Everything is subject to interpretation, it's more then half the reason we have so many lawyers!!
It doesn't bother, discussion is good and it often helps us further define our position & refine our thoughts. Or does it?
A little fact that nobody thinks about...
- Thread starter BikeSwimLaugh
- Start date
Everything is subject to interpretation, it's more then half the reason we have so many lawyers!!
It doesn't bother, discussion is good and it often helps us further define our position & refine our thoughts. Or does it?
Exactly.....
Here's the key quote from that article: The basic problem is that while it's true that exercise burns calories and that you must burn calories to lose weight, exercise has another effect: it can stimulate hunger. That causes us to eat more, which in turn can negate the weight-loss benefits we just accrued. Exercise, in other words, isn't necessarily helping us lose weight. It may even be making it harder.
My point was that adding lean muscle may burn additional calories...so it's like building a bigger engine...but the body accounts for this caloric demand (just as it does with calories burned during exercise) and you're still at a "wash".
Here's the key quote from that article: The basic problem is that while it's true that exercise burns calories and that you must burn calories to lose weight, exercise has another effect: it can stimulate hunger. That causes us to eat more, which in turn can negate the weight-loss benefits we just accrued. Exercise, in other words, isn't necessarily helping us lose weight. It may even be making it harder.
My point was that adding lean muscle may burn additional calories...so it's like building a bigger engine...but the body accounts for this caloric demand (just as it does with calories burned during exercise) and you're still at a "wash".
So I sent the article to my nutritionist, Alan Aragon.....I mentioned to him that the arguement seemed very one-sided and omitted key concepts, but still interesting. His response:
You're totally correct that it omits things... It completely omits a huge body of research showing the benefits of exercise for long-term weight loss maintenance, not to mention the benefits of exercise for a wide range of health parameters. Here's an excellent rebuttal article written by a friend of mine:
You're totally correct that it omits things... It completely omits a huge body of research showing the benefits of exercise for long-term weight loss maintenance, not to mention the benefits of exercise for a wide range of health parameters. Here's an excellent rebuttal article written by a friend of mine:
as a "newbie" cardio-er, I find your point mentioned in this thread intriguing..I have researched my own personal bmr as a sedentary person, active person, ect. This calorie calculation for the different actvity levels is quite different. Are these measurements, then accurate in terms of neeeded calories for wieghtloss for those embarking on moderate to intensive excercise? I consider, my 16.5 miles i jog a week pretty moderate should i adjust my calories up for this as indicated by calories calculators, or restrict them interms of no additional calories? I find your insight quite inspiring and very helpful..Please continue your input...Thank you..
It's not a very persuasive rebuttal. Venuto accuses Cloud of cherry-picking studies that agree with his point, but then does the very same thing himself. And he tries to dismiss evidence from studies showing that exercise does increase appetite by saying they had bad experimental designs, but he gives us no reason at all to believe that the designs of the experiments he agrees with were any better than the ones he doesn't want to accept.