Re: Exercise Ineffective for Weight Loss?

Prisoner at War said:

On the recent "Marathon Challenge" episode of PBS' "Nova" series of
science programs, a nutritionist stated that exercise actually doesn't
help as much as diet.

What BS.

In article <[email hidden]>,

Prisoner at War said:

On the recent "Marathon Challenge" episode of PBS' "Nova" series of
science programs, a nutritionist stated that exercise actually
doesn't help as much as diet.

That was news to me!

A nutritionist told me that back in 1976. It's been estimated that you
burn 100 Kcalories per mile (that would vary by weight, of course). One
pound of fat is about 3500 Kcalories. That means you would have to run
thirty five miles to burn up one pound of fat. But that doesn't take
into account other criteria such as burning up sugars and protein.

Cutting 3500 Kcals a week means cutting 500 of them a day from one's
diet.

--
Support the troops: Bring them home ASAP.

Michelle Steiner said:

A nutritionist told me that back in 1976. It's been estimated that you
burn 100 Kcalories per mile (that would vary by weight, of course). One
pound of fat is about 3500 Kcalories. That means you would have to run
thirty five miles to burn up one pound of fat. But that doesn't take
into account other criteria such as burning up sugars and protein.

This is why the hormones are rotting his/her/its brain. If the dumbass
goes by his/her/its own calculations, by running a paltry 35 miles a
week, the person would lose 52lbs a year. A modest and safe amount.

On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 14:53:07 -0700, [email hidden]

Quoted message said:

This is why the hormones are rotting his/her/its brain. If the dumbass
goes by his/her/its own calculations, by running a paltry 35 miles a
week, the person would lose 52lbs a year. A modest and safe amount.

Garsh darnit TBR, you must be the smartest man i know, yep, i'd say
so. Michelle is an idiot.

In article <[email hidden]>,

Psycho Dave said:

On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 14:53:07 -0700, [email hidden]

Quoted message said:

This is why the hormones are rotting his/her/its brain. If the
dumbass goes by his/her/its own calculations, by running a paltry 35
miles a week, the person would lose 52lbs a year. A modest and safe
amount.

Garsh darnit TBR, you must be the smartest man i know, yep, i'd say
so. Michelle is an idiot.

It is amazing how stupid the two of you (if you really are two different
people) can make yourselves look simply by honing in on one thing and
ignoring reality.

There are other factors, dumbass.

--
Support the troops: Bring them home ASAP.

"Tim" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Michelle Steiner said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Prisoner at War said:

On the recent "Marathon Challenge" episode of PBS' "Nova" series of
science programs, a nutritionist stated that exercise actually
doesn't help as much as diet.

That was news to me!

A nutritionist told me that back in 1976. It's been estimated that you
burn 100 Kcalories per mile (that would vary by weight, of course). One
pound of fat is about 3500 Kcalories. That means you would have to run
thirty five miles to burn up one pound of fat. But that doesn't take
into account other criteria such as burning up sugars and protein.

Cutting 3500 Kcals a week means cutting 500 of them a day from one's
diet.

Exercise raises metabolism while at rest, increases muscle mass etc.
There are no 300 pound runners and I mean runners not joggers.

No, but most runners are "skinny fat" and look like death warmed over.

Michelle Steiner said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Prisoner at War said:

On the recent "Marathon Challenge" episode of PBS' "Nova" series of
science programs, a nutritionist stated that exercise actually
doesn't help as much as diet.

That was news to me!

A nutritionist told me that back in 1976. It's been estimated that you
burn 100 Kcalories per mile (that would vary by weight, of course). One
pound of fat is about 3500 Kcalories. That means you would have to run
thirty five miles to burn up one pound of fat. But that doesn't take
into account other criteria such as burning up sugars and protein.

Cutting 3500 Kcals a week means cutting 500 of them a day from one's
diet.

Exercise raises metabolism while at rest, increases muscle mass etc.
There are no 300 pound runners and I mean runners not joggers.

Michelle Steiner said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Psycho Dave said:

On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 14:53:07 -0700, [email hidden]

Quoted message said:

This is why the hormones are rotting his/her/its brain. If the
dumbass goes by his/her/its own calculations, by running a paltry 35
miles a week, the person would lose 52lbs a year. A modest and safe
amount.

Garsh darnit TBR, you must be the smartest man i know, yep, i'd say
so. Michelle is an idiot.

It is amazing how stupid the two of you (if you really are two different
people) can make yourselves look simply by honing in on one thing and
ignoring reality.

There are other factors, dumbass.

Will you STOP emailing me pics of your johnson? I don't care if you
are having it chopped off, I still won't let you blow me.

Michelle Steiner said:

A nutritionist told me that back in 1976. It's been estimated that you
burn 100 Kcalories per mile (that would vary by weight, of course). One
pound of fat is about 3500 Kcalories. That means you would have to run
thirty five miles to burn up one pound of fat.

