Study Worthy of Consideration: Effect of Exercise on 24-Month Weight Loss Maintenance

[maxlharris]

http://archinte.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/168/14/1550

24 month study period, 201 overweight women, reduced calorie dieting, and various exercise levels, both in terms of calorie output and done at moderate or intense exertion levels.


Results Weight loss did not differ among the randomized groups at 6 months' (8%-10% of initial body weight) or 24 months' (5% of initial body weight) follow-up. Post-hoc analysis showed that individuals sustaining a loss of 10% or more of initial body weight at 24 months reported performing more physical activity (1835 kcal/wk or 275 min/wk) compared with those sustaining a weight loss of less than 10% of initial body weight (P < .001).

Conclusions The addition of 275 mins/wk of physical activity, in combination with a reduction in energy intake, is important in allowing overweight women to sustain a weight loss of more than 10%. Interventions to facilitate this level of physical activity are needed.For the math inclined, this means that 30 minutes of walking a day is not going to git 'R done. Not for sustained weight loss.

A commentary can be found here (http://www.medpagetoday.com/PrimaryCare/ExerciseFitness/tb/10290).

[laughingW]

Not if one is taking in boatloads of carbs, for sure.

[Gaelen]

For the math inclined, this means that 30 minutes of walking a day is not going to git 'R done. Not for sustained weight loss.


Max, I think you'd have to qualify that with how much other activity the person performed. Since intensity of exercise didn't seem to be a significant factor in this study, and the subjects were all sedentary at baseline, it shouldn't be difficult to get up to 275 minutes of activity per week. Assuming that there is *some* level of movement involved in the rest of their days, if they walked every day for 30 minutes, instead of just five days per week, they'd be well on their way at 210 minutes of activity. Ten more minutes of ANYthing per day (from schlepping up and down stairs to do laundry to simple household tasks like pushing a vacuum around, or pushing a grocery cart through the aisles or mowing the lawn or shoveling snow would easily get somebody up to 275 minutes per week...and if some days were 30 min. of walking + an extra half-hour of lawn work or house work, while some others were just walking, things would still average out to 275 minutes of sustained activity per week.

I think you'd also have to qualify the intensity of the walking. Strolling...not so much effective. Fast walking, walking on an incline, walking carrying a load (even your own body weight), basically walking at any level that raises a sweat, is considered 'moderate' exercise and would get the person to 275 minutes of moderate activity per week.

For that matter--it would be interesting to find out if people who do only a moderate amount of resistance exercise (say, every other day for 20-40 minutes) with little to no other activity except activities of daily life on the off days can also sustain diet-mediated weight loss for 2 years. They don't fit the 275 minutes per week model, either--and that might be worth looking into, as well.

Other types of exercise are great, and mixing exercise up among types is also great, but we should be careful not to give walking a bad rap. The point is to move, for a sustained period, daily--and while walking isn't glamorous, it is cheap, accessible, and one of the few exercises that you can do every day safely without risk of injury.

The biggest issue with the subjects in this study is that they didn't sustain their activity levels throughout the two years. Increasing your activity level is like making dietary changes--you have to be able and willing to do it for the long haul. If walking is the kind of movement that you can do and will continue to do, for life, then go for it.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm going out for a walk...the one type of exercise that I have been physically able to maintain on a daily basis for the last eight years. :cool:

[Shadow]

Well said, Gaelen :). I agree that the study was lacking in a lot of relevant information.

While I am not a fitness professional, I believe that 30 minutes of activity beats sitting on the couch ;). Is it enough to maintain a weight loss? Well, I think that would all depend on diet, type of exercise, intensity level, and amount of daily activity among other things.

I don't believe - and yes, it's just MHO - that 'one size fits all' when it comes to anything in life :).

[laughingW]

For the math inclined, this means that 30 minutes of walking a day is not going to git 'R done. Not for sustained weight loss.
The more I read in Google news about this, the madder I get. Everyone seems to take the conclusions of this study as gospel!

Those poor women, if their "semi starvation" diets were 60% carb, with that level of moderate activity, what was happening to their LBM? Given possibly inadequate protein and EFA?

If you reduce someone's LBM gradually, and keep the calories the same, you have to increase the exercise to stay even. And what will be the end game? continuing loss of LBM, and increasing overuse injuries.

Did anyone do the math on burning off 600-800 calories of dietary carb, before you even get to the stored fat which you want to lose? The NIH says for a 140 pound woman, 370 calories per hour for moderate exercise.

Why oh why would someone just not eat 6 slices of bread in the first place! Go straight to glycogen and stored fat for the source of energy.

[maxlharris]

You;d have to buy the publication that published the study (or the study itself online) to make any determination of anything that isn't in the abstract.

Clearly, 30 minutes of slow walk around the neighborhood is better than 30 minutes of couch sitting from a total health perspective. And clearly, LC is better for weight loss than LF/CR. And clearly, 8 million other things that complicate the equation of losing weight and maintaining health.

I'm afraid that some of the response to this study around the interwebs doesn't make a whole lot of sense. The whole thing is, if you eat like the government tells you (food pyramid) and exercise like the government tells you (30 minutes of light activity a day), you aren't going to reach any kind of weight loss goal. This is probably news to a lot of people. Probably not anyone around here, but maybe to some who aren't well read or who are new to LC living. All that said, clearly 30 mins of a little something is better than 30 mins of nothing, but that doesn't mean that 30 minutes of light exercise is necessarily good or enough. And clearly, they could look at NEA, but since most people don't get much in the way of NEA, why bother? It's known that more NEA is probably better than some marginal extra exercise. But how do you tell someone to increase their general activity? Get up from your desk and walk around a little and random intervals through the day? That feels a lot more like additional exercise. Quit your job and get one that has more NEA? Impractical. Live more outside. I guess so.

[Shadow]

The whole thing is, if you eat like the government tells you (food pyramid) and exercise like the government tells you (30 minutes of light activity a day), you aren't going to reach any kind of weight loss goal. This is probably news to a lot of people.
Agreed :nod:. Sadly, I fell into their trap for many years thinking I was doing the 'right' thing :rolleyes:.


All that said, clearly 30 mins of a little something is better than 30 mins of nothing, but that doesn't mean that 30 minutes of light exercise is necessarily good or enough.
I agree again. 30 minutes of light exercise is not enough. However, looking at this from the viewpoint of the purpose behind the Movers & Shakers forum, most of the beginners here do 30 minutes or less because it takes a while to figure out how to fit more into the day, not to mention the effort it takes to get the body adapted to any exercise routine. And because it is so new to them, and because several of the people here are battling physical injuries/illnesses, what is "light" to you and I is definitely not "light" to them. As time moves on and they get more fit, they will hopefully increase their time &/or intensity. But in the meantime, that 30 minutes is much more than what most of them ever committed to :). So for their intents and purposes, 30 minutes is definitely enough to make a difference.