[Closed] Exercise is a waste of time for weight loss

Is this a troll?

I burn about 1000 calories an hour running 🙂

molgrips you don't believe your HRM nonsense do you?

This ain't real? No one is this stupid

molgrips you don't believe your HRM nonsense do you?

HRM broke.

I'm going by a complete vague estimate based on the most general of guidelines and how I feel 🙂

It's not just the calories lost while exercising.

There was a programme on a while ago and they hooked a bloke up to some machine that measured how many calories he burnt on a run - he used something like 17g of fat.
Over the next 24hrs he stayed on the machine & he lost a further 50g or so from raised metabolism & recovery.

WCA - I have this new idea that I'm working on. You see that big shiny thing up in the sky, I'm not all that sure that it revolves around us. I have this other idea that the world is round and not flat, but fear that I may be branded a heretic.

It's not just the calories lost while exercising.

There was a programme on a while ago and they hooked a bloke up to some machine that measured how many calories he burnt on a run - he used something like 17g of fat.
Over the next 24hrs he stayed on the machine & he lost a further 50g or so from raised metabolism & recovery.

300 calories an hour is pathetic, thats not running!

Sample population of one in this study, not sure I'll follow the advice.

If you are larger, then you should use more than the indicated 300.

WorldClassAccident - Member

My conclusion is that it is better just to cut out the calories in the first place rather than trying to burn them off afterwards.

correct.

Thank you ahwiles

Okay. The original post was intended to provoke a bit but I was still surprised how little energy was burned walking a treadmill at 4 mph.

My ankle prevents me running as it cannot take the repeated impact and my shoulders are still recovering from being dislocated at the Big Bike Bash so I thought an hour down the gym 4 - 5 times a week would help keep me in shape.

1 hour on a treadmill = 2 pints of London Pride

Interested in the continued calorie burn after stopping exercise. Also seem to remember something about eating just before or just after exercise means the food gets used rather than laid to fat. Any one any knowledge on that?

It's not just the calories lost while exercising.

There was a programme on a while ago and they hooked a bloke up to some machine that measured how many calories he burnt on a run - he used something like 17g of fat.
Over the next 24hrs he stayed on the machine & he lost a further 50g or so from raised metabolism & recovery.

rewski - I seem to remember reading something like that before 😉

Exercise is a waste of time for weight loss

This does seem to be becoming the current scientific orthodoxy according to an Observer article last month or so and a R4 progam on last week about obesity amongst the young.

300kcal per hour is a little low for walking, but really those things are rubbish to be honest.

And walking is unlikely to raise your metabolism after exercise I'd have said, unless you do like an hour or more at a fast pace.

Any one any knowledge on that?

Well as I understand it (and I am thinking aloud here), you've got energy stores in your muscle and liver (glycogen), and in your blood (glucose..?). When you eat, your blood sugar goes up, and your insulin levels go up in response. Insulin causes your muscles to take the sugar out of your blood and store it. But their stores are limited, so if they are full then your body creates fat..(? not sure about this part).

If you've been exercising and your muscle stores are low, then eating replenishes them. If you exercise hard your muscle stores get depleted and then they'll suck energy out of your blood, and your blood sugar can get low. If you exercise gently your muscles will just use mostly fat.

If you eat or drink energy drink just before and during hard exercise then you'll be putting energy into your blood stream which will then end up in your muscles. If you are exercising slowly then I don't think it makes any difference.

Is any of that vaguely right albeit simplified?

funny, the treadmill I use guesses my calorie burn at about 600/hour at a reasonable 6kmh walking pace.

Of course, in a typical session, you shouldn't just use the treadmill as that can be as boring as, well a boring thing; also aim to use the bikes, the cross trainer, rowing machine, free weights and resistance machines. If you get your larger muscles worked out, I'm told they burn more calories even while at rest than flabby muscles

mind you what do I know? fat bastid that I am 😉

molgrips - about 100cals per mile

I'm not wholly convinced that "walking for 15 minutes before I got bored" is the most accurate yardstick when evaluating the efficiency of exercise.

To an extent you're correct, after that you're wrong.

