestimate how many calories they are burning off in a workout ? typically doubling the true figure. Anyone who ?earns? a muffin with a jog has probably taken on more calories than they?ve just burnt. Second, exercise makes people eat more. ?I don?t think they?re hungry, I think it?s a reward issue,?

ie it's not incompatible with basic truth that in order to lose weight you need to burn more than you consume.

(and the thing about hunger isn;t true. if you've ever trained for a marathon you know that exercise can make you starving.)

Of course it works. But it isn't eating less if you eat a muffin after your workout. And yes, most people do wildly overestimate the amount of calories exercise burns off.

Going for a Sunday stroll to 'walk off' a roast dinner for instance - a leisurely stroll might burn off one roast potato if you're lucky.

Even a high octane gym class wouldn't burn off a roast dinner.

I see it's already been explained.

Just deciding to exercise without calorie-counting doesn't work, because exercise makes you hungry, and/or makes you think you are allowed to eat more.

If you actually eat more and actually eat less, that does work. Calories in - calories out.

I've only skimmed the article, but I've heard this before. What you eat is far far more important than the exercise you do.

Your title is confusing (and wrong).

Eat less works. Move more doesn't. IN terms of weight loss. Moving more will firm your body up which many people want.

I've only skimmed the article, but I've heard this before. What you eat is far far more important than the exercise you do.

Your title is confusing (and wrong).

Eat less works. Move more doesn't. IN terms of weight loss. Moving more will firm your body up which many people want.

Moving more does work, because it burns calories. But that only leads to weight loss if you don't then go and eat those calories (and some more).

Oh, and it doesn't burn nearly as many calories as you think. Really, hardly any at all.

Everyone on this thread is right.
DH, for example, is allowed to eat what he wants after a whole day of winter hillwalking (the kind of day where they all leave at 6am by torchlight and come back so late that we are pissed off and thinking of ringing Mountain Rescue).

I actually stopped doing spinning classes as they made me bigger!

I developed weird 'front thigh' muscles that made me look like Mr Tumnus the faun, and caused my jeans to get tighter.

No doubt I was getting fitter, stronger etc, but no woman wants her clothes to get tighter due to working out.

Now I just do body combat twice a week, and plenty of walking. I wonder if many women find themselves apparently 'getting bigger' when their muscles start to tone up, and decide it's better being droopy and flat than toned and bulky.

lol - that's the sort of comment we need more often, kathy - everyone on this thread is right

Hmmm.... so moving more and eating less doesn't work because if you move more you tend to eat more too.... So that means you aren't eating less

So cut back on food - yes.
Do more exercise - yes because combined with point 1 it will lose you weight and make you fitter and healthier.

I agree... it's all too easy to think you've burned off a whole dinner by walking, when really you've just done away with one roastie.

Running hard only burns 100 calories a mile.

Well I wasn't sure what to make of the article, sorry if the title was wrong - but that was the impression the article gave me - so rightly or wrongly that is what I wrote.