Yep, the narrator then went on to note something like that...even
running a marathon barely burns a pound of fat!!

Quoted message said:

But that doesn't take
into account other criteria such as burning up sugars and protein.

Cutting 3500 Kcals a week means cutting 500 of them a day from one's
diet.

I don't mind hunger pangs, but it's the fear that my muscles are being
depleted that's got me worried when dieting. Being 35, I can no
longer count on exercise alone. That's why that news about the
marathon not burning that many calories really surprised me.

Quoted message said:

--
Support the troops: Bring them home ASAP.

Tim said:

Exercise raises metabolism while at rest, increases muscle mass etc.
There are no 300 pound runners and I mean runners not joggers.

Well, most people "exercise" in the sense of "jogging," not "running."

On the news last night some bunch of scientists released new
recommendations regarding diet and cancer: less red meat -- to the
tune of no more than 20 ounces a week!!!!!!!!

Holy cow...how am I supposed to keep benching 315-lbs. on that
diet....

Quoted message said:

Never trust a nutritionist to get anything fully right.

It depends on how much exercise one does. In the past,
when working very physical jobs I easily consumed 5000
calories per day and could lose weight quite easily.

Me, too -- in the past, when younger. Which is why I am really upset
at old age. What a ridiculous way to spend the next forty, fifty
years of life, looking uglier and uglier, getting weaker and weaker,
losing more and more of my mind....

Quoted message said:

Of course, I was often lifting 20 tons a day and sometimes
much more. The funny thing was I also lifted weights or jogged or
ran sprints when I went home which made the job easy.
I could do push ups with my legs a directly above my head and not ever
find
the max due to boredom. Anyway with exercise like that you will lose
weight.

Sure thing, but weight itself is no big deal. That's one thing I
really applauded about this Nova episode, where they made very clear
that weight really doesn't mean much, in terms of health or endurance
strength or speed. That really fat lady with the heart issues wound
up being the fastest female runner of the group!

Quoted message said:

In time I completed my education as such jobs are for
younger people. Still the wages were good as that was back
before THEY (the industrial free traders and open border bosses)
had fully broken the working class.

Really sucks, yeah, 'cause I'd love a more physical job myself. I
really miss Army infantry on that account.

Quoted message said:

The problem with this that people get old. Joints hurt.
Recovery times get longer. Hormone levels drop.

Ugh, don't encourage my rants about old age....

Quoted message said:

And there aren't enough place to walk or run safely.

Luckily, that's not a problem for me.

Where do you live that that's such an issue?

ATP* said:

Quoted message said:

Exercise raises metabolism while at rest, increases muscle mass etc.
There are no 300 pound runners and I mean runners not joggers.

No, but most runners are "skinny fat" and look like death warmed over.

Nonsense. All of the fast guys have low to very low body fat. The really thin
world class guys are not "skinny fat", they are "skinny skinny".

The midpackers don't look all that exceptional, except that none of them are
really fat.

I suspect that the "runners look bad" myth is something weightlifters use to
comfort themselves because they're lousy at running.

Generally, most athletes look much better than non-athletes. The few exceptions
(for example, top bodybuilders or top marathon runners) have a mix of
exceptional genes, exceptional training regimens, and in some cases,
exceptional drug regimens.

Cheers,
--
Elflord

Michelle Steiner said:

A nutritionist told me that back in 1976. It's been estimated that you
burn 100 Kcalories per mile (that would vary by weight, of course). One
pound of fat is about 3500 Kcalories. That means you would have to run
thirty five miles to burn up one pound of fat.

It's not just what happens during exercise - it's the resulting
changes in your body's metabolism and how it burns calories at all
times.

If you use more fuel than you consume you lose weight. If you lose
more weight than you can spare then you're one of the Olsen twins.

Btw, did you know they're fraternal twins?

In article <[email hidden]>,

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

A nutritionist told me that back in 1976. It's been estimated that
you burn 100 Kcalories per mile (that would vary by weight, of
course). One pound of fat is about 3500 Kcalories. That means you
would have to run thirty five miles to burn up one pound of fat.

It's not just what happens during exercise - it's the resulting
changes in your body's metabolism and how it burns calories at all
times.

Of course. And just because you burn up one pound of fat, that doesn't
mean you lose a pound; there are other factors involved.

--
Support the troops: Bring them home ASAP.

Quoted message said:

It's not just what happens during exercise - it's the resulting
changes in your body's metabolism and how it burns calories at all
times.

If you use more fuel than you consume you lose weight. If you lose
more weight than you can spare then you're one of the Olsen twins.

Btw, did you know they're fraternal twins?

Absolutely true! I've been saying this for years now. HOWEVER to reap
those benefits a LSD is required. Short fast, or long fast runs use so
much energy they put your body into shutdown mode until it reairs
itself, then once it is repaired it also detracts from the 24/7
effect. Long, slow, easy runs do the weight loss best. I learned it on
my own, then saw studys backing it up. The long distance runner burns
more cals sleeping than the same person who didn't exercise does in
the same period.