I have been switching between the cross trainers and the cycle machines. Can't do rowing or weight because of my shoulders at the moment.

I only bothered checking the calorie stuff on the tread mill as I was bored and walking slowly enough to be able to press the right buttons. I might have got it a bit wrong because it asked my weight in KG and I had to guess as I haven't weighed myself for ages and don't us KG anyway

What about leg presses etc on machines?

>so I thought an hour down the gym 4 - 5 times a week would help keep me in shape.<

The world is full of fat gym goers just like this 😉

I burn about 1000 calories an hour running

*skip to the end*

No you don't.

300 calories an hour is pathetic, thats not running!

It's about 3 mph, so its just about walking. OP is trolling.

How many calories per hour does trolling burn?

I burn about 1000 calories an hour running
*skip to the end*

No you don't.

That number was pulled out of the air.

But out of interest, how many do you think I burn?

But out of interest, how many do you think I burn?

It is roughly 100 k/cal per mile.

Muscles need to be fed, or they will die, the energy they have stored does not last very long.
Where does the food for the muscle come from? Body fat. Calories lost.

The larger the muscle group exercised the larger the amount of fat used to feed the muscles. This is why exercises like Barbell squats are so good.

The more intense the exercise the more calories used, which is why you have to walk for a long time to use a lot of calories.

low and medium intensity exercise are not that helpful in weight loss, certainly not as important as diet. high intensity is much more effective but exercise is still not as important as diet

1 hour on a treadmill = 2 pints of London Pride

1 hour a day at the gym thoughout the week = binge drinking on Friday night. Zero net gain. Everybody's happy.

Oh and for the record it goes:

Running Off-Road > Road Running > Painful Splinter > Running On A Treadmill

low and medium intensity exercise are not that helpful in weight loss, certainly not as important as diet. high intensity is much more effective but exercise is still not as important as diet

I still disagree with this, for the record 🙂 It all depends on how much time you have, who you are and what you're doing. And what your goals ultimately are.

Eat less = weight loss.

🙄

but exercise is still not as important as diet

Agreed, so many people say they exercise but its not shifting the weight and while they are telling me this they are munching on cake and biscuits!

Its cos fat people are stupid

high intensity is much more effective but exercise is still not as important as diet

This is useful information but using a sample of 1!
I cannot diet, although my diet tends to be quite varied and good.
Running however is fun so whilst stopping myself eating the wrong thing occasionally tests my will power running 70 miles a week didnt.

Running Off-Road > Road Running

Depends on effort. I train a lot off road but given the terrain, mud, stiles etc for a similar effort I run slower. When I run on the road I naturally run quicker for similar effort.

molgrips - you are still trying to peddle your 'advice' on exercise but you had no idea how to use basic gym equipment???? why don't you google high intensity exercise and fat loss...

exercise seems to have worked here - walk to dog 2 - 3 times a day, 20 - 30 mins at a time. No change to diet, 4 lbs lost in 2 weeks...

Not even trying to lose weight (though I should...last time I was 'only' 15-2 was after a bout of Pharaoh's revenge 3 years ago..) I just got on the scales this morning as I was wondering why my jeans felt a touch lose...

Its cos fat people are stupid

It's cuz their brains are full of chips.

Depends on effort. I train a lot off road but given the terrain, mud, stiles etc for a similar effort I run slower. When I run on the road I naturally run quicker for similar effort.

I was not commenting on the merits of effort used. More the enjoyment gained....i.e running on a treadmill is worse than a painful splinter.

It's cuz their brains are full of chips.

class!

My HRM knows my resting heart rate, weight, age, VO2max etc, and gives about 700 calories per hour when riding fairly hard. Running is about 800/hour, but I hate running so have never actually run for that long...

iDave +1

High intensity intervals is where it's at. Apart from actual mountain biking, any active exercise sessions I undertake are geared towards this.
ie Spinning, Circuits, Superset weight sessions.

Low intensity exercise is what I use for rest sessions ie Swims.

What an impressive piece of research with a nice cut and dried conclusion - and all in only 15 minutes. If you've got an hour spare could you find a cure for cancer? Then if you're free for a day next week maybe you'd solve world hunger as well?

Interval training is the answer...you'll continue burning calories for a while after training.

Alternatively go to your local muay thai gym...you'll lose more calories there than you will at the gym....or on your bike.

Calories in is the thing that determines how fat you are. Calories out might make a bit of a difference, but not much.

If you eat a cheese sandwich and drink a can of Red Bull in the car on the way to your bike ride, drink energy drink during the ride and then use the fact you've been for a bike ride to justify a couple of pints and a load of cake you will, unless it was a bloody long/hard/fast ride, get fatter.

Polar's Calorie counter seems to match my powertap pretty well assuming ~25% efficiency. Garmins seem very generous but then I don't think their algorithm is anywhere near as sophisticated as Polar's

Running is the most efficient burner of calories, and as Jamie has pointed out it burns at about 100Kcal a mile, less if you're slight, a bit more if you're legging it, or you're a bit of a biffer.

comes back to the same thing everytime. Eating has more impact on how much you weigh than exersize does.

although i agree with the OP I also think the a major factor with gymming it is the frequency of the excercise, not just the intensity.Regular training is much better as you will keep you're metabalism burning, which has an accumtave effect after after the excercise too. Also if you eat well you may in fact get heavier too, as muscle is heavy and muscle mass may increase. Again this helps burning more calories too, even after the actual workout. The best guide to how you are doing is measurements, or how your clothes fit.

Running is the most efficient burner of calories

Running is the most efficient burner of calories

Isn't that an oxymoron? You're looking for inefficiency when exercising, surely?

Running is the most efficient burner of calories

Riiiiggghht.

aracer, instead of just the pointless exclamation, why don't you take the trouble to enlighten us all.

Certainly from what I've read, and been told, running burns more calories, but I'm happy to be corrected.

If your calorie intake remains constant and you add exercise, even one which consumes 300 cal/hr you will lose weight. IRC 1lb of fat is the equivalent of 3,500 calories i.e. 12 hrs of 300 cal/hr exercise will see you lose 1lb - 2 hrs with the dog 6 times a week should do it!

A Big Mac and fries is about 700 calories, or a couple of walks. I say: cut out the burger and let the dog get fat.

IMO high intensity stuff tends to work better for me when I need to lose weight (w/ sensible calorie intake reduction) than the received wisdom of the low impact 'fat burning zone'type exercise.

I'm sure there're studies that have proven high intensity exercise acts as an appetite suppressant, or at least a controller, more than low intensity does.

From the first hit after searching for "is running the best way to burn calories"...according to this source you're wrong. There might be more, in fact this is the internet, I'm sure there are sources which claim running to be best.

Which Cardio Exercise Burns the Most Calories?
Below are the top 10 cardio exercises which burn the most calories in 30 minutes.

1. Step Aerobics - one of the most favorite cardio exercises preferred by women. Step Aerobics mainly target your legs, hips and glutes, and can burn approx. 400 calories in 30 minutes.

2. Bicycling - stationary or outdoors is a great cardio exercises, depending on resistance and speed can but 250 to 500 calories in 30 minutes.

3. Swimming - like cross-country skiing is an excellent cardio exercises as it is a full body exercises. Swimming is a great cross-training for other cardio activities. Doing the breast stroke can burn approx. 400 calories in 30 minutes.

4. Racquetball - side to side sprinting makes racquetball and excellent cardio exercises. A 145-lb person burns over 400 calories in 30 minutes.

5. Rock Climbing - is not only a cardio exercises, but also uses arm and leg strength and power. Rock Climbing can burn up to 380 calories in 30 minutes.

6. Cross-Country Skiing - whether on a machine or outdoors on snow, is an incredible cardio exercises as it involves both upper and lower body. A 145 lb person can burn approx 330 calories in 30 minutes.

7. Running - Running is an excellent cardio exercises because all you need is a pair of quality running shoes. Running burns serious calories. A 145 LB person can easily burn 300 calories in 30 minutes.

8. Elliptical Trainer - is an excellent cardio exercises and a great way to build endurance. A 145 LB person can burn about 300 calories in 30 minutes.

9. Rowing - is both a cardio exercises as well as giving your arms an incredible workout. 145 LB person can burn about 300 calories in 30 minutes.

10. Walking - Brisk walking is a less strenuous form of cardio exercises. Walking can burn up to 180 calories in 30 minutes. Sprinting, adding hills or an incline can increase amount of calories burned.

Isn't the 'fat burning zone' just a myth to get larger sized people off their backsides and doing something...

It allows them to sit there on the recliner bikes at the gym, chatting away at a slow pace, feeling the 'superior' fat burning workout, whilst scoffing that the whippets running at full wack on the treadmills are wasting their time.

aracer, instead of just the pointless exclamation, why don't you take the trouble to enlighten us all.

Certainly from what I've read, and been told, running burns more calories, but I'm happy to be corrected.

[i]in fact this is the internet, I'm sure there are sources which claim running to be best.[/i]

Aye, Mchamish, most of the stuff I looked at said pretty much running, then cycling, then swimming. Splitting hairs really, 300-400 per hour on those sports on your list, certainly running is up there.

[i]What's on your x-axis[/i]

oh, I dunno, more than say, typing on a forum... 😉

EDIT: [i]Didn't have time in the race to be the first to shoot your comment down,[/i]

does my comment really need 'shooting down'? Perhaps I wasn't specific enough to satisfy your pedantry, but the fact remains that for an average Joe who wants to loose some weight, running is about the best thing you can do, which was my point.

It depends on your intensity.

I suspect running is one of the most effective ways of burning calories however if you run at 15 mins per mile for 3 miles you may get less benefit than if you compare that with a 60 minute step class at much higher intensity.
I would argue that running is more effective than cycling over the same period. Runners tend to run typically up to say 5 miles which may take around 45 minutes. Cyclists would maybe burn less calories in a typical 45 minute session.

Also its difficult to estimate acurately the amount of calories per effort.

It depends on your intensity.

surfer wins.

This is why i like Muay Thai...there's an instructor shouting at you to train harder, kick harder/faster, and during sparring there's a guy trying to punch you in the face and if you're being lazy he will...frequently.

Also its difficult to estimate acurately the amount of calories per effort.

surfer wins again.

I couldn't tell you how many calories I burn, but I know I never get as good a workout doing anything else.

The low impact fat burning theory is based on some studies done in the US back in the 1950's IIRC.
Basically some fella (I can't remember who I'll have to check my notes) put a load of GI's on treadmills and measured the % of fat they used whilst walking.
Then he did the same whilst they ran.
Those walking used a higher % of fat than those running so he concluded that more fat is burnt with low impact exercise.
However what he did not measure was the calories used, those with the higher impact exercise used more calories.
Burning calories makes you loose more weight providing, as has been mentioned already, you don't consume them all back again.

The low impact story is still used today as its a way to get people to start exercising - as they think its not too hard, once they are started on a programme its easier for their trainer to increase the intensity.

The faster you go (intensity) the more energy you use (fat).
However best not to consume more than you need in the first place.

for an average Joe who wants to loose some weight, running is about the best thing you can do

Interesting list, but I'd suggest that's even more rubbish than nick's statement. A wonderful mix of "approx", "over", "about" and "up to". Meanwhile I'm far from convinced about the numbers or the order - I find 400 calories in 30 minutes for breaststroke extremely hard to believe in comparison with 300 calories for rowing or 330 for XC skiing - that must be all out fast as you can go breaststroke and pootling along XC skiing.

People were asking for evidence, and I provided 'evidence'.

My 'evidence' suggested that running wasn't necessarily the best for losing calories...

Here's 'evidence' that running is the best - http://www.selfgrowth.com/articles/Running_Best_Exercise_to_Lose_Weight_Stay_in_Shape.html

Here's 'evidence' that aliens exist... http://www.aliensthetruth.com/

If you can think of any other wild statements, I'll spend five minutes doing a quick search and give you some 'evidence'.

My point is that the statement that running is the best form of exercise probably isn't accurate regardless of what 'evidence' people have seen. As said, it depends on the intensity.

By the way, I think aliens do exist.

I agree,that's why I never exercise.I ride or run most days of the week,but never class them as exercise,just do them because I like doing them....

WorldClassAccident - Member

My conclusion is that it is better just to cut out the calories in the first place rather than trying to burn them off afterwards.

It's not either/or - while there is in essence a straightforward energy in-energy out trade-off there is also a more complex set of issues relating to energy flux, basal metabolic rate, adaptive behaviours, and so on. It is of course possible to lose weight by diet alone, or by exercise alone, all other things being equal, but for most people it's a balance of both.

lorax - not suggesting it is either/or. Just think it is easy to not drink a couple of pints than spend an hour walking on a damn treadmill.

Yes, walking on the treadmill not running.

Somewhere on this thread I pointed out I cannot run through ankle injury. I have tried the cross trainer things where you run without your feet leaving the platform and they were a bit more entertaining (more fit girls using them) so I think I will use them at a higher intensity.

The best way to lose weight and the exercise that burns the most calories don't always correspond ime.

Swimming is the obvious one. It's a great way to burn calories and use energy, but most people are ravenous afterwards, so it's not actually very conducive to weight loss.

Running has more of an appetite suppressing effect so I can see how it could be one of the best activities for weight loss.

I wouldn't go as far as saying exercise is a waste of time for weight loss, but some people do seem to vastly overestimate the amount of calories they'll burn through exercise (and it's important to remember that lots of things tell how many calories you'll burn in total, not how many you'll burn over and above just sitting and doing nothing) and 'treat' themselves to the same amount of calories back or more in the form of beer/chocolate etc.

Bad ankle? Go swimming bruv. I used swimming for fitness when i had tenonitis in my achillies and it was excellant. Works a different set of muscles and i got big shoulders. Double win

Bad ankle and 2 dislocated shoulders. Double lose.

The shoulders are getting better now so I can do breaststroke but still struggle to raise my arms over shoulder hieght

WorldClassAccident - Member

lorax - not suggesting it is either/or. Just think it is easy to not drink a couple of pints than spend an hour walking on a damn treadmill.

Fair point! I hate treadmills so I share your perspective, but I know many people who would take the opposite view 🙂

I read on the internet that cycling only burns 400 or so calories per hour, when I read that, i just thought, **** it! now I just don't eat at all and sit playing xbox, and I'm so much thinner and healthier!

A combination of eating smaller portions of "proper" food (fast food probably once every few months now) and cycing at least 30 minutes a day has helped me lose about 6 stone so far. It works, it just takes time to see results as you're changing your lifestyle (as cheesy as it sounds). Can't go a day without biking without feeling wrong now, it's so ingrained in my routine after 2-3 years of doing it every day.

Exercise is a waste of time for weight loss

He's got a point, you know.
I used 5700Kcal in 4 hours at the Forest of Dean Enduro and was still fat at the end of it.
http://connect.garmin.com/activity/50632052

molgrips - you are still trying to peddle your 'advice' on exercise but you had no idea how to use basic gym equipment???? why don't you google high intensity exercise and fat loss...

I did. I read the papers you linked to as well. The one that compared two groups who'd done 4 hours/week of intense exercise and 4 hours/week of low intensity exercise - it being aimed at [b]time limited[/b] training programmes.

The low intensity thing only works if you do it for much more time than the high intensity stuff. Which, because it's low intensity, you can. This in my experience is much better at shifting the lard.

It also seems to be widely recommended, from what I've read on Google.

iDave is not the only coach in the world, and his view is not the only coach's view.

The rest of you - you do realise that unlike your car, your body has (at least) three separate fuel tanks, don't you? Depending on how hard you work, you drain predominantly from one or other of them. They are also quite different sizes, and when they run out they have different effects.

As for gym equippent - I'm a cyclist, so no, I don't know how to use gym equippment.

People were asking for evidence, and I provided 'evidence'.

My 'evidence' suggested that running wasn't necessarily the best for losing calories...

Here's 'evidence' that running is the best -

clearly exercise is a waste of time. Tour riders pile in thousands and thousands of calories every day and look at them fat bastards.

Running is good for weight loss provided you can a) do it without injury and b) train yourself to be able to do it for hours

(both of which are very hard to do, this is a sarcastic post)