Prisoner at War said:

Me, too -- in the past, when younger. Which is why I am really upset
at old age. What a ridiculous way to spend the next forty, fifty
years of life, looking uglier and uglier, getting weaker and weaker,
losing more and more of my mind....

Jesus christ man, you are only 35? You haven't even BEGUN the downhill
journey. About 37 to 42 is when heart attacks, strokes, cancer, kill
the weaklings. But bloated [censored] like us who live longer will really
enjoy it at 50, then 55, then...oh just kill me now, please? At 50 you
feel like it's over, no amount of lifting alone puts on muscle, it
only hurts more. I don't even have the heart to tell you what the next
20 bring. If you are feeling like that at 35, you'll commit suicide by
45, nevermind 50 or over.

Oldest guy alive said:

Jesus christ man, you are only 35? You haven't even BEGUN the downhill
journey. About 37 to 42 is when heart attacks, strokes, cancer, kill
the weaklings.

The body stops "growing" at like 25. The 30s are supposed to be when
the break-down process begins. I'm certainly feeling it, what with a
spinal hernia and a mysterious tennis elbow from lifting weights! I
am soooooooo not looking forward to The Big-Four-Oh....

Quoted message said:

But bloated [censored] like us who live longer will really
enjoy it at 50, then 55, then...oh just kill me now, please? At 50 you
feel like it's over, no amount of lifting alone puts on muscle, it
only hurts more. I don't even have the heart to tell you what the next
20 bring. If you are feeling like that at 35, you'll commit suicide by
45, nevermind 50 or over.

I've never thought suicide unreasonable. When I stop enjoying this
party called life, I will leave! So I'm going to the gym now, even
taking creatine and protein powders out of desperation, to see how
long I can keep up what youthful strength and vigor I have left -- to
see if I can even go some better than my youthful self, like benching
405-lbs. (I'm at my old personal best of 315-lbs. right now), or
running a ~5-6 minute mile, etc.

You know, maybe I'll be a bum when I get old, a tramp, a vagabond, a
wanderer...like them solitary old guys who travel the world by bicycle
on www.crazyguyonabike.com...I wouldn't need to worry about
appearances then, no need to worry about quality protein, enough
sleep, blah blah blah...in a way, I could see myself enjoying old
age...but from the perspective of youth, running and lifting and doing
whatever I want, oh my God, it's a horrible prospect...it's true, old
people do look like lizards! Every time I take the bus (see, I used
to bike most everywhere, but these days I actually take the bus!
Pretty soon I'll buy a car, too, finally...ugh) and see them old
people taking a whole minute to get on or off -- which is every day,
practically every three stops -- I shudder and actually feel a sense
of disgust...what a joke, to decay for the next forty or fifty years!
Just decay...my God, imagine something spoiling, literally dying,
every day for the next five decades...what a joke!!!

Dnia Thu, 01 Nov 2007 o 20:25 GMT PsychUout napisa³(a):

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

It's not just what happens during exercise - it's the resulting
changes in your body's metabolism and how it burns calories at all
times.

If you use more fuel than you consume you lose weight. If you lose
more weight than you can spare then you're one of the Olsen twins.

Btw, did you know they're fraternal twins?

Absolutely true! I've been saying this for years now. HOWEVER to reap
those benefits a LSD is required. Short fast, or long fast runs use so
much energy they put your body into shutdown mode until it reairs
itself, then once it is repaired it also detracts from the 24/7
effect. Long, slow, easy runs do the weight loss best. I learned it on
my own, then saw studys backing it up.

Could we see them studies too, or is LSD required for that?

Quoted message said:

The long distance runner burns
more cals sleeping than the same person who didn't exercise does in
the same period.

I like your stuff. I wish I had some too.

--
Andrzej Rosa 1127R

Dnia Thu, 01 Nov 2007 o 18:14 GMT Elflord napisa³(a):

Quoted message said:

ATP* said:

Quoted message said:

Exercise raises metabolism while at rest, increases muscle mass etc.
There are no 300 pound runners and I mean runners not joggers.

No, but most runners are "skinny fat" and look like death warmed over.

Nonsense. All of the fast guys have low to very low body fat. The really thin
world class guys are not "skinny fat", they are "skinny skinny".

The midpackers don't look all that exceptional, except that none of them are
really fat.

I suspect that the "runners look bad" myth is something weightlifters use to
comfort themselves because they're lousy at running.

Oh, you are so right. Weightlifters get routinely sleepless because of
their poor running performance. That hurts soo baad!

Quoted message said:

Generally, most athletes look much better than non-athletes. The few exceptions
(for example, top bodybuilders or top marathon runners) have a mix of
exceptional genes, exceptional training regimens, and in some cases,
exceptional drug regimens.

That's why they look so awful? I mean, who even remotely sane would
want to look like a top bodybuilder or a marathon runner?

--
Andrzej Rosa 1